Why Scott Brown Will Win Today

Of all the seats in all the states, who would have ever thought that the U.S. Senate seat held by Teddy Kennedy would change the course of our national debate and direction. Why will Scott Brown win today? What are the voters of Massachusetts saying?

Political pundits and the media establishment will try to pin a Democratic loss today on the piss-poor campaign run by Martha Coakley. In doing so, they will once again display that they are tone deaf and out of step with America.

Over the last year, I have seen and felt our nation get wise to the stench in Washington and on Wall Street. As such, a poorly run Coakley campaign is perhaps the least of the factors impacting the race in Massachusetts today. The electorate in the Bay State is unbelievably energized and in my opinion will deliver Scott Brown and a strong message to Washington for the following reasons:

1. An anti-establishment and anti-incumbent vote. America knows the Washington Way is a major part of our nation’s problem. Republicans should not think a Brown vote and victory is an endorsement of their platform and their people. America wants truth, transparency, and integrity. America is sick and tired of Washington’s lies and self-dealing.

2. An Obama referendum. Barack Obama’s idea of change has proven to be nothing more than Chicago-style backroom politics pushed by his main hack, Rahm Emanuel. This style is exemplified by the ‘bribes’ paid to Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) for their support of Obama’s healthcare reform.

The MA voters are also sending a message that the Obama administration’s forsaking the ways and means of his agenda to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others on the far left-wing of our political spectrum is unacceptable.

I will credit Obama for some degree of success in combating terrorism overseas but that is more than neutralized by the near disaster of the Christmas Day terrorist attempt on the flight into Detroit. Obama has gotten nothing done in terms of financial regulatory reform. Obama’s economic ’success’ is nothing more than the ballooning of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and the financial shell games played by Tim Geithner. Those programs were actually put in place largely by the Bush administration.

America understands these realities like never before. Why? Because Americans aren’t working. Obama’s stimulus plan was largely a political payoff to those who supported his candidacy.

3. A healthcare referendum. The one state in the union that currently has universal healthcare is Massachusetts. A Brown vote and victory today is a strong repudiation of this type of reform.

4. A vote for transparency. Obama repeatedly campaigned on putting the healthcare debate on C-Span. It never happened. Obama’s economic henchmen Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, and Mary Schapiro are viewed as protecting Wall Street while pandering to Main Street. The lack of transparency from the Fed, Treasury, the SEC, and FINRA (Wall Street’s self-regulator) is causing America to vomit. The stench from America’s barf bags being sent to Washington is actually an improvement on the odor filling that town.

These four overriding reasons have put Scott Brown in a position to shock Washington and its broken political process. This evening, I expect we will hear much of the gaffes made by Coakley and her supporters, including Patrick Kennedy and Barack Obama. These gaffes are not merely errors in political style but rather an indication that Coakley, her team, and her supporters are out of touch with the electorate.

The four factors highlighted above are coursing through Massachusetts and America. Both Massachusetts and America are shouting and screaming to be heard. The political machines from both sides of the aisle are fully capable of drowning out the American voice for a period. In fact, Washington’s career politicians are fully capable of never hearing this voice. A Brown victory today will deliver that message not only to Washington’s ears but also right up Washington’s ass.

They deserve it.

About Larry Doyle 522 Articles

Larry Doyle embarked on his Wall Street career in 1983 as a mortgage-backed securities trader for The First Boston Corporation. He was involved in the growth and development of the secondary mortgage market from its near infancy.

After close to 7 years at First Boston, Larry joined Bear Stearns in early 1990 as a mortgage trader. In 1993, Larry was named a Senior Managing Director at the firm. He left Bear to join Union Bank of Switzerland in late 1996 as Head of Mortgage Trading.

In 1998, after 15 years of trading and precipitated by Swiss Bank’s takeover of UBS, Larry moved from trading to sales as a senior salesperson at Bank of America. His move into sales led him to the role as National Sales Manager for Securitized Products at JP Morgan Chase in 2000. He was integrally involved in developing the department, hiring 40 salespeople, and generating $300 million in sales revenue. He left JP Morgan in 2006.

Throughout his career, Larry eagerly engaged clients and colleagues. He has mentored dozens of junior colleagues, recruited at a number of colleges and universities, and interviewed hundreds. He has also had extensive public speaking experience. Additionally, Larry served as Chair of the Mortgage Trading Committee for the Public Securities Association (PSA) in the mid-90s.

Larry graduated Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa in 1983 from the College of the Holy Cross.

Visit: Sense On Cents

5 Comments on Why Scott Brown Will Win Today

  1. Excellent article, you’ve hit the nail on the head. We are all sick of Washington, and I hope this throw the bums out feeling lasts till next November.

  2. I’m not so sure that a Brown vote really is a repudiation of universal healthcare. I thought his talking points were since Mass. already has it, why do we need to pay additionally for the federal program? He has stated, I believe, that he’s not against reform in itself, but rather how the Dems have played so unfairly and in such an extreme partisan fashion.

    • Nat,

      Perhaps I should have been more pointed in stating that Brown is not supportive of the form or substance of the legislation as drafted by the Democratic establishment in Washington. In my opinion, Brown’s stance against that form and that substance is largely reflective of the national mood.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*