« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Republican Unicorns and Reality

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 4th, 2010 at 06:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Remember 2000? Bush spent a good bit more in resources in California than any sane person thought prudent. He lost California.

Republicans have, for a long time, been losing California. Ahnuld (writing it this way so I don’t have to look up the proper spelling of his last name) has largely been a fluke. He came to power in 2003 during the Gray Davis debacle and won re-election largely by becoming a Democrat.

Nonetheless, Republicans keep spending money to win statewide in California. Look at the NRSC’s commitment to Carly Fiorina.

Compare California to Massachusetts. That state is probably as tough as California, but it has elected a string of Republican governors from Bill Weld to Mitt Romney — it has had Republican governors who have behaved more Republican than Ahnuld and have won within the last decade.

But while the GOP has been standing behind Carly Fiorina in California in pursuit of the mythical GOP win there, the same cannot be said of the GOP helping Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

I think we should take a serious look at Scott Brown.

The odds are he won’t win. Let’s be realistic about it. But let’s also remember Joseph Cao could not win William Jefferson’s district in Louisiana — until he did. And unlike Cao, were Scott Brown elected to the United States Senate, he’d be the 41st vote against Obamacare.

The election in Massachusetts is a special election. Odd things can happen in special elections. Massachusetts has a high number of independent voters. There are a number of liberal voters so upset with Obama for ditching the public option they’re willing to support Scott Brown as a public rebuke to the President. Lastly, the state has a base of Republicans who still remember how to win statewide elections.

The odds are against Scott Brown, but only slightly. This race is winnable. Before you dismiss it or dismiss Scott Brown because he is a New England Republican, just remember — we still need 51 votes to control the Senate. Scott Brown gives us one. He may be like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins and hack us off frequently on domestic policy issues, but he’s right on health care and he seems more right than not on foreign affairs.

And Scott Brown‘s victory would give Barack Obama a huge black eye.

Just sayin’.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • malbis

    …so naturally, the knuckle-heads currently running the national GOP won’t pour money in to support Brown. And it isn’t even really necessary for Brown to win, for Pete’s sake!

    It would be huge news if Scott Brown even came close to winning Ted Kennedy’s seat–and might make at least one Dem Senator and a few more Dem Reps think twice about voting for final passage of Obamacare and other bills down the road.

    And with the anger over healthcare, the fiasco that was the Underwear Bomber, and the way the Obama administration has ticked off just about everybody, you are absolutely right. Scott Brown has probably the best chance to win that seat that any Republican has had in living memory.

    From the 1940 feature film Ghost Breakers, starring the late, great, Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard:

    Scientist: “It?s worse than horrible, because a Zombie has no will of his own. You see them some times, walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.”

    Bob Hope: “You mean, like Democrats?”

  • bk

    You didn’t mention here a few other points showing why the NRSC is so screwed up, though you’ve mentioned them before of course.

    “Nonetheless, Republicans keep spending money to win statewide in California. Look at the NRSC?s commitment to Carly Fiorina.”

    1) Wasn’t the idea that Fiorina could self-fund and wouldn’t need any extra resources? The NRSC talking up Fiorina is bad enough, but if they are spending money there then it shows (again) they were lying all along.

    2) And they’re pumping into a primary, not a general, so it’s also a waste. Why can’t the NRSC stay out of all primaries and save it to go after the Democrat in the general?

    3) And in all these primaries that the NRSC butts into, be they FL or CA or wherever, they always back the more liberal person on the GOP side. Butting into them is bad enough, but butting in to attack the more conservative candidate is incredibly stupid.

    2010 could be a great year, but the NRSC and NRCC continue to blow it. When will they freaking learn???

  • Third Street

    Cao was proof that under the right circumstances, Republicans can win literally anywhere in America, even in the deepest-blue places there are. In fact, I’d say Brown has a better chance than Cao did.

    Also a good point about the string of GOP governors in Massachusetts. Republicans controlled the governor’s mansion there for, what, 16 years before Deval Patrick? If that was possible, then Scott Brown is possible. A Senate race may not be the same thing as a governor’s race but still, possible.

    The national GOP is idiotic, or just doesn’t care. (My money’s on both.) Carly Fiorina possibly winning in November doesn’t help us now (or possibly even then, considering she’s Carly Fiorina). A Scott Brown victory in a couple of weeks helps us NOW. A Scott Brown victory would be proof that God has one wicked sense of irony, and isn’t prepared to change the channel on America just yet.

  • partyof1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM

  • ktsub

    Don’t spend money in CA, ME or RI…but spend cash on an unwinnable RINO in MA.

    But if you spend in MA, we will be pissed and boycot you, then complain the Dems outspend you.

    Oh maybe DE, but when Jack Castle votes outa line…we will still not give you any money. Its amazing John, you are so terrible at the NRSC…you are out raising the Dems, with a minority, and by the polls you are WINNING….what a joke.

    Tired of the anti GOP committee lines, its old, less than a year to a slightly important election, and still worrying about knocking Carly around through a MA race.

  • Third Street

    Picture this: The NRSC arbitrarily decides the Masschusetts Senate race is “unwinnable”. It therefore puts absolutely no money or support of any kind into the race. Brown ends up losing by eight points. See there? It was unwinnable!

    As for being a RINO, right now I’ll take any RINO who’ll cast a 41st vote to stop ObamaCare. And quite frankly, the schadenfreude value of anything with a pulse that has an “R” behind its name taking over Ted Kennedy’s seat would be worth it.

  • ktsub

    Many redstaters I have read on commdents HATE the NRSC spending money on less than consdervative Republicans, but now we equate the MA and CA race.

    But its ok to spend in MA cause its as good as it gets, but CA is different…makes no sense. I am going to send the NRSC some cash, they can please no one.

    We should be going after folks with a D by their name, not the NRSC….unity, all rowing will be required to pull off victory in Nov.

  • redohio

    the same Louisiana Republican and ONLY Republican that voted for health care?

    Not sure that example was a great one.

  • mbecker908

    You pluck specifics completely out of context and make an “argument” out of them.

    Today the Senate races in MA and CA are apples and grapefruit. The race in MA is a general election, the race in CA is a primary.

    Redstaters are generally upset with the NRSC because they spend money on PRIMARIES and give cash to liberal Republicans in contests with more conservative Republicans. See RI, PA, FL, CA for starters.

    You’ll find generally no opposition to funding a “moderate” Republican in a general election. Heck, if they needed the money in a general election battle I’d have no problem tossing cash to the ME Girls.

    The issue is primary v. general. Nothing more.

  • Praying

    are completely bypassing the NRSC/NRCC machine and donating specifically to candidates WE support. I took Eric up on his suggestion and made a few New Years Eve donations: Nikki Haley (Gov – SC); Marcos Rubio (Senate – FL); and Chuck Devore (Senate – CA). Oh, and I also gave a little to Sarah Palin’s SarahPAC, just because. My donations are not large, so I want every penny to go to the intended recipient, not some bureaucracy. Especially since I don’t necessarily trust them to do with my money what I want done with it. And now, I may make a small donation to Scott Brown. Like the little engine that could, I think he just might be able to pull this off, even if all the other “engines” laugh at him. Let’s make a self fulfilling prophecy on this guy saving us from Obamacare, at least in the present form(s).

  • RedBeard

    “The issue is primary v. general.”

    That is indeed the core of the problem most of us have with the NRSC.

    Primaries vs. general elections, per Sesame Street: “One of these is not like the others.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZ6tvqhk8U

  • bk
  • bk

    He’s voted pretty well on all else as I recall, and I imagine he’ll vote against it this time if Stupak is replaced with some ‘pretend’ language.

    And he is from the district that reelected Jefferson in ’06 even AFTER it was clear he was a crook and AFTER he had acted like an ass during Katrina.

    Clearly he’s as good as we can get from that district.

  • http://barnettlaw.org Frozen_Man

    on the RNSC being in a difficult spot between choosing candidates who can win in certain states and those who are truly Republican/Conservative, however, I think you do give the NRSC too much credit. The Republican’s may be winning in the polls but if you look at the numbers it is really a case that most people hate what the Dems are doing more rather than that they like what the Republicans are doing. The Republican name and brand is still doing poorly it is just that the Dems are ramming socialism down peoples throats and they are turning to the only other established political party (and the Tea Party movement is further proof that there are many unhappy with both parties).

  • archer52

    …and maybe a little standing on the head of a pin to make a point.

    Lawyers. They kill me. It is their habit of changing the principle of the argument half way through the argument and then when somebody says something go “what? What?” with a look of astonishment on their faces. It is this concept of splitting hairs that is responsible in a large part for the decline of our society.

    In this case, Erick argued in the past that sinking money into an unknown candidate with little hope of victory is a good idea. He also argued, with quite a bit of fervor if I remember, that winning by putting up a candidate that is a “Republican in name only” is wrong, regardless of the need to increase the Republican numbers in Congress. I can still remember him standing on the soap box screaming “Give me liberty or give me dea…” Whoops, sorry wrong guy.

    Regardless, the point he was trying to make is sometimes you have to stand on principle, a point I agree with. But like Lucy with the football, Erick has shown a tendency to pull the football away on a whim.

    Let’s go over recent history. First, Erick doesn’t support Dede but supports Hoffman. His position? It is better not to elect a RINO, and take the numbers hit, while supporting a relative unknown with little money who is a true conservative. He stays with that principle when discussing the Florida Senate race between Rubio and Crist (which I agree with wholeheartedly). But just when I feel comfortable trying to kick the ball Erick “Lucy” Erickson yanks the ball away.

    Here is the yank- “The odds are against Scott Brown, but only slightly. This race is winnable. Before you dismiss it or dismiss Scott Brown because he is a New England Republican, just remember ? we still need 51 votes to control the Senate. Scott Brown gives us one. He may be like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins and hack us off frequently on domestic policy issues, but he?s right on health care and he seems more right than not on foreign affairs.”

    Ouch! I think I hit my tailbone when I landed! Lawyers love splitting hairs, when it suits them, which is one reason cops (and recently retired cops like me) dislike lawyers. They are like bad girlfriends- one day they love you, the next you’re ducking a lamp and you can’t figure out what changed! So, is the argument that having Dede as a congresswoman isn’t worth it because she lacks the impact that Brown offers? Or is it that there is a limit to the RINO in somebody that if exceeded disqualifies them? A six out of ten, five out of eight? What??

    Is Erick arguing that a third party, a conservative party should be filled with only conservative candidates…unless its not when the opportunity arises to affect a race.. No, that can’t be it. Is it..that Dede was supported by elements of the left that just made his eyes boil and that was that? Could be. She was pro-gun if I remember, but weak on social issues. Brown may be weak on social issues but promises to stay strong on healthcare for all, in a state that has healthcare for all… Hmm… That could be a problem, standing up to that pressure…

    I can see Erick’s problem, this could get complicated. Run one off, invite another in, try to tell the difference. A person could get a headache. Or, maybe, just maybe try standing in one place. Pick that hill to die on and stand. Hoffman was a good hill. Rubio is a good hill. But if you can’t stand in one place, don’t complain about others doing the same thing. It tends to be maddening. I imagine there are people doing the same thing Erick just did inside the RNC and wondering why he’s mad at them. I can see the conversation now. “Lawyers, Did I tell you they drive me crazy?” “Yes, about five minutes ago, and five minutes before that and five…”

  • Sundayjack

    That would still be a demoralizing moral victory. What’s more, this special election is close and winnable.

    People forget Massachusetts is a state that in the early 1990s was fed up with Ted Kennedy. One poll after his nephew’s rape trial had two-thirds of MA voters saying he shouldn’t run for reelection. In the 1994 midterms, Romney, who was still relatively unknown, was AHEAD in the polls against Kennedy with a little more than a month to go. Instead of going for the kill, Mitt ran a kinder and gentler race in the home stretch, and allowed Ted to hammer him on jobs and his business at Bain Capital. When polls started to turn, Mitt went right into surrender mode, and started talking about the “great career” Ted had, and so forth. It was terribly frustrating to watch. If Mitt had continued to remind everyone that Ted was an irresponsible, sloppy, tax and spend drunk, he could have taken that race.

    The MA electorate is a little more dynamic than it gets credit. The problem in MA isn’t the electorate; it’s the absence of good candidates. There is a striking number of unopposed legislative races each cycle, so there aren’t strong candidates feeding higher office. Brown is one of the first strong Republicans to come out of the legislature.

    People in Massachusetts may have voted Martha to the AG’s office, but I doubt most remember what she did that was so great. She walked into the District Attorney position vacated by Tom Reilly merely because she had her face on Court TV for a month of the Nanny – Shaken Baby Case. Middlesex is such a huge county that it’s a great feeder to the AG office. The last three AG’s have followed that path. She has run in a state-wide general election once – in 2006 – against an unknown Cambridge Republican (talk about unicorns). Martha is huge into robo-calling and direct mail. Brown seems to be more into shaking as many hands as humanly possible and old fashion person-to-person phone calling. He’s running a good race; albeit a short one.

    It would be a missed opportunity to simply write-off this race.

  • AceInTX

    and the NRSC needs it’s head handed to it for ignoring this race.

  • AceInTX

    This is a general election race when the others you mention are primaries…We complain because the NRSC get’s involved in selection who our nominee its and more often than not the select the liberal nominee to push on us over the conservative…

    This is a case where there is no contest between two Republicans….the nominee is settled and is running against a Democrat…yet the NRSC continues to fuel the fight in primaries between Republicans while leaving Browne to wither on the vine.

    We want the NRSC involved in general elections and funding our candidates against the Democrats but we want them out of primaries where Republican VOTERS should pick the who the nominee designated to represent them should be.

  • eburke

    Talk about straining at gnats.

    Erick’s position is wholly consistent and defensible. Dede wasn’t a ‘moderate’, she was an out and out liberal so your whole tortured “is there a limit to the RINO…5 out of 8, 6 out of 10″ is, well, one tortured strawman. Dede was to the left of the *Democrat* in the race. Oh, and while we’re at it, please give the vote totals of the primary race that Dede won.

    You have either through ignorance or purposeful obtuseness misrepresented Erick’s position vis-a-vis the GOP establishment. He has consistently railed against the heavy-hand of the establishment almost *always* coming down on the side of the mod/lib Republican when there is a matchup IN A GOP PRIMARY between them and a conservative. Erick has made it clear that the time for ideological battles is in the primaries. Scott Brown won the primary. He’s also about as good as we’re gonna get in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

    Erick hasn’t been the one splitting hairs. It would, however, seem that you are straining to find inconsistency where none exists.

    That, or perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

  • AceInTX
  • clowngirl

    Defeating Obamcare alone should be motivation enough for the NRSC to strongly back Brown’s candidacy. As to him being a New England Republican – I think Brown’s brilliant JFK ad testifies to him being the type of Republican who will try and persuade rather than pander to liberals,

    And this is a special election – as mBecker pointed out in his diary of the other day, turnout is likely to be abysmal – there’s a fair chance of bad weather (at the very least it will be cold) and Democrats are likely to look on the district as “safe” and probably won’t be particularly paying attention – Democrats turn out will be pathetic. If Republicans and anti-Obamacare Independents turn out with a vengeance he might just win.

    So, as Democrats see that the NRSC isn’t even bothering to particularly back Brown they’ll consider the race won and we can quietly work the phones, get out the vote, and defeat them.

  • AceInTX
  • Richard Mullins

    This has happened far too often. We have chances to win, but we might have another failure to capitalize on the moment. Scott Brown is going to need all the help we can give including the one about not firing back at your main opponent.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Pretty vanilla, but effective. I think the guys behind Brown’s campaign have a bright future in the game. They are hitting the right notes. He may not be running a “red meat” campaign that many around here like, but he is coming off as the likable, regular joe, conservative that I can live with.

    As Bolb Mac showed the way for southern republicans, Brown may give us some clues on what works in Blu states.

  • Sundayjack

    I just wish he would start hammering away on health care.

  • Richard Mullins

    even in State were mudslinging is done very well(e.g. Texas). I’m guessing as long as Ms Coackley isn’t running ads, he can play on the positive end of things.

  • crosley

    As someone who donates to candidates from time to time, my problem with giving money to Republicans that run in blue states or districts is that A) the only way they usually ever win is if the Democrat implodes (see Gray Davis or William Jefferson) and B) if they do win, they’re usually Democrat-Lite (see Arnold and Cao)

    In Scott Brown’s case, I would like to see some polls, but let’s face it, Massachusetts is a liberal, Democrat state. They sent Ted Kennedy to Washington every single time, and they probably would for the next 100 years if they could. Even against a well-funded, exceptionally good candidate like Mitt Romney in a year that was a Republican blow-out (1994), they went for Ted Kennedy. If the polls were within 10 points, I’d say go for it, but I’m guessing they’re not. Coakley is a boring Democrat hack (that hasn’t murdered anyone), which is an improvement over Ted Kennedy to most Massachusetts voters.

    Obviously if resources were infinite, I would be all for it, but they’re not. I would much rather the NRSC and RNC save that money and throw at 10 other Red States to knock off Democrats in much more winnable races. I would much rather throw a million dollars at Arkansas or South Dakota than Massachusetts. Also, if the national party steps into this, and Coakley wins by double digits, I think that gives the Democrats and Obama a big PR win that they can crow about.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    People evaluate this race like its part of the 2010 slate. Its not. Its happening in two weeks.

    Analyzing elections is fun. Dreaming of great big conservative tides is fun. But the most import issue that we all face as activists is derailing ObamaCare. Even if Brown loses by two points, it reaffirms the McDonnell and Christie tide and will give Blue dogs pause. If he wins, ObamaCare is dead.

    There is plenty of time to reload for 2010. Spending a little cash to stop ObamaCare, even if its only a one in four shot is worth it.

  • eburke
  • ceili_dancer

    I always like voting for someone rather than against someone. If Coakley wants to go in prevent and try to run the clock out, we can show the people of MA a reason to vote for us. It’s the best offense to put on the ground and can reach the goal line before they realize they are in trouble.
    Go Scott!

  • ceili_dancer

    If Mconnell had used every delaying tactic in the Senate, could we have even prevented it from going as far as it has? The special election is in two weeks and the Senate is coming back around the same time, we could have delayed this for at least another month and then we’d have that 41st vote. Playing “woulda, coulda, shoulda” is sometimes counter-productive, but I personally hate getting this close to having the nation overhauled as it is.

  • eburke

    run more of these types of ads. Yeah, they’re superficial and fluffy…just like the voters they’re trying to reach who ultimately (unfortunately) decide elections.

    I’m almost *glad* that the NRSC isn’t running ads ’cause about the only ads they seem capable of making are the dire music ‘vote for us ’cause our guy sucks less than their guy’ type of ads.

    *These* are the types of ads that show the ‘human’ side to a Republican so that all those lib/mod Dems and Independents who have been conditioned by the MSM to believe that all Pubs beat their wives and kick their dogs are actually good ol’ human beings.

    Anyway, glad to see my dollars being put to good use (though it *would* be nice if they’d acknowledge that they received it one of these days :-)

  • laxconservative

    who would like nothing better than to see Boxer tossed, I agree with this wholeheartedly. The immediate vote against Obamacare is in itself worth the money that would be spent on 3 or 4 senate races.

    If Fiorina wins, it’s because Californians are coming back to a level of fiscal sanity not seen since the days of Pete Wilson. Outside of the Bay Area, Californians are not liberal tax and spender’s like NY/MA/VT. The rejection of the special propositions last year (i.e. tax increases and union deal cutting) by a 2:1 margin clearly demonstrates that. And guess what, those in favor of the propositions that increased taxes outspent the anti-proposition folks by ten-fold. Fiorina will win because of the contempt the people have for how the state is being driven to its fiscal grave, not because she receives an extra half a million or million from the NRSC.

  • theillinoisguy

    It’s heartening to see Americans waking up to reality. We can take back our country, but we have to do it ourselves. Educate yourself about the Constitution and Washington as the founding fathers had intended, not about the cesspool it has become. We can take back our country, but we have to exercise our rights as citizens to do so.
    The flip flop on how to fill the Senate seat cannot have been lost on the Massachusetts voters. Obama’s numbers are sinking, and this is a prime opportunity to snag a Dem seat. I urge everyone to volunteer/donate in any capacity they can to help Scott Brown. But remember, if your poll numbers are not good, blame the pollsters.
    http://theillinoisguy.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/when-in-doubt-attack-the-messenger/

  • Sundayjack

    Where Scott Brown lacks name recognition, he needs to introduce himself in a friendly way. And he needs to do it in a hurry. In that sense, his ads have been excellent.

    BUT, a strong majority (even in MA) oppose the health care bill, so it isn’t negative to harvest that anti-healthcare sentiment. It can even be done in an introductory way. “I’m Scott Brown. When I heard that Congress wanted to put government in control of the best health care system in the world, I couldn’t sit on the sidelines. . . ” And so forth.

    This next week will be very telling. Whoever starts running negative, you can be sure their internals show trouble. Negative ads do work. So, we’ll have this next week to deal with negative ads and the final week back to the homey, friendly, rainbows and lollipops.

  • blugrass

    DEMOCRAT !!! Think about it. There is no difference. They both screw us into the ground the same way. They love to tax us into poverty then pretend to help us survive on all their stupid little do-gooder programs. Each and every one needs to exit. They need to go to the party of their convictions. Pure and simple they are what they are. We elected them we need to get rid of them

    That healthcrop would have passed with the help of [ our repub lickans ] even if ol’ Haireee didn’t have enough real do-gooders .

    Why do we keep pretending they could possibly be a REAL REPUBLICAN. We should not except a different result from them, they are not capable of, and don’t intend to be any other way. THEY LIE….!!!!

  • AceInTX
  • joayn

    Watch this video, Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjGkrA-sOXY

    Donate:

    http://www.brownforussenate.com/

    Donate whatever you can. Stop with all the analyzing and donate, already! This race will end in 15 DAYS – when Brown wins this will be huge, huge, huge.

    And everyone else commenting here that it’s a waste of money support Brown, please remember: you can be part of the solution or part of the problem. Your choice. If you choose the latter, I respectfully ask that you shut your pie-hole and move on.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    Erick, I have to disagree with the idea that Republicans just can’t win in California. There’s evidence to the contrary, and 2010 will be our best shot in over a decade. Now, two things I do agree with:

    1) Scott Brown deserves our support in MA.
    2) Republican-establishment support for Carly Fiorina in CA is a symptom of the disease.

    That said, does this mean we should give up on CA? Emphatically no — as you well know, there’s a conservative running for US Senate here named Chuck DeVore, and he’s been surprising everyone with his campaign’s durability and viability, not least in holding the well-funded, establishment-backed Fiorina to a dead heat. Oh, and he polls within single digits of Barbara Boxer, too. That’s something.

    California is tough ground for conservatives, no doubt about it — but it’s not lost ground. The deeply conservative (and economically wounded) Central Valley is the fastest-growing part of the state. Tom McClintock lost his statewide race in 2006 by a slim margin, and only because the Schwarzenegger-backed party apparatus refused to support him. And of course, there’s a little thing called Proposition 8. Contrary to reports of its demise, California conservatism is quite alive — and fighting.

    How does CA conservatism win? By being conservative. By offering real choices versus the Democrats’ leftism, instead of the warmed-over celebrity failures represented by the likes of Schwarzenegger and Fiorina. By running guys like Chuck DeVore.

    Believe me, I totally get your critique of the national GOP’s support for Fiorina versus its non-support for Brown. That needs to change. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we declare California per se done and gone, we retreat from the most populous state in the nation — and we prematurely cut off a conservative resurgence here that is slowly gathering steam. I don’t ask you to take it on faith — California’s conservatives must earn the credibility, and we’re working toward that — but I do ask to not be declared dead till the breath is out of the body.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I’m suprised people think CA is tougher.

    One thing I will say about CA, although I dont know it intimately, is that it is large enough and diverse enough to cobble together different factions and regional interests to create a majority coalition.

    Another thing CA has going for it is that conservatives do have certain footholds. There is a base. There is talent. There are leaders than can be cultivated from that base.

    MA conservatives dont even have a region to fall back on. There are no Republican in Congress or any state office. There are 40 state senators and only six are Republicans, one is Scott Brown and the other Tisei, is a gay social liberal, who is running for LT. Gov. That leaves four out of forty. We dont even have a bench.

    Boston is the biggest college city in the US and it not even close. There are more colege students per capita in MA than other state and its not even close. College towns, profs and students are the worst.

    I dont know enough about CA, but I’m a skeptic, so I think it somewhat improbable for a conservtive to win state wide right now, but CA has the base and the resources to launch an assualt that can start winning minds.

  • RedBeard

    TWICE.

    We can do it again,

    I refuse to believe there isn’t another Reagan anywhere.

  • aelie

    If we are looking for gains in short term – by short term, I mean ~5 years – then California is a bad state to invest resources in. But we also have to look at long term. The Bay Area might be hyperliberal, but the rest of the state can be quite conservative. Take Proposition 8 as an example. Much to the horror of California liberals, the same voters who cast their ballots for Obama also voted ‘yes’ on Prop 8. (Ban on gay marriage, though I am sure most of you know what it is already)

    As far as Arnold goes: Cruz Bustamente (the lieutenant governor at the time) would have won the recall election of Gray Davis if Republican party wasn’t ready. The time when the Democratic Party falters in California will happen again, and we should be ready and make long term investments for that day.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    But the NRSC just wants to tear him down and put in an unready political novice who can’t keep her stories straight.

    Grr.

  • archer52

    Hey! I had to look that up. Nice word.

    Let’s see, am I a dullard… I don’t think so. The people who I investigated and assembled cases on and who ended up going to prison, some for the rest of their lives, didn’t mention me being a dullard. They called me names, but the names were usually more basic.. Certainly nothing attacking my intelligence, but then again, if I am a dullard would I notice? Hmmm…

    When I completed an IQ test and came in just under genius, I don’t remember the word dullard used. When I was the one other detectives came to as a source of information, statements made, suspects remembered, events mentally logged, I don’t remember them saying “Hey dullard, do you remember so and so?”

    I’m going to go with I’m not. What I am is a person who gets tired of hair splitting. It is what gets us in trouble in the first place. Now, I like Erick, love his positions, admire his website, which I link to all the time at mine. Overall, he holds good positions on most issues.

    However, this particular one is off bubble a tad and I wanted to voice my dullard opinion. Erick, as I said before, went ape over the Dede whats-her-face issue and for good reason. The good ol’ boy network in play up there was embarrassing. But, he argued that a good conservative is who we send money to, who we support, who we respect, BECAUSE of his good conservative position. At the time I argued more along the numbers game.. Is it smart to split the party and have the weak democrat win? Can this Dede person win? Isn’t that the goal- numbers and victory and worry about the weak stances later? But Erick stood on principle. It turned out the old guard was right. It turned out Dede would have won. Hmm… history is a prickly thing at times .

    He is standing on principle with Rubio and I admire that and agree with his stance. As a matter of fact, I did a post on my local website about just that issue- http://www.localnewsandopinion.truthandcommonsense.com/?p=135

    Erick makes a good point about a critical number being more important in the Senate than the House. He’s right, but that doesn’t change the principle. 1. As nice as this Scott Brown guy is, and I’ve seen some of his commercials, is he along the lines of Hoffman or Rubio? Is that the standard? 2. I read just recently that a good deal of Republican money is drying up as many conservatives, egged on by Malkin, Erick and others, are not sending money to the RNC. They may send money to individual candidates, but not to the big pot. If that is the case, then why do we expect the big pot to spend money in close races they don’t think they can win? Remember, they are humans too making choices based on polling, history, demographics, etc. If someone up there decided Brown can’t win in Mass. is it a crime they don’t give money? Erick isn’t guaranteeing a victory, just getting close. That’s like betting with somebody else’s money on a horse you got a tip on. Fun, as long as it is not a risk to you.

    Now, in California, critics of the RNC are onto something. They are running McCain’s buddy who is not a good candidate as she is apparently phoning it in. If they want her fine, but don’t spend the dollars. However, is one comparable to the other? If so, where exactly?

    If the argument is really that every race must be looked at individually- comparing candidates, positions, demographics, and other variables, and then stating a certain goal (winning, numbers, ethics, principle) then I’m in. But if we do that we need to remember other people are doing the same thing and just because they weight the factors differently and come up with a different answer doesn’t make them fanciful, or foolish, or well, obtuse. (Man, I like that word. I knew I heard it before but in geometry.)

    You don’t know me. If I had my way things would be markedly different. Maybe duller, but at least running with cleaner lines- good guys vs. bad guys. What I urged was that we pick a spot, pick a system, pick a voice and stand there. Either we are in it to change the party into what we want, or we are playing numbers games, or we are doing a little of both (thus removing us from judging others doing the same thing). Me, I’m a more straightforward in my obtuse way (Man I REALLY like that word. Maybe you can call me another!). I believe in simply backing the best person with the best heart who believes in serving his countrymen with honor and humility. After that we can show him how to serve by example or by influence.

    It is like what John Wooden from UCLA said when they asked what he looked for as far as talent in his recruits. “Height. I can teach the rest.”

  • http://nanosecondinv.proboards.com/index.cgi? trapeze

    …so we will see very soon whether Brown is in the hunt or not. My guess is that he probably is. The bad side is that if he is the Democrats will go nuts with their usual tactics

  • Swamp_Yankee

    It a no win for Brown.

  • profg

    You get to prove me wrong. :-)

  • ceili_dancer

    Actually, I’m in Kensington, but don’t advertise it to many neighbors.

  • eburke

    I guess that would leave being purposely obtuse.

    Bottom line, Erick consistently has made two things crystal clear: 1) Support of a 3rd-party candidate like Hoffman was the rare exception to the rule because a) of the ham-handed way that ScuzzyFuzzy was selected by the ‘good ol’ boys’; and, b) that his problem w/the national party apparatus is their continual support of libs/mods over conservatives in contested primaries. I have *never* heard him bash them for supporting the eventual party nominee *after* a primary. That would be why this site is to promote conservatives and Republicans.

    You may be the smartest guy in the room, but your seeming insistence on forcing a round peg into a square hole just to prove it has led you to resemble the guy who can’t see the forest because he’s too busy pontificating about the composition of the bark on all the trees.

  • http://www.mysimplehomegarden.com tbaleno

    We needed low turnout. Now the spotlight is on the election it will waken the dems.

  • izoneguy

    The hard core left hates the healthcare bill as much as we do.
    The only way to stop it is to get Brown elected.
    The dems in Mass. need to hold their noses and vote for Brown.

    http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/04/federal-enforcement-to-be-used-against-you-but-not-to-protect-you-from-the-insurance-companies/

  • Leopard1996

    But they are too stupid to understand that the answer to that is to not vote for the Democrats, but they can’t get to point B from point A even if you gave them a map and street by street directions.

  • izoneguy

    Use GPS on their iPhone now?

    Too bad so many of them will now have to pony up a $750 per year fine for not having insurance. That’s about $2 bucks per day.
    They will have to skip StarBucks I guess?

  • Leopard1996

    On both counts, and even with the GPS they still could not find their asses with two hands. And they would need to give up their half caf, half chai, light foam, half soy, half skim, venti lattes. Notice there is a direct correlation between how much of an a-hole someone is by the length of their Starbucks coffee order.

  • archer52

    I didn’t score the test, only took it. So being self-professed isn’t really accurate. Try to stay on point.

    As far as your “a” and “b” statements I get that. If Erick, whom I assume you are speaking for, felt Hoffman was a timely shot across the bow of the RNC because those eggheads up there were out of control, then I really don’t have a problem with it. We are so in the dirt anyway in the House one race doesn’t matter. If we are really RNC team players trying to “push” the leaders into what we consider to be the right direction, I’m all over that too. I think it is our duty and our right to tell those who have spent way too long in D.C. how the rest of America thinks. I still stand by the point that we need to be careful in judging others who are basically doing the same thing we are. In the same sense, we also need to be careful about criticizing the RNC for picking moderates in CERTAIN areas. As a general recruiting effort, Erick and you are right, too many middle of the roaders will lead to nothing but crushed bodies when they get run over from both directions. Yet, and you haven’t really addressed this, which might be a good idea to do between insults, do we recognize that in certain locations accepting less than a right of center or right- right of center candidate is okay? Is there room in your tent for a fiscal conservative that has a liberal opinion on abortion? Or is there room in your tent for an pro-lifer that likes government spending? (Think GWB) How do you feel about a Lindsey Graham or John McCain? (You can visit my site for my opinion. Let’s just say Lindsey not on my short list for dinner guests,)

    In Florida, the knee jerk reaction was to support Crist. But soon afterward many Republicans I’ve met admit they really never liked him that much. Then when he did the Obama hug it would have been better for him to douse himself with gas and light a match! I was relieved when Rubio came onto the scene and this site supported his campaign.

    But like I said, and maybe you missed the point, so I’ll go slower, be careful getting too amped up. Yes, the RNC and the Republicans in the Congress are a little to middle of the road for many of us, but like the date we brought to the dance, we are stuck with them until we can get better. Slamming them at every turn out of frustration for things they may have not done wrong but we disagree with only enforces the bad guys and upsets the good guys. The biggest danger we face is not from the left or the right, it is from above. The ruling strata, regardless of party, will always want to remain so. Nothing pleases them more than when we do a three stooges skit on each other.

    Which is why I stepped in and apparently, at least according to you, went bark hunting in a forest. Maybe this helps you, if not I suggest a stiff drink and some reflection. Remember who the bad guys are and what they can do to us while we kick each other in the shins.

    Or not. It’s up to you.

  • Stan(ley) Pruss

    Larry showed his commercial, commented on the polling taking place. This race is getting more exposure fast!

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Yeah, he is starting to get more exposure

    There are a lot of strange dynamics in this race. Scott seems to be generating interest, momentum and money without the race itself receiving too much attention. Thats a good thing. The Dems are not even in the game. They think its a done deal.

    The longer this dynamic maintains the better for Scott. I dont mind seeing him on Kudlow. But I dont want this race to blow up too early.

    Let the liberal sheeps sleep. Sleep liberal sheeps, sleep.

  • izoneguy

    I go to 7-11 so I can do it myself…..

  • joayn

    It’ll blow your socks off! Picked it up at Hot Air in their Scott Brown article. Somebody linked it in the comment section.

    Seriously, watch it. The name of the video:

    America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiyqvuTxaEs

    It was made yesterday and already has over 18,000 hits.

  • joycem

    A state largely ignored by the NRCC, we have a real shot against the last Kennedy in Congress, not just a legacy! Three-term state rep John Loughlin has raised more than 200K, has more than 7,000 donors and has actually won as a Republican in the blue state of Rhode Island – three times!

    The NRCC has totally ignored this race, so I no longer give to the NRCC, I send money directly to candidates like John.

    Go John! www.johnloughlin.org

  • Right Reason

    I think we all know where it’s been lately.

  • Leopard1996

    Personally I hit it very rarely, and that is when my wife is having a craving for her latte. Even then, my coffee is just that. Coffee, 4 creams, 4 splendas. So I can’t be too much of an A-hole

  • olddog

    they had a saying, ” put up or shut up” so I did, I sent my G.O.P. donation to the man in Mass. Mr. Scott Brown, since the G.O.P. won’t I sent my pittance, but then, I’m retired .How about the rest of you? this can be won, if all give something, and get the word out. the polls show him gaining but we need to give an extra push, to get him over the top. This is a bare knuckle fight for our kids future, what shall we say to them, if we don’t.

    Support our Troops, as much as they support us.
    One Old Dog

  • ldotr

    Scott Brown could attract the indepent vote and win this thing and in so doing impact the Senate in an earthshaking manner. This would enable Repubs to filibuster the government healthcare takeover and send a strong message to blue dogs about their reelection chances should they choose to vote for it.

    If people want to change this country back to its traditional conservative principles then they need to put their money where their mouth is and make a contribution to Brown’s campaign and volunteer to help him out at his website. The phone call arm of the campaign is already getting a big boost from out of state volunteers who are getting organized into it via the internet.

    Go to his website, http://www.brownforussenate.com/ click the contribute button and then the volunteer button. Put up or shut up!

  • rightwingmom52

    and I make sure I tell the NRSC and the NRCC why I no longer donate to them or any other PACS (like Gingrich’s) that will not guarantee that my money will not line the pockets of RINO’s and will support only conservatives. The conversations I’ve had with the solicitors at the NRSC and the NRCC indicate they’ve been told to ratchet up the heat, but it just makes me laugh when they start talking about the conservative leadership. I have made several individual donations over the past few weeks and plan to donate to Cherilyn Eager today, but I’m not sure I can in good conscience donate to Scott Brown because of his views on abortion. I realize he is miles ahead of Ted & Martha, but I promised myself I would no longer hold my nose and support the lesser of two evils.