Brown: “Maybe there’s a new breed of Republican coming to Washington”

posted at 4:35 pm on January 20, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, the two best minutes from today’s introductory presser. What exactly does it mean to be a “Scott Brown Republican”? Boris Shor guesstimates:

In particular, based upon his voting record in the Massachusetts State Senate as well the Votesmart surveys of MA state legislators (include his own from 2002), I estimate that Brown is to the left of the previously leftmost Republican in the Senate, Olympia Snowe of Maine … and to the right of the rightmost Democrat in the Senate, Ben Nelson of Nebraska… Just as important, Brown stands to become the pivotal member of the Senate—that is, the 60th least liberal (equivalently, the 40th most conservative)–a distinction previously held by Nelson…

Scott Brown is a politician, not a kamikaze pilot. As David Mayhew argued in 1974, the first and proximate goal of politicians in the United States is to get re-elected. Brown will have a far harder time in 2012 against some credible, seasoned Democrat who won’t get surprised again (or run so badly). Turnout will be higher in that presidential year, meaning the Democratic base will be far more evident at the polls. And the Democrat will get to ride Obama’s coattails, influencing independents in the Democratic direction. And Brown doesn’t have that many years to build up the incumbency advantages that other freshman Senators get. He won’t have brought home as much bacon, and he won’t have risen too far in Congress.

Translation: Scotty B’s a Republican — an orthodox one on most issues, in fact — but if you want to have any chance of holding this seat long-term, you’d better be prepared to cut him some slack. Re-read that second paragraph in the blockquote as often as you have to until it sinks in. I think he’ll be a reliable vote on national security, partly because of his military background and partly because “more rights for terrorists!” ain’t winning the Dems any elections even in Massachusetts. But he’s going to have to throw a few votes to The One to preserve his electability, likely starting (but certainly not ending) with Supreme Court appointments, so let’s make peace with the concept now.

I think he’s going to have a relatively easy ride from the Republican base. He’s a likeable guy, he preaches federalism and fiscal responsibility, he undermines the media’s “southern wingnut” narrative about the GOP, and, oh yeah, he’s singlehandedly stopped ObamaCare dead in its tracks. He’s a Judd Gregg Republican, essentially — who just happened to figure out a way to win Ted Kennedy’s seat and give grassroots conservatives their biggest (only?) thrill since Bush beat Kerry. Lots of goodwill in the bank here. Lots.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I don’t know who this person is with his opinion but I don’t think Brown is to the Left of Snowe… Seems like the Left is starting to sabotage Jim now in case he has aspirations for a national run…

CCRWM on January 20, 2010 at 5:12 PM

rockmom on January 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM

How about staff? If someone is buying off staff to influence the Congress person won’t they be held responsible?

Cindy Munford on January 20, 2010 at 5:12 PM

likely starting (but certainly not ending) with Supreme Court appointments, so let’s make peace with the concept now.

Don’t be so sure about this…he’s not only a National Guardsmen, he’s a JAG. I think he’ll eye any appointee very very critically especially in light of the upcoming debacle in NYC.

Youngs98 on January 20, 2010 at 5:12 PM

I am more for fiscal conservatism.
The social conservatism & social experiments can be left up to the individual states, i.e. gay marriage etc.
Honestly, all I want is for the feds to exercise the powers ONLY enumerated to it via the Constitution and that is ALL.

Badger40 on January 20, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Conservatives SHOULD be willing to cut him some slack because he’s from Massachusetts, but if he does what he campaigned to do (fiscal responsibility, cutting government spending, national security, against socialized medicine) he’s conservative enough. His position on social issues won’t matter unless Republicans win a majority in the Senate, which is not likely in 2010, and Scott Brown will have to run for re-election in 2012.

Steve Z on January 20, 2010 at 5:06 PM

I’m sure Harry Reid’s staff are already busy writing memos on what kind of bills they can put on the floor to make Brown vote on social issues. There will almost certainly be votes on gay marriage, gays in the military, stem cell research, and abortion if they can figure out how to do that. Kerry will put money for Massachusetts in every spending bill and dare Brown to vote against them. The White House has already ginned up this bank tax to try to create a populist issue against him and other Republicans this year.

The question is whether the people of Massachusetts have finally caught on to this sort of game-playing and won’t take the bait. Brown can do some things to help make sure of that, but fundamentally it is up to the people of Mass. to send a message to Reid and co. that their old political games won’t work anymore.

rockmom on January 20, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Him not Jim

CCRWM on January 20, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Based on my contact with MA people, I think many people will identify with him and if he is perceived as fighting for the average guy, he could be in office a wicked long time.

Lou Budvis on January 20, 2010 at 5:02 PM

You get it Lou. He was able to show himself as “one of us” who’ll do the right thing using common sense. If Washington was filled with people like that this country would be in a lot better shape.

It really is simple…it’s just hard in practice.

TheBigOldDog on January 20, 2010 at 5:14 PM

And say what you will, McCain/Feingold and the gang of 14 did upset a lot of people.

Lily on January 20, 2010 at 5:06 PM

I know that. But I think the gang of 14 worked out a lot better for conservatives than they thought it would. Imagine that nuclear option with the Democrats with a super majority. Back then people just were not thinking about how that might come back on Republicans when they were no longer in the majority.

Terrye on January 20, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Badger40 on January 20, 2010 at 5:13 PM

\

QFT. It is quickly coming to the point that to vote with your feet means moving to some place like Israel.

Holger on January 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM

How about staff? If someone is buying off staff to influence the Congress person won’t they be held responsible?

Cindy Munford on January 20, 2010 at 5:12 PM

There are pretty strict gift rules now. Lobbyists can’t take staff out for meals anymore or give them anything more than cheap trinkets.

The biggest bribe they dangle is big-bucks jobs when the staffer leaves the Hill. That’s why there needs to be a lifetime ban on Congressional staff or former members becoming lobbyists. That single piece of legislation would change everything in Washington. I know there may be Constitutional questions but it needs to be done.

rockmom on January 20, 2010 at 5:17 PM

The truth is it costs a lot of money to run, more and more all the time and it creates a lot of temptation to politicians to cut deals.

I am not saying McCain/Feingold was a great thing or the right thing, I am saying that the idea behind it was not a liberal idea or a conservative idea..it was about money and corruption in the electoral process.

Terrye on January 20, 2010 at 5:11 PM

You make a number of good points. McCain likely was reacting to years of watching lobbyists write legislation that the Senators didn’t read and the voters had no time to understand. McCain/Feingold was problematic, but so was the status quo of selling legislation to the highest bidder who would then make sure that the incumbent was continually re-elected.

Brown will do OK, if he’s a “kitchen table” politician and can convince voters that he’s representing their interests rather than some party ideology.

dedalus on January 20, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Brown’s got a better chance to win re-election if the Democrats manage to hold onto at least a slight majority in the House and Senate in 2010, so the idiocy of she who is Nancy Pelosi will remain at the forefront, along with whomever ends up leading the Senate for the Dems in place of Reid.

If the GOP wins control of one or both houses of Congress later this year, that will allow Obama and the big media to start demonizing the Republican leadership again. Odds are there would be enough swing voters in Massachusetts who would both be subconsciously happy with gridlock but at the same time willing to go back to their past voting patterns of believing that the GOP is the root of all evil in D.C.

jon1979 on January 20, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Please repub’s drop the social nanny crap. It won’t sell.
jsunrise on January 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM

The libs sell their version of it every 10 minutes.

joejm65 on January 20, 2010 at 5:18 PM

If I can’t trust a ‘Republican’ from SC then I am certainly not going to trust a ‘Republican’ from MA. He needs to prove himself a conservative.

Mr. Arrogant on January 20, 2010 at 5:19 PM

today he said that the vote in MA was not a referendum on Obama. i don’t think that is true. sure, he doesn’t want to offend his voters that also voted for Obama, but I think he started his year(s) in the US Senate with a big fat lie.

because, the anger of the electorate is directed, in part, to Chicago Jesus.

kelley in virginia on January 20, 2010 at 5:19 PM

The libs sell their version of it every 10 minutes.

joejm65 on January 20, 2010 at 5:18 PM

And it cost them the Kennedy seat. Both sides should stop asking the Fed to interfere with people’s personal lives–put the limited back in limited government.

dedalus on January 20, 2010 at 5:20 PM

I’m not holding my breath that anyone in DC is looking out for us.

faraway on January 20, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Maybe an addendum on Boris…

“I estimate that Brown is to the left of the previously leftmost Republican in the Senate, Olympia Snowe of Maine … and to the right of the rightmost Democrat in the Senate, Ben Nelson of Nebraska.”

How many pole positions are there in the Indianapolis 500?

My guess is…only one…

percysunshine on January 20, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Here’s what I LOVE about Scott Brown – I believe, based on what I saw last night in his acceptance speech, that the ‘Rats can try any dirty tricks or legislative chicanery they want, but Scott Brown is ON TO THEM. And he’s got the speaking and political skills to nail them on their crap right between the eyes.

Fishoutofwater on January 20, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Scott Brown IS NOT to the left of Olympia Snowe.

I have followed Brown for the past several years. Scott has been a regular on Howie Carr’s show (WRKO Boston).

I recall several times him joining in with Carr and bashing the Maine Sellout Sisters (and McCain) on everything from amnesty to the stimulus bill(s).

He is a fiscal conservative, strong on national secuorty and a social libertarian (holding conservative values to himself).

Judd Gregg is a great example – but even more hawkish on national security. And Gregg is not TO THE LEFT of Snowe.

kevinkristy on January 20, 2010 at 5:21 PM

As David Mayhew argued in 1974, the first and proximate goal of politicians in the United States is to get re-elected.

We don’t need politicians whose singular goal is themselves. This is how we got into the mess we’re in.

I’d rather engage in a bloody civil war and get it over with than have to sell the US away piecemeal just so some politician can keep their damn job.

darwin on January 20, 2010 at 5:23 PM

I’m sure plenty of the purists will do their best to ensure a lib takes the seat in 2012.

reaganaut on January 20, 2010 at 4:49 PM

who is a “purist”? anybody who has different priorities than you do? if I am willing to compromise say , on some economic issues but not social issues, then I assume I am not a purist and I am OK in your books?

neuquenguy on January 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM

I’m ok with him being liberal->moderate on some issues. As long as spending and freedom aren’t on them.

p0s3r on January 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM

scott wants to waterboard terrorists.

that puts him to the right of every dem in congress and donpt you forget it!

he wants to stop obamacare – and again: that puts him to the right of every dem in the senate.

he wants to cut taxes…

and so on.

anyone who calls brown a lib is a jerk.

reliapundit on January 20, 2010 at 5:25 PM

I certainly did not get the impression Scott Brown was to the left of Olympia Snowe at all. I think he’s the type to also bust his butt for his constituents like Ted Kennedy did as others have pointed out.

One thing I did pick up from some of his comments is that he has an anti-corruption streak in him. I’ll be watching to see how this plays out over time. I’m hoping for all our sakes that the backroom BS in Congress can get some needed sunlight asap.

reginaldL on January 20, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Please repub’s drop the social nanny crap. It won’t sell.

jsunrise on January 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM

amen

windansea on January 20, 2010 at 5:26 PM

THE.MALE.SARAH.PALIN.

Hey, Republicans out there….GET IT? GOT IT? GOOD!

ProudPalinFan on January 20, 2010 at 5:27 PM

I’m behind Brown in spades. He cut down the lead scout of the enemy. We may disagree from time to time, or a lot, but I’ll never forget what he has already done for my family and this country.

notagool on January 20, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Hitler seems unhappy with the Brown win.

dedalus on January 20, 2010 at 5:30 PM

What what? Someone to the left of Snowe/Collins/Specter? Where are all the blind fanbois now?

I’ll savor the sweet irony of your whining when Brown throws you under the bus for his own career.

spmat on January 20, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Please repub’s drop the social nanny crap. It won’t sell.

jsunrise on January 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Uh … exactly which party promotes social nannyism? It sure as hell isn’t Republicans.

darwin on January 20, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Lots of goodwill in the bank here. Lots.

Agreed, and that’s as it should be.

Missy on January 20, 2010 at 5:34 PM

My post was related to the video; it seems that we need to “mold” him, as a previous poster wrote. We also need to press his opinions on other general matters that affect the country, domestically and internationally.

He imitates Sarah’s basic principles, which got him elected; that aside from ObamaScare. Now why oh why, he is a man, he can say what he said and get a pass; Sarah says the same stuff, wrote an awesome FB post and generates so much hatred? Is it because Brown left pro-life issue out of his campaign?

ProudPalinFan on January 20, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Unlike the Maine twins I\’m expecting Scott Brown to have a few principles.

marmaran on January 20, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Its not just what Scott Brown understands or believes its what his constituents understand and believe.

The people he works for have to be educated in the many ways they are being screwed by the other Senators and Representatives in their state.

Speakup on January 20, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Hitler seems unhappy with the Brown win.

dedalus on January 20, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Isn’t that just gold??? I’ve watched it several times. Best “Downfall” spoof ever.

hoosiermama on January 20, 2010 at 5:40 PM

He’ll be fine in 2012. Romney will be the nominee.

Falz on January 20, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Seems like a lot of folks, POTUS and one of our hosts included, are looking hard for affirmation of their own positions in Scott Brown. Ultimately, the people of MA will decide for themselves, as they did yesterday, what a “Scott Brown Republican” means to them. I’m grateful that, for now, Scott Brown the Republican intends to help stop the Obama Express.

kbfntc on January 20, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Sorry, but, as always, Schorr’s “scientific” analysis is based on faulty premises, and gross oversimplifications and is pretty much full of crap.

notropis on January 20, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Jeez AP–you just couldn’t let us be happy for 24 hrs before going all “concerned” on us…WTF do we care? At this very moment in time–I want to bask in this little bit of glory that this win has given us. Tomorrow is soon enough to start slinging arrows…

lovingmyUSA on January 20, 2010 at 5:45 PM

While it’s certainly a worthy exercise to pontificate on or attempt to gauge Brown’s relative conservativeness, or RINO-ishness, I just want to take a moment to appreciate the magnificence of what happened yesterday.

I’d like to think of Brown as the vessel through which Americans were able to again declare their independence from tyranny.

Indeed, by their votes, a majority of our fellow citizens of Massachussetts signed their names to the Second Declaration of Independence.

In November, millions more of us will be adding our signatures to this same document.

The war has begun, the enemy joined, but tyranny is long from defeated. So today we revel. Tomorrow, we suit up for battle.

Thanks, Scott Brown.

TXUS on January 20, 2010 at 5:46 PM

As long as Brown keeps to his word about stopping Obamacare, we’re golden. I can cut him all the slack in the world.

Hawkins1701 on January 20, 2010 at 5:48 PM

I’m going to keep linking to this interview.

Here’s the guy who’s supposedly to the left of Olympia Snowe, on Sarah Palin.

Have you ever heard any defense from Sen. Snowe of Gov. Palin? Much less one this strident?

notropis on January 20, 2010 at 5:48 PM

To be fair, McCain is a pro life, pro military, fiscal conservative and that gang of 14 also gave us Roberts and Alito, two very conservative justices.

No, a Republican President and a Senate majority and a very angry base forced those in.

And as for McCain/Feingold, even conservatives like Fred Thompson supported it. I think McCain supported that legislation because of the corrupting influence of money in politics. We can disagree with his methods, but I do think he was trying to do the right thing.

What part of “Congress shall make no law concerning…freedom of speech” allows a ban on advertising or gifts of blogging?

Chris_Balsz on January 20, 2010 at 5:52 PM

He seems pretty conservative to me, to the right of Romney. To say he is to the left of Snowe is dishonest.

Conservative Voice on January 20, 2010 at 5:56 PM

But I think the gang of 14 worked out a lot better for conservatives than they thought it would.

saved the filibuster for republican’s to enjoy now. and to add, barry was able to raise half a billion regardless of McCain/Feingold

What part of “Congress shall make no law concerning…freedom of speech” allows a ban on advertising or gifts of blogging

perhaps you can look into FEC, and and FECA and get back to me

runner on January 20, 2010 at 5:57 PM

ProudPalinFan on January 20, 2010 at 5:35 PM

except Brown did touch on pro-life issues. Its just that as important as Pro-life issues are…they aren’t THE #1 important issue right now, so he wasn’t discussing it as much as you wanted.

Look, here is the thing, I much rather have a fiscal conservative in congress who is a luke warm pro-lifer as Sen. Brown is, than a fiscal liberal who is a strong pro-lifer. Because truthfully the luke warm pro-lifer will help the cause more…starve federal money from abortion clinics is easier and effective than living on the hope that somehow we will get a supreme court justice in there to overturn roe v wade.

Conservative Voice on January 20, 2010 at 6:03 PM

But I think the gang of 14 worked out a lot better for conservatives than they thought it would.
saved the filibuster for republican’s to enjoy now.

Part of the reason there isn’t STILL a Republican majority is getting elected promising to end an unconstitutional practice, and then, failing, and blaming the voters for caring.

perhaps you can look into FEC, and and FECA and get back to me

runner on January 20, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Have done so, and repression of political speech is unconstitutional.

Chris_Balsz on January 20, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Because truthfully the luke warm pro-lifer will help the cause more…starve federal money from abortion clinics is easier and effective than living on the hope that somehow we will get a supreme court justice in there to overturn roe v wade.

Conservative Voice on January 20, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Except the House has no vote at all on judges, and the Senate cannot originate a budget bill.

Chris_Balsz on January 20, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Judd Gregg is more conservative than Brown…..Not an accurate comparison, IMO.

therightwinger on January 20, 2010 at 6:16 PM

“Maybe there’s a new breed of Republican coming to Washington”

If by that this means the new breed is in the image of Scott Brown,, sorry, then the answer is No! An emphatic No!
Scott Brown is a moderate! Republicans do not need more moderates!
Truly, what every Republican needs to realize, this is less about some individual Republican and more about the people and our constitution. This is not about them! This is about the people and what is happening in DC!

I am thrilled Scott won! But I hope he does not begin to think he is the example (meaning, his core beliefs) that other Republicans need to follow! That is like saying we need more RINOs! We need more McCains! A moderate won in Massachusetts! A moderate won in a lib state! Fantastic! America could use a moderate in Massachusetts! ! America needed one less Democrat vote in the Senate! It all came together!

Quite frankly, Brown is riding the coattails of something else. That something else is an awakening of the American people! I know he did the work! He ran the race and put forth the effort. He’s a great candidate for this time and place! But Scott Brown did not start the Tea Party movement! Scott Brown did not organizes and inspire the 9/12 March! Scott Brown did not inspire people to attend the Townhall meetings last summer! Scott Brown is not out trekking all over our nation, stirring up this reawakening of freedom with the American people! He is not in the lead! He is riding the wave! It is the people who are in the lead! With all the tea parties, marches and town halls and everything else. This is a reawakening, a re birthing of the American ideal! It would be a terrible mistake for any candidate to think it is really all personally about them!

JellyToast on January 20, 2010 at 6:18 PM

today he said that the vote in MA was not a referendum on Obama. i don’t think that is true. sure, he doesn’t want to offend his voters that also voted for Obama, but I think he started his year(s) in the US Senate with a big fat lie.

because, the anger of the electorate is directed, in part, to Chicago Jesus.

kelley in virginia on January 20, 2010 at 5:19 PM

But it was a vote against ObamaCare. Brown does not support a national health-care system. He made that clear. He is a federalist who believes that many issues are defined as state responsibilities or concerns.

onlineanalyst on January 20, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Allah – your post on Brownie was dead-on. If we are going to take back power, we need more Scott Browns in the Senate. A telegenic national security hawk, fiscally conservative but socially liberal guy you wanna have a beer with is a winning formula. More Scott Browns and fewer Tom Delays and Larry Craigs please.

johnboy on January 20, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Conservative Voice on January 20, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Oh, I agree with you, don’t get me wrong! There are priorities right now, very serious ones! My question is why, if they carry 99.99999% of the message, he gets the public’s favor, wins, and the trashing is the usual liberal- and not against her family?

I need to bring this up at C4P and post it on my blog; perhaps FOX will pick up on this and ask a pundit? =)

ProudPalinFan on January 20, 2010 at 6:27 PM

It’s incredible to see the hypocrisy coming from the far right tea party nuts. Dede was terrible, but this guy is great?

Whatever. At least they’ve come to their senses..for the time being..

Yes, tea party nuts, I’d rather have a Senate full of Scott Brown Republicans than a Senate full of Ted Kennedys.

NoStoppingUs on January 20, 2010 at 6:28 PM

JellyToast on January 20, 2010 at 6:18 PM

Well said!

neuquenguy on January 20, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Is Scott Brown gonna be fairly RINO-y, hell yes! This is to be expected, he’s in the Soviet of Massachusetts. I expect that we’re gonna have RINO-y Republicans in leftist territory. And that’s fine until they go full retard like Chafee, who frankly was a supremely unqualified clown before then anyway. The problem is not having RINOs in leftist territory, we should be encouraging that, the big problem is RINOs in eeeeeeeevil wingnutty wingnut territory, and in the top echelons of the GOP. There’s no reason, none, that McCain’s Poodle Graham should be a Senator in friggin’ South Carolina. That’s the unacceptable RINO. I know you can come up with other examples. We should now be working to take back districts we should have never lost, I happen to live in one of them, bump RINOs in districts where they need to bumped, and try and get a foothold in blue and light blue territories. If you live in one of the Soviet states, and your GOP is a mess, take advantage of the situation, try and get involved.

doubleplusundead on January 20, 2010 at 7:00 PM

Scott Brown is perfect for the general population of Massachusetts. He’s fiscally and militarily conservative and libertarian on the social issues, not liberal. Social conservatism is the reason why republicans have been a barren wasteland in New England.

The image of the angry, preachy, intolorant republican is easily invoked up here. If we want to win in New England look to Mitt Romney, look to Scott Brown, or Judd Gregg. Do not play up the social issues and focus on everything else. People up here do not like to preached to or be told that their social views are wrong. It’s their own private business.

SED on January 20, 2010 at 7:14 PM

He imitates Sarah’s basic principles, which got him elected; that aside from ObamaScare. Now why oh why, he is a man, he can say what he said and get a pass; Sarah says the same stuff, wrote an awesome FB post and generates so much hatred? Is it because Brown left pro-life issue out of his campaign?

ProudPalinFan on January 20, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Will he also campaign for McCain?
Dope.

Mr. Arrogant on January 20, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Brown is to the left of the previously leftmost Republican in the Senate, Olympia Snowe of Maine

That both is and isn’t true. He may seem to Snowe’s left, but Snow’s problem isn’t that she’s liberal: it’s that she’s an unprincipled attention-whore. She doesn’t articulate a philosophy of principled moderation or even principled liberalism: she just hikes up her skirt for any legislation that sails in to port if it gets her on TV.

Lehosh on January 20, 2010 at 7:55 PM

and, oh yeah, he’s singlehandedly stopped ObamaCare dead in its tracks.

Boy, for someone who regularly claims to be a pessimist, you sure are naive.

RightWinged on January 20, 2010 at 7:56 PM

This post works here too:

I voted for Scott Brown. I know he is not nearly as socially conservative as I am. He may also be less fiscally conservative, but not to any degree I find immediately troubling.

This is not a GOP victory. It is, however, a conservative victory. Massachusetts may have a massive Democrat party affiliation advantage, but most its people are still, by and large, right of center. We have conservative Democrats that would make some Southern Republicans blush.

Scott Brown’s message was a very simple, conservative, arguably even federalist message. Oppose ridiculous spending, oppose abuses of process, and leave each state to run their affairs how they like. Provided he lives up to his promises, he will be a more powerful conservative voice than many in the Senate, including long-timers with more “official” conservatism like say John Kyl.

So he has a lot of potential, as well as many chances to come up short. But he deserves a chance to live up to those promises and not be called a RINO based on Massachusetts electing him.

BKennedy on January 20, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Most of us did something that showed poor judgement when we were in our early 20′s. We just weren’t lucky enough to get paid for it.

Beck is way off base on this one. If he doesn’t offer a full apology tomorrow, he will lose a little credibility with me.

huckleberryfriend on January 20, 2010 at 9:28 PM

From your words, Scott, to God’s ear! That is what we need, new, decent blood.

sharinlite on January 20, 2010 at 10:04 PM

I’d rather have a Senate full of Scott Brown Republicans than a Senate full of Ted Kennedys.

NoStoppingUs on January 20, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Luckily, those are not our actual choices.

notropis on January 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM

If the GOP wins control of one or both houses of Congress later this year, that will allow Obama and the big media to start demonizing the Republican leadership again.

jon1979 on January 20, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Start? Again? Where have you been living for 11 years?

Blacksmith8 on January 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM

from 911 in 2001 to 119 in 2010… go Scott go!!

moonbatkiller on January 21, 2010 at 1:04 PM

I’m just laughing my ass off at this.. “grassroots” Republicans (led by GOP establishment leaders) think they’ve helped elect someone who is somehow not an establishment Republican? Hahaha… did they not look at his voting record and see that he votes right along with the neocons who have run the GOP into the ground?

He’s about as much a “new breed” of Republican as Bush was a conservative.

Each time he votes for some wasteful big government bill, and each time he votes for some BS neocon foreign policy bill there needs to be a TV ad running in Mass saying “YOU GOT NEOCONNED”. Maybe someday the conservatives will learn.

popularpeoplesfront on January 21, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2