Skip to main content

Either outcome of January 19's special election would have left us wondering what Democrat would step up to challenge the junior senator from Massachusetts. The fact that Scott Brown won, while unfortunate in every other way, probably produces a stronger field than would have been willing to primary a sitting senator, however clearly she needed to be primaried. As it is, the entire party will be looking to unseat Brown.

Brown had two pretty clear paths to choose from: he could legislate as he campaigned, as a teabagger senator, then cash in Palin-style after a certain 2012 loss; or he could try to get reelected. The strong indications are that he's chosen the latter path: the Boston Globe reports that he's hired at least one of Ted Kennedy's constituent services staffers, and he's emphasizing that he told Senate Republican leadership that he's going to "vote how I want to vote."

There's plenty of time for him to screw up massively, but as we learned a couple weeks ago, we should never underestimate Scott Brown. A strong Democratic candidate is necessary, and that candidate should come loaded for bear.

Massachusetts typically has a deep but boring Democratic bench, consisting largely of Irish-American men. In 2006, Deval Patrick vaulted over all the candidates of whom it could be said that it was "their turn," coming from nowhere with an exciting campaign. Unfortunately, he hasn't been as good at governing as he was at campaigning, which could have a dampening effect on voters' willingness to go for another mold-breaking candidate. On the other hand, it was pretty much Martha Coakley's turn, and we saw how that turned out.

Any of the candidates defeated by Martha Coakley in December could run again, of course.

Rep. Michael Capuano came in second in that primary, with 28%, and remains a viable possibility. As I noted in previewing December's primary, Capuano has strong legislative ratings from a range of progressive organizations, from the AFL-CIO to the League of Conservation Voters to Planned Parenthood. He campaigned last fall as a strong populist.

Capuano is only one of a few possible challengers coming from the House, though in a regular election, of course, any of them would have to give up their House seats.

Ed Markey is another House member with a strong, across-the-board progressive record whose name is always mentioned in relation to Senate seats opening up. Markey is 63 years old now, however, and while 66 is not old to be in the Senate, it is old to enter the Senate; that may play in his thinking or his prospects. (That said, it's not as though most of the possibilities mentioned here are wee young'uns -- most are in their 50s.)

Stephen Lynch considered running for Kennedy's seat, but did not do so amidst speculation that his hesitation to support a health care reform bill with a public option was hurting him with unions. That was particularly significant since Lynch, a former Ironworker, has always had strong union support. Running statewide, he'd be weakened by his anti-abortion stance, though if he got through a primary that would obviously be no issue against Scott Brown.

If, after the Coakley example, statewide elected officials were interested in testing their luck, Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin would be a logical "it's his turn" kind of candidate. He's been Secretary since 1994, so his name recognition should be high, in an innocuous way.

Hope springing eternal, expect one or more Kennedys to be mentioned: That could be Victoria Reggie Kennedy, former Rep. Joe Kennedy II (Robert Kennedy's eldest son), or even, among the real dreamers, Joe Kennedy III. Many people had hoped that Joe II would run this time around, and had he done so, most of the primary field would have cleared. Joe III is young -- just 29 now -- but has amassed the kind of public service record that, when combined with the Kennedy name, well prepares one for getting elected.

Of course, it's possible that one or more outside the box candidates could emerge. Two such candidates ran in the December primary: Steve Pagliuca, a wealthy self-funder with a history of Republican campaign contributions; and City Year founder Alan Khazei, who was endorsed by the Boston Globe in the primary.

One name that's already been floated for 2012, in a Boston Globe op-ed, is that of Elizabeth Warren:

If all this made Warren a household name among progressives, it was the economic crisis that catapulted her onto the national stage. As chairwoman of the TARP Oversight Committee, she’s been responsible for examining the bank bailouts and the regulatory response. Warren has vocalized the concerns of many Americans - but not many politicians - who are outraged by the rampant greed that led to the crisis, and the refusal of Wall Street to take responsibility. "I think the problem has been all the way throughout this crisis, that the banks have been treated gently and everyone else has been treated really pretty tough," said an exasperated Warren last fall, echoing what so many others - in both parties - have come to believe.

These people need someone of Warren’s stature. The timing is perfect: her term at TARP Oversight will come to an end in the spring of 2011, just as a Senate candidate would have to be ramping up.

First-time candidates running for major office can struggle with gaffes as they adjust to having their words and actions under a microscope for the first time; Warren, at least, has significant experience in the media and as a public spokesperson.

There'll be no shortage of candidates, possible and actual, for the seat. But whoever enters the primary had damn well better be prepared to fight to the end.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:00 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I have no money but would give to Warren (15+ / 0-)

    She is what we need in the Senate.  A consummate professional.

    "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

    by Benintn on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:02:03 PM PST

  •  One thing I've learned (14+ / 0-)

    Scott Brown is not politically Naive and he is not a fool.

    If we underestimate him we do so at our peril.

    On the bright side - he really f#$%ed over the Teabaggers.

    Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom
    -Herbert Spencer

    by stevej on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:07:11 PM PST

    •  Indeed. (11+ / 0-)

      Too many people appear to be unable to separate the who he actually is from the caricature that was drawn about him during the campaign.

      He's smart and savvy, and appears to be the real deal. He is also on the wrong side of almost all of the issues. To me he appears to be the potent opponent the GOP has found in a long time, and if we make the mistake of treating him like the caricature he'll use that tromp us, and the GOP will ride his coat tails.

      •  Potent Opponent (5+ / 0-)

        I mostly agree with you.  But don't forget that the fact that he is actually rational may cause him problems with the Palin-Limbaugh wing of the Republican Party.

      •  He reminds me a lot of Bob Ehrlich, who (5+ / 0-)

        won the MD Governorship in 2002. What vaulted Ehrlich to the Governorship was that his opponent, Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townshend (KKT), ran what outgoing Governor Parris Glendening referred to as the worst campaign in the country". Ehrlich looked just as savvy and sharp as Brown did. KKT made all the mistakes that Coakley made much. Much like Coakely, the state's Democratic establishment was either lukewarm or downright hostile to her. The media portrayed her negatively. She took Ehrlich for granted until it was too late.

        In 2006 Ehrlich faced Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley. O'Malley ran a very competent campaign. On election night Ehrlich lost by 6.5% percent, the only incumbent Governor to lose that cycle. I expect the similar fate to hit Scott Brown, provided that the Democrats run a strong candidate against him.

    •  He has a huge ego as he is giving himself (12+ / 0-)

      credit for what the President did at the GOP retreat. He said it would never have happened except for his stunning victory. Brown is travelling around MA telling people he is changing everything, from the WH to the Senate and beyond.  

      •  And if you're thinking that in the current mood (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        of the electorate, that falsehood will be self evident to them...

        •  you will be proven correct. (5+ / 0-)

          This state isn't stupid, either. Buyers remorse is the reason Romney didn't run for re-election for Gov. And if you don't think that Brown will be on stage at the 2012 GOP convention, you haven't been paying much attention. Here in MA, we hate the hell out of anyone who betrays us like that. The current mood is just that, current. 2012 is a hell of a long way off. And Brown will be relegated to being just what he is until then, the junior Senator from MA.

          There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

          by kitebro on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:33:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A lot can change between now and 2012 (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishingwell, kitebro, Jeff Y, HylasBrook

            Brown is still living off of the honeymoon of winning. By then the honeymoon will have ended and the electorate may be much more different.

          •  Agreed, but as I said in another comment (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I'm more worried about how much damage he can with his coat tails in the 2010 midterms.

          •  Uh - don't forget - that Brown has just (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bdbd, wishingwell, Jeff Y

            about the same level of political experience as President Obama had in 2008 - several terms as a state legislator, 2 years as Senator when he started running for the Presidency.

            Brown is not even in the same universe as Obama, but if he starts making trips to Iowa, we'll be able to nail him

            Also with Brown, MA Democrats need to do to him what Republicans do to us - get on TV and critize everything he does.

            Even if a front runner doesn't emerge before the primary, leaders in the Democratic party should start attacking Brown NOW.

            We don't want any "he's not that bad" attitudes among voters.

            There were many things wrong about the Coakley campaign, but I think she paid the price for the dysfunctional Democratic legislature.

            I'm so hopped up about 2012 Senate race, I'm thinking of sneaking over the MA border to Pittsfield and getting involved in the Democratic party there.

            •  As I mentioned in another comment (7+ / 0-)

              if he starts campaigning for President, he will be rejected here in MA. Romney wasn't a bad Governor. He lost his support here by going to the 2004 convention. Anne Richards had the same problem in TX in 1992. TX never forgave her. They were betrayed. We never forgave Romney for his 2004 appearance at the GOP convention. And he knew he would lose in his re-election bid, so he bowed out. Brown has a tough job ahead. Please the base or please the Dems and Independents. He can't do both. Not in this state.

              There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

              by kitebro on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:50:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What fueled Brown's victory was strong support (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wishingwell, kitebro, HylasBrook

                in the suburbs/exurbs around Boston. Ehrlich won in MD by carrying the exurbs of Baltimore/DC by a 3-1 margin and winning the inner Baltimore suburbs by a 2-1 margin. Much like Ehrlich, when he faces the voters again in 2012, Brown can't afford to lose much of those voters. If his Democratic challenger in 2012 can hold his margins in those exurbs and suburbs to 55% of the vote or even less, even if Brown still wins them, Brown will lose anyway.

                In 2002, when he defeated KKT, Ehrlich won both Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties by 2-1 margins. Out of both counties he had a 110,000 vote lead. He carried Howard County by a 55-44% margin. In Carroll and Frederick counties he had margins well above 70%. In Carroll County I think he even got 78%. Add in the eastern shore and western panhandle and there were just enough votes for Ehrlich to win 52-47% over KKT.

                In 2006, though, Ehrlich's numbers fell significantly. He only got 51% in Baltimore County, 56% in Anne Arundel County, 69% in Carroll County, and 60% in Frederick County. He also lost Howard county outright by less than 1%. That wasn't enough for him to win.

                Ehrlich won in 2002 with 879,592 votes to KKT's 813,422 votes. O'Malley won in 2006 with 942,279 to Ehrlich's 825,464 votes. O'Malley did bring out 50K more votes from Baltimore city, but he managed to win with almost 130K more votes than KKT. MOM was able to increase his vote share significantly within the Baltimore/Washington exurbs and inner Baltimore suburbs.

                Brown has the same math working against him. He has to dominate those exurbs and suburbs. He also has to hope that Boston turnout is as low as it was in 2010. He has a greater needle to thread.

                The reason that I keep mentioning Ehrlich is the strong similarity between him and Brown. If the Democratic candidate can bring out votes in Boston and can run more competitively in those exurbs and suburbs, Brown will lose.

            •  Look to MD for past history (4+ / 0-)

              Bob Ehrlich won in 2002 under very similar circumstances. He entered the Governor's office with much fanfare, being the first GOP Governor since Spiro T. Agnew won in 1966. However, when the Democrats nominated Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley in 2006, the voters retired Ehrlich.

      •  Has he voted for anything yet? (0+ / 0-)

        I don't remember him doing a thing... other than beating Martha Coakley.

        "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

        by Benintn on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:41:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  He said he is (4+ / 0-)

      socially moderate and supports abortion rights.

      You're right. He's not stupid.

      There's a story about a frog and a scorpion. The scorpion asks the frog to carry him across a river on the frog's back. The frog is afraid of being stung, of course, but the scorpion assures him that would be folly, because if he stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown too. The frog agrees and gives the scorpion a ride on his back across the river. Halfway across, the scorpion stings him, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion says, "I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."

      Chaos. It's not just a theory.

      by PBnJ on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:19:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "If we underestimate him we do so at our peril." (6+ / 0-)

      I heard that about Palin. Brown is a skilled opportunist. But an opportunist needs an opportunity. Here in MA, I believe the special election was it. He caught lightning in a bottle. He took advantage of the following:
      Over 4 decades of GOP resentment of an impossible to unseat Ted Kennedy. (That was the greatest wind at his back).
      An opponent who not only refused to campaign, but actually mocked Brown for doing it.
      The fact that Coakley's ubiquitous ads that were run in the 10 days leading up to the election were so bilious that they turned Independents, and even Dems, off to her in a huge way.
      Money from across the country from a GOP hellbent on humiliating the Dems and Obama.
      The fact that special election are notorious for being ignored by young voters and those in the inner cities.
      Dem. Governor Deval Patrick who has disappointed everyone and whos presence in office leaves MA with a seriously left-leaning government. That is the reason MA tends to elect Republicans to that office.
      And I know there is some stuff that I can't recall at the moment. 2012 will be a different animal. And I suspect that we will be ready for it this time.

      There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

      by kitebro on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:25:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look at what happened to Bob Ehrlich in MD (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kitebro, pademocrat, HylasBrook

        Brown reminds me of him. He looks almost exactly like Ehrlich. And much like Ehrlich, if the Democrats nominate a competent candidate, he will lose.

      •  That was BS about Palin. (0+ / 0-)

        It was plain that it was BS.

        It is not BS about Brown.

        Coakley could have beat him if she had worked harder, but that doesn't mean he's a pushover.

        •  Brown came into the spotlight (3+ / 0-)

          2 weeks before the election. I'm not kidding. In December I saw the first Brown lawn sign and laughed. As if!  I didn't even know what that guy even looked like. If the campaign had actually gone on for a few more weeks, who knows what would have happened. But I assure you 2012 will not be a 2 week campaign. The truth is, we have no way of knowing what kind of candidate Brown will prove to be in a conventional campaign. We only know what he is like in a stealth/blitzkrieg campaign in a special election with extraordinary influencing circumstances taking place all around him. And a national focus and money bomb from the GOP.

          There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

          by kitebro on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:07:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I look at Brown as a plus (4+ / 0-)

      He either votes like a true moderate and possibly retains that seat in two years, or, he votes with the rest of the far right wing Teabaggers in his party and he loses that seat faster than he got it.

      Ma isn't Alabama.

      "I feel stupid and contagious. Here we are now, entertain us" - Kurt Cobain

      by Jeff Y on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:28:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He certainly ran a good campaign (0+ / 0-)

      However, for Massachusetts Republicans, that's not enough if the Democrats have their shit together. Mitt Romney didn't run for re-election in 2006 because he damn well knew he'd lose, so long as the Democrats didn't run an incompetent candidate. That's always a big if in these overwhelmingly Democratic states. There's so many Democrats who are personality-challenged because they've never faced tough general elections. We need a candidate who is going to be fired up and can win over voters and that should be enough to take down Brown.

  •  Elizabeth Warren for Senator (11+ / 0-)

    "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:07:41 PM PST

    •  She's NOT a politician! (3+ / 0-)

      Seriously people, we want to win this seat.     The easy path to victory is Capuano.    

      Warren would be just as much a disaster as Coakley.

      •  We have too many politicans (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        murrayewv, JohnnySacks

        around.  The only goal for politicians is to get re-elected.  I'd prefer to have people in government who have our backs.

        The only way we will have real change is to get the money out of politics. Sue, West Allis, Wis.

        by Puddytat on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:41:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  and I'd prefer to win the seat (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Situational Lefty

          Rather than tilt at windmills.      Capuano FTW

          •  It's Massachusetts (0+ / 0-)

            not Mississippi.  People will come out for a "real" person.  Politicians are destined to lose in this environment.  It's the one thing that brought out so many people for Obama - he wasn't a "politician" and they saw him as a real person who was going to bring change.  Only after elected did we find out he was a "politician" (I prefer to think Rahm Emmanuel is responsible for that).

            The only way we will have real change is to get the money out of politics. Sue, West Allis, Wis.

            by Puddytat on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:23:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You just compared Warren to Coakley?! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        murrayewv, richmonds


        Let's face facts - if Martha Coakley would have actually run a campaign instead of a coronation, she would have won.

        Naked Scott Brown will not be able to beat Warren.

        "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

        by Benintn on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:44:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Scott Brown would beat Warren (0+ / 0-)

          I'm here in MA, you're not.     Sexism and class resentment were huge in the Brown victory.      They cannot be deployed against Capuano - they certainly would be against Warren.

      •  C'mon now. I'm always cautious (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Benintn, Situational Lefty

        about non-politicians running for a high-profile seat, but Elizabeth Warren does not equal Martha Coakley.

        The important thing is that whoever runs, actually runs. That was where Coakley went astray.

        •  Warren exactly like Coakley (0+ / 0-)
          - woman who will allow Republicans to put sexism into play - Harvard Professor who will allow Republicans to play off of every class stereotype in the book - not inspiring

          •  Um, ok, so (0+ / 0-)

            Warren is exactly like Coakley...if you take out everything that is individual about either of them. And while I think there's reason to believe that we should look hard at how MA voters treat female candidates, I give both the voters and the candidates a little more credit than to think they can't tell the difference between Warren and Coakley.

  •  I wish we had focused (3+ / 0-)

    on December's primary. We were caught napping. But since Coakley sucked as a candidate, I suspect she would have sucked as a Senator. And perhaps Brown would have won in 2012 as a result. As it is, I don't think he'll win in the general. He had a lot of luck on his side in the special election that won't be there in 2012. Not with Obama on the ballot.

    There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

    by kitebro on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:08:23 PM PST

    •  I think she was not a good candidate but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare, HylasBrook

      I think she would have been a good Senator..she would have been a reliable Democratic vote.  

      But she was a lousy campaigner and candidate.

    •  He's in the same position where Bob Ehrlich (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      in MD was. Ehrlich won in 2002 because KKT ran what outgoing governor Parris Glendening called "the worst campaign in the country". In 2012, when the Democrats run someone with a competent campaign, Brown should lose even if it is close.

      •  I promise you it won't be close. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pademocrat, HylasBrook, CuriousBoston

        Unless another extraordinarily inept candidate runs against him. He's between a rock and a hard place. Voting against Obama will lose the election for him. Voting with Obama will lose the election for him. He needs every GOP vote. And he needs a lot of Independent votes as well as some Dem votes. With Obama on the ballot, he really won't come close. He won't likely have an HCR bill with a newly added excise tax to help suppress the Dem vote. Nor will he have all of the cash from the countries Republicans coming his way as a result of being in the only important race for months to come.

        There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

        by kitebro on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:43:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think Brown will run a good campaign in 2012, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pademocrat, Egalitare, HylasBrook

          much like Ehrlich did in 2006. Unfortunately that 52% that they both got in 2002 and in 2010 is their ceiling. And without every vote that Brown got this past time, he won't win. I think that he will end up with 45-49% of the vote, but still lose by 2012.

          The problem with Brown is that he can't afford to lose any of the votes that he won in 2010. Ehrlich couldn't either in 2006. What propelled them both to victory was strong support in the exurbs and suburbs of Baltimore and Boston. If/when the Democrats nominate someone competent in 2012, should Brown only win those suburbs with 55% of the vote instead of the 60-65% margins that he did in 2010, that won't be enough for him to win. But it will be enough to leave him with 45-49% of the vote.

          •  I like that analogy, although one big (0+ / 0-)

            difference is that 2012, unlike 2006, is a presidential election year, so it will be interesting to see what, if any, effect that has on the MA-SEN race.

          •  The anti-Ted Kennedy sentiment (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            murrayewv, pademocrat, HylasBrook

            was a massive vote getter for Brown. Try to imagine being a Republican in a state where two Dems have had the Senate seats tied up for decades. As if they owned the damned things. Kennedy was there since the 60s! Now that they made their point, I am convinced that they won't be as driven come 2012. And that complacency will be his undoing. IMHO.

            There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

            by kitebro on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:57:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  So now Brown sticks with be pro choice (5+ / 0-)

    which helps his chances for reelection while ending the phrase "Scott Brown Republican" in the GOP, making it as rare as "Romney Republican".

    Subsidies without cost controls, regulatory reform means that citizens get a little more awful insurance at a huge cost to taxpayers. Like Part D but worse.

    by Inland on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:08:53 PM PST

    •  Brown is the "Mr. Smith" of the GOP Matrix (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pademocrat, Puddytat, HylasBrook
      •  not if he is pro bank..... (0+ / 0-)

        and no tax on the rich.  I know a great way to get out of debt- raise their taxes!  And cut their tax breaks for offshoring their money.  Let them live in the Caymans if they like it so much.

        You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

        by murrayewv on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:18:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not so fast though (0+ / 0-)

      he is against government funding for abortion and he sided with Collins on Obama is weak on terror. So, it will be interesting to see how he votes. He reminds me of Bush says something and no one follows up with the fact he never did it....Right now the press is in love with take credit for making Obama trying to find common ground...that has been Obama theme since 2004.

      How much pain have cost us the evils which have never happened. Thomas Jefferson

      by coffejoe on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 05:03:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What's any of this have to do with (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    screaming for Rahm's skull?

    •  Rahm should come over and post diaries at DK (0+ / 0-)

      and stay back to respond to the comments. I think that'd be an excellent way to engage in a dialogue, which would give him an opportunity to present his thoughts and for progressives and Dems here to express their views; if both approach it with a decent degree of mutual respect, then that can potentially lead to better policies being pursued by the Obama administration and eventually to a stronger, better and more vibrant Democratic party.

      One line HCR: Allow Medicare Buy-In for all. Pass it via the reconciliation process.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:42:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  elizabeth warren (8+ / 0-)

    just thinking about it gives me an electric charge.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:11:20 PM PST

  •  Galvin is a total lightweight - there's no way (8+ / 0-)

    he could be considered for Senate.

    And I'm not sure that abortion wouldn't be an issue in a race between Brown and Lynch.  Brown is much more supportive of abortion rights than Lynch is.

    Finally, Massachusetts will in all probability lose a Congressional seat after the 2010 census.  The odd person out might just be the leading Democratic candidate for Senate.

  •  No on Warren. (6+ / 0-)

    She's certainly fantastic on policy, but we don't need to put in anyone untested by poltical combat.

    There are plenty of good Congressmen in Massachusetts how have a better grasp of campaigning than Warren.

    Besides, what she ought to be doing is running the Federal Reserve or the Treasury.

    •  I think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, Puddytat

      she is strong enough of mind to handle "political combat."

      One line HCR: Allow Medicare Buy-In for all. Pass it via the reconciliation process.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:31:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If all you needed was a mind to win an election.. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phil S 33, pademocrat, HylasBrook

        Democrats would win 90% of them.

        I'm talking about more gut instinct stuff. Stuff that only a pure politician knows how to do.

        Politics is a profession just like any other.

        •  You have no idea (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          if she has the "gut instinct" for politics or not, and maybe she doesn't know it either as of yet. The best way to find out is for her to jump into the fray and make a run for the senate seat.

          Besides, these "gut instinct" politicians we currently have running things aren't exactly living up to that characterization when it comes to delivering desirable results. Are they? Take the 59 Dems in the senate for example; how many of them are showing the alleged "gut instinct" quality in beating back the Republican/teabagger attacks and getting the job done on making sound legislation? Not many that I can count.

          Elizabeth Warren is genuine, and Americans take to genuine people! If she runs, she needs to come with a team that comes with guns loaded to defend her from the inevitable attacks, but if that can be pre-planned, I see no reason why she can's wage a competitive race for the senate seat.

          One line HCR: Allow Medicare Buy-In for all. Pass it via the reconciliation process.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:58:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Warren would've fared much better than Coakley (0+ / 0-)

          in the special election, I believe, as the teabagger nonsense attacks would not have worked against Warren because of her work on the oversight committee.

          Back then, between the two, you would have probably preferred Coakley (since she is supposedly more "seasoned"), but that would have been the wrong pick.

          Obama himself disproved the premise that you need "political seasoning" to get elected (recall his jokes about seasoning during the campaign? :)).

          What we need to do is to strive to put more honest people in political offices. A veyr nice side benefit of having honest people running things is that, we then won't have to waste our time toiling forever to get the politicians to do the right thing.

          One line HCR: Allow Medicare Buy-In for all. Pass it via the reconciliation process.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 08:43:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I saw on CNN where Scott Brown is taking credit (5+ / 0-)

    for the President taking questions from the Republicans on Friday. He says it is because of him and his victory that the President is now speaking to Republicans and taking them seriously.

    What an EGO..Brown is now taking credit for all that happens in DC. This guy is unbelievable !!

  •  I continue to like Capuano. (10+ / 0-)

    In response to last week's Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United V. the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Congressman Mike Capuano has filed legislation requiring a shareholder vote before any corporate general treasury funds can be spent on political activity.


    "Congress can and should take action to ensure that the voice of the voters is not overshadowed by corporate influence. My legislation is a step toward addressing that influence," stated Congressman Capuano.

    He was also right on Afghanistan.  He should have been the nominee in the first place IMO.

    -9.50/-7.59 Fire Summers!

    by Situational Lefty on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:19:33 PM PST

  •  The GOP wave has already Picked a Palin/Nuked the (4+ / 0-)

    Fridge/Jumped the Shark.

  •  "Elected Scott Brown"=The new "Nuked the Fridge" (0+ / 0-)
  •  Warren would never win (0+ / 0-)

    She has every problem that Coakley had (Harvard professor vs. class resentment, female candidate vs. likable male candidate).

  •  Is there a Martin O'Malley in MA? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It seems to be that Brown, much like Bob Ehrlich in 2002, took advantage of a MA Democratic Party candidate whom nobody liked. Is there someone who has the same appeal as Martin O'Malley in MA? Or someone who can actually run a competent campaign and win.

    My instinct says that Brown won't win another term in 2012. He will be running as a Republican in MA during a presidential year. That's going to be a very tall order for him to do.

    Much like Bob Ehrlich, when he finally faced a strong Democrat who ran a good campaign, he just couldn't win re-election. I expect the same to happen to Brown.

  •  I have long been a propopent of Warren for MA-Sen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rusto, murrayewv

    for the special election and beyond, but the timing is just about perfect for 2012.

    Go Elizabeth!

    One line HCR: Allow Medicare Buy-In for all. Pass it via the reconciliation process.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:34:03 PM PST

  •  Scott Brown is securing his place (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HylasBrook, coffejoe, SteelerGrrl

    And, I predict, the Republican party will make him their spokesman very, very soon. He has already hit the talk circuit, has created a buzz and is talking like the moderate that George W. Bush said he was, but was not.

    It's the same for Brown. He is not a moderate, but he and the Republican party know that it is best if he appears to be so, even if he goes all mavericky on the Republican party and votes with the Democrats on a few innocuous pieces of legislation, just to burnish his bipartisan credentials.

    They are going to use him as the stalking horse for the November 2010 elections. My guess is that the Republicans have done some polling and have found that the Tea Bagger charade (astroturf started by Freedom Watch) is wearing on people and that the "anger" theme may not continue to carry them.

    Note  the backaway from the Teabagger convention. The Republicans are no longer putting their money on Tea Baggers. They are putting it on Scott Brown.

    He is charismatic, memorable and has the same skill that George W. Bush had: appearing to be a folksy, populist moderate.

    The impact of losing this seat has not fully hit yet.  This guy is dangerous and is already maneouvering quickly into "independent" territory.

    Tonight I'm going to party like it's 1929.

    by Bensdad on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:34:11 PM PST

  •  Capuano is my rep (4+ / 0-)

    and I'd campaign for him in a second.

  •  But what issue will Brown vote with (4+ / 0-)

    Dems on? He says he'll vote his own way, which may be true. I feel like, if he wants to win in 2012, he will have to find some major issue where he sides with Obama. It's not going to be hcr, of course. So which issue will it be, I wonder.

  •  Scott Brown was placed (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal, richmonds, HylasBrook, CuriousBoston

    into the Senate by an issue-based election. The swing-voters didn't like the direction of the HCR Bill and the way Obama was handling the push, so they made a statement. Massachusetts is definitely a Democratic state and will vote that way in the 2012 Senate race no matter how Brown handles his seat for the next two years. Panic need not set in just yet. This was just one of those things we need to get past and not let it blur the view for future elections.

    •  Brown is where Bob Ehrlich was in 2002-2006 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, factscount

      Ehrlich came into Annapolis with much fanfare. He had his honeymoon too. When the Democrats nominated someone competent four years later, in such a heavily Democratic state, Ehrlich lost.

    •  Issues based (4+ / 0-)

      nope..disagree...I bet most people don't know where he stands on the issues because you never heard about it on the campaign trail...other than the generic pro jobs, pro tax cuts, and pro driving trucks, and he's pro big bankstah keeping their taxpayer funded bonuses (yet he was also pro teabagger at the same time, appearing at many rallies of theirs and their fundraising events for his campaign).

      Plus, he's only pro tax cuts except when he isn't and thinks taxes should be raised to pay for a prop 2 1/2 override for his daughter's local public school. And so oh you think he's pro public schools/education well on that issues he is (when it benefits his kids) and isn't when his daughters no longer attend public schools or universities in this state so now he votes to cut funding for them. It goes on and on...he was all over the map....took all sides at various points in his life depending on how it served him. Oh and he was for Romneycare yet now he's against Romneycare when it's renamed Obamacare.  Yeah issues based campaign..who knew driving a truck and morphing from JFK into himself was issues based campaigning.

      To announce that there must be no criticism of the not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

      by emal on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:58:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It probably was a perfect storm (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emal, Egalitare

      people were tired of the Kennedys, plus the 2nd generation has had their problems.

      Anger with Patrick and the State legislature.

      Coakley sucked as a candidate.

      The teabag protests might have made an impression.

      Brown can be beaten in 2012 IF the Dems don't f**k up, which is not always a given.

    •  You'll want to look at the polling. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Health care was a very complicated issue in this election and one that didn't cut in one direction. It's hard to draw any simple inferences about its effect on the results of this election, as you're attempting to do here.

    •  Brown didn't win. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare, CuriousBoston

      Coakley was a no-show. It was hers to lose, and she did so, pissing off a huge segment of the electorate in the process.

      Air America listeners, check this out

      by shpilk on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:12:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  extending unemployment benefits..... (0+ / 0-)

      the Rs went for that one.

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

      by murrayewv on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:23:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Capuano would be fine, but Warren could be too (3+ / 0-)

    In defense of Warren's viability (if she were even interested), Coakley's problem wasn't that she was dry, it was that she and the people around her didn't understand their situation and didn't work hard enough when it mattered.  And her signature accomplishments were negative or at least controversial, while Warren's signature accomplishment is completely positive.

    Enrich your life with adverbs!

    by Rich in PA on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:39:58 PM PST

  •  Not sure Warren would be a great Senate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Situational Lefty, CuriousBoston

    candidate. And I'm hoping there is a Consumer Financial Protection Agency in the financial reform bill, and Warren gets to chair it, since I think it was her idea.

  •  If Brown manifests a "independent" streak (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Situational Lefty

    they could primary him from the right I guess that would be called a Teabagging carpetbager/Carpetbagging teabagger.

    Afghanistan:Graveyard to empires-It's not just a bumpersticker

    by JML9999 on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:42:29 PM PST

  •  Dream Candidate (0+ / 0-)

    Barney Frank--because it's about time we elect a gay senator who is actually out--when I think of someone with a clear progressive voice who knows how to play politics and govern, he comes to mind.  But I doubt he will run, and he seems to like his place in the House.  

    •  How old is Barney (0+ / 0-)


    •  Barney would be great. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
    •  Barney likes his spot in the House. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I seem to remember someone asking him about a Senate run and he said 'no way'.

      Air America listeners, check this out

      by shpilk on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:10:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kinda like asking a Master Sargeant with (0+ / 0-)

      20 years in to consider taking a comission.

      Few are guilty, but all are responsible. -- Abraham Joshua Heschel

      by JesseCW on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:29:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He already said no and addressed this (0+ / 0-)

      He said last fall that he would have run in 2005 if Kerry had won the presidency. But with Democratic control of the House and his chairmanship of the Finance Committee, he said he had no interest this year.

      MAYBE Barney will run if Democrats lose the House this fall. But he is relatively old. And if the Republicans only regain the House narrowly, he may stay put hoping they recapture the House in 2012 (if Obama wins reelection).

    •  Frank is too old I think (0+ / 0-)

      And now that he's the Chairman of the Finance Services Committee, I doubt he's going to be giving up that chairmanship to embark on a run agianst an incumbent.  

      But I think an openly LGBT candidate might be a great candidate against Scott Brown.  Any thoughts on who that candidate might be in Massachussetts?  I like Carl Sciortino......he knows how to win elections, he represents a mostly white, blue collar, working class constituency.  I think it's one thing for an openly gay legislator who represents Cambridge or represents Beacon Hill and Back Bay Boston or the Cape....and quite another to represent Medford and Summerville.  He might be a bit too nerdy though and perhaps not well known enough.  

      Now I don't belittle the accomplishment of any openly gay person who can get elected to office.  But I do think that it's rare to see openly gay candidates with working class white constituencies.  You often see openly gay candidates get elected to constituencies that are 1) university towns, 2) wealthy urban districts (the type that would vote right wing in foreign cities but vote left in the United States), 3) resort areas that have large gay populations, 4) blighted mixed race inner cities.  But it is rare to see openly gay and lesbian legislators who have won over working class/middle class white-ethnic constituents.  

  •  I believe Vickie will run if one of the younger (6+ / 0-)

    Kennedy's do not.  

    I think she is pissed that the seat got lost, and will do whatever necessary to see that a Dem is back in power come 2012.

  •  I know this is extremely superficial... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    But one of the assets that Jack and then Bobby and then Teddy always had going for them was their attractiveness and their charisma.

    I wouldn't be opposed to seeing if Joe Kennedy III is a chip off the old block. He's intelligent, apparently really involved in the community, he's young, extremely handsome, and he has that magically last name. If he has half the knack for campaigning and policy his uncles had, Massachusetts could have another liberal Kennedy in the Senate for 50 years.

    Did I mention he's dreamy? (redhed on the left)


    •  I think it might be better to run with (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      murrayewv, sprogga

      a fresh face who isn't a Kennedy.

      •  Yes, with no disrespect meant (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think its just Republicans who have had enough of the assumption that all MA residents will vote for any member of the Kennedy clan.

        Its not the 'Green-neck' state it used to be and people everywhere resent being taken for granted.

        I don't think Brown is in much of a quandary. Even if Teabaggers did decide to primary him, they a) wouldn't get anywhere and b) would burnish his credentials with independent voters. He'll be on the left of the Republican party and will work like hell for his constituents if hes got any sense and will not be in any sense a pushover in 2012.

        I hope that MA Dems don't go for someone untested in political combat no matter how impressive their resume in other areas. This guy should not be underestimated.

        Remember to kick it over.

        by sprogga on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 04:18:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  He must be Joe Kennedy IV though as Joe Kennedy (0+ / 0-)

      III is Bobby's son and Joe Kennedy Jr ( or the II) was Teddy's oldest brother, and of course Joe Sr was the Dad.

      •  Here's the wiki page... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        He was born to Joseph Patrick Kennedy II and Sheila Brewster Rauch and has a younger non-identical twin brother, Matthew Rauch Kennedy.
        Prior to his father's election to the U.S. House of Representatives, Kennedy's father, in 1979, had founded and led Citizens Energy, a non-profit organization that primarily aids low-income families with discounted and free home-heating services and supplies. Since leaving elective office in 1999, his father returned to Citizens Energy and is its chief executive officer.
        His mother is a member of the Brewster and Rauch families, both of which were socially prominent with a tradition in coachbuilding (the Brewsters had owned Brewster & Co., an American coachbuilder.)
        Kennedy's parents were divorced in 1991.
        At May 2009, he is a third-year law student at Harvard.[1]

        So maybe it's a different middle name? His dad is Joe Kennedy II, eldest son of Bobby Kennedy - who named him after his older brother Joe Kennedy Jr, who was killed in WWII.

        So apparently the order goes...

        1. Joseph Kennedy Sr. (Patriarch of the family)
        1. Joseph Kennedy Jr. (Died in WWII)
        1. Joseph Kennedy II (Represented Mass, 8th District)
        1. Joseph Kennedy III (Just about to Graduate Harvard Law, took time off from school to work in the Peace Corps)

        Then again, my ability to keep the Kennedy clan straight starts to fail in the later generations.

    •  Is this Joe Kennedy III's son as Joe Kennedy II (0+ / 0-)

      was Teddy's brother..
      Whose son is he of Teddy's nephews?

    •  Run a Kennedy in MA even if no relation (0+ / 0-)

      Some posts will attract a strong response from those unfamiliar with robust dialogue

      by Eposter on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:20:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's an Irish-American man (0+ / 0-)

      didn't you read the post? Those are LOSERS! (especially in MA)

      America: our highest paid profession is thief.

      by Paul Goodman on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 02:37:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Jim McGovern, possibly? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, jj32, Situational Lefty

    He's the youngest member of the state's congressional delegation--and plus, he's Brown's congressman (Wrentham is in MA-03).

    GOP=Grand Obstructionist Party

    by Christian Dem in NC on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:53:18 PM PST

  •  Markey disappointed me. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He was a sure W, if he had run against Coakley and Brown.

    Now, what's to say? Thanks for nuthin'.

    Bush Bites is a subsidiary of Bush Bites Inc., a registered corporate personhood.

    by Bush Bites on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:57:14 PM PST

  •  Don't waste Warren..... (4+ / 0-)

    Don't waste Dr. Warren in the Senate, that cesspool
    of corruption.
    She belongs in Obama's cabinet - now!  The woman is
    smart and tells the truth, and she's got strength in
    argumentation and debate. She'd be right in place
    in a cabinet position.
    The Senate is quite another matter; she is literally
    too good for them!

  •  Coaklet shouldn't be dog catcher. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Situational Lefty

    She's horrible. Still cannot get over the fact Capuano was not nominated: he would have smashed Staple-boy right where it hurt and trounced him.

    Capuano wouldn't have ignored the minority communities in metro areas. If he doesn't run, any the Kennedy family would be a great choice - MA just isn't MA, missing a Kennedy serving in office.

    Air America listeners, check this out

    by shpilk on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:08:34 PM PST

  •  Joe's making noises, no? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I saw a story in the Globe where he said that not running this time was maybe a mistake...

  •  Maybe Harold Ford in MA if NY doesn't work out (5+ / 0-)

    Some posts will attract a strong response from those unfamiliar with robust dialogue

    by Eposter on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:26:40 PM PST

  •  Reelecting a Teabagger Senator (0+ / 0-)

    Unless the Ed King/Tommy Finneran/Joe Tully Mass. machine ConservaDems get one of their own nominated (e.g. Lynch), I don't see any reason they wouldn't vote to reelect Brown.  They were the ones that elected Cellucci over Harshbarger, and there's no indication they've changed their spots in the past decade.

    If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas...They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves. ~ H. Zinn

    by ActivistGuy on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:42:33 PM PST

    •  I would remind you though (0+ / 0-)

      Ed King was defeated in his bid for renomination to Michael Dukakis in 1982, who went on to win back the Governorship easily. Unless the Democratic candidate campaigns like Coakley, Brown I think is toast.

      •  Brown is NOT toast (0+ / 0-)

        He is excellent and tireless campaigner and it will take equally excellent and tireless candidate from Democratic ranks to have a good chance to defeat him. Mediocre candidate will lose to Brown and it won't be so great sensation

  •  Meanwhile... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Situational Lefty

    ...the new poster child of the GOP is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. I wonder how many of his teabaggy internet contributors realized this?

    I'd like to see the DNC put out a statement congratulating the republican party for electing a senator who is a supporter of choice and gay rights. Then see how long it takes for him to be shunned by his party.

  •  brown 2012 (0+ / 0-)

    Brown will play the centrist and probably win re-election.  We need to worry about the closer alligator to the boat and that is Colorado, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas.

    A citizen accepts responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not!

  •  Best candidate might be Jim McGovern (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pademocrat, Situational Lefty

    An outstanding progressive with strong support in the middle of the state.  It's true that the state will lose one seat in redistricting--it will probably pit Lynch against someone--maybe Capuano, but it's Lynch who will seem like the odd man out.  He can't win a statewide primary 1:1 against any other leading Dem.

    Another possibility is Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary and runner-up in the gubernatorial primary in 2006.    

    If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him.

    by jhannon on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 04:10:59 PM PST

  •  Niki Tsongas for Senate! (0+ / 0-)

    Her late husband Paul Tsongas defeated Edward Brooke, the last GOP Senator from MA before Scott Brown. Her district also covers Lowell and Lawrence so she'd have a strong base to work with.

    •  What has she done that warrants this (0+ / 0-)

      enthusiasm? She won her initial special election primary rather like Coakley: on name recognition. She wasn't the most impressive candidate by a long shot. The big difference is that she eked out a win against Jim Ogonowski in her special instead of losing to Scott Brown.

      She's not an exciting campaigner, and we've just lost the seat because we didn't have an exciting campaigner.

      If you can convince me that she's accomplished important things as a member of Congress and that she's run a barnburner of a campaign, that's one thing. But pushing her because of her late husband in a diary where people are pointing out that political nepotism isn't a great idea—it just doesn't convince.

      © sardonyx; all rights reserved

      by sardonyx on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 07:04:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thought it was funny (0+ / 0-)

      for Barbara Walters to get censored on the View for talking about the Cosmo spread.  Apparently Brown wrote her a nice note.  I find it ironic since Walters had an affair with the last Republican Senator from Massachussetts.  

  •  From a very strong Boston Progressive (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Situational Lefty

    There are two possibilities here; Either Brown votes as a true independent Conservative, and then stands a chance of being re-elected against a MA progressive, or he retreats to the teabagger base to avoid a primary challenge. MA won't tolerate that.

    There's actually a third possibility and I hate to admit that Rush Limbaugh came up with it. Rushbo thinks that Brown has an unethical streak that will come out. I think it's commendable that the Democrats are sticking to policy, while "the druggie" is thinking dirty.

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    by MrMichaelMT on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 05:32:25 PM PST

  •  Any Dem Not Brown (0+ / 0-)
  •  Big Field is not necessarily a strong one (0+ / 0-)

    I think Coakley's loss in the special election after a fractured primary shows the dangers of having a primary candidate elected by a plurality. I'd be more interested in seeing a candidate comes into this thing totally loaded for bear and crushes their primary opponents than anything at this point.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 07:21:50 PM PST

  •  Joe Kennedy III- looks exactly like joe and joe j (0+ / 0-)


    Sorry I have to run to the Senate floor to abolish torture.

    by bten on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 07:21:40 AM PST

  •  What about Carl Sciortino? (0+ / 0-)
  •  My favorite but have some second thoughts (0+ / 0-)

    Capuano is by far my favorite.  However, I think he maxed out his support.   He ran a pretty spirited campaign as the progressive and didnt come close to Coakley.  

    Alan Khazei came out of nowhere and quickly gathered a lot of limosine liberal support.   He did well in debate and displayed an appealing nonpolitician honesty.   He has gobs of money and media connections.    

    I would have some confidence in Khazei to build on his campaign and connections and to have enough money to compete with Brown.  

    Money is a big factor.   Brown saturated the media and still has 4 million left over--almost as much as Coakley had total.  

    Just a thought.  

  •  Any chance Frank would reconsider? (0+ / 0-)

    Let's say a financial reform bill actually passes in the next year, ... Might Barney not consider winning this seat back to be as important his chairmanship?

    by Dissento on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:01:27 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site