With the Scott Brown Victory, Joe Martin Beams from Heaven Above

The Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts reminds me of the old days of politics. The time in which a Texan led the Democrats in the House while a Bay Stater led the Republicans. Sam Rayburn and Joe Martin effectively and honestly led their parties together from 1941-1959. Martin had been elected to Congress in 1925 after his predecessor passed on. After the arch-conservative Bert Snell (R., N.Y.) chose to retire in 1938, Martin became Minority Leader.

Martin, like Snell, had been hostile to the First 100 Days Legislation in 1933, voting against the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Tennessee Valley Authority, and the National Industrial Recovery Act. Thus, he was no liberal, and neither were any of the other Republicans representing Massachusetts during this time. Conservatives stood more than a good chance of being elected in the Northeast. In fact, prior to World War II, the base of the conservative wing of the party was the Northeast, and the base of the more progressive wing was the Midwest. The stout conservative Calvin Coolidge had been born a Vermonter and had been the strike-breaking Governor of Massachusetts before becoming Vice President, and then President. With World War II, politics began to switch more to what we know today. Martin led the GOP out of the political wilderness and into the majority in 1946, where they had a successful if brief run in enacting their reforms, like cutting taxes and enacting legislation curbing the excessive power of unions, both over President Truman's veto.

In the 1950s, the Northeastern Republicans grew more moderate to liberal and Martin followed, but he still retained a sense of fiscal conservatism. The 81-year old Martin lost renomination in 1966 to a more liberal Republican and died two years later. I'm sure that if Martin is watching the political scene from wherever place in heaven he is, he is smiling over Massachusetts at least taking a slight step back to its Republican roots.

Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that it is unconstitutional to limit the spending of corporations and unions for political advertising and overturns the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold ban on political advertising from these entities 30 days before a general primary and 60 days before a general election. Not only were corporations and unions limited, but so were organizations like the ACLU and the NRA. Conservatives and Libertarians have praised this decision as being true to the 1st Amendment, while liberals fear that corporations will hold undue power over the public (and thus the political process) and that the court is returning to the Lochner era of the Supreme Court (1897-1937), in which Supreme Court decisions were frequently pro-free enterprise.

I don't believe corporations will hold undue power, and if their arguments are sound, then by all means the public should listen to them and heed their words. The left seems to think that the people are sheeple who will be mesmerized by corporate arguments which will surely be malicious and untrue. Another assumption they make is that the Democratic Party will be harmed more than the Republican Party. This might be true, but don't forget that there are plenty of businesses out there that support and give money to Democrats as well as Republicans. Socialists are left out in the cold, but they have always been left out in the cold by American politics and rightly so.

What this decision does is limits control of political speech. The provisions of McCain-Feingold extended beyond a mere time regulation as the intention was clearly to curb a certain kind of speech. Time regulations on speech are perfectly constitutional if there is no discrimination on the basis of content. Just like technically voting rights for the public can be revoked as long as it is done without prejudice, but this won't happen. Anyway, this limiting of control most certainly does damage to incumbents, and it should. After all, it should satisfy the bipartisan crowd of people who complain about over 90% reelection rates (which ignores the fact that many incumbents smartly choose to retire rather than making a risky or unsuccessful reelection bid). It certainly satisfies me as reelection rates should be even lower given the piss poor performance of Congress.

Overall, while I doubt this decision will have as strong of an impact as its enemies believe it will, I hope it does.

Rothenberg: 58 Democratic seats in play

In the wake of Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.) opting not to run for reelection, pollster Stuart Rothenberg now puts 58 Democrat held House seats as competitive while the Republican seats remain at 14. This is excellent news, and I've been seeing some individual House race polls, including Indiana's 9th, in which former Congressman Mike Sodrel may defeat incumbent Baron Hill a second time in 2010, as he has a 9 point lead. Ohio's 1st looks excellent too with the excellent Steve Chabot leading liberal incumbnet Steve Driehaus by 17 points. Driehaus unseated Chabot in 2008 during the Obama wave. Republicans look like they will make significant gains in legislative representation in Tennessee and Arkansas. Even in the Northeast the GOP may take back some House seats. In Nevada, it looks like Harry Reid is not going to win reelection, Joe Biden's Senate seat will probably be overtaken by At-Large Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) stands a good chance of winning the Obama seat. Snarlin' Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) looks like he will get his comeuppance from conservative challenger Pat Toomey. Even the race for the Senate in California with Barbara Boxer is starting to look competitive. The GOP just might pull off a takeover of the House this year. They just might. The Senate is still almost impossible.

Why Blizzard Should Support Obamacare

World of Warcraft (WoW) has been the most famous MMO to date, and this is in spite of a $15 monthly fee to play. I don't know about you, but even if a game was the best game in the universe, wasn't an MMO, and I wasn't unemployed, I still wouldn't pay $15 a month to play it. I wouldn't pay that much even if it were Team Fortress 2 with endless weapon variations, limitless maps, and thousands of class taunts that would pause entire games because people would be on their backs laughing.

Back to the point, I think WoW playing will experience at least a considerable increase after the passage of Obamacare. Among the many not-so small provisions of this enormous measure, the Senate bill allows for young adults to stay on their parents' insurance policy until they are 26. The House bill allows for this until the age of 27. The only two things aside from passing the age limit that disqualifies you are marriage and being a parent.

What is missing here? An education requirement, one that requires people to be full time students at least one semester of a year. If we are going to force insurance companies to allow for parental coverage of young people, we might at least make sure the young people are using this time productively, bettering themselves for the good of society. But this is not so according to this plan. Since their health insurance is being covered by parents under law, the young people have extra money from their jobs that they can use to pay for WoW subscriptions (if they are not getting laid, or for when they are not getting laid), and game for long hours instead of studying. It's the essential nerd boon, and it is moreso a boon for Blizzard Entertainment. I don't know the politics of the people at Blizzard, but somehow I doubt it is anywhere near hard-line conservative. That being said, I think it would be smart for them to back Obamacare. What greater benefit than a bunch of young people not obligated to further education using incomes from their lower wage jobs to fuel their WoW addiction.

Scott Brown Victory and Obama's First Year

Part 1: Scott Brown

A victory in Massachusetts? Who'd of thunk it. A year ago, a Republican getting into Ted Kennedy's seat wasn't even a dream, wasn't even under consideration. But now, the political atmosphere has changed, and it sure as hell doesn't like Democrats. Yes, Martha Coakley ran a campaign of ineptitude, yes she referred to Curt Schilling as a "Yankee's fan", and yes she managed to turn a 30 point lead into a 5 point loss. But there's more to it than just Coakley.

People elected Scott Brown because he is Scott Brown, he is for lower taxes and against new proposed taxes on banks. He effectively used the late President Kennedy's message for lower taxes and made it his own. Kennedy was promoting pro-growth policies, which is what the Obama Administration is completely failing to do by attacking business, treating them as disobedient children, and proposing such disatrous economic schemes as "cap and trade" and "public option". But its greater than Scott Brown, its Obama. After a year, Obama has failed to make progress on unemployment in this country, even after committing around $800 Billion (with warnings of dire economic consequences if this wasn't done quickly), and the Democrats placing blame on Bush is getting old, as they have been in the driver's seat for a year, enough time to make at least a dent in the economy. As Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said about the situation in Massachusetts, "if you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up." Indeed, many of the Democrats, including David Axelrod, Obama's version of Karl Rove, are already attempting to minimize the unmistakeable impact of the situation.

Part 2: A Year in Review

This day marks the first anniversary of Obama's swearing in. Let's review what's happened and what results have been yielded:

What has Happened?

. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (now the statute of limitations is after last paycheck, rather than after contract was signed for anti-discrimination lawsuits).
. Stem Cell Research expanded.
. SCHIP signed (expanding children's healthcare through raising cigarette taxes).
. $800 Billion Stimulus.
. Credit Card Bill of Rights signed into law.
. Brings more troops into Afghanistan.
. Tries to bring to the House a potentially disastrous measure called the "Employee Free Choice Act", which would have enabled unions to know who did not support them in the card check process.
. Tried to shut down Gitmo, proves to be far more complicated a task than he or the Dems anticipated and it appears stalled now.
. Tried to get OPEC to reduce oil prices, answer was of course "no".
. Attempts to pass "Cap and Trade", but given the massive price the private sector not to mention the American consumers and workers would have to pay, it will probably not make it through.
. Flies to Copenhagen to push for the Olympics in 2016 to be held in Chicago, but Rio de Janiero is chosen instead.
. Went to Copenhagen for the Climate Conference, but negotiations fell apart because China won't play ball.
. Passes separate healthcare bills through House and Senate, but since the two versions are different, Congress is still negotiating.

If there's anything I've forgotten, please let me know.


Results?

. Democrats win by narrow margins in two special House elections in New York.
. Republican Chris Christie wins the Governorship of New Jersey while Republican Bob McDonnell wins the Governorship of Virginia.
. Parker Griffith (D-Ala.) switches to Republican in a seat that hasn't been held by Republicans since Reconstruction.
. A Republican, Scott Brown, wins a seat in Massachusetts held by Democrats since John F. Kennedy defeated Republican incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. in 1952.
. The economy isn't better than it was a year ago.
. Obama's poll numbers are down.
. The healthcare plan is officially unpopular.

Overall:

2010 is going to be a fun year for Republicans, and this special election is a promising start.