Suffolk poll shows Brown up 9 over Warren in MA Senate race; Update: Brown op-ed supports Blunt bill on religious exemption from mandate

posted at 9:15 am on February 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s early for significant polling in any Senate race, but this result from Suffolk University’s poll is an eye-opener.  Despite having won a special election two years ago, most people considered Republican Scott Brown a long shot to win his next election in deeply-blue Massachusetts, especially up against Elizabeth Warren.  Instead, Brown starts off the race up by nine over the Democrat:

Republican Scott Brown (49 percent) has a 9-point lead over Democrat Elizabeth Warren (40 percent), according to a Suffolk University/7NEWS (WHDH-Boston) poll of likely general election voters in Massachusetts. Nine percent were undecided, and 2 percent would choose someone else.

Brown also showed significant leads over two other potential Democratic candidates, besting Marisa DeFranco 55 percent to 22 percent and Jim King 57 percent to 21 percent.

“Scott Brown’s popularity and appeal are overpowering the efforts of Elizabeth Warren, who struggles to introduce herself to the larger pool of Massachusetts voters,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “Warren’s support does not have traction among independents.”

Massachusetts may vote strongly Democratic — all ten of its House seats are held by Democrats at the moment — but its electorate is mostly unaffiliated, with almost 52% being independent.  Brown has a 32-point lead among independents in this poll, 60/28.  Also, 60% of the overall electorate sees a benefit in having one Senator from each party as a more balanced representation in Washington, with only 36% disagreeing. Warren has to overcome both of those hurdles to gain on Brown, and she’s not likely to do either by pandering to the Occupy movement or mouthing their rhetoric.

Even with these results, it’s clear that Warren gives Democrats their best chance of beating Brown.  The other two candidates in the Democratic primary allow Brown to get solid majorities in a general-election matchup.  That’s not entirely a straight-up comparison, as support for the eventual nominee will coalesce once he or she has been chosen, but Brown’s 49% against Warren is an indicator that it will be tough to unseat him.

It’s very early in this race, and no one will remember this poll even by summer, let alone the fall.  Still, it’s interesting and somewhat cheering to see Brown in the driver’s seat at the beginning of the process.

Update: I know conservatives are hardly satisfied with Scott Brown, but I’m pretty sure that Martha Coakley wouldn’t have written this op-ed in today’s Boston Herald:

Republicans and Democrats don’t come together nearly enough these days, and when we do it’s usually because of something we all recognize as clearly out of line. It takes a really bad idea to reveal our shared convictions on issues bigger than politics. That is the case with the new mandate from the Obama administration requiring religious organizations to offer insurance coverage for practices that go against the teachings of their church, violate the tenets of their faith and step on their constitutional protections.

Basically the government is saying, “Just do what you’re told, and leave the moral questions to us.” This runs against religious liberty, the Constitution, the consciences of millions of Americans and the independent spirit of Massachusetts. We don’t take well to imperious commands from Washington, and if we meekly submit to this mandate, you can be sure that a lot more will follow. …

This latest mandate under government-controlled health care is one reason why I campaigned and voted against Obamacare in the first place. It operates by broad dictation from Washington, showing no respect for the judgment, needs or rights of individual Americans and the states. And it opens the door to endless abuses of power such as this latest mandate.

This is why I strongly support a bipartisan bill in the Senate that provides a conscience exemption from the Obamacare mandate. In effect, the bill would simply restore the relevant laws on conscience protection that existed before Obamacare removed them.

That’s probably a pretty bold statement in Massachusetts, although it really shouldn’t be.


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

If true, I completely understand – how could anyone, female – or please male – find Elizabeth Warren in slightly tolerable.

She is Nurse Kratchet.

jake-the-goose on February 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Poor Mika… she has been giddy about this race

Bensonofben on February 17, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Blech.

I’m glad I don’t live in Mass. I don’t find anything about Mr. Brown that makes me “cheerful”.

Pragmatically speaking, the only thing he’s got going for him is the (R) he tags behind his name.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Beat this inane Marxist witch like a rented donkey.

NoDonkey on February 17, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Maybe Occupy backfired on her. Or this could just be the net result of so much govt interference on so many levels that people are sick of her rhetoric.

I have no understanding of the MA voter. I will say that I detest Brown, but she is so awful, I find myself rooting for him.

earlgrey133 on February 17, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Elizabeth Warren is Pelosi-lite. We have enough mentally challeged leftwing nutcases in the Senate already.

volsense on February 17, 2012 at 9:21 AM

How can this be? He’s a Massachusetts moderate! We can’t have people like that in Washington! /s

Syzygy on February 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Blech.

I’m glad I don’t live in Mass. I don’t find anything about Mr. Brown that makes me “cheerful”.

Pragmatically speaking, the only thing he’s got going for him is the (R) he tags behind his name.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Brown is sellout, but Warren would vote against you 100% of the time and be the left’s chief spokesperson for Marxism/Occupy. Just make sure you do your job on election day.

The Count on February 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Pragmatically speaking, the only thing he’s got going for him is the (R) he tags behind his name.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 9:19 AM

That’s good enough for Massachusetts, unless we want to go down in a blaze of craptastic glory with another Christine O’Donnell.

NoDonkey on February 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

If either one wins, we lose. Brown’s false image of a common sense, truck driving, man of the people is gone. He’s Olympia Snowe, just not as masculine.

I will not vote for either of them.

Hening on February 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

The good thing is that hard-core liberals don’t know how to keep their mouth shut. Eventually they climb up the pole like David Axelrod and show off their tukus.

So, in theory, Warren will torpedo her own campaign, giving plenty of gaffe-tastic gems before November.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM

B-b-but, she created ‘the intellectual foundation for what (OWS-ers) do.’

Fallon on February 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM

That poll means nothing. They have yet to include the dead people, illegal immigrants, and those recruited by ACORN (or whatever name they now use)in their poll. The Dems always find the necessary votes they need in a close election.

iamsaved on February 17, 2012 at 9:28 AM

I saw her “First Major Boston Interview” last night; she chose to go before the wine and cheese-eating surrender monkeys who watch Channel 2, the flagship PBS station. She was interviewed by that show’s Host, Left Elitist Emily Rooney (you may remember her Dad Andy, who was on “60 Minutes” and died last year. She’s a Chip off the Old Blockhead for sure).

Judge for yourself:

http://www.wgbh.org/programs/programDetail.cfm?programid=11

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Maybe inciting a movement that’s famous for rapes, drug overdoses, vandalism, bolshevism and general mayhem and contempt for the law wasn’t such a good idea – even in MA.

Not that I’m saying she’s directly responsible for all of that dangerous antisocial behavior, she’s just indirectly responsible for most of it.

forest on February 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM

This is great news! Warren is the most dangerous socialist demagogue in America today.

thuja on February 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM

It is the race of the Democrat versus the Marxist.

search4truth on February 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Scott Brown is praying that Romney gets nomination.

He will lose if Rick Sanctimonious is at top of ticket in secular Mass.

kevinkristy on February 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM

That poll means nothing. They have yet to include the dead people, illegal immigrants, and those recruited by ACORN (or whatever name they now use)in their poll. The Dems always find the necessary votes they need in a close election.

iamsaved on February 17, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Heh.

Pqlyur1 on February 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM

So, in theory, Warren will torpedo her own campaign, giving plenty of gaffe-tastic gems before November.

I’d agree with that.

I’d also think that something will happen with her pet creation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that will piss off Massholes by the time November rolls around.

teke184 on February 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Just make sure you do your job on election day.

The Count on February 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

I do. I vote my conscience and principle. Pragmatism does not take a primary role in my thinking, otherwise I’d support every establishment shill the GOP puts forth, toe the line, etc.

Maybe if more people acted and voted on principles instead of pragmatism, we might not have people like Scott Brown in office or have to worry about Warren either.

Pragmatism in Missouri got Roy Blunt into the Senate while there was a principled conservative running. Only, all the people touting principles – the Tea Party – determined not to back Purgason seeing him as unelectable, they decided pragmatism was far more important than principles. When you decide that winning is everything, you more often than not wind up with wishy-washy, lukewarm candidates/politicians.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Inertia?

Knott Buyinit on February 17, 2012 at 9:33 AM

I’ve got to think that even the idiots in Mass. who elected one Kennedy after another to office for generations for no discernible reason have problems with the Democrat party of 2012.

Happy Nomad on February 17, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Beat this inane Marxist witch like a rented donkey.

NoDonkey on February 17, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Oh gee.. thanks alot!
Now the rented donkey’s are going to organize!
“Jacka$$es UNITE!”

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2012 at 9:35 AM

That’s good enough for Massachusetts, unless we want to go down in a blaze of craptastic glory with another Christine O’Donnell.

NoDonkey on February 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

You set yourself up for defeat and self-fulfilling prophecies when you settle for pragmatism as the better option in life.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Scott Brown is exactly how the Republicans get to the 60 seat Senate.
I will support him with enthusiasm! May “Ted Kennedys’” seat REMAIN in Republican hands for the next 40 years at least!

blogforce one on February 17, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Brown might occasionally vote with the Republicans. Elizabeth Warren would never vote for a Republican initiative and would probably propose brilliant bills based on Stalin’s 5 year plans.

But the real reason to vote for Brown is that he drives a truck.

CorporatePiggy on February 17, 2012 at 9:36 AM

The Dems always find the necessary votes they need in a close election.

iamsaved on February 17, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Then how did Scott Brown win in the first place?

The Democrats can only win close elections that way, they can’t win blowouts that way.

Keep your chin up, all is not lost.

NoDonkey on February 17, 2012 at 9:36 AM

This woman’s mouth is like a sewer pump.Comments like “going for the hick vote” shows what a loose cannon she is.We already have enough of those in the Senate in Babs Boxer and Sherrod Brown.This idiot is a walking, talking billboard of what’s wrong in America.

jeffinsjvca on February 17, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Elizabeth Warren…there’s a walking billboard for contraception…right there!

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2012 at 9:38 AM

You set yourself up for defeat and self-fulfilling prophecies when you settle for pragmatism as the better option in life.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Harry Reid would be irrelevant now if we had actual Senate candidates in Nevada and Deleware instead of inept clown acts.

I guess that is being pragmatic, but being wacky doesn’t seem to be a better alternative.

NoDonkey on February 17, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Scott Brown the pickup drivin’ RINO is about as exciting as scraping grease off a lathe, but Warren….haysoos marimba is she a piece of work.

Bishop on February 17, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Look, a guy that votes with you 70% of the time is far better than a Far leftist ideologue like Elizabeth Warren who will do her damn
best to destroy what is left of this great nation.

blogforce one on February 17, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I first read this headline (pre-coffee) and assumed it said Warren up 9. This is pretty incredible. Even if it’s way off and Brown and Warren are tied, it’s still great news.

I have to think that if Warren – who ideologically is precisely aligned with Obama – can’t win in MA, then Obama can’t win nationwide.

Missy on February 17, 2012 at 9:39 AM

That poll means nothing. They have yet to include the dead people, illegal immigrants, and those recruited by ACORN (or whatever name they now use)in their poll. The Dems always find the necessary votes they need in a close election.

iamsaved on February 17, 2012 at 9:28 AM

We can always get Jimmy Carter and his group to monitor the election…and check the trunks of cars!

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Brown may be a RINO, but he’s not an extreme left wing lunatic like Warren. I’m voting for Brown

Wigglesworth on February 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Scott Brown may not be perfect in some peoples eyes but if you sit on your a$$ come polling day with an ‘I won’t vote for him attitude’ that marxist tart will win the seat and the ‘rat agenda rolls over all of us

keithofboston on February 17, 2012 at 9:46 AM

She’s a lunatic.
Every time she opens her mouth she scares people.
She makes it perfectly clear that she would confiscate your wealth.

NeoKong on February 17, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Elizabeth Warren is Pelosi-lite. We have enough mentally challeged leftwing nutcases in the Senate already.

volsense on February 17, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Thank God for small miracles. Warren is a stark and welcome reminder that the Democrats can be just as inept when choosing their candidates as the Republicans. All they had to do was nominate a fiscally conservative moderate Dem and the seat would be theirs. But no, they had to go with a slightly more polished Maxine Waters. See yah!

Mr. Arkadin on February 17, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I do. I vote my conscience and principle. Pragmatism does not take a primary role in my thinking, otherwise I’d support every establishment shill the GOP puts forth, toe the line, etc.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM

So, your principles dictate that you sit home and let a full-blown Marxist get elected over some wobbly R? Interesting principles.

The Count on February 17, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Does Scott Brown have the ATHEIST FEEEEEEVAH ????????????

Eph on February 17, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Brown is sellout, but Warren would vote against you 100% of the time and be the left’s chief spokesperson for Marxism/Occupy. Just make sure you do your job on election day.

The Count on February 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Brown has voted 100% with Obama/Reid when it counted. He voted to confirm Kagan and the Wise Latina. He voted for the payroll “tax cut”. He voted for Obama’s “jobs program”. He voted for Frank-Dodd. He voted for DREAM. He voted against reining in the EPA. And on and on.

angryed on February 17, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I knew it was a mistake to send that man money… He will likely be worse than having a Democrat in that seat. Always trying to be to the left of where he thinks a Democrat would be in order to keep his job.

astonerii on February 17, 2012 at 9:49 AM

This is great news! Warren is the most dangerous socialist demagogue in America today.

thuja on February 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Can you elaborate? Or, at least explain her rockstar status with the 20-something progs. I’ve witnessed teh swoon-action towards her that is comparable to teh Won.

egmont on February 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I can’t vote for Brown because I don’t live in Mass, and believe me when I say that when it comes to places I would never live, Mass and Wisconsin actually come in lower than Haiti.

But you 3 conservatives who live in Mass, vote for Brown.

Bishop on February 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Look, a guy that votes with you 70% of the time is far better than a Far leftist ideologue like Elizabeth Warren who will do her damn
best to destroy what is left of this great nation.

blogforce one on February 17, 2012 at 9:39 AM

It’s not 70% not even close. More like 7%.
Again, when it counts, Brown will be there for Reid/Obama.

DADT – voted with Harry Reid
Frank – Dodd voted with Harry Reid
DREAM – voted with Harry Reid
EPA clampdown – voted with Harry Reid
Obama “Jobs Program” – voted with Harry Reid
UI Extensions – voted with Harry Reid

This guy makes the Maine Twins look conservative.

angryed on February 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Scott Brown may not be perfect in some peoples eyes but if you sit on your a$$ come polling day with an ‘I won’t vote for him attitude’ that marxist tart will win the seat and the ‘rat agenda rolls over all of us

keithofboston on February 17, 2012 at 9:46 AM

They don’t care. They’d prefer to sanctimoniously lecture us about conservative principles while Obama’s goons are marching us off to jail for non-compliance with his blizzard of mandates.

It’s about pure principles, you see. Either our government does 100% of what our puritan beliefs dictate, or we might has well live under a totalitarian leftist empire.

The Count on February 17, 2012 at 9:53 AM

They don’t care. They’d prefer to sanctimoniously lecture us about conservative principles while Obama’s goons are marching us off to jail for non-compliance with his blizzard of mandates.

It’s about pure principles, you see. Either our government does 100% of what our puritan beliefs dictate, or we might has well live under a totalitarian leftist empire.

The Count on February 17, 2012 at 9:53 AM

No you’re right, just vote for the guy with an “R” next to his name, even though he voted with the “D” all the time. Much better.

angryed on February 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM

brown the 99%
warren the 1%

t8stlikchkn on February 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM

angryed on February 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM

How many votes did Sen. Christine O’Donnell and Sen. Sharon Angle cast in favor of the GOP agenda?

Oh right, zero.

NoDonkey on February 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Bishop on February 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM

You’re comparing Wisconsin to Massachusetts???

Come on, half of your trolling lures are made there.

CTSherman on February 17, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Update: I know conservatives are hardly satisfied with Scott Brown, but I’m pretty sure that Martha Coakley wouldn’t have written this op-ed in today’s Boston Herald:

Broken clock…

Blind Squirrel…

angryed on February 17, 2012 at 9:58 AM

The Obama assault on the Catholic Church is not going over well in Massachusetts. Scott Brown is talking about a letter Ted Kennedy wrote to the Pope saying he would support a conscience rule for all health care legislation. Warren is spouting the usual tired feminist BS and attacking Brwon for sponsoring the Rubio conscience protection bill. She has actually gone ot the left of Ted Kennedy!

Right there is a huge difference between the two. Warren will support all manner of Stalinist regulations, executive power grabs, and attacks on religion.

rockmom on February 17, 2012 at 9:58 AM

How many votes did Sen. Christine O’Donnell and Sen. Sharon Angle cast in favor of the GOP agenda?

Oh right, zero.

NoDonkey on February 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Yes, yes of course. Focus on the 2 races that the TP lost in 2010 and ignore the ~70 races that were won by the TP.

In RINO world a 70-2 record means we fire the coach.

angryed on February 17, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Like many conservatives I have not been thrilled with Mr. Brown. however I do recognize two things:
1) We are talking about Massachusetts…(AHHHHHH)
2) Mr. Brown was elected to complete the end of Ted Kennedy’s term (YEAH), which was for a couple years before he would need to seek re-election.
For this election cycle I can cut him some slack. I hope Mr. Brown does win re-election and I hope be can feel free to act and even lead in a more conservative manner.

Of course I have the fear Mr. Brown will follow in the steps of previous NE liberal senators who had an (R) behind their name, who kiss up to the MSM, and seek to follow in the steps of McCain. Mr. McCain would seem to do anything to please the MSM. (OH they loved McCain..right until he was actually nominated to run for President) I hope Mr. Brown was watching.

DVPTexFla on February 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I can’t vote for Brown because I don’t live in Mass, and believe me when I say that when it comes to places I would never live, Mass and Wisconsin actually come in lower than Haiti.

But you 3 conservatives who live in Mass, vote for Brown.

Bishop on February 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Don’t be ignorant.

Wisconsin has given us:

Scott Walker, the vanguard of the movement to restrict the tyranny of public unions.

Ron Johnson, who kicked Russ Feingold out of the Senate and is one of the rising tea party senators

Paul Ryan, the most clear-thinker budget analyst today and the only one willing to go toe-to-toe with Obama

Not to mention copious amounts of beer and the greatest football team of all time.

Yeah, life is good in the Badger state.

PackerBronco on February 17, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Yes, yes of course. Focus on the 2 races that the TP lost in 2010 and ignore the ~70 races that were won by the TP.

In RINO world a 70-2 record means we fire the coach.

angryed on February 17, 2012 at 9:59 AM

If my team beats the Little Sisters of Poor one week and then loses the big game to the cross-town rival, which game do you think I’ll remember and which one really determines whether the season was successful?

Both of the races you mention were winnable and we sent two doofus to compete in the general.

PackerBronco on February 17, 2012 at 10:04 AM

No you’re right, just vote for the guy with an “R” next to his name, even though he voted with the “D” all the time. Much better.

angryed on February 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM

He is the reason there is no public option with Obamacare. Or, did you already forget that?

The Count on February 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Can you elaborate? Or, at least explain her rockstar status with the 20-something progs. I’ve witnessed teh swoon-action towards her that is comparable to teh Won.

egmont on February 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM

The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was Warren’s idea, in fact the whole thing comes from a deeply silly article she wrote in Harvard magazine in 2007. But all the Harvard policy wonks loved it. The Kos Kids latched onto this as the ne plus ultra of new progressive policy ideas, and she became their champion. They wanted Obama to appoint her to head the new Bureau, but Republicans made it very clear she would have zero chance of confirmation. But she was very involved in the formation of the Bureau and in the hiring of many far-left Soros-connected activists to fill its top positions.

She’s a phony populist who lives in a million-dollar home and pulls down over $300k a year to teach one class at Harvard Law School. She has a degree in psychology and somehow became the world’s expert on banks and financial services. She is a total fraud.

rockmom on February 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Warren is pure unadulterated evil.

If Warren somehow loses the primary, I might be less inclined to actively support Brown. But for now, he’s all we’ve got.

Just Sayin on February 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Not to mention copious amounts of beer and the greatest football team of all time.

Yeah, life is good in the Badger state.

PackerBronco on February 17, 2012 at 10:01 AM

What about cheese and brats? Or is that a different state?

csdeven on February 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Just like Romney is the Conservative establishments chosen candidate, so is Warren the Liberal establishments chosen candidate. The more fun race may be Joe Kennedy III trying to get Barney’s seat. Will they waste their votes on another Kennedy?

bflat879 on February 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM

He is the reason there is no public option with Obamacare. Or, did you already forget that?

The Count on February 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

He is also the reason most of Obamacare was passed under reconciliation, which means those parts of it can also be repealed through reconciliation. All we need is 51 Republicans in the Senate and a Republican president to sign it. Brown will vote to repeal it, Warren certainly won’t.

rockmom on February 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM

He is the reason there is no public option with Obamacare. Or, did you already forget that?

The Count on February 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

All the TrueCons™ forgot that.

Priscilla on February 17, 2012 at 10:10 AM

One thing to remember about those 10 Democrat Representatives is that Massachusetts is heavily gerrymandered. You wouldn’t think it necessary given the state’s reputation but districts are drawn spiraling out of the urban core of Boston and suppressing the conservative leanings of the South Shore in particular.

livefreerdie on February 17, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Update: I know conservatives are hardly satisfied with Scott Brown, but I’m pretty sure that Martha Coakley wouldn’t have written this op-ed in today’s Boston Herald:

First bit of good news I’ve heard from Brown in awhile.

Doomberg on February 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Scott Brown is the best we can hope for in Taxachusetts right now. Better a half a loaf than no loaf.

rbj on February 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

So, your principles dictate that you sit home and let a full-blown Marxist get elected over some wobbly R? Interesting principles.

The Count on February 17, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Never said I’d sit at home. I play politics and vote by different rules. Politics don’t rule my life. This nation doesn’t come first. My faith – God – comes first and it is through that lens that I prioritize everything in my life and operate.

To that end I don’t get scared by tactics or beliefs that say I have to vote A or B because that’s all there really is or that a vote for C is actually a vote for A or B. We the American people have allowed the two primary parties to dictate politics to us, not the other way around.

I don’t blindly vote a straight party ticket nor does the prescence of a single candidate shy me away from voting at all or switching to another party per se. I have voted for Republicans, Constitution Party, my cat and even, on ocassion – as far as I can recall, Democrats on a local level (county politics).

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Shocked that this got reported here. After all, Scott Brown is a MA moderate, at best..

This is great though. Suffolk in no way leans to the right, and for them to show Brown up by 9 means that Republcians might net a huge haul in the Senate. If Warren cant get a lead over Brown in MA when almost all liberals are supporting her and pouring money into her campaign, that might be very troublesome to Senators like Claire McCaskill, Bill Nelson, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown and Joe Manchin.

I think if Republicans hold MA and Ensign’s former feat, they might pick up 5/6 seats and come out of the election with 52/53 seats. And if the economy tanks again, and Obama becomes vulnerable, I would not discount seats like Bob Casey’s coming into play as well, and Republicans potentially gainign 7/8 seats.

milcus on February 17, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Scott Brown is the best we can hope for in Taxachusetts right now. Better a half a loaf than no loaf.

rbj on February 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Exactly, we need to remain “conservative” in our expectations and be content with incrementalism.

Let the left toy with utopia, we need to gain ground where we can and stand still when the alternative is losing a lot of ground.

NoDonkey on February 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Good op-ed that should appeal to the independent streak that is at least part of Massachusetts’ history. Not that Brown has that independent streak, although he likes to pretend. He’s like Romney: feints right, then faints for the left.

EMD on February 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM

This 2010 Brown $ contributor is seriously disappointed in Olympia Brown’s votes and will not contribute $ again. However, Warren is far left and her election would ensure ceding Senate committee control to the Democrat party. The Republican party, deeply flawed as it is with Democrat Lite RINO thinking needs to be in control of the Senate to limit Supreme Court appointees, EPA edicts, etc. after The One gets re-elected in November.

philw1776 on February 17, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I’m glad I don’t live in Mass. I don’t find anything about Mr. Brown that makes me “cheerful”.

Pragmatically speaking, the only thing he’s got going for him is the (R) he tags behind his name.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 9:19 AM

If you aren’t cheered by the fact that he’s potentially keeping an avowed socialist like Warren out of public office, then you have no soul.

Caiwyn on February 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Talk about a hold-your-nose vote. Brown has betrayed the “R” he carries at nearly every turn. And yet, he is still by far the preferable option in this case.

Freelancer on February 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM

rockmom on February 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Thanks! I was ready to chide Bush for appointing her the head of TARP but I see that Dingy Harry had the honors of chiding Bush and appointing Warren.

egmont on February 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM

One thing to remember about those 10 Democrat Representatives is that Massachusetts is heavily gerrymandered. You wouldn’t think it necessary given the state’s reputation but districts are drawn spiraling out of the urban core of Boston and suppressing the conservative leanings of the South Shore in particular.

livefreerdie on February 17, 2012 at 10:13 AM

And the Southies take it on the chin again…bastages.

Freelancer on February 17, 2012 at 10:44 AM

“Scott Brown’s popularity and appeal are overpowering the efforts of Elizabeth Warren, who struggles to introduce herself to the larger pool of Massachusetts voters,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “Warren’s support does not have traction among independents.”

I don’t know if Taxachusetts is ready to go all-out Communist, but electing that, that thing named Warren will certainly be a step in that direction.

The RINO Scott Brown is like a stopped clock, but he’s better than nothing. Hell, he’s even better than his dynamic duo RINO female pals from Maine.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I still don’t get all the hostility for Brown. He’s from Massachusetts for God’s sake. If he votes like a traditional Republican then he’s going to lose his next election like a traditional Republican would in that state. Does anyone actually think we can do better?

LukeinNE on February 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Sen. Scott is a huge step forward for MA, I’m just having a bit of trouble taking that to a national level.

Cindy Munford on February 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Darn it, Sen. Brown! I’m a doofus.

Cindy Munford on February 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM

If you aren’t cheered by the fact that he’s potentially keeping an avowed socialist like Warren out of public office, then you have no soul.

Caiwyn on February 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM

There are far more important things in life than politics. I find that most people who congregate on conservative, political sites seem to have the idea that politics and this nation trumps everything else, that in the priorities of life they come first. I find that backwards and troublesome.

This doesn’t mean I don’t find less liberals and less Democrat power/authority unpleasing. I am pleased seeing Democrats and liberals not in power and able to direct the course of things. However, I don’t writhe in agony if they’re in power. My soul is far more important to me than my wallet or what happens to my body.

As horrible as it sounds, maybe this nation needs a bit more oppression. Maybe then they’ll realize what’s really important in life and focus on that first.

There is a reason why Christianity flourishes under and in many totalitarian regimes and countries. Persecution has an odd way of focusing people’s spiritual energy. But I digress…

Either way, the Democrats and Republicans have conspired little bit by little bit over the decades to consolidate power between the two of them, so that quite often what we’re left with is finding ourselves voting pragmatically and liking it. We’re not at the level of voting Coke and Coca Cola yet, but Pepsi or Coke isn’t fun either, especially when you often find out that Coke likes to play footsie and get in cahootz with Pepsi when it serves their needs and not yours.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Elizabeth Warren is Pelosi-lite. We have enough mentally challeged leftwing nutcases in the Senate already.

volsense on February 17, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Actually, Pelosi is Warren-lite. Pelosi is many things but she isn’t a kook. She is a hard-left pandering politician just like Feinstein. Warren OTOH is a raving loon. Her Harvard prof status allowed her to bay at the moon without interruption for years and it shows every time she opens her cake hole. MA won’t elect her. That little twerp Kennedy on the other hand is more of a problem.

roy_batty on February 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM

There are far more important things in life than politics.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Ahhh, you’re here for the recipes then.

roy_batty on February 17, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Never said I’d sit at home. I play politics and vote by different rules. Politics don’t rule my life. This nation doesn’t come first. My faith – God – comes first and it is through that lens that I prioritize everything in my life and operate.

Then why don’t you vote for the guy who’s actually standing up in deep-blue Massachusetts for the religious freedom and the right of the Catholic Church to not have to pay for people’s birth control?

What, you think Elizabeth Warren would do that for you?

Seriously: everyone who thinks Brown has been too squishy recently, keep in mind that he’s had his eye on this upcoming reelection since the moment he got into office. Once he secures a full six year term he’ll be a lot less skittish.

You would be crazy not to support Brown if you’re ever trying to move this country to the right. The stronger our numbers in the Senate, the closer we get to a filibuster-proof majority, the more things become possible.

Esoteric on February 17, 2012 at 11:01 AM

You don’t fish for mackerel in a cesspool: Sen. Brown is the best one can hope for out of Massachusetts. He’ll count when the time comes to send Reid packing, he won’t Bork conservative judges, and he’ll vote conservative once in a blue moon. Not good enough to send money, but good enough to hope for his win.

Archivarix on February 17, 2012 at 11:02 AM

As horrible as it sounds, maybe this nation needs a bit more oppression. Maybe then they’ll realize what’s really important in life and focus on that first.

Okay, you’re a troll.

If not, you’re an evil (or sociopathic) person. You would actively wish pain and suffering upon us all “for our own good.”

Esoteric on February 17, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Brown is sellout, but Warren would vote against you 100% of the time and be the left’s chief spokesperson for Marxism/Occupy.

The Count on February 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Who, exactly, is he selling out to? The people he represents?

JohnGalt23 on February 17, 2012 at 11:02 AM

There is a reason why Christianity flourishes under and in many totalitarian regimes and countries. Persecution has an odd way of focusing people’s spiritual energy.

So by this logic I suppose it would just awesome in terms of your apparent priorities if Obama were to stage a coup and become dictator? I mean sure, loss the Republic and all that, but on the bright side, a deeper Christian faith!

This is the reason people are deeply discomfited by ultra-religious political types. Your priorities are so disordered and disturbing that we begin to think that you care about us less as human beings with lives and families and careers and economic interests in the balance, and more as abstracted thoughts.

Esoteric on February 17, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I still don’t get all the hostility for Brown. He’s from Massachusetts for God’s sake. If he votes like a traditional Republican then he’s going to lose his next election like a traditional Republican would in that state. Does anyone actually think we can do better?

LukeinNE on February 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Look, I want Brown to beat Warren, but let’s not kid ourselves about what we’d be getting. If Warren wins, the Dems get another lefty fighting on offense. If Brown holds the seat, the Repubs get another pol who plays defense. After this week’s fiasco on the payroll “tax cut,” it should be clear that to win this country back we need more than Republicans that play defense (and not even a very good defense). We need people with a conservative spine.

Yes, Brown is a nice man, very genteel. Hope he wins.

EMD on February 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM

NFW ! Brown could win this thing ?? Maybe OWS was really all media smoke and mirrors.
Dead cat.

FlaMurph on February 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I know conservatives are hardly satisfied with Scott Brown

They’re satisfied with nobody.

Good Lt on February 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM

All the TrueCons™ forgot that.

Priscilla on February 17, 2012 at 10:10 AM

They’ve also forgotten that there would be no Obamacare period if it were not for Snarlin’ Arlen Spector, who was supported by TrueCon™ Rick Santorum, a man of bedrock principle and an anti-establishment firebrand who would never support a beltway squish over a Tea Party favorite because the party elders asked him to…oops, nevermind!

Mr. Arkadin on February 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Look, I want Brown to beat Warren, but let’s not kid ourselves about what we’d be getting. If Warren wins, the Dems get another lefty fighting on offense. If Brown holds the seat, the Repubs get another pol who plays defense. After this week’s fiasco on the payroll “tax cut,” it should be clear that to win this country back we need more than Republicans that play defense (and not even a very good defense). We need people with a conservative spine.

Yes, Brown is a nice man, very genteel. Hope he wins.

EMD on February 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Yeah, fine. Where a Demint & Rubio can be elected, let’s elect another Demint & Rubio. Where a Brown is the alternative over a Warren, consideration should not require more than a nanosecond.

roy_batty on February 17, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I still don’t get all the hostility for Brown. He’s from Massachusetts for God’s sake. If he votes like a traditional Republican then he’s going to lose his next election like a traditional Republican would in that state. Does anyone actually think we can do better?

LukeinNE on February 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I agree. And I have made the same argument for Mitt Romney.

A non-moderate Republican can’t win more than 30-35% of the vote in MA, or really anywhere north of the Mason-Dixie line along the Eastern seaboard. And he certainly cannot win re-election if he runs as a moderate and governs as a conservative.

It’s just the way it is.

And it’s also the case that without Senators like Scott Brown, conservatives could not hold more than probably 35-40% of the Senate. So, as much as conservatives bad mouth republicans like Romney and Brown, they are the keys to giving Republicans control in Washington.

milcus on February 17, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Brown is essentially a foil for the Democrats to do anything they want with the ability to say they have bipartisan support for their actions. If we get the Senate majority, he will be the cause celibre for getting all legialstion moved far to the left before passage. He has value only if he is number 51 or 41, we are at neither.

astonerii on February 17, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Another thing that Democrats never mention is that Obamacare’s 60th vote was cast by a Dixiecrat who filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

cpaulus on February 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM

He has value only if he is number 51 or 41, we are at neither.

astonerii on February 17, 2012 at 11:17 AM

But imagine the havoc if he’s number 60. Every R bill going through the senate will get undermined and forced left. It’ll be the scott brown gang of one.

Lost in Jersey on February 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Esoteric – I frequently get called that or a Moby on conservative/political sites. I find it a rather flippant response. Part of the problem is that message boards and online formats such as this do not enable people to properly flesh out the positions where they stand, even for people like me who tend towards verbosity – brevity has never been my strong point.

And if you think I’m evil, that’s fine. You certainly don’t know me or understand me, much less then the Bible, Christian history or world history. I don’t wish pain and suffering, but I’m also not ignorant to see what it has done in the past and what it could take to wake people up – and even then there will still be people who will be like the monkeys on the log or just rage against God in self-righteous indignation.

I’ve been posting on this site since Hot Air did the first of their two recent open registrations. I also have a backlog of my own posts on my own blog that enables me to provide a bit more depth for my opinions and beliefs. To that end, people are then free to discover for themselves whether I’m really a “troll”, moby or not.

In the end, I know who I am and am happy with it. I have a wife and four children that love me. I am a Christian with a fairly conservative outlook on life and I put God then family before this country. I try to live my life as principled as I can, making sure that pragmatism will ALWAYS play second fiddle if it gets a chance at the band at all. I’m not perfect, but it’s what I strive for every day, also trying to live my life loving my fellow man as myself and God, as I am supposed to and should.

If you still think I’m “evil”, ah well. See you around the boards. I’m not going anywhere any time soon. I also often post on Red State and have done so there for a couple of years. I used to post on Gateway Pundit – where I found the most vitriolic posters who would frequently call me a troll or moby. I left when it became clear that Mr. Hoft has turned his site into tabloidism.

Maybe my mother was right. She said I should either be a preacher or a politician. I always said I’d get shot if I were a politician. Perhaps one day I can aspire to be like President James Garfield, he was a preacher long before he entered politics. There was a time when many of our politicians let their faith dictate their politics. Too bad so many of our politicians and citizens have lost that grounding. I am not surprised by the state of our nation after over a century of ceding the political ground to the secularists and leftists in this nation.

The only thing that’s going to turn this nation around is getting on our knees. Change starts with the individual and trickles up from there. It starts with our hearts and our souls, with our mindset.

Logus on February 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Brown is essentially a foil for the Democrats to do anything they want with the ability to say they have bipartisan support for their actions. If we get the Senate majority, he will be the cause celibre for getting all legialstion moved far to the left before passage. He has value only if he is number 51 or 41, we are at neither.

I bet there were liberals who said the same thing about Specter being 60.

cpaulus on February 17, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I still don’t get all the hostility for Brown.

It probably stems from the fact that a lot of people invested a lot in getting Brown in and he didn’t really stop Obama’s agenda. With HCR, he couldn’t do anything, but he was all too happy to play along on the finance reform bill.

For me, I’d like Brown a lot more if he’d declare himself Independent and caucus with the republicans. I know there are probably a large number of reasons why this wouldn’t work, but I’d find it easier to support him. It’s all window dressing anyway, but for whatever reason it makes a difference to me.

earlgrey133 on February 17, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2