I think Gail Collins was right to call out Keith Olbermann for his attack on Brown. Olbermann’s defense that right wing talk show hosts have said much worse is beyond lame. And one of my favorite local pundits, Charles P. Pierce calls Brown “an empty suit” and “a liar and a coward.” Way classy, progressives.
Part of the reason for Brown’s win was his run for the Mass. State senate in 2004. Please recall that Cheryl Jacques, a popular Democrat, resigned and her chief of staff, Angus McQuilken, was favored to win her seat in a special election. This was considered all the more likely because the legislature scheduled the special election on the same day (March 2, 2004) as the Massachusetts presidential primary. Bush was running unopposed-not a big draw for the Bay State’s 480,000 Republicans, and John Kerry (more popular then than now) was on the Democratic ballot. So the thinking was that lots of D’s would vote, but very few R’s, and Brown would lose big.
Brown won by 349 votes. He won because he did five things-very similar to the things he did to defeat Coakley. First, he argued that the seat didn’t “belong” to McQuilken because he had been on Jacques’ staff. He argued that “nobody owns this seat.” Sound familiar?
Second, McQuilken was as un-charismatic as was Martha Coakley. He came across as a pudgy policy wonk. Brown used his masculine image effectively against McQuilken. Opponents referred to Brown as “Beefcake Brown,” referring to his now famous nude photos in Cosmopolitan when he was a student at Boston College. This didn’t stick then as it didn’t in 2010. We still need to come to grips with the fact that any female candidate who had posed nude would have a gigantic negative to overcome. Double standard? You betcha.
Third, Brown avoided major gaffes. (As in 2010,he made lots of minor ones, including “cringe-inducing” off-the-cuff remarks.) This was especially true of the gay marriage issue. Brown danced around it pretty deftly. This was crucial as Jacques, the first openly gay State Senator in Massachusetts history, resigned to head the GLBT Human Rights Campaign.
Fourth, Brown organized a strong GOTV effort. This was hugely important as the Mass. Republican party GOTV was very spotty in the major population centers. Brown organized his own operation and his workers made over 100,000 phone calls in the 72 hours before the special election.
Finally, although I have no breakout numbers from the March 2004 contest, Brown obviously got some Democrats to vote for him. There is no other explanation for his win in an election that clearly drew more Democrats than Republicans to the polls. The contest with Coakley is strikingly parallel. Brown got a substantial number of registered Democrats to vote for him, or Coakley would have squeaked through.
Brown and McQuilken went against each other one more time, in November, 2004, now for a full term in the state Senate. But it was a foregone conclusion, Brown by 2636. McQuilken ran a notably lackluster campaign and we now know what Brown can do with that.
Progressives make a big mistake in thinking of Brown as an “empty suit.” Scott Brown is a smart, canny politician who has followed a complex path as a conservative Republican in a state that has elected fewer and fewer of them. His victory in January, 2010, is, as I have argued elsewhere, was also due to a profound discontent in the electorate. And Brown’s disciplined campaign took advantage of every bit of that discontent.
(cross-posted at DailyKos)
Totally counterproductive. Does anyone think that kind of thing will help win the next election?
What is going to win the next election is hard work, retail politics, an “It’s morning again in America” positive spirit, and candidates who remind us of this:
<
p>
Post
<
p>Olberman apologized on Friday night, but only after Jon Stewart skewered him.
<
p>Thanks to AlexSwill
<
p>This will NOT help Democrats!
You’ve been ranting about Olbermann and demanding apologies since you got here. It really doesn’t mean that much.
<
p>O’Reilly, Coulter, Bachman, Limbaugh, et al have never come close to admitting they might be wrong, much less apologizing for something. You, either.
<
p>I’m glad to see Keith has more class.
Nice post.
<
p>Both parties get better with more competitive races. Maybe if we un-gerrymander the state districts (congressional & local) we will have stronger democratic and republican candidates.
I’m getting pretty well hammered over at DKos for having the temerity (stupidity?) to write a post called “In Defense of Scott Brown.” For contrast, see Glen Greenwald’s screed on all those pundits who blame the “Left” for Coakley’s defeat. Coakley, as everyone knows, was a far-left candidate. Only one more thing. Make a mental list of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation. Now go through the list and see how many members sound (some even look like Angus McQuilken in 2004. That’s the work that lies ahead.
I thought you were getting responses to the title and not the content.
Everyone does not know that, because she wasn’t.
He may not have made fiery speches about it, but he was always clear that he was against same-sex marriage and for allowing citizens to vote on it. He didn’t have to say so himself because VoteOnMarriage and MassResistance, and BayWindows and MassEquality made each of his elections a virtual proxy for voting on marriage. They put all their efforts into electing or defeating him, and he’s 3 for 3.
They feel they were personally responsible for his victory and have demands:
<
p>
<
p>and:
<
p>
<
p>I’m still puzzling out their reference to “leftist Herald columnist Margery Eagan.”
<
p>NB: They’re a SPLC recognized hate group, so Google has an access warning.
<
p>In fact, in many ways some of the best Massachusetts-informed liberal commentary comes from her and Peter Gelzinis in the Herald.
<
p>For other informed liberal commentary on Massachusetts issues, I’m inclined to skip the Globe and go straight to E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post.
I think what we have to remember is that a Congressional election can be just as competitive for Republicans as Gubernatorial elections when the seat is open and a good candidate is put forth.
<
p>With the power of incumbency, I’m not inclined to believe that congressional elections will be very competitive, but if they were to retire, there is no way the next Dem nominee can take that seat for granted.
Whether or not Brown is an empty suit remains to be seen. I think the important point is, there are some people with strong skills campaigning, can get themselves elected, but are not particularly strong in office. His appeal was not dissimilar to the appeal of a Palin. You may want to scream at it all, but unless we learn something from this, it’s going to get worse.
Thanks to a steady diet of reality TV and entertainment news on the nightly news, the majority of people prefer celebrity candidates to those of substance. It’s only gotten worse in the past 30 years.
đŸ™‚
Today’s “Meet The Press” included a discussion of the new WAPO poll of Brown voters. Most interesting to them (and to me) is this:
<
p>
<
p>I’m still digesting the rest of the comments, though.
where does Pierce call Brown an “empty suit”? Doesn’t appear in your link. Also, the “liar and a coward” phrase was specifically in relation to waterboarding, and more precisely, Brown’s insistence that he opposes torture but favors waterboarding. Whether “liar and a coward” is appropriate for Brown’s waterboarding position is a matter of personal taste, but certainly, Brown’s position is worthy of derision.