The Republican party STILL needs to come up with some legitimate candidates for November. They also need to remember that they've already had one referendum passed on them in the last congressional races (2006/2008). Hoped they've learned their lesson. No more sweetheart deals. Start listening to your constituents and vote accordingly!!!!
--Colossus
And now, a cautionary noteby Ed Morrisseyhotair.comIn the wake of an unimaginable political victory in Massachusetts for Republicans, the celebratory mood is understandable. Scott Brown came out of nowhere in a period of three weeks to wrest the crown jewel of Democratic Senate seats from Harry Reid, to deny Barack Obama his supermajority, and to give new energy to a movement that had already managed to stall Obama’s signature legislation for months longer than anyone really expected. Those circumstances have not just launched new energy but also prompted some fantasies that will inevitably come crashing back to Earth.
The wildest of these fantasies, and surely not one meant terribly seriously, promotes Scott Brown as a candidate for the Republican nomination for President in 2012. Brown is a formidable presence, as Martha Coakley and the Democrats discovered too late, but do we really need another former state Senator with next to no experience in national politics on a major-party ticket? 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.
Besides, Brown has to worry about his own re-election in 2012. He got elected to serve the remainder of Ted Kennedy’s term in office; Kennedy died three years after winning his final term in 2006. The elimination of Martha Coakley means that Democrats will throw a stronger candidate against him in two years, although Coakley was the one candidate who had won statewide office and had the largest constituency. The circumstances that allowed Brown to win a decisive victory yesterday may well change significantly by 2012, although so far the White House and Congressional leadership seem to indicate it won’t.
Either way, Brown has to demonstrate independence and policy stands that put him in the best position to keep independents on his side if he has any chance of beating the Democrats while they’re awake. It’s worth pointing out that 2012 is also a presidential election, and the turnout models are going to turn in a tough direction for Brown because of it. He’s going to have to campaign for the next two years to prepare for a very tough election, one he’s at best 50-50 to win.
This brings us to the second fantasy, which some are taking a little too seriously. People have suggested and even demanded that Scott Brown give the State of the Union response next week on behalf of the Republican Party. He would no doubt make a compelling speech, but he would undermine the sense of independence that he carefully cultivated during his short campaign. Brown made it clear in his victory speech that he would not forget that:
Thank you very much. I’ll bet they can hear all this cheering down in Washington, D.C. And I hope they’re paying close attention, because tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken. …
Fellow citizens, what happened in this election can happen all over America. We are witnesses, you and I, to the truth that ideals, hard work, and strength of heart can overcome any political machine. We ran a campaign never to be forgotten, and led a cause that deserved and received all that we could give it.
And now, because of your independence, and your trust, I will hold for a time the seat once filled by patriots from John Quincy Adams to John F. Kennedy and his brother Ted. As I proudly take up the duty you have given me, I promise to do my best for Massachusetts and America every time the roll is called.
He only mentioned the word “Republican” once, in a pledge to work with both Democrats and Republicans in Washington. Brown’s smart; he knows his audience and his state, and he isn’t likely to make himself the national face of the GOP in his first week on the job.
Finally, Brown’s victory means an end to Harry Reid’s supermajority, which makes the radical agenda he and Obama have pursued unlikely to succeed. This is a much-needed brake on runaway government expansion, but it isn’t Nirvana by any stretch. Brown will be likely to vote for a scaled-down version of health-care reform (as would be Snowe, Collins, and perhaps a couple of other Republicans) that still would be the wrong direction, just not as bad as what’s on the table now. Democrats still have an 18-vote majority in the Senate and a House majority of over 70 seats. They can do a lot of damage in the remainder of the 111th Session, so we have to maintain vigilance and keep up the energy.
We didn’t cross a finish line last night — we crossed the starting line.
