We here at Camp Campaign are not unwilling to admit when we’re wrong. It’s just that it never has happened before. So, it is with humble hearts and full disclosure that I admit that I was wrong about Scott Brown.
Last week I wrote that Brown could not win in Massachusetts. I was convinced that the people of the Bay State were toying with the pollsters, just like their cousins in New Hampshire did two years ago. I was certain that the bluest of the blue states would not hand over the seat that the beloved brother of the more beloved brother of the most beloved brother held for almost half a century. In fact, that seat has been held by a Republican for exactly six years since 1926.
I was wrong.
Brown won, and convincingly. All sorts of theories abound – his populist image resonated with voters, Coakley’s unlikable stiffness cost her the race, Coakley wouldn’t listen to the DNC, the DNC wouldn’t help Coakley, George Bush’s Global Warming melted the brains of the Massachusetts electorate. Any or all of those may have contributed (OK, not the last one), but in the end, this was a referendum on the universal health care.
In fact, no one seems to have much to say about Brown himself. I heard a lot about why people didn’t like Coakley, I heard even more about why people wanted to derail the Democrat’s smug domination of the national discourses. But I didn’t hear much about what makes Brown the ideal Junior Senator for the blue bloods in Massachusetts.
Now, reporters and political junkies are asking if Brown has presidential aspirations. Really? He hasn’t been sworn in as Senator yet, and we’re jumping that gun already? My advice to conservatives is this: Don’t Obamatize Scott Brown. Don’t get so far ahead of yourselves that you’re pushing an untested, unready neophyte into the most powerful position on earth. We’ve got a rock star president now. In three short years, it will be time to trade in the rock star for a statesman.
