P/sunny
68°
P/sunny
Hi 71° | Lo 42°

Editorial: Scott Brown for president? Really?

Just when we were getting used to the idea of Scott Brown morphing into a Granite Stater and giving U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen a run for her money in the 2014 election (not to mention potential Republican competitors Bob Smith, Jeb Bradley, Karen Testerman and Jim Rubens), he seems to have his eye on an even bigger prize.

Brown, the former Republican U.S. senator from Massachusetts, spent the weekend in Iowa where, he told CNN, he’s peddling two messages: “Washington’s dysfunctionality” and the notion that the Republican Party “has room for everybody.”

“You have the Rand Pauls, the Sarah Palins. You have people like me and Chris Christie and others. There should be room for all of us. We shouldn’t be vilified or demonized when we are trying to present our positions,” he said.

Brown vaulted to national fame when, as a “moderate,” he won a special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by liberal icon Ted Kennedy. Three years later, he lost it to Democrat Elizabeth Warren. Since then, he has considered a run for the Senate from New Hampshire; for governor of Massachusetts; and, now, for president.

Really?

The notion of political “moderation” means different things to different people – especially at a time when the Republican Party is in thrall to uncompromising extremists. Brown describes himself as a bipartisan problem-solver – conservative on matters of fiscal policy, less so on some social issues, and willing to work with Democrats to get things done. In 2012, he said he did not share Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s “world view” and criticized his party’s increasingly right-leaning national tilt; of course, he was trying to win a race in Massachusetts at the time.

It’s hard to understand Brown’s presidential strategy. Surely he knows the track record of similar candidates in recent years. (Anyone remember Jon Huntsman?) Surely the more accomplished Christie of New Jersey will be making a similar pitch to potential voters.

Yes, national party leaders are rightly eager to broaden their party’s appeal. But the early presidential voting – particularly in Iowa and South Carolina – is typically dominated by right-wing activists eager for an ever more partisan, more conservative nominee. Even in a New Hampshire Senate race, Brown faces the substantial task of convincing voters he is more than just a carpetbagger looking for a ticket back to Washington – not to mention a formidable Democratic opponent. But it strikes us he might just have better luck here than on the national stage.

John Huntsman was probably the most capable and experienced in the last election. He rec'd virtually no coverage from the national soc/left media machine. The mags would not carry positive stories. Politics and media - I think the mirror just cracked.

I liked Huntsman a lot. For some reason he just was not able to get his message across and out there. Not sure if he did not have enough funds while campaigning, or what. The media I think saw others as more of a threat. Too bad voters are not more informed. Huntsman was a good choice.

Agreed. He was my choice as well.

Hmmm...I remember Huntsman campaigning for RTW in NH. Reported in this paper. Thats a positive story in my book.

and yet even Hillary is considered Presidential material - the least qualified of them all

I agree that it's premature for Brown to even fantasize about occupying the White House. And yes guys, I DO remember Jon Huntsman. I voted for him last primary and I'd vote for him again. Or Chris Christie. Or Scott Brown for that matter. We need these kind of free-thinking, independent, moderate voices in the GOP if it is to survive the onslaught of tea-party/free-state/libertarian craziness.

Interesting...tea-party/free-state/libertarians..pretty sure the Republicans dont want them voting for democrats...not when sitting presidents only get 51% of the vote...

News flash to Monitor Editorial Board. You have absolutely zero credibility and standing to suggest what Republicans should do. It is the democrat party that is in the thralls of uncompromising extremists like Obama, Reid, and "You have to vote for it to find out whats in it" Pelosi. When are you going to realize your tactic of being a Guardian of Ignorance and finally expose Obama for what he is a total fraud and the Worst President Ever? Or will you continue your ruse falsely portraying law abiding Tea Partiers as something they are not? My guess that you are bound to the Guardian of Ignorance ruse.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.