…why didn’t he mention it?

They may be able to delay certifying Brown, but Kirk will not be able to provide the sixtieth vote after election day. So it won’t matter what kind of games they want to play with the Brown certification.

The latest rumor is that the last-ditch ploy will be to tell the House that they have to just vote for the Senate bill, so it won’t need the sixty votes after reconciliation.

The problem with that is, I’ll bet they don’t have 218 votes for that. Particularly after the now-expected outcome in Massachusetts on Tuesday. They won’t get Stupak’s vote, for sure.

I have to say that there’s another good outcome of this whole thing. I’ve finally learned how to spell Massachusetts reliably. I could never figure out whether there were supposed to be two esses in the second one, or two tees, or both. Of course, I’ve never made the stupid mistake that the Coakley people did. And they live there. Supposedly…

[Update a few minutes later]

Patrick Kennedy is a big fan of “Marcia” Coakley. Do all of these Democrat morons need remedial spelling lessons? Or is it that they just have a problem with names? Either way, hilarious, and it just adds to the fun.

[Monday morning update]

Intrade now has Brown at 66, Coakley at 35.

AP interviews people who are disappointed by Barack Obama. The oxymoronity of these people (a “fiscal conservative,” and a Ron-Paul libertarian who voted for him) is staggering.

Obama and Coakley can’t fill a 3000-person hall in Boston. I guess the magic is gone.

Meanwhile, it’s standing-room only at the Brown rallies.

[Sunday evening update]

The latest Cross-Target poll is out, taken this afternoon, while Obama was rallying the troops (what few he could get to attend). It has Brown up by over ten points among likelies, with a 4% margin.

To me, the tale is here:

2. And do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Scott Brown? If favorable press 1. If unfavorable press 2. If you are undecided press 3.

1. Favorable 60.3%
2. Unfavorable 31.9%
3. Undecided 7.8%

3. And what about Martha Coakley? Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Martha Coakley? If favorable press 1. If unfavorable press 2. If you’re undecided press 3.

1. Favorable 39.7%
2. Unfavorable 54.2%
3. Undecided 6.1%

The Donkeys will use this as an excuse, saying that they just had a terrible candidate. I think that the turnout at the president’s rally today belies that. They were stupid enough to think that, because it was Massachusetts, and Teddy’s seat, that they could nominate a ham sandwich and win. She certainly thought so, since she quit campaigning after she won the primary.

They completely misread the mood of not just the nation, but of the state. If they try to ram this crap sandwich down our throats now, the retribution in the fall will be apocalyptic for them. Of course, at this point, even their efforts will be pretty devastating to them, as they were in 1994. And also of course, when it happens, they’ll say (and even insanely delude themselves into believing) that it wasn’t because they tried to socialize medicine, in defiance of all the polls, but rather because they failed. Because, you know, they’re never wrong.

Iowahawk is running a contest.

VOICE OVER
Just how brown is Republican Scott “Brown”? Here’s what the Republican says:

SCOTT BROWN CLIP
I’m Scott Brown.

V/O
But the pictures tell a different story. In fact, Republican Scott Brown is not brown at all. He’s 100% lily white. And 100% Republican. if Republican Scott “Brown” is willing to lie about that, what else is he willing to lie about?

Republican liar Scott “Brown.” Wrong on color, and wrong for Massachusetts. And Republican.

Especially Republican.

[Update a few minutes later]

I like this one from comments:

WIFE: They say Scott Brown wants to end poor people’s medical care.

HUSBAND: I hear he wants to steal Ted Kennedy’s corpse and drop it from a plane onto school children.

WIFE: The same school children he wants to run naked through a bonfire as they worship Azathoth.

HUSBAND: The same giant demon that will appear on the state flag after Brown moves the capitol to Dunwich.

V.O.: Scott Brown: Good for the Great Old Ones; Bad for Massachusetts.

Plus, he’s a Republican.

Hey, it’s what Stalinists do…

Scott Brown went ahead of Coakley this morning at Intrade. He’s now up 55-45. Even with her campaign imploding (her latest gaffe was to call Curt Schilling a Yankee fan), the money had been on her to win all last week, but apparently no more.

…to want to see Coakley lose, consider the evil travesty of misjustice she was responsible for in the Amirault case.

Attorney General Martha Coakley—who had proven so dedicated a representative of the system that had brought the Amirault family to ruin, and who had fought so relentlessly to preserve their case—has recently expressed her view of this episode. Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was “formidable” and that she was entirely convinced “those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants.”

What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley’s concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.

If the sound of ghostly laughter is heard in Massachusetts these days as this campaign rolls on, with Martha Coakley self-portrayed as the guardian of justice and civil liberties, there is good reason.

Rabinowitz’ Pulitzer was well deserved.