Massachusetts

I would have loved to have posted predicting that Scott Brown would when the Massachusetts Senate election last Tuesday. In fact, had I posted, I would of posted a prediction that the Democrat Coakley was going to win the election. I thought it would be close, but I simply could not wrap my mind around the idea of a Republican winning a Senate election in Massachusetts. I particularly could not grasp the idea of a Republican winning Ted Kennedy's old seat.

Yet that is exactly what happened on Tuesday. Brown's margin of victory was every bit as convincing President Obama's victory last November.

There are lessons for both parties in the outcome of this election. For Democrats it should be obvious: the country has problems with your agenda. When one of the most liberal states in the union says it is not like your agenda, that is a problem. Independents actually make up the largest bloc of voters in Massachusetts and it was the independents that turned on the Democrats. In November 2008 Independents turned on the Republicans. The message is, while independents were not happy with the Bush years, that did not mean they favored a return to FDR and LBJ style big government. For the last year, it seems that the only thing President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have been interested in growing the size of government. Jobs? Yes, they wanted to create government jobs and bail out the auto workers' unions. They misread the results of the 2008 election. Not everyone works for the government or belongs to a union.

For the Republicans the risk is reading too much into this election. While this election outcome, as well as the outcomes in New Jersey and Virginia last November are cause for hope, they did not mean the Republican brand is back. The candidates who won, won not because of the "R" after their name, but because of what they were saying. What they were saying was they favored lower taxes, less government intrusion into our lives and that they opposed the government takeover of health care. It is also interesting with these candidates were not talking about: they were not talking about their opposition to abortion or their opposition to gay marriage, and they were not talking about cracking down on illegal immigration. They were talking about kitchen table issues that matter to people. As a well know Democratic consultant once said, "It's the economy, stupid".

The lesson from Massachusetts should be that when Republicans focus on economic issues that really matter to people, they win. Despite President Obama's victory November 2008, this remains a center-right country. The current administration and current leadership of the Congress is nowhere near center-right, they are best described as left. They have pushed big government, higher taxes, and the redistribution of wealth. They are not offering solutions to the country wants and they are not talking about the issues that most people care about.

Therefore, while Republicans can feel that there is an opening to restore the Republican brand, they are still selling a brand that needs restoration. In the 2010 elections, Republicans need to offer an economic vision that is appealing to the country. I believe this will mean lower taxes, less government regulation and a plan for creating jobs. Much as the public did not view health care as the greatest challenge facing the country at this time, the public does not view gay marriage, or even illegal immigration, as the greatest challenge facing the nation. If Republican candidates allow themselves to get lost in these issues they will not be victorious. I am not advocating "moderate" Republican candidates over socially conservative candidates. What I am saying is: if Republicans can articulate a clear economic message, there is a real opening for making big gains in Congress in 2010.

In the meantime, a Republican holds a Kennedy sees in the United States Senate. Did we ever think we would live to see it?