[Guest post by DRJ]

Via Hot Air, it looks like the Coakley campaign is getting desperate:

“Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for the Massachusetts Senate seat up for election on Tuesday, is filing a criminal complaint against the Massachusetts Democratic Party over a flier claiming he’s against giving emergency contraception to rape victims.

The flier reportedly says “1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away,” according to Greg Sargent’s blog.”

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

ABC’s Jake Tapper and Jonathan Karl look at how a Scott Brown win in the Massachusetts’ Senate race would impact health care reform. I recommend the entire post but here’s their bottom line if Brown wins:

“Bottom line is, under the current plan, Unless either 1) the certification in Massachusetts is delayed; or, 2) CBO works much faster than expected, Democrats would be unable to pass a health care bill before losing their 60th vote.”

At that point, the Democrats could try to pass the Senate bill in the House so the Senate doesn’t have to vote any more. As Tapper and Karl point out, Pelosi is reluctant but “Senate Democrats and White House officials would push hard the notion that the bills are 90 percent similar and not doing so would be allowing the insurance companies to win.”

On the Senate side, the Democrats could bypass normal Senate rules and pass the legislation through reconciliation, a process that only requires 50 votes. I could see that happening but the political fallout would be even greater than Democrats already face.

That leaves delaying Brown’s certification. Thus, if Brown wins, and that’s a big if, I think delay will still be on the Democrats’ menu.

— DRJ

An ARG poll has Scott Brown up by 3 points.

Yesterday, Instapundit noted that Coakley was still favored on Intrade.

Not any more. It’s now a dead heat.

Instapundit’s counsel nevertheless remains valid: “Nice polls kid — don’t get cocky.”

UPDATE: Brown is now solidly ahead on Intrade. Commenter Jan saw him up 55-45. I just saw him up 54 to 48.5.

An article in tomorrow’s L.A. Times describes the litany of missteps by Martha Coakley — from running an ad equating the World Trade Center with greed to saying that Catholics shouldn’t work in emergency rooms to calling Curt Schilling a Yankee fan to running an ad that misspells the name of the state she wants to represent, and so on and so on. The numerous polls showing Scott Brown ahead are given prominent play.

Ha, ha! Of course, the article does not say one word about any of that! I just made all of that up.

You didn’t believe me, did you??

So how does the L.A. Times cover the story of Scott Brown’s surge against this clownish candidate?

Would it help you to know what Obama’s take is? OK. It is that Scott Brown would endanger his health care plan. This is the concern he expresses in a robocall:

In Washington, I’m fighting to curb the abuses of a health insurance industry that routinely denies care. . . . [I]t’s clear now that the outcome of these and other fights will probably rest on one vote in the United States Senate.

Now do you have a guess as to the L.A. Times spin?

Healthcare overhaul may depend on Massachusetts Senate race

President Obama and other Democrats are in a fight for Ted Kennedy’s seat and his cause, campaigning for Martha Coakley over Republican Scott Brown, who could vote down the bill if seated in time.

President Obama on Friday threw himself into the Massachusetts Senate race where a surging Republican candidacy imperils his signature healthcare plan.

A Republican win Tuesday in the race to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) would strip Democrats of their 60-vote supermajority in the Senate and allow the GOP to block legislation with filibusters. Healthcare legislation has passed both chambers on party-line votes, but a reconciled final version must still be written and approved by both houses.

Yup, that lines up pretty well with the White House talking points. Thursday’s shocker of a poll showing Brown up by 4 points is mentioned . . . in the 10th paragraph. (Will it be past the jump in the print edition?) The poll is not mentioned in the headline. Or the opening paragraphs. Because the thrust of the story is not Brown’s momentum.

Left entirely unmentioned: Brown’s internal poll showing him up by 11 points — or Coakley’s internal poll showing Brown up by 3.

See, I don’t think Obama said it was OK to mention those. Hopefully that explains the omission to your satisfaction.

L.A. Times print readers have been kept in the dark about the Brown surge until now. Before today’s article, the previous newsprint assessment of Brown’s chances came Thursday, when the paper’s readers learned that Brown “appears to be within striking distance” of Coakley, with “some polls” showing the race is “as close as a few points.”

Now Democrats are reduced to claiming that Coakley is “within striking distance” of Brown. What a difference a day makes.

One wonders: if Brown actually wins, will this paper’s print readers be caught by surprise?