Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

SURPRISE!

Bad News for Republicans? Scott Brown Won't Run for Kerry's Senate Seat

Pundits are taken aback by Brown's decision

Next>

by Mary Noble

Senior Editor t

Image: AP

You may have seen this coming, but Politix is surprised.

It was leaked this morning that Scott Brown won't run for John Kerry's Massachusetts Senate seat, the Washington Post reports. The news has now been confirmed by Brown himself.

Why's this a surprise? Well, everyone thought Republicans were plotting to get Brown into Kerry's Senate seat, after Brown lost his own seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren in 2012. Indeed, conspiracy theorists (and some leading journalists) thought Republican attacks on Susan Rice over Benghazi were a purely political ploy designed to get Kerry made Sec. of State and free up his seat.

Some pundits are calling this bad news for the GOP, but Politico speculates that instead Brown plans to run for Bay State governor in 2013.

Via Politico.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Are you pleased or disappointed Brown won't run for Kerry's Senate seat?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    Voted couldn't care less, cause i couldn't. He wasn't the worse repub, actually reasonable relitively speaking. But I liked warren and wanted to see her win, not cause she is dem, but because she talked as if she would move be further left then most dems. Now lets see if she actually does anything...
  • kathyparsell
    !
    As much as I know Scott Brown, I like him & wish him the best. My comment is about the obtuse reference to Republicans pushing Susan Rice; at least I wanted to know why someone so intelligent kept spouting & defending her own lies. People like that are dangerous and I for one am glad she at least for now is gone.
  • kathyparsell
    !
    @AceLuby After It had already been
    broadcast widely what in fact had occurred, but she still was misrepresenting the facts. This woman was supposed to be super intelligent, if she is less up to date than the public she isn't doing her job. I don't think so, she took the blame.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    @kathyparsell Ever occur to you the reason she lied was the u.s. is involved in intelligence ops in the region and stonewalling, lying, etc. was done to protect informationthat could blow operations, help figure out the identities of agents, etc. I can not prove it but put am 99% certian that was exactly whats been goong on. Repubs attacked cause they knew she couldn't say the truth and they could gain political points by doing it. Happens a with both parties in situations like this. Both parties have done this type of thing before. And public always laps it up when the truth us obvious if one knows a wee bit about intelligence agencies, politics and political smokescreens...
  • kathyparsell
    !
    @PoliticalSpice Not exactly that scenario the I had considered, mine went like this was a total failure of leadership; top down, at the worst time possible (re-election), and she was told to go spread confusion as long as she could. But you could be right, and if so she will still have a future in politics. Most foreign news outlets that I listened to were more scathing of our response than Fox, as a matter of fact the BBC reported that British troops could have arrived to help within the hour but weren't called and couldn't intervene on our behalf.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    @kathyparsell well, this happened before, first reported incident i know was in nixon-kennedy debate. Kennedy attacked vp nixon for not doing anything on cuba. Nixon couldn't argue back cause he knew of cia plans that were secret as part of his job, kennedy, who knew, but had learned from unofficial channels, was free to say as he pleased, and knowing kennedy could not talk back, attacked him and watched as he was defenseless, just as the senators attacking rice/hillary did. Thats one reason obama got so pissed at them and defended rice telling repubs if you got a problem come after me. Its cause he and they knew what was going on, and they were just playing to the cheap seats, free media and their base, knowing the administration would have little choice - either continue to stall and not tell all the truth, or tell the truth and give information that would blow ongoing ops, or lead to unraveling info exposing ops and identities throughout the region...

  • View all 8 replies >

  • rkinsawjoe
    !
    Who would want to be a republican nowadays indeed. Obama and his cronies hardly need to "administer" anti republican propaganda, the republicans seem unable to stop themselves from doing a far better job at it than Obama could ever hope to.
  • frigginhell
    !
    I think it's more an issue of what he plans to do in 4 years from now and what the fallout would be for those prospects if he chose to run and lose, again. His brand is already tarnished, getting beat in a senate run yet again would do nothing to help him if he chooses to go for a bid at the primaries in 4 years.
  • harold_lloyd
    !
    If Brown thinks things are too polarized, then it's pretty damn bad in Washington.

    Of course, it may have sometihng to do with the fact that Dems won't get caught napping again.
  • u
    Realthinker
    !
    Oh boy. Big deal. Brown isn't really that much of a Republican. This gives us an opportunity to run a real conservative and give the people of taxachusetts a choice.
  • PNWest
    !
    Scott Brown is no dummy. He knew that he had very little chance of winning and didn't want to damage his brand. Smart move Scott. If he had announced this two weeks ago the loons on the right could have beaten up on John Kerry instead of giving him a pass. They only confirmed him because they hoped his seat would be winnable.
  • u
    Grubby
    !
    Massachusetts is a lost cause anyway. Too many liberal loons there. In order to get elected as a Republican you have to basically be a RINO anyway. Better for Republicans to concentrate on increasing the number of states with Republican governors, senate, and house by picking off the next 5 or 6 states who have 2 out of 3 or are a conservative base state. Right now we have 30 states with full Republican government. and we could get that to 35 or 36 pretty easily. States like Illinois, Minnesota, California, New York, and Massachusetts will never be anything but liberal havens, but we can at least partially fix the fiscal and regulation problems in about 75% of the states. The way Obama is heading the country, the Federal Government is going to be a lost cause very soon, so the best we can do is help the states.