Brown's victory — some called it "the Scott heard round the world" — on the eve of the first anniversary of Barack Obama's Inauguration was an ominous sign for Democrats for the midterm elections ahead and a potentially crippling blow to Obama's entire agenda. Brown ran explicitly on a promise to be the "41st Senator," who would give the Republicans the power to block what he called "the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people," one that will "raise taxes, hurt Medicare, destroy jobs and run our nation deeper into debt."

That such a message would resonate here was poignant, given that no one had fought harder and longer than Kennedy for universal health care, something that the terminally ill liberal lion had referred to before his death in August as "the cause of my life." And it was all the more ironic considering that Massachusetts has come closer than any other state to assuring coverage to all of its citizens, thanks to a 2006 law that was championed by a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, who was celebrating onstage with Brown on election night.

Although the rest of the country sees Massachusetts as the bluest of blue states — it had not elected a Republican Senator since Richard Nixon was President — its political complexion is actually more subtle. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1, but fully half the state's voters are registered "unenrolled" — not affiliated with any party. And four of its last five governors have been Republicans, albeit ones of a more moderate stripe than that of the national party.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Culture-Watch • Health & Medicine • --The 2009 American Health Care Reform Debate • * Economics, Politics • Politics in General • Office of the President • President George Bush • Senate

1. dwstroudmd wrote: But, but, but ... the NYT and the the Saint Louis Post -Dispatch both say that this is not so!  How, then, could it be? St. Louis Post Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/uncategorized/2010/01/in-year-2-whats-good-for-massachusetts/ Reality.  It’s how you spin it! January 22, 10:04 am | [comment link]

2. Marie Blocher wrote: “And four of its last five governors have been Republicans, albeit ones of a more moderate stripe than that of the national party.” And even Dukakis was fiscally conservative, running on a platform of bringing down the state’s debt and lowering taxes, which he did. That in turn lured companies into the state and created jobs. Despite the liberalism of the Boston area (all those colleges and academic types) there is an atmosphere in the rest of the state of trying to help those less fortunate while living within the income. That is why so many can’t sign on with either the Republicans or the Democrats. January 22, 11:59 am | [comment link]

3. upnorfjoel wrote: Remember folks…this one was all due to voter disatisfaction with George W. Bush, AND with the same anger that propelled Obama into office.  I think that this analysis is supposed to be explored further in an exclusive on Air America tonight.  Wait…no, that can’t be it…. January 22, 3:53 pm | [comment link]

Registered members must log in to comment.