Scott Brown and Conservatism
Ok, it's great news. Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown trounced Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and will be heading to D.C. asap, hopefully driving his truck. ([http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=5338])
The "Kennedy seat" can be termed the "Brown seat" for the next 3 years or so by Republican United States Senator Brown since he will be sitting in it. The Democrat/Kennedy death grip on that seat has been broken and Democrats in the super-blue Bay State couldn't be much bluer if they held their breaths until the cows came home.
In an effort to shield Obama and his policies from valid criticism, the Dems are spinning crazily and blaming poor Martha Coakley for everything from meanness to ineptitude to being a closet Republican just because she blew a sure thing.
To their credit, the party big wigs have been unexpectedly gracious toward Brown and his victory with David Axelrod grudgingly conceding his "clever" campaign and Harry Reid pledging to seat the new senator posthaste and forego any cynical parliamentary delays.
All fine and good. Even better, Pelosi may be in trouble, Barbara Boxer's seat is threatened, Reid's 60 filibuster-proof senate votes just became 59 very filibusterable votes, and Obamacare should be cooked for the nonce unless Dems start playing numbers games with reconciliation.
So, God's in His heaven, all's right with the world-for now.
Speaker Nancy is no doubt lining up Blue Dogs to be shot at dawn if they don't tow the Pelosi line and get along with the senate to pass something, anything, as long as Dems can say they accomplished something, anything in the 111th congress.
They can't very well expect their standard bearer to have to preface his State of the Union speech on the with, "Well, we tried but we did virtually nothing."
However, before conservatives start dancing in the streets and lighting bonfires in homage to the Election Gods, let's just keep in mind: Scott Brown may be a great Republican who pulled off an amazing feat yesterday, ladies may think he had a great bod when he posed for Cosmo in college, he may have two gorgeous grown daughters, but he's not a conservative.
Since a few sources have already thrown out the grossly premature speculation that he might run for president 2012, it should be noted that there is recent precedent for a former state senator with little experience in the United States Senate taking a winning shot at the presidency.
Scott Brown is also no Ronald Reagan but if there aren't many similarities with Ronaldus Magnus there are some similarities between Brown and Barackus Minimus.
Both served as state senators in their respective, liberal states, Brown for 6 years, Obama for eight. Brown will have served in the U.S. Senate almost three years as of 2012 as opposed to Obama's less than two years before he declared for the presidency. Both are dynamic, articulate, attractive, youngish men, one white, one a "light-skinned negro." Brown has 3 daughters, Obama two.
Obama is a liberal who campaigned as a moderate, won 53% of the vote, and has governed as an extreme leftist. Brown is a moderate who campaigned as a moderate, a centrist in a centrist nation, and won the hearts, minds, and votes of 52% of the Massachusetts electorate.
The point I've been very slowly arriving at is simply this: Since no true Republican conservative is on the horizon, could or should Senator Scott Brown be seriously considered for the GOP top spot in 2012, conservatives should support him.
Will the hardnosed evangelicals turn up those collective hard noses at a candidate who isn't staunchly pro-life? Will the same proportion of nationwide independents that backed Brown yesterday in the Bay State turn out for him in a national election? Will the members of the Tea Party hold out for someone more akin to Sarah Palin?
Let's applaud Scott Brown's amazing victory on January 19th but let us keep in mind that should the unthinkable happen again and he becomes a front runner for the Republican presidential nomination, conservatives will have a momentous decision to make.
Should evangelicals, pro-lifers, Tea Partiers, and other conservatives say in a few years, "Yeah, well, Brown is a good guy but we want another Ronald Reagan," we will lose in 2012 and re-elect Barack Obama to four more years.
The more likely scenario is that Scott Brown runs for re-election to the Senate in two years but, either way, there's no other reasonable option for conservatives but to support him with enthusiasm, hard work, and money.
To do otherwise would be to cut off our noses to spite our ideology.
The "Kennedy seat" can be termed the "Brown seat" for the next 3 years or so by Republican United States Senator Brown since he will be sitting in it. The Democrat/Kennedy death grip on that seat has been broken and Democrats in the super-blue Bay State couldn't be much bluer if they held their breaths until the cows came home.
In an effort to shield Obama and his policies from valid criticism, the Dems are spinning crazily and blaming poor Martha Coakley for everything from meanness to ineptitude to being a closet Republican just because she blew a sure thing.
To their credit, the party big wigs have been unexpectedly gracious toward Brown and his victory with David Axelrod grudgingly conceding his "clever" campaign and Harry Reid pledging to seat the new senator posthaste and forego any cynical parliamentary delays.
All fine and good. Even better, Pelosi may be in trouble, Barbara Boxer's seat is threatened, Reid's 60 filibuster-proof senate votes just became 59 very filibusterable votes, and Obamacare should be cooked for the nonce unless Dems start playing numbers games with reconciliation.
So, God's in His heaven, all's right with the world-for now.
Speaker Nancy is no doubt lining up Blue Dogs to be shot at dawn if they don't tow the Pelosi line and get along with the senate to pass something, anything, as long as Dems can say they accomplished something, anything in the 111th congress.
They can't very well expect their standard bearer to have to preface his State of the Union speech on the with, "Well, we tried but we did virtually nothing."
However, before conservatives start dancing in the streets and lighting bonfires in homage to the Election Gods, let's just keep in mind: Scott Brown may be a great Republican who pulled off an amazing feat yesterday, ladies may think he had a great bod when he posed for Cosmo in college, he may have two gorgeous grown daughters, but he's not a conservative.
Since a few sources have already thrown out the grossly premature speculation that he might run for president 2012, it should be noted that there is recent precedent for a former state senator with little experience in the United States Senate taking a winning shot at the presidency.
Scott Brown is also no Ronald Reagan but if there aren't many similarities with Ronaldus Magnus there are some similarities between Brown and Barackus Minimus.
Both served as state senators in their respective, liberal states, Brown for 6 years, Obama for eight. Brown will have served in the U.S. Senate almost three years as of 2012 as opposed to Obama's less than two years before he declared for the presidency. Both are dynamic, articulate, attractive, youngish men, one white, one a "light-skinned negro." Brown has 3 daughters, Obama two.
Obama is a liberal who campaigned as a moderate, won 53% of the vote, and has governed as an extreme leftist. Brown is a moderate who campaigned as a moderate, a centrist in a centrist nation, and won the hearts, minds, and votes of 52% of the Massachusetts electorate.
The point I've been very slowly arriving at is simply this: Since no true Republican conservative is on the horizon, could or should Senator Scott Brown be seriously considered for the GOP top spot in 2012, conservatives should support him.
Will the hardnosed evangelicals turn up those collective hard noses at a candidate who isn't staunchly pro-life? Will the same proportion of nationwide independents that backed Brown yesterday in the Bay State turn out for him in a national election? Will the members of the Tea Party hold out for someone more akin to Sarah Palin?
Let's applaud Scott Brown's amazing victory on January 19th but let us keep in mind that should the unthinkable happen again and he becomes a front runner for the Republican presidential nomination, conservatives will have a momentous decision to make.
Should evangelicals, pro-lifers, Tea Partiers, and other conservatives say in a few years, "Yeah, well, Brown is a good guy but we want another Ronald Reagan," we will lose in 2012 and re-elect Barack Obama to four more years.
The more likely scenario is that Scott Brown runs for re-election to the Senate in two years but, either way, there's no other reasonable option for conservatives but to support him with enthusiasm, hard work, and money.
To do otherwise would be to cut off our noses to spite our ideology.