There has been and will continue to be much discussion regarding the surprise retirements of Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) announced on Tuesday this week. Certainly, these retirements could completely reshape the Senate contests later this year in those two states. In the near term, however, the attention of Republicans should be on Massachusetts, where a senatorial special election is set for the nineteenth of this month.

There is three-way race underway to choose a successor to interim U.S. Senator Paul Kirk, who was appointed on a temporary basis to fill the seat vacated by the death of Edward Kennedy, the last surviving brother of John and Robert Kennedy, former President of the United States and United States Attorney-General, respectively. The nomination of Kirk had the effect of giving Obama a sixtieth vote on the problematic Democratic health care reform plan. However, with a final bill not yet embraced by both chambers, Republicans have their opening now with State Senator Scott Brown.

The winner of the special election later this month will take power right away. While Massachusetts is a reliably Democratic state, there is potential here for an upset. Consider, firstly, that off-year and midterm elections typically draw out fewer voters than do presidential contests. It is elections like the one set to happen in Massachusetts that largely come to be dominated by those most enthralled with politics, party activists on both sides. In the gubernatorial contests last year in Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans won governorships that had been held by Democrats for eight or more years. A strong focus on bread-and-butter issues was credited in part with the success of the Republican campaigns in those two states.

Like the New Jersey gubernatorial contest last fall, the Senate special election will feature three candidates of significance with ballot access. Martha Coakley is the Democratic Party nominee and the sitting attorney-general in the Bay State. On the Republican side, she will be facing the aforementioned Scott Brown, whose campaign has rightly garnered much attention among conservatives. However, the wildcard is a man named Joe Kennedy, who is of no relation to the well-known Massachusetts political family.

Most polls show Coakley leading, but the presence of a Kennedy in the race, albeit not one of of famous family, and a well-advertised campaign by Brown could make things interesting. The issues which helped to decide the Virginia and New Jersey races last autumn still matter, and Brown has focused on the economy in his campaign messaging. Brown’s television advertisements have gained press attention in recent weeks. The most clever of these is featured below.

Scott is by no means guaranteed to win. Last November was also the NY-23 special election which saw the election of Democrat Bill Owens to fill the seat being vacated by John McHugh in a three-person contest. There, the conservative vote was split between Republican nominee Diedre “Dede” Scozzafava and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. The fact that Joseph L. Kennedy is a Libertarian whose approach to health care reform would be far more market oriented than that advocated by either Brown or Coakley is a reason to be concerned because his presence in the race complicates the prospects for a Republican win an unlikely place.

For the record, Scott Brown wisely opposes the present health reform proposal. His campaign site suggests that he supports the current public system in Massachusetts. However, Brown’s lack of conservative purism on the issue of reform offers the voters of Massachusetts the opportunity to weigh in on whether or not Congress is moving too fast on a bad bill. The January 19th contest is not a must win for Republicans; rather, it is the contest for Obama’s sixtieth vote.

A victory by Scott Brown will completely change the trajectory of messaging and agenda items for both parties in ways the now open contests in Connecticut and North Dakota this coming November never could. If indeed the Nelson bribe was necessary to prevent a filibuster on Democratic “reform” plans before, then negotiations will surely need to start again if Brown wins. Both the American people and the Republican Party would benefit from such a prospect. Scott Brown will be able to make abundantly clear, if he wins, whether the Obama White House now being taken to task over its broken C-SPAN campaign promise is more sincere in regards to its thus far unfulfilled pledges of post-partisan governance.

Last 5 posts by James Kane

• A November to Remember - November 8th, 2010
• On hope and fear - October 18th, 2010
• Expecting Different Results - September 12th, 2010
• A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
• Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010