Image 01 Image 03

Scott Brown’s important place in history

Scott Brown’s important place in history

Scott Brown never misrepresented himself or his intentions.

Scott Brown announced yesterday that he decided not to run for the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry.  While I would have preferred he run, I can’t say I blame him.

After all, Massachusetts elected Elizabeth Warren, someone who demonstrably misrepresented her ethnicity for employment purposes both in professional publications and for the purpose of her university’s federal filings.  One thing I learned just yesterday was that Warren admitted in an interview that she did not meet the legal definition necessary to claim minority status.  Nonetheless, she is on the tip of almost every Democrat’s tongue as a candidate for President in 2016, and has to be considered a frontrunner if Hillary does not run.

Given the state of Massachusetts politics, it would have been too much to expect Brown to run for Senate a third time this year and then again in 2014.

Brown was a Senator for less than three years, but he holds an important place in our political history.

His election in January 2010 was a watershed moment in the rise of opposition to Obamacare, a spontaneous coming together of the Tea Party movement and blue collar Democrats.  As someone who covered that 2010 race more closely and earlier than anyone, I witnessed first hand the passion with which seemingly disparate groups wanted to deprive Obama of a filibuster-proof Senate.

That 41st vote against Obamacare had enormous significance.  It was not enough to stop it, because the Senate had passed a bill in late December 2009.  Brown’s election meant that the House, led by Nancy Pelosi, could not modify the Senate bill and had to take it as is, but for some relatively minor “reconciliation” changes.  The hard core progressives never got to weigh in on Obamacare.

The Senate Obamacare bill, which became law because Brown could block any non-reconciliation changes, was and is a monstrosity, hated by conservatives and true progressives alike.  Only party-line Democrats like it.

Brown’s election in January 2010 also kept up the momentum created by the elections of Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie in November 2009, and took that momentum to a new level which carried forward into the 2010 mid-term elections and Republicans taking back the House.

Brown often disappointed us in his votes, which at one point caused me to say bye-bye, only to reconsider when I saw the alternative.

One thing which is beyond dispute, however, is that Brown was true to his word of being the independent man, someone who reached across the aisle.  He ran that way in the 2010 election, and he voted that way.

Scott Brown never misrepresented himself or his intentions.  That’s a lot more than we can say about his successor or just about any other politician.

I wish him well, whether its running for Governor in 2014 or just returning to private life.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



TrooperJohnSmith | February 2, 2013 at 10:37 am

Too bad ha didn’t borrow a line from David Crockett and tell ’em all just to go to hell, and he’d go to Texas. Of course, down here, he’d be a moderate Democrat.

A pox Warren on their houses.

    Elizabeth Warren for Preisdent? They might as well go with Plugs Biden.

    I agree 100%.

    Scott Brown did the right thing by not running. Massachusetts doesn’t deserve a good person like him. They had their chance, and the picked Senator Warren over him. Warren is perfect for MA.

    The GOP in MA should withdraw completely from running for office. In the past, when the Democrats had a super-majority, they raised taxes and spending by voice vote. And the voters, in desperation, voted for enough Republicans to keep them honest. The GOP shouldn’t do it. Massachusetts should have the democrats run the state totally. Democrats unleashed is not a pretty sight: they’ll run the state right into the ground. Look at CA or IL.

    The GOP in Massachusetts needs to pay for signs coming into the state, “You are now entering a state controlled by Democrats. Abandon hope all ye who enter here.”

I really can’t see Elizabeth Warren as a potential POTUS candidate. Then again, I couldn’t see a career community organizer with no visible executive skills becoming POTUS either. I guess the Democrat Party Mandarins really have no conscious care for the America they are running into the ground.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to SeniorD. | February 2, 2013 at 11:38 am

    I’ve always seen her as a very viable Democrat candidate. She can’t talk without lying, knows how to game the system, is a demagogue, has 300% backing of the party and of the women, is willing to say and do anything to win.

    I still stand by my contention that Hillary likely had some kind of stroke … or is a drunk. She will not be the 2016 candidate. Warren will be the candidate. Sarah Palin will be the GOP candidate, to the utter distress of the RINO’s. Palin will beat Lieawatha’s lily-white arse like a Victorian footman beating a rug.

    The Democrats refused to abandon Lieawatha because they needed her in the Senate to e a viable candidate for 2016. Biden can say what the hell he wants, but nobody will back him.

      Juba: What a thought provoking comment!
      Your first paragraph is unassailable.
      I sure like what you wrote in your second paragraph, except I would change your word “or” to “and.”
      Your third paragraph is a reminder that things will not necessarily improve when Obama’s second term is over.

      Mary Sue in reply to Juba Doobai!. | February 2, 2013 at 2:14 pm

      Christian Heinze rates Kirsten Gillibrand the top candidate if Hillary doesn’t run. I think he makes a pretty sound case why Gillibrand is in a stronger position to get the nomination over someone like Warren. Warren is a progressive overreach, we should be so lucky to have to run against Elizabeth Warren IMO.

      Do I think Palin could beat Warren? Yes. Still, I don’t think Palin is going to run nor do I think Warren will be the Dem nominee. I think Palin needs to get back into office first. She could conceivably beat Mark Begich if she ran for AK Senate. Right now the strongest candidate against Begich is Sean Parnell. Palin is currently running behind Begich and her favorables are underwater in Alaska. She is in a much better position to beat Begich than Joe Miller, however. She can fundraise and she is awesome on the trail. We really need to start winning these Senate races, I hope she has given that race serious thought.

      jdkchem in reply to Juba Doobai!. | February 2, 2013 at 3:40 pm

      I’m going with drunk. Who wouldn’t start drinking if they were sandwiched between barry and bubba?

WRT Scott Brown, he never pretended to be a conservative, though, of course, the Collective lied about that.

I’ve never regretted supporting his candidacy, or cheering his election. It was a wonderful moment of hope in the long, dark night of the Obamic Decline.

    I agree PB and any conservative who says Scott Brown betrayed them is frankly an idiot (sorry but it is true). You elect the most conservative candidate who can get elected. Scott Brown was that for the People’s Socialistic Republic of Massachusetts.

    In a red or purple state, I would not vote for Scott Brown. But in the Bay State he is definitely one of the better choices available.

    I wish he ran a better campaign (not that it was terrible, but he did not win). I wish Massachusetts was not so crazy and liberal. I wish voters voted for character and not a straight D ticket.

      casualobserver in reply to EBL. | February 2, 2013 at 3:06 pm

      Keep in mind Brown lost by a margin much smaller than Romney compared to Obama in that election. There were a lot of people who didn’t vote party line, on the order of 700,000, or so. Not enough, of course.

Let’s be nice to Scott Brown; he was the best Mass Republican candidate for the Senate we could expect. The best reason for supporting him was that he would not vote for Harry Reid. His vote against Obamacare forced the Democrats to rally behind their already passed unaffordable care act which is already failing due to its internal inconsistencies.

Hillary Clinton is done. You can see it by the fawning interviewers she seems to be constantly opposite lately — probably under marching orders to ‘usher her out nicely.’ (She’s more deserving of a boot in her ass. An amazing woman: she has had every political tool at her disposal, and was given every opportunity possible — yet she has failed miserably in every role she has been cast in. Where I come from, we call these people ‘failures.’)

But while Hillary Clinton is a boob, and her in a position of high responsibility is frightening because of her incompetence, Elizabeth Warren is more frightening because of her malignant intentions, her ruthlessness and her competence. She’s Michelle Obama, only with brains.

Equally frightening is the electorate of Massachusetts and it’s national hate-factory, Harvard University.

    “She’s Michelle Obama, only with brains.”

    Oh, here I take violent exception! Compare and contrast Lieawatha’s ability to speak without careful preparation to Moo000chelle’s.

    Review also MooOOOchelle’s powerful speech at the DNC introducing Pres. Skeeter.

    SHE is the one to watch, IMNHO, for the future. SHE is the NEXT great danger to the Republic…if we last that long.

    I generally do not consider people who lie in order to get special treatment competent. She is a lying harpy who hides behind her skirt. The sooner someone brutally calls the repugnant harridan out until she runs to the powder room in tears the better.

“…hated by conservatives and true progressives alike.”

Well… I have to think “true progressives” hate only because it was so badly designed. They just love the massive expansion of the administrative state. Conservatives hate it for both. 🙂

    I really don’t see why “true” progressives dislike Obamacare. It’s obvious at this point that it is designed to crash the whole of private-market medicine: insurance, R&D medical devices/procedures, pharmaceuticals, practicing and would-be medical professional professionals.

    It leads to a monolithic, centralized control of the entire industry and its sub-industries – which of course leads to centralized control of 99% of all private industry by a chosen, state-approved elite (whether individuals or corporations). Not to mention the single-pay system they’ve always been working toward.

A bit off topic, but interesting to note the widespread cheating scandal at Harvard – I believe Gov 101 – some 100+ students were disciplined, many suspended, etc. Apparently Harvard takes cheating as a serious offense ….. but only for students.

I am sorry to see that Brown won’t run. I think he would continue to make a good senator, particularly given his Apache heritage. (wink, wink)

It’s sad that the “most conservative” in Mass is a proabortion porn star. Yes, I did vote against the fake Cherokee; I’ll vote against any avowed socialist or deviant.

Conservatism has a long road back, but with candidates like Brown they won’t be getting my vote. Some will say I’m just handing victory to the other side. No. Victory happens when there is no longer a conservative candidate. From that point, the Republicrat party begins the Hegelian manipulation of the voters, getting us to pull the lever for Brown-like candidates. The more we do it, the more demoralized we get. It’s in this way that they soften our will to oppose them. Obama and the left are masters at this.

    jdkchem in reply to JerryB. | February 2, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    Jenna Jameson lives in MA?

    Mercyneal in reply to JerryB. | February 3, 2013 at 9:14 am

    Brown is not a “porn star.” He posed once for Cosmo- hardly porn.

    The real porn star was Democrat District Attorney Mark Suben in upstate New York. He was a 70s’ porn star but tried to hide this from the electorate and the press in last November’s election. He blamed the allegations on a right wing smear. But just days after his election, when presented with irrefutable evidence (which included clips of him having sex in a movie with an actress playing an underaged Girl Scout), he had to fess up.

[…] Law School, argues that this was key in preventing the bill from becoming even more aggressive. Democrats were in such a hurry to get the legislation through however that it seems unlikely much […]

casualobserver | February 2, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Scott Brown can do more for the GOP and the conservative cause by running for and winning the governorship, than by doing the Senate shuffle again. Just as Chris Christie or even Scott Walker are not exactly Tea Party conservatives, through and through, they do a lot to highlight failed progressive policies to various degrees. So could Brown.

Until (if??) the MA Republican Party can get itself on sure footing and fairly effective, the country is better off not seeing the Dem machine massacres time after time. If you look at the Warren/Brown election map, you see a lot of red and pink regions (counties – not very meaningful in New England). Yet, the state GOP can’t figure out how to put any Republicans in the U.S. House, even. The most glaring example of the state party’s ineffectiveness is the loss by Richard Tisei for a Congressional seat, losing to Tierney, a candidate with FRESH scandals. (I know, I know, many will say that works in his favor to Dems….)

If Scott Brown has national ambitions beyond having run for Senate, or possibly running for Governor of Massachusetts, they way he is going to get there is through the Governorship, since the GOP tends to favor current- or former-governors for their Presidential candidates.

I wish him luck. If any Republican has a chance of becoming Governor of Massachusetts, Scott Brown is the person.

If Ronald Reagan were alive today and available, I doubt that he’d run considering what this country has turned into.

I see no white knight in our future…