Maricopa COunty Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Senator Joe Arpaio? It has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? Following the news that Arizona Senator John Kyl is stepping down, a poll was conducted to find out who has the most support. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio led with 21%, followed by Rep. Jeff Flake with 16.8%, and J.D. Hayworth with 16.6%.

This poll should be taken with a grain of salt, since John Kyl just announced that he isn’t running for re-election, the election is almost 2 years away, and there were a large number of undecided voters. Still, it has to be encouraging for Joe Arpaio to see his name at the top of the list.

If Arpaio were to run, I have no doubt he would run a strong campaign. With a national reputation for protecting the border, he would be a strong voice for border security and immigration reform. We need more people in elected office who are willing to protect our borders, while disregarding political correctness. He could be that candidate

I would like to see Obamacare repealed, and I’m glad to see that a vote was taken on the issue. What we have here is nothing more than politicians standing on a soap box and wasting time. Anyone following the issue knows that the GOP doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to make any meaningful changes, yet they push on.

My guess is that they continue because they want something they can point to when they run for re-election next year. The problem is that it is taking time away from important matters that they might actually be able to solve. Unfortunately, this type of thinking, and these types of actions are far too prevalent in Washington.

There are certainly more competent candidates to challenge Scott Brown, but if Kennedy does challenge Brown, it would automatically become one of the most competitive races in the country. The question isn’t if Kennedy will pursue the seat, but when.

From the beginning, Scott Brown said he would vote against Obamacare, and would be the 61st Senator needed to stop the Democrats. The fact that this message resonated with one of the bluest states in the country illustrates the level of discontent with Congress and Barack Obama. This is just the latest loss for the Democrats. You might recall the huge losses for the Democrats in the November 2009 elections when both Virgina and New Jersey elected Republican governors. Some felt that those elections weren’t really much of a barometer for national sentiment. However, Scott Brown’s win leaves no doubt that the Republican party has the momentum.

Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi should look at this moment as a judgment of their leadership. A moment where a state that tends to support their ideas overwhelmingly, finally had enough. It’s one thing to have your political enemies criticize you, but when your methods receive a rebuke from your own, it’s time to reconsider your approach.

There’s no doubt that this momentum will carry forward into the November elections. It’s very likely that Republicans could pick up a half-dozen Senate seats and possibly gain control of the House. Hopefully, when they return to power, they will practice the fiscal conservatism that voters sought when they put them in office.

I’m very optimistic that Scott Brown will win the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. If he does, it will send an overwhelming message to Barack Obama and every Democrat in Congress. Americans are tired of big government, and they plan on letting them know just how much in November 2010 and 2012.

If you haven’t seen the clip where Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown corrects David Gergen during a debate with Martha Coakley, you must check it out. During the debate, David Gergen asks Scott Brown about “Teddy Kennedy’s seat”, and Brown reminds him that the seat belongs to the people, not the Kennedys or the Democratic party.

Scott Brown’s campaign was seen as a long-shot at first, but he is quickly picking up momentum. As of late, he has been quite successful raising funds, and his name recognition has increased steadily. Democrats probably thought Martha Coakley would walk right over to “Teddy Kennedy’s seat” and just sit down, but Brown will have none of that.

This election is of extreme national importance. If Scott Brown wins, the Democrats will lose their 60th vote, which will force them to actually be more reasonable and prevent them from ramming through dangerous legislation. A Brown victory would stop Obamacare in its tracks and force Congress to look at other ways to improve the system. Of course, this is what should happen, but we can’t be sure.

William Galvin, Massachusetts’ Secretary of State, and a Democrat, seems to think it could take a while before a winner is certified and allowed to be seated. After all, he needs to follow the rules. Of course, this would mean that Ted Kennedy’s old buddy, Paul Kirk, would remain in the Senate to cast the 60th vote. Questionable tactics are nothing new to Massachusetts Democrats, since these are the same people who changed the law to allow the Democratic governor to appoint a fellow Democrat to fill Kennedy’s seat. Not surprisingly, Congressmen Barney Frank thinks this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory:

“That is the stupidest thing I’ve been asked in a long time. That is insane, the suggestion could only come from a demented right wing source,” erupted Representative Barney Frank (D – MA), when asked by The Washington Times about what he thought regarding assertions that Massachusetts Democrats would stall the certification process should Mr. Brown win. “There isn’t the slightest possibility of it happening—a way of doing it. That is conspiracy theory at its most contemptible.”

The Secretary of State needs to wait 10 days for absentee ballots, then up to 5 days to file the necessary papers. Once this happens, the ball is in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s court. An aide had this to say:

“When there is a certified winner in Massachusetts, the Senate has received appropriate papers, and the vice president is available, the successor to Kennedy/Kirk will be sworn in.”

Let’s take a look at how Scott Brown’s certification could be handled. We need to wait up to 15 days for Massachusetts to file papers, wait for the papers which will likely be sent by the Pony Express to arrive in D.C., wait for the mail to be opened and make the long 12 foot journey from Harry Reid’s secretary to his desk, then wait for Joe Biden to have time available in his schedule. Since the V.P. is such a busy guy, that could take weeks! Even if Scott Brown wins, the fight will not be over.

You would think that progressives would vehemently oppose any changes to Medicare expansion. The scary part will happen if progressives are fine with the decision to drop the expansion. If they go along with the idea, then read carefully: The bill will be guaranteed to contain even bigger costs and give-aways.

The expansion of Medicare is an expansion of a single-payer system that is already in existence, which is the goal of progressives. In order for them to even consider giving up this option, moderates will have to make costly concessions. Keep your eyes open.

“Why are women being singled out here? It’s so unfair,” Boxer said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “We don’t tell men that if they want to … buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can’t do it.”

Will someone please tell Barbara Boxer that this isn’t an attack on women. If someone were trying to block payments for hysterectomies, then she would certainly have a point, and the Viagra comparison would be suitable. However, her comparison of of abortions to Viagra is laughable. If an abortion isn’t performed in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, then the procedure is nothing but birth control for the wreckless. Viagra is used by men attempting to restore a function that has been lost. How can she compare the two?

She could have made the comparisons due to stupidity, or intellectual dishonesty. You can make that decision. To me, she is just trying to scare her colleagues into being labeled an anti-woman sexists who is trying to take away women’s rights. Of course, this amendment wouldn’t take away a woman’s right to choose, it would merely require her to pay for her choice. I don’t see how this is a problem.

I’m strongly prochoice, yet I don’t want my tax dollars being used to pay for abortions unless they are required due to rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I think this is a rather popular position, and Barbara Boxer knows it. As a result, she is trying to distort the argument to cover the true intent of the amendment. It’s a lot easier to demonize someone for being a sexist than it is for making sure tax dollars are not being used to pay for irresponsible behavior.

You will undoubtedly hear Democrats complain would Nader taking votes away from Dodd, and giving the Republican candidate an advantage. There’s no doubt that many of Nader’s supporters lean toward the Democratic party, but this criticism is narrow-minded. Nader’s views are close to those of the Democrats. Here’s a suggestion: Why don’t Democrats actually give Nader a shot, since they share many of his views, rather than blindly voting for an incumbent who needs to go?

I don’t live in Connecticut, so I won’t be voting in this election, but if I did, I would much rather see a Republican win. However, if a Republican candidate doesn’t win, Nader would be the better choice over Dodd, since he would offer a fresh perspective, and strikes me as an honest person.