Reflections on the Brown Revolution

            Yes, the voters rejected the GOP in 2006 and 2008.  Sure, they wanted change when they elected Obama and gave him a Congress strongly under Democrat control.  But, that didn’t mean that America wanted bigger government, higher taxes, nationalized healthcare and multi-billion dollar bailouts for everyone from auto companies to banks, insurance firms and finance companies.Scott Brown

           That was the first observation I made as I mulled the victory of Republican Scott Brown in the bluest of blue states.  While the Democrats are still gnashing their teeth and the Republicans still patting themselves on the back, what other things could we learn from this clearly momentous election?   

           Clearly, Martha Coakley felt entitled to the “Kennedy seat.”  After winning the Democratic primary, she apparently believed the race was over and went on vacation—for weeks.  Brown started off behind, but never went on vacation and like the tortoise and the hare, he kept moving forward and won the race. 

           Twice in the last six years, the Democrats of Massachusetts changed the rules of Senate succession to forestall the possibility that a Republican might capture the “Kennedy seat.”  In 2004, believing that John Kerry might be elected President (silly Democrats); they changed the state constitution to prevent then-governor Mitt Romney from appointing a replacement.  Just last year they changed the rule back to allow Governor Deval Patrick to appoint an interim appointee. The irony is, if the Democrats had left things alone they might have held the seat.

           The Republicans damaged their brand when, during much of the Bush Administration, they grew government to monstrous proportions and spent money like Democrats.  Can the GOP reclaim their limited government heritage? That remains to be seen.