There will be much harrumphing and punditry in the next few days about the meaning of Scott Browns victory and his phenomenal campaign for Ted Kennedys U.S. Senate seat.
How in the final days of an election all but certain to go to the Democrats did Brown a mere state senator manage to raise millions and rattle the machinery of his blue-hearted state?
Democrats who see the world through denial-colored glasses want to blame their candidate state Attorney General Martha Coakley for her halfhearted tone-deaf campaign. Certainly she has earned some of that criticism.
Coakley presumed her ascendancy without bothering to work for the vote even once saying: What am I supposed to do shake hands in the freezing cold outside Fenway Park? Thats like the pope saying: What am I supposed to do celebrate Mass in St. Peters Square?
While Coakley was ignoring the tsunami outside her window Brown was hanging ten on a wave of dissatisfaction -- standing on street corners hand-delivering yard signs and yes shaking hands in the freezing cold. Coakleys remark that devout Catholics shouldnt work in emergency rooms if their pro-life consciences conflict with the law of the land was tin-eared and insensitive.
Finally and not least Coakleys comment that former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan put her squarely in the category of clueless.
Brown by contrast was the peoples genius a guys guy who conveyed genuineness -- the antithesis of everything Americans despise in Washington. The un-elitist Brown was more than an alternative to his rival. He was a reformer promising change to a people weary of hope.
Democrats trying to paint Republicans as the Party of No were simply being crushed by a candidate who was saying Oh yes we can but not like this. Remorseful independents who had voted for the unifying and faux-centrist Barack Obama responded to the candidate who seemed to be in touch with their reality.
The meaning of Scott Brown should be clear to Democrats facing midterm elections in November. Not least Republicans have learned how to use the Internet to build momentum and raise money. Brown collected more in online contributions the past week than can be spent though how much the campaign wont say. It cant go unmentioned that Brown also benefited from the strategic brilliance of Mitt Romney loyalists Peter Flaherty and Eric Fehrnstrom who guided him from relative obscurity to talk of the nation.
Although Democrats flail against the obvious the real message of Browns ascendancy signifies opposition to current health-care reform. His surge has been an echo of 1994 when a backlash to Hillary Clintons attempt to overhaul health care sparked a Republican takeover of Congress.
Brown couldnt have come close to victory in a statewide race without the health-care issue. He couldnt have raised so much money except for welling anger throughout the country.
As important as the Massachusetts special election was to the health-care debate it also represents a come-to-Jesus moment for the GOP. What kind of party will it be?
On the surface Browns success especially among independents suggests that the GOP tent is expanding to make room even for moderate pro-choice candidates like Brown. Have fiscal conservatives displaced social conservatives as the base? Or have the Palin-Huckabee Republicans made room at the inn out of expediency? Perhaps the party has embraced the philosophy of a retired state GOP chairman who once said to me: A good Republican is a Republican who wins.
Then again Coakleys social positions were politically extreme even by Massachusetts standards. Whatever the case it would be a mistake to fashion Brown into a party savior say insiders close to the race. Brown is sui generis -- a candidate uniquely suited to his time and place.
As one GOP operative put it: No one should expect him to be a conservative icon because hes not she said. Hes a Massachusetts man of the people.
Yes those Republicans who did everything possible to elect him proved to be pragmatic. They understood that someone like Jim DeMint of South Carolina couldnt win in Massachusetts. But ultimately as others including the president can attest no one can live up to iconic status.
What can be inferred from the Brown-Coakley race is that a new national mantra has emerged from the electorate that bodes ill for Democrats.
Its no longer hope and change but something sturdier: Reform or die.
There will be much harrumphing and punditry in the next few days about the meaning of Scott Browns victory and his phenomenal campaign for Ted Kennedys U.S. Senate seat.
How in the final days of an election all but certain to go to the Democrats did Brown a mere state senator manage to raise millions and rattle the machinery of his blue-hearted state?
Democrats who see the world through denial-colored glasses want to blame their candidate state Attorney General Martha Coakley for her halfhearted tone-deaf campaign. Certainly she has earned some of that criticism.
Coakley presumed her ascendancy without bothering to work for the vote even once saying: What am I supposed to do shake hands in the freezing cold outside Fenway Park? Thats like the pope saying: What am I supposed to do celebrate Mass in St. Peters Square?
While Coakley was ignoring the tsunami outside her window Brown was hanging ten on a wave of dissatisfaction -- standing on street corners hand-delivering yard signs and yes shaking hands in the freezing cold. Coakleys remark that devout Catholics shouldnt work in emergency rooms if their pro-life consciences conflict with the law of the land was tin-eared and insensitive.
Finally and not least Coakleys comment that former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan put her squarely in the category of clueless.
Brown by contrast was the peoples genius a guys guy who conveyed genuineness -- the antithesis of everything Americans despise in Washington. The un-elitist Brown was more than an alternative to his rival. He was a reformer promising change to a people weary of hope.
Democrats trying to paint Republicans as the Party of No were simply being crushed by a candidate who was saying Oh yes we can but not like this. Remorseful independents who had voted for the unifying and faux-centrist Barack Obama responded to the candidate who seemed to be in touch with their reality.
The meaning of Scott Brown should be clear to Democrats facing midterm elections in November. Not least Republicans have learned how to use the Internet to build momentum and raise money. Brown collected more in online contributions the past week than can be spent though how much the campaign wont say. It cant go unmentioned that Brown also benefited from the strategic brilliance of Mitt Romney loyalists Peter Flaherty and Eric Fehrnstrom who guided him from relative obscurity to talk of the nation.
Although Democrats flail against the obvious the real message of Browns ascendancy signifies opposition to current health-care reform. His surge has been an echo of 1994 when a backlash to Hillary Clintons attempt to overhaul health care sparked a Republican takeover of Congress.
Brown couldnt have come close to victory in a statewide race without the health-care issue. He couldnt have raised so much money except for welling anger throughout the country.
As important as the Massachusetts special election was to the health-care debate it also represents a come-to-Jesus moment for the GOP. What kind of party will it be?
On the surface Browns success especially among independents suggests that the GOP tent is expanding to make room even for moderate pro-choice candidates like Brown. Have fiscal conservatives displaced social conservatives as the base? Or have the Palin-Huckabee Republicans made room at the inn out of expediency? Perhaps the party has embraced the philosophy of a retired state GOP chairman who once said to me: A good Republican is a Republican who wins.
Then again Coakleys social positions were politically extreme even by Massachusetts standards. Whatever the case it would be a mistake to fashion Brown into a party savior say insiders close to the race. Brown is sui generis -- a candidate uniquely suited to his time and place.
As one GOP operative put it: No one should expect him to be a conservative icon because hes not she said. Hes a Massachusetts man of the people.
Yes those Republicans who did everything possible to elect him proved to be pragmatic. They understood that someone like Jim DeMint of South Carolina couldnt win in Massachusetts. But ultimately as others including the president can attest no one can live up to iconic status.
What can be inferred from the Brown-Coakley race is that a new national mantra has emerged from the electorate that bodes ill for Democrats.
Its no longer hope and change but something sturdier: Reform or die.
