According to Politico, Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama has switched to the Republican Party. Surely, Rep. Parker is reading the tea leaves and looking to secure his seat.

Democratic Rep. Parker Griffith will announce today that he is switching parties largely because of the Democrats’ health care reform efforts. The announcement is not good news for his soon-to-be former party as Republicans are sure to pounce on the development as another sign that the Democratic reforms are deeply unpopular.

My buddy Josh Kraushaar has the worldwide exclusive:

Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.

The switch represents a coup for House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls over the summer.

Griffith, who captured the seat in a close 2008 open seat contest, will become the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district. A radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center, Griffith plans to blast the Democratic health care bill as a prime reason for his decision to switch parties—and is expected to cite his medical background as his authority on the subject.

While the timing of his announcement was unexpected, Griffith’s party switch will not come as a surprise to those familiar with his voting record, which is one of the most conservative among all Democrats.

 With the Senate poised to pass Obamacare and the reconciliation process to begin in early January, the passage of the Democrat’s bill appears to be a fait d’complis. Yes, potential obstacles remain on issues such as the public option (which many House members want) and abortion. But the Democrats haven’t come this far to let this fall apart now. They will be happy to pass anything as they move from, as Senator Harkin called it, ‘a starter home’ before building their mansion. Their descent off the proverbial cliff is already in motion.

But is there another way for Republicans to stop them before they hit bottom and defeat this bill? Perhaps, so.

No one seems to be mentioning it, but there is a special election coming up in Massachusetts to fill the open seat left by the death of former Sen. Ted Kennedy. This race pits Democrat Martha Coakley, the state’s Attorney General, against Republican State Senator Scott Brown. There is also an independent candidate in the race, Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation to the former senator). Most critically, though, this election is scheduled to take place on January 19th – which presumably would be before a reconciled bill reaches the Senate floor. Imagine if you will for a second, in the midst of all of this, a Republican senator suddenly being seated and giving the GOP the last senator they need to filibuster this legislation!

So far, though, very little attention has been given to this race but I think desperate times call for desperate measures. If this is the last hope for the GOP to defeat Obamacare, even if remote, then it is time for the right to marshal its resources and back Scott Brown in this race. If conservatives could rise up en masse to torpedo the candidacy of Dede Scozzafava surely they can rise up to do everything possible to back a candidate that would in fact be the difference between an America with socialized medicine and an America without it.

I would admit that the prospect of winning this race seems bleak. Heck, what are the odds of filling Ted Kenedy’s seat with a Republican in the blue state of Massachusetts? Perhaps that is true, but I have yet to see evidence of it.

I have scoured the Internet trying to find a poll on this race and I cannot find one (maybe one will come out after last night’s debate). A few weeks ago a friend whispered to me that Brown was ahead in a poll but I could not find evidence of that either. So, let’s say that Brown is down 10 points in this race. What would happen if Brown suddenly had an influx of cash and support like Doug Hoffman received in NY-23? What might happen then?

Further, how about exposing Martha Coakley’s record? For example, citing a Boston Globe piece, Newsbusters reported today that Coakley has flip-flopped on healthcare with respect to her stand on abortion.

State Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee for US Senate, reluctantly threw her support yesterday behind the Senate health care bill, even though it contains restrictions on abortion coverage that abortion rights groups are calling unacceptable.

During the primary campaign, Coakley said she would not have supported the House health care bill because of provisions designed to prevent federal funding of abortions that abortion rights advocates said went too far. Her stand was a major point of debate during the campaign; several of her opponents criticized her for being willing to sink the health care bill over a single issue, but she insisted that there were some things on which she would not compromise.

That’s not all. Ann Coulter also recently wrote a damning piece on Coakley, spelling out how the current Massachusetts AG actually went out of her way to keep an innocent man convicted of child rape in prison to further her political career. You can read the entire piece here for the gory details, but here is the most pertinent and shocking part with respect to Coakley’s role in this affair:

In July 2001, the notoriously tough Massachusetts parole board voted unanimously to grant Gerald Amirault clemency. Although the parole board is not permitted to consider guilt or innocence, its recommendation said: “(I)t is clearly a matter of public knowledge that, at the minimum, real and substantial doubt exists concerning petitioner’s conviction.”

Immediately after the board’s recommendation, The Boston Globe reported that Gov. Jane Swift was leaning toward accepting the board’s recommendation and freeing Amirault.

Enter Martha Coakley, Middlesex district attorney. Gerald Amirault had already spent 15 years in prison for crimes he no more committed than anyone reading this column did. But Coakley put on a full court press to keep Amirault in prison simply to further her political ambitions.

By then, every sentient person knew that Amirault was innocent. But instead of saying nothing, Coakley frantically lobbied Gov. Jane Swift to keep him in prison to show that she was a take-no-prisoners prosecutor, who stood up for “the children.” As a result of Coakley’s efforts — and her contagious ambition — Gov. Swift denied Amirault’s clemency.

Thanks to Martha Coakley, Gerald Amirault sat in prison for another three years.

Remember all that talk about President Bush shredding constitutional rights? Overzealous liberal prosecutors and feminist do-gooders allowed Gerald Amirault to sit in prison for 18 years for crimes that didn’t exist — except in the imaginations of small children under the influence of incompetent child “therapists.”

Martha Coakley allowed her ambition to trump basic human decency as she campaigned to keep a patently innocent man in prison.

Anyone with the smallest sense of justice cannot vote to put this woman in any office. If you absolutely cannot vote for a Republican on Jan. 19, 2010, write in the name “Gerald Amirault.”

I’m sure there is more in Coakley’s closet that could be brought out over the course of the next few weeks leading up to the January 19th election.

Moreover, I would submit that we should not write off Massachusetts. The state is capable of electing Republicans to state-wide office. Ask Bill Weld. Ask Mitt Romney.

Speaking of Romney, we should remember that Massachusetts voters know all too well already that socialized medicine doesn’t work. Romney signed into law health ‘reform’ legislation while he was Governor and by all accounts it has been a miserable failure. One would think that aggressively pointing this out to the Massachusetts electorate would resonate.

In fact, the Coakley-Brown race needs to be nationalized and made a referendum on this very issue. A vote for Coakley is a vote for socialized medicine. A vote for Brown is a vote against it. It is no simpler than that.

The only question now is, what say you, Michael Steele? Will you step up and fight for this seat or will you just wave the white flag and surrender to socialism? How about you, John Cornyn and the NRSC? Considering what’s at stake, there may not really be a choice.

If there is even a glimmer of hope we can win in Massachusetts, then GOP Leaders need to step up — and step up now– while we still have time to draw attention to this race and possibly win it.

To support Brown’s candidacy, please go to www.brownforussenate.com.

Cross-posted at Red County and CMNJ.

‘America’s Mayor’ apparently is going to bypass a run for the NY governorship and turn his sights toward ousting Kirsten Gillibrand (who was appointed to the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton).

Here’s the story from the WaPo:

After months of relative quiet regarding the political future of former mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), the New York newspapers have exploded this afternoon with reports that not only has he decided not to run for governor in 2010 but that he plans to enter the Senate race against Kirsten Gillibrand instead.

Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for Giuliani, released a statement insisting that no decisions — about the Senate or governors races — have been made; “When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own,” added Comella.

According to conversations with several Giuliani insiders, the Mayor has not made up his mind yet although a run for either governor or Senate is not likely. Interestingly, a Senate bid appears to be the more likely choice if Giuliani decides to get back into the political game, note the sources.

This is definitely an interesting turn of events. It looked like a Giuliani-Cuomo match-up was developing in New York (notwithstanding Cuomo having to challenge incumbent David Patterson). But from the sound of it, Rudy is opting to go for the presumably easier seat to win.

Honestly, for Republicans this is probably the preferable choice. The Senate seat is needed far more than the governor’s mansion considering what this administration and the Democrats in Congress are trying to foist upon us.

One thing is for certain – a Rudy senate run only makes 2010 that much more interesting.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

Independents now also have an extremely unfavorable view of this Congress. A Gallup poll shows their approval of the Pelosi-Reid Congress at an abysmal 14%. As I reported last week, only 45% of independents want their representative re-elected. Additionally, according to a CBS poll, Barack Obama’s approval among independents has dropped precipitously since April – from 63% then to 45% now.

All of this obviously bodes quite well for Republicans in 2010.

Here is the story from Politico:

Mounting evidence that independent voters have soured on the Democrats is prompting a debate among party officials about what rhetorical and substantive changes are needed to halt the damage.

 Following serious setbacks with independents in off-year elections earlier this month, White House officials attributed the defeats to local factors and said President Barack Obama sees no need to reposition his own image or the Democratic message. 

Since then, however, a flurry of new polls makes clear that Democrats are facing deeper problems with independents—the swing voters who swung dramatically toward the party in 2006 and 2008 but who now are registering deep unease with the amount of spending and debt called for under Obama’s agenda in an era of one-party rule in Washington. 

A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.

Obama’s own popularity among independents has fallen significantly, too. A CBS News poll Tuesday showed the president’s approval rating among unaligned voters falling to 45 percent — down from 63 percent in April.

You can read the rest of the story here.

Also, while I am on the subject of independents, here is an interesting article from Zogby explaining the difference between independents and moderates.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

But just what are the prospects for a Republican takeover of Congress next year? If the Pew Research findings released yesterday are any barometer, one would have to say pretty good. In fact, the anti-incumbent sentiment uncovered by Pew Research is worse than about any time in their two decades of polling. The current climate is similar to 1994 and 2006, which should give Republicans reason for optimism. According to Pew:

The mood of America is glum. Two-thirds of the public is dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country. Fully nine-in-ten say that national economic conditions are only fair or poor, and nearly two-thirds describe their own finances that way – the most since the summer of 1992. An increasing proportion of Americans say that the war in Afghanistan is not going well, and a plurality continues to oppose the health care reform proposals in Congress.

Despite the public’s grim mood, overall opinion of Barack Obama has not soured – his job approval rating of 51% is largely unchanged since July, although his approval rating on Afghanistan has declined. But opinions about congressional incumbents are another matter.

About half (52%) of registered voters would like to see their own representative re-elected next year, while 34% say that most members of Congress should be re-elected. Both measures are among the most negative in two decades of Pew Research surveys. Other low points were during the 1994 and 2006 election cycles, when the party in power suffered large losses in midterm elections.

Support for congressional incumbents is particularly low among political independents. Only 42% of independent voters want to see their own representative re-elected and just 25% would like to see most members of Congress re-elected. Both measures are near all-time lows in Pew Research surveys.

Here are some key findings from Pew’s polling:

% Who Want To See Their Representative Re-Elected

• 11/94: 58%-Yes vs. 25% No
• 11/06: 55%-Yes vs. 25% No
• 11/09: 52%-Yes vs. 29% No

% Who Want To See Most Representatives Re-Elected

• 11/94: 31%-Yes vs. 51% No
• 11/06: 37%-Yes vs. 46% No
• 11/09: 34%-Yes vs. 53% No

Pew’s research also shows that Republicans are far more enthusiastic about voting next year:

…voters who plan to support Republicans next year are more enthusiastic than those who plan to vote for a Democrat. Fully 58% of those who plan to vote for a Republican next year say they are very enthusiastic about voting, compared with 42% of those who plan to vote for a Democrat. More than half (56%) of independent voters who support a Republican in their district are very enthusiastic about voting; by contrast, just 32% of independents who plan to vote for a Democrat express high levels of enthusiasm.

And the biggest problems for Democrats is how they are bleeding independents (as was the case in last week’s NJ election which saw Christie win this key group 2:1)

Public frustration with Congress may have serious electoral implications for incumbents in the 2010 midterm elections. Only about a third (34%) of registered voters say they think most members of Congress should be re-elected next year, which is on par with ratings during the 1994 and 2006 elections. Meanwhile, just 52% of voters say they want to see their own member re-elected, approaching levels in early October 2006 (50%) and 1994 (49%).

In November 1994, 68% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans favored the re-election of their own member of Congress, which is comparable to the current figures (64% of Democrats, 50% of Republicans). But today, just 42% of independents want to see their own representative re-elected, compared with 52% of independents on the eve of the 1994 midterm elections. 

Partisan feelings about incumbents were the reverse in 2006, when the GOP held majorities in the House and Senate. In November 2006, 69% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 45% of independents wanted to see their own member of Congress re-elected.

As with all polls, this is just one snapshot in time. But barring a 180 degree turn by the Democrats in Washington, as well as in the economy, 2010 is shaping up to be a bloodbath for blue nation.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

However, politically the right move for the GOP was to vote AGAINST the amendment. This way pro-life Dems would not want to vote for the larger (and more dangerous) healthcare bill.

But National Right to Life pressured Republicans. They told them that even a ‘present’ vote would be considered a ‘no’ vote, thus affecting their rating from that group. Only one Congressman, Rep. Shadegg had the guts to vote present. The rest of the Republicans went along.

Additionally, earlier today in the debate Rep. Boehner, in a heated exchange with Charlie Rangel, asked for reassurance that the amendment would be in any final bill. No such commitment was given. So, even with the passage of the Stupak Amendment it may well be meaningless.

Now, pro-life Dems will be able to freely vote for the bill. The vote is due fairly soon. And if it passes by a small margin with the support of pro-life Dems it is the Republican’s own fault.

And it’s also the fault of a one-issue, myopic group - National Right to Life.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

In the New Jersey governor’s race, Independent candidate Chris Daggett remains the unknown factor. Some polls have shown Daggett with as much as 15% of the vote. But my intuition tells me Christie’s recent attacks on Daggett have hurt him and with Corzine and Christie within the margin of error, many voters will not waste their vote on him upon entering that voting booth. As such I don’t see Daggett getting more than double digits – and I see long-suffering New Jersey taxpayers breaking toward Christie in what will be a squeaker. Final result: Christie 48%, Corzine 46%, Daggett 6%.

In Virginia, a swing state that turned Obama blue last year, we will witness a 180 degree turn. Republican Bob McDonnell will win in a landslide over Democrat Creigh Deeds. Prediction: McDonnell 56%, Deeds 44% 

Well, in NY-23, Dede Scozzafava was forced out of this race by conservatives who said she was too liberal. Now, she has proven us quite right with her endorsement of the liberal Bill Owens over conservative Doug Hoffman (Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?). In any case, with Scozzafava remaining on the ballot one would expect her to still receive some votes. So my prediction for this race is for a Hoffman victory, albeit much closer than recent races in this district. Final results: Hoffmann 51%, Owens 45%, Scozzafava 4%.

Great news today for conservatives. Dede Scozzafava is suspending her campaign.

Scozzafava suspends campaign
By Tony Romm – 10/31/09 10:37 AM ET
State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R) announced on Saturday she would suspend her campaign to fill former Rep. John McHugh’s open House seat, citing dismal poll numbers just days before the much-hyped special election.
Her exit from the race offers serious momentum to Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate who has stolen from Scozzafava a slew of important GOP endorsements and donations in recent weeks.

“Today, I again seek to act for the good of our community,” Scozzafava wrote in a letter to supporters, obtained by the Watertown Daily Times. “It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so.”

“I am and have always been a proud Republican,” Scozzafava added. “It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger and our district and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.”

This is also a victory of the conservative blogosphere which exposed Scozzafava and put the pressure on for her to step aside..

Michael Illions was one of many bloggers today across the right-wing spectrum to call for Dede Scozzafava to withdraw from the NY District 23 House race. The movement to call for Scozzafava’s withdrawal, though, started brewing earlier this week.  Here’s a little background.

Over at NRO, Jim Geraghty did a piece on the NY-23 House race on Monday in the Campaign Spot. In that piece, Geraghty contended that conservatives ought not fault the NRCC and RNC for supporting a Republican chosen by the local party.

This is not a defense of Scozzafava. I’m just saying it’s a contradiction if a conservative denounces the National Republican Senatorial Committee, when it backs Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio and Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey (yeah, that one went well), for not letting Republican grassroots have their say, and then denounces the NRCC and RNC when they try to help Scozzafava win. In this case, the NRCC and RNC are backing the choice of the local party, after the choice has been finalized. It may be a lousy choice, but you rarely if ever see national parties overruling the selection of local parties; once you open that door, you face the question of how often these national committees get to exercise a veto over the local parties’ selection.

Two days later, though, Geraghty changed his tune after Scozzafava had a run-in with Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack. Geraghty explains:

Earlier this week, I was noting that it was unrealistic for conservatives to expect national Republican committees, like the RNC and National Republican Congressional Committee, to do anything but back the Republican in New York’s special congressional election.

But the situation has changed.

It’s not just the inanity of Dede Scozzafava’s campaign calling the cops on a reporter; it’s doubling down and calling McCormack a liar. With audiotape now exposing the Scozzafava campaign as the liar in their account of the candidate’s interaction with John McCormack, it’s a different ballgame. I’m actually finding myself driven to a position beyond the editors.

It’s time for the NRCC and RNC to cut their ties, and more. It’s embarrassing enough when a candidate won’t answer reasonable questions from reasonable press and her campaign attempts to smear them in order to cover up their mess. Forwarding McCormack’s e-mails to Talking Points Memo just shows how upside-down the Scozzafava campaign is.

The time has come for the RNC and NRCC to ask for their money back. This goes well beyond any reasonable difference on policy. There’s room in the party for pro-choice Republicans and pro-gay-marriage Republicans and maybe even the odd pro-card-check Republican. But not this kind of arrogance, this kind of clumsy dishonesty, this kind of reckless hostility to a reporter and a publication that need not be an enemy.

The RNC and NRCC are better than the Scozzafava campaign. It’s time for them to demonstrate that they know how a candidate and her staff are supposed to react when asked a question, and to show that Scozzafava’s team’s behavior is just not acceptable.

Well, this represented the last straw for many in the right-wing blogosphere, prompting several sites this morning, starting with Red County, Red State and the American Spectator (Quinn Hilyer), to call for Scozzafava to withdraw. Red County, in particular, led the way on this starting with a post this morning from Joshua Sharf. A flurry of posts followed on Red County including here, here, here and here.

Red State and the American Spectator were also among the first to call for Scozzafava’s withdrawal. From there, the calls for withdrawal spread quickly. As Michael mentioned, all of the following outlets also joined the bandwagon: RightWingNews.com. Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com. The Washington Examiner. The Washington Times. Michelle Malkin also got on board.

All of this goes to show just how powerful this medium called blogging has become; and how bloggers, when working in concert, can affect change. In the past, a candidate like Scozzafava would have flown well under the radar. Her views not known to the rest of us until well after the horse was out of the barn. Now, we have the power to fight back when our party puts forth wholly unworthy candidates who do not uphold any of the core values the party stands for.

One can only hope that Mrs. Scozzafava now does the right thing and steps aside. In fact, that would be the only way to show any last bit of true allegiance to the party whose banner she now is running under.

Yesterday, the destructive, job-killing Waxman-Markey C(r)ap and Trade bill passed the House. While numerous Democrats broke ranks to oppose this bad legislation, it passed with some Republican support. That support, unfortunately, came from three so-called Republicans right here in New Jersey. Their names? Leonard Lance, Chris Smith and Frank LoBiondo.

Their votes in favor of this bill represent nothing less than a betrayal of Republican principles. Waxman-Markey, as I have pointed out previously, is a repressive tax for Americans. It will impact everything we produce and result in lost jobs and higher energy bills to the tune of up to $3,000 a year for the average family.

Lance, LoBiondo and Smith have now elevated themselves to the same level as Arlen Specter. Their votes are no less a betrayal as Specter’s was for the Porkulous bill.

As such, each of these Congressmen now no longer deserve our support. Each of them needs to be primaried out. Republicans need to send a strong and clear message that on certain issues you must toe the line and breaking ranks will not be tolerated. If you are a constitutent in the districts represented by these Congressmen make no mistake, they have not represented you, let alone this state and our nation. They need to be voted out.

I, for one, will do all I can to see that that is exactly what happens next year.