United Liberty
MORE Thoughts on Scott Brown (And The Implications Of His Election)
Fri, 01/22/2010 - 2:55pm | posted by Brett Bittner
I just read Matt Wittlief’s thoughts on Scott Brown, and since I have only tweeted about the Massachusetts special election and talked about it on the radio, I must be falling behind as a “political blogger” myself. I started this as a comment, but my opinions turned this into a post itself.
As I see it, the GOP needed solidarity in the Senate (41 votes) to derail ObamaCare, and Scott Brown is that 41st vote for ObamaCare in 2010. I have said it before, and I will continue to say it, Scott Brown is nothing more than a “short term compromise.” His positions are not that different from Coakley, when you compare them across the board for all three candidates that ran. He also supported RomneyCare in Massachusetts a few short years ago. His support of government intervention into the marketplace is unquestionable, and he confirmed it with his comments on Wednesday, that every libertarian that tweets or is on Facebook cited.
Is electing a Massachusetts Republican to the Senate a big deal? Yes. Did Scott Brown run a great campaign? Yes. Did Martha Coakley suck as a candidate? Yes. What happened in Massachusetts was collusion among Republicans from all 50 states bombarding the people of the state with Scott Brown’s well-timed message and grassroots campaigning to garner the millions of dollars received in the final days of his campaign. Whether it was Tea Partiers or establishment Republicans, they united in their short-sightedness. As I said before, IF I LIVED IN MASSACHUSETTS, I would have voted for Joe Kennedy on principle. I am a student of history, and I know that not learning from history will doom us to repeat it, so I ask that you look at the short-sightedness of Massachusetts just six short years ago.
When Democrats were shoring up for a John Kerry win against George W. Bush in 2004, they changed the rules for selecting his interim replacement, as Mitt Romney was could have selected a Republican Senator to replace him. Had they NOT done that in 2004, they would not have faced the special election in 2010, where Scott Brown WON to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. I do not think that Hollywood could have written a more dramatic storyline for what transpired. Democrats’ own short-sightedness hurt them as they were trying to pass the most aggressive government intervention in the marketplace since The New Deal, answering the call from FDR’s second bill of rights.
If short-sightedness had not won in 2004, the “behind closed doors” meetings between both houses of Congress and the President would have hammered out a bill inserting government into 18% or so of the American economy, without addressing the core issues of what is wrong with health care in America. Will compromising for the short term by electing Scott Brown hurt free-market proponents in six or ten or twenty years?
Do you really think Scott Brown is a Republican? If so he fooled you. This nude centerfold doesn’t have an ounce of morals. He is really a commie and is out to destroy the puritan party. I think his election was a success and the joke is on the shameful Republicans that would bite at anything just to save a dime.
In my opinion, he is much closer to the Dede Scozzafava Republican than the Jim DeMint Republican, but a Republican nonetheless. As I noted, I would not have voted for him, and I have repeatedly called votes for him a “short term compromise.” Whether that short-sighted behavior affects Republicans in a few years the way similar short-sightedness affected Democrats in 2010 remains to be seen.
Great points Brett, and I’m sure Joe Kennedy will appreciate your kind words. I posted this to his facebook page.
As a Massachusetts voter…who did, indeed, vote for Brown I can only say that NO ONE I know in this state voted against Obama or even healthcare. Nor did they vote in any form or fashion FOR republicans. Most are disdainful of the GOP, and more often than not you hear utter contempt for what the GOP stands for. This is NOT a red state, believe me.
What happened is that independents responded to a candidate who presented himself as honest and straightforward through a tireless and ethical campaign. They really did not get a chance to respond to Coakley, because she hardly campaigned at all and when she did it was one gaffe after another.
Brown was actually thinking of running for state treasurer after this election up to a few weeks ago…while Coakley went on vacation and ridiculed the very idea of campainining out there “in the cold.”
Republicans would do well to keep this in mind. Massachusetts voters still think that the GOP is evil. There is no shift here.
Everyone here is laughing at the national news because they KNOW that the pundits are blowing this WAY out of proportion for the GOP.
Post new comment