Rush Limbaugh, Scott Brown, and John Kerry: Who Exactly is Screwing Up?

      Rush Limbaugh is dismayed by Brown's epiphany in favor of gun control:

      "Rush Limbaugh blasted outgoing-Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) on Thursday for backing a federal ban on assault weapons, saying Brown would “lose forever” for his political posturing on guns.
Brown became the first Republican senator to back a renewed assault weapons ban during an interview Wednesday."

He has guaranteed that, if he’s gonna stay a Republican, he’s gonna lose forever now. This is how Republicans lose. He may pick up some independents with it, but I don’t even think he’s gonna do that,” the conservative commentator said on his radio program, according to a show transcript.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/rush-brown-screwing-up-on-gun-ban-85379.html#ixzz2FnUL2klP


     I find this funny that this guy is supposedly the kingmaker in American conservatism-or was at one time. It's tough to say who really is today, but surely many conservatives look at him as the true voice of American conservatism. However, Rush despite his pomposity-he likes to say he's right 98.6% of the time or something-has never been big on getting things right.

     Here he gets Brown's finding religion on gun control totally wrong. What's not happening is Brown screwing up. He's actually got a plan, a strategy that other Republicans like John McCain are clearly in on as well.

      First of all, this is Massachusetts-how many Republicans are there anyway in Mass? Clearly Brown will need to do very well among independents and Democrats. What's actually being orchestrated is pretty clear. The day after his defeat at the hands of Elizabeth Warren he was already singing John Kerry's praises for Secretary of State. Then the GOP all ganged up on Susan Rice. At the same time McCain and others were assuring Obama that they think Kerry would be very highly qualified.

     What Brow and the other GOPers have seemed to do is orchestrate an impressive coup. With Rice gone the only choice on Obama's short list was Kerry. Kerry is expected to be confirmed-the Republicans want him as much if not even more than the Democrats at this point-which will vacate Kerry's Massachusetts Senate seat, clearing the way for guess who to run for it in another special election like the one he won in 2011 for the late Ted Kennedy's seat?

    So Massachusetts may not have 2 Democratic Senators-as God no doubt intended for it to have-for very long. And Rush thinks Brown's selling out? The reality is Brown is no more desirable than he was against Warren. She was losing until she hit the right line of attack: pointing out that a vote for him is a vote for Mitch McConnell and the GOP machine. Whether you like Brown or not he's just a cog in the machine.

    If he were elected the Senate would actually be just a little bit less likely to pass gun control than they are now. I'm not so impressed with his claim to now get it about assault weapons. During the last 2 years he didn't provide the Democrats with the deciding vote too often-more likely when they already had it he'd sometimes add his 'me too.' He can now claim to get gun control but there is no cost for him doing this. His previous record is not friendly to gun control and my guess is he hasn't really changed his position just doing a Mitt Romney and claiming that he has.

    Greg Sargent, however, isn't so concerned about losing Kerry in the Senate.

    "While it’s certainly the case that every Senator counts, I don’t think the risk that Obama is taking here is all that strong. He’s not risking the 60th Senator or the 51st Senator, certainly not during the coming Congress. Even with a strong potential Republican contender, Massachusetts remains an overwhelmingly Democratic state, and it’s hard to see Brown as a real favorite to take the seat. If he did win, he would have to do it again, with the special election only filling the seat until the 2014 regular election. Indeed, many have speculated that Brown would have a safer path if he ran for governor in 2014."

     "And look, John Kerry turned 69 earlier this month. For all we know, he might not even have decided to run for another term in 2014, leaving the seat open anyway. The Senate matters — but so does the State Department, and the executive branch in general. If Obama really does believe that Kerry was the best person for the job, then it’s not a crazy risk to run that Democrats can hold the seat, especially since they’ll have two chances at it (assuming that is, that Brown would be finished if he lost the first time, and that no other Republican has a realistic chance of winning). It’s reasonable to expect Obama to weigh the costs of risking a Senate seat as part of his calculation in making these choices, but it shouldn’t be the only consideration — and the particular context matters, whether it’s the current exact balance of the Senate or the state of play in Massachusetts."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2012/12/21/dont-worry-too-much-about-john-kerrys-senate-seat/

     Much of what he says is true. Certainly it's possible Kerry would have stepped down in 2014. Let's hope Sargent is also right that the Democrats are the favorite to win the seat against even Brown. Still, while it's not risking the 51st or 60th Senator, we live in the era of the Mitch McConnell filibuster as a ubiquitous part of American life in the Senate. Every vote counts to getting anything done and the Dems' chances are always going to be logically better with Senator John Kerry than Senator Scott Brown.

     I still don't feel too great about what happened to Susan Rice. However, Sargent is certainly right that the President shouldn't allow the Senate issue drive his entire decision.