Only a few months after his father passed away and a few weeks since a Republican was elected to take his father's seat in the Senate, it looks like Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) will be stepping back from the political spotlight.

The New York Times reported the following:

Representative Patrick Kennedy, the son of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, has told Democratic leaders that he will not seek re-election this year, a party official said Thursday evening.

Mr. Kennedy’s decision, which came six months after his father died, was expected to be formally announced Friday. It would mark the first time in a half-century that a Kennedy would not be serving in Congress.

Correction: I previously noted that Patrick Kennedy was a Congressman from New York, not Rhode Island. This has been corrected.

Last week, I noted how the Indiana Senate race changed, according to political experts, when former Senator Dan Coats showed an interest in joining the race. Although I am not going to take sides in the primary battle, it seems like Democrats are eager to knock Coats down and possibly get him out of the race.

In a piece entitled "Can Democrats dissuade Dan Coats from running?", Chris Cillizza noted how fiercely Democrats have attacked the Republican. Cilizza noted the following:

By hammering Coats before he even becomes a candidate, national Democrats want to make sure the former Senator understands what he is in for over the course of the next nine months (or so) and how much the media environment -- when it comes to politics -- has changed.

Second, assuming Coats is committed to run no matter what Democrats throw at him, the goal of the string of negative stories is to change the narrative from 'Bayh draws a serious challenge in Coats' to 'Coats, former lobbyist, returns home to Indiana to run'.
 

Last Thursday, NBC's First Read reported on some of the negative stories that recently came out about Mr. Coats. A First Read article noted that "In the last 24 hours, we’ve learned that Coats is a registered lobbyist; that he has been registered to vote in Virginia, not Indiana; and that he accused Bill Clinton of wagging the dog after launching strikes intended to hit al Qaeda in 1998."
 
Human Events' John Gizzi analyzed the Indiana race noting Coats' weaknesses along with the weaknesses of the incumbent Senator, Evan Bayh. Gizzi wrote, "In large part because of his vote in favor of the Obama-backed health care plan earlier this year, voter support for Bayh -- son of a former senator and himself a two-term former governor -- has plummeted, polls show." To take on Bayh, Coats would have to win a primary against at least two other Republicans. Gizzi noted that opponents "Hostettler and Stutzman are not likely to exit the May primary solely because Coats is jumping in."

Right now, though, it seems like Democrats are going after Coats hard possibly to get him to reconsider running. Dems may be scared to lose that Senate seat and they are doing what they can to get rid of some of their competition. Let's hope that Coats stays in the race and that a strong candidate emerges from the Republican primary to take on Senator Bayh this November.      

Yesterday, I noted the fact that Republicans have a chance of taking over the Illinois Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama. Later in the day yesterday, another possible Senate opportunity for the GOP presented itself in Indiana. As CNN.com reported, a new candidate has changed the dynamic in that race.

The CNN.com article noted the following:

Two well respected non-partisan political analysts have changed their ratings of this year's Senate race in Indiana, now that former Republican Sen. Dan Coats is taking the first steps towards challenging the incumbent, Democrat Evan Bayh.

Coats, who held the seat from 1989 to 1999, opened an exploratory committee Wednesday . Following that announcement The Cook Political Report moved it's characterization of the race from solid Democrat to lean Democrat. A solid rating means the contest is not considered competitive and not likely to become closely contested. A lean rating means the race is considered competitive but one party has an advantage.

Coats still has to face Republican opponents before he can face Bayh but his entrance to the race could be a sign of good things for Republicans in the state.

On Tuesday, the contentious Illinois Democratic Senatorial primary for the seat once held by President Barack Obama ended in a victory for treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. According to numerous news reports, those primary results may present an opening for Republicans to take that seat back this November.

In a New York Times article entitled "Illinois Senate Race Worries Dems Anew", the author wrote about how the primary results may spell trouble for the Democratic nominee this November. The article noted the following:

With four others on the ballot, Mr. [Alexi] Giannoulias won 39 percent of the Democratic vote... A little-known former federal prosecutor who had never run for office, David Hoffman, came within six percentage points of Mr. Giannoulias.

With much on the line here, including the symbolism of the president’s home state possibly slipping away, some Democrats were concerned that the party had played into the game plan of the Republicans, who chose Representative Mark Steven Kirk, a centrist-leaning suburbanite who hopes to appeal to the state’s independent voters and even some moderate Democrats.

A Hill article also noted that the Democratic nominee "comes equipped with a spotty record — under his watch, parents who put money into a college savings account lost as much as half of it — and ties to a family bank currently in meltdown and in the headlines." That article concludes by noting that "In Giannoulias, Kirk has been given a gift that will keep on giving, every day from today until the all-important midterms next November."

It is still too early to know if this will become a truly competitive race in the long run but for now, Republicans should look at this Senatorial race with much optimism about a potential Democratic seat swinging into Republican hands. President Obama will likely campaign for the Democratic candidate but if Republicans can maintain momentum in this race (like they did in Massachusetts), they have a solid chance of winning this race.

Less than 48 hours after his State of the Union address (in which he talked about his administration's "focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation"), President Obama's administration seems to be backing down from its highly controversial plans to have the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City.

The New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON — Facing mounting pressure from New York politicians concerned about costs and security, the Obama administration on Thursday began considering moving the trial of the chief organizer of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks out of Manhattan, administration officials said...

A decision to move the Sept. 11 trial from Manhattan would be a retreat by the administration from its calculated choice in November to bring the defendants to a courthouse just blocks from where the World Trade Center stood.

The dispute over a trial location, touched off when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York complained of costs and disruption, threatened to reopen the divisive question of how those accused of plotting the murder of more than 3,000 Americans should be brought to justice.

It looks like this administration's rhetoric on the subject has clearly changed since Meredith Jessup blogged about out this issue early yesterday afternoon....

Last night, in the post-speech discussion of the State of the Union address, many pundits spoke about how health care was less of a priority to President Obama in his speech than it has been for him in the past year. However, even with less of an emphasis on health care than he has given the subject before, Obama was still direct about asking Congress to focus on it in the upcoming weeks as he himself moves on to other topics.

After focusing on jobs and the economy for approximately the first third of his address, Obama changed the subject to health care reform, something that he has been pushing for throughout the past year. In his speech, President Obama said the following: 

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform, not now, not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let's get it done. 

Yet, if you look at the relegation of health care in his speech, it seems that President Obama has seemingly stepped away from the subject. I am glad that the president is now focused on jobs, a focus he should have had in 2009. However, he seems to have changed his focus to jobs while he is still asking Congress to focus on health care reform policies that the American people do not support, according to numerous polls.

If President Obama supports health care reform, he should look at the polls and recent election results (i.e. in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia) and see that the American people are rejecting the type of reform he and other members of his party are advocating. If he wants real health care reform, Obama should be listening to the voters instead of ignoring them and he should not be pushing Congress to stand by health care reform when it seems he wants to change the subject to something else.

The text below is from a partial CNN.com transcript of Obama's first State of the Union address. These are comical words coming from an administration that has, in the past, waged political war with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and others. If President Obama does not want perpetual campaigns waged against political opponents, he should have instructed his administration not to do that a long time ago....

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent -- a belief that if you lose, I win.

On Tuesday, Republican state senator Scott Brown beat Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley to become the next Senator from Massachusetts. That night, I sent an e-mail to my former college professor Peter Torkildsen, one of the last Republican Congressmen from Massachusetts (he served from 1993-1997) and a former Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party. I asked him about the message voters sent out by electing Brown, the lessons Republicans can learn from the election, and whether or not this election was about national or local issues.   

Below are the questions and his responses about the Brown victory he wrote "has more national implications than any other election to the U.S. Senate has ever had."

1.) Were you surprised that this election become competitive a few weeks ago?

Actually, it was becoming competitive on the ground a bit sooner, in early December. The crowds were growing at events, and people who had never worked on a campaign before were beginning to volunteer. The magnitude of outpouring of support is something that I never would have predicted - the energy level was even greater than in 1990, when Massachusetts elected a Republican governor for the first time in many years.
 
2.) What was the message that Massachusetts voters sent out by voting for Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley?
    
I see two major messages from Massachusetts voters 1.  That they want Scott Brown representing them in Washington, and as part of that representation voting against the current health care bills, against cap-and-trade, and for common sense national security issues, and 2.  the voters of Massachusetts rejected the Democrats politics of personal destruction campaign tactics.[# More #] 
 
3.) What is the main lesson for Republicans from the results of the Massachusetts Senate race?
    
When running for office, establish who you are, and speak about the issues voters care about. On paper, running against Kennedy's health bill would seem a losing strategy. But by speaking out about the many things wrong with both the substance of the legislation, as well as all the back room deals that were promised to secure votes, Scott Brown tapped into huge voter discontent about both the bill and the process behind it.
 
4.) What is the political significance of Senator Ted Kennedy's seat going to the Republicans?
    
You cannot overestimate the significance of this.  Electing Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate has more national implications than any other election to the U.S. Senate has ever had. And at the same time, it is significant for state politics in Massachusetts, too.
 
5.) There is a tough gubernatorial campaign coming up in Massachusetts later this year. Do you think the results of this election will foreshadow the results in that election? What about the midterms?
   
Charlie Baker is the leading Republican running for governor. While his chances of defeating the incumbent before last night's election were already pretty good, they improved even more with Scott's win. Charlie had been asking his donors and volunteers to help Scott.
   
In terms of the mid-term Congressional elections in Massachusetts, Scott's win will encourage many candidates to come forward, and we will have far more congressional candidates that we have had in recent elections. For the state senate and state house seats, many more incumbents will be challenged now, and probably not just by Republicans.
 
6.) Do you think Massachusetts is becoming more conservative in its leanings or was this election more about a rejection of the status quo than it was about the ideology of the voters?
 
Massachusetts has always had a healthy skepticism about taxes and political power.  (The Boston Tea Party was 237 years ago).  And Ronald Reagan carried Massachusetts twice, so we know there is a core of people willing to vote for a conservative candidate in some circumstances.
 
7.) Do you think this race was more about local issues or was this election about Obama and national issues?
    
It was almost certainly a combination of both. Many of the voters who turned out voted because of national issues, but it was national issues that affected them on a direct level (taxes, health care). There were also people voting on national security issues, which is definitely not a local issue. Many people were appalled when the Democrat said there weren't any more terrorists in Afghanistan, and therefore our troops should come home immediately. 
 
8.) What credit do you give to national Republican organizations such as the NRC and the NRSC in helping to achieve victory in this race?
    
While the national Republican groups were not active in the campaign early, they definitely helped out in the final weeks, both financially, and in technology. Given the amount (several million, at least) of special interest money helping out the Democrat, the national Republican support was very important.

From Democratic Senator and liberal icon Ted Kennedy (D-MA) to...



Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA).

According to the Associated Press, Republican Scott Brown will be the next Senator from Massachusetts...