Republicans and moderates: Don’t waste your money on Scott Brown

In 2010, when Scott Brown ran for Senate in the special election that followed Ted Kennedy’s death, his campaign attracted sensational attention and an outpouring of financial support from Republicans across the United States. In 2012, Brown failed to defend his seat against Elizabeth Warren, in the most expensive congressional race in the nation (and the most expensive contest in Massachusetts history). Now Brown has a chance to run yet another senatorial campaign — this time, it seems, against his most formidable foe yet: 20-term congressman Ed Markey. If the Republican Party has any sense, any esteem for fiscal conservatism, and any regard for the views and values of young, educated Republicans — in short, any thought for its future as a party — it will not waste any more money on Brown.

Support for Brown from forward-thinking Republicans would be a misallocation of resources, and would undermine the party’s most important principles and long-term aspirations. More than enough funds have already been spent on a politician who undermines the party’s commitment to fiscal responsibility; votes erratically and unpredictably; ran a shameful, embarrassing campaign in the last election; and has little chance of winning in the 2013 race.

On fiscal issues, Brown has criticized spending cuts, and in an open letter expressed eagerness to work with Sen. Reid and the Democrats to fight spending reductions. Shortly after he was elected, he was one of only a handful of Republicans to support President Obama’s deficit-increasing “$15 billion jobs bill.” More recently, after publishing some incoherent and embarrassingly misinformed tweets, Brown was perhaps the most vocal Republican to praise the White House’s shambolic (and inaptly named) “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012” and strongly urged the House of Representatives to pass it. Earlier in 2012, Brown voted against both a Republican proposal to extend tax cuts for all Americans and a Democratic proposal to extend tax cuts for the middle class; he was also the only Republican who voted to support Obama’s request to increase the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion.

Brown has made wholly contradictory statements and votes on many topics, including tax increases, the Ryan budget, don’t ask-don’t tell, and cap-and-trade energy policies. On other issues, Brown combines some of the most retrograde positions of both parties. He is staunchly pro-abortion, but opposes gay marriage. He is a “proud union member” who is much-derided in Massachusetts for his climate-skeptic comments. He’s voted against the environment and also against efforts to curb uninhibited deficit spending. In short, this self-styled moderate is a confection of backwards-thinking and morally bereft positions from both parties, and his positions are out of touch not only with his New England base, but with the future of the G.O.P.: young fiscal-conservatives.

Scott Brown’s 2012 campaign was roundly denounced by all manner of media outlets as being one of the ugliest and most “bizarre” in recent memory. As a Massachusetts voter, and a former supporter of Brown’s, I can only agree. The campaign was utterly disgraceful. Brown’s key talking points involved: describing himself as “bipartisan”; denigrating Elizabeth Warren for self-identifying as a “native American, a person of color … which,” as Brown cringe-inducingly declared time and time again, “you can see she’s not”; and referring to his opponent as “Professor Warren.”

Now, if Brown runs, he will probably face 20-term Democratic congressman Ed Markey. Markey is unapologetically partisan, and has been seen in his district only occasionally since first heading to Congress in 1976. But the Massachusetts (and national) Democratic machine has closed ranks around him and he is poised to face little primary opposition.

Markey’s official challengers have yet to announce themselves, but — as a Massachusetts Republican — I can only hope that the G.O.P. does not continue to sink its resources into another Scott Brown campaign. Brown has not only shown himself to be incompetent, inconsistent, and ill-informed, but he threatens to draw both the Republican Party and the nation in a dangerous direction.

Nonsense. I would have voted for Reagan. And I voted for Dole and Bush and McCain and Romney.

But I’ve had it. I’ve had it with being told that we must nominate a worthless moderate because that’s the best we can do. And because of this mentality, only moderates are ever nominated because that’s “who can win.” Yet they don’t. And when conservatives have been nominated, they do win. Or when they run as conservatives, they win. 1968 and ‘72. ‘80, ‘84, and ‘88. ‘00 and ‘04. 1994 and 2010. Brown in 2010.

We don’t have to settle for moderates. And I’m not voting for anybody just because they have an ‘R’ next to their name when I don’t agree with them or what they’re for or what they want to do. Because what’s the point?? So Mitch McConnell can be Majority Leader?? A man who has undermined conservatives as well? So that he can be rewarded with more power and influence? I’d like to see both McConnell and Cornyn defeated next year, the miniority leader and the whip, so we can have new leadership in the senate because God knows, not a single republican, no matter who gets elected, ever votes agains the leadership.

“My way of thinking got us Ted Cruz who, running on a Tea Party platform, defeated the “shoo in” local RINO. And he CONTINUES to represent the Tea Party ideas AFTER election (a rarity).”

Well are you for conservatives or not?? Make up your mind. How can you support Cruz but at the same time berate me for wanting to ditch Brown??

>>Well are you for conservatives or not?? Make up your mind. How can you support Cruz but at the same time berate me for wanting to ditch Brown??<<

There ya go. Cruz isn’t Conservative enough for you. Tea Party candidate? N/I (Not Important). Went on record and on Sunday shows as saying Texas will NEVER give in on 2A and 10A — N/I.

Reagan could not meet today’s CNSRVTV ENUF test. FR’s FOUNDER couldn’t meet that test.

Keep moving them goalposts and sooner than later you’ll have that fascist state your perfection demands (be avoidance).

“There ya go. Cruz isn’t Conservative enough for you. Tea Party candidate? N/I (Not Important). Went on record and on Sunday shows as saying Texas will NEVER give in on 2A and 10A — N/I.”

Well you’re clearly misunderstanding me. I was very happy Cruz won. I love him. He fignts and doesn’t back down. He doesn’t get all moderate and weasily when sitting next to Chuck Schumer.

And I’m not moving any goalposts. I want the most conservative person possible nominated in every election. I’m not interested in who the establishment thinks “can win.” The establishment continually supports, by either habit or deliberate intent, the more moderate nominee. Specter over Toomey, Crist over Rubio, Lugar over Mourdock, Dewhurst over Cruz, Bennet over Lee, Murkowski over Miller.

Personally, I think they do this intentionally to piss off and demoralize conservatives (as with Romney). But we’re not giving up. Eventually, they’ll get the message that if they really want their candidates to win, then they’ll have to start supporting conservatives or their moderate choices will lose. But in reality, I don’t think they want victory after victory. They know conservatives win so they do evertything to defeat them. They want people they can control to get elected. And Cruz, DeMint etc. don’t play ball the way a Scott Brown would.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.