First, I would like to write my own congratulations to Scott Brown. Whatever else that can be said, it was quite an accomplishment for him to win in Massachusetts. Obviously there were many factors involved in this, and the arguments will go back and forth as to what they were.
Second, I would like to say that it is understandable, and acceptable, for individual voters to follow their prudential reason to vote for a candidate they thought was better. Whether or not that one agrees with their choice, one should be able to see that prudential reason was used to justify it. It is a part of what Vox Nova has been about since the beginning: to acknowledge the role of prudential reason when engaging politics. No candidate is perfect, and from a Catholic standpoint, all the candidates in Massachusetts had serious flaws. This can be shown by the fact that both Brown and Coakley were pro-choice, and have worked to strengthen the pro-choice cause in their own ways (Brown, for example, supported laws that lengthened the distance from which pro-lifers would have to be from clinics at their protests).
But now, I would like to ask a serious question. What happened to all the pro-life advocacy groups? It is one thing to suggest people can make prudential decisions, it is another for groups founded on the issue of life to give direct support to candidates whose policies are completely contrary to the pro-life cause. Any advocacy group which supports a candidate directly in contradiction to their advocacy has been compromised. What happened? When and how did many of the pro-life movement become compromised? Can those pro-life groups which, as a group, promoted and supported Brown be taken seriously again?