Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Scott Brown For Senate 2012

    Scott Brown For Senate 2012

    Massachusetts Democrats are among the happiest people on earth because Democrats won all the congressional and statewide races at the mid-terms. 

    And emboldened by avoiding the wave, Mass Dems think they can defeat Scott Brown in 2012.  As reported by The Boston Herald, Democrats pledge to bring down Scott Brown in 2012:

    Fresh off their strong Bay State finish, emboldened Massachusetts Democrats targeted Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown yesterday, vowing to put up a strong candidate to topple the wildly popular GOP hunk and hinting that a challenger could emerge before the end of the year.

    “I’m confident when we get to 2012 we will have the candidate,” warned Massachusetts Democratic Party chairman John Walsh yesterday. “Scott Brown should be insecure.”

    Some observations.

    Brown remains popular in Massachusetts, and has tons of money left over from last January’s election.  He is not starting from behind, and there is no clear Democratic candidate in waiting.

    Brown also is not likely to be the target of a Republican primary challenge.  Even Erick Erickson, in assessing likely targets for primary challenges, has pretty much crossed Brown off the list.

    Brown is no Arlen Specter or Charlie Crist.  Brown campaigned on being the 41st vote against Obamacare, and he followed through on that pledge. 

    It turned out that Democrats found a way to avoid another Senate vote when the House Democrats signed onto the previously passed Senate bill plus minor reconciliation.  But do not underestimate Brown’s impact.  Brown’s election, and the fact that he kept his promise, bought valuable time during which the legislation became even less popular, and forced House liberals to swallow a bitter pill. 

    Following on Republican wins in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, the passage of Obamacare was the death knell for the Democratic Party in the House and in state houses throughout the country.

    Brown has not been the most conservative Senator (he voted for the financial reform bill, to my disappointment), but he has been with the Republican opposition most of the way.  Brown has positioned himself in the center, without abandoning core principles on which he ran.

    Brown owns a special place in the history of the fight against Obamacare and the overbearing Democratic Party agenda.

    And based on his performance so far, he still deserves our support.

    [Note:  The words “for Senate” were added to the post title for the sake of clarity.]

    Update 11-17-2010 – From The Daily Caller, Erick Erickson: Tea Partiers targeting Scott Brown in 2012 would be ‘nuts’.

    Related Posts:
    The Brown Campaign from the Ground Up
    They Also Called Scott Brown A Non-Serious Extremist

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Whiskey Jim: Here in CA, we have no choice. The GOP keeps running candidates who are even worse than detestable Democrats like Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer. It has traditionally been very hard for Democrats to win state-wide office in CA and it still is but the GOP has found a way to keep losing.

    It's beyond the "lesser of two evils" these days. Whitman spent over $160 million of her own money and didn't think of explaining who she is until the very last week. Fiorina NEVER explained who she is. It's like the GOP in CA just doesn't want to win elections anymore.

    Republicans want to vote for Republicans. Stop telling us choose between the Democrat we know versus the democrat we don't know. The Stupid is at its stupidest in CA. It's not the voters. It's the GOP. They ruined CA by abandoning the fight when they were winning. Now they won't even get into the fight at all.

    @Mike Hinton

    I can give another good reason. Castle is an old fossil who belongs in the old people's home.

    The man is 80 years old, and he should be retired.

    Delaware is not Massachusetts. There were other factors in play, including the fact that Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate – one who believed that she had the right to the Senate seat.

    Brown has been mostly centrist with his voting. He has promised to listen to his constituents.

    There are a lot of differences between an old fossil like Castle and Scott Hottie McAwesome Brown.

    Mike Castle had a chance to make his case; he failed. What really led me to support O'Donnell is that in best sore loser tradition, he and the rest of the Republican establishment did their level best to tear her down.

    There are numerous examples of Tea Party candidates being beaten in the primary and then working to elect their opponents; the reverse never occurred.

    Can someone please succinctly explain why it is ok to support Scott Brown, but it wasn't ok to support Mike Castle?

    Because "Castle is an old fossil" and Scott Brown is "Hottie McAwesome". He took the "women's" votes from the Dem woman.

    I believe the wave was not a Republican wave but an anti-old fossils of both parties wave. The old fossils and establishment shoe-ins in the Republican party were taken out in the primaries. The Republicans in the mid-term were not the establishment favored Republicans in the primaries. The Republican establishment had written off the unknown Scott Brown after he won the primary. The Republican establishment endorsements were a kiss of death in the primaries, e.g. Crist in Florida, Lisa M in Alaska, Castle in Delaware, Bennet in Utah, and (?) in Nevada.

    "Can someone please succinctly explain why it is ok to support Scott Brown, but it wasn't ok to support Mike Castle?"

    Because Mike Castle was part of the problem, and Brown was an improvement, Castle wasn't.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend