No Media Bias To See Here, Please Move Along

Jim Geraghty draws a pretty good picture of what conservatives have come to expect regarding news coverage from the mainstream media.  As he notes, Northrup Grumman has picked northern Virginia as the new home for its corporate headquarters, which is a nice feather in the cap of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.  The Washington Post runs the story on page A14, although it does run as the top story in the business section.  But the Post somehow sees fit to make mention of the Confederate History Month imbroglio in the story, as if it is somehow related to Northrup's relocation to Virginia.

The only comforting part about this is that it's not like anyone will read the dead tree version of the Post anyway.

A Good Start, Mr. McDonnell

My new governor takes on some sacred cows in his first budget proposal...

Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) has privately recommended cutting $730 million from K-12 education and $300 million from health programs, as well as changing the state retirement system and requiring 10 days of furloughs for state employees, all to help offset a $2.2 billion budget shortfall over two years, according to sources familiar with the plan.

The K-12 reductions would loosen the state's basic educational standards while reducing funds for support staff, supplemental salaries for coaches and teachers who serve as club sponsors, and health insurance for teachers.

The health cuts would reduce mental-health treatment beds by 232, take 5 percent in funds from community service boards that offer substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, and freeze enrollment for a program that provides insurance to low-income children.

The governor is also recommending millions of dollars in trims to public libraries, shuttering some state parks and phasing out all public broadcasting support over four years.

My biggest complaint is that he isn't cutting enough, but this is hopefully just a start. The actual budget is slightly different than those reported cust, but it's still a better than decent start. And McDonnell's rhetoric, while sympathetic, is a lot better than the woe-is-me stuff from the other side...

"All the cuts gave me heartburn,'' McDonnell said. "All of them were difficult because I know that behind every cut there is a Virginian -- somebody in this room or somebody out of the 7.8 million people we have -- that might be affected by that."

Reponse to the proposed reductions was swift.

"We're really throwing kids in the poorest districts under the bus,'' said Robley S. Jones, director of government affairs for the Virginia Education Association, which represents teachers. ''Honestly, I don't know what school systems like Lee and Petersburg are going to do."

"Governor McDonnell, state legislators, and other officials must be aware that cutting funding to community mental health services, reducing Medicaid provider reimbursement rates, and eliminating acute inpatient beds puts extraordinary pressure on an already overburdened system," said Mira Signer, executive director of NAMI Virginia. "Individuals with serious mental illness need to be able to access treatment and services at the time when they go looking for them; if they aren't available due to waiting lists or too few providers, there are consequences."

"Virginia ranks 48th among the states for Medicaid spending per capita and 45th in Medicaid spending as a share of the state budget," says Laurens Sartoris, president of the Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association. "Virginia's Medicaid program already is extraordinarily lean. There comes a point when cuts of this magnitude will hurt all Virginians and cause long-term damage to Virginia's health care delivery system."

You know what, guys? Make do with less. The money funding these budgets comes out the pockets of people who have to do that in the midst of a recession. They lose their jobs, take pay cuts, and work harder for less. Unlike the federal government, states can't print money, and raising taxes drives people (and jobs with tax revenue) out of state. Kudos, Governor. Now let's cut some more.

What Can Brown Do For Massachusetts?

Four days before the special election, Martha Coakley's getting insulted by her fellow Democrats in every way possible...

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. "With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.

Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

A few thoughts are in order. First, I live in Virginia, and I can confirm that Creigh Deeds ran a terrible campaign. But Coakley as a candidate makes Deeds look like Barack Obama, circa 2008. Last night, she managed to take a rather risky stand that may alienate Catholic voters, in a state with just a few Catholic voters. She also insulted shaking hands outside Fenway Park, which people in Boston probably find even more offensive. She also took a six day vacation during the holidays, which is fine as a choice, but may be a strategic misstep when the general election campaign is shorter than 60 days. Maybe I'm too far removed from Massachusetts to appreciate her better qualities as a campaigner, but I tend to doubt it.

Second, this is horribly unfair to Creigh Deeds for another reason. Virginia is, at best, a newly minted purple state state. I know we have two Democratic Senators, but both ran as moderates and won election during good years for Democrats. Deeds was running in a bad year for Dems in a state that's not pre-disposed to backing Dems reflexively. Yes, Deeds lost by 20 points, but losing itself wasn't the surprise, just the margin.

By contrast, Martha Coakley was running as a Democrat in a state that's a darker shade of blue than the Blue Man Group. She should win going away, even in a year that's bad for Democrats. The better campaign comparison to last fall might be Jon Corzine in New Jersey, except that the voters also disliked Corzine because he was the incumbent Governor. I guess they might be coming to the belated recognition that Coakley's a bad Attorney General (Dorothy Rabinowitz's piece in the Wall Street Journal is a must-read), but I doubt that's driving away Massachusetts voters like Corzine's performance as Governor did in New Jersey. And keep in mind, Coakley's managed to blow a 30 point lead. I'm not sure if Deeds ever had the lead in his race, but he certainly didn't pull a Houston Oiler gag job.

Third, that piece above is a front for the theory that it's not Obama's fault. If Coakley wins, I guarantee that the Obama White House will try to paint this as a referendum on health care and Obama's policies, and try to take credit for it. But they're now on record as assigning the blame for the loss to her and her alone. Jennifer Rubin has the counterpoint to that here...

Since September, the country has witnessed the visible battle over ObamaCare — late-night votes, Cash for Cloture deals, and a bill that offends a wide array of groups. Democrats have never looked up or paused to consider the public’s views on the matter. They tell us they will “sell it” to us later. That arrogant defiance of public opinion and the unseemly legislative process that produced a grossly unpopular bill have fueled a resurgence of anger and determination among conservatives and even usually apathetic independents. They now are anxious to send a message to Washington: stop ignoring the voters. We saw it in New Jersey and Virginia. Now we learn that even Massachusetts may not be immune.

The Democrats’ agenda, specifically a hugely unpopular health-care bill, has unified and energized not the proponents of big government but the opposition, which now is itching for the chance to exact revenge. We’ll see on Tuesday if that wave of resentment is so powerful as to extend even to a state so Blue that a little over a year ago, Obama carried it by more than 25 points.

Yes, Coakley's run a crappy campaign, but it's Massachusetts. This is a state that voted for George McGovern. You need more than just a crappy campaign as a Democrat to lose a statewide race in Massachusetts -- and one of those things you probably need is a Democratic President and Democratic Congress angering and galvanizing the opposition. And yet, she's now behind by 4 points in the most recent poll. As Ace of Spades noted, it's almost like Coakley is trying to lose, so Senate Dems can blame the loss of the 41st seat as the reason they couldn't pass Obamacare.

Which brings me to the final point here. I'm a believer in momentum in political campaigns, or the "Big Mo" as Bush 41 used to say. Forget the Big Mo -- at this point, all the momentum is on Scott Brown's side. Yes, I'm still worried about a Saturday Surprise or a Sunday Slime, but I'm guessing that if Coakley had a silver bullet, she would have used it already. She's running a crazy number of negative ads, but I've always believed those tend to depress turnout from the other side, and Brown's supporters still look like they plan to show up (while Democrats continue to appear unenthused).

I've been skeptical of Brown's chances for a long time. Perhaps I still should be. But that Suffolk poll showing him up four points, along with the signs of panic on the Democratic side, have changed the relevant question here in this race. Before, people asked, "Can he win? Can he make it close?" Now, the question is, "Will he win?" Subtle change, but now people believe he can win -- it's no longer a Hail Mary possibility. That's big -- people like supporting a winner, and I firmly believe late-deciders tend to break toward a candidate who looks like he or she will win. Brown's now in that zone. To paraphrase Jim Croce singing about another Mr. Brown, he's the baddest man in the whole damn state. Here's hoping he closes the deal.