This race has some baggage attached to it, doesn’t it? I enter into interviews for this Senate race with ruefulness for the last one. Specifically in our interviews with Martha Coakley, I remember getting a good sense of her character, intelligence, and competence — but remarkably little of what animated her — what drove her to follow in Ted Kennedy’s footsteps. I remember asking her something about Ted Kennedy’s legacy she wanted to continue, and she said “how much he loved the job.” Yes, I can imagine it would be really fun to be a Senator. But that’s not enough reason for anyone to vote for you.
A challenger to Scott Brown must be able to speak in broad, value-based themes. For instance, we simply cannot save Medicare and Medicaid if the electorate feels no compassion for senior citizens, the poor, the disabled and otherwise vulnerable. A candidate must reflect our best instincts, but also lead and inspire them.
A challenger must also be able to cut through the junior Senator’s fog of talking points. Brown has a way of saying things that sound like they make sense … and acting and voting in an utterly perverse way. He says we need to “get our fiscal house in order”, and then votes for deficit-exploding tax cuts for the rich. He talks about creating jobs, then votes to cut community development programs that do exactly that. He claims not to know if global warming is real, in the face of overwhelming evidence, much of it from researchers right here in Massachusetts.
It is actually surprisingly difficult to know if someone is either a.) lying to your face or b.) so deluded he believes his own hogwash. It’s very difficult to know how to confront them.
Brown’s popularity has been fairly resilient. He is no longer the “most popular politician in Massachusetts”; the Osama-picture and Afghanistan gaffes have inspired the sobriquet “Dan Quayle in a barn coat”. On the other hand, he has skillfully chosen a handful of high-profile issues on which to slightly distance himself from the national GOP: choice, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and voting to pass the financial reform bill — after weakening it, of course. He is personally affable (to which I can personally attest); he’s got a nice family (don’t underestimate Ayla); he’s nice-looking (perhaps too much so); he’s a very energetic campaigner; and the local TV and radio people love him.
A challenger must be able to dissect the wrong votes, the delusions, and the misplaced priorities in a coherent way without being seen as attacking the man. A challenger must connect Scott Brown with Washington’s dysfunction, since — all his protestations notwithstanding — he is plainly playing his role in the GOP’s strategy of stalemate.
And a challenger must embrace a clearly different set of values, grounded in compassion, community and common sense. This works in Massachusetts (and other places, I believe), as our Governor continues to demonstrate. Don’t just give us a laundry list of positions; let us know what really matters to you.
Ryan says
against him will bring down those favorables quick, as people learn what he’s actually been doing (the agenda of his corporate sponsors, like the rest of the national GOP).
That’s why one of the things I’ll be looking for in the democratic primary is for the candidate with the most fire in his belly, who speaks the most convincingly on why they’d be a better choice than Scott Brown.
Charley on the MTA says
I actually think it’ll be pretty difficult to get the critique through the talking point machine of Scott Brown. He’s got message discipline down pat; it’s just that his record contradicts the message. And there’s a better message to be delivered anyway.
IOW:
Scott Brown = Not a moderate.
And: A progressive would be better than a moderate anyway.
merrimackguy says
For example, most people can’t identify whether Brown is pro-choice or anti-choice.
Probably most Dems indentify him as anti-choice, but they’re not voting for him anyway.
Most anti-abortion folks think he is on their side.
Most independents just assume he agrees with them, which is the beauty of his campaigning- zigzag slightly back and forth, and people can’t tell exactly where you stand, and fall back on their perceptions.
Where is he actually? I know someone who worked for MACFL, and despite them helping elect him, within that organization he is viewed as pro-choice.
So you can assume he will have the team, the experience and the money to run a good campaign, and probably the experience not to make the serious eff-up that could derail him.