h/t:
Ed Brayton and
Steve Benen(via Benen)
The Boston Globe reported on Christmas Eve that Tea Party groups in Massachusetts began considering challenging Scott Brown in the 2012 Republican US Senate primary:
WASHINGTON — Senator Scott Brown’s decision to buck his party leadership in recent days on the “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ military policy and on a nuclear arms treaty has set off a new wave of anger among some of the activists who helped elect him — and renewed talk among conservatives that he might face a primary challenge.
Some Tea Party movement leaders who dislike Brown’s votes acknowledge that the Massachusetts Republican has demonstrated his independent and pragmatic streak, and by doing so may strengthen his chances at reelection in 2012. No primary challenger has emerged, and it is unclear whether a newcomer could wage a serious fight against Brown and his $6.8 million war chest.
Benen comments:
I can see why the GOP's hysterical base would feel some disappointment. Brown voted for DADT repeal, Wall Street reform, and New START ratification, and far-right activists were on the other side on each of these measures.
But Brown is running for a full term in Massachusetts. What's more, he'll be doing so in 2012 -- when President Obama will be at the top of the ballot and Democratic voters will be turning out in greater numbers.
Throwing some underfunded no-name at Brown would seem to be about as sensible as throwing some underfunded no-name at Mike Castle and Lisa Murkowski. But Tea Party zealots did just that in 2010, and may not have learned any lessons in advance of 2012.
Steve Kornacki, columnist for
Salon.com's "War Room" blog (via Brayton),
comments:
The GOP primary electorate in Massachusetts is also tiny. Less than 15 percent of the state's voters are enrolled in the GOP, so it's not entirely out of the question that Brown, if he continues to break with his party in high-profile votes in 2011, could find himself facing a tricky road to re-nomination in 2012. In fact, with the incoming Republican House poised to push through Tea Party-friendly legislation (perhaps defunding healthcare and Wall Street reform, for instance), Brown could be on the spot more than ever next year. Vote against the Tea Party's agenda and the GOP base's frustration with him will grow; go along with it and his popularity with the general election audience could dip. (And given that this is Massachusetts, he doesn't have much of a margin of error with the latter group.)
That said, if Brown is challenged, he should be boosted by the ability of independent voters to participate in Massachusetts primaries. This was how the socially liberal William Weld fended off conservative state Rep. Steven Pierce in the 1990 Republican gubernatorial primary -- a race that Pierce, who overwhelmingly won the endorsement of the (much more conservative) state GOP convention, had been favored to win. Plus, Brown enjoys some goodwill with the Tea Party rank-and-file, even though he's disappointed them on some votes. He came onto the national scene as their candidate; many of them are probably willing to cut him some slack. This could insulate him in a way that Elliot Richardson, who lost the 1984 GOP Senate primary to conservative Ray Shamie (who went on to serve as state party chairman), and Ed Brooke, who barely survived a 1978 primary challenge from right-wing radio host Avi Nelson, weren't. Neither Richardson, who famously stood up to Richard Nixon at the height of Watergate, nor Brooke, a two-term senator with a solidly liberal voting record, ever had much credibility with conservatives.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
