"I was not at all certain that a third Senate campaign in less than four years, and the prospect of returning to a Congress even more partisan than the one I left, was really the best way for me to continue in public service at this time."
I'm thinking that he didn't want to hear the criticism: you just lost. Why should he win on this fluke of the other seat opening when the people just voted him down? Exactly what would you say to that?
February 1, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
He's sane. I'll miss him. Maybe Romney can run for the seat.
Scott Brown is a good guy and should be Senator. But it's Massachusetts so what, at this point, difference does it make?
Scott Brown is a good guy and should be Senator. But it's Massachusetts so what, at this point, difference does it make?
Well, he DID get almost half the vote. It is entirely possible that more than half the state thinks he'd be an acceptable senator (e.g., if 2% of voters liked him but preferred Warren).
Anyway, were I him I wouldn't want to run again either.
I'll miss him. I moved to Massachusetts too late to vote for him. Maybe he'll run for Governor.
If I had to guess it's fatigue. Two very rough campaigns between 2010 and 2012. This would be his third, and then he'd face ANOTHER one when the term ended. That's a lot to go through, and put your family through.
"Well, he DID get almost half the vote. It is entirely possible that more than half the state thinks he'd be an acceptable senator (e.g., if 2% of voters liked him but preferred Warren)."
Picture him in a debate having to say that. He would get asked that over and over. Was he satisfied with the picture of himself having to say that over and over?
Actualy I think he just is telling them to go to hell.
Congress can just go F*ck themselves (since they are already doing that to the rest of the country.)
I've always thought Brown's a better fit for governor, and that he'd make his decision based on having to run and finance four senate campaigns in four years.
By comparison, Markey and Warren are just as much flukes for being hand-picked by their party elite.
Mass Republican should choose a populist senate candidate who can pick up the disaffected supporters of Steve Lynch who is likely to loose yet inflict a damaging primary against Markey.
He's being smart.
Let the Massholes see how swell Fauxcahontas does.
You know what this means righties.
He didn't run BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WOULD LOSE!
The void left by Brown shows that Mass Republicans need to build the party.
The best chance of that happening is if Brown is elected governor.
I think Brown sees that as where he can make the most difference for the state in the short-term, and then possibly launch a campaign for a full-term in a federal office.
At least he had a realistic view of his chances. Too bad.
People who decide not to run always go up in my estimation as to whether or not they'd be good legislators.
I'm perverse that way.
Really, it was a odd combination of events that allowed a Repub to be elected there at all.
Zerocare
Good looking moderate Repub
Awful Dem candidate
No, MA is a wasteland.
garage mahal said...
You know what this means righties. He didn't run BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WOULD LOSE!
Not so sure about that.
Against the aloof Markey, especially after a damaging internecine primary against Lynch, I think Brown would win the senate seat in the special election.
By then, many Lynch supporters would likely stay home, if not vote for Brown, than vote for Markey in a special election.
The wildcard would be 2014. Granted, the Dems would throw everything they have at it, for sure, but by then much of the negative baggage of the Obama years would be starting to show.
I'd give Brown even or better odds in 2014.
I think Brown just wants to begin building a political base rather than be on a campaign treadmill.
Didn't Althouse just post on how hard it is to get any work done if you're on a treadmill?
Picture him in a debate having to say that. He would get asked that over and over. Was he satisfied with the picture of himself having to say that over and over?
This doesn't seem to faze Democrats.
@edh
Sort of running joke on this blog. Whenever a Democrat announces they aren't running for office, it's unanimous that the reason is because the Democrat thought they would lose.
Remember, Lynch the Democrat is getting into the Dem primary race precisely because Markey is widely viewed in the state as a twerp.
People who decide not to run always go up in my estimation as to whether or not they'd be good legislators.
Ha. Reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line:
I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member".
Good for him.
Why would anyone want to be in a 100 member club that includes Eliz Warren and Chuck Shumer and Patrick Leahy etc?
Two words: Alan Grayson.
garage: "Sort of running joke on this blog. Whenever a Democrat announces they aren't running for office, it's unanimous that the reason is because the Democrat thought they would lose"
Wow. "unanimous".
Quite a claim.
Why don't you demonstrate the unanimity.
Don't worry, we won't hold our breath.
Looking to croak Coakley again in the governor's race.
Brown should move to some red state in flyover land if he wants to stay in politics. He's finished here.
Simply another jaw-dropper this past cycle. When someone so obviously shallow and, indeed, quite possibly, just maybe, dishonest, beat him...just couldn't get my head around that.
It's worse than Fauxcahontis being dishonest with her constituents. It became obvious that she's not very honest with herself.
The voters of the People's Republic of Massachusetts are idiots. Deval is about to inflict yet another tax increase on them, and Mumbles will be corruptly mismanaging Boston until the fat prick finally croaks, and people will keep punching the ticket for whatever Kennedy retards turn it is.
Good for Brown for letting the state get exactly what it deserves. Honest and competent public servants are not wanted here.
He has to be a little bitter. He was clearly the better person, the better candidate, but lost anyway on blind ignorant party loyalty politics.
It's one thing to woo the stupid when you can pretend they aren't stupid, quite another to woo the undeniably stupid.
"Why should he win on this fluke of the other seat opening when the people just voted him down?"
The question is quite odd. What 'fluke'? What difference does it make why there has to be an election? The seat is vacant and has to be filled by election. You could ask the same question whenever a politico runs for office after having lost the last go-around. E.g., Romney and Reagan seeking the Rep nomination after having lost the prior round, Clinton after having lost re-election as Gov of Arkansas, Nixon running in '68 after having said in '62 the press wouldn't have him to kick around any more, and on and on. Note that, in each example, the former loser became a winner.
Scott Brown was elected to break up the super majority in the Senate, because Massachusetts prefers Democrats but only to a point.
Scott lost because now we have Boehner, and didn't want a Republican Senate with the risk of abortion impeachment nonsense.
Post a Comment