Hate to think what I’m thinking… but relative to the subject of this original post, what we see is Scott giving cover to the liberals, Democrats in general, and the Obama machine. If this continues, this makes him more of a problem than Martha Coakley would have been.
And then there are those who simply feel betrayed. Christy Mihos appears to be among them.
This is just not good. What particularly disappointed me, was the story in the Globe on Saturday about speaking to the Governor and Senate President on Slots in Plainville for a potential vote to bring $700 million to the Commonwealth. This, if true is another unexpected bad story.
by: Christy Mihos @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 19:53:47 PM CDT
Also feeling betrayed is the leadership of the Greater Boston Tea Party:
The leadership and members of the Greater Boston Tea Party, along with tea party and conservative activists across the Commonwealth are greatly disappointed in Senator Brown’s announcement that he will vote yes on the Financial Reform Bill…. Scott Brown promised in the fall of 2009 to stand up for free markets and constitutional principles. A yes vote on this bill … defies the commitment he made to thousands of activists and donors across the nation who swept him in to office in January in one of the biggest political upsets of all time.
And Sean Bielat, who hopes to unseat Barney Frank this fall, also professes to be “greatly disappointed in Senator Brown’s expressed support of the Dodd-Frank Bill.”
Finally, RMG editor Mike Rossettie, perhaps the most doctrinaire “conservative” over there, has been especially vocal on the betrayal front. Here’s a sampler:
Scott Brown #FAIL
This bill is not a few minor changes away from being acceptable.Quite frankly, his vote on this specific piece of legislation is completely deflating to me. I don’t really feel like writing more about it here and now. I’ve already said a lot about this bill in the past and I’m feeling fatigue over it.
I am feeling tired, deflated, demoralized, and in all ways crushed by Scott Brown’s support for the Barney Frank financial regulation bill.
So what’s the upshot of all of this? First, of course, this is only one bill (though it’s a biggie), and Brown has over a year to win back the enthusiastic backing of the conservatives who energized his campaign. Though I have to say that it’s seeming increasingly unlikely to me that Brown is inclined to go that route. More likely, I think, is that Brown is putting all his reelection eggs in the independent basket, and therefore that he will try stay on the course that he seems to be charting now. He will appear perpetually persuadable; he will use his influence as a potential 60th vote to wrangle special deals for MA interests, thereby bolstering his home state advocate cred; and he will vote with Obama on enough occasions that he can run in 2012 claiming to have made good on his “independent thinker” campaign pitch.
Not a bad strategy, at least for now — there are, after all, a lot more independents than Obama-hatin’ “conservatives” in Massachusetts. Ironically, though, if the Republicans pick up a handful of Senate seats this fall, that is terrible news for Scott Brown. Once he is no longer #41/#60, he no longer has any leverage to accomplish much of anything. He therefore will no longer be able to cut special deals for MA interests, nor will he be able to single-handedly get substantial changes made to legislation. He may therefore find 2011 and 2012 very frustrating in the Senate, because he may go from being “President Scott Brown” to being just another minority-party junior legislator in an intensely hierarchical body.
What do you think? Does Brown get to stay up in the bigs in 2012, or will he be sent back to triple A? And if he gets sent down, who will replace him?
There are some people in the MA Republican party whom I admire for their devotion and intelligence and their approach to politics (I’m looking at you, Brock Cordeiro) but this factionalism, especially over people such as Earl Henry Sholley, is troubling to me. I just can wrap my head around how people support a sicko like him. I’ve found myself becoming detached from party politics in the past couple years.
<
p>I supported Scott and made calls for him and got my whole family, and girlfriend, and her lesbian best friend to all go out and vote for him. I like what I’ve seen.
<
p>I didn’t go to the polls to vote for this amorphous being known to the unwashed masses simply as 41. I voted for a guy who thinks like I do, who sees the need to compromise, and doesn’t just go down with the ship to take an ideological stand.
<
p>David, I question you this: is Scott Brown voting in this manner as a strategy, or is there a chance that he is simply doing what he thinks is the right thing? That is a huge difference.
<
p>And to answer YOUR question, I do think he will be re-elected, because as much as the far left may dislike him, I feel there is at least respect for the man in a few of you.
I’ll wager that the hedge funds who wanted Scott Brown to defend their billions in bonuses being taxed at 15% (instead of the 36% they should be taxed at) see NO difference in whether Scott Brown’s strategy or principles motivated his vote.
<
p>He won’t have the leverage any more, which will be a problem for him. On the other hand, it may mean that he’s freer to vote the way he wants, since he won’t be THE Republican that crossed over to deliver Democratic bills. For anything to pass in the Senate next term (and it will be difficult), it will require more than one Republican, and the pressure won’t be as great for him to toe the party line.
<
p>Still, despite his more-impressive-than-I-thought political skills, I think he’s going to be in trouble in 2012. Democrats may already see him as the #1 pickup opportunity in two years, and they’ll surely find a top-notch candidate to challenge him. It will be a presidential year, with the traditionally Democratic groups that did not show up in the special election (particularly younger people and racial minorities) showing up this time. He may be popular now, but that will wear off over time, especially once the ads take their toll.
The 538 cdf shows that there’s about a one-in-three chance that the Dems will have 57 or more senators (including JLieb, BSan, and CCri). That number has actually gone up in the past 6 weeks. If it continues to go up, it looks more and more likely that the Maine ladies, SBrown, CCrist, and BNel will continue be the swingy moderates.
<
p>I don’t think the Dems will lose as many Senate seats as some other folks think, and I think CCrist has a great chance of winning and will be yet another swingy vote. The GOP may be trying to squeeze a balloon… the harder they squeeze on the swingys, the more they may pop out sideways.
With the likely elevation of Kirk and Castle (and Crist) to the Senate Brown will have more moderate allies to give him cover so he won’t be the lone vote. Instead of mitigating his influence it will actually help him since he and these other four Republicans can (possibly with some Democratic help, most likely Lieberman, Nelson, and Landrieu, and maybe Graham or Lugar as a fifth Republican) form a centrist gang in the Senate that determines policy. This will allow him to vote the way MA wants without his vote becoming a national story that detracts from his tea party street cred.
<
p>And its a brilliant strategy. Brown has realized, more than any MA politician (with maybe the exception of Deval) that the independents are the biggest bloc of voters to appeal to. He can st all over the base as much he wants, he will still get the 20-30% of registered Republicans while winning over the 20-40% of unenrolled with some Reagan Dems to boot. Similarly Deval can st all over the left as much as he wants since they have nowhere else to go. I see few Democrats able to come out of a primary that will be dominated by progressive activists and still be palpable to the independents. Maybe Tim Murray. Other than that I think Brown’s got an easy re-election, sad to say.
is IMHO the strongest candidate to take on Brown in 2012, unless Rachel Maddow or someone like that parachutes in. If Deval and Tim win in 2010, look for Murray to set up an exploratory committee in reasonably short order.
<
p>As for the other Senators, I don’t think Kirk is going to win. The scandal over his “misstatements” about his military record has been hugely embarrassing, and although the Dem isn’t the greatest candidate either, I think he’ll pull it out. A Crist win would be fascinating, but also far from a sure thing.
<
p>Finally — 20-30% of registered Republicans in MA? Where’d you get those numbers? The most recent party registration numbers I could find (2008) show the GOP at 12%, Dems at 37%, and Unenrolled at 51%. The state GOP would be absolutely drooling to hit your 20-30% number, but it’s not happening any time soon.
I had no idea unenrolled was that dominant, but the real numbers prove my point further that Brown’s real base is that 51% and not the 12%. There is really no incentive for him to deviate too far from the right of center. As for that race, being in IL right now and having friends in both campaigns has given me an interesting perspective. Both of these guys are kinda scummy in different respects, but I would agree that Alexi has the built in advantage now that Kirk’s greatest asset (military service) has turned out to be a liability. In IL a Republican really has to be free of any liabilities to win because of the built in advantage the Democrats have. A lot also depends on the Governors race which is the real top ticket race of this cycle. With Bill Brady collapsing their is a real change Quinn can beat the odds and possibly bring Alexi in with him. Also Barack Obama campaigning here will make a lot more difference for Alexi than it did for Coakley for a variety of reasons. The WH is playing this rather poorly imo, they do not want to be associated with the shadier aspects of Alexi, but by doing so they are essentially surrendering the seat. They need to get over their high horses and campaign.
<
p>As for Crist, so far the numbers have held up quite well and barring any big revelations I do not see them changing too drastically. The Dem is not gaining any traction beyond the limited pool of diehard Democrats and Rubio has alienated any potential hispanic support by flip flopping on the Brewer bill. The dynamics might be right for Crist to pull it off. I was one of the naysayers when he did this expecting it to hurt him, but it seems like it has helped.
<
p>Lastly I am surprised I got the 4 since I completely agree that Murray is the best candidate. Statewide name recognition, solid progressive, but a blue collar guy from Western MA who is great on the stump. I really see him tearing it up out there. I am also saying that Brown is currently the most liked politician in the state and has a significant war chest. It will be a tough and bruising campaign, but Tim is our best shot.
This is the way for Brown to keep his officer for many, many terms, which is probably what he wants most of all. He is a very likeable guy, presents extremely well on television, and is an ace politician. He was elected by the same number of people who voted for McCain/Palin in 2008: in other words, the MA Republican base. That won’t be enough to carry him to victory in 2012, especially with (one imagines) Obama and his team running a skilled all-fronts campaign like they did in 2008. The majority of the people who voted for him in 2008 will vote for him in 2012, because they will like the “Demorat” even less. With votes like this one on financial reform on his resume, however, he will also get lots of votes from independents who resent the Democratic stranglehold on state politics, think it is bad for the Commonwealth, feeds corruption, etc. Those numbers will likely far surpass the true believers who stay home. The more Tea Partiers cover their screens in spittle right now, and the fewer fanatics who drive for days straight from Texas to hold signs in the rain in Cambridge, or wherever, in 2012, the better for Scott Brown in the next (not a special) election.
Obama is going to win MA in 2012, and most likely he will win pretty easily. So the big question for Scott Brown is how many Obama voters can he get to vote for him over his opponent? A big part of the answer, of course, will be who his opponent is.
David asks the essential question. The quality of the candidate and the campaign will make all the difference.
I mean I think you are right to give him credit for being incredibly politically smart and you are not underestimating him like others on this site, but essentially I am deftly afraid that Brown could eek out a win. He already has a huge financial advantage that will likely only continue to grow and I can’t think of a single Congressmen (past or present) who we could put up against him and win. Brown appeals to Perot voters, socially moderate (or frankly non-interested), fiscally conservative, and hawkish on defense and immigration. That’s the Perot mantra in a nutshell. To counter that we need a Democrat who gets progressives excited, can talk with, not down to, working class voters, and has some cash and statewide name recognition. Murray seems like the obvious choice (presuming Deval wins, if he loses Murray will run for Gov in 14′). He can be competitive out West and in Worchester County where Brown crushed Coakley, competitive in the North and South Shore, and I see him bringing over blue collar white males who deserted the party for Brown. He is also a bona fide progressive on all the issues we care about from health care to gay rights. He is the only one who can bring in Coakely, Khazei, and Capuano voters together in the primary while also reaching out to independents. Markey, Meehan, McGovern, Tierney, and Cappy are all too tainted by being in Washington too long and being non-entities outside their districts. A dark horse like Jamie Eldridge, Councilor Ross, Flaherty, Tolman, could possibly fit the bill as well. But I see Murray as holding the edge.
He is also incredibly witty and great on the stump. I loved Capuano, but he was way too angry, nuanced, and frazzled on the stump. People don’t want an attack dog for Senator. As a Pelosi lieutenant his best bet is to wait for her retirement and possibly become Speaker, or run for Governor if Deval loses. Other than that this guy won’t make it to the Senate, sad to say.
He needs to hold onto every independent voter and conservative Democrat he won over in the special. Remember turnout for his side was extremely high, but low for us. Most of my friends came out for Obama but could have cared less about this election, which is shameful. But with more minorities, young people, and staunch Democrats voting to re-elect the President, Brown will have to make sure everyone who voted for him last time does not stay home. I know a few independents and Republicans that voted for Brown, who didn’t show up in Nov. 2008 since they knew their vote wouldn’t count in MA. If he can motivate his supporters to come to the polls he might not only win, but he might help the Republican ticket (albeit marginally). If Romney is on the ticket that might also bring out more than the usual Republican supporters, though I suspect that his homestate support will be more marginal than the average for a variety of reasons. He also is unlikely to be the nominee.
<
p>But essentially he needs ticket splitters, indy’s and conservative Dems who like Obama, but who want to check him as well. He has the money for it, and if we nominate another lackluster opponent Obama’s coattails will not be enough to retake the seat. I fear that another Coakley run or any of the Congressmen would be another disaster. They would put too much faith in the coattails and not get themselves known as much as they should, not campaign as hard as they should, and essentially repeat her mistakes. A fighter like Murray would be a better alternative.
<
p>The problem for Brown is that the (few) registered Republicans in MA already come out in droves, to the tune of 90% or so in most elections (including this special election, by my estimates). So not too much more blood can be squeezed from that stone, even if Romney is the GOP nominee (which I doubt, given the “RomneyCare = ObamaCare” meme among conservatives).
<
p>Also, the Democrats won’t make the same mistake as they did nominating Coakley. Part of the reason for my confidence is that the 2012 campaign will be a full campaign, not a truncated one like this special election. Everyone thought Coakley would be a good candidate, without her having to prove it. We’ll have a lot more time to evaluate and pick away at the potential candidates to ensure that he or she is solid well before the general election.
And let me be clear I am not arguing that Brown is a shoe-in, I am saying his numbers have held up quite well, I don’t expect them to dip too much, and being an incumbent is a huge advantage even if your party advantage is nil. If he maintains a reasonably moderate conservative voting record than he will be quite well positioned to get a lot of the independents. Also I do not want to downplay the Obama surge and the fact that you will have much better Democratic turnout, particularly among minorities and young voters. That said the last thing we should do is assume Brown is finished, as a Republican in a deep blue seat he is vulnerable, but as a likable incumbent he is hard to beat and we should make our choice very carefully.
<
p>What are your thoughts on Murray?
Tim Murray would be an excellent candidate, though he’ll have a difficult time if he and Patrick don’t win in November. His image would take a hit if he was a recent political loser, even if he had little or nothing to do with Patrick’s approval numbers. (Plus, he would have to figure out something productive to do between January 2011 and the beginning of the campaign, though maybe that won’t be hard.)
<
p>I’m still partial to Jim McGovern, who I’ve long thought would be ideal, but I’d certainly be happy with Murray as well. Both are strong campaigners too, so at least that element would be a vast improvement over Coakley (who actually is doing a very good job as Attorney General, by the way, so I am happy that she’ll continue in that position past this election).
At this point I suspect Patrick will win in a walk do you think otherwise?
<
p>As for McGovern he has three big liabilities. No real name recognition outside of his district, the connections to Chavez, and the fact that he’s been in office too long and has forgotten how to campaign. I think that was the biggest liability of Cappy, Coakley never really had to campaign either. I don’t want another angry liberal who gets tripped up over explaining House procedure. I loved Mike, but I see the limitations to his style and appeal. I want to win badly, and while Mike would be the better Senator, I think Murray would actually win.
So, lessee. He got rid of a tax that was the focus of the loudest complaining by financial institutions, managed to protect startup businesses and their venture capital, both of which are quite important to the economy of the Commonwealth, while supporting an overall decent bill.
<
p>In so doing, he has permanently alienated a small fraction of the tiny right wing in Massachusetts, while maintaining plausible deniability/explanability for some other fraction of the tiny right wing, while likely increasing his support in what its likely a larger fraction of a much bigger population of independents (although, as we know, these independents never, ever vote and are really beside the point in Massachusetts elections).
<
p>And Barney Frank is brilliant for luring him into this trap?
<
p>This is another example of why any political argument by any professed member of a political party must be evaluated in the same way as a 2AM infomercial that offers you a special deal if you call RIGHT NOW.
<
p>If this is Triple A, then the Massachusetts Democratic Party, when it comes to Senator Brown, are playing Tee-Ball– where all the players in the field converge at once on the ball, crash into one another, and wind up crying and pointing at one another, while the ball lays in the grass, forgotten.
by Bob Neer and Centralmassdad. Lots of 6s they deserve.
<
p>
I can’t help but be amazed that some of the same people that brought us to the brink of collapse can push through legislation that puts a private bank in charge of our entire economy. A bank famous for misjudging the economy. A bank that can’t be audited. The Fed is hooking labor, industry and government in one big bundle. What suckers we are.
The Fed has been completely irresponsible. In 2001 the Fed
deviated from the Taylor Rule in keeping interest rates lower than they should have been. The result was the real estate bubble. When excessively “stimulated,” the market will show it’s true creativity in finding new ways to drive us off a cliff. It’s folly to believe that we can prevent this with new regulations and bureaucracies.
remember that guy Greenspan was not the genius his buddies in the media made him out to be.