The Washington Times - January 15, 2010, 12:15AM

The Boston Phoenix revealed a disturbing piece of information about the 2004 special election which sent GOP’er Scott Brown to the Massachusetts legislature. The article is about the conscience clause debate in the state, which embroiled not only Mr. Brown but also his daughters. After attacking Mr. Brown for introducing a bill with a conscience clause amendment as pay back to the Catholic Church for backing him in his 2004 election, the Phoenix  gives a piece of information from an unnamed Democratic source about how dirty the 2004 special election for the state Senate appears to have been.(bolding is mine) :

In 2004, Brown won a special election to become state senator, despite the state Democrats scheduling the election to coincide with the Presidential primary, when Democrats would be flocking to vote for John Kerry. (As one Democratic operative recently put it to me: “We cheated, and he still beat us.”) Brown then won a re-match in November, on the same ballot as Kerry vs. Bush.

There were at least four contributing factors to Brown’s victories in 2004. 1) Brown is an outstanding campaigner (a fact the Democrats seem to have forgotten until about a week ago). 2) Brown, a state representative at the time, had a strong voter base compared to his opponent, who did not hold an elected office. 3) That Democrat, Angus McQuilken — although one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet — as a candidate is about as inspiring as a low-fat Twinkie. 4) That was the year that Massachusetts allowed men to dress up in tuxedos, put rings on each others’ fingers, and smooch.


It should be noted that The Phoenix is indeed a liberal outlet. The paper, in fact, endorsed Ms. Coakley on Wednesday, so this article goes to show just how demoralized Coakley supporters have become.

The Brown campaign is looking for history to repeat itself in the election on January 19, and so far, the players involved have done a remarkable job mimicking the 2004 special election. Notice how the state Democrats may have used their power in controlling the scheduling of the election to give them the best advantage.  While 2004 may have worked out in the end for Mr. Brown, does he presently have the perseverence and prudent strategy to deal with any possible post-election shenanigans?