Last week was an incredibly busy news week for political junkies. A special election was held in Massachusetts, the future of health care reform is now in doubt, and the senior senator from Kentucky was center stage through it all. Whoa! Where to begin?

Blue state, red victory
Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in America, elected a Republican to fill the seat left vacant when Teddy Kennedy died. To say that this result was a shocker would be putting it mildly. Pundits have been trying to analyze how this happened and what message this sends. Here is my analysis:

First, the quality of the candidate matters. Not just any Republican could have pulled off this victory. It took a smart, charismatic workhorse to win and Scott Brown proved he wanted it more than his Democratic rival, Martha Coakley.

Brown unabashedly campaigned as the guy who would give the Republicans their 41st vote, and Massachusetts voters loved the message. (You need 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster, a tactic used by the minority party to increase its leverage in policy negotiations.)

Coakley was a weak candidate because even though she had the resume and was of the correct political party, she proved to be lazy and never really differentiated herself during a growing wave of governmental discontent.

The general assumption going forward is that Republicans will pick up seats during this mid-term election cycle, but I’ll say it again, candidates matter. If the candidate isn’t appealing, regardless of party, don’t assume a victory.

Health care overhaul in peril
While the quality of the candidate is essential, Brown also was able to ride in on a surge of dissatisfaction with both the content of the health care bill and how Congress chose to execute it.

Obama promised all Americans that transparency in government would be an essential part of his administration, but health care negotiations were held behind closed doors. In addition, the content of the health care bill was less about holding down costs and fixing the system than it was about paying off Democratic members so that Obama could claim legislative victory.

The most egregious of these vote bribes has been dubbed the “Cornhusker Kickback,” where Nebraska got 100 percent of the cost of future Medicaid expansion paid for in exchange for Ben Nelson’s vote, and the “Louisiana Purchase,” where Mary Landrieu’s vote cost the taxpayers an extra $300 million in federal funds for her state alone.

If the health care bill was so good, then why the payoffs? If this is the right policy direction for Americans and health care, why would the majority leader feel compelled to sprinkle pork around?

House Democrats have picked up the vibe from voters and have refused to pass the Senate version outright because of these unseemly deals. House Democrats think it will make them even more vulnerable in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Bad legislation and secret negotiations don’t lend themselves to a rosy outlook for health care reform. 

McConnell up front
Our very own Sen. Mitch McConnell was at the center of this Massachusetts victory and the demise of the pork-barrel health care bill.

McConnell has been the leading voice telling other members of Congress and the media what popular opinion is regarding health care reform and the state of our economy.

McConnell maintained discipline among his 40-member caucus, which proved essential to proving his point that Americans don’t want or need an expansion of government, but what they need is fiscal discipline so that the economy can recover.

The Scott Brown election proved the senator wise, and the demise of the health care bill should now shift the focus of Congress to stabilizing the economy.

Julie and Ellen own Adams & Call Inc., a Louisville public affairs firm, and they are co-founders of loveysports.com. Visit ­adamsandcall.com.