GO SCOTT BROWN>

[marksiwel]

Good to know that there are some sane people in Mass left.

[The Annoyed Man]

I found this interesting opinion piece. I'm not sure I agree with it 100%, but the author makes some interesting points:

AmericanThinker.com
January 20, 2010
Brown strategist: national security the sleeper issue of the campaign (updated)
Clarice Feldman

NRO's Robert Costa interviewed Scott Brown strategist Eric Fernstrom who revealed something from their internal polls which no pundit to my knowledge has observed.

The key issue for Massachusetts voters was not healthcare or spending. It was national security and the treatment of enemy terrorists. If the White House polls bear this out, Eric Holder's decisions on trying the terrorists in civilian courts and the botched handling of the Christmas underwear bomber should mean a shake up in the Department of Justice and Homeland Security.

Is there room under the bus for Holder and Napolitano?

On the issues, "people talk about the potency of the health-care issue, but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants," says Fehrnstrom. Health care, he says, was helpful in fundraising, but it was the campaign's focus on national security in the final week that he believes helped to give voters another issue to associate with Brown. [Emphasis supplied.]Plus, he says, Brown supported the Romney health-care plan, so he couldn't "be painted as a ‘just say no' Republican, but could articulate a message as a ‘just start over' Republican."

Even removing those two officials, however, which seems essential to get independent (and women ) voters back onboard, would hardly be enough I think to persuade them that this President and his party really get it. They are, it seems to me, wedded to a feckless series of policies which will cost them dearly at the polls.

h/t:jmh

Update: Rosslyn Smith adds:

Brown followed through on this theme of national security in his victory speech when he stated to cheers that tax dollars should pay to protect us, not pay their lawyers.

Among the many lessons for other Republicans in Brown's victory is that both parties have been losing voters to the ranks of independents because office holders in both parties have ignored the voters in favor of their own agendas once in office. Brown promised Massachusetts voters he would be independent. I think most voters consider that to mean that he'll listen to those who elected him more closely than he will listen to party bosses and lobbyists in Washington, DC. He didn't say he'll always agree, but that he'll listen and he won't sell his vote to party bosses for special favors.

The other lesson is that we need never apologize for keeping our own citizens safe. Andrew McCarthy notes that while the Bush Administration had sound policies on defense and counterterrorism, it refused to defend them vigorously. As McCarthy states:

Scott Brown went out and made the case for enhanced interrogation, for denying terrorists the rights of criminal defendants, for detaining them without trial, and for trying them by military commission. It worked. It will work for other candidates willing to get out of their Beltway bubbles.

Yes, the Left will say you are making a mockery of our commitment to "the rule of law." MSNBC will run segments on your dark conspiracies to "shred the privacy rights of Americans." The New York Times will wail that you're heedless of the damage you'll do to "America's reputation in the international community."

The answer is: So what? The people making these claims don't speak for Americans - they speak at Americans, in ever shrinking amounts. If you're going to cower from a fight with them, we don't need you. Get us a Scott Brown who'll take them on in their own backyard. And he'll take them on with confidence because he knows their contentions are frivolous - and he knows that Americans know this, too.

[Oldgringo]

I found this interesting opinion piece. I'm not sure I agree with it 100%, but the author makes some interesting points:

AmericanThinker.com
January 20, 2010
Brown strategist: national security the sleeper issue of the campaign (updated)
Clarice Feldman

NRO's Robert Costa interviewed Scott Brown strategist Eric Fernstrom who revealed something from their internal polls which no pundit to my knowledge has observed.

The key issue for Massachusetts voters was not healthcare or spending. It was national security and the treatment of enemy terrorists. If the White House polls bear this out, Eric Holder's decisions on trying the terrorists in civilian courts and the botched handling of the Christmas underwear bomber should mean a shake up in the Department of Justice and Homeland Security.

Is there room under the bus for Holder and Napolitano?

On the issues, "people talk about the potency of the health-care issue, but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants," says Fehrnstrom. Health care, he says, was helpful in fundraising, but it was the campaign's focus on national security in the final week that he believes helped to give voters another issue to associate with Brown. [Emphasis supplied.]Plus, he says, Brown supported the Romney health-care plan, so he couldn't "be painted as a ‘just say no' Republican, but could articulate a message as a ‘just start over' Republican."

Even removing those two officials, however, which seems essential to get independent (and women ) voters back onboard, would hardly be enough I think to persuade them that this President and his party really get it. They are, it seems to me, wedded to a feckless series of policies which will cost them dearly at the polls.

h/t:jmh

Update: Rosslyn Smith adds:

Brown followed through on this theme of national security in his victory speech when he stated to cheers that tax dollars should pay to protect us, not pay their lawyers.

Among the many lessons for other Republicans in Brown's victory is that both parties have been losing voters to the ranks of independents because office holders in both parties have ignored the voters in favor of their own agendas once in office. Brown promised Massachusetts voters he would be independent. I think most voters consider that to mean that he'll listen to those who elected him more closely than he will listen to party bosses and lobbyists in Washington, DC. He didn't say he'll always agree, but that he'll listen and he won't sell his vote to party bosses for special favors.

The other lesson is that we need never apologize for keeping our own citizens safe. Andrew McCarthy notes that while the Bush Administration had sound policies on defense and counterterrorism, it refused to defend them vigorously. As McCarthy states:

Scott Brown went out and made the case for enhanced interrogation, for denying terrorists the rights of criminal defendants, for detaining them without trial, and for trying them by military commission. It worked. It will work for other candidates willing to get out of their Beltway bubbles.

Yes, the Left will say you are making a mockery of our commitment to "the rule of law." MSNBC will run segments on your dark conspiracies to "shred the privacy rights of Americans." The New York Times will wail that you're heedless of the damage you'll do to "America's reputation in the international community."

The answer is: So what? The people making these claims don't speak for Americans - they speak at Americans, in ever shrinking amounts. If you're going to cower from a fight with them, we don't need you. Get us a Scott Brown who'll take them on in their own backyard. And he'll take them on with confidence because he knows their contentions are frivolous - and he knows that Americans know this, too.

Thanks TAM. All of the above pretty much sums up my feelings on the election. If anyone perceives this election to be a Repub victory or a Dem defeat, they must paddle around in the shallow end of the gene pool.

I, for at least one, am sick to death of "politics as usual"! I still say fire 'em all and keep firing 'em until they get the message that they represent the people and not themselves nor their party's horsefeather agendas.

[aardwolf]

Will he be the next President?

He was a state senator. In a blue state. By 2012 he will have served a partial term as a US senator.

Isn't that the current requirements for President?

[C-dub]

Will he be the next President?

He was a state senator. In a blue state. By 2012 he will have served a partial term as a US senator.

Isn't that the current requirements for President?

Could be. Could be.

Does anyone else recall hearing or reading the Obama was approached by the DNC or other senators or someone to run for the presidency because they didn't want Hillary to be president?

[The Annoyed Man]

Will he be the next President?

He was a state senator. In a blue state. By 2012 he will have served a partial term as a US senator.

Isn't that the current requirements for President?

Could be. Could be.

Does anyone else recall hearing or reading the Obama was approached by the DNC or other senators or someone to run for the presidency because they didn't want Hillary to be president?

I don't recall hearing that, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Regarding Brown for President... I like what I've seen of the guy so far, but it is waaaaaaaay too early in the game to be talking about President. I'm one of those people who thinks that Obama's inexperience was one of the reasons not to vote for him in the first place, and I think that a lot of his gaffs, regardless of his policy stances, are due to his inexperience. For instance, only a callow rookie would have treated Great Britain the way Obama has treated them. Even though I largely agree with Brown's positions, I still think he is too inexperienced at this point to be an effective president. OTH, JFK was relatively inexperienced too when he ran against Nixon, and he did a reasonable job of handling the Cuban Missile Crisis and getting tax cuts passed for instance. But if we are to be consistent, then we have to apply the same standards to all potential candidates unless they show themselves early on to be so exceptional as to warrant supporting a presidential bid. So I'll reserve judgment on whether or not Brown is presidential material until after I've seen him in office for a while to see how he handles himself. Hopefully, the Senate won't corrupt him.

[ELB]

Will he be the next President?

He was a state senator. In a blue state. By 2012 he will have served a partial term as a US senator.

Isn't that the current requirements for President?

Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

=>US Citizen by birth, 35 years old, and have lived in the country for 14 years.

I don't see Brown as a serious candidate for prez in 2012, but then I didn't see Obama as a serious candidate even after he was elected. And Brown is light years ahead of Obama in terms of anything that matters. For that matter, so is Palin.

by The Annoyed Man » Jan 20th, '10, 21:42
...For instance, only a callow rookie would have treated Great Britain the way Obama has treated them...

Oh, I don't think this was a gaffe, unless you define "gaffe" as when a politician actually says what he thinks. He purposely snubbed one of our best allies because of their support for the Iraq war in particular (and BUSH!), and their role as a traditional number one ally in general. He was on a mission to make our enemies like us by apologizing and urinating on our traditional allies. Instead, neither our allies nor our enemies respect us. Remember, this is a a guy who takes days and months to figure out what to do about terrorists and wars, but can launch an attack on Cheney, Rush, and Fox News within hours of them speaking...

Actually, Obama's inexperience and incompetence have worked to our benefit -- he has made some big political mistakes and has started alienating even his most fanatical supporters. If he were even a little bit more clever, we would be sliding into socialism and statism more slowly -- but more surely and with greater effect.

[chabouk]

Remember: that any Republican was elected as Senator from Massachusetts is unusual. But, being a Republican doesn't make him conservative. Remember, he supported MassCare, the state version of ObamaCare (mandatory health insurance, with a fine assessed on the MA state income tax return for those who didn't purchase health insurance).

A Massachusetts Republican couldn't get elected as dog catcher in Texas. Was Mitt Romney a conservative? Massachusetts elected Republican governors from 1990 to 2006.

Brown has vowed to voted against nationalized health care, so good for him on that point. It got him into office so he can block that vote. But that doesn't make him a liberty advocate, nor cover his position on RKBA.

[Big Tuna]

I LOLed

[youtube][/youtube]

[cougartex]

[KD5NRH]

Will he be the next President?

No. He has a birth certificate.

[boomerang]

Will he be the next President?

No. He has a birth certificate.

Now they're saying they're cousins.
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/pdfs ... y_Tree.pdf

[SwimFan85]

It didn't take long for him to show his true colors.

[GrayGhost]

It certainly did not, SwimFan. I was afraid to hop on this bandwagon.

[mr surveyor]

disgusting, isn't it?