-
What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want
May 14, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Mitt on Marriage
May 8, 2013 | 38 comments
-
The One Constant
May 1, 2013 | 118 comments
-
Trudeaus and Terrorism
April 22, 2013 | 15 comments
-
I Was Almost There
April 16, 2013 | 171 comments
Political Hay
Six Months of Scott Brown
The honeymoon is over — but let us recall this is also a moderate Republican.
(Page 2 of 2)
Now, of course, Brown would have to win the 2012 Massachusetts Republican Primary. It is certainly possible that Tea Party activists could find a viable candidate to challenge Brown in the primary. Yet it could prove to be a poison pill. Unless Brown wins the primary in a landslide (as he did last year), a strong challenge to him could cause the kind of division amongst Republican ranks that might very well lead the people’s seat to fall back into Democratic hands. In this part of the country, those hands have a very tight grip.
Still, given the anti-incumbent sentiment that exists amongst the electorate, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Brown could lose the primary. But unless the person carrying the GOP banner is physically attractive, has beautiful adult daughters and drives a truck, don’t expect another Massachusetts miracle. Bay State Republicans could find a candidate more conservative than Brown, but if that candidate says or does anything that scares the daylights out of voters then it could become Deval Patrick’s seat.
But let me take a leap of faith here. Suppose the GOP primary challenger not only dislodges Brown but somehow beats Patrick (or whoever the Democratic nominee happens to be) in the 2012 senatorial race. Who is to say that new Massachusetts Republican senator won’t be susceptible to the same fallibility and folly?
One could make the case that Brown is a career politician and has spent nearly two decades in one elected office or another. Yet why is a political neophyte any less susceptible to being seduced by the trappings of power than one who has long enjoyed its fruits? All elected officials have to start somewhere, and somewhere along the road good intentions can easily give way to other considerations.
Scott Brown should not take his support for granted. If Brown is not doing the job he was sent to Washington to do, then Tea Party activists are certainly within their rights to put a little scare into him. But they should also weigh their options very carefully because, to everlasting regret, they might get their wish.
About the Author
Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (85) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aaron Goldstein
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/20/six-months-of-scott-brown
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
smokehouse| 7.20.10 @ 7:17AM
Listen, we need Brown. My God, this is New England and Massachusetts your talking about. They breathe liberalism in that area of the country. We need the seat more than the man. We need the majority more than we need Brown. I hate RINO's like Collins and Snow as much as anybody but the Republican seat is essential. We don't have the luxury of extra seats in the Senate. If we did than the hell with Brown.
Harry the Horrible| 7.20.10 @ 9:28AM
Scott Brown is the best possible Republican you can expect to get from the People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts.
Romney supporters should take note.
GavInTucson| 7.23.10 @ 12:22AM
Very true. When Brown won the seat, I thought to myself, "What does this even mean, anyway?"
I mean the term Massachusetts Republican is practically an oxymoron. He'd be more accurately called a moderate Democrat (another term that's becoming an oxymoron these days).
loulou| 7.20.10 @ 10:08AM
I concur. We need Brown as a warm body on the GOP side. He is a RINO and never claimed to be otherwise.
Maybe someday he can be thrown under the bus but not yet.
dnha14| 7.21.10 @ 9:53AM
What difference does it make if he never votes with the Republicans? Who needs this aggravation? I want someone in office who is honest about where he stands and acts accordingly. So far, all he's been is Martha Coakley in drag.
And boy did Kathy Griffin get it wrong when she accused Brown's daughters of being prostitutes. I think we all know who the real prostitute is.
American Eagle| 7.21.10 @ 9:15PM
I agree. Mr. Brown is not a 'moderate Republican' (as if there is such a thing). He is an imposter. No need to whitewash his checkered present. Intelligent conservatives should DECRY this particular type of turncoat from the rooftop, and not normalize it with a shrug 'oh well, he is just a moderate.' There is also a lesson for the Tea Party---no amount of electoral successes will make even a little dent in the marxist/fascist grand finale that we are witnessing today.
Joyce| 7.20.10 @ 7:19AM
Scott Brown really shut folks down during the campaign by stating that he was running for the Senate seat in Massachusetts for all the people and "that the seat was not Ted Kennedy's seat but the people's seat". What a laugh! It's still Kennedy's seat but with a different occupant. With his voting record in the first six months he has held Kennedy's seat, maybe he should run as a Democrat next time. Many people who supported him with their hard earned dollars will not support him next election. He should be ashamed to vote with the crooks and not against them. I give him credit for a little sense and he had to know the Wall Street bailout is very bad legislation. What a disappointment!
Howard| 7.20.10 @ 10:44AM
I disagree about it being "Kennedy's seat". Scott Brown is far more conservative than Ted Kennedy. I voted for him proudly. And compared to Croakly, he is superior. That being said, he needs to vote against Kagan, and be against Obama's Socialism. I believe he will be on our side that way.
Curly Smith| 7.20.10 @ 7:20AM
I think a different question is in order: Would the election of Martha Coakley (or Deval Patrick), instead of Scott Brown, have resulted in materially different results? The "lesser of two evils" argument is wildly popular with establishmentarians (or the "Ruling Class") but those not enamored of the status quo should consider what buying the "lesser evil" actually gets you. With Deval Patrick at the wheel we drive off the cliff at 90 MPH, with Scott Brown it's a "moderate" 83 MPH. In either case the result is the same - we drive off the cliff.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 7.20.10 @ 7:42AM
Hey Curly: You're right, but it's still 7 MPH slower than before, which just might help us make it to January 2011, when we take the House and Senate back from the Commies. Remember, this is a Massachusetts Republican, which is kind of like a California Republican, or a New York Republican, it's not pretty, but it's not as disgusting as the alternative!! I'll hold my nose, and pretend to be happy!! SEE, I'M HAPPY!!! But Brown can kiss my *ss when he runs for re-election, he's not getting another dollar from me, period!!
Grzmlyk| 7.20.10 @ 2:00PM
I agree; the result is the same, and in fact this article is basically saying that.
The reality is that, in a macro-sense, conservatives are screwed now, we were screwed yesterday, and you can bet your last shekel that we'll be screwed tomorrow.
When November rolls around, the GOP may win big. So what? The GOP, as currently constituted, is merely a support structure for liberalism.
And even giving the GOP the benefit of the doubt, whatever obstructionism they are able to mount will accrue to Obama's benefit for reelection in 2012.
And by then, Obama will have the 22nd amendment repealed and he'll installed as our de facto dictator to the squeals of delight of the elites, the mainstream media and half the citizenry of this country.
Nothing will stop the cult of personality that is Obama, or the related malignant cancer of big government statism, except implosion.
I talk to people here in Vermont, and I'm telling you pretty much everybody still blames Bush for Obama's deficit (and everything else) and considers Obama an unsulliable savior.
It is the most depressing phenomenon I've ever seen, and it has shredded the last bit of faith I had in America recovering from this.
Our epitaph will be: "America: Too damned stupid to survive."
aware| 7.20.10 @ 5:29PM
Agreed. The political momentum(Spencer) has achieved terminal velocity and soon impact. The fraud that passes for government in the minds(?) of the Herd is being exposed as it approaches Twilight.
The point of no return has passed. One dollar borrowed for every dollar collected in taxes. And more to come. Economic disaster is looming for us all, including the trolls that pass through here with their silly arguments, because government is really a vast criminal gang of plunderers.
It has been since the first one appeared, but they used to do a better job of pretending to be the upholders of "law and order". Even so, as you point out, the current sorry act is still good enough to lead the blind.
geo| 7.20.10 @ 8:00AM
I voted for Brown and donated to his campaign. He will never see another dime from me. I also contacted his office and let them know as well. In 2012 Massachusetts will find a good conservative to run against Scott and I will actively support that person.
canuckistani| 7.20.10 @ 10:27AM
...and they will lose.
People who deal in absolutes show the markings of a child's view of the world.
The GOP will NEVER get to 60 senators under the purity campaign being executed right now.
If they will never get there, what is the point unless the campaign is to actually scare RINO's into a swing farther right? If this is the case, it as a long-con that the GOP has not had much success at for generations.
Harry the Horrible| 7.20.10 @ 10:31AM
And Conservatives will never achieve anything if we keep accepting RINOs.
Brown is probably the best possible 'Pubbie you could get out of Massachusetts. That doesn't mean we want to tolerate RINOs where there are better alternatives.
Joshua Norman| 7.20.10 @ 7:43PM
I agree. I didn't want Coakley to win, but since so many of my liberal friends liked Pretty Boy Brown, I expected him to be a RINO from New England.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.20.10 @ 12:13PM
Yeah, it's not like the government is the ultimate absolute. Wouldn't that make the statists the child under your line of reasoning?
Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 7.22.10 @ 7:29PM
People who deal in absolutes show the markings of a child's view of the world.
The GOP will NEVER get to 60 senators under the purity campaign being executed right now.
Purity, purity, purity. Who's talking about absolute purity? There are subjects that can be debated about whether conservative/ Republican support should be given, but helping to increase government debt (voting for Stimulus II) and government power (voting for the so-called "Restoring American Financial Stability Act") should NOT be among them.
Houston Rao| 7.20.10 @ 4:57PM
Ditto from me. As for those that say that this will only the Dems to win the seat(s), I say let them. I have shrugged. I and my spouse worked 10-12 hours a day, made a little over $300K a year, hoping to build our net worth and achieve some level of financial independence for ourselves and our kids. Now we are told we are evil money-makers and will be taxed even more (while not getting any benefits in return - because we make more than X - kinda like double taxation). For our ambition, we had our kids in day care all year, 1 week vacations at most, did not splurge on the latest iPhones or plasma, while still giving away thousands each year to charity.
Well, I left my job a couple of months and am not looking for one. One income bring us under $130K out of reach of the hard bite of the taxman while allowing us to now claim several benefits and most preciously, spend a lot more time with our kids. The reduction in income is offset to some extent by our hugely reduced expenses (no day care, nannies, yard maintenance, less eating out, laundry bills, fuel, etc.).
So, go ahead and bring in the socialists. I can enjoy entitlements just as much as they can.
J. Kelley| 7.20.10 @ 8:05AM
No more RINOs. Spector of Penn. is a good example. We have a good chance of getting a real "Concervative Republican" in November. It was a hugh mistake to back Spector in 2004. We must go after all RINO Republicans.
Melvin| 7.20.10 @ 8:38AM
Come now people, don't unload on Mr. Brown too hard just yet. He did say during his campaign that," I'm not going to vote with the Republicans 0 of the time. I'm going to vote for the people of MA."
But everyone was wrapped up in the euphoria of kicking Teddy to the curb, they kind of overlooked that little statement from Mr. Brown.
But people, lets stop being overly naive here, and be honest.
Scott Brown is a practicing attorney who tends to stretch things and another overlooked convenient fact, he's first and foremost a politician that would say and do anything to benefit him in an election.
We can't say we weren't warned.
ggoblue| 7.20.10 @ 8:40AM
i echo geo...never another penny for scott brown from me.
he cast the DECIDING VOTE on that monstrosity.
yes i much prefer deval patrick to a rino. then i dont have to hear "they're all the same". and we can point out the radicalism of our opponents without the radicals hiding behind some rino's skirts.
scott brown is a goner in 2012.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.20.10 @ 8:41AM
Upon landing in DC politicians get a taste of what it means to ride on the money train, to become part of the ruling elite.
They like the attention they get in the press and for some they ride the merry-go-round of the talk show circuit.
The vote Scott Brown made for Restoring American Financial Stability Act will cause the loss of many jobs in the private sector while creating another federal leviathan with thousands of employees.
In addition, there were many sneaky taxes packed into the bill that the public will end up paying.
To Scott Brown I say Learn how to read between the lines. You originally stated you wanted to make a difference. Well, you have.
You've made it possible for the Democrats to continue spending deficit funds which your children and grandchildren will now pay for with a reduced standard of living.
If for no other reason then that you should have voted against it. Don't fool yourself. The reason the media loves you is because they know that deep down inside you're just another wannabe member of the ruling class.
I suggest you read The Devil and Daniel Webster. It's a short story written by Stephen Vincent Benét. It doesn't contain 2,000 words or 2,000 pages but it shows what occurs when someone compromises their principles.
Frankly, I would rather have 1 good Republican who actually stood for something, then 3 who will fall for anything. Think Snowe, Collins and Brown.
Louis Jenkins| 7.20.10 @ 8:43AM
Scott Brown was elected and went with the Democrats. Of course we have to consider what state he is from, and hence the title RINO. Let's not forget, though, that at least he has the name Republican. There may be some hope yet.
Bilwick| 7.20.10 @ 8:44AM
It would be nice if just one of the major parties was consistently pro-freedom; but I guess in the Age of ObamaNation, we're so far down the road to serfdom that that's too much to wish for.
saleboter| 7.20.10 @ 8:55AM
Look you're not going to get a true conservative elected in places like Massachusets. Settle for the most conservative ELECTABLE person you can.
Kyle| 7.20.10 @ 2:00PM
If you keep up this line of thinking and the practice of "settling", 20 years from now, you'll be telling us to vote for a "electable conservative" who makes Obama seem more conservative. Frog in boiling water, buddy.
dnha14| 7.20.10 @ 9:31AM
Brown was the first and will be the last politician to which I ever donate money. I really thought he was different. My mistake. But as my mom taught me, "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all." Hence, my further silence.
B.Brown| 7.20.10 @ 9:41AM
If the truth is known Scott Brown was a Democrat hiding under the mask of a Republican. I think it was planned with the Democrats for him to run since his vote didn't affect the Health Care Bill. I think they already knew this as did he.
Tom in Michigan| 7.20.10 @ 9:45AM
It's really very simple. Democraps will vote their party line (with just a few acting like “blue dogs” in order to provide cover, fooling the nation into believing there is a “moderate” wing of what is really just the left), no matter how silly because they have no shame or principles.
When a Republicant, so-called votes with the Democraps in support of their insane economy, military and sovereignty-destroying policies; it means he's a simpleton.
Scott Brown is dumb. That's all.
And, therein lays the false hope of restoring the country just because the Republicants regain the House or the Senate or the White Houses. They ONLY way this country will get back on a righteous path is if we elect intelligent, responsible, principled representatives and executives whose only priority is the betterment of the nation (Yeah. Good luck with that!).
If we DO put Republicants back in power and they continue high-spending or “compassionate conservative” or other nonsensical policies, as they have in the past – the national pendulum will swing back-and-forth from bad administration to worse administration then back to bad administration and so forth, as we have done for the past several Presidential election cycles. Each of these changes will mean an inexorable decline by the death of a thousand political cuts until we are just another second-rate, mediocre, has-been of a nation. The only thing that will then be exceptional about America will be the number of fat people.
John2| 7.20.10 @ 6:35PM
Yes, I think that's it -- he is dumb. He should be smart enough to know that he has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
In an effort to save him, I would take Scott Brown aside and have 'the conversation', something like, "Look, champ, we might talk president if you smarten up pronto. You have a reserve of goodwill (but you are blowing it), you have the potential backing in place, the opportunity is there, ... "
No doubt you are right, he has been stupid to date. The opportunity is there.
Old Joe| 7.20.10 @ 9:50AM
While my wife and I don't live in Mass. (thank God) we had great hope for Scott Brown. What a dissapointment. Typical RINO traitor.
Yosemeti Sam| 7.20.10 @ 10:11AM
Once the senatorial PERKS imbue - there's the RINO phenomenon which ensues.
Melvin| 7.20.10 @ 10:24AM
Maybe there is something that could be said, "Is a Republican a Republican?"
Would I put it past the Democrats or the Republicans to create a sleeper candidate? Absolutely not, but I would have to tip my hand to the Democrats to pull it off because the Republicans have a terrible habit of chickening out and screwing it up.
DG in GA| 7.20.10 @ 10:49AM
Hey, at least Scott Brown took the "Kennedy Seat" away from the Dems. This gives the Repubs a better chance of taking it away from Brown if the party can field a strong candidate who can beat him. Frankly, when you consider a state as liberal as Taxachusetts, the fact that someone with an R after their name can get elected AT ALL is quite a feat. The fact that he's a RINO should come as no surprise.
Mike| 7.20.10 @ 11:49AM
Harry the Horrible writes:
"And Conservatives will never achieve anything if we keep accepting RINOs."
Conservatives won't achieve anything without the RINOs because you don't have enough votes for your radical agenda of returning American to the Gilded Age. I wish more Americans knew about Grover Norquist's desire to take America back to what it was "up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over."
Harry the Horrible| 7.20.10 @ 11:56AM
I'm not a big fan of Grover Norquist, but it sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. Personally, I'd settle for 1958 myself.
Mike| 7.20.10 @ 2:16PM
Harry,
1958 was a good year. Republicans and Democrats had forged a broad consensus concerning both domestic and foreign policy and there was a great deal of bi-partisan cooperation. Unfortunately, movement conservatives have successfully destroyed the GOP of 1958.
RCV| 7.20.10 @ 12:08PM
The tendency of the right-wing to eat their own at the slightest deviation from the party line is what keeps them from being effective, thank God. They remind me of the French revolutionaries, or the blosheviks. We live in a consitutional republic that is built on checks and balances and forces compromise, but these folks are incapable of compromise or seeing the other person's viewpoint. That's why the tea party is imploding in infighting and will self-destruct and damage the Republican cause in November.
John2| 7.20.10 @ 6:40PM
Thank you for the everlasting:
"... the tea party is imploding ... will self-destruct and damage the Republican cause in November."
Thanks, that is, for the laugh of the day. November 2 is coming, don't miss it. Kiss your lefties goodbye.
Tim*| 7.20.10 @ 10:09PM
Sorry ObamaBoy RCV !
" Republican candidates now hold a nine-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, July 18, the widest gap between the two parties in several weeks. "
Go Home !
RCV| 7.21.10 @ 2:57AM
The problem, timmie, is that people don't vote for "generic" ballots, they vote for actual people, in races that are local. And in survey after survey, voters tell pollsters that they dislike Congress, but generally like their Representative. Finally, it's your wing-nut tea baggers who will happily prevent the GOP from taking advantage of voter discontent by losing Florida, Kentucky and Nevada - states that were once sure things for the GOP, but where Rubio, Angle and Paul now are either behind or barely clinging to razor- thin leads. And the Tea Party Implosion Escalates! I can see the demise of the Know-Nothings from my house!
Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 7.22.10 @ 7:38PM
In November, as the water begins to recede, the smartest course of action for you would be to take a nice, deep breath.
Jed Skillman | 7.20.10 @ 12:17PM
Scott who?
Oh, yeah. Now I remember. I sent that guy 25 Bucks.
A Republican candidate does not have much ability to motivate supporters with the promise of patronage. Therefore, he or she must generate deep and sincere enthusiasm. He has to translate that enthusiasm into action. He has to motivate voters to make his election their priority.
Scott Brown had a lot of voter enthusiasm back in January, but seems either to have taken it for granted or, to have misunderstood it in the first place.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.20.10 @ 12:49PM
Scott Brown, as many other surviving RINO’s, will fall victim to the Obama agenda in 2012. No matter how he votes, no matter what he says, no matter how far he drives that truck it will dawn on all that his election was due to the most elaborate and improbable set of circumstances in modern politics. Anyone that believes anti-incumbency and oppressive taxes are the driving force in 2010 needs to visualize what will occur between this midterm and the next presidential contests. War, October surprises, impeachments, and insurrection will pale in comparison to the two intervening April 15ths and the collapse of the entitlement and welfare systems.
Tom W| 7.20.10 @ 12:58PM
Brown was useful for enabling the electorate to send a message about Obamacare. His usefulness has passed, and it would be no loss for him to lose in 2012.
Better the GOP be in the minority in the Senate, but united in Constitutional / conservative principles, than to be co-opted by the likes of Collins / Snowe / Brown.
We could afford a few "moderates" if the real GOP had a 60+ majority on top of the "moderates." But when it is closer, the only thing the "moderates" do is become the tail wagging the whole GOP dog and shifting it Left.
We have that now. We had that back when the "Republican" majority was routinely Lefted from within its ranks by Jeffords, Specter, McCain, Chafee, etc.
The argument that "this is the best we can expect" from blue states and "we need them" to give us a majority is fallacious, as experience has shown us, all too painfully.
Siegfried X| 7.20.10 @ 1:28PM
Democrats demand party loyalty from THEIR politicians, who vote 100% party line. Why shouldn't Republicans insist that ALL of our politicians vote against Obama? Why would any real Republican want to vote for an Obama Republican?
James Shoo| 7.20.10 @ 1:30PM
If Obama called himself a "Republican", would you support him?
Margie| 7.20.10 @ 1:42PM
If Newt Gingrich called himself a "Democrat," would you support him?
James Shoo| 7.20.10 @ 3:03PM
No because there are no DINOs. Unlike Republican politicians, Democratic politicians are loyal to their party and always vote with it. So if Gingrich became a Democrat we could expect him to vote Democratic all the time.
Democratic voters punish their politicians who vote the wrong way. Republicans don't. They vote for RINOs, the ones which are letting Obama pass his bills.
Al Adab| 7.20.10 @ 6:19PM
Gentlemen:
In re your comments above. Please do not overlook the fact that this debate, this battle, is no longer between parties Dem or Rep; it is now between statists and Liberty.
Margie| 7.20.10 @ 9:47PM
And Obama would never become a Republican!
Al Adab,
I'm not a gentleman. :^) And of course you are right and it has always been a battle between statists and liberty~ but there are no liberty lovers in the Democrat party that I know of!
Anon Y Mouse| 7.20.10 @ 3:21PM
NO WAY!!!!! A big government Commie sock puppet of Soros et.al., regardless of party will NEVER have my vote.
Dennis| 7.20.10 @ 1:37PM
Just wait until re-election time...then which Scott Brown will show up? I have a sneaking feeling that Democrats will recapture this seat in six years. Brown isn't conservative enough for conservatives, Republicans, etc., to get excited about but many Democrats will get on board for a liberal. Brown will probably try to sound like Reagan in six years but we know better....He may have to go back to modeling...
Siegfried X| 7.20.10 @ 3:12PM
Yes. It's like the old saying: "Give a liberal the choice between a Democratic and a RINO, and they'll choose the real Democrat every time."
Tom in Michigan| 7.20.10 @ 3:08PM
Dennis make an excellent point. These stupid Republicans think they can make nice with Democrats and the Democrats won't look at them like a wounded animal.
All Scott Brown has done is prove to the ruthless Democrats that he can be rolled. W made the same mistake with his idiotic "compassionate conservatism" and his father made the same mistake when he reneged on his "no new taxes" pledge.
The Democrats, especially Frank and Dodd are laughing their kiesters off at Brown.
The Party of Stupid and the Party of Evil are our two choices, apparently.
John Navratil| 7.20.10 @ 3:13PM
This is the kind of accomodationist thinking which, unfortunately, permeates the Republican party. It follows following line of analysis: "Well he may not be too strong on this, but he is reliable on that and it's really all we can hope for."
There is no doubt that Massachusetts is bluer (don't you love how the media assigned red to conservatives) than most states and similarly, it is expected that the consensus of Massachusetts voter will likely elect someone at least moderately hypoxic.
Each individual voter should (IMHO) vote his principals. If that's someone who can't get elected, so be it. The idea the one's principals are best served by someone who doesn't share them is lunacy. If the conservatives in Mass. are truly outnumbered, it doesn't matter. But, the conservative no one votes for will never be elected.
Siegfried X| 7.20.10 @ 3:48PM
Yes. Voting for Obama Republicans is just giving up. It would be saying that we think that conservatives can't win. Voting for a Republican who will vote like a Democrat is losing.
David| 7.20.10 @ 3:34PM
I recall posting on this site the day he was elected that don't get your hopes up - Scott Brown is no conservative. Sometimes we will just have to live with a few mod or lib repubs from the northeast or the west coast.
But as I have written many times before, there is no way a Lindsey Graham, John McCain, or Kay Bailey should be representing SC, AZ, or TX. Get out in the primary and work for the conservatives. By the way, just out that Graham was on the only repub on the senate judiciary commitee who voted for Elena Kagan.
Anyway, I am seeing pleas to help Sharon Angle in NV, which is what we ought to do. Send something to her.
But what about J. D. HAYWORTH in AZ? How about sending him a little something too. Please, please, no more McCain for another 6 years. We had better show our support for the conservatives or once again Arizonans will be forced into supporting McCain in the general election. Aug 24 is AZ's primary. Let's help Hayworth.
Siegfried X| 7.20.10 @ 3:38PM
I agree, and in many states the RINO Republican leadership rigs the system so there are no conservative candidates in the primaries. Or the only conservatives have no political experience or campaign money, which makes it extremely tough for them to win.
Paulie4| 7.20.10 @ 4:16PM
I live way outside Massachusetts but some time ago became what I call a, “fifty dollar” patriot. I give continuously to candidates who capture my attention. Scott Brown’s race against Martha Coakley interested me and so I sent his campaign fifty dollars. These days, Scott Brown’s office still sends me mailings and they go directly into the trash. We need to play the ball where it lands, Brown against Coakley, I’d pick Brown, I did pick Brown! Brown against a real conservative, a conservative standing for individual freedom, individual responsibility, limited government, free markets and a strong national defense? Well, I say chuck Brown and pick up the new guy!
Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 7.22.10 @ 7:45PM
These days, Scott Brown’s office still sends me mailings and they go directly into the trash.
It may or may not matter, but if you find any correspondence in the mail from Brown's team that asks for a response, how about composing a stinging reply (within the bounds of etiquette, of course) and sending it back?
David| 7.20.10 @ 4:26PM
We had better help Hayworth win the repub nomination because McCain will win the general election and we can expect him to lead Bam Bam's fight for comp immigration reform and possibly cap and trade.
canuckistani| 7.20.10 @ 4:47PM
That train has already left the station.
Sessions and Pence have jumped on the Tea Party caucus train to nowhere.
Sessions should have resigned 30 seconds after the end of MTP on Sunday. He is now the ranking Republican in the Tea Party Caucus! They're doomed.
AllllAboooooard!| 7.21.10 @ 2:02AM
Canuckastanie:
"They're doomed"
Classic Left Wing Whistling Past the Graveyard!
As Rush always says: "Libs will always tell us who they are afraid of, eh?
noneofyourbusiness| 7.20.10 @ 6:49PM
This is far and away one of the more realistic pieces I have seen in here. Actually recognizes the realities of the political game rather than just towing a hard ideological line. This is not cynical, it is the reality -- a la public choice theory.
Smokehouse at the top of the comments (and Harry the Horrible, LouLou and Curly Smith, etc...) had it just about right in his comments too.
If you wish to consider Brown`s votes in a cynical light, as selling out, that`s your right. But you need to recognize the `real`in real politic. Do you want more Barbara Boxer or is Carly Fiorina in California acceptable ? Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman? You may not agree with Fiorina andWhitman on EVERYTHING, but I bet they have views more in common with yours than Boxer and Brown. And that moves the ball forward. One first down at a time folks. Longer-term thinking because there are no immediate jackpots unless you actually do win the lottery! :-)
Massachussets is hardly likely to vote for a dyed in the wool Tea Party type, and certainly not twice (especially if they think they been fooled once). If all you care for is purity you will end up with pure nothing (with the exception, perhaps, of a few southern and Mason-Dixon border line states).
You are far better off with someone who will vote with you 90+ percent of the time than someone who will vote against you 99.9% of the time. For goodness sakes, you may think the financial reform bill is more big government, but significant majorities of Americans, according to all polls, support it. At some point you need to watch that, especially as a Republican in a strongly Democratic state.
Harry Reid was dead man walking until Sharon Angle won the Republican nomination in Nevada. He may still end up a political dead man, but since her nomination he has turned a 15 point generic ballot vote deficit into a practical 5%+ advantage. Same in Kentucky, to some extent with Paul fils, although that one is much harder to move in the D column given the huge generic red party advantage. If he goes down, there, the whole Tea Party thing will have to be re-examined.
There should be no way the Dems. escape from this election with more than 50 Senate seats (+ Deep Fried Crist caucusing with them -- which is another story that plugs into the above).
Patience and moderation folks. Keep the end goal in mind!
Cheers!
John Navratil| 7.20.10 @ 8:06PM
I have to disagree. In the game we have a primary and a general election. Every voter faces the same choice with, perhaps, some consideration to the effect of closed primaries. There is a statistical argument that voting by ranking each candidate by preference might produce the most acceptable consensus candidate, but be do not have that.
So -- what is a voter to do? Recognize that your best choice is YOUR best choice. Vote for it. Everyone else is in the same boat. Trying to game the system to maximize your satisfaction by voting for an "electable" candidate is handing your vote to the pollsters.
Scott| 7.20.10 @ 7:09PM
I hail from a VERY red state. My senators (both Rs) wouldn't and didn't vote the way Brown has on some of these bills. But I am pleased that the Bay State elected someone to the senate who's moniker doesn't state with a (d). Give the guy a break, he's a huge help to regaining control of the senate from the likes of Harry Reid. If Joe L. turns republican next year, would you threaten to kick him out? Don't think so. I would rather have 60 republican senators, with some of them moderate-to-libs, giving control to the republicans.
This isn't always black and white. As has been said before, if you win 90% of the time, take it.
noneofyourbusiness| 7.20.10 @ 7:42PM
A most sensible comment.
As a matter of information (which leads to knowledge, which, if used right, can create power), it is interesting to note that the Senate makeup by state and party is currently
14 states with 2 Republican senators
14 with one from each party
and 22 with two who are more or less Democrats, based on who they caucus with (incl. Lieberman).
And that excludes the two Mainesters, although they are still better in the R column than having Democrats outright, as per above discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....s_Senators
Some of these will split for sure this year (like Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware and North Dakota), with a couple more quite possible (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Washington) And then you need Jackpot. And to get that you need to be smart about things. :-)
Cheers!
Tim*| 7.20.10 @ 10:13PM
WIKI WOW !
Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 7.22.10 @ 7:51PM
I would rather have 60 republican senators, with some of them moderate-to-libs, giving control to the republicans.
That "control" is illusory if those moderate-to-lib Republicans can't be counted on to stand behind the rest of the party they supposedly belong to.
Mike M| 7.20.10 @ 7:46PM
Which ever way Mr. Brown votes doesn't matter...Just to see Obama and all the Democratic babykillers crying about how it is the "Kennedy's seat" and Wah, Wah, Wah.
Everything after that is gravy.
Liz | 7.20.10 @ 9:07PM
Wow. Is this author Scott Brown's publicist? Hey, hey, ho, ho, Scott Brown has got to go. There is no more voting for the lesser of the 2 evils. Throw the anti-Capitalist/Socialists out. In fact, I welcome Deval Patrick. Let's show voters who the Democrat Party is. Scott Brown is not the Republican Party. He is an embarrassment. I am ashamed he calls himself a Republican. Change political parties Scott!
GW| 7.20.10 @ 11:16PM
I agree! MARTHA COAKHEAD for Senate! At least she would always support Obama instead of opposing him on certain principled matters.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 7.20.10 @ 9:31PM
Mr. Goldstein, thank you for reaffirming to me that I made the right decision when I left the Republican Party. Between your excuses for Sen. Brown in this column & your finger pointing at Republican voters for not appreciating the liberal Democrat, disguised as a Republican they helped elect to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy & the rest here in the comments section stumbling over themselves to make excuses for why Sen. Brown is "useful" to the Republican Party is all the evidence I need. With your kind of strategic thinking & that of some of the folks posting comments here The Democrats have nothing to worry about. You vote for them EVERY TIME you vote for RINOs like Sen. Brown. It's also ironic that the Democrat Party would never consider running anyone other than their own idea of what an ideal Democrat Rep. should be, but the Republican Party are too cowardly & spineless to do the same. The Republican Party DESERVE defeat because they only care about sheer numbers. They want a majority, but don't give a damn whether it is effective in offering Americans something DIFFERENT than what the Democrat Party offer them. If Republicans were about to face a firing squad they would volunteer to load the rifles for the firing squad members as a sign of "good will" & "bi-partisanship". No, Mr. Goldstein I'm through with the spineless cowards known as the Republican Party, aka The Stupid Party. I'll be writing in GOD instead of voting for RINO Republicans for the rest of my days. And no vote for Him is a wasted vote. With GOD everything is possible. With RINO Republicans everything bad is not only possible, but probable bordering on definite. The Stupid Party are the biggest donors the Democrat Party have. The Democrat Party just haven't realized it yet. Am I an extremist who wants Party purity? No. I am a principled, GOD-fearing American who wants to elect competent representatives who also have principles, stick to them & give a damn about what the Founders had in mind when they set up this Constitutional Republic over 200 years ago. RINOs like Sen. Brown possess NONE of those qualifications. Settling for anything other than the best one has to offer is not only spineless, but un-American. The Democrats are alot of things (all negative), but one thing they have which will keep them in the majority & Republicans in the minority is they stick to their principles & don't deviate from the Party platform. They don't go along to get along & make nice. They fight like a pitbull to get their legislation passed & succeed even when they are in the minority thanks to RINOs like Sen. Brown. You don't win the game with opposing players on your team Mr. Goldstein. I'll stick with GOD, you & Republican voters can have RINOs like Sen. Brown. With RINOs in your Party who needs Democrats?
Brian| 7.21.10 @ 3:28AM
Curly Smith: You nailed it! What's the difference whether we go off the cliff at 90 mph or 83 mph. End result? We go off the cliff. Sheesh, wake up people. Scott Brown is a RINO and has to go. If he votes with the DIMS, what good does it do the Repubs to say he is one of us and is in our corner?? Shades of Arlen Specter.
Skip| 7.22.10 @ 12:26PM
Why is it that Democrats who campaigned as "moderates" always prove to be Pelosi leftists once in office, but Repubicans who run as "moderates" or "mavericks" or whatever the euphemism, turn out to be RINOs?
Melanie Doerner| 7.22.10 @ 12:42PM
Admit it, Scott Brown f-----all of you MA voters,
along with the rest of us conservatives. There are no moderates. There's only leftists and constitutional republic thinkers.
Lizzie| 7.22.10 @ 1:05PM
I was overjoyed when Scott Brown won against Coakley. Now, however, I am somewhat dismayed by his votes, especially with his vote for the so-called "financial reform" bill. The only thing it will reform is the further drainage from the pocketbooks of all who have bank accounts and who will be nickle-and-dimed to death by the banks. A fee for seeing a TELLER in a bank? The federal government doesn't give a damn about the people of this country (and I'm talking Republicans AND Democrats), and the so-called "Progressives" are at the top of the heap. The law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head too many times with the current administration and the bimbos in Congress. May the Good Lord help us all!
Mary| 7.22.10 @ 2:03PM
I worked for Brown-and after this fin/reg bill called his office and said I never would again.
But what chance do we have if a conservative candidate runs in this the looniest liberal state in the union? Why isn't Deval in the dumper yet? I have a few friends who are liberal loons and there is no reasoning with these morons. He was and is still better than "Marcia" Martha Coakly who famously stated
"It's Not Illegal To Be Illegal In Massachusetts"
What logic ! From the Attorney general who is in a hot race with Holder to be the biggest Buffoon in Government.
JDBlues| 7.23.10 @ 1:09AM
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
John Quincy Adams
Dogmeat| 7.27.10 @ 10:33PM
It was the Tea Party who claimed that they got Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown elected and that he was one of them. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Tea Party for electing Scott Brown since he voted for the Financial Reform Bill and help the President of the United States with another legislative victory, thank you Tea Party. Have you heard of “Unintended Consequences” or “Blowback”? Was he working for the Tea Party, himself or our Country, hmmm only you can answer this one?
The problem is this. Tea Party candidates will win a number of these congressional races because local districts are often safely partisan in nature. They can make their wild, unfounded claims, crazy accusations, etc., and win. That means not only are we likely to see an increase in Republican seats in both houses, we’re likely to see more antics, more insanity, more stupidity. At the same time they’re going to do everything they can to derail Obama’s policies which will likely mean high unemployment, a moribund economy, and more compromises on policy positions that make no one happy.
That could literally mean that if the Republicans put up a legitimate candidate in 2012, they could win. Such a result is bad enough, but the likely response for the Democrats is to move further to the “middle” to placate voters. As we’ve seen over the last decade, the “middle” in American politics is basically on the verge of being an 80s Republican. Increasingly that means we’ll have a political landscape of a conservative party and ratfuck insane parties. The former, given it’s track record, slowly moving to the right, the latter, given it’s track record, loudly screaming “socialism, communism, fascism!!!”
If we continue on this course, privatization will be socialism.