By Dave Andrusko

Please send your thoughts and comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.  Thank you!

In the 40 years I have followed politics, if I've learned nothing else, I've learned how foolish it is to assume. That is why I do not assume Republican Scott Brown will defeat Democrat Martha Coakley today in the special election to serve the remainder of the late Senator Ted Kennedy's term. The special election has assumed enormous importance, given that a victory by Brown would deprive Senate Democrats of the 60 votes they need to end Republican filibusters.

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

By all accounts, Coakley has run an abysmal campaign, Brown, a top-drawer campaign. And while it is true that Republicans have had some luck winning the governor's race in Massachusetts, it is no less true that the last time they won an open Senate seat in the Bay State was 1966.

Having said that, the punditocracy has turned on Coakley, the national Democratic political machinery, and, to a much lesser extent, pro-abortion President Barack Obama. Some directly invoke the obvious--the citizen revolt against the colossus also known as health care "reform"--others not.

Let me offer a just a few of many quotes, courtesy of realclearpolitics.com which provided most of the links.

"If health care is a problem even in the blue state of Massachusetts, imagine what it would be like in a swing state like Colorado." (Mike Allen of politico.com)

"In politics this is ten on the Richter scale and anyone who says otherwise is lying." ( Jim VandeHei, also of politico.com)

"But do you think they will?" (George Stephanoulous, now of "Good Morning America," his voice cracking on the last word. He was responding, with considerable skepticism, to a Democratic strategist's assertion that the Democratic voters of Massachusetts would prove the "Washington Democrats" wrong about the outcome.)

"Has Democratic-leaning Massachusetts lost its mind?" (MSNBC's Mike Shuster)

"But it's not true that Brown has stalled. In fact, the Democrat is cratering." (Republican strategist Mary Matalin, on "Good Morning America," responding to Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who said, "Brown has stalled over the past couple of days.")

As I say, we'll all know more tonight. Two quick points directly related to our concerns over any health care "reform" that promotes abortion and threatens rationing.

Based on news stories this morning, Matalin concluded that the Obama Administration was going to "double down" on the mistakes it has made in its first year, as exemplified by health care restructuring.

An article in politico.com this morning confirms that assessment:

"President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday's special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say. 'This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt,' a senior administration official said. 'It more reinforces the conviction to fight hard.'" Which, of course, immediately invokes memories of the definition of insanity (attributed to Albert Einstein): doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

But the Obama Administration's grip on reality is even more tenuous than that. In that same article, written by Mike Allen, we read, "White House senior adviser David Axelrod told reporters that Democrats will not allow the midterm elections to become 'a referendum on this administration' but, instead, will force Republicans to defend the role they have played in the economic crisis." Sorry, that's not the way it works. Democrats have massive majorities in both Houses and the presidency. The buck stops with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

Speaking of 60 votes in the Senate, "It's not as if having 60 votes in the Senate has made life a walk in the park," one Democrat pointed out to Allen. I'm assuming he/she made that statement with a straight face, but maybe not. No ordinary citizen will buy that ridiculous, self-serving silliness.

But my favorite attempt to find what Allen called "shards of hope," is that "The narrower majority will force more White House engagement with Republicans, which could actually help restore a bit of the post-partisan image that was a fundamental ingredient of his appeal to voters."

Seriously? If Brown wins, there will be one more Republican, "shrinking" the Democrats' majority to 59-41. There has been nothing in the first year of the Obama Administration that would even hint it would think about genuinely engaging Republicans on (for example) health care/abortion/rationing. They would simply try to pick off one pro-abortion Republican from the Northeast and go on as if nothing happened January 19.

We will keep a close eye on the health care "reform" measure, whether it is the current Senate version that

Democrats try to slip through, a "compromise," or a new bill. Please be sure to regularly check http://nrlactioncenter.com.

If you have a chance, do keep an eye on the returns tonight. If you're a Brown supporter, you want a cushion of at least 3%-4%.

I'm from Minnesota, and our pro-life Republican incumbent Senator was ahead election night 2008. Over the course of the next weeks and months votes were "discovered," and the pro-abortion Democrat was declared the winner.

Talk to you tomorrow.