I know, I said Bye-Bye Brown last spring after he wrote an op-ed in Politico slamming the Ryan plan and playing into the Democratic meme that Republicans want to abandon seniors. And he has been a disappointment on several key votes, such as Dodd-Frank.
But…
If not Scott, it will be Elizabeth “the factory owners owe us” Warren, who is pretty much dead-even in the latest poll released in the Boston Herald:
Democrat Elizabeth Warren’s meteoric ascent in Massachusetts politics has landed her in a virtual dead heat with Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, while two Democrats who passed on the race — Gov. Deval Patrick and former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II — could pose even bigger threats to the GOP incumbent, a new UMass-Lowell/Boston Herald poll shows.
Brown is ahead of Warren by a 41-38 percent margin in a general election trial heat, a statistical tie given the poll’s 3.8 percent margin of error. Warren, who announced her campaign just last month, faces her first crucial test Tuesday night in a Democratic debate sponsored by University of Massachusetts at Lowell and the Herald.
Brown has made a tragic mistake by tacking left, as I warned before, you can’t out-liberal a real liberal. But he tried, and now voters who want a liberal will flock to the real liberal, and the Tea Party movement and disaffected Democrats will not help him because he stuck his finger in their eyes once too often.
Is it time for us to reconsider, not because of Brown but because of Warren? (Poll open until 7 p.m. Eastern today)
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Scott Brown is a total loser. I’d rather fight against the nut Warren then give my support to such the mentally deficient Brown.
Forget Brown. It does no good to have an R next to your name if you are going to vote D. I say use your energy to support true conservative candidates in races that will make a difference.
Exactly. Plus people deserve the officials they elect. If MA wants a communist to run them into the ground, it has worked out so well for them these past decades, let them have her. The rest of the Senate will be Conservative. We can’t depend on The Nude to vote reliably Conservative because he’s not one of us. So no TP support. Lt the RINO’s support him.
Brown is almost certainly better than the Democrat who will ultimately emerge from their primary process, but Brown has megatons of cash and he’s an incumbent now.
Let Brown support Brown. And let Massachusetts Republicans who are so inclined support Brown. But there’s no longer any good reason for out-of-state conservatives to rally to support Brown when there are so many cash-starved and publicity-starved conservative candidates across the country who would do much more to fight statism.
Bingo!
My sentiments exactly!
Same goes for me.
I don’t think Brown has a snowball’s chance in you-know-where to keep that seat (yeah, yeah, we all thought it).
That was a particular moment, and every TEA Party patriot across this nation was deeply invested in Brown winning; the blogs and twitter were abuzz. They literally came to MA from across the nation, stayed in other TEA Party peeps’ houses or in hotels, worked their butts off. Those who couldn’t come in donated like crazy (remember the money bomb? Good times). But that wasn’t about Brown. That was about the 41st vote to stop the health care monstrosity. It also helped that it was a special election (the only one to focus on and to many of us extremely important, but we were stupid enough to believe the Dems would pass the bill normally and need 60 votes).
It was, in other words, a perfect storm. It won’t happen again, he’s toast.
I didn’t vote on the poll, but I am always dubious of the “vote for the lesser evil” argument.
Scott Brown has a record now – let him run on HIS record, not on how scary his opponent is.
I voted NO on “is it time to support Scott Brown” because I believe a RINO like Brown is more harmful to the ascendancy of conservatism than a looney liberal like Elizabeth Warren.
A RINO seeking media love by trashing Republicans and cutting deals with Democrats will always get the attention he seeks. It’s sickening when Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are the only R’s voting with the Democrats on some new scheme to screw conservatives. Why have one more of those? Better to have a nutbag like Elizabeth Warren in that seat. She’s useless to the Democrats in advancing their agenda because even the people who will vote for her aren’t as crazy as she is. Scott Brown is more helpful to them and harmful to us.
Besides, he’s already burned his bridges, he’s going to lose. Like you said, given the choice between a turncoat conservative and the real McCoy, voters will go with the real thing. Politics is war by other means, and in war the turncoat traitor who defects to the other side is never trusted by them. Just look as those few Republicans who have actually switched to become Democrats. Their careers come to a screeching halt.
Victor Davis Hanson has a great line today. He writes in The Coming Post-Obama Renaissance: “The spell has now passed; and we are stronger for its passing. There is going to be soon a sense of relief that we have not experienced in decades. In short, sadder but wiser Americans will soon be turned loose with a vigor unseen in decades.”
Scott Brown has decided he doesn’t want to be a part of that. Fine. Good riddance.
Brown can be a useful tool. He will go along with the tide, so we need a strong enough tide that he will vote for. In this state of political gaming, every “R” counts. When you’re scaling a mountain, every toehold counts. It’s not where you’d spend the night, but it advances the cause.
I voted undecided. Brown’s been a disappointment, but Warren’s a flat-out Social Democrat. Even a squish Republican such as Brown would be preferable. As “Windbag” notes above, every “R” counts, and we need control of the Senate.
On the other hand, we should ask whether the People’s Republic of Massachusetts is a lost cause (much like my own California) and that any effort put there is wasted when there are much more promising battlegrounds?
I have had to map out the investment banking protions of the Dodd-Frank Law which my firm is obligated to comply with. Specifically Titles I, II, IV & VII. This is the worts piece of legislation – ever (with the possible exception of “ObamaCare”). Scott Brown voted for it -He is a total jerk. I was a volunteer lawyer on his campaign, donated money and went to Boston at my own expense. I say to my fellow Conservatives – sit this one out – there are other far more worthy candidates to dev ote your time and resources on. I am so mad at this guy- he takes our money and support and then stiffs us. I will only support him if he does a “mea culpa” on DF. I am not holding my breath. I hope he (and others) of his ilk get the message.
Thanks prof, but the forth option should have been “Um, does Scott Brown™ Hemlock come in strawberry?”
I’d vote for Warren, perhaps her brain-dead message will inspire the Mass serfs to remain in their enslave-state whereby keeping them from fleeing to the free states.
Keep away from my state Mass serfs, after all the eunuchs in power we finally we have a woman Gov who stands for freedom.
Being in Texas I have no vote in the Massachusetts elections and even if I wanted to my finances would not allow me to contribute.
I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “You have to pick your battles.” Sometimes I think the phrase was coined by Gen. McClellan during the Civil War since he seemed to lose every battle through his own fears about the enemy.
At other times, though, the phrase makes sense. What does a fight between a liberal wannabe and a real liberal mean to me? Is it better to have an honest, declared enemy or have someone who claims to be an ally right before he stabs you in the back?
Rather than support Brown why not do the right thing and give support to a third option? Be honest to your own principles rather than giving support to a traitor? Yes, the enemy wins. But in truth the enemy wins whether it’s Brown the Turncoat or Warren the Bat-Sh*T Crazy.
To thine own self be true.
I voted Yes, but in general and particular the election is a two step process – Is there a Primary challenger to Brown?
No, and I doubt there will be. MA elected that horrible, lawless Croakley to remain AG. Nothing changed here (as evidenced by the November 2010 elections); the only reason Brown won at all was the moment, the ObamaCare monstrosity, and most important of all a single-minded focus on the election by TEA Party patriots across the country. That won’t be, indeed can’t be, replicated in November 2012.
MA resident & former Brown donor here. Upon reflection, I voted No:
1. Ever since Read My Lips Bush, GOP politicians have routinely lied to me. I’m not putting up with it anymore. The fact that Establishment Republicans wreck the country more slowly than Democrats do is no longer a reason to vote GOP.
2. Bill was right. Brown’s op-ed on a left-leaning site was the last straw.
3. I’ll vote for Brown over Warren, but work/donate to support him? No.
If Scott Brown isn’t absolutely perfect, to hell with him! The winner will only be a senator for six years, and I’m sure there wouldn’t be any difference whatsoever between any of his votes and those of a totalitarian whacko like Elizabeth Warren during that time. So what have we got to lose by not voting for a candidate who lacks absolute ideological purity?
Yeah, that’s it! I’ll point a gun at my own head and say “Do it my way, or the idiot gets it!”
Many of the commenters on this blog are too purist and too prone to throw the RINO epitaph around. The only concevable reason Brown should not be supported is if there are simply not enough resources. I would personally love to have 50 mainstream Republicans (of varying conservativeness) and 10 squishes than 40 purists (or 30 as Jim DeMint famously claimed). I would rather move the country slowly in the right direction than pull and Obamacare like stunt with the net effect being a country less on the right path than otherwise. This is done with consensus building and yes, compromise. The squishy republicans are useful on varying issues, and we’re going to want their votes on the occasions we agree. You can’t build a supermajority without treading on some seriously blue territory, and to keep that territory many of those representatives will have to take positions many of us dislike. I for one won’t hold my support just because they could be better, unless there is a viable alternative.
Here’s a thing (which other’s have said before, but bears repeating). Barack Obama needs swing states such as Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, and Ohio. Mitt Romney is competitive (read: beating Obama) in every one of those states, but also is a threat in California, New York, Connecticut (as you may have read) and Massachusetts. If you want to spread out Democratic resources in 2012, then forcing the president to actually campaign in traditionally blue states is the way to go. Romney-Brown can put a serious strain on the Left in the Bay State. If they lose there, then so would any other candidate; but if they win, then it would feed the “repudiation” narrative and give our new president much greater cover to roll back virtually everything our current president has done.
I doubt very much if you could find someone more conservative than Brown that could win in MA next year.
You support the most Conservative candidate that can win in a particular state.
The choice is Brown, who will vote with us 2/3 of the time, or Warren (or another radical leftist) that will be opposed 100% of the time.
Don’t forget, the first vote they make each session is incredibly important: the vote for majority leader. The Senate majority leader has enormous power in the Senate, setting the agenda and determining how (or even if) amendments can be voted on each bill. Also, the majority party gets to pick the Chairman and will form the majority of members on EVERY Senate committee.
We may need 60 votes in the Senate to get rid of Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, etc. There’s an outside chance of getting to 60 in 2012, a strong chance of getting to 60 in 2014. You generally need 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, we’re currently at 47. It helps to have a few extra beyond 60 also, so you don’t have to water down your bill to ‘bribe’ each moderate for their vote.
IMO, we can do better than the two moderate R ladies from Maine, and should primary them. We can DEFINITELY do better than Lindsey Graham in SC (2014 I think). In MA in 2012, you’d be crazy to consider anything other than all-out support for Scott Brown.
Bogus. “We may need 60 votes in the Senate to get rid of Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, etc. There’s an outside chance of getting to 60 in 2012, a strong chance of getting to 60 in 2014. You generally need 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, we’re currently at 47. It helps to have a few extra beyond 60 also, so you don’t have to water down your bill to ‘bribe’ each moderate for their vote.
IMO, we can do better than the two moderate R ladies from Maine, and should primary them. We can DEFINITELY do better than Lindsey Graham in SC (2014 I think). In MA in 2012, you’d be crazy to consider anything other than all-out support for Scott Brown.” And contradictory. Brown gave us Dodd/Frank. He is not a reliable GOP vote but a preener.
No. A thousand times no. If we support him now, what lesson will he and others like him learn for the future? That it’s safe to do whatever he likes for six years, because he’s guaranteed that the Democrats will put up someone to his left and we’ll all come flocking back to his banner. The only way to get the message through to these people that they can’t count on us, and have to keep us happy, is to show them that we’re able to sacrifice the short term for the long term; that we’re willing to let a Warren win on the D ticket rather than a Brown on the R one.
Supporting him in the first place was different; I’d have supported Warren herself, had she run in that race as a Republican. The point was simply to take “Kennedy’s seat”, and thus deliver 0bama and the whole D party a message. Mission accomplished. The message went through loud and clear, though they didn’t listen to it. But that’s over and done with; having the Ds take the seat back wouldn’t be much of a boost to their morale, because after all it’s naturally their seat anyway. It’s like NY-9, a seat they count on winning. We have no reason to support a squish just for the sake of keeping it out of their hands for one more term.
I just got an email from Brown. It announces that this Friday he is…hosting a jobs fair! In Democratic Boston, not in parts of the state where Republican or independent votes are. And a noticeable fraction of the employers are government departments.
This smacks of cluelessness and desperation. I haven’t paid much attention to Brown, but if this is how he’s operated, no wonder his popularity has plummeted. If this is how he operates, a donation might well be money down the drain. What happened to the guy who electrified the state with “It’s the people’s seat.”?
I reaffirm my decision to give Brown nothing more than a vote.
The only way to get the message through to these people that they can’t count on us, and have to keep us happy, is to show them that we’re able to sacrifice the short term for the long term; that we’re willing to let a Warren win on the D ticket rather than a Brown on the R one.
Ah, yes. The only way to win is to lose! To show the rest of the potential candidates that they can’t count on conservatives if a candidate deviates from ideological purity. To prove that we are too small a fraction of the electorate to ever win an election. That will rally people to our cause and ensure successful candidates!
William F. Buckley said it long ago: do your best to elect the most conservative candidate who can win. Do you see any other even mildly conservative candidate for the Senate seat from Massachusetts who can win?
If you don’t think Brown is conservative enough, challenge him in the primary — that’s why we have primaries, after all. When Brown votes stupidly — and helping to enact Dodd-Frank was both stupid and wrong — then educate him. (Have you written to him, to tell him what a stupid thing he did?) But threatening to withhold your support or your vote because he isn’t perfect, when his opponent is a nightmare, is not a sensible course of action.
Do that and he will keep spitting in your face and telling you it’s raining. He may be the best we can find, but he’s capable of being better than he is. The question is why on earth should he, if we keep crawling back to him like dogs no matter how he treats us.
He may be the best we can find …
And that’s the problem, right there. Find someone better, support that person in the primary election, and then support the best candidate who survives the winnowing of the primaries.
You still have several months. Conservatives and libertarians don’t yet have to choose between Scott Brown and Joe Stalin in drag. But if you can’t find someone better, go with the best you have, however imperfect. Temper tantrums won’t win you any elections or keep sociopathic politicians from trying to run your life.
Far from a temper tantrum, abandoning Brown would be a calculated move, sacrificing the short term for the long. Again I ask you why on earth should Brown give a damn about us, if he knows we will always rally behind him in the end, because he will always be better than whomever the Ds put up? Why should he lift a finger to keep us happy? If you were in his position, with his views, would you alter your votes in any way to keep us happy? If we want the next Brown (and all the other Browns who are in there now) to care about us we need them to know that not doing so carries a price. But so long as we’re little children who can be relied on never to think of the long term, never to be willing to sacrifice now for an eventual gain, they know that we will never exact that price and they can do whatever they like to us with no fear.
If we want the next Brown (and all the other Browns who are in there now) to care about us we need them to know that not doing so carries a price.
Yes! Tell all those other Republican officeholders in Masssachusetts that you’ll walk away from them if they aren’t absolutely perfect! That will show them!
Why should he lift a finger to keep us happy? If you were in his position, with his views, would you alter your votes in any way to keep us happy?
If I were Brown, perhaps I would, and perhaps I wouldn’t. Maybe he’s doing what he thinks is right, and needs to be educated. Maybe he doesn’t think anyone cares about your side of the issues, but he is aware that there are people who will strongly oppose him if he votes the way you want him to. Maybe he’d change his voting pattern if you had an identifiable bloc that in the past had given him money and had organized like-minded voters to go to the polls. Maybe if you supported the campaign of a primary challenger he’d consider moving further to the right.
I’ll ask you again: Do you see any other even mildly conservative candidate for the Senate seat from Massachusetts who can win? Have you even written to him, to communicate your dissatisfaction with his voting record? Or are you relying on him to telepathically discern that you didn’t vote for him because you didn’t like his policies? Do you believe that Scott Brown actually knows that you even exist, much less that you want him to vote more conservatively?
If the answers to these questions are what I think they are, then yes, you’re just throwing a temper tantrum. And what you’ll get with your strategy of refusing to vote for someone who isn’t absolutely ideologically perfect is a different person in office, one who not only will spit in your face but will deposit various other body fluids elsewhere on your person.