You don’t need me. You have $7 million plus in the bank, and as of now, you’re the most popular politician in Massachusetts.
I’m just a small-time, part-time, squeeze-in-posts-between-real-life, blogger.
I supported you in early December 2009, when no one gave you a chance, and continued to pound the keyboard throughout December to get the conservative blogosphere to pay attention. And when in January 2010 I turned my blog into an “all Scott Brown, all the time” blog, I had no illusions.
When on election day 70,000 people followed the news here, and when we celebrated, I was being at least partially selfish.
I saw your candidacy as a way to stop Obamacare. And it was the right decision. Your election didn’t stop Obamacare, but it did delay it and did force the House to accept the untenable Senate bill. The damage done to the narrative of Obamacare from your election was enormous. Your election also served as an inspiration for what was to follow in November 2010.
When you missed an opportunity to make a difference on the financial reform bill, I was critical, but still I supported you and called for people to support your reelection.
When your press office would not return my calls or emails on the John McConnell nomination, I understood. When I call congressional press offices, and they ask what organization I am calling from, and I mention a blog, there is a noticeable pause, and then no one is available to speak with me. That’s okay, I get that.
And when I asked to speak with you, and was brushed aside, my feelings were not hurt (well maybe a little). But I understood the dynamics.
When the League of Women Voters ran outrageous ads against you recently, I again jumped to your defense.
But your op-ed today at The Politico is a bridge too far.
I don’t blame you for voting against the Ryan bill; I don’t have litmus tests, and while I think the overall framework is the right direction, I can’t argue with the fact that people may have specific alternatives or amendments.
But you don’t have alternatives. In your op-ed you simply repeat the hackneyed and failed notions of waste, fraud and abuse, with tort reform thrown in. That will not cut it. That is a dodge.
You apparently have no solutions to what you admit to be an unsustainable course, but you took the opportunity to imply that Republicans will abandon seniors. You don’t come right out and say it, but you came pretty close.
A “no” vote wasn’t good enough, you had to do it in a way so as to damage fellow Republicans by playing into the false Democratic narrative. You are a hero for your op-ed, but not to the people who supported you.
Go down the list of those praising your op-ed, and you will see the same people who smeared you as a “birther”, who distributed rape mailers against you, who mocked you as a crazy extremist, who accused you of endorsing sexual violence against your opponent, and who will work to defeat you in 2012.
I can’t speak for all your supporters, and maybe not even for many of them. But I’m done defending you against the people who are cheering your op-ed.
So it’s time to say goodbye and good luck.
I will not work against you, but I also will not work for you. There are many more important battles to fight in 2012.
Update 5-24-2011: Elizabeth Warren is being wooed by Harry Reid and others to run against Brown. I think Brown will find that a Republican can’t win an election by trying to out-liberal a real liberal.
And a fairly devastating account of how Brown was for the Ryan plan before he was against it.
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Tis sad when stuff like this happens but we need to "embrace the suck" and move on, there are many more candidates that need our support (like Cain <- shamless plug) or others we know nothing about.
It was kind of telling on election night when he said, (basically) "I can't believe it, I'm Scott Brown, I'm from Wrentham, and I drive a truck, and now I'm a Senator from MA".
Well goll-eee! Scott, may have gotten elected, but what he’s done since then makes it clear that he doesn’t have much going over Gomer, does he?
Me, too.
"Our country is on an unsustainable fiscal path. But I do not think it requires us to change Medicare as we know it. We can work inside of Medicare to make it more solvent."
I call that BS from SB.
Good on you, Professor. Brown is not serious about reform.
All I can say is it took you long enough to jump off his band wagon – I left it a long time ago. To me he was a traitor within months of his election. Like you, I was very disappointed. It makes one think – just who can you trust to do the right thing?
I know it wasn't easy writing this entry professor and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I predict that if Brown is re-elected there will be little light between him and democrats and you will see his wife and children holding down nice six figure jobs – courtesy of political position.
I understand the enviroment that Brown has to function in in Massachusetts, but he consistently takes his opposition to fellow Republicans a little too far for my taste.
When are we going to start by getting more people to practice medicine? By having patients with a bill in their hand when they leave their health care provider, so they know what that tete-e-tete cost? When are we going to separate health care insurance from work, so that losing a job doesn't mean losing insurance? These aren't biggies, but we need to do something to start making a difference.
Unfortunately, Senator Brown is from Massachusetts. Had he actually been as conservative as I would like, he probably wouldn't have been elected. But, I echo your sentiments, I certainly don't need to send him any more money. Hopefully, if he is primaried like Bob Bennett it will be more effective than the primarying Lisa Murkowski got.
Tastes bad!
Less filling!
So disappointing … but not so surprising.
Yep – I too gave him some money and wrote him off some time ago. I guess the water in MA or DC finally got to him to. Better then a dem at the time but he'll have to do it on his own next time.
Can I get a refund? His fund request mailings keep on comin' (all the way to CA) but I'm off the Brown reservation effective today.
I haven't been shy about my disgust with Scott Brown. He seems to keep pace with Snowe and Collins. All of them are a disgrace to conservatives.
Professor, you hung in there a year longer than I expected. They treated you horrible, after all you did to promote him and link to support him financially, through your blog.
He let all of the Ma Democrats turned Tea Party voters down hard.
One thing Sen. Brown needs to learn – especially when it comes to politics: When you attempt to please everybody, you end up pleasing no one.
Does he honestly think the people who are singing his praises now will ever – ever – vote for him? Of course not.
And now, he just stuck his finger – once again – into the eyes of the people who supported him.
I think Scott Brown is a good guy, and wouldn't mind having a beer with him. But this is just dumb politics, and I cannot support it.
Scott Brown shows that politics creates strange assholes. A whore is a whore is a hack, and this dude wants to become a careerist hack.
I agree with Professor Jacobson that a no vote would have been bearable. We should be realistic about the importance of electoral victory, but his public denouncement is atrocious and he offers piecemeal 'reforms' that do not address the real issue.
Brown gives three basic reasons for his opposition. None are based on a reasoned consideration of the issues involved.
“First, I fear…”
So we know right off the bat that Senator Brown isn't really making a substantive argument. He's 'afraid.' Any reform will raise “fears” that it won't work perfectly. The question is whether that “fear” is based in evidence. If it is, we must ask how that concern might be mitigated by other facts and whether that fear outweighs the benefit of the proposed reform. Brown doesn't do this of course.
Here is what Brown fears:
“…the cost of private plans will outgrow the government premium support— and the elderly will be forced to pay ever higher deductibles and co-pays.”
This is certainly a reasonable concern but should this single fact dictate whether Ryan's premium support plan will work?
Brown ignores several other factors:
The first factor is that Medicare drives some of the cost of private health insurance increases. When medical providers do accept Medicare patients, they charge the private insurers more money. If everyone had private insurance (ie paying the same amount for the same service), private insurance costs should stabilize to some extent.
The second factor is that there would be a huge market of people with vouchers worth $15,000 or more, according to Ryan's plan, to be used solely for the purchase of health insurance. Would private insurers develop plans affordable enough for that market or blindly increase their prices so as to lose those customers?
The third factor is future government action. Paul Ryan has proposed his plan precisely because Medicare is unsustainable in its present form. If Brown's fear materializes, couldn't the government address that fear when it does?
Senator Brown's second reason:
“Second, Medicare has already taken significant cuts to help pay for Obama’s health care plan.”
How does this relate to Paul Ryan's plan and the sustainability of Medicare in its current form? It is total non-sequitor. Again, Brown gives us a fact but he doesn't speak to the core issues.
Brown's third reason:
“Another key principle is that seniors should not have to bear a disproportionate burden.”
We come back to Brown's fears. This is really an explanation of his second reason but he treats it as a separate point. What he actually fears is a voter backlash as Professor Jacobson points out so clearly.
I gave up on him ages ago. It's really the rinos who are doing this country in.
Sadly, unfortunately, Scott Brown, for whom so many worked so tirelessly and upon whom they placed such lofty hopes, has shown himself to be just one more among the "soggy sandwich," "cocktail party" GOP set, whose sole concern is with their next election than with actually serving "we, the people" who elected them.
I'm with you, Professor. When I read that op-ed today, I was hopping mad. Not because it's unexpected – Brown has voted with the Democrats on almost all votes since his "historic" win – but because he did not do what he was sent to do.
He is throwing out the baby with the (perfectly good) bath water. When he was elected, he was sent to DC to: vote against Obamacare, cut spending, and enable job creation. He voted against Obamacare – done. The rest of his record shows he is not doing the 2nd or 3rd things I list.
There has been NO BUDGET passed since before Obama was inaugurated. There will STILL not be a budget, because instead of suggesting amendments to take care of his personal "fears" he mentions – he votes NO to just throw it ALL out. Foolish and naive. He will pay for that vote.
He has failed in his mission. No more RINOs needed. Time to primary him; he may still get the nomination, but it's doubtful with his record that he will beat out a bona fide Dem. in the election.
Not without TEA party supporters.
If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters. ~Alan Simpson
Scott who?
Ditto. We knew he was a snake when we put him in our pockets.
Thank you William.
I was as hopeful as you but have found that my faith, trust has been in vain. On to bigger and better things. Thanks for what you do.
Phillip
When Brown was recently reminded that the Tea Party was instrumental for his being elected in the first place and then asked if he considered himself a Tea Party Republican, he replied: "I am a Scott Brown Republican". Another McCain, a party unto himself.
Sadly it seems Scott Brown is as much a RINO as anyone from Maine. And his objections to the Ryan plan seem as ridiculous as they are ignorant.
Brown correctly states that anyone over 55 will not be affected by Ryan's plan, yet in the same breath he puts the "elderly" at risk of losing their coverage.
One of his concerns seems to be that seniors should may be forced to bear "more than their share" of the costs. I suppose he overlooks the fact that this age group is responsible for the majority of the expenses incurred.
Medicare is nearing the end of its cycle, as do all Ponzi schemes. Finding enough new blood to cover the existing "investors" is becoming increasingly difficult, and the pyramid eventually collapses.
I suppose the "Brown" plan is to give seniors a free ride, and hope that there are enough young people to foot the bill. This sure sounds a lot like the "kick the can down the road" plan to me.
But why even restructure Medicare, when all we have to do is eliminate waste and fraud, right? Oh, wait – this accounts for only 10% (or Holder's 12%) of the program's cost. Where will we find the other 88%? Maybe we can throw in a few tax increases, another Ponzi-esque mandate or two, and voila – problem solved! At least for the remainder of Sen. Brown's term, that is.
Perhaps we can save enough more money by simply adding another layer of Congressional oversight, as Sen. Brown suggests. Call me stupid, but it just seems that problems caused by government interference cannot be solved by more government interference.
And TORT reform? Is Brown really serious about this tired old chestnut? Goodness, don't they teach these people any new lies?
If "boosting jobs, cutting spending, and repairing the economy" has been Brown's primary focus, then he really hasn't accomplished anything significant, has he? Good riddance, Scott.
Actually, I expected you to say bye-bye some time ago. Brown is a good man, but he's losing the tea party appeal, and the country needs the tea party to get back …
Sad to say, I agree with you wholeheartedly. There isn't anything else to say.
He was the inspiration for what happened in November. Keep the fires burning, we must come back twice as strong in the next couple of elections, and we have many who are the real deal, up and coming, who will not cave.
Amen.
I wasted a lot of time, money and effort working to elect this man to the Senate.
Not again.
Nothing more need be said.
Except for this:
Professor, you should give serious consideration to running for office.
Your credentials are impeccable.
You're rock solid on the issues.
And unless you are running a brothel, a crack house, a gambling ring and a ponzi scheme that we don't know about, you have the upright character to do the job (As a Republican, that is. Those endeavors are resume enhancers for Democrats).
And that goes double for a lot of you regular commenters here.
That is what the founders wanted and expected – citizen legislators.
YEAH: BROWN SUCKS ON LOTS OF ISSUES, BUT…
A RINO IS BETTER THAN A DEM BECAUSE A RINO CAN HELP TAKE THE MAJORITY AWAY FROM THE DEMS AND GIVE CHAIRMANSHIPS AND SUBPOENA POWER TO THE GOP.
AND THAT MEANS MANY CONSERVATIVE GOP SENATORS GET MORE POWER AS A RESULT.
BROWN COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMINT GETTING A CHAIRMANSHIP AND SUBPOENA POWER AND IT REMAINING WITH TURDS LIKE DURBIN AND SCHUMER.
FORGOT THIS: AND BLOCK BAD JUDGES!
Hey Reliapundit ? Type louder. I'm hard of hearing. lol
The Arlen Specter types count on folks like you, dear.
The Karl Rove types obviously think a "Bearded Marxist" in a Senate seat is better than a primary race RINO-Defeater.
See, there is more to it than a "GOP majority" to the GOP Old School Blue-Bloods who backed Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle against non-RINO candidates.
how does chief justice eric holder sound?
a dem senate could give you just that.
senator brown (and murkowski & "castle") might block just that by giving the gop the majority and hence chairmanship of judiciary.
I'm with you on not being with Brown, and he's done. I've long been weary of the "but that's the best we can hope for from a blue state like MA" whiny pants crap from his supporters. He ran as a fiscal conservative (who'd be the 41st vote we needed–we thought–to stop ObamaCare), but he's not a fiscal conservative, not even close. He's taken many wasteful spending votes, and this attack on Paul Ryan is the last straw for me.
Few (if any?) in MA will work for his reelection like they did last time. I know I damn well won't. I don't believe he has a chance in hell of being reelected in 2012–the main reason he had the support he did had absolutely nothing to do with him and everything to do with that healthcare monstrosity. Not his fault that he wasn't able to stop it, but that was a once in a lifetime moment in history. There is no way I'd ever work for his reelection again.
Besides, I am sick to death of his campaign's whiny emails. Ooooh, someone said something bad about me, someone is trying to defeat me, waaah, give me money because the big bad dem machine is out to get me. Of course, as you note, there is never any mention of what he has to offer (because he has nothing to offer . . . not to any conservative, anyway).
A RINO isn't better than a dem, when the RINO keeps a real fiscal conservative from representing the people.
Further, if the RINO votes with the dems, how is he any different from putting a real dem in his seat?
I have news for you folks: the voters know this, too. If there's very little difference between a RINO and a dem, there's no reason for people to vote for the former, which is why it's so damned hard in many blue states to get them to vote for a repub… since the repubs tend to be RINOs.
What voters want is a clear distinction — the difference between a candidate who's all about maintaining dem spending levels and someone who's all about cutting back to something that's sustainable. If they don't have a clear choice, they're going to vote for the dem.
Don't tell me a real fiscal conservative can't get elected in a state like Massachusetts, because I don't buy it. Brown won because he talked like a fiscal conservative and sounded like a true representative of TEA Party principles. That message resonated with the voters, causing him to win. And what did he do, as soon as he was elected? Turn his back on everything he promised during the campaign.
If he could win running as a TEA Party-supported candidate, then a REAL fiscal conservative can win there, too.
And a real fiscal conservative is exactly what we need in Massachusetts, as well as every other state. If we don't stop playing the "who's electable and who isn't" game and settling for less than we want and deserve in the hope of appealing to the middle, we're going to continue to be stuck with sh!twads like Brown.
It's time to stop playing that game. Primary his sorry a$$ back to Boston and replace him with a real fiscal conservative.
I can accept the fact that a guy running as a Republican might have 49% of his ideas in line with the opposition. What I can't get my head around is how he treated YOU. Even if he disagreed with you, he should have at least taken your calls. It is this that disappoints me most, and I feel what speaks the loudest about his character.
The fact that you hung around as long as you did, Professor, speaks to your character.
What we'll do is we'll pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and carry on. Sometimes being able to look at ourselves in the mirror is all we have.
Just heard you on WCRN – well played, Prof.
You made your case. Short, sweet, and to the point.