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
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Can someone please succinctly explain why it is ok to support Scott Brown, but it wasn't ok to support Mike Castle? If Christine O'Donnell primaried Brown, would you support O'Donnell? I'm just trying to get a handle on the "functioning theory of politics" for the Tea Party, if there is one. When is it ok to support a RINO and when is it not? Castle would have also been a vote to repeal Obamacare, were he given the chance. Is it a big factor if the candidate excites you or reminds you of other much more effective politicians, i.e. O'Donnell reminding one of Sarah Palin? If we can figure out each other's thinking it will be much easier for the entire Republican party to find the right candidates. Thanks for the help.
I was a huge supporter of Scott Brown, as you know, but I think that his win was down to people being irked by, at and about Coakley as well as the unprecedented attention and money that flowed into Brown's campaign. I'd like to think that it was a response to this administration, but November 2 pretty much killed that pretty thought. In the months leading up to January 2010, we had the whole country (Tea Party peeps, conservatives, et al.) focused on that one and only one campaign. People rallied around him hoping to kill the bill. That won't be the case in 2012; we'll be spread thin, focused on the Senate and the WH, and there won't be any urgency in getting Brown re-elected (he's already being dismissed in most "how the reps take the senate in 2012" models). I'm voting for him, of course, but I doubt that he wins.
@MikeHinton – Castle supported cap-and-trade and opposed the Iraq surge. That's a start.
@Fuzzy – I think Brown will have trouble getting people as motivated again, but having 6.7m in the bank as of today will allow him to hire the type of campaign operation he didn't have in 2010. I agree that his position is not secure, particularly since it will be a presidential year.
@mikehinton The short-term goal of the Tea Party is to recruit and support people to stand against Obama's agenda. In Massachusetts, Brown is the best person for that job.
Dear Professor
Whether to support a "RINO" appears to be the big question among conservatives. In the end I think it comes down to character. Spector, Castle and even, alas! McCain are examples of squirmy politicians who may (as McCain does) point to an 82% conservative voting record but they really are all over the map about core issues. For example, McCain has been solid against abortion but don't mention immigration about which he is now the Latest Champion only because of a primary challenge. Once in office they sell sell their principals and supporters out, or certainly appear to. If Brown remains a fiscal conservative and true to the principals he ran on I have few qualms supporting him. But if he suddenly is more Dem than Rep, not so much. Castle, from what little I know of him, ran as an R but acted as a D. The fact that he was "certainly electable" in a deep blue state and had held state office for decades says he was part of the problem, not the solution. You can't get behind something if there is nothing to get behind. O'Donnell may not have been the "best" candidate but she was a conservative. The best think about RINOS is that the more conservative the country becomes the less they will be tempted to stray.
The real test of Brown will be to see how he votes with the new Congress.
Yeah, let's let Mr. 41 be the standard bearer in Mass-2012. It's the best we can do, after all, and let's not let anyone say we are not pragmatic.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Electing Scott Brown was a tactical victory at the time. It flipped the entire establishment, Dem and Rep, on its head. The Dems had already counted that seat as in their back pocket and the establishment Reps had even conceded the seat. It's the Tea Party (helped by out-of-state NY law professors tweeting and dialing) that made it possible to steal "Ted Kennedy's seat" as a way to block, or at least divert, the passage of ObamaCare.
We all knew at the time that Brown was at best a centrist It doesn't matter. The resulting panic among both parties changed the game and made it easier for Angle, Miller, O'Donnell, Rubio and others.
There is no point equating Brown's election to supporting any other RINO in the future. No other centrist or liberal Republican finds himself in the same opportunistic situation. We have nothing to gain and plenty to lose for electing a Castle, Whitman or Fiorina.
Let us lay out the field.
"Brown is no Arlen Specter or Charlie Crist. Brown campaigned on being the 41st vote against Obamacare, and he followed through on that pledge." That is all. He is a liberal on virtually everything else, but he turned the tide on Obamacare. He represents a tactical one issue response in a deeply blue state.
The largest MSAs are flirting with bankruptcy. They all managed to remain Democrat, and generally dragged their states with them. What they are saying is that they prefer Democrats to save them, which seems a bewildering strategy.
But therein lies the benefit of 50 states. The effectiveness of theory will be played out on the field where it should be. We would do great damage to American viability and ideals if we begin bailing states out.
I think we can all judge for ourselves who deserves our support. Scott Brown does not get nor deserve mine.
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.
Mike Castle may have been far from a perfect Republican, or conservative. But he was a reasonably reliable Republican vote. Yes, I know he voted for cap and tax. And yes he should have been looking to retirement, instead of trying to run the race he should have run in 2000 against Tom Carper. But he would have been a reasonably reliable vote for 4 years. As much as I agree more with the positions O'Donnell took, she was a deeply flawed candidate. A fact most Delaware residents knew, but out of state Tea Partiers did not. The fact that she was on the primary ballot at all was more a testament to the ineptitude which plagues the state Republican party than anything else. They tolerated her when she was willing to serve as their sacrificial lamb in 2006 and 2008 against first Carper and then Biden because they couldn't find anyone else. Unfortunately Delaware is stuck being blue for the foreseeable future.
""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. "
With respect to the Senate seat, Castle was NOT part of the problem. And he would have been a significant improvement over any of Biden, Kaufman or Chris (I'm a Marxist) Coons.
It is interesting to read the comments supporting Castle. They sound suspiciously like those used to excuse Specter, Chafee, Scozzofava, Snowe, Collins, Powell, Schwarzenegger, Crist, and a host of other DIABLOs (Democrat In All But Label Only). I think I now understand why the GOP is called the Stupid Party. If Castle is the best the GOP can do, then include me out.
Here are the cold, hard facts: there is ZERO difference between Biden, Coons and Castle. None. Zip. Nada. Representative Castle was a greedy, corrupt crook, and in the Senate he would have been worse. A Senator Castle would have been a solid vote for cap & trade. He also would have helped Democrats to "fix" ObamaCare – meaning, spend even more money on that disaster. Castle, like any good Democrat, oozes contempt for those he considers inferior to him (meaning 99.9% of us). He would have displaced McCain and Graham as the MSM's favorite Republican (I can just see the hagiographic Newsweak cover as he solemnly warns us of the deadly danger of freedom and personal liberty). And Castle would have eventually jumped to the Democrat Party because of the "Radical Right".
Senator Bearded Marxist performs one undeniable service for the folks of Delaware. He makes it 100% clear that the coming Greece-style disaster is purely the Democrat Party's fault. By contrast Senator Castle would have guaranteed the GOP would get the blame. Fortunately, there were enough voters who stormed the Castle and spared us that indignity.