BYRON HARVEY

We have witnessed, as all the pundits are telling us and as I agree, perhaps the most shocking political upset of my lifetime: Scott Brown, a relatively unknown Republican, has won a five-point-margin victory over a well-heeled, well-known (in Massachusetts) Democrat to claim the seat filled for nearly a half-century by the gargantuan posterior of Ted Kennedy, the Liberal Lion of the U.S. Senate. Driving to our Wednesday morning men’s meeting, I remarked to my friend Mike that I wonder if even Scott Brown thought such an outcome possible when he captured the Republican nomination. As recently as 10 days ago, this looked like an impossible dream: perhaps Brown might make a good showing (as I began to think this past weekend), but actually win the seat? I didn’t believe that possible until Monday, and dared not get my hopes too high until the win was announced last evening.

As we might have expected, the liberal media is in a dither. If you didn’t watch moonbat Keith Olbermann’s rant, it’s really worth the watch; click here for a good laugh. On MSNBC last evening–which I had to watch to see how the ultra-libs would handle this beatdown–Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow were, to their credit, relatively decent in the little bit I saw, but Matthews was talking about Brown’s win in terms of tactics, of how difficult it was for a woman to blah blah blah, and I thought, “that’s right, guys, keep thinking that this is all about tactics, and there won’t be 10 Democrat-Socialists left in D.C.”.

This will, of course, change a whole lot. It’s ironic that today marks the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s swearing in, and if we’ve learned anything in the past year, it’s that America bought the sizzle, but there’s no steak there. None. A little gristle and fat, maybe, but not any steak. Sure sizzles though, don’t it? Any Democrat-Socialist who doesn’t read this as a massive rejection of the Obama policies heretofore offered is either sleepwalking or clueless. No, Mr. President, we don’t want to see the “radical transformation” of America. We didn’t like where GWB took us in his eight years, sure, but we don’t want to become a socialist utopia nor a banana republic, thank you. And so this will significantly alter things in Washington; health care has gone from being a sure thing to a life-support proposition; there’s no good way now, it seems, for the Democrats to get this thing done, and there’s no real political win to be had either. Funny: Brit Hume and Rachel Maddow had the exact opposite takes on what the Dems needed to do with health care–and I think they are both correct, incidentally, depending on who they’re talking to and about. Hume says that the Democrats will win by losing on health care, that if they ram this thing through, they’ll further alienate an electorate that has made its feelings quite clear on the subject, but if they don’t pass health care, the intensity of the opposition might subside. Maddow says that the Dems desperately need a win, that if they head into the mid-term elections with nothing to show for a year of trying to get health care passed, there’ll be hell to pay at the polls. Hume is correct–if we’re talking about independents and swing voters. Maddow is correct–if we’re talking about Democrats. Either way, it ain’t pretty for the donkeys, that’s for sure…which tickles me pink, of course, not because I’m a Republican–I’m not, and how we can extend to the Republicans much credibility after their Bush years shenanigans is beyond me–but because I hate the thought of creeping socialism destroying what has been a pretty darn good country for a long time.

Now, to Scott Brown himself. He deserves a lot of congratulation and a lot of appreciation as the embodiment of the frustration that a significant percentage of Americans are feeling these days, and for translating that frustration into political victory. Had I been living in Massachusetts, I’d have readily voted for Scott Brown, and I’m excited that he won. But…

But, had Scott Brown been running for the U.S. Senate from Georgia, I’d not have given the man the time of day. He’s pretty “moderate” for my tastes, particularly on some (not all, thankfully) of the social issues that matter to me. Ronald Reagan, he ain’t. He’s certainly better than Arlen the Wonder Senator (who will probably now, finger moistened and windward, switch back to the Republican Party), and he’s better than the two Maine RINOs and probably a couple others, and he (hopefully) believes what he believes and isn’t Lindsey Graham. Perhaps my paragraph above reflects the pragmatist in me; in the context of Massachusetts, he’s about the best you’re going to get, and given the situation and the stakes, voting for him was the right call; Libertarian purity isn’t something I insist on. And…

And, Scott Brown isn’t Jesus. Nor, for that matter, is the most conservative libertarian-minded person out there. Nor was Ronaldus Maximus. Scott Brown didn’t die for my sins; Scott Brown didn’t rise from the grave. Scott Brown isn’t the Messiah, and Scott Brown won’t deliver me from bondage. The conservative movement might help us live a little better life here in America and provide true hope for more Americans than any other political movement, but if we make the mistake–again–of putting our hopes in any political movement or party or person, we’re courting disaster on so many fronts. And so let us–momentarily–rejoice in the victory of Scott Brown and what it will mean in the derailing of the worst parts of this administration’s quasi-Socialist agenda. But let us not get so caught up in this victory that we either let down our guard–remembering that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance–or that we render to any Caesar that which alone, and rightfully, belongs to God.