I tend not to comment on the politics of states other than my own. My view, essentially, is that people in other states have a perfect right to elect any damned fool candidate they care to. I’m seeing quite a bit of, frankly, poppycock being written about the senate race in Massachusetts to fill the senate seat opened up by the death of Ted Kennedy and I thought I might make a few comments largely in opposition to what seems to be the growing prevailing wisdom.
First, the race in Massachusetts isn’t a referendum on President Obama or on the healthcare legislation making its way through the Congress. That’s true regardless of what the polls say and regardless of what individual voters in Massachusetts might say. In the final analysis politics is local and the voters of Massachusetts will make their decision for their own parochial reasons based on the candidates who are running. More fools the Democratic leadership in Massachusetts or in the DNC that they’re allowing the election to be portrayed that way.
It’s pretty clear that Martha Coakley is a poor candidate and Scott Brown a good one so, if Mr. Brown is elected, it’s because he was the better candidate. Not, for goodness sake, because he’s a Republican or a conservative or what have you. Because he’s the better candidate. Good candidates have an ineffable something that voters respond to and the very best candidates, like Bill Clinton, have it in spades. You can call it charisma or charm or just “It” but good candidates have it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Martha Coakley is elected. She has all of the advantages. If she is very little will change and Republicans will, no doubt, point out that Brown was always an underdog in the race, that Massachusetts is the most reliably Democratic state in the union, and so on. The Democratic Party will have weakened itself needlessly by spending more money on the race than they might have and by showing a lot more panic than they should have.
If Martha Coakley isn’t elected, I would hope that Democratic leaders in Massachusetts and at the national level reflect on how they came to rely on such a thin reed for one of the highest and most important elective offices in the land. I have my own views.
I don’t believe it was because of President Obama or pending legislation or policies espoused or views opposed or packaging or style. It it was because Democrats in Massachusetts succumbed to the temptation that parties in power and, particularly, parties in power with technocratic predispositions have: they took the seat for granted. Never take the people for granted.
If I were a snarky fellow I’d ask what ineffable something Rod Blagojevich had that attracted the voters of Illinois.
I didn’t say that Blagojevich was one of the best candidates or even a good one. I certainly never voted for the man.
And he may well lose the Democrats control of the governor’s mansion.
Indeed, he’s a good example of the sort of arrogance I’m writing about in this post.
Blago ran as a reformer who was going to stop business as usual in Illinois. This year, the politicians running for governor in Illinois are running as reformers who are going to stop business as usual in Illinois.
Coakley is god awful, IMO. She has actively pursued keeping an innocent person in jail for political gain. She is despicable.
Brown might be as bad, but afaik, he hasn’t made his career by destroying the lives of others.
“If I were a snarky fellow I’d ask what ineffable something Rod Blagojevich had that attracted the voters of Illinois.”
The hair, man! The hair!!
Steve Verdon raises one of the reasons I voted for Blago in 2002, his opponent was a man who repeatedly prosecuted innocent men in the infamous Rolando Cruz case. He is now running again for governor and for the first time has apologized.
What this election is is good theater.
Considering how many drab elections we get nowadays that alone makes it fun.
Coakley does sound pretty awful. I would like to point out that Brown is exactly the kind of Republican Verdon said does not exist. His economic plan to reduce the deficit is to cut taxes.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/14/a_new_day_is_coming_restore_faith_and_balance/
Steve
steve,
Stop being such a douchebag. I clearly wrote that it is common for Republicans to pay lip service to that nonsense, but that nobody really believes it. Jesus.
BTW steve, please quote where Brown says his economic plan will lower the deficit in that article. I’m not seeing it.
Hmmm let me see, the part on taxes…oh yes here it is,
Hmmm lowering the deficit…decrease the deficit….reduce the deficit….nope, I don’t see it.
Of course, Kennedy did make such an argument when he lowered taxes back when he was President. Is that it? If so, it is awfully oblique and I doubt many would get it. I’m thinking that Brown is invoking Kennedy since Kennedy lowered taxes and was from Mass. as well.