By Dave Andrusko

Part Two is a piece we run every year on the anniversary of the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King. Part Three describes how you can still order copies of the special January NRL News. (The quickest way is to call 202-626-8828.) Please send your much appreciated thoughts and comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.  If you'd like, follow me on http://twitter.com/daveha.

The following is the first paragraph from an Associated Press story that ran this morning:

"WASHINGTON -- Democratic officials tell The Associated Press that President Barack Obama is featured in a new TV ad for endangered Democratic candidate Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. The ad comes one day before Tuesday's special election, and one day after the president appeared at a rally with the Democrat in Boston. Coakley is in a tight [Senate] race with Republican Scott Brown, and the White House is pulling out all the stops to try to keep the seat in Democratic hands."

Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley are vying to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass)

Obama's last-minute TV ad is the latest example of his reversing course yet still being caught in a vise. Advised to keep his distance from a race the outcome of which will determine whether Democrats retain their 60-40 margin in the Senate, Obama has belatedly come to realize that his prestige is on the line whether he dips in a toe or jumps in with both feet. His prestige and possibly the fate of his abortion-ridden, rationing-threatening health care restructuring bill.

A formidable candidate in his own right, Obama's political coattails have proven to be non-existent. Pro-life candidates defeated pro-abortion opponents for governor two months ago in Virginia and New Jersey. There, too, Obama floated above the contests until the last minute before parachuting in at the last minute to no avail.

In Massachusetts, there is increasing talk about a "perfect storm." Coakley, by all accounts, is a dreadful candidate, as overconfident as she is underwhelming. Brown is excellent on the stump and his television advertisements are superior. The two are vying to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Moreover, Massachusetts has been essentially a one-party state for more than half a century which makes it no surprise that the Democrats would fall prey to the temptations that go along with nearly absolute power. They are facing a citizen revolt over corruption, cronyism, and a carefree disregard for the electorate.

On top of that is the backlash in Massachusetts--as nearly everywhere else--over the health care restructuring bill. Brown is against it, Coakley in favor. But the tide is against the gargantuan measure, and has been for months.

What to do? Well, panic makes cowards of us all, so it's no surprise that Democrats are openly considering options that will make a terrible situation for them even worse.

They have persuaded themselves that unless they pass a health care restructuring bill, the electorate will take their measure in November, judge them incapable of governing, and turn against the Democrats. The irony is, of course, that everything they are doing is producing a bill that will likely cost them even more dearly next November.

The Senate chose not to include the equivalent of the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment the House added. With pro-abortionists in leadership positions everywhere in both Houses, the temptation to try to ram through a bill that accedes to the Planned Parenthoods and NARALs will be very great.

At the same time, there is open discussion about two other alternatives, both of which will stir additional waves of voter rebellion. If Brown wins tomorrow, Democrats are talking about taking their own sweet time officially recognizing his election. Since Democrats in Massachusetts have routinely ignored standing requirements in order to quickly seat their candidates in special elections, the stench from this hypocrisy would be overpowering.

In addition, some Democrats have floated an idea that was once thought to be out of the discussion. Consider this from Fox News:

"Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told Bloomberg this week that Democrats are still considering reconciliation, a tactic that allow certain legislation to pass in the Senate with just 51 votes, or a simple majority. The House Ways and Means Committee structured the bill so the Senate could tuck the legislation into the annual budget spending package, leaving the door open to reconciliation."

It would also likely trigger something close to a political crisis.

Democrats are on a downward spiral that is leading them to consider tactics and positions that a clear majority of the electorate rejects. All of this will come into clearer focus tomorrow when we learn the results from Massachusetts.

Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Part Two
Part Three