With the Senate’s passage of financial regulation, Congress and the White House have completed 16 months of activity that rival any other since the New Deal in scope or ambition. Like the Reagan Revolution or Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, the new progressive period has the makings of a generational shift in how Washington operates.

First came a stimulus bill that, while aimed mainly at ending a deep recession, also set out to remake the nation’s educational system and vastly expand scientific research. Then President Obama signed a health care bill that was the biggest expansion of the safety net in 40 years. And now Congress is in the final stages of a bill that would tighten Wall Street’s rules and probably shrink its profit margins.

If there is a theme to all this, it has been to try to lift economic growth while also reducing income inequality. Growth in the decade that just ended was the slowest in the post-World War II era, while inequality has been rising for most of the last 35 years.

It is far too early to know if these efforts will work. Their success depends enormously on execution and, in the case of financial regulation, specifically on the Federal Reserve, which did not distinguish itself during the housing bubble.

Already, though, one downside to the legislative spurt does seem clear. By focusing on long-term problems, Mr. Obama and the Democrats have given less than their full attention to the economy’s current weakness and turned off a good number of voters.

After months of discussion, and with the unemployment rate hovering near a 27-year high, Democratic leaders said Thursday they had finally reached agreement on a bill that would send aid to states and take other steps to increase job growth. Congress plans to vote on the bill next week. But some of the money will not be spent for months and may not be enough to affect voters’ attitudes before November’s midterm elections.

Still, the turnabout since Jan. 20 — the first anniversary of Mr. Obama’s inauguration and the day after Scott Brown, a Republican, won a Senate seat in liberal Massachusetts — has been remarkable. Then, commentators pronounced the Obama presidency nearly dead. Today, he looks more like a liberal answer to Ronald Reagan.

“If you’d asked me about this administration after Scott Brown was elected, I’d have told you it was going to fizzle into virtually nothing,” said Theda Skocpol, the Harvard political scientist. “Now it could easily be one of the pivotal periods in domestic policy.” But, Ms. Skocpol added, “It will depend on what happens in the next two elections.”

Continue reading here. Ms. Skocpol is right; the next two elections will be decisive. You can’t say you weren’t warned.

Their latest pitch is that the highpoint of the GOP advance was the Scott Brown election and that, from here on, things will “improve slightly” for the Democrats.

Once again, Carville and Greenberg are totally misreading the public mood. Each time the Republican activists battle, they become stronger. Their cyber and grass roots grow deeper. The negatives that attach to so-called “moderate” Democratic incumbents increase. And each time Obama, Reid and Pelosi defy public opinion and use their majorities to ram through unpopular legislation, frustration and anger rise.

Were Obama’s ambitions to slacken, perhaps a cooling-off might eventuate. But soon the socialist financial takeover bill will come on the agenda, followed by amnesty for illegal immigrants, cap-and-trade and card-check unionization. Each bill will trigger its own mobilization of public opposition and add to the swelling coalition of opposition to Obama and his radical agenda.

And, all the while, the deficit will increase, interest rates will rise and unemployment will remain high.

Meanwhile, the political process will generate more and more strong Republican challengers. We have yet to see if former Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin or Dino Rossi of Washington state will emerge to challenge Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Better House candidates will decide to capitalize on the momentum and will jump into the race and Republican donors will come out of hiding, their efforts catalyzed by the growing optimism about GOP chances.

Presaging the looming Republican sweep is the shift in the party ratings on various issues. Rasmussen has the Republicans ahead by 49-37 on the economy and 53-37 on healthcare. His likely-voter poll shows GOP leads on every major issue area: national security (49-37), Iraq (47-39), education (43-30), immigration (47-34), Social Security (48-36) and taxes (52-34).

When Republicans are winning issues like education, healthcare and Social Security — normally solidly Democratic issues — a sweep of unimaginable proportions is in the offing.

Will the rise in economic growth and job creation — if they continue — offset the Republican gains? Not very likely. Remember Bill Clinton’s 1994 experience. Even though the recession had officially ended in the quarter before he took office and he proudly pointed to the 5 million new jobs that had been created during the first two years of his presidency, Clinton got no bounce from the jobs issue or the economy. Even in the election of 1996, the economy was only marginally a source of strength for the Democratic president. It wasn’t until impeachment that the job growth that had been ongoing since he took office began to work heavily in his favor with the public. The hangover from a recession, and certainly from one as violent as this, lasts a long time. A very long time.

And all this assumes that things will, indeed, improve. Worries about inflation loom large and concerns that higher taxes and interest rates will trigger a new downturn also abound. As long as the deficit is as high as it is, there is no solid foundation for a sustained period of economic growth.

Finally, Obama is now responsible for healthcare in America. When premiums rise, it will be his fault. When coverage is denied, it will be on his watch.

When Medicare cuts kick in, it will be Obama who gets the blame.

Carville’s last book touted “40 more years of Democrats.” Now he dreams of a loss of “only” 25 seats in the House and “six or seven” senators. But these are pipe dreams. Republicans will gain more than 50 House seats and at least 10 in the Senate, enough to take control in both chambers. That’s reality.

This article originally appeared in The Hill.

One of the many players who contributed to Scott Brown’s victory is Ken Pittman from WBSM in Massachusetts. Ken interviewed Democrat Martha Coakley the week before the Massachusetts election. It was during this interview that Martha told Ken that if you object to abortion and are a devout Catholic then…

“You probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

That was the wrong answer.

Ken sent me this article last night that he wrote on this historic Massachusetts election:

America Chose the Pickup Truck Over the Prius

In what has to be the most important non-presidential election race in many decades, Scott Brown won a most unlikely race in the state bluer than Frank Sinatra’s eyes, Massachusetts. So much weighed on the outcome outside of our state that the RNC finally heeded to the desperate cries for help from those of us here who have fought behind the enemy lines, praying for the cavalry for a half century.

On Tuesday night, January 19^th 2010 at the Boston Park Plaza, I felt something like what the fictitious shipwrecked character Robinson Crusoe must have felt after seeing a mast come over the horizon for the first time.

To his credit (as a politician) it is clear that Senator Ted Kennedy was the glue that bonded the cohesiveness of this impenetrable synergy of liberal progressiveness in Massachusetts. With his death it appears that many notes were paid off. Allegiances broke and rival camps formed within the same party. Ted never allowed that on his watch.

While all that is true, it cannot alone explain what we witnessed last Tuesday. Governing from the left as Massachusetts has been doing, has built an under the radar, untapped resentment that never worked as a collaborative. The resistance has always been poorly articulated, fragmented and apparently unaware of the alliances that never formulated.

Never, that is until around Christmas of 2009. A little known state senator from the almost forgotten political party called Republican campaigned tirelessly in town after town building support in liberal working class cities as well as bedroom community towns. Scott Brown didn’t fear the 30 point lead his opponent Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley enjoyed and enjoy she did.

Coakley’s abysmal campaign came with as many errors as Brown’s came with momentum.

The week she took off between Christmas and New Year’s Day will be discussed in poli-sci classes for many years to come and I believe there to be a story behind that worthy of investigating. Some will say the Christmas Eve vote on healthcare by the senate caused a backlash. Was it an antagonistic move against the Christian right by secular progressives? Was it the Christmas Day bombing attempt over Detroit by an al Qa’eda pawn? Was this a reminder of how Democrats in the 1990s ignored national security threats made by radicals? I think all of the above may be in the equation.

Martha Coakley antagonizing devout Catholics, if not all those of moral principle, with her remarks about who should and shouldn’t be working in emergency rooms revealed a radical in the candidate that really didn’t plan on showing that side of herself until the 20^th of January. Calling an ace pitcher of the Boston Red Sox “another Yankee fan” was a tad unwise. Curt Schilling? Accusing that local hero who helped to deliver the first World Series championship for Boston in 86 years wasn’t classic strategy for most observing pundits.

However, living in Massachusetts broadcasting from Barney Frank’s district on the south coast qualifies me to say that all of the above still doesn’t explain what happened.

The lesson which must be learned is that when the ideological pendulum swings hard, right or left, it also comes back with a lot of momentum. Republicans need to learn this truth as well. If the agenda of those governing isn’t executed and articulated successfully , the governed will eventually turn on the plan and the planners.

The ideological bigotry which plagues this nation is hamstringing progress and prosperity but the corruption and demonization by opponents clouds this problem by filling the room already on fire with thick, choking black smoke.

Scott Brown is a man who naturally migrates toward conservative ideals but is thoughtful enough to be inclusive for those who care about political issues yet disagree with his specific path. This has produced in Massachusetts a man who has designed a truly centrist platform.

He doesn’t shy away from disrobing the radical left’s plans but doesn’t visibly side with the conservatives in any monolithic fashion (the key word was visibly if you are wondering).

As a result we are seeing a dream realized here that only months ago seemed years away.

President Obama’s candy coated promises have produced bitter results and the veil seems to have been lifted. The trance has been broken. The instrument is Scott Brown. The people have decidedly chosen to side with the candidate who calls for sterner treatment of enemy combatants and who is sending the healthcare plans back to the kitchen. Martha Coakley ran on the Obama agenda of nationalized healthcare and climate change.

Democrats have made a potential fatal error politically in not identifying the mainstream movement dubbed “The Tea Parties”. It is nothing close to fringe. They have decided to apply the ‘us against them’ tactic and find themselves on the threshold of obscurity. To this day, they don’t seem able to identify this.

Give Scott Brown credit though. He is a disciplined attorney. A JAG in the Army Reserves with the rank of Lt. Colonel. He has climbed the political ladder one rung at a time and is an experienced legislator. He is also the candidate who redirected the conversation from the clenches of an heir apparent opponent. National security, the economy and healthcare became his issues and not hers. He never got off message like so many can and often do once they get momentum.

Americans in Massachusetts have chosen the guy in his truck who tried to earn their vote and asked for it and they or should I finally say “WE” have shown the door to the Prius driving elitist who felt entitled to their votes with the promise of pushing through Obama’s agenda.

Ken Pittman

“Talker” on 1420 AM WBSM – “The Ken Pittman Show” – New Bedford, MA – Blogs at kenpittman.com

As reported in a previous article, Senator Harkin clearly contradicted President Obama when he stated:

Labor leaders had announced an agreement with White House and congressional representatives over an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans on the Thursday before the special election.

Harkin said “we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn’t get it back.” He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, Jan. 15.

Harkin made clear that negotiators had reached a final deal on the entire bill, not just the excise plans, which had been reported the previous day, Jan. 14.

Harkin said the deal covered the prescription-drug “donut hole,” the level of federal insurance subsidies, national insurance exchanges and federal Medicaid assistance to states.

Senator Harkin would know if a deal was done as he was in the marathon meeting at the White House on January 13, 2010. On the same day, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid put out a brief joint statement:

“Today we made significant progress in bridging the remaining gaps between the two health insurance reform bills. We’re encouraged and energized, and we’re resolved to deliver reform legislation that provides more stability and security for those with insurance, extends coverage to those who don’t have coverage, and lowers costs for families, businesses, and governments.”

However, it appears that the statements made by Harkin weren’t so far-fetched. On January 14th, House Ways and Means Chairman, Charlie Rangel, who was also in the WH meetings, confirmed that the healthcare bill was on its way to the CBO for scoring, either Friday the 15th or Saturday the 16th, to reporter Anna Edney, who then Tweeted the information:

So, who is telling the truth? Harkin and Rangel or Obama at the GOP Retreat when he stated they were still working on those “stray cats and dogs” in the bill.

There is, however, one more problem. When you talk to members of Congress, they consistently refer to the health bill as being in “conference” to merge the House and Senate version. When, I went to the THOMAS bill tracking system, it mentions nothing of the sort. It has all of the amendments and votes, but the latest update has nothing about the bill being in conference as other legislation documents. This administration is circumventing the legislative process so much that the offical bill tracking system can’t even be updated properly.

The only conclusion that can be made is that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company were indeed attempting to jam through a healthcare bill and vote on it before the MA election, but time ran out for them and they lost a day due to the MLK federal holiday on January 18th. So much for Obama’s olive branch to the Republicans at the GOP retreat–all talk–just words as Obama’s says in this speech. I think we get it now, again, I hope the GOP does too.

The next questions are: where is the final agreement that went to the CBO and why haven’t the American people been shown the new merged bill?

From the article:

Labor leaders had announced an agreement with White House and congressional representatives over an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans on the Thursday before the special election.

Harkin said “we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn’t get it back.” He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, Jan. 15.

Harkin made clear that negotiators had reached a final deal on the entire bill, not just the excise plans, which had been reported the previous day, Jan. 14.

Harkin said the deal covered the prescription-drug “donut hole,” the level of federal insurance subsidies, national insurance exchanges and federal Medicaid assistance to states.

This cannot be right.

If Harkin is telling the truth, then that would mean President Obama is lying because at the GOP retreat, Obama stated that there were some “stray cats and dogs” in the legislation. This quote from Obama at the retreat:

“The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.”

So which is it? Was the health bill done as Harkin states? Or, were Obama and congressional leaders still trying to capture those stray cats and dogs? If the healthcare bill was sent to the CBO as Harkin confirms, then where’s the score? Was it withdrawn from the CBO due to the MA election?

These are just some of the questions that we will follow up.

Someone is clearly lying, stretching the truth, pandering to the GOP, whatever you want to call it. However, it appears that the White House was trying to jam through the healthcare bill before the MA election, but the CBO could not score it fast enough.

Let’s just hope the Republicans in Congress see the same tom-foolery that the American people see.

Did they learn that they’d better slow down their freight train of extremely left leaning policies? Did they learn that with 58% of Americans standing in opposition to Obamcare they’d better reassess their direction? Have they learned from an entire year of raucous healthcare townhalls, multiple loses at the polls, and tea party protests that brought out over a million people that they might be agitating the American people?

Nope.

Looks like the lesson they’ve learned is that they have to pass their bad policies faster before they really lose power in the November midterm elections. It seems that a certain self-righteous arrogance is what we are seeing from Democrats instead of an acknowledgment that the voters have chastised them in Virginia, New Jersey, and now blue, blue Massachusetts. Democrats have not learned that they’d better listen to the voters but instead have decided that they better move on their agenda even faster. It’s hubris that they’ve assumed not a mien of humbleness.

For his part the president has boldly claimed that even as more Americans every day are turning against his ideas he’d rather make of himself a “really good one-term president” and pass his cherished policies than win a second term. In yet another TV interview Obama told ABC’s Diane Sawyer that he doesn’t care if he pays a political price at the hands of an unhappy electorate.

The president has previously admitted the convoluted process of cobbling together the huge bill had alarmed voters, but said today he will not back off of tackling large issues despite the political jeopardy involved.

So it’s Katie bar the door, and full steam ahead as far as this president is concerned — voters be damned.

The president isn’t the only one. One-time Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle — a man who himself was thrown out of office by his constituents — told reporters about the lesson Brown taught him. Oh, it isn’t to slow down and think harder, no-siree. As far as Daschle is concerned the Dems need to hurry up and “do the right thing” and pass the hard bills that Americans are against. That, to Daschle, is “political courage.” Some may call it political suicide, others extreme arrogance, but, well, you know.

Another voice of the Democrat establishment is campaign wunderkind David Plouffe who the president has called back to Washington to help the donkies retake victory at the polls in 2010. Did Plouffe advise his patrons to step back and reevaluate their position? Uh, nope. Plouffe immediately began by saying that the Democrats should hurry up and pass Obamacare.

In a recent mass emailing, for instance, Plouffe told supporters that they have to push even harder on every policy that has caused the voters to rise in anger against them.

The President’s resolve has never been stronger to keep fighting for health insurance reform, for lasting job creation, and to rein in the big banks and fight the undue influence of lobbyists. Wednesday’s speech will be a pivotal moment for us all to get on the same page and continue the fight together.

Lesson learned? Hardly.

These few aren’t the only ones. The Associated Press is reporting that Congressional Democrats are gathering to unite on a health care strategy and that strategy is to pass through the House of Representatives the same Senate bill that drove Massachusetts voters to vote against their Democrat candidate for Senate.

Lesson learned: Hubris, not humbleness.

So what are the Democrat’s rewards thus far? Check out these headlines:

Poll: Americans glad Dems lost supermajority

Is The Senate Also In Play?

CNN Poll: 3 of 4 Americans say much of stimulus money wasted

Republicans Pull Ahead on Generic Ballot

If these headlines are any indication the voters really are trying to teach the Democrats a lesson. But if I can paraphrase a saying, Is Demmie learning?

Some highlights from the poll:

*       Independent Women Voters: This demographic was key to the electoral outcome. They bucked their gender, with 67% of them supporting Scott Brown.  Majorities say that Congress should stop the current levels of spending and call for enacting provisions that make it more affordable for people to buy health insurance on their own, instead of through their jobs, in the same way people buy homeowners’ and life insurance (56%). Two-thirds of Indie women would allow small businesses to form groups to buy healthcare coverage at lower rates, and 45% want Congress to “start over” on healthcare reform; just 2% say continue with the reform “as is.”

*   Those who had frequently voted for Ted Kennedy in the past (63% of the sample) had some surprising opinions: 79% of them said providing tax cuts to small businesses for job creation will speed up the nation’s economic recovery; 47% say Congress should open healthcare negotiations for the public to observe.

*     Healthcare Plays the Heaviest Hand: Nearly two-in-five (38%) actual voters said they had healthcare on the brain when deciding between candidates; of those, 57% said in a later question that they support current efforts being undertaken in Washington.  Other issues of importance were the economy (16%), jobs and unemployment (13%), government spending (7%), and taxes (3%), meaning that fiscal issues summed statistically-equal to healthcare (39%).  Among the 29% of respondents who said that healthcare was their top concern, the majority (51%) said it was because they oppose the current legislation being considered in Washington, D.C., 46% because they support it.

*National Security: Because the Christmas day near-miss terrorist attack happened during the campaign, the issue of national security presented itself.  During a rally, then-candidate Scott Brown said, “In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”  Sixty-four percent of voters indicated that hearing Scott Brown say this was “very” (42%) or “somewhat” (22%) important when deciding which candidate to support.  Seventy percent of voters who said the statement had importance cast ballots for Brown.

*       National Consequences: Whereas 72% of Brown voters said they cast votes “mostly for” him and 60% of Coakley voters said theirs were also “mostly for” her, voters had not forgotten the consequences of their voting decisions.  Consider that 80% of Brown voters said that their “all” or “some” of their votes were “to oppose President Obama’s agenda in Washington” and, similarly, 82% of Coakley supporters said that their “all” or “some” of their support was “to advance President Obama’s agenda in Washington.”

*       When asked which candidates they supported in the past – Democrats or Republicans – for United States Senate and then asked to anticipate how they will vote in the future, there was a seven-point difference between the percentage of voters saying they have always or mostly voted for Democrats and the percentage saying they will do so in the future

IWV — Massachusetts Post-Election Survey TOPLINE DATA to CLIENT 1.26.10 –

The poll, conducted for IWV by Women Trend, a division of the polling company™ inc. surveyed 411 Massachusetts voters from January 23rd-24th, 2010.

IWV — Massachusetts Post-Election Survey Release to CLIENT 1.26.10 –