Why is Scott Brown doing this? I remembered being bothered by Brown’s position not just because my representative in Washington was taking a position so egregiously contrary to my own because somebody this moronic was representing me!
After careful thought about the situation, I can only come to one conclusion. The only red herring in all of this is the notion that Brown will actually buy any “Catholic” votes with it. He won’t. Any Catholic voting for Brown was already going to vote for him. Think of the folks at Mass Citizens for Life. No, this is about money. While Brown mocked Warren for hobnobbing with Hollywood, he was planning fundraisers among Marco Rubio’s uber-conservative friends. Brown’s thinking he can simply buy his way out of this election with the money he can raise since the SuperPAC window is (for the moment) shut. Either that or he’s hoarding money for some other race if he loses.
Now let’s remember that under any circumstances this election will be a hard fought battle royale. Nobody should take anything for granted in this election and getting Elizabeth Warren elected will require every ounce of work Democrats and her supporters can muster.
Brown, by comparison, is relying on money. He’s assuming he can use his vast spending advantage, bolstered by religious right contributions and simply overpower Warren through sheer force of money. There is, however, one story Brown has forgotten if that is this strategy.
Yes, the WWE executive, who still doesn’t get that Nutmegers do not want her as their senator spent more money per vote than any other candidate for any other office anywhere in the US in 2010 ($50 MILLION! overall) and still lost by almost 12 points could not buy the election. Now there are some key differences. Between the choice of the, um “reserved” AG Connecticut residents had for 20 years, Vietnam claims notwithstanding, and the wrestling lady, they chose the Blumenthal. Blumenthal’s brand as AG is different from Warren’s populism (although by my estimate, they have remarkably similar issue profiles) and while McMahon’s and Brown’s bases are probably almost identical, nobody seemed to want to have a beer with McMahon.
Still Brown’s cynical calculation to choose money over what anybody else would call common sense politics in Massachusetts (and we don’t have to be as liberal as we are caricatured for Brown’s position to be untenable) gives him the potential to be Massachusetts’ own McMahon. True, he is not self-funding as she did, but if he takes more positions like the Blunt Amendment, he loses his best card, the “moderate” label (which is more valuable than independent, which tells voters nothing). That only leaves him with money, and when the gulf between you and voters widens, money may not be enough. That chasm between Brown and voters may not be as wide as it was for McMahon and Nutmegers, but he would be a fool to rest on his monetary laurels alone.
Then again, maybe he is a fool. See opening paragraph.