The unthinkable has happened.
Calling it "the people's seat," and himself "nobody's Senator except yours," Republican Scott Brown sailed to victory in Massachusetts Tuesday, beating Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley by five points for the Senate seat once held by liberal Democrat Edward Kennedy.
Brown's victory kicks off the 2010 midterm election campaign, and for Democrats, blood is officially in the water.
What the American people will witness over the next 10 months is political theater at its finest. Democrats are already on the phones planning their strategies and looking desperately for a scapegoat. My guess is that that scapegoat will be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
It's no secret that Reid's polling in his home state of Nevada is abysmal and that he's one of the most beatable Democrats on Capitol Hill. His vulnerability is a weakness, and if it's one thing for which Washington has no stomach, it's weakness of any kind. Since Reid is likely hitting the bricks anyway, Democrats will probably want to lay as many of their troubles on his shoulders as they can before he heads out the door.
Which isn't to say that Reid doesn't deserve to be the scapegoat. Quite the contrary. Reid probably wouldn't be polling so bad had it not been for his blind unwavering support for the aggressively liberal agenda laid out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the president. Had any of them stopped to listen to the American people for just a moment, they would have realized that they were moving too fast and that a more measured approach would have worked better. Instead, they scoffed at the Tea Party protests, referred to the opponents of health care reform as "astroturfers," and cut Congressional Republicans out of the political process completely.
Of all the Democrats who should be worried, however, it is President Obama who has the most to fear. While most see Brown's victory as a referendum on health care, Obama should be seeing the Massachusetts election as a referendum on him. The president showed incredible campaigning skills in 2008, and perhaps his ability to win such a decisive victory gave him a bit more confidence than was warranted. Now, his campaigning abilities are being seriously called into question after his visits to New Jersey, Virginia and now Massachusetts all resulted in defeats for the candidates he was supporting.
But of all the statistics being discussed in the wake of Brown's victory (more than half of all voters cited health care reform as one of the most decisive factors in the campaign, 22 percent of state Democrats voted for Brown), the one that should be most troubling for Obama and his Democratic allies is this one: 76 percent of voters said they were voting for Brown, rather than against Coakley.
Why should this be so bothersome? Because Brown campaigned as a rock-ribbed conservative in one of the most liberal states in the nation.
If an openly and unapologetic conservative can win in Massachusetts, Democrats have a long road ahead in 2010.
Join Me on Facebook | Get My Twitter Updates 
Photo © Darren McCollester/Getty Images
Comments
Hi Justin –
“Because Brown campaigned as a rock-ribbed conservative in one of the most liberal states in the nation.”
Rock ribbed? Pro choice. Likes the Massachusetts health care plan. Doesn’t like Obama Care because “there’s nothing in it for Massachusetts”. And he’s right. IOW, he’s a moderate, pragmatic Republican.
He ran a great campaign. He’s warm, charismatic and telegenic. Posed nude for Cosmo. If I lived in Massachusetts, I might have voted for Scott Brown.
If he gets a second term, it will be because he’s liked and breaks party lines often enough to keep his job. Like Olympia Snowe, Ben Nelson, and all the other politicians who survive in a state dominated by the opposite party.
BTW, he attended a Tea Party rally and claimed that he didn’t know what the Tea Party stood for. The Tea Party endorsed him. I found it remarkable that the Tea Party would endorse exactly the kind of moderate Republican that they’ve been targeting. For me, that was the really big news out of Mass.
I find it interesting that the so-called “pro-life” movement is portrayed so often as a far-right movement, and then, when a conservative comes along who doesn’t tow that line, it’s used to deny his conservatism.
Scott Brown did not run a perfect compaign. Then again, with the poor one being run on the other side, he didn’t need to. But he gave people something to vote for, and it was distinctly right-wing. Pragmatic? Sure. We’ll find out once he’s in office, but based on his campaign, anyone who thinks Scott Brown is “moderate,” is, I think, in for a surprise.
Great win for Senator elect Brown
“when a conservative comes along who doesn’t tow that line, it’s used to deny his conservatism.”
Or possibly just to deny his ‘rock ribbed’ conservatism?
Even for Lancaster County, Pa., one of the most conservative areas of the country, Brown would be considered a rock-ribbed Republican. I’m not sure exactly what it is about that phrase that has gotten you so riled up, but below is a list of why he is considered such.
Brown’s conservative positions:
Abortion: Brown received the support of right-to-life groups during his 2010 Senate bid because of his stance on stem cell research. During that campaign he voiced support for a conscience-based opt-out of post-rape contraception. According to the Boston Globe, Brown authored the Women’s Right to Know Act, requiring a pregnant woman to wait 24 hours before having an abortion, so she could have a chance to review materials on fetus growth and development.
Free Market: During the 2010 campaign, Brown expressed his opposition to new regulations of financial markets and proposed cutting taxes to create jobs.
Gay Rights: Brown voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman in February 2004, and in 2007, he expressed support for civil unions, but not gay marriage.
Crime: Brown has always had a tough-on-crime position, voting in November 2002 to implement the death penalty in Massachusetts. In 2009, he emerged as a leader in reforming the state’s sex-offender laws.
Energy: During the special election race in 2010, Brown referred to Democratic cap-and-trade proposals as a national energy tax. Although he opposes the cap-and-trade system, he has supported the idea of renewable energy.
Health Care: One of the primary issues in the 2010 special election campaign was a Democratic health care reform plan that would have implemented a so-called “public option.” Brown ran against the plan, and maintained that bipartisan cooperation is needed to fix America’s broken health care system. Frankly, the fact that he supported a Massachusetts health care system only supports his conservative belief in state’s rights (of which ObamaCare is a major imposition). Brown voted for the state system because it was economically doable. His major gripe with Obama’s health care reform plan is that it is, in his words, “fiscally unsound.” And, since you brought it up, there’s no “public option” in the Massachusetts plan. The Massachusetts health care system is a “free market enterprise” through and through.
Taxes: He maintained in 2010 that the federal government should vote to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and eliminate the estate tax (often referred to as the “Death Tax”). In 2003, he voted against raising the Massachusetts income tax to offset a rising deficit, advocating instead for across-the-board spending cuts.
I’m not sure what your definition of “rock-ribbed” conservatism is, but Brown qualifies. Abortion is a wedge issue; it’s not the only issue for conservatives. Barry Goldwater, “Mr. Conservative” himself, was a supporter of gay marriage and believed the government had no business legislating abortion.
Hi Justin –
FTR, I’m not at all riled. I’m sorry if I gave that impression. Quite frankly, I’m mildly amused. I pointed out two things about Brown’s positions: He’s pro-choice and he favors Massachusetts’ universal health care plan.
Either position should have been enough to deny him the endorsement of the ‘rock ribbed’ Tea Party. If not, in fact, it’s emnity. I think that you’ll find a rather short list of pro-life candidates that the Tea Party has endorsed. Let alone, candidates who support state wide universal insurance plans.
The big lesson out of Mass is that the Tea Party’s rock ribs will bend.
1) I don’t see Brown’s position on abortion as pro-choice. Per Wiki: “On abortion Brown said, ‘Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and I don’t plan on overturning it, but I’ve always felt that, you know, I’m against partial-birth abortions’, also known as intact dilation and extraction, ‘and believe in parental consent, a strong parental notification law’ for minors who seek an abortion. He added ‘that he would not apply an abortion rights litmus test in Supreme Court confirmations.’ He also opposes federal funding for elective abortions in accordance with the Hyde Amendment.”
Sounds pretty pro-life to me. Unless your linchpin is that first bit, in which case all I can say is that most conservatives realize that Roe v. Wade won’t be overturned anytime soon. That doesn’t stop the hard right from working to overturn it, but most common sense conservatives espouse Brown’s common-sense position.
2) The Massachusetts health care plan and the ObamaCare plan are two very distinct plans. Massachusetts’ plan is based on “free market” principles, not governmental mandates. Plus, the Massachusetts plan doesn’t have a “public option.” Key differences, but the most important practical one is it’s complete reliance on real money to pay for it. ObamaCare has no financial plan. Everybody knows what it’s going to cost, but there are no mechanisms in place to pay for it.
Whatever you want to call him, I don’t consider him a “moderate” Republican. I consider him a “common-sense conservative” Republican. “Rock-ribbed,” if you will. Does that mean I consider him a member of the hard, evangelical Christian right? No.