Can Mark Kirk Take A Page Out Of Scott Brown's Playbook?

I have seen so many interpretations over what happened last month in Massachusetts that my head is still spinning.

But one thing stands out: Scott Brown, at least among Republicans, is the Everyman. He is Tea Party. He's a moderate. He's the next Ronald Reagan. He's pro-choice. My favorite was that on the day he announced his position on abortion, Fox News had a crawl on the bottom of the screen asking if he'll be on the 2012 ticket.

Nationally, Republicans were wrapping themselves in the Scott Brown mantle —- whatever it was. GOP candidates around the country were thinking that if lightning could strike for a political unknown in Massachusetts, of all places, it could happen to them too.

Mark Kirk was invoking Brown's name too. Kirk is the moderate, five-term Republican congressman from Illinois who yesterday won his party's GOP Senate primary. If Massachusetts, why not Illinois, a similar blue state? If Ted Kennedy's seat, why not Barack Obama's?

Here's the difficulty for other Republicans to morph into Scott Brown.

First of all, for all intents and purposes, Massachusetts was a one month, two at most, campaign. After Sen. Kennedy died in August, it was really the Democrats — Martha Coakley & Co. — who spent the next three-plus months campaigning for the seat. Republicans were an afterthought. We'd all mention the GOP candidate now and then — hey, did you hear about that Cosmo centerfold? — but just to be polite. We knew he had no chance.

I was about to say that the race began in earnest on Dec. 9, the day after voters chose the two nominees in the primaries, but even that's not entirely correct. While Brown waged a brilliant, under-the-radar effort, the Dems coasted. Coakley went into a cocoon. Massachusetts Republicans — how's that for an oxymoron? — united behind Brown. The voter anger we saw these past six months had spread to the Bay State as well. And by the time the Democrats realized what was happening, it was too late.

The Illinois Senate race, however, is no one-month sprint; it's a nine-month marathon. Ideological divisions within the Republican Party could well hurt their chances in November. Unlike Brown, Mark Kirk is not an "out of the blue" candidate — he's been in Washington ten years. Conservatives and Tea Party activists have not warmed up to him. He supports abortion rights and voted for cap-and-trade legislation — though he now opposes it. In 2008, the American Conservative Union gave him a rating of just 48 percent. Sure, he has taken the right positions for his lean-Republican swing district. But can he excite the party the way Brown did?

Mark Kirk is indeed a good candidate. He survived in two very difficult cycles, in 2006 and 2008, while other Republicans were getting their heads handed to them. That was especially true in 2008, with favorite son Obama leading the Democratic ticket in Illinois. And he goes into the general election against an opponent, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, who was supposed to run away with his party's nomination (but didn't) and who at the least has some ethics questions swirling around him.

But in a primary against underfunded, unfamiliar opponents, Kirk received just 57 percent of the vote. In a state that has a considerable Democratic Party advantage, he is going to need a united party behind him to win.

Kirk can win this seat in November. But he can't rely on what propelled Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Yes, there is anger and frustration out there, and a lot of it is directed at the Democratic Party. But the Republican Party has its own problems as well. Thinking that the Massachusetts Miracle can be replicated in other states might be a bit too GOPtimistic.