GOP’s Scott Brown Could Win Teddy Kennedy’s Senate Seat—If He Plays Immigration Card *BUMPED*

A very timely post from http://www.vdare.com/ on the special election to replace Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. For more interesting articles like this click here.

GOP’s Scott Brown Could Win Teddy Kennedy’s Senate Seat—If He Plays Immigration Card
[See also: The Coming Defeat Of Deval Patrick And The End Of Massachusetts’ Minority Rule Experiment, by Matthew Richer]
By Joe GuzzardiOn January 19th, Massachusetts will elect a new U.S. senator to fill the seat held for nearly half a century by patriotic immigration reform’s long time, recently deceased adversary, Teddy Kennedy. [Dodd and Dorgan Aside, Senate Election Focus Should Be on Massachusetts, by Chuck Raasch, USA Today, January 6, 2010]After Kennedy’s death, Governor Deval Patrick appointed Paul. G. Kirk, Jr. as an interim so the Democrats could cast a "yea" vote for the Senate health care bill.Regarding Kennedy’s remarkably long term of service, I can only say that time doesn’t fly when you’re not having fun. Patriotic immigration reformers were most definitely not having fun during his ceaseless subversion of America.The Senate contest that will pit Republican State Senator Scott Brown versus Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley kicks off with an interesting coincidence: In 1962, Kennedy also was elected via a special election after his brother John vacated the seat on being elected president.Before analyzing Brown’s chances, remember that he’s a Republican running in Massachusetts, where his party’s registration is a microscopic 11 percent.But, despite obviously long odds against him becoming the first Republican Massachusetts senator since Edward W. Brooke 32 years ago, Brown has a chance—if he plays it right.Brown’s task is to appeal to the anti-Establishment mood that helped Republicans defeat Democrats in the November gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.Brown, according to Philip W. Johnson, a former Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman, is"...an attractive, articulate, moderate Republican who could tap into some of the unrest among voters. It would be a terrible mistake for Democrats to assume that this election is in the bag on January 19. These are not normal times. There are treacherous winds blowing and Democratic candidates have to be aware of that." [Scott Brown Wins GOP Primary, Readies for Race vs. Coakley, Michael Levenson, Boston Globe, December 8, 2009]Translations:"Attractive" means Brown is a fit triathlete so confident in his appearance that he once posed nude (with his limbs strategically placed) for Cosmopolitan Magazine."Articulate" is a nod to Brown’s career as a military lawyer in the Massachusetts Army National Guard where he has served for nearly three decades and holds the rank of Lt. Colonel in the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps."Moderate Republican" refers to Brown’s position as an anti-big government, anti-federal stimulus and health care legislation, fiscal conservative who during his three terms as a state representative never voted for tax increases."Not normal times" is a thinly disguised reference to Coakley’s standing as an unpopular staff member on the exceedingly disliked Deval Patrick’s gubernatorial team.Of most importance to VDARE.COM is how the two candidates stack up on immigration. While Massachusetts isn’t a border state, its foreign-born population is more than 14 percent.That total brings with it enough immigration-related problems like crime to make it an issue in Brown’s campaign.MS-13, also known Mara Salvatrucha, has a well established presence in East Boston and has been linked to al-Qaeda terrorist networks. [Off-Duty Boston Firefighter Stabbed Outside Station, by Laurel J. Sweet, Boston Herald, December 3, 2007]Education has been adversely effected by excessive immigration. According to a Federation for American Immigration Reform report, in 2004 Massachusetts ranked twelfth in the U.S. for numbers of illegal alien students and U.S.-born children of illegal aliens enrolled in K-12 schools. That cost Massachusetts taxpayers $494.5 million—back in 2004, remember.The same FAIR report referenced above confirmed that Brown’s stance to keep illegal aliens from discounted college tuition would save Massachusetts between $7.7 and $10 million.With Massachusetts facing a $1 billion budget deficit, any fiscal conservative worth his salt would draw the cost correlation between educating illegal aliens and the revenue shortfall. [State Deficit May Hit $1 Billion Again, by Frank Phillips, Boston Globe, March 12, 2009]As pointed out by our Matthew Richer, Brown (unlike Coakley) has posted his immigration positions on his website. Included are his opposition to amnesty, driver’s licenses and instate tuition for aliens and their children.Brown’s stances on driver’s licenses and tuition have special significance because Patrick has wavered on both.Publicly, the governor has indicated support for the "New Americans Agenda," Massachusetts’ so called "comprehensive blueprint for integrating immigrants," but also stalled it fearing voter retribution by referring it to his Cabinet for an "action plan" [Tuition, Driver’s Licenses Urged for Illegal Aliens, by Maria Sacchetti, Boston Globe, November 17, 2009]Democrat Senate hopeful Coakley, in contrast to Brown, supports a "path to citizenship" via "comprehensive immigration reform" a.k.a. amnesty.Said Coakley, sounding frighteningly like Teddy:"We need a policy that makes sense for 12 million people who are stuck in a purgatorial status quo. It doesn't do us any good to do nothing." [Coakley Says She Would Support Immigration Reform, by Julia Spitz, MetroWest Daily News, November 25, 2009]Brown has linked himself with President John F. Kennedy by calling for tax cuts to stimulate the economy. A more important Kennedy comparison for Brown: that he is not and never will be the Senator that he’s seeking to replace—the legislator whose votes increased levels of legal and illegal immigration while destroying the America that we all grew up in and love.With Massachusetts unemployment at nearly 9 percent, Brown has nothing to lose by pointing out that Kennedy’s pro-immigration votes put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of their middle class jobs as their occupations vanished either because of illegal alien labor, foreign workers flooding American markets or job outsourcing.Kennedy voted for increases in every Congressional bill that would create or increase more non-immigrant H-1B visas.In addition to immigration, Brown’s biggest selling point, even in predominantly Democratic Massachusetts, is the Senate math: 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and two Independents. Since the Independents, Bernie Saunders and Joe Lieberman, caucus with the Democrats, the tally is effectively 60-40.Brown’s election would make it 57-41-2 or adjusting for the Independents, 59-41A Rasmussen poll conducted last week firm placed Coakley ahead of Brown by 50 percent to 41 percent—not bad for Brown in the state Obama carried by 26 points.More interesting is that 21 percent of those likely to vote in the special election have a very favorable opinion of Coakley while 22 percent have a very unfavorable view.Brown’s numbers are strikingly better: 25 percent very favorable and 5 percent very unfavorable.A certain momentum is building in Brown’s favor. Curt Schilling, Boston Red Sox pitching hero, recently endorsed him as did former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and John McCain. [Curt Schilling Endorses Brown in Mass. Senate Race, by Andy Barr, Politico.com, January 4, 2010]This has drawn predictable scorn from the Coakley camp, who dismiss Schilling as a superficial jock and Romney and McCain has political hacks.But as far as athletes and politics go, it’s worth noting that Kentucky U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (Immigration Grade A-) didn’t suffer from his Hall of Fame career. And former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley almost rode his basketball prowess to the White House.Bay State residents do love their Red Sox, so Coakley should be concerned about Brown’s publicity—and even more worried about Barack Obama’s conspicuous absence from her campaign.Although Massachusetts has elected wild-eyed liberals like Kennedy (Teddy and Patrick), John Kerry, Barney Frank, to Congress, since 1990 it has also elected Republican Governors William Weld and Paul Cellucci as well as Mitt Romney.Brown’s gender may work in favor of Brown, too. Only four women have held statewide offices in Massachusetts, none of them governor or senator.A cold post-New Jersey and Virginia wind continues to blow over the Democrats. This week, Connecticut and North Dakota Senators Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter announced their retirements.Actually, that’s not quite right: they’re leaving voluntarily before being voted out, possibly in primary challenges. [Abrupt Democratic Retirements Show Tough Landscape, by Liz Sidoti, Associated Press, January 6, 2009]The Senate doesn’t reconvene until January 19th, the day of the special election. And then its only official business will be a pro forma session.If Brown can pull off a long shot win, he’ll give Republicans the one crucial vote they need to kill the Democrats’ agenda that includes Obamacare—and possibly despite the mid-year election threats it poses, “comprehensive immigration reform”.
Joe Guzzardi [email him] is a California native who recently fled the state because of over-immigration, over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the growth rate stable. A long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.

Martha Coakley: The Voice for Fat Cats and Corruptocrats

A timely post from http://www.michellemalkin.com/ about Ted Kennedy's replacement Senate election in Massachusetts. For more interesting articles like this click here.

Martha Coakley: The Voice for Fat Cats and Corruptocrats

By Michelle Malkin
Democrat Martha Coakley is the voice of the "little people" the way Ted Kennedy was the voice of sobriety. If Massachusetts voters want another privileged liberal who talks a good "social justice" game while ignoring public corruption, pocketing gobs of money from Beltway fat cats and pandering to corporate special interests, Coakley’s the one.
Coakley, the Bay State’s attorney general, has campaigned to replace the late Sen. Kennedy on a law-and-order platform. But she has consistently turned a blind eye to both. When a top aide to Boston Mayor Tom Menino was caught deleting thousands of e-mails in violation of public records law last fall, Coakley punted. Democrat Menino was in the middle of a re-election bid; Coakley was wrapped up in her own senatorial bid.
Instead of expressing any concern about the City Hall information black hole, Coakley refused to investigate. She accused her critics of playing politics: "(W)e get lots of complaints from folks who are adversaries who have a particular agenda."[Martha Coakley cyber-steps Menino controversy, BostonHerald.com, September 16, 2009]
But who’s got the agenda? After undertaking Herculean technical efforts to recover the trashed e-mails, Boston city officials discovered e-mail fragments related to an ongoing federal probe of former state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson. Wilkerson attained national infamy as the lawmaker caught on film stuffing thousands of dollars of bribes from an FBI informant down her bra in exchange for her help securing a liquor license for a nightclub. She is currently awaiting federal trial.
Coakley cut an immunity deal with Wilkerson last year, protecting her from prosecution for campaign finance violations. But according to the Boston Herald, the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance reported last month that Wilkerson had failed to comply or only partially complied with 11 of 51 conditions. Coakley allowed Wilkerson to pay a measly $10,000 fine to avoid any legal action. She has failed to make those payments, failed to file ordered paperwork and failed to answer information requests from state campaign finance officials.
Coakley’s response? Meh. Instead, she used the power of her office to herald her new, taxpayer-funded $750,000 cybercrime lab initiative—a picture-perfect, campaign-ready moment—without an ironic pause, and has launched a crackdown on ladies’ gardening clubs for failing to file financial disclosure forms related to their dues and plant sales.
Perhaps if they were in the lingerie business, they might have gotten a pass. Or if they had volunteered for Coakley’s campaign.
While she’s a stickler with the gardeners, Coakley has been mighty sloppy practicing what she selectively enforces. She has siphoned $25,000 out of her state campaign fund for a poll on her federal Senate bid; used another $24,000 from her state account to pay Beltway political consultants advising her on the Senate campaign; and reportedly used a secret asset sale pact between her state and federal campaign committees to use state campaign funds to purchase a fundraising database, redesign her website and obtain $6,000 worth of campaign paraphernalia with her Senate logo.
Then there’s Coakley’s relationship with Massachusetts’ corrupt former House Speaker Sal DiMasi. Bay State records show that Coakley sent annual donations to the beleaguered Democrat over the past three years worth just under $1,000. But the obeisance Coakley has paid to the Democratic machine has been priceless. Last June, DiMasi was indicted on seven counts of mail and wire fraud related to pay-for-play schemes worth tens of thousands of dollars in monthly payments. "Where’s Martha?" asked Republican lawmakers.
Coakley let the feds take on the powerful DiMasi. Only after months of foot-dragging did Coakley’s AG office initiate an investigation into the indictments of one of DiMasi’s top cronies, Richard Vitale, on lobbying and campaign finance crimes.
More recently, Coakley’s GOP opponent Scott Brown blew the whistle on campaign finance shenanigans involving her deep-pocketed supporters at the SEIU. The radical labor organization, saddled with nationwide embezzlement scandals and political thuggery, is "pulling out all the stops" for Coakley, and has dumped more than $200,000 into her campaign for radio ads. In mid-December, SEIU Local 509, which represents public employees, sent two e-mails to 7,500 state government employees at their government e-mail addresses over public computers endorsing Coakley and urging union members to vote for her. The use of state resources for politicking is forbidden under state ethics laws and subject to both civil and criminal penalties.
Coakley’s office has not responded to the complaint. She’s probably too busy writing thank-you notes to all of the fat-cat lobbyists and donors who threw her a high-priced fundraiser in Washington, D.C., this week. Host committee members each raised $10,000 or more for her coffers. They included representatives from drug companies, health insurers and hospitals who joined the Demcare protection racket. (And Coakley has the nerve to attack "shadowy out-of-state organizations" for running ads supporting Brown.)
Washington is already teeming with Democratic foxes guarding the Cash for Corruptocrats henhouse. Isn't there a nice gardening club in Massachusetts that can take Coakley in?COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.Michelle Malkin [email her] is the author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s review. Click here for Michelle Malkin's website. Michelle Malkin is also author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild and the just-released Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies.

The Most Important Election of the Year!‏

A timely post from http://www.teapartyexpress.org/ about Ted Kennedy's replacement Senate election in Massachusetts. For more interesting articles like this click here.

The Most Important Election of the Year!‏

COAKLEY ON THE RUN! SCOTT BROWN IS ON A FUNDRAISING RAMPAGE! THANKS TO ALL MAF PAC DONORS WHO ARE MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS MAF’s Freedom PAC just announced our endorsement of Scott Brown for U.S. Senate yesterday, and hot on the heels of that announcement we are hearing encouraging things coming out of his campaign. In a whirlwind of fervor over this candidate, Scott raised a whopping $1.3 M in a 24 hour period through an online drive. The tactic is designed to cause shock and fear in his opponent Coakley, who has historically raised more than Brown, but that could be changing thanks to all the excitement building around the former National Guardsman turned political candidate. MAF is proud to support Scott Brown for Senate and are happy to report that we too have seen a massive outpouring of response from our membership! Thank you to all those who donated and let’s keep it coming! The time is now, there are only SEVEN days left until the election! Send this email to your friends and let them know how important it is for not just Massachusetts but for the whole COUNTRY!
Donate today and strengthen our nation! Support our troops by electing a candidate who supports them! THIS COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY ELECTION IN 2010, INCLUDING HARRY REID OR CHRIS DODD’S SEAT A lot of conjecture and analysis has gone into people’s projections about 2010 midterms. Many conservatives are waiting for it as a time to take back seats lost in 2006 and 2008, but we still have many months until November. Scott Brown would represent the 41 Republican vote and would brak the super-majority held by the Democrats. There are critical votes coming up before November such as the Obama Healthcare Bill, and this upcoming special election has the possibility of changing those votes well ahead of the November General Election. We can’t afford to save up our strength or our money for the end of the year when this election coming NEXT WEEK could have a staggering effect on legislation for the next several months. There is too much at stake! Even if liberal democrats LOSE BIG in November (which they will!) they still have the power to do a lot of damage from now until then...

UNLESS we STOP THEM with SCOTT BROWN! The Democrats have the votes they need to ram healthcare through the senate, but the margins are razor thin, with Scott Brown, it might be possible to block legislation, healthcare for example, that would otherwise be imposed upon the American people. Conservatives cannot take any chances! We can’t afford to look at elections as local anymore. The classic maxim “all politics is local” has a whole new meaning in the internet age. Americans across the nation have the ability to effect this election, and they have a good reason to care! The outcome of this special election in Massachusetts will undoubtedly affect us all. So we all have a reason to get involved!
MAKE A DONATION TODAY AND KEEP MARTHA COAKLEY OUT OF OFFICE! SHE IS BAD FOR OUR TROOPS AND FOR OUR COUNTRY!

If you prefer you may also mail in a contribution to our finance headquarters

:Tea Party Express

ATTN: Scott Brown for Senate

770 L Street #1020

Sacramento, CA 95814

** FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO YOUR FRIENDS - CLICK HERE ***

*** VIEW THIS EMAIL AS A WEB PAGE - CLICK HERE ***

Political Shocker for Republican in Massachusetts Possible‏

A timely post from http://www.teapartyexpress.org/ about Ted Kennedy's replacement Senate election in Massachusetts. For more interesting articles like this click here.

Political Shocker for Republican in Massachusetts Possible‏

As Chief Strategist of the Tea Party Express I am pleased to announce our endorsement of Republican Scott Brown for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. This will be a critical race, a Special Election that takes place on January 19th, and one that could stop the Democrats from passing through their government-run healthcare monstrosity.
Read below for details on how we here at the Tea Party Express are taking action...
This Special Election will fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
Initially, pundits expected an easy win for the liberal Democrat candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.
But new polls out this Tuesday showed the race has narrowed to a 9-point margin! And Election Day is just 12 days away!
Republican Scott Brown opposes the government-run healthcare plan now being debated by Congress. He launched his campaign on the platform of lower taxes and reduced government spending.
He has earned the support of many within the Tea Party movement, and we here at the Tea Party Express want to deliver that message to the people of Massachusetts.
With polls showing the Tea Party movement more popular than either the Democrat or Republican ads, we here at the Tea Party Express want to run positive ads announcing our support for Brown's candidacy.
But we have to act fast. The Special Election is on January 19th - just 12 days from now! This is an important election - and will be an uphill battle for us to prevail given the leftward slant of Massachusetts, politically.
But we must take action, for if we can pull out a victory we stop the Democrats dead in their tracks in their effort to secretly ram through their socialistic healthcare plan.
You can contribute any amount you can afford, from as little as $5 to the maximum allowed $5,000.
We're trying to raise and spend over $100,000 on this race by Election Day. Therefore, we are hoping 500 of you can afford a contribution of $100 or more so we can quickly meet our goal and get up on the airwaves with the Tea Party Express's endorsement of Scott Brown.

If you prefer you may also mail in a contribution to our finance headquarters:
Tea Party Express
ATTN: Scott Brown for Senate
770 L Street #1020
Sacramento, CA 95814

** FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO YOUR FRIENDS - CLICK HERE **
*** VIEW THIS EMAIL AS A WEB PAGE - CLICK HERE ***

GOP’s Scott Brown Could Win Teddy Kennedy’s Senate Seat—If He Plays Immigration Card

A very timely post from http://www.vdare.com/ on the special election to replace Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. For more interesting articles like this click here.

GOP’s Scott Brown Could Win Teddy Kennedy’s Senate Seat—If He Plays Immigration Card

[See also: The Coming Defeat Of Deval Patrick And The End Of Massachusetts’ Minority Rule Experiment, by Matthew Richer]

By Joe Guzzardi
On January 19th, Massachusetts will elect a new U.S. senator to fill the seat held for nearly half a century by patriotic immigration reform’s long time, recently deceased adversary, Teddy Kennedy. [Dodd and Dorgan Aside, Senate Election Focus Should Be on Massachusetts, by Chuck Raasch, USA Today, January 6, 2010]
After Kennedy’s death, Governor Deval Patrick appointed Paul. G. Kirk, Jr. as an interim so the Democrats could cast a "yea" vote for the Senate health care bill.
Regarding Kennedy’s remarkably long term of service, I can only say that time doesn’t fly when you’re not having fun. Patriotic immigration reformers were most definitely not having fun during his ceaseless subversion of America.
The Senate contest that will pit Republican State Senator Scott Brown versus Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley kicks off with an interesting coincidence: In 1962, Kennedy also was elected via a special election after his brother John vacated the seat on being elected president.
Before analyzing Brown’s chances, remember that he’s a Republican running in Massachusetts, where his party’s registration is a microscopic 11 percent.
But, despite obviously long odds against him becoming the first Republican Massachusetts senator since Edward W. Brooke 32 years ago, Brown has a chance—if he plays it right.
Brown’s task is to appeal to the anti-Establishment mood that helped Republicans defeat Democrats in the November gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.
Brown, according to Philip W. Johnson, a former Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman, is
"...an attractive, articulate, moderate Republican who could tap into some of the unrest among voters. It would be a terrible mistake for Democrats to assume that this election is in the bag on January 19. These are not normal times. There are treacherous winds blowing and Democratic candidates have to be aware of that." [Scott Brown Wins GOP Primary, Readies for Race vs. Coakley, Michael Levenson, Boston Globe, December 8, 2009]
Translations:
"Attractive" means Brown is a fit triathlete so confident in his appearance that he once posed nude (with his limbs strategically placed) for Cosmopolitan Magazine.
"Articulate" is a nod to Brown’s career as a military lawyer in the Massachusetts Army National Guard where he has served for nearly three decades and holds the rank of Lt. Colonel in the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps.
"Moderate Republican" refers to Brown’s position as an anti-big government, anti-federal stimulus and health care legislation, fiscal conservative who during his three terms as a state representative never voted for tax increases.
"Not normal times" is a thinly disguised reference to Coakley’s standing as an unpopular staff member on the exceedingly disliked Deval Patrick’s gubernatorial team.
Of most importance to VDARE.COM is how the two candidates stack up on immigration. While Massachusetts isn’t a border state, its foreign-born population is more than 14 percent.
That total brings with it enough immigration-related problems like crime to make it an issue in Brown’s campaign.
MS-13, also known Mara Salvatrucha, has a well established presence in East Boston and has been linked to al-Qaeda terrorist networks. [Off-Duty Boston Firefighter Stabbed Outside Station, by Laurel J. Sweet, Boston Herald, December 3, 2007]
Education has been adversely effected by excessive immigration. According to a Federation for American Immigration Reform report, in 2004 Massachusetts ranked twelfth in the U.S. for numbers of illegal alien students and U.S.-born children of illegal aliens enrolled in K-12 schools. That cost Massachusetts taxpayers $494.5 million—back in 2004, remember.
The same FAIR report referenced above confirmed that Brown’s stance to keep illegal aliens from discounted college tuition would save Massachusetts between $7.7 and $10 million.
With Massachusetts facing a $1 billion budget deficit, any fiscal conservative worth his salt would draw the cost correlation between educating illegal aliens and the revenue shortfall. [State Deficit May Hit $1 Billion Again, by Frank Phillips, Boston Globe, March 12, 2009]
As pointed out by our Matthew Richer, Brown (unlike Coakley) has posted his immigration positions on his website. Included are his opposition to amnesty, driver’s licenses and instate tuition for aliens and their children.
Brown’s stances on driver’s licenses and tuition have special significance because Patrick has wavered on both.
Publicly, the governor has indicated support for the "New Americans Agenda," Massachusetts’ so called "comprehensive blueprint for integrating immigrants," but also stalled it fearing voter retribution by referring it to his Cabinet for an "action plan" [Tuition, Driver’s Licenses Urged for Illegal Aliens, by Maria Sacchetti, Boston Globe, November 17, 2009]
Democrat Senate hopeful Coakley, in contrast to Brown, supports a "path to citizenship" via "comprehensive immigration reform" a.k.a. amnesty.
Said Coakley, sounding frighteningly like Teddy:
"We need a policy that makes sense for 12 million people who are stuck in a purgatorial status quo. It doesn't do us any good to do nothing." [Coakley Says She Would Support Immigration Reform, by Julia Spitz, MetroWest Daily News, November 25, 2009]
Brown has linked himself with President John F. Kennedy by calling for tax cuts to stimulate the economy. A more important Kennedy comparison for Brown: that he is not and never will be the Senator that he’s seeking to replace—the legislator whose votes increased levels of legal and illegal immigration while destroying the America that we all grew up in and love.
With Massachusetts unemployment at nearly 9 percent, Brown has nothing to lose by pointing out that Kennedy’s pro-immigration votes put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of their middle class jobs as their occupations vanished either because of illegal alien labor, foreign workers flooding American markets or job outsourcing.
Kennedy voted for increases in every Congressional bill that would create or increase more non-immigrant H-1B visas.
In addition to immigration, Brown’s biggest selling point, even in predominantly Democratic Massachusetts, is the Senate math: 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and two Independents. Since the Independents, Bernie Saunders and Joe Lieberman, caucus with the Democrats, the tally is effectively 60-40.
Brown’s election would make it 57-41-2 or adjusting for the Independents, 59-41
A Rasmussen poll conducted last week firm placed Coakley ahead of Brown by 50 percent to 41 percent—not bad for Brown in the state Obama carried by 26 points.
More interesting is that 21 percent of those likely to vote in the special election have a very favorable opinion of Coakley while 22 percent have a very unfavorable view.
Brown’s numbers are strikingly better: 25 percent very favorable and 5 percent very unfavorable.
A certain momentum is building in Brown’s favor. Curt Schilling, Boston Red Sox pitching hero, recently endorsed him as did former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and John McCain. [Curt Schilling Endorses Brown in Mass. Senate Race, by Andy Barr, Politico.com, January 4, 2010]
This has drawn predictable scorn from the Coakley camp, who dismiss Schilling as a superficial jock and Romney and McCain has political hacks.
But as far as athletes and politics go, it’s worth noting that Kentucky U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (Immigration Grade A-) didn’t suffer from his Hall of Fame career. And former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley almost rode his basketball prowess to the White House.
Bay State residents do love their Red Sox, so Coakley should be concerned about Brown’s publicity—and even more worried about Barack Obama’s conspicuous absence from her campaign.
Although Massachusetts has elected wild-eyed liberals like Kennedy (Teddy and Patrick), John Kerry, Barney Frank, to Congress, since 1990 it has also elected Republican Governors William Weld and Paul Cellucci as well as Mitt Romney.
Brown’s gender may work in favor of Brown, too. Only four women have held statewide offices in Massachusetts, none of them governor or senator.
A cold post-New Jersey and Virginia wind continues to blow over the Democrats. This week, Connecticut and North Dakota Senators Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter announced their retirements.
Actually, that’s not quite right: they’re leaving voluntarily before being voted out, possibly in primary challenges. [Abrupt Democratic Retirements Show Tough Landscape, by Liz Sidoti, Associated Press, January 6, 2009]
The Senate doesn’t reconvene until January 19th, the day of the special election. And then its only official business will be a pro forma session.
If Brown can pull off a long shot win, he’ll give Republicans the one crucial vote they need to kill the Democrats’ agenda that includes Obamacare—and possibly despite the mid-year election threats it poses, “comprehensive immigration reform”. Joe Guzzardi [email him] is a California native who recently fled the state because of over-immigration, over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the growth rate stable. A long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.

Dear Massachusetts Voter

A very timely post from http://www.hughhewitt.com/ on the special election to replace Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. For more interesting articles like this click here.

Dear Massachusetts Voter:
Long ago and far away, I was one of you.
I actually campaigned for Gerald Ford in Fall River, so I know what it is like to try and get an old JFK Democrat to even listen to an appeal from a Republican.

But especially if you are an old Democrat, you should be listening.
A vote for Scott Brown in the upcoming special election to fill Teddy Kennedy's seat for a brief period of time will save your Medicare.
You don't have to tell your family. You can pretend to have voted Democratic again. But if you want to save Medicare from the massive cuts that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have planned, you need to vote for Scott Brown.
It isn't forever. In fact you can vote Scott Brown out very soon, and perhaps a Kennedy will even run in the next election and you can get the seat back into the family's hands. Sure, all the Kennedys are dutifully endorsing her, but you know they feel this is very wrong. This is the Kennedy seat, and if it passes out fo the family to another Democrat there's no telling when another one of the family will get back to the chamber which was once home to JFK, Bobby and Ted.
You don't really admire Coakley now, do you? She is part of Team Patrick, and they have done a worse job in the Bay State than President Obama has done nationally.
She hates the Red Sox. Well, maybe not, but she still is setting the worst example of any candidate in modern Massachusetts history by refusing to campaign and ask for your vote.
The key though is the message you can send to the D.C. Democratic elites. if you vote for Scott Brown, the message received in Washington will be loud and clear: The D.C. Democrats have gone to far to the left and are threatening FDR's legacy and the senior citizens the Democrats used to protect and serve.
Democrats are fleeing D.C. with Senators Dorgan and Dodd quitting just this week. But the hard left leadership simply won't listen, simply won't push the president back to the center.
To make that happen and stave off disaster for Medicare and for Democrats in the fall, the party needs a sharp slap in the face.
You can give them just that. Massachusetts can send a message heard not just in D.C. but around the world. Again.
Scott brown. Think about it.

THE PERFECT ALIBI ... I'LL DRINK TO THAT! (PART II) **BUMPED DUE TO ELECTIONS**

A timely insightful archived article from http://www.anncoulter.com/. Get the book that is referenced here http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/17953392&referer=brief_results For more interesting articles like this, subsribe to this blog here.

THE PERFECT ALIBI ... I'LL DRINK TO THAT! (PART II)
September 7, 2005
In light of the fact that Sen. Teddy Kennedy feels lawyer-client privileged materials should be produced in the case of a public servant — such as John Roberts — we now continue with my imaginary version of Teddy's confidential communications with his lawyer the day after he drove Mary Jo Kopechne off a bridge at Chappaquiddick.
Interview with client Teddy Kennedy, July 19, 1969 (based on the facts in Leo Damore's book "Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-Up":
Lawyer: Let's get back to the night of the accident. Why didn't you call the police?
Teddy: Stop nagging me! Mary Jo was driving. I wasn't even in the car.
Lawyer: No, Teddy. People saw you leave the party together.
Teddy: I had spurned her sexual advances and the poor girl was distraught. That's probably why she drove off the bridge.

Lawyer: A police officer saw you behind the driver's wheel speeding toward the bridge with a blonde in the passenger seat shortly before the accident.

Teddy: I asked Mary Jo to take the wheel after realizing I was too drunk to drive.
Lawyer: Now I know you're lying. Teddy: How would that cop like a new NASA facility named after him?
Lawyer: You were soaking wet when you got back to the cottage.
Teddy: I went for a swim.
Lawyer: Fully clothed?
Teddy: I like to go for a little dip after a night of drinking and attempted extramarital sex. It clears my head.
Lawyer: There were any number of houses with lights on near the bridge. These are people who like you, Teddy — but they can't understand why you didn't ask them to call for help.
Teddy: I can't remember anything that happened that night! It seems like I was wandering for days, dizzy from the loss of oxygen after my heroic attempts to rescue Mary Jo. If you think about it, it was a lot like my brother Jack's rescue of his men on PT-109. He was driving when the ship got hit, and he didn't save all of them either. (Teddy singing now) The car was in, the Chappaquiddick bay, fearless man, who jumps and swims, a man who means, just what he says ...
Lawyer: What are you doing?
Teddy: It's a song I'm writing. I call it "The Ballad of Mary Jo."
Lawyer: You already told your confidant Paul Markham and your cousin Joseph Gargan the truth.
Teddy: Yes, get those names. They'll back me. Mary Jo was driving.
Lawyer: You're going to ask all these people to perjure themselves for you?
Teddy: I already have. They're balking of course, but I left them no choice.
Lawyer: What do you mean you've left them no choice?
Teddy: When they dropped me at the dock after they tried diving for Mary Jo, I told them I would report the accident the moment I got back to my hotel. But they knew I was lying. An hour went by and no police had come by to question them? They knew I hadn't reported it. They're as guilty as I am!
Lawyer: Well, arguably, you are more guilty, inasmuch as you drove off the bridge —
Teddy: Mary Jo was driving. And I've been drowning my sorrows ever since. Get it? "Drowning my sorrows"? Can I at least have a beer?
Lawyer: — and then you went to absurd lengths back at the hotel to create an alibi for yourself — drying off and changing clothes, making a point of complaining to the hotel owner about the noise from the next room even though everyone was sound asleep at that hour, asking the hotel owner to tell you what time it was.
Teddy: That was a nice touch, wasn't it?
Lawyer: How can you explain that behavior as anything other than trying to create an alibi? Teddy: Are you listening? I'm a married man! Mary Jo was a babe! I was drunk, speeding toward a secluded beach with her. Do you think we were going to look for seashells? Now how would that look?
Lawyer: Hey — what are you doing with that neck brace?
Teddy: Look! Now it's a hat! Hey — there aren't any cameras in here, are there?
Lawyer: I don't know how I'm going to get you out of this ...
Teddy: Do you know who I am? I am a Kennedy! JFK, Jackie O, Camelot, Prohibition-era rum-running Kennedy clan — any of that ring a bell? The judge is a Democrat, and the weenie DA keeps sending me mash notes promising not to prosecute. Ha ha! He must think I need a new chauffeur!
Lawyer: You are in a lot of trouble, Teddy. Teddy: I've got it all in hand. Hey, I'm feeling a little loaded. Which side of this neck brace is up? My press conference is in 10 minutes.

"Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-Up":

Part one was here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/ted-kennedys-private-parts-part-i.html

THE PERFECT ALIBI ... I'LL DRINK TO THAT! (PART II)

A timely insightful archived article from www.anncoulter.com. Get the book that is referenced here http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/17953392&referer=brief_results

THE PERFECT ALIBI ... I'LL DRINK TO THAT! (PART II)

September 7, 2005

In light of the fact that Sen. Teddy Kennedy feels lawyer-client privileged materials should be produced in the case of a public servant — such as John Roberts — we now continue with my imaginary version of Teddy's confidential communications with his lawyer the day after he drove Mary Jo Kopechne off a bridge at Chappaquiddick.

Interview with client Teddy Kennedy, July 19, 1969 (based on the facts in Leo Damore's book "Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-Up":

Lawyer: Let's get back to the night of the accident. Why didn't you call the police?

Teddy: Stop nagging me! Mary Jo was driving. I wasn't even in the car.

Lawyer: No, Teddy. People saw you leave the party together.

Teddy: I had spurned her sexual advances and the poor girl was distraught. That's probably why she drove off the bridge. Lawyer: A police officer saw you behind the driver's wheel speeding toward the bridge with a blonde in the passenger seat shortly before the accident. Teddy: I asked Mary Jo to take the wheel after realizing I was too drunk to drive.

Lawyer: Now I know you're lying. Teddy: How would that cop like a new NASA facility named after him?

Lawyer: You were soaking wet when you got back to the cottage.

Teddy: I went for a swim.

Lawyer: Fully clothed?

Teddy: I like to go for a little dip after a night of drinking and attempted extramarital sex. It clears my head.

Lawyer: There were any number of houses with lights on near the bridge. These are people who like you, Teddy — but they can't understand why you didn't ask them to call for help.

Teddy: I can't remember anything that happened that night! It seems like I was wandering for days, dizzy from the loss of oxygen after my heroic attempts to rescue Mary Jo. If you think about it, it was a lot like my brother Jack's rescue of his men on PT-109. He was driving when the ship got hit, and he didn't save all of them either. (Teddy singing now) The car was in, the Chappaquiddick bay, fearless man, who jumps and swims, a man who means, just what he says ...

Lawyer: What are you doing?

Teddy: It's a song I'm writing. I call it "The Ballad of Mary Jo."

Lawyer: You already told your confidant Paul Markham and your cousin Joseph Gargan the truth.

Teddy: Yes, get those names. They'll back me. Mary Jo was driving.

Lawyer: You're going to ask all these people to perjure themselves for you?

Teddy: I already have. They're balking of course, but I left them no choice.

Lawyer: What do you mean you've left them no choice?

Teddy: When they dropped me at the dock after they tried diving for Mary Jo, I told them I would report the accident the moment I got back to my hotel. But they knew I was lying. An hour went by and no police had come by to question them? They knew I hadn't reported it. They're as guilty as I am!

Lawyer: Well, arguably, you are more guilty, inasmuch as you drove off the bridge —

Teddy: Mary Jo was driving. And I've been drowning my sorrows ever since. Get it? "Drowning my sorrows"? Can I at least have a beer?

Lawyer: — and then you went to absurd lengths back at the hotel to create an alibi for yourself — drying off and changing clothes, making a point of complaining to the hotel owner about the noise from the next room even though everyone was sound asleep at that hour, asking the hotel owner to tell you what time it was.

Teddy: That was a nice touch, wasn't it?

Lawyer: How can you explain that behavior as anything other than trying to create an alibi? Teddy: Are you listening? I'm a married man! Mary Jo was a babe! I was drunk, speeding toward a secluded beach with her. Do you think we were going to look for seashells? Now how would that look?

Lawyer: Hey — what are you doing with that neck brace?

Teddy: Look! Now it's a hat! Hey — there aren't any cameras in here, are there?

Lawyer: I don't know how I'm going to get you out of this ...

Teddy: Do you know who I am? I am a Kennedy! JFK, Jackie O, Camelot, Prohibition-era rum-running Kennedy clan — any of that ring a bell? The judge is a Democrat, and the weenie DA keeps sending me mash notes promising not to prosecute. Ha ha! He must think I need a new chauffeur!

Lawyer: You are in a lot of trouble, Teddy. Teddy: I've got it all in hand. Hey, I'm feeling a little loaded. Which side of this neck brace is up? My press conference is in 10 minutes.

"Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-Up":

Part one was here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/ted-kennedys-private-parts-part-i.html