January 20, 2010
Brown for President!
I gotta admit I had not heard that one until Ed Morrissey shot it down. He cleverly asks "do we really need another former state Senator with next to no experience in national politics on a major-party ticket?"
But then he says the first thing that has ruined my elation and euphoria since last night's miracle:
Brown has a good sense of fiscal conservatism, but falls closer to Rudy Giuliani than to Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin on social issues, which is one of the reasons Rudy got an invite to Massachusetts and prominent social conservatives did not.
Closer to Hizzoner than the Huckelmeister? We can't have that!
Well, I had a fantastic 12 1/2 hours.
UPDATE: @JazzShaw tweets that "The GOP love affair with Scott Brown will be a short fling"
2012 Posted by John Kranz at January 20, 2010 12:20 PM
"Short fling?" In some quarters, yes. He's a social moderate. Fine with me, of course. But on taxes, terrorism and transparency he's solidly in the conservative groove. Or didn't Shaw read my post last night?
Posted by: johngalt at January 20, 2010 2:45 PMAnd another thing-
The takeaway from Brown's meteoric rise and electoral success is not that he's the new frontrunner for the '12 presidential nomination. Instead he's just the latest of the new breed of candidate who appeal not to the entrenched bureaucracy of the DNC or GOP, but to the "basic convictions that only need to be clearly stated to win a majority." Add him to the roster that started with Sarah Palin. And get ready to add more names in the coming months.
Posted by: johngalt at January 20, 2010 2:51 PMI do not think I am as optimistic as all you happen to be. Massachusetts has elected Republicans to prominent positions before -- does anybody else remember the results?
Brown won because he respected his voters. He traveled across the state of MA dozens of times while he campaigned. One of the Kos kids (I hate to give them credit, but they did bring up a good point) notes that Coakley held 12 rallies/town halls since her nomination -- Brown held 66. Brown was the only one actually running for the race. He worked like a beast to win, and win he did. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking that this was a referendum on the health care bill (which doesn't really effect Mass anyway) or even Obama, who remains popular in the state.
So I congratulate Brown. I also recognize that he has one of the hardest jobs in America. The Senator-elect is from a solid blue state. Do you really think he will win reelection next time around if he alienates the better half of the state first year out?
A friend of mine told me a year or so ago (back when Romney was in the news) something rather clever -- Massachusetts Republicans are really just Democrats with red ties. I can't say that he was wrong.
Posted by: T. Greer at January 20, 2010 9:33 PMTG, you don't remember "I'll be the 41st vote against Obamacare?" You may not have read this story describing the lack of enthusiasm for Coakley among Obama supporters. "If Martha Coakley loses today, it won't be because she didn't put up enough signs on Blue Hill Ave."
When Democrat pundits claim the Brown victory wasn't a referendum on Obamacare or Obama I hear the sound of whistling ... as they walk past the graveyard of the Obama agenda.
Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2010 12:19 AMFrom the article posted:
"If Martha Coakley loses today, it won’t be because she didn’t put up enough signs on Blue Hill Ave. It’ll be because she failed to convince enough of the people who put up the Obama signs on Blue Hill Ave. and a lot of other avenues across Massachusetts that Obama’s ability to get anything done depends on her winning the election."
I agree with this entirely. It seems that Ms. Coakley did not convince anybody of anything. She was a bad candidate -- Brown was a good one. It is much the same as a few of the Blue Dogs who broke through Western California and Washington: the biggest factor in their victory was that they were the only ones who respected their voters.
This is not to discount the views Brown has on politics altogether -- they matter. I am not sure however, they matter as much as you think.
The Obamacare one in particular does not make sense to me. Mass has a universal health care system. They do not need Obamacare. What evidence is there that this was the state's biggest issue? Why that instead of, say, the unemployment rate, which still hovers around 9% in Mass?
I am just afraid that we may be thinking our own wishful thinking is reality. I am not ready to declare victory yet.
Posted by: T. Greer at January 21, 2010 1:43 AMTime for brother jk to fire up the Sanguine Machine®
The first cause for celebration in purely technical: the 41st vote. The "Byrd Rule" requires 60 votes for cloture on any policy changes when the bill comes back from conference. You are stranded on an island and you have just found a swiss army knife. My friend tg (who is stranded on an island) is complaining that it does not have GPS.
No, our liberties are not returned back to the 19th Century but we dodged a massive intrusion.
Secondly, while I cede your point about AG Coakley's disastrous candidacy, this race had huge national implications. Every other Senator will see a 31 point flip (Obama's 26% win, Coakley's 5% loss) and will be forced to seriously rethink unflagging support for a far left Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda.
Thirdly, I see it as a trophy-sized, get-that-baby-stuffed-and-mounted-and-hang-it-on-the-mantel scalp for the Tea Party movement. The RNC sent nickels, but I sent dollars. Brown raised more than a million dollars every day of the final week from folks like us.
Contra Ed Morrissey and JazzShaw (whom I follow on Twitter because of his name and his hat), I like about everything I have seen of Brown. If he's more Giuliani than Huckabee, that's fine by me. I saw an extended interview on CSPAN last night and I was extremely impressed.
Chins up, friends, we've won a game changing battle. Sure the war rages on, and we will not be blessed in November with many Democratic candidates as bad as Coakley or GOP candidates as good as Brown, but this week we won a big one. And I will allow myself to be caught smiling,
Posted by: jk at January 21, 2010 11:01 AMThanks for the calm words brother. I'm sure my "hell yeah" is showing.
I don't think MA voters needed it explained to them that "Obama's ability to get anything done" depended on Martha winning. I think the explanation they were looking for was why they wanted anything that Obama is trying to get done.
TG, you keep mentioning Romneycare as an insulator from Obamacare. So they don't need the "benefits" from Obamacare? Fine. What makes you think they'd be exempted from the costs?
And finally, we may still be arguing about the wrong "most important issue."
Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2010 12:26 PM | What do you think? [7]