I submit that Brown's victory is a single-issue victory. The only positive thing he said was that he opposed the health-care reform bill, as publicized, working it's way through Congress.

There's no argument that people are scared of what the bill entails. It's hard to address it since the bill seems to change every day and is guaranteed to change, yet again, in 'reconciliation' as the House and Senate work out their differences.

HOWEVER - Scott Brown's tenure will be a short one, once health care has been dealt with one way or another IF:

- he doesn't address his opposition to ANY new regulations on banking.

- he doesn't address his cuts to education.

- he doesn't explain just WHO's taxes he wants to cut.

- he doesn't explain WHAT spending he wants to cut. (Remember, Democrats make easy hay from GOP planned cuts ANYWHERE)

I honestly don't think Scott Brown won this election as much as Martha Coakley lost it. I think there are similarities here with reasons why McCain lost - since he was viewed as "more of the same" about economic problems. Now that the focus shifted (rightly or wrongly) to health-care reform, Coakley was viewed as the "rubber stamp" and there was a feeling that something not-so-nice was being rammed down our throats.

Quite frankly, the best thing about this election is that it's OVER and I don't have to watch or listen to the ENDLESS repetition of those AWFUL political ads.