Scott Brown’s 2010 Senate victory dispelled a lot of myths about Massachusetts — that Republicans couldn’t win statewide races for anything but governor; that lesser-known candidates couldn’t raise enough money to compete in a state full of heavyweights; and that a politician with a conservative message, tailored to the challenges of the moment, would never be able to get traction in a liberal electorate.
Brown’s victory turned out to be shorter-lived than he would have liked: He lost a bruising Senate race to Elizabeth Warren in November, in a national climate that turned out to be far friendlier to liberals than many people imagined. No doubt the strains of that long campaign contributed to his decision not to run again, this time for the year and a half remaining of John Kerry’s term, in a contest many thought Brown could win. Now the question is: Will other viable Republicans step forward to make the race?
Comments
And the GOP and its voters shouldn't take any advice from the Boston Globe, until it actually supports one of its candidates.
Bingo!
This comment has been removed.
Any Republican hopeful for district or statewide office has to run on a socially liberal, fiscally conservative platform here in Massachusetts. We all pretty much know what socially liberal means. It's the fiscally conservative part that causes all the confusion and quite frankly if more people in Massachusetts knew the truth about how this concept is actually applied, how it plays out in the real world, I predict you would see even less people voting Republican. The way Republicans come across, the way they "sell" the idea is, at it's core, is dishonest. They sell the economy as a false metaphor.. stay with me here. They equate the economy and the people of the United States as a big family that spends too much. The reason that a well-run household works is because someone is wise enough and caring enough and powerful enough to tell everyone that money must be saved for groceries and oil to heat the house and fire insurance etc. The concept here is the responsible parent who plans ahead for the good of everyone in the family. At the end of the day, the kids might not get that new electronic gadget, but everyone is safe, warm and well-fed. That's the fiscal conservatism equals responsible parent model. In the real world it doesn't play out that way because dad doesn't really give a care about anyone in the family. Republicans only want to protect the wealthy and keep as much money and resources away from those who have less as they can. If you extend the metaphor out, dad, (Weld) or the head of the household mom (Healy) are sick individuals. They want to bring nothing to the table. In fact they want to give most of the household resources to the rich neighbor for some reason.
Apparently you'd rather tax the kids to pay for family needs instead?
Well the Globe did endorse Richie Tisei over the notoriously corrupt John Tierney, probably because he's socially liberal and gay. So if the Republicans can field a gay social liberal and the Democrats put up a notoriously corrupt fraud against him, the Globe might actually endorse the Republican. Probably not, though.
There are no well-known, politically viable republican candidates in Massachusetts. Weld left us until he wanted us. Healey is colder and more unlikeable than Coakley was viewed. Brown took his chance and threw it in the toilet as soon as he got to Washington. Tisei couldn't beat Tierney. Republican sheriffs are mostly in jail. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it, and I regard myself as a republican. I was registered in the GOP from 1972 untill 2000 when i unenrolled in disgust on leaving the polls. I am still unenrolled as the GOP/Tea bagger party as currently constituted is reprehensible.
So this is your source of vitriol for the republican party? You went with the party who wins? That's ridiculous. I'm still in the republican party to hopefully trash the tea baggers and get rid of them. Not popular, but I'll damned if I join a party of hypocrits.
This comment has been removed.
I believe Scott Brown made the right decision by not running, since he would have had two years at best before the Democraticic establishment ganged up on him again as Republicans continued to look for their soul. The Republican Party brand is too damaged in Massachusetts to plausibly provide a base of support for election. Frankly, it is hard to describe what a "Massachusetts Republican" is today. It is interesting to think about whether Scott Brown could have won re-election running as an independent, committing himself to choose the caucus in the Senate that would have provided the best opportunities for Massachusetts influence and interests. National Republicans can't make up their mind whether they like or dislike electable Massachusetts Republicans and as long as the national GOP is more in the business of "burning heretics" versus "seeking converts", it will be very challenging for any viable Republican candidate to be elected from Massachusetts. Maybe the time has come for a new center-right party to take root in Massachusetts...based on support for limited taxation, limited government, anti corruption and patronage, friendly to entrepreneurship, economic growth and innovation, and supportive of fundamental change in public education including charter schools and choice. Maybe Brown will be part of the long-term solution, a realignment or enlightenment that has to come sooner or later...Maybe he could better lead it running for Governor and recruiting 40 like-minded state senate candidates and 160 center-right house candidates.