Posted on 01/20/2010 10:25:30 AM PST by bmweezer
Massachusetts voters have created a political upheaval not seen in recent memory. However, now that the red, white and blue balloons in Boston have come down, it’s time for Republicans to have a reality check.
Scott Brown is a moderate Republican, at best
There once was a time when the Republican Party was truly a big tent, in the sense that conservative and moderates a like worked together for the good of the country and to a lesser extent, for the party. However, in recent years, as the balance of power in Washington got so close between Republicans and Democrats, causing one or two votes separating the two sides, on key issues certain Republicans were forced to show their left-of-center hands, with some leaving the party all together. (Think: Arlen Specter, Jeff Jeffords, to name two.)
While we are all thrilled about Brown’s victory, in some respects he will quickly become a disappointment. While the Senator-elect will be with us on health care, defense and on ways we can create private sector jobs (less government), he won’t make us happy on other issues. For example, while Brown confirms that he will vote against the current health care package (whatever that is), he also indicated that he is open to restarting the debate to get a bill passed. In addition, don’t forget that Brown is pro-choice, which down the road will certainly cause some conservatives pause. And let us not forget that he will represent blue-state Massachusetts and will be up for reelection in just three years time.
It’s only 41 seats
Brown’s accession will quickly slow down President Obama’s agenda, but not completely. One might recall that when the president was inaugurated, the Democrats did a lot in the U.S. Senate when they also had (just) 59 seats. Then, Arlen Specter caucused with the Republicans, but the president was still able to get enough Republican support to push through the stimulus plan and the like, because people like Specter supported the president. While the GOP now has 41 seats again (the Democrats gained their 60th seat when Specter switched parties last spring), it only takes the Democrats to peel off one GOPer to move their legislation through. The only way a filibuster can stop the president is if all 41 members of the Republican team stay in place and that might not happen in certain cases.
We need moderate Republicans in moderate states, like it or not.
Most of us on the right would like to believe that the entire nation is conservative and because of that, all moderate and left-wingers are bad people with bad ideas. However, Brown's victory needs to show us that for the GOP to survive (and govern), the party needs to return to the days of a 'Big Tent Strategy.' In blue-states in particular, a tried-and-true conservative will most likely not win. However, moderate GOPers will. Therefore, we need to keep that in mind when we discuss our party's goal of taking back the majority - it cannot happen with just conservatives, like it or not. Conservatives, therefore should praise the recruitment of moderate candidates in areas where they are required, while helping to defeat less conservative Democrats in states where true GOP conservatives can be elected. (Think Arkansas, Indiana)
However, 2010 isn’t 2009
And yet, we should be optimistic about the year ahead. First and foremost, the Brown election proves that the president’s popularity is indeed waning. Representatives on the Hill react to presidential poll numbers and with the 2010 mid-terms looming, Democrats know their days could be numbered. Unlike in 2008 and 2009 when all woes could be blamed on George W. Bush, in 2010, it is the Democrats that will get the blame on the economy, national security and the like if things don’t change. Therefore, Brown’s election is simply one battle won in a long war ahead.
Thanks devolve. When I wrote that I wasn’t referring to Brown, just a ‘general, overall’ thing.
And I believe what I wrote too.
The guy has not even set up an office or staff and some are pouncing on him already. I’ll reserve judgment until he has a chance to carry out the main missions he has set forth for himself to accomplish. No one is going to get it all right no matter how good they are.
Same here. I am as pro-life as anyone, but have had to strategically vote for pro-choice candidates, because the alternative was someone worse. If I voted only for pro-lifers 100% of the time, I’d have to become a Constitutionalist, and perhaps help send more socialists to Congress or the state capital.
Reagan would have accepted Scott Brown to help stop this piece of shit health care bill that would have brought misery to millions of Americans. You have to play the hand your given. I’m a realist not a dreamer. If you want to stay out of the process go right ahead.
This fact has certainly made me stop and wonder!
We need a pro-lifer in there -- not someone who supports abortion. Yes, it is bad news. I would have voted for him rather than Coakley had I lived in MA, but I wouldn't be happy about this fact at all!
I agree. When Brown gets his senatorial email address, phone and fax numbers, we need to FREEP him about this issue — pro life and not pro-baby killing/abortion.
Where does Rush fall when it comes to pro-life issues?
He’s better than Coakley, who, in addition to her political beliefs, was a truly vile individual.
For that matter he’s better than McQueeg and Grahamnesty, at least on Cap and Tax.
Sometimes that’s all you can ask from a candidate.
Precisely with you and me.
God Bless Rush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.