Snowflakes in Hell

So the other day I highlighted a candidate for Congress who doesn’t have a chance. Then I pondered why Bob Brady wanted her off the ballot – I assumed it was because his ego was too fat to allow anyone else on it.

In all of that, I assumed her campaign didn’t have much money. Well, I still think that political reality shows this is an more than an uphill battle for Pia – more like climbing the Alps – but I was wrong about the resources in her attempt at a PR coup. She has full page ads in both Philadelphia papers today. They stop you in your tracks, and they get right to heart of matter – “Hate Philly Politics?”

Damn straight, people do hate it. And clearly enough people hate it to help her buy some these ads. And hopefully these ads will lead to more volunteers and votes.

It’s not just a little gun control the Democrats seeking the gubernatorial bid are going for – they are all in. It’s a sad thing to say – the most moderate only wants to ban your EBRs. And, to some degree, Jack Wagner really only said he supported it previously. I haven’t seen him release an action plan to take them. And, yes, that puts him far above the other options for Democratic gun owners have on their primary ballot.

Take Dan Onorato. Apparently, there was early speculation that he was pretty pro-gun. He squashed that rumor at his campaign launch saying that any speculation about his support of the Second Amendment was “a mischaracterization.” Turns out that may be the understatement of the year.

Yesterday, he released his “plan for safe communities.” In it, we find a plan to end preemption (say goodbye to carry in Philly!), a proposal for statewide lost-and-stolen, and a plan to challenge Heller/McDonald.

Say what?

Yup. Dan Onoranto wants to force all gun owners who have minors in the home to lock their guns. Apparently he missed that key part in Heller:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

You don’t lose your right to read scary news or watch violent movies just because there are kids in the home. You shouldn’t lose your right to self-defense over the same. There is a factor of common sense, but that hasn’t been a serious problem for the overwhelming majority of families. Just like most parents don’t let their 6-year-old watch a gory horror flick or read extremely graphic descriptions of war to them at bedtime, gun owners take care when children are around their guns. There’s a difference between discovering the right solution for your home and the state removing your right to immediately defend yourself and those same children you love.

I think we can all agree that any perception of Dan Onorato supporting civil liberties is, in fact, a mischaracterization. He was absolutely right about that – just about the only thing he’s been on right on in this campaign.

Obama says he’ll withdraw his support of wavering Democrats on Health Care, and not campaign for them. It would seem to me that this isn’t exactly a threat. In fact, if I were one of those wavering Blue Dogs, I think my inclination would be to ask the White House if they would put it in writing. Perhaps Obama could twist more arms by threatening to show up at key campaign events. You can’t say “no” to the President, after all.

Why? Because I’m fascinated by this stuff.  And I spent two days studying district maps, Googling unknown candidates, and otherwise trying to find every bit of information on these elections that I could in order to make a more useful resource for gun owners this year.

• Of the 6 Senate races in the area, 4 incumbents were A rated in their last election cycle. One was a B rating, and the other F.
• There are 30 House races in the area. Only 8 of these races are (so far) uncontested. Six of those are districts in Philadelphia.
• Of the 8 unchallenged incumbents, 2 had Fs, 2 had Ds, 1 had a C, 1 had a B, and 2 have maintained A ratings.
• Looking at the full list of races with incumbents running (28), we have: 3 ?s, 3 Fs, 10 Ds, 3 Cs, 4 Bs, and 5 As.
• The two open seats were previously represented by lawmakers with A and F ratings.

I think our pro-gun Senate seats are safer than the pro-gun House seats on the whole. One of our B rated guys in Philadelphia is actually facing charges, though to be honest, that doesn’t turn many Philly voters off. So I maintain that even though he has challengers from his own party and the other, it might not be much of a race for the new entrants to the race.

The House races are especially important for those who fall on the right side of the political aisle. Right now the Democrats control the House by just a handful of seats. The Senate is safely Republican, and is likely to become even more so after this year’s elections. This will be legislature that redraws all of the district lines and erases at least one Congressional district from the state.

I spent the better part of two days examining every single state race going on in our districts – PA-8 & PA-13. If you live in Bucks, Montgomery, or North Philly and own guns, you should go find your local races and get an idea of what’s going on.

For those of you not in the area, here are a few interesting observations:

• For the federal races, both districts will have competitive Republican primaries with no Democrats on the ballot other than incumbents. In PA-13, it won’t really matter since the chances of unseating Schwartz run at about 1 in a million if you’re feeling generous to the challenger. Other than the more sparsely populated northern tier of her district, that area is solidly Democratic – and pretty far left Democratic at that. In PA-8, I have my doubts about all of the GOP candidates against Murphy in the fall. However, professional political observers in DC say that if Fitzpatrick can pull out a win in May, he’ll have a good shot at beating Murphy. I’m on the ground and am far more skeptical.
• Out of the 6 state senate districts in the area, only one is held by an incumbent with less than an A or B from NRA. Granted, she’s got an F, but she represents primarily Philly. In smaller races with less direct influence from Philadelphia, we can still do reasonably well. Regardless of whether you live in this area or even another state, that’s something to keep in mind if you have a safe anti-gun Congressman. There may be local races where your help can make the difference.
• Bad news: A lot of poorly rated Philadelphia politicians have no challengers this year from either side. In theory, a write-in campaign could change this. In reality, it’s not likely to make a difference without serious planning and the incumbent over a dead body.
• Good news: A handful of friendly (or at least not hostile & willing to listen) lawmakers – even some from Philly! – also have no challengers from either side. Again, this could change with an effective write-in campaign. While that makes it an uphill battle, gun owners should still keep an eye out.
• Of all of the races that are re-matches from 2008, the GOP looks like it could pick up seats in all but one. One re-match was decided for the Democrat by less than 900 votes in a record-setting Democratic year. While the Republican candidate still has to beat the incumbency factor, this is a great year to pick up this battle again.

If you are in the area and have a favorite already, get in touch and I’ll let you know how you can get involved.

Jacob has some coverage, including a return of Doug Hoffman, and Kirsten Gillibrand attracting yet another challenger. Before too long it seems like half the State of New York will have announced they are primarying Gillibrand. Apparently even Bloomberg’s girlfriend wants a piece of that action.

Everyone says we should look to Pennsylvania as a bellwether of 2010 politics. We have the most number of competitive Congressional races, and we’ve got major statewide elections that will drive people out to the polls more so than other states in this year’s non-presidential cycle. We also have a very good shot at turning the Pennsylvania House over to GOP – a strictly partisan move I would not have cared much for until the very centrist Democrat House Speaker announced his retirement. I do not trust who might move up to that top spot if the Democrats remain in control. (Here is an effort to draw attention to states with closely split legislative houses that can be flipped by pushing just a handful of candidates.)

Last night was the local GOP vote for John Murtha’s former seat. Due to the timing of his death, this election cycle is pretty complicated with two different elections with some of the same and some different candidates held for the same seat on the same day. The shorter story you need to know is that both parties have selected candidates for their races who are political unknowns. The Democrats chose Murtha’s former district director who clearly has political experience, but isn’t on the record with his own views. We don’t know if he shares Murtha’s dedication to gun rights. On the GOP side, there’s a businessman who brings new energy to the grassroots and who the Democrats have resorted to calling mean because he once built a successful business, sold it, and the other owners laid people off. (I expect PA-12 to turn into a children’s playground at the rate the campaign is going because of outside candidates who didn’t have local support. Expect spitballs and screams of “I’m gonna tell on you!” any day now.) As a political newbie, GOP candidate Tim Burns also doesn’t have a record on gun rights yet. So this should be interesting. The district has always been reliable for guns, but we don’t know if it will remain that way.

Depending on how things go, we can see it as a blessing or a curse that we’ll be losing that district anyway. Given that the candidate will have only served a term and a half, it is likely that both parties will agree to do away with PA-12 when we have to give up a seat following the Census.

Depending on how much you like politics, this is either a political junkie’s dream world or a cynic’s worst nightmare. For me, it relies on my mood. Since the political attitude is more anti-incumbent than pro-Republican, I’m really not sure how this will play out. Given that uncertainty, and the fact that the local GOP is trying to actively drive voters into the arms of Democrats, I’m leaning more toward a nightmare mood.

If you’re a Pennsylvania politico, or just a politics watcher who generally has a feel for what’s going on, take the PoliticsPA poll (on the left, about halfway down) on which will be the most interesting May 18 race. Also leave your answer as a comment if you’re so inclined. I’d like to know which races you guys are interested in.

According to Hotline, the two top candidates in the GOP primary for Arizona governor are bickering about web ads. Meanwhile, the longshot campaign of NRA Board member Buz Mills has just gone on television with his first ad.

One of the interesting observations: He has a mobile campaign. I read something the other day about campaigns using mobile campaigns that suggested they go ahead and lay out the big cash to buy their own “text to” number. Apparently, you can basically rent a word that uses the same text number as many other campaigns.

For Buz, that word is GOBUZ. However, it turns out he is far from the only one using the same number. For example, if you’re in Lake Charles, Louisiana, you can use the same number and text CASA for free queso dip or margarita at this joint. If you’re a golfer who loves wine, you may want to check out the 19th hole event text that could have gotten you special information about a golf event that, presumably, involves wine. If you want to see a biotech shop kiss ass to environmentalists, just use BIOTECH. Taste of Dallas will hook you up if you use the same number with the word TASTE.

Fortunately, it looks like there’s not any craziness sharing the same number as Buz’s campaign. But, you can see how this could get funny for any candidate.

Over at the other blog, we talk about how the Congressional races are shaping up in Pennsylvania on the gun issue. The first big one is for Murtha’s seat.

Thomas Jefferson Club, one of our local tea party groups, is making note of the fact that our Congresman, Patrick Murphy, doesn’t seem to want to be seen in public with President Obama. This is a smart move for Murphy politically, but it’s quite telling. Murphy is vulnerable this year, but despite that, the Bucks County GOP is doing everything in their power to ensure that we do not recapture the seat.

The Brady Campaign thinks they can compete on the grassroots front with us. It’s so naive that I think it’s kinda cute. This morning they put out a call to action on Twitter and Facebook asking their followers (a good number of whom are actually pro-gun) to go vote in a Wall Street Journal poll on whether Starbucks should cave and insert themselves into this issue. (Don’t follow the link @bradybuzz sent, it’s wrong. Use this one to vote freedom first today.)

Then a writer for Consumerist decides to profile the situation and only quote anti-gun leaders before putting up a poorly-worded poll about the issue. They claim the company has changed their policy to allow guns, but that’s not true. No policy has changed. However, they have still added a poll to gauge support for the issue. Here’s another chance to vote freedom first by choosing either the 2nd or 4th option – supporting the policy or don’t care and will buy anyway.

So if this is the game that Paul wants to play, let’s show him how it’s played. It will be a nice little preview of November.

A key message from yesterday’s post on the challenging climate we’re facing here in Pennsylvania is that we need Democratic gun owners to show up in a big, big way. If you’re a Pennsylvania gun owner who is registered as a Democrat, you don’t have the option of staying home for the primary election.

Consider that the most “moderate” of the Democratic gubernatorial candidates on record only wants to ban your rifles. (Whether you decide to cast your lot with the one seeking the least amount of gun control or the far-left progressive who can’t win statewide is up to your own voting strategy.)

But as of tomorrow, one of the more extreme gun control advocates is dropping his gubernatorial bid to instead challenge a pro-gun Democratic House member for an open Senate seat.

The Senate seat in question has been primarily Democratic since 1963, so it is likely that the Democratic primary will serve to determine the final office holder, regardless of the election in November. The Democrats who have held it before have been very pro-gun, and hopefully we can keep that tradition. Right now, State Rep. Jim Wansacz currently holds an A rating and is hoping to continue the trend. But tomorrow he will be challenged by Chris Doherty who wants to limit the number of guns you can buy, end statewide preemption, make your license to carry obsolete, and possibly create a formal gun owner registry to track how many guns you try to purchase. It doesn’t matter if you’re a carry advocate, recreational shooter, hunter, or all three, your status as a lawful gun owner under Chris Doherty will be impacted in a very negative way.

That’s one nice thing about Pennsylvania, we still have some pro-gun Democrats. It means that Democratic voters who actually respect the Second Amendment will often have a choice of candidates. In this case, it’s pretty clear that Rep. Wansacz needs your vote, your political donations, and your time.

All across the board, as I hear more and more about what’s been going on with the Pennsylvania GOP, the message seems to be from the party apparatchiks that they are in charge, and you wormy little tea-baggers can go get bent. In our district, it appears they are all going to all but anoint Mike Fitzpatrick, who already lost to Pat Murphy once with the advantage of incumbency. I seriously question that he can win. Rumors abound that the GOP is doing much the same on the state level.

The GOP in Pennsylvania is scared to death of this grassroots movement that’s formed up to oppose the Obama/Pelosi agenda. While other state parties are happy to work with it, the PA GOP is essentially telling the grass roots to go to hell. This is a recipe for disaster. And it would not seem that, rounding out the desert menu, Reasoned Discourse^TM is breaking out all over the State GOP Facebook Page in regards to the party hacks’ chosen candidates.

Pennsylvania will remain a true blue state as long as the GOP hacks insist on fighting their own grass roots rather than the Democrats. This is a new world, and a new political climate, and they had best start getting used to it. Democracy is ugly. But the alternative is far worse. I have to wonder whether the PA GOP really agrees with that.

We’re going to have a special election very soon for Murtha’s seat, and Bitter takes a look at how that’s shaping up for gun owners over at our EVC blog.

PA2010 is reporting on Twitter. No matter what you might have thought of the man on other issues, Murtha was a consistent and reliable vote in favor of the Second Amendment.

UPDATE: Fox has coverage now. Murtha first took office in 1974. He’s been in office for as long as I’ve been walking this earth. Also the AP is covering it now too.

UPDATE: And, naturally, the Demon Sheep weighs in.

Jim Geraghty thinks it’s genius. Tam likes it too, and adds:

I was mildly disappointed that a flaming midget clown on a tricycle never pedaled furiously through the meadow yelling “Verboten!”. Other than that, it was very nearly perfect.

The Hill reports that Demonsheep now even has his own Twitter feed. Thanks Carly. I’m not sure this helps you win, but it’s at least injected some fun into the race.

So far, things are looking really good for Republicans in 2010. Political watchers even think things look rosy here in our Congressional district where they have moved Patrick Murphy’s seat from Solid Dem to Likely Dem to only Lean Dem. I assume that’s because they believe a former Congressman who Murphy narrowly beat will put up a good campaign. At this point, one could only wish.

I’ve had my concerns about Mike Fitzpatrick ever since I heard he was entering the race. Bucks Right hits the nail on the head with what’s bothering me at the moment:

Mike Fitzpatrick, presumptive Republican nominee in his own mind for the US House Seat representing Pennsylvania’s 8th district, appears to be employing the little seen “gimmick a day” political strategy in his run to regain the seat he lost nearly 4 years ago to Patlosi Murphy.
…
Sweet Jesus. To anyone remotely associated with the campaign who may read this: While you weren’t paying attention, Patlosi turned himself into kind of a big deal to the far-left wing of his party. If you think running a rinky-dink, misspelled, incoherent, gimmicky campaign against the well-oiled Rahm Emanuel digital age machine is going to take Murphy out, you’re wrong. You’re killing me here. Do you need a consultant? How about a proofreader?

Amen.

The fact is that Fitzpatrick already lost when Murphy was a no-name upstart. While I’m open to the idea he may be the best candidate to take on Murphy, that doesn’t mean he’s a good one. The weird gimmicks he’s been touting only go to confirm that.

As Bucks Right points out, Fitzpatrick asked for a spending freeze of $1 million in the campaign.

1. Murphy is a talented fundraiser. Why would he do that since he can far out-raise Fitzpatrick?
2. Murphy has the media adoration that will land him endorsements and free coverage. A spending freeze would only hurt Fitzpatrick who can’t counter the coverage.
3. There are higher priority races for the GOP this year, so Fitzpatrick can’t rely upon outside groups to come in and save him. If Murphy did agree to freeze spending, there are a number of groups that will come in and save him with additional funds because of his leadership on some issues like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the fact that he picked up the tab for the street money for Obama in Philly in 2008.

Fitzpatrick’s “spending freeze” gimmick will only hurt Fitzpatrick. Did no one think that one through? Or are they just hoping that Murphy doesn’t take them up on the offer?

The latest gimmick was the announcement that he’ll honor term limits by not serving more than three additional terms. Great. That means even if Fitzpatrick does win, we will have to go back and fight another uphill battle in six years. If he’s not even going to stick around even if we can manage to elect him, then why should I invest my votes, dollars, and time with Fitzpatrick? At that point, I suspect that my resources are better spent on a candidate like Jeff McGeary or Ira Hoffman. I don’t quite think they are to the point of being able to take on Murphy, but if this gets them started on a path toward name recognition that could serve them well in another run for another office, my investment would still pay off.

Fitzpatrick made the case to PA2010.com that he would be the best candidate because of a serious lead on a campaign infrastructure and experience. If this is the kind of goofy & sloppy campaign we can expect with all of that experience on board, then Fitzpatrick has moved this race closer to the Solid Dem category.

I think Carly Fiorina might be channeling Satan. It’s morning in America, morning with really scary glowing red eyed sheep monster!

I don’t know if her ad people are strung out on some of that California legal medical marijuana, or what. But WTF?

I feel a bit dirty, because I am now a Republican once again. I left the Party back in 2000 and registered Libertarian in frustration over what the GOP had become. Not that I’m any happier with them now, but we have a primary coming up, and I want to have a vote. Plus, it doesn’t do much good to try to influence a Party you’re not a member of.

I had been meaning to do it for some time, but when I got to the Courthouse today, it turns out the County Election Office is right next to the Jury Lounge, so I decided to take advantage of it.

Only a politician can call for a gun ban on Friday night and then sign on to speak at a pro-liberty shooting event hosted at a gun club on Tuesday and not see the hypocrisy.

As we’ve mentioned, Jack Wagner said he supported a ban on semi-automatic rifles on Friday night at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit. This afternoon, the Commonwealth Foundation posted a Facebook listing for their annual LiveFreePA fundraiser. Guess who confirmed his attendance? Jack Wagner. To his credit, he’s the only Democrat who is on their confirmed speakers list. To his discredit, he’d ban the guns that the members of the host club use regularly.

In case it’s not obvious from the last serious post, it’s time for real life politics to start in high gear. Here in the Keystone State, 10 of our 19 Congressional districts have been rated by Cook as reasonably competitive. Surprisingly, even our own home base district is more competitive even though the county GOP is seemingly trying to destroy any goodwill with voters it might have left.

I’ve managed to organize a meeting of upper level activists from across Eastern PA (plus NUGUN who is technically closer to the middle) in a couple of weeks to lay down ideas/tips/strategy for the upcoming election season.

Candidates are still declaring and still dropping out. We’re now up to 10 known pro-gun retirements in Harrisburg with fewer than half that for anti-gunners. Gun owners in Pennsylvania are even losing one of their most powerful allies – the Speaker of the House.

Contrary to the hype and buzz online, there’s not going to be one iota of change in our favor this year if people don’t step up. Talking about on the internet does not actually make it happen at the ballot box.

On the other hand, I am also in the process of trying to track down every candidate on Twitter and Facebook. I try to keep an eye on them in case they say anything stupid or anti-gun, but I suppose I’m being redundant.

Most voters don’t spend Friday night tuned into PCN – Pennsylvania’s version of C-SPAN – to watch coverage of small political events. Perhaps that’s what the Democratic gubernatorial candidates were counting on when they debated at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit. Hoping gun owners, especially those registered as Democrats, wouldn’t find out, each of the candidates pledged to support more restrictions on your rights.

Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato started the series of gun control promises by calling for a statewide so-called “lost and stolen” law. He apparently doesn’t mind that the legislation would change the justice system into one in which gun owners are guilty until proven innocent. Prosecutors could financially ruin gun owners as they try to prove themselves innocent. Onorato continued by pledging to support “child safety locks,” though he declined to explain whether his version of the legislation would mandate the sale of locks to increase gun prices or challenge the ruling of Heller by forcing gun owners to lock their guns at home. Finally, Onorato unveiled his most controversial plan for gun control – ending state preemption in Pennsylvania.

Under Onorato’s dismantling of state authority on gun laws, concealed carry permit holders could be arrested if they visit Philadelphia. Hunters heading to their favorite tree stand in the next county may find that their favorite hunting rifles are banned. Every time a gun owner crosses a city limit, he or she may be in violation of a local ordinance that could lead to arrest and cost them their rights.

Of course, Onorato told reporters at his campaign launch that any perception of a pro-rights record was a “mischaracterization.” I don’t think most gun owners would have realized how much of mischaracterization that really was!

Next, Auditor General Jack Wagner dodged most state policy issues on gun rights – save one. Unfortunately for gun owners, it was a very, very big issue. Wagner, while claiming to support the Second Amendment, stated his support for a ban on semi-automatic rifles. These are not machine guns, but average rifles that gun owners often take into the field for hunting or to the range for competition. He did not explain whether his support for such a ban would include confiscation for those already owned.

Third in line, Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty joined Onorato in his support of ending state preemption. In fact, this was actually the priority pledge in his debate response. Clearly, he hasn’t heard that a recent poll showed 56% of Pennsylvanians support preemption of gun laws. His other priority, should he take office, is to restrict sales of guns to only one per month. Collectors would no longer be allowed to by matching sets. The only way to track such sales would also mean the formal creation of a gun owner registry in Pennsylvania.

Finally, Joe Hoeffel, the candidate running farther left than most of the others kept his answer as essentially all of the above. Specifically, he named these priorities: gun sales limits (and presumably the registry needed to track such sales), lost and stolen legislation, mandatory locks (though again without clarification on whether this applies to sales or storage), and the end of state preemption. In addition to the previously discussed issues, Hoeffel also supports a ban on private sales of firearms in Pennsylvania. Selling the rifle that collects dust in the back of the safe to a trusted family member will become a criminal act in Pennsylvania if Joe Hoeffel has his way.

Gun owners, particularly those who are registered as Democrats, need to speak out to these candidates. The primary race is close, and there is no clear winner. Make sure these candidates know that their support of gun control will cost them votes at the ballot box.

Cross posted from PAGunRights.com.

Chuckie Schumer is dropping in the polls. I’m sure Chuck can count on the anti-gun vote to save him. All he has to do is ask his buddies Jon and Martha. I don’t want to be too optimistic, but it would be awfully nice to run the Scott Brown treatment on Schumer. I’d love to send one of the major architects of gun control legislation for the past two decades packing.

I’m not going to bore you with the complexity of campaign finance laws. Really, it’s tedious. But my prediction is that the end result voters will actually see will be an increase in attack ads.

The Morning Call’s John Micek has rounded up some insights, one in particular stands out:

Larry Ceisler, a Democratic consultant from Philly, said he thinks that while corporations might hesitate, unions will jump in with both feet. He also said that there’s a risk that unfettered corporate speech might drown out candidates’ own ads, which could cost them control of their own messages.

“For instance, if an entity is supporting a candidate and doesn’t think the message is tough or sharp enough, they can go in and do it themselves,” he told the newspaper. “That could be good for a campaign – or disastrous.”

I would be willing to put money on the fact that groups will now go more negative earlier than any candidate will. It’s unfortunate, but it is the likely result. In the Brown-Coakley race, her campaign worked alongside national groups to bombard the airwaves in the last week with nothing but negative ads against Scott Brown. Yes he was elected, but you can’t really argue they didn’t work. Rasmussen found on election day that voters who made up their minds in the last few days before the election broke for Coakley at a higher rate. He also found that more of Coakley’s supporters were really going to vote against Brown rather than for Coakley than vice versa. Unfortunately for Coakley, she just didn’t get the ads on the air early enough.

After that loss, I would say to expect more and expect them earlier. Though hopefully they will stay off of the Weather Channel this time around.

UPDATE: Marginal Revolution has posted word clouds from both the majority and dissenting opinions to give you a better idea of what each side was focused on.

A few weeks ago I would have said a candidate like this, running on a platform of getting rid of gun registration in Texas, even though there is no gun registration in Texas, wouldn’t stand a chance. Of course, I don’t think she means ending gun registration in Texas because she’s speaking of non-existent Texas law. Given her platform of claiming state nullification of federal laws that interfere with what she thinks of as Texas’ prerogative, I’m thinking she means to do away with 4473s. We have a similar candidate here in Pennsylvania, a laid off biologist who cashed in his retirement and mortgaged his house for a shot at the top job.

Normally this kind of outside the box thinking is punished at the polls, but we just elected a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, and while Scott Brown may not win social conservative of the year award, on fiscal matters he’s not exactly a soft Republican. Anything is possible now. Run your cat. Maybe he’ll win. Can he meow softly on tax policy?