I think it’s over the top.
How many times did Brown discuss National Security? He discussed it once in the debate, yes. But Brown never used that as his campaign battlecry.
Nothing can be further from the truth:
1. Brown used “anti-Obamacare” sentiment using RomneyCare as an argument. Coakley attacked his record of voting for RomneyCare but Brown rightfully sent the blame to Romney, which is fair IMHO. Romney took the bipartisan leadership for RomneyCare. It’s toxic for any State Legislator to go against the “whims and wishes” of the two Parties (R & D).
2. Brown’s real message: ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT AND ANTI-STATUS QUO. His message is Change. Anti-establishment campaign is theme. It’s the reason why we have Obama as President. Sadly for Obama, seating in the WH suddenly changed his side of the fence. Obama is now part and the head of the Establishment politicians.
The lesson is therefore not national security. The lesson is simple:
To win in November, Republicans should take the mantle of “REAL CHANGE” and “ANTI STATUS QUO.”
Little noticed bit of Scott Brown trivia: he polled better on the issue of “enemy combatants” than on health care. Voters really do not trust the Democrats on national security and it is growing in the conscience of voters as a very real issue.
Nothing can be further from the truth:
From the 1st paragraph:
“People talk about the potency of the health-care issue,” Brown’s top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, told National Review’s Robert Costa, “but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants.”
I wouldn't forget Coakley's comment about Afghanistan, the attack at Fort Hood and the underpants bomber.