Underscoring how liberal Dede Scozzafava, she engages in typical liberal whine after not getting her way.

Scozzafava denounced national conservatives for "the amount of hate and lies and the deceitfulness" used against her: "I don't believe that should be the characteristics that define the Republican Party. I think people should be allowed to have discussions and reasonable disagreements. But this was a full frontal assault on me personally and politically, for weeks."

Let me interpret:

"Hate and lies." What liberals call the truth.

"Reasonable disagreements". What liberals call their intent to rape and pillage the country and its citizens. Example? Eliminating the secret ballots to allow unions to coerce employees into certifying a union.

In my book, anyone who supports this proposed legislation is a fascist and should have their citizenship revoked.

Public Policy Polling (a Democrat polling firm) has some interesting numbers for key races in this election cycle.

In NY-23 despite the presence more or less of two Republican candidates on the ballot, Doug Hoffman is winning 71% of the GOP vote to Bill Owens' 67% of the Democratic vote. Hoffman leads Owens 52-30 with independents.

In New Jersey Chris Christie is getting 82% of the Republican vote while Jon Corzine is at 72% of the Democratic vote. Christie leads 52-29 with independents.

In Maine 77% of Republicans support the overturn of gay marriage while 71% of Democrats are opposed to it. Independents say they'll vote for it by a 52-46 margin.

In Virginia 94% of Republicans are for Bob McDonnell to 87% of Democrats for Creigh Deeds. McDonnell is up 63-33 with independents.

Republican solidarity and Libertarian disaffection for the oh-so-surprising fascist instincts of Democrats in power, seems to have returned in force from only one year ago.

The state media is already spinning the results as meaningless, but the reality is that this is precisely the outcome they feared and why they worked so hard to try to pass government-run health care before this election came around.

The health-care debate is basically over at the point. A CNN poll that trumpet's Obama's "massive" 54% approval rating (less than George Bush's at this point in his term), also produces a 57-42 result for those opposed to the Democrats government-run healthcare program.

Republicans are going to have their spines stiffened by the election results and a lot of Democrats are going to be less than enthusiastic about supporting distinctly partisan legislation.

What will Democrats do about health care legislation? That's another post.

Chris Christie, the former U.S. Attorney in the state of New Jersey has won the governorship in convincing enough fashion that ACORN and other election fraud machinations will be unable to overcome the margin of victory.

With 80% of the precincts reporting, Christie 49% to %44 for Corzine.

Corzine outspent Christie three to one and had a conga line of Democrat luminaries come into the state to support his candidacy--including His Holiness Barack Obama, who visited five times. The effort was wasted as Obama's constituency simply didn't turn out to vote. Instead, the intensity was with conservatives and libertarian independents.

Turn out was high.

Virginia, as expected, was swept by a Republican slate.

UPDATE: Exit polls are interesting. Independents went 2 to 1 for Christie.

ANOTHER UPDATE: ABC News:

Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today it is highly unlikely that a health care reform bill will be completed this year, just a week after President Barack Obama declared he was "absolutely confident" he'll be able to sign one by then.

"Getting this done by the by the end of the year is a no-go," a senior Democratic leadership aide told ABC News. Two other key Congressional Democrats also told ABC News the same thing.

This makes perfect sense. As I said earlier, the reason they wanted to push through health care legislation was precisely because of this kind of prospective election outcome.

They have two choices--push through a bi-partisan version of the health care bill and claim victory much as Clinton did with Welfare Reform, or deep six it.

Its a binary choice, but not an easy one. Health care was always just a means to an end for the Democrats--a way to recreate the country as a vast entitlement class and thus insure a socialist future. In other western democracies like Canada and the UK, government-run health care is a very, very sacred cow, no matter how obviously dysfunctional the system is and no matter how many people have to die to keep every bureaucrat in their job. With that in mind, the Democrats can never truly consider a bi-partisan approach to creating a rational health care role for government.

This will however, piss off the left-wing base, who justifiably feel this has been their first, best chance to get socialized medicine installed in this country on a broad basis.

Nevertheless, if there is a message out of the election results, it is "The Economy Stupid", and I'd say the smart money is on the Democrats dumping health care legislation and focusing entirely on the economy.

Good luck with that.

The saga of district 23 in New York is over and the Democrat won. How could this happen?

I saw Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate on television last night and knew instantly. Look at the picture. The still doesn't convey the weirdness this guy projects. He's a seriously odd fellow.

...and he only lost by low single digits.

Florida Guv Crist, "moderate" (i.e. Democrat) governor of Florida, is running for the Senate. His opponent is somewhat more attractive than Doug Hoffman.

Crist should worry.

From my perspective in low information land, who gets to write the water-cooler script is as important or more so than who wins or loses an election--both outcomes have serious, long-term consequences.

Predictably, hard-core Democrats are spinning wins in in NY-23 and a heavily Democrat San Francisco area district as the big story from last night, but big media isn't buying it. Overwhelming, the national news media and then local news media, are characterizing this as a Republican comeback and a Democrat defeat.

There are two reasons for that: the outcomes were decisive and Obama-on-the-ropes is a much better story than Messiah-wins-again.

Its especially important because as much anger and intensity as there has been among the tea partiers, they were dwarfed by a much larger contingent who were demoralized and frightened by the prospect of a socialist makeover of the last bastion of freedom in the world.

Those people had a little more lift in their step this morning, and a glimmer of hope.

Democrats need to stamp that out immediately.

While there is no doubt that voter anger and disgust over Obama's leftist agenda is fueling support for Scott Brown's senate campaign, I thought this was interesting:

Largely overlooked in assessing Brown’s prospects: the hidden hand of Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor headlined at a fundraiser for Brown last October. And Romney has helped Brown raise money outside the state as well. “I know Scott and how determined he is to win. I've campaigned for him, raised money on his behalf, and we're doing all we can to help him over the finish line,” Romney wrote supporters last Monday. Brown, 50, raised $1.3 million that day.

But lest anyone accuse Romney of being a Johnny-come-lately—stepping up only as Brown has vaulted from sacrificial lamb to serious threat—the 2008 presidential hopeful has lent crucial support behind the scenes from the start of Brown’s campaign. Ever since he entered the race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Brown has been counseled by members of the Shawmut Group, a Boston-based consulting firm that acts as the Romney political brain trust in exile. Among the many Romney disciples running Brown’s campaign are Beth Myers, the campaign manager of Romney’s presidential run; Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s chief spokesman; Peter Flaherty, Romney’s “go-to-guy for conservatives”; and Rob Cole, Romney’s 2008 deputy chairman manager. Beth Lindstrom, another player in Romney World, is working as Brown’s campaign manager. Lindstrom’s ties to Romney go back years; she started working with him in the Massachusetts State House as director of consumer affairs.

It also doesn't hurt that the former Massachusetts governor cut his political teeth running for the same seat directly against Kennedy.

This missive by a TPM reader apparently impressed the hell out of Josh Marshall. Me? Not so much.

Democrats can talk until they are blue in the face about how "unprecedented" this wave of Republican filibusters in historical terms, and most Americans won't have any idea what they are talking about. If Democrats demanded an "up or down vote" on individual issues because "elections have consequences", however, Dems would be appealing to Americans' basic sense of fairness while breaking through the beltway spin about needing a "super majority" to pass bills in the Senate. (After all, the notion that Democrats need a "super majority" fundamentally confuses what actually happens with a filibuster, during which a small number of senators prevents the full senate from even voting on a bill that would otherwise pass.)

When the concept of a filibuster is properly framed as a procedural roadblock employed by a small number of malcontent senators to prevent their colleagues - who won the last election - from voting, the public strongly disapproves. Why? Because even partisans agree that our democratic system should not permit a minority from grinding the government to a halt.

To be fair, I've heard similar rhetoric from the right when the shoe was on the other foot, and all of them ignore a fundamental truth about politics and government--as soon as an election is over, a new one begins.

Republicans impotently whined about Democrat obstructionism in the last couple of years of their majorities as well, and then, just as now, the same argument was made and the same measures contemplated, albeit with different names (nuclear option then, 'reconciliation' now...).

It should come as no surprise at all that health care legislation has met a shield wall of Republican opposition. Look at how Democrats have been using public funds to try to buy off their skittish caucus members. Characterizing a filibuster as a 'small group of malcontents' may make Democrats feel better, but it's simply a delusion (one Republicans would do well to observe and contemplate...). Filibusters succeed of fail on the basis of their public support, not on the number of Congressional malcontents engaged in the activity.

The delusion persists:

no matter how much Obama struggles, it's hard to imagine the Republicans fielding a decent presidential candidate in 2012. In other words, even if the Democrats do find themselves in the minority some time in the next six years, the need to filibuster will be greatly reduced as long as a Democrat holds the White House, where the more socially accepted form of obstructionism - the veto pen - will protect cowardly Dems from having to filibuster most Republican bills.

The author suffers from both a failure of imagination and a belief in the fairy tale of political courage. Politicians follow the Preacher's adage:

For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. (Eccl 9:4)

Wise men (and women) pick their battles. Fools draw their swords at every provocation.

President's veto for the same reason minorities filibuster--because they believe their actions reflect popular opinion, or will be construed as such. Grover Cleveland vetoed an astonishing 414 bills, and only had 2 overridden. In the modern era, Ronald Reagan was particularly prolific in his vetos--78, with 12 overridden.

Both men took statesmanlike positions and rebuffed Congressional pandering towards the special interests of their day. Its an irony that while Cleveland was a Democrat and Reagan a Republican, both stood firmly for principles of limited government and low taxes.

If Obama finds himself stranded with a Republican Congress, he could potentially come out looking good if the Republicans go on an orgy of earmarking, and he stands in their way for principled (i.e. popular with Americans...) and statesmanlike reasons.

Not much sign of that happening...

Utah Republicans held their caucus tonight. If the turnout at other precincts was anything like the one I attended, then Republican Senator Bob Bennett has cause to worry - but that depends on whether Bennett's opposition is better organized than the ones who showed up at my precinct. Mick fills you in on the details of Bennett's problems here.

At my precinct, we had nearly four times as many people show up than in 2008 - and that was a presidental election year. The extra folks showed up to vote against Bob Bennett - or vote for delegates that will vote against Bob Bennett. They were not organized, however, and ironically they managed to dilute their votes so that the two delegates we did elect will be Bennett supporters. This happened because our precinct chose to elect the two nominees that came in first and second in vote count out of a slate of nominees voted on simultaneously. About eight candidates were nominated - only two were supporters of Bob Bennett. If you supported Bob Bennett (I did for the same reasons Mick noted), you only had two choices. The opposition had six choices and thus they managed to get Bob Bennett two delegates.

Bennett opponents could have easily insisted on majority rule but they didn't. Thus these anti-Bennett folks became a case study for Mick's point about operating on anger:

...there are plenty of places on the Internet, cable television and radio that you can go to hear people rant and rave about this. I don't want to--I want to win. Winning takes a clear strategy, extensive planning and a disciplined execution.

At this precinct, none of the anti-Bennett nominees for delegate knew anything about the other candidates running against Bennett. Not one could name an alternative candidate who they would vote for instead of Bennett. With the exception of Merrill Cook, who doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of being taken seriously again, all of the other declared candidates are political novices. That shouldn't necessarily be a disqualifier but it should give one pause considering how the novices at my precinct managed to elect delegates opposed to their view.

Bob Bennett got lucky in my precinct but the numbers were against him. If his oppostion in other precincts was not as disarrayed, he may be sitting out the primary.

UPDATE:
More bad news for Bennett from Dave Kirkham:

My Tea Party buddies texted me all night from their own precincts as Bennett supporters fell. EVERYWHERE, Bennett was toxic. In our straw poll, Bennett came in 3rd. Maybe there is hope after all.

I attended the Tea Party rally Kirkham organized last April at the Salt Lake Federal Building. Bennett was loudly boo'ed then - almost a year ago. Something to consider for those politicians who think that dissatisfaction was a one time flash in the pan.

Apparently some people are being mean to their Congress persons after they voted to forcibly tax us to kill black babies, bankrupt the country and destroy our healthcare system.

I guess my question is, "what the hell did you expect?"

To answer my own question--they were hoping for a lot worse.

Its been clear for a long time that the Democrat strategy is to bring the country to the brink of civil war in order to keep their 'base' sufficiently energized to survive the onslaught of angry voters.

There is a conscious and extremely bold program of what used to be called 'McCarthyism' being played out here, where demonization of the more than half the country's citizens is an active and apparently casual activity. On NPR, they openly discuss the necessity of getting rid of freedom of religion, the first amendment and other inconvenient rights standing in the way their creating a permanent governing class.

The Democrats feel they've energized their base with the passage of healthcare, and now need to freeze the electorate by creating alienation so profound, that no Republican or Democrat voters would even think about talking to the other.

Its an explosive strategy, but they have demonstrated that their attitude will be--what we can't control, we will destroy.

UPDATE: Democrats using alleged 'attacks' to do some fund-raising. Its almost amusing, but apparently Rush Limbaugh, so often dismissed as an extremist, was actually too kind in his characterizations of Democrat depravity. These people are lower than pond scum. The only real question is how far does the rot go down? Are there still some decent people in the Democrat party, or is 30-40% of the country so far gone that they have to be institutionalized?

UPDATE II: I'm not say that Democrats have invented this rash of vandalism--OK, yes I am saying that and for good reason....

AN IMPLAUSIBLE REPORT IN THE SEATTLE TIMES: “A rock was thrown through the window of Driehaus’ Cincinnati office Sunday.”

Justin Binik-Thomas emails from Cincinnati that Rep. Driehaus’ office “is on the 30th floor of a skyscraper downtown.”

UPDATE III: Not a big fan of Erick Ericson, but this was a very good piece.

Tonight we'll know which swinish liberal opportunist will be running Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the next few years. At least if it's the faux-conservative Cameron there'll be a smattering of younger Thatcherites in the ranks as well as the PR spivs and parachuted victim groupies. And there'll be an outside chance of genocidally scaled-up throat-cutting in the public sector to slate my immediate bloodlust.

As we await the result, there's a spot on comparison here between Gordon Brown and Rafa Benitez, manager of Liverpool Football Club, the direly underperforming quondam rulers of the world in club soccer.

Extracts:

Brown: terse, prickly, combative; inspires great loyalty in a few (though not many Englishmen) and blanks those he feels have let him down
Benitez: terse, prickly, combative; inspires great loyalty in a few (though not many Englishmen) and blanks those he feels have let him down.

UK plc: needs astonishingly dynamic leadership to restore it to its traditional place in the world order
Liverpool FC: needs astonishing sums of money and managerial skill to restore it to its rightful place in the league.

UK plc: should have invested in infrastructure long ago (nuclear power, high speed rail, roads) if the economy is to thrive
Liverpool FC: should have invested in a new stadium without which gate receipts are £2m-£3m less than Man Utd and Arsenal’s every week.

But best are the comments:

Liverpool, best known for being the only city in Europe where it’s easy to park. Just don’t expect your car to be there when you return.
Just like Labour, the thieving gits.

I dont remember Rafa B selling off all our gold at the lowest price he could get OR inviting a couple of million ne’er-do-wells to suck merrily at the teat of british tax payer largesse.
OT
It used to be so easy supporting Fulham. Every saturday we’d get beaten by the footballing equivalent of the Dagenham Girl’s School Choir 7-0 and that would be fine, well… not exactly fine but we came to accept the world as it was and life was easy, no stress, no hassle.
Now we have started winning things, like football matches and it’s all a bit much.

As Bill Shankly, the immortal former manager of Liverpool, said:

“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.”

“Me having no education. I had to use my brains.”

“Aim for the sky and you'll reach the ceiling. Aim for the ceiling and you'll stay on the floor.”