Scott Brown’s Victory Becomes All Things To All People

The most amazing thing about Scott Brown’s Senate campaign is that his victory last week has seemingly become all things to all people and giving right-wing pundits an opportunity to portray their own narrow agenda as central to his win. 

For some, Brown’s win was a sign that voters don’t like President Obama or Nancy Pelosi, for others it was proof that people oppose health care reform, or abortion, or immigration. 

But Phyllis Schlafly offers a different take, claiming that what voters were really doing in this election was rejecting Martha Coakley because of her feminism

Democratic Party leadership has shown that it cannot or will not stand up to the incoherent, man-hating attitude of feminists like Coakley. For example, after they had a tantrum and demanded that the majority of jobs created by Obama’s stimulus be given to women (instead of to shovel-ready jobs), even though most of those who lost jobs in this recession are men, President Obama dutifully acquiesced.

It’s no wonder that non-college-educated men voted overwhelmingly for Brown against Coakley by a massive 27-point margin. The Democrats are lucky enough to elect some feminists, but feminists are just too unappealing when running against a masculine man such as Brown.

Brown’s driving a 2005 GMC pickup truck (which Obama sneered at) symbolized the elitism of Coakley, who drives a foreign car. While Coakley was sipping wine with drug and insurance company PAC representatives, Brown was shaking hands with the voters.

Commentary about Brown’s appeal to women is diversionary — it was male voters who overwhelmingly pulled the lever for him. Men are fed up with the feminist mindset and delivered a clear message in the Massachusetts election: give us a candidate who stands up to the feminists, and we will cross over from Democrat and independent to elect a Republican.