Scott Brown not running? Update — confirmed, campaign issues statement
So says Howie Carr writing in The Boston Herald (h/t Hot Air) in a scoop.
Scott Brown will not run for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by John Kerry, a source close to the senator tells the Herald.
Update: The campaign just issued this statement:
SCOTT BROWN STATEMENT ON MASSACHUSETTS SENATE ELECTION
BOSTON – Today, Senator Scott Brown issued the following statement:
“Representing Massachusetts in the United States Senate was the greatest privilege of my life, an experience that takes second place only to my marriage to Gail and the birth of our daughters. It was a higher honor than I had ever expected, and in the time given to me I always tried to make the most of it.
“When I was first sent to the Senate in early 2010, it wasn’t exactly welcome news for President Obama or many other Democrats. Yet among my best memories from those three years in office are visits to the White House to see the President sign into law bills that I had sponsored. I left office last month on the best of terms with colleagues both Republican and Democrat. I had worked well with so many of them, regardless of party, to serve the public interest just as we are all supposed to. All of this was in keeping with the pledge I made at the beginning to do my own thinking and to speak for the independent spirit of our great state.
“Over these past few weeks I have given serious thought about the possibility of running again, as events have created another vacancy requiring another special election. I have received a lot of encouragement from friends and supporters to become a candidate, and my competitive instincts were leading in the same direction.
“Even so, 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. And I know it’s not the only way for me to advance the ideals and causes that matter most to me.
“That is why I am announcing today that I will not be a candidate for the United States Senate in the upcoming special election.”
Michael Graham notes his prior advice, DON’T Run, Scott, Don’t Run!–UPDATED!
But please, please, PLEASE Republican Party—DON’T BLOW ANOTHER $50 MILLION ON A PART-TIME SENATE SEAT!
Because Sen. Brown will not be able to hold the seat in a regularly scheduled election. Not gonna happen. How do I know? Because since 2000, only one federal or statewide Republican has won a special election. ONE. And that was the “fluke” election of Mitt Romney, a guy who couldn’t get 40% of the vote here running for president…
I’m not trying to be mean, I’m not trying to be negative. I’m simply pointing out what should be screamingly, ridiculously obvious: Massachusetts doesn’t elect Republicans. Period….
Sen. Brown is such a good candidate (and great guy) that he might—MIGHT—be able to survive in a special election. But the GOP just spent $65,000 a day holding a US Senate seat for less than two years. Is it worth it to do it again?
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Good. He ran a really bad campaign in November anyways.
He thinks he could lose again (which would be bad so soon after the last election) and is probably considering Governor instead.
It is only good if you have a better candidate who can win. I am not sure Brown could have won (he could have run a better campaign), but Lizzie Lie-A-Whopper ran a far worse campaign and still won.
Translation: Pre-decision polling showed I’d lost too much of the conservative/Tea Party support I’d need to win.
About how many people in Massachusetts? About three dozen or so?
Begs the question if anyone will run, Republican I mean. I know Bill Weld’s name has been floated more than once. Dunno if that would be good or bad.
How about Geraldo?
That was a joke. Okay, how about Curt Schilling? Does he still live in Taxachusetts (probably not)?
Mr. Brown was a disappointment to many of us who initially supported him and his exaggerated “bipartisanship” and rejection of principled opposition to policies that are hurting this country have convinced me that it is pointless to support a man who wants to hide his party affiliation. May as well have a wolf as a sheep in wolf’s clothing. At least we know we have no representation of our values and there’s a lot to be said for facing reality.
He was what he was because of The People’s Socialistic Republic of Massachusetts. He had to go moderately squishy to even have a chance, and he still lost, because in a Presidential year more Democrats came out and voted D down the line. I do not buy Tea Partiers abandoned him and that is why they lost. That is because there are not that many in Massachusetts to begin with. I would be no fan of Scott Brown as a senator in a purple or red state, but in Massachusetts he was hands down better than Fauxahontas. Any conservative in Massachusetts who did not vote for Brown over Lie-a-whopper is an idiot.
Totally agree. I lived in MA for 20+ years. A Republican doesn’t have a chance … so I say save the money and cede the state to the Democrats. Let them have their one party rule and go hog wild.
I think you’re overlooking the fact that in 2009, Tea Partiers from around the Nation contributed to his campaign. I did. After observing his squishy voting record, that didn’t happen this time around.
Oh I voted for him over the fake Indian & will vote for whoever runs against Markey or my South Boston congressman but without the optimism with which I cast my 1st vote for Brown.
This state is hopeless.
I agree completely. I was very happy when he was elected. Then 2 things happened, one involved his persona, the other the positions he took. He’s a politician, but I allowed myself to have hope for him when he went to DC. The country was in such bad shape, and we had no one to speak for us. Lo and behold, right away his comments were dismissive of the views and wishes of those on the right who worked and contributed money to his special election. People from all over the country traveled to Mass. and volunteered to get him elected. At times over the rest of his tenure he was downright vicious for no reason. His statement above is more of the same. He does serious damage by repeating the false idea about partisan rancor. It’s just the opposite. The Beltway is one party. The GOP won’t even admit it has a majority in the House. They’ve repeatedly told their members and the NY Times that Obama won, we have to do what he wants. I’m just glad Scott Brown is gone.
Why? MA is a one-party state.
Republicans there would be wise to pack their bags and move to states that are much friendlier, such as, ahem, TX…
…prospect of returning to a Congress even more partisan…
Seems to be a lot of that going around lately.
I can’t really blame Brown. Sure, he may not have run the type of campaign many of us would have liked, but this is after all, Massachusetts where Charlie Manson could get elected if he ran as a democrat and Obama would lose if he ran as a Repub.
…and imagine that this guy was replaced by a fake Indian lawyer practicing without a license and pathological liar.
Massachusetts, a hotbed of liberal democrats that have nothing to recommend them for anything are flourishing. All that can be said is that they are in a geographically appropriate location…
He should just change his party affiliation to democrat. It would pretty much assure a win and it wouldn’t make all that much difference in the way he would vote in the Senate.
A moderate democrat that gets elected is better than an ideal Republican that does not.
I can’t blame him a bit. He went out of his way to be bipartisan and his state still rejected him in favor of a lying leftist hypocrite.
Michael Graham’s right. These deep blue state races are too expensive, think how that $50 million might have helped in Montana and North Dakota, with change left over.
Dan Winslow is the guy I would like to see run. https://www.facebook.com/danwinslowma?fref=ts