The Man Who’ll Kill Obamacare?

Boston

Ask a typical 50-year-old Republican running for office when and why he became a Republican, and you’ll likely hear a nostalgic story related to Ronald Reagan. Ask GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown, and he replies, “I’d really have to check that far back. I really don’t have the time, nor do I care” to do “all this self-analysis.” He says he’s “fiscally more in tune with the Republicans,” but hastens to add that “recently Republicans have kind of lost their way” on such matters. 

Welcome to Massachusetts, where Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one and where state senator Brown, who’s making a bid for Ted Kennedy’s seat in the January 19 special election, would rather point out similarities between himself and JFK and sometimes even Barack Obama. Republicans and Tea Party activists are nonetheless flooding the phone banks and knocking on doors for Brown. “The pro-life movement is really excited,” says John Rowe of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Yet Brown declares on his website that abortion is a decision that should be made by a “woman in consultation with her doctor,” i.e., he’s (moderately) pro-choice. 

No matter. Brown has won the enthusiasm of fiscal and social conservatives and many independents largely by promising to be the “41st vote” to uphold a filibuster against the Democrats’ health care legislation, which still needs to pass the House and Senate again before it can become law. While it’s possible that Democratic negotiations for a compromise bill could break down on Capitol Hill, the best shot at killing the legislation may be electing Brown to the Senate.

A poll released January 5 by Rasmussen Reports startled the political community. It suggested that Brown could conceivably pull off a stunning upset: He was within striking distance of his Democratic opponent, Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley. While Brown trailed Coakley 50 percent to 41 percent, Rasmussen noted that “special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote, and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact,” the pollster added, “among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley.”

On January 7, the Cook Political Report moved the race from its “solid Democratic” column to “leans Democratic”—just one notch away from “toss-up.” Remember: This is Massachusetts. The Democrats hold nearly 90 percent of state house seats and all of the congressional delegation; no Republican has won a U.S. Senate seat here since 1972; and Barack Obama carried the state by 26 points. 

There are a few reasons why Brown has some hope. First, the national mood has turned against the Democratic party. Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics calculates that if Massachusetts registers a swing equal to the average of the swings in the Virginia and New Jersey electorates between the 2008 presidential contest and the 2009 gubernatorial elections, Coakley will win by a mere 51 percent to 49 percent. Trende does offer a few caveats, though, including that Massachusetts is more liberal than those states, and that Senate races tend to be more partisan than gubernatorial races.

Second, the mood in Massachusetts has turned against the state’s top Democrat, Governor Deval Patrick. About six in ten voters disapprove of the job he’s doing, and the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Charlie Baker, has outraised Patrick ten-to-one in campaign contributions. Brown is running against the Democrats who control both Washington and Massachusetts. 

Coakley herself has a number of vulnerabilities. An uninspiring if competent candidate, she is aiming to run out the clock. She has agreed to a handful of debates only on condition that libertarian candidate Joseph Kennedy (no relation to Teddy) be there to attack Brown from the right. Just one debate will be broadcast on live TV in the state’s largest market (on January 11). 

Coakley has been avoiding the media. When asked by The Weekly Standard following a January 5 radio debate if she thought Governor Patrick was doing a good job, she initially declined to answer and walked away. After huddling with campaign staffers, she reemerged only to say that Patrick is “doing the best that he can under those economic circumstances.” 

The attorney general’s record as a prosecutor also has come under scrutiny. The Boston Globe ran a damning story on January 6 on Coakley’s lax prosecution of a child rapist in 2005. The rapist (later put away by a -different prosecutor) roamed the streets for two years after Coakley failed to recommend that he be held on bail. Asked for comment late Wednesday, Scott Brown said he hadn’t read the paper and added that people are free to examine both his and her public actions as lawyers.