Here we go. Brown: 'Humbled' by White House Talk, But Doesn’t Rule Out 2012 Run

[jefferson_dem]

Brown: 'Humbled' by White House Talk, But Doesn’t Rule Out 2012 Run
January 31, 2010 8:26 AM

Scott Brown’s stunning victory for the Massachusetts Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy has many Republicans hoping he’ll make a White House bid.

When Barbara Walters, in her EXCLUSIVE This Week interview, asked Brown if he’d rule out a 2012 run, he said he found it humbling, but he wouldn’t say no.

Brown told Walters his focus would be on his family and his new role as the 41st Republican Senator and said he’ll “let the political pundits…talk about that stuff”.

Watch Video HERE: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/01/brown-humbled-by-white-house-talk-but-doesnt-rule-out-2012-run.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Clio the Leo]

1. The test will be how low he lays in Congress.....

.... a freshman Senator not wanting to make waves and hoping for higher office, isn't going to make waves.

[Bitwit1234]

14. ha ha ha ha

i really didn't feel too good this morning. Recovering from my two breast cancer operations. But damn this is the best laugh I have had in years.

See this is what I love about republicans. This guy got in office by a fluke and now he thinks he is superman. In six months people will forget who the hell he is.

[DrDan]

17. not necessarily - look at palin

she was found via google . . . and is still the hero of many

I would not be in the least bit surprised to see him become the frontrunner. He won an election for a seat held by decades by the D's. He is young. Not of lot of repubs can claim those 2 credentials. It is currently a party of old white men. If he is clean - and stays clean, I think he might have a spot on the ticket.

[mzteris]

19. will the fundy south support a guy

who posed NUDE? eeeeehhhhhhhh.......... not so sure about that one.

[Clio the Leo]

25. If that guy is Scott Brown, they sure will. NT

[mzteris]

26. I don't think so.

Not the fundies *I* know in the South. Not unless he "found gawd" afterwards and prayed for forgiveness of his sin. . . THEN - maybe they would.

[Clio the Leo]

27. lol, we may know different southern fundies....

.... oddly enough I think my neighbors could get past the Cosmo spread easier than they could get past the pro-choice stance. I think they'd pass the picture off as him sewing his wild oats as a youth.

But being "pro abortion"? Nah ... that one is going to cause him problems and I cant wait to see how he tries to spin away from it IF he tries to run.

[Duke Newcombe]

51. Don't you know? It'll be found to be a "youthful indiscretion"

They won't hold it against him, because he has the correct letter after his name.

[AspenRose]

61. Based on the comments I've seen posted on YouTube about his wife's video

Yep, they will.

Because they're all about the hypocrisy.

[Clio the Leo]

24. Yeah, I think he's knocked her off the headlines....

.... I just cant tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

He has all of her folksy charm but is more intelligent and more moderate in his political beliefs. (Actually, he HAS NO political beliefs so he's free to pick and choose.)

But, he is STILL not The Obama. As I said, this is Obama's game to lose.

[karynnj]

34. I agree - especially if the Republicans chose a serious

Republican Governor or Senator. Ignore everything that happened in the last 2 or 3 years, and consider that Al Gore's short list was Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards. From various accounts, the reason for the choice of Lieberman was that he wanted someone who would be seen as the opposite of Bill Clinton. But, Edwards at that point would have been Senator only sense January 1999 - less than 2 years at the point chosen.

Look further and there are major similarities - he interested people because he won what had been "Jesse Helms'" seat and was pushed as good looking and charismatic. Yet, in both 2004 and 2008, he was pushed by the media as a likely nominee - a label given to only 5 (Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Clark and Edwards) in 2004 and three in 2008. Again, ignore everything now known, and I would not blow this off. I very much agree with you.

[Duke Newcombe]

50. Which is why we need to force R's to fillibuster

Make "Mr. 41" actually be the 41st (obstructionist) vote on enough things, and he'll me toast in 2012, along with the rest of his sick band of political miscreants.

[DrDan]

56. the thing about it is that once the pubs are back in power, it will then apply to us

[Mass]

2. I guess this is another substanceless interview of Scott Brown.

Amazingly, people refuse to ask him hard questions, which would be very reveling. They continue to ask him softball questions, to which he can use his charm to answer without saying anything.

[Mass]

4. Apparently, a large part of the interview is about Brown's parents divorce when he was one.

and his unhappy childhood.

The media gets better every day, when it comes to build substanceless interviews.

[Turbineguy]

5. After Reagan and Bush

they can only push forward idiots. After all, pushing somebody with a brain would only show up just how bad these two really were.

[butterfly77]

7. Doesn't this remind you of ..

another someone was never asked any tough questions,a certain someone who doesn't give a damn about anything but how the family can profit from all of the publicity...

[wisteria]

46. That is because they know he has no real substance about him. Better to keep it light and people in

the dark.

[CBHagman]

3. Babs, get a grip.

The tree question put to Katharine Hepburn was bad enough. :eyes:

The members of the media strike again, conferring gravitas before it's earned. First they pulled it with Palin, now with Brown.

Of course it's purely fake, based on fantasies and nothing more.

[merh]

8. Brown & Palin will be the GOP ticket

and will be the first Pres/VP candidates who have to withdraw from the race because they slept with each other.

Just a prediction, but it could happen. Egos and places of power do strange things to people.


Besides, how could the GOP push him, he is only a senator and we all know they believe Obama wasn't qualified cause he was only a senator.

They wouldn't be pushing no double standards, would they.

:sarcasm:

[SteveM]

6. Brown will have to get past Rick Perry. nt

[graywarrior]

9. He hasn't even done anything to prove himself yet!

[fugop]

10. Goes to show how frakkin' desperate they are

I mean, wow. They can't find ANYBODY else? Just this newbie who beat out a candidate with a crappy campaign and who ran on the "I'm Scott Brown and I'm not a Republican I'm a feisty outsider who drives a truck!" platform?

Heh. I love it. Palin Part Deux!

[totodeinhere]

13. If I recall correctly, the Dems ran a newbie in 2008 and he did pretty good.

But the scariest thing about this is that if Brown has serious aspirations to be on the ticket in 2012, then he will know that to get the GOP nomination he will have to run far to the right. And that would dash the hopes of those who are speculating that he might become a rather moderate senator who will work with the Democrats. If he wants to run in 2012 he will have to be a very conservative senator who toes the teabagger line.

[Arkana]

20. Our newbie had a brain, real ambition, and the ability to debate

a powerful Washington insider on serious political topics.

Scott Brown wilted in front of Martha Coakley--and bless her heart, Martha has the charisma of wet cardboard.

[totodeinhere]

21. Since when has having "a brain, real ambition, and the ability to debate" been a requirement to..

get the GOP nomination? Look at shrub for instance. He had none of those things yet they nominated him. LOL.

[Arkana]

22. I'm saying that it's unfair to compare Barack Obama to Snotty Scotty Brown.

[fugop]

28. But that's the point, really

Their "newbie" is Scott Brown. Ours was Obama. I"ll take ours over theirs any day of the week. I don't doubt the GOP WILL try to push Brown as their next great hope. But I giggle at how sad it is that he's all they got. Obama even as a newbie had obvious attributes as far as intelligence that this guy ain't got.

So more power to 'em. He's just the next Sarah Palin/Bobby Jindal/Bob McDonnell/you name it.

Makes me smile contentedly to think that this is all they've got to offer.

[GoCubsGo]

40. Yep.

Nobody was pushing Obama as the next great hope before he was even sworn in as Senator. Sure, he was considered a future "next great hope", but most people were not already pushing him to run at that point.

[GoCubsGo]

39. The Dem "newbie" actually had a couple of years in the Senate under his belt when he ran

Brown has not even been sworn in yet. I don't see how his running to the far right is so scary. Most people think the teabaggers are nuts, and will not likely vote for them, as that recent House race in NY showed. Brown did not get elected in MA because he ran to the far right. He got elected because Coakley ran a poor campaign and Democrats stayed home.

[yellowcanine]

53. Yeah well, Brown is no Barack Obama.

[Snotcicles]

11. Joe the Plumber/Scott Brown now there is a ticket. nt

[chelsea0011]

12. hell, he's not even a senator yet. Why don't be just have a coronation for him?

[ncteechur]

15. for which party? he is pro-choice..not going to get GOP nod run as 3rd party?

[totodeinhere]

16. If he pulls a Romney and starts to change his position on that, then we'll know he's serious about

2012.

[Jennicut]

18. Brown won't be accepted by the GOP leadership unless he changes his social views

He won't even be considered for VP. His social views are liberal to moderate.

[AlinPA]

31. 5 minutes with Rush Limbaugh will put him on the republican track; he'll be

squawking the republican talking points- "school lunches for poor kids is like feeding stray animals", etc.

[Aramchek]

23. this clown's got less of a chance than Palin

[burning rain]

29. Making a run for the White House in 2012 might work for him, as it did for John Edwards in 2004.

Like Edwards in 2004, Brown is highly likely to lose his Senate reelection in 2012, so he may as well decline to run for Senate again and go for the White House. It's a great face-saver: even if he doesn't get the nomination, his future viability is preserved and he doesn't have the stigma of a Senate loser clinging to him.

[liquid diamond]

30. He is a pro-choice republican.

He would not stand a chance.

[BeyondGeography]

32. Yup. So much for that.

[AlinPA]

33. Isn't his base teabaggers and birthers?

[Jennicut]

35. No, they were independents and moderate Repubs.

And some Dems. Teabaggers and birthers are a minority in the Northeast to begin with.

[AlinPA]

41. Western PA is loaded with them.

[Jennicut]

44. Well, Glenn Beck does live here in CT.

Thankfully I live in the Northern part of the state...far away from that nutball.
But generally I don't come in contact with too many or hear about them around here.

[wisteria]

48. Oh, I know, I live among them. n/t

[wisteria]

47. He had a lot of support from Tea Party'ers. n/t

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

36. How irrelevant is the Republican Party?

A guy nobody had heard of less than one year ago manages to win a fluke election (Harris Wofford, anyone?) and now they're talking about having him run for President before he's even taken his seat in the Senate and less than one year before the election cycle begins. If you're going to run for President, you'd better have an exploratory committee together by February of 2011 or you can pretty much forget it.

Is the what the Republican Party has come to? Chasing after the flavor-of-the-month in a desperate attempt to hold on to power?

Sarah Palin? OMG! She's SO 2008! Scott Brown is fetch!

This is really just embarrassing...

[AlinPA]

43. They won races in VA and NJ and MA. They are not irrelevant yet. If we take

more seats than them in 2010, then we can begin to consider whether they are in deep trouble. I do not like to say this, but right now, we are in some trouble. Post SCOTUS ruling, the corporations' 10's of billions could make the republicans very relevant.

[wisteria]

49. You have to analyze each one of those races individually. Lumping them together

does not give you a clear idea what happened. And, consider the media is playing this all up for effect and November 2010 drama.

[jillan]

37. Seriously?? He's not even in congress yet. Talk about vanity.

[onehandle]

38. Softcore Porn President?

Unlikely. Anyway, his pro-choice stance limits him to this job. Which was a fluke, imo.

Hopefully this can be corrected in 2012.

[BlueIdaho]

42. President? This guys a blank slate.

So far his accomplishments add up to exactly nothing. He can thank a mountain of money and a pick-up truck for his current place.

[wisteria]

45. Well, he can run all he wants-he won't get my vote.

I don't vote for people who pretend to be all about the "people" when in fact, it is really all about them and their ambitions.

[SeattleGirl]

52. Good gawd, but the Repukes change their "hero" more often

than I change my socks!

Apparently, ol' Scott doesn't realize he's going to be tossed into the dirty laundry basket any moment when the next shiny person comes along.

[jenmito]

54. Palin better call him out on his "porn." She called Levi Johnston's posing in Playboy "porn" and he

revealed as much of himself as Scott Brown did.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

55. I hate this country sometimes. If it's a Democrat, the bar is raised so high. Impossibly high.

When it's a Repuke, there is always a double-standard. Republicans are allowed to be stupid and ignorant; have no experience; make all kinds of insensitive, mean-spirited remarks; lie through their teeth; ruin an economy (Bush, Palin); and that's o.k.

We cannot even give Barack Obama ONE year. Not even ONE year before he's ripped to sheds and we're talking about Repukes regaining power.

It is such a sad state of affairs.

Thinking about moving back to England. I'm starting to give up on this country.

[win_in_06]

57. Cheesecake + Beefcake

If Palin got the nom I could see her picking Brown as her VP candidate

[AspenRose]

62. The American Idol Candidates

Emphasis on "American"

As in, representing "REAL America"

Yep, totally possible

[windbreeze]

58. surely you jest?...

guess not....shaking my head...sure didn't take them long to decide he's their savior...run...but give up the Senate seat first, in order to do so...wb

[WeDidIt]

59. Brown is Pro-Choice

The GOP will NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER nominate a pro-choice presidential candidate.

[AspenRose]

60. Like we couldn't see THIS coming from a mile away.

Will be entertaining to watch him fight to scratch and claw his way past Huckabee, Bob McDonnell, Caribou Barbie and Mittens. Yeppers :popcorn: