Assuming a huge Brown victory tonight, as I do, I've been trying to sort through the many layers of what it might really mean. The FNC/RNC machine will describe it as a crushing referendum on health insurance reform and Obama, period. The trouble with this analysis is that Scott Brown has actually supported a near carbon copy of the Obama plan on a state level, and his opposition to the Senate bill is primarily that Massachusetts already has universal health insurance, so what's in it for his state? This is not the same as calling Obama a radical, transformational communist, which is the current GOP talking point (well, it's been their talking point since June 2008).

The second explanation is the Brooks/Noonan theory that somehow everything feels wrong to the Independent or conservative-leaning voters. They have an instinctual fear of more government and, even though the Senate bill couldn't be more minimalist within the confines of expanding access and controlling costs, this gnaws at them. I think this is a legitimate feeling (I have it too) - but an illegitimate argument.

Look: the markets conservatives have believed in have failed.