Analysis of the Scott Brown Victory in MA

January 20, 2010

Could anyone have ever dreamed of a more unusual scenario? The seat held by Ted Kennedy for over 40 years has now been replaced by a Republican in Massachusetts.

The Stage was Set

Let’s rewind to 1994. In the midst of a surge sweeping across the nation against the Democratic majority after a Clinton victory in 1992, in Massachusetts, a man named Mitt Romney dared to challenge the lion of the Senate himself: Ted Kennedy. But while Romney managed to lose by the second smallest margin in Kennedy’s nine elections, the score was a 17-point difference: 58 to 41.

By 2004, Romney was governor of Massachusetts. In an effort to avoid a Romney-chosen senator should Senator John Kerry win the White House, the Democratic majority of the Massachusetts state senate passed legislation that would keep the governor from being able to appoint a U.S. Senator until a special election was held.

But in 2009, with a Democratic governor in place, the Democrats reversed the legislation to allow a Democrat to be appointed to replace Ted Kennedy after he died. Before his death, Kennedy had even requested the reversal himself. After Kennedy’s death, Paul Kirk was appointed to replace him. The seat remained in the hands of the Democratic party.

On November 3rd of that year, GOP candidates Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie won the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. Both states had Democratic governors.

That same month in Massachusetts, Democratic candidate Martha Coakley led Republican Scott Brown by as much as 31 points. The Kennedy family endorsed Coakley to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. At that point, it appeared obvious that the seat will continue to be in Democratic control.  After all, in Massachusetts, Democrats outnumber Republicans by as much as 3 to 1. But independents outnumber Democrats in the Bay State. And the hypocrisy of the Democratic party had worn down the respect of their constituents.

The Meteoric Rise of Scott Brown

Through a series of gaffes by Coakley herself, Scott Brown began to rise. Coakley’s numbers started to drop. Whether it was the pointless sparring with Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling or the arrogant and elitist opposition to schmoozing with hockey fans at Fenway Park, Coakley couldn’t seem to keep her mouth shut. If that wasn’t bad enough, her claim that terrorists no longer reside in Afghanistan certainly didn’t buy her any foreign policy points.

But in spite of Coakley’s best efforts to sink her own campaign, it still seemed unlikely that a Republican would be the one to replace Ted Kennedy. However, in early January, a Rasmussen poll revealed that Coakley’s lead narrowed to a single digit margin, albeit a 9 point margin.

In a debate with Coakley, Brown was asked how he could sit in Ted Kennedy’s seat and vote against the healthcare legislation that Kennedy had fought so hard for in his career. Brown responded, “With all due respect, it is not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It is not the Democrats’ seat. It is the people’s seat.”

For some reason, the wind was suddenly at Brown’s back. Perhaps even to the surprise of some Republicans, Brown was gaining momentum. Rasmussen’s next poll had him losing by only 2 points. A Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll had him up by 1. Coakley’s lead was vanishing before her very eyes. In the latter polls of the campaign, it was fully erased, replaced by as much as a 15 point margin of victory for Brown according to PJM/CrossTarget.

On the night of January 19th, Coakley delivered her concession speech. Brown had won 52 to 47.

Is Brown the New Face of the GOP?

Perhaps it’s a bit early to say that Brown is the face for the GOP brand. Typically, Republicans require dues to be paid before its leaders are rewarded with a  higher status. It took Ronald Reagan several years to become a major voice in the party, having lost to Ford in 1976 before winning the nomination in 1980. But if there’s one politician whose own meteoric rise could provide Brown a pathway for an early entry into the presidential fray, it would be none other than Barack Obama.

Obama was  still a state senator in Illinois back in 2004 when he delivered the keynote address to the Democratic National Convention. He was elected as a U.S. Senator later that year. By February 2007, he had declared himself a candidate for the White House.

Brown was also a state senator when he won his U.S. Senate seat. While it may seem the least bit unlikely, Brown could very well be among the names floated for the 2012 GOP nomination.

But even if Brown did find himself amidst the field of candidates in the GOP primary, he would probably not win the support of many social conservatives. While Brown remains to the right of most Democrats on abortion, he is still essentially pro-choice. This would prove to be a rather difficult hurdle to overcome should Brown have loftier aspirations.

An Unusual Victory, A Glimmer of Hope

To say that Brown’s victory is historic would be an understatement. The Bay State has not had a Republican U.S. senator since 1978. Kennedy’s seat hasn’t been held by a Republican since 1952.

If he is seated soon, Scott Brown will bring a screeching halt to the Democratic supermajority in the U.S. Senate, thus being the one man who can dissolve the liberal dream of Obamacare.

It seems evident that there is a trend in America towards the right. A trend towards smaller government. A trend towards fiscal responsibility. A trend against runaway spending. A trend towards transparency in government.

Last night, the people of Massachusetts spoke to the nation about the kind of government they want. If this type of sentiment is displayed there, in the bluest of blue states, it will not end with them.

Finally, it seems that America may be correcting its course.

Advertisements

Paranoid Presidential Predictions

August 9, 2007

It seems like everyone’s got a paranoid conspiracy theory about what a candidate will do if they are elected to the Oval Office. So I’m going to throw out some of my own theories on certain candidates:

Barack Obama – If elected President, Barack Obama will meet with Castro, Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, and Vladimir Putin to draw up a treaty in Cuba known as the Havana Accord, stipulating that each nation cannot retaliate against the other’s attacks. Together, they will team up against Pakistan, assassinate Musharraf, and invade the country. Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden will have traveled to Iran on vacation, unbeknownst to everyone but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mitt Romney – Mitt Romney will be the first President of the United States ever sworn in with his hand on something other than the Bible. He will order the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to release the golden tablets that Joseph Smith found from the Mormon vault and swear on those. While the country will in fact be run like a well-oiled business machine, all Mormons will be given tax breaks and “Gentiles” will not. The nation’s capital will also be relocated to Independence, Missouri.

John McCain – He will die of natural causes 3 years into office. His accomplishments will include making President Bush the Ambassador to the United Nations, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and an open border with a large welcome sign on the Arizona border. He will be succeeded by Vice President John Kerry.

Hillary Clinton – She will introduce Hillarycare again, this time successfully due to a Democratic majority in Congress. Major supporters will include Vice President Obama, John Kerry, and Christopher Dodd.  The White House will undergo complete renovation, adding on an obscenely large spa, complete with lipo-suction, botox, and of course, the nation’s largest jacuzzi (shaped like the U.S. mainland).

Rudy Giuliani – While the White House will be turned into a museum, the Oval Office will be relocated to a penthouse at the top of the Liberty Tower in New York City. He will support an amendment to the Constitution allowing for civil unions among homosexual couples in every state. For the State of the Union Address, President Giuliani will dress in drag and no one will be allowed to laugh.

Ron Paul – Deeming the current status of America unconstitutional, President Paul will return America to a Confederacy of loosely-connected states. Federal laws will be more like guidelines, but each individual state will be the final authority. As a result, marijuana will be legalized in 36 states. The FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, the Federal Court System, and the State Department will all be abolished within the first year of his term. When Congress meets, it will be more like a social gathering of philosophers rather than a law-making body.

Mike Huckabee – Speeches from President Huckabee will frequently reference the Andy Griffith Show, which will be shown in every television accross America due to the Wholesome Television Re-Run Act. Although not binding, the state religion will officially become Southern Baptist. Obese Americans will be put on the Presidential diet, resulting in astounding weight loss across America. And the Vice President will be none other than Governor Bob Riley of Alabama.

Fred Thompson – Fred Thompson will have made the official announcement for his candidacy on January 1, 2008, barely edging out Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani for the nomination. Shortly following his inauguration, Fred Thompson would also introduce the Wholesome Television Re-Run Act, except the emphasis would be on Law & Order. The embargo on trade with Cuba will be lifted, resulting in a boost for the American economy due to sales of Cuban cigars. Also, Michael Moore will be labeled an enemy combatant and exiled to France.

John Edwards – All Americans affected by poverty will have the choice of receiving an advanced form of Medicaid or exportation to Europe. Gasoline-powered cars will be outlawed along with any type of oil product, resulting in a greener America although Global Warming will remain relatively unchanged. However, President Edwards will be forced to resign when it is revealed that his haircare products contained a miniscule derivative of crude oil.

Sam Brownback – In a shocking move, President Brownback will announce that his Presidential authority stops at the steps of the Vatican, giving control of America to the Pope. What America had feared with John F. Kennedy will have been realized in President Brownback. Abortion doctors will be executed without trial. Catholic priests will be given the authority to arrest suspected criminals. With President Brownback and Vice President Giuliani, it will be the worst situation of Catholic control over a country since “Bloody Mary” in England. 

Note: This post is purely satirical. If you are offended by it, you probably suffer from lack of a sense of humor. May God have mercy on your soul.
 


Attention America! Liberals want their Media back!

August 1, 2007

It can be returned to the National Lost & Found c/o a Democrat-controlled Congress.

I know I sound like a fear-mongering conservative, but you’ll just have to forgive me. All too often it seems that Republicans are being referred to as the ones that support a “1984” infrastructure where the government is wire-tapping every phone and “Big Brother” is always watching. But could it be that their opponents, the Democrats, are also guilty of advocating similar measures?

I’ll start off by saying that in some ways, I favor censorship. There are just some things that don’t need to be in the mainstream media. I’m talking about foul and explicit language, nudity, extremely graphic violence, etc. You may or may not disagree with that. It doesn’t matter to me. I just wanted to get that out of the way.

Rumors have been flying recently that liberals are interested in dismantling conservative talk radio and even Fox News. That all sounded like hearsay and conjecture to me until I found out some startling information:

DNC Chairman Howard Dean has recently been quoted as saying that “we need to re-regulate the media.” What an interesting idea you have there, Howard. I wonder how you’d plan to do it.

The weapon of choice: the Fairness Doctrine.

It sounds so great, doesn’t it? Fairness. That means it’s fair, right? The idea behind it is that all forms of news media will be regulated to allow equal time for opposing points of view. In theory, that’s not necessarily a bad plan. But which side do you think has more capability of presenting their side of the story? My guess would be the liberal side.

Let’s shed a little more light on the subject. Take a look at how President Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of Commerce Bill Ruder viewed the Fairness Doctrine: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.” Keep in mind, Ruder was operating with a Democratic President, a Democratic-controlled Congress, and a progressive Supreme Court.

Could that happen again? Surely not! But let’s look at what other Democrats are saying:

When questioned about a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Dianne Feinstein said “Well, I’m looking at it…because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.”

John Kerry recently said, “I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there… conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public eye.”

Liberal members of Congress such as Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Maurice Hinchey, Louise Slaughter, and Dick Durbin have also voiced support for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

But in case the Fairness Doctrine falls through, you can always take the same route that MoveOn.Org and the DailyKos are taking: tell everyone to boycott conservative media. They’ve already been successful in urging Democratic candidates not to debate on Fox News channel. However, they have failed thus far in discouraging Home Depot from advertising on Fox.

Of course, they could always be honest and try starting a liberal network of their own. Wait a second. Didn’t that already happen? Oh yes, AirAmerica. How is that doing nowadays? Didn’t it go bankrupt?

Americans will get their news from where they choose to. Some choose not to use television, and that’s fine. Some prefer the internet above all. That doesn’t bother me either. I personally choose to get my news from different sources including television, the internet, and sometimes even radio. Frankly, I typically go to Fox News first when it comes to television. But I won’t refuse to look at other sources like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, or wherever. When I want news from the internet, I might just type something in a search engine like Yahoo or Google (whatever I’m in the mood for).

Regulation of mainstream media through the Fairness Doctrine or any method that denies Americans the right to choose their source of media is completely anti-capitalist. It’s just one more way that liberals across America can rear their socialistic heads.


Open Letter to Al Gore Concerning Live Earth

July 9, 2007

Dear Former Vice President Gore,

As a fellow American and resident of this planet, I would like to ask you some questions concerning your Live Earth concerts. As an avid concert-goer, I have often seen what is required in order for such an event to take place. I believe that our environment is very important and I’d like to address how your concerts have affected it.

First, how much fuel was used to make Live Earth possible? It’s obvious that flying in various artists, along with their entourages, road crews, and gear all over the globe requires a great deal of fuel and I’d like to see an approximate figure of how much was actually consumed. Did all ground crews use hybrid, hydrogen or electric vehicles?

Second, your concerts required power, right? After all, unless these shows were all acoustic, a great deal of power must be generated for P.A. Systems, amplifiers, and lighting. And that doesn’t even take into account the power that various vendors might have required for selling food, beverages, t-shirts, etc. It would interest me to know if solar, wind, or any other non-petroleum-based energy source was used to make electricity for this concert possible.

Third, concerts unfortunately generate a great deal of waste. Will all this waste be recycled? If not, wouldn’t such waste contribute to the pollution of our environment?

Fourth, what has Live Earth actually accomplished for the environment? Were trees planted to compensate for deforestation? Were cleaner sources of energy found or furthered? Did the artists refuse to accept payment or donate their payments to an organization that combats global warming?

Finally, based on all the previous questions, is it not true that Live Earth did potentially more harm for the environment than good?

Mr. Gore, if it is in fact true that this event has done more harm to the planet than good, are you not a hypocrite?

However, if in fact the measures that were taken to put on Live Earth did not damage the environment, then why should we be concerned about global warming? Evidentally if such is the case, there is no need to be concerned about our “oil-crazed” culture. We can continue to use non-renewable energy sources without fear of perpetuating global warming. Also, wasn’t there supposed to be a Live Earth concert on Antarctica? I guess that fell through.

Please reconcile these discrepancies for me, Mr. Gore. Earth is in the balance.

Sincerely,

Braden

P.S. Are you sure you aren’t running for President?