MORE Thoughts on Scott Brown (And The Implications Of His Election)

posted by Brett Bittner

(  I just read Matt Wittlief’s thoughts on Scott Brown, and since I have only tweeted about the Massachusetts special election and talked about it on the radio, I must be falling behind as a “political blogger” myself.  I started this as a comment, but my opinions turned this into a post itself.

As I see it, the GOP needed solidarity in the Senate (41 votes) to derail ObamaCare, and Scott Brown is that 41st vote for ObamaCare in 2010. I have said it before, and I will continue to say it, Scott Brown is nothing more than a “short term compromise.” His positions are not that different from Coakley, when you compare them across the board for all three candidates that ran. He also supported RomneyCare in Massachusetts a few short years ago. His support of government intervention into the marketplace is unquestionable, and he confirmed it with his comments on Wednesday, that every libertarian that tweets or is on Facebook cited.

Is electing a Massachusetts Republican to the Senate a big deal? Yes. Did Scott Brown run a great campaign? Yes. Did Martha Coakley suck as a candidate? Yes. What happened in Massachusetts was collusion among Republicans from all 50 states bombarding the people of the state with Scott Brown’s well-timed message and grassroots campaigning to garner the millions of dollars received in the final days of his campaign. Whether it was Tea Partiers or establishment Republicans, they united in their short-sightedness.  As I said before, IF I LIVED IN MASSACHUSETTS, I would have voted for Joe Kennedy on principle. I am a student of history, and I know that not learning from history will doom us to repeat it, so I ask that you look at the short-sightedness of Massachusetts just six short years ago.

When Democrats were shoring up for a John Kerry win against George W. Bush in 2004, they changed the rules for selecting his interim replacement, as Mitt Romney was could have selected a Republican Senator to replace him. Had they NOT done that in 2004, they would not have faced the special election in 2010, where Scott Brown WON to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. I do not think that Hollywood could have written a more dramatic storyline for what transpired. Democrats’ own short-sightedness hurt them as they were trying to pass the most aggressive government intervention in the marketplace since The New Deal, answering the call from FDR’s second bill of rights.

If short-sightedness had not won in 2004, the “behind closed doors” meetings between both houses of Congress and the President would have hammered out a bill inserting government into 18% or so of the American economy, without addressing the core issues of what is wrong with health care in America. Will compromising for the short term by electing Scott Brown hurt free-market proponents in six or ten or twenty years?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: