H/T for video to Hill Buzz: “Get off your butts: MSNBC admits electing Scott Brown will cripple Obama.”
Success has a thousand fathers and failure only one, as the expression goes.* Now that Republican Scott Brown is polling ahead of the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, for the election in Massachusetts on Jan. 19 to fill the Senate seat that fell vacant when Ted Kennedy died, there’s a rush in Right blogosphere to take some credit. Today Jules Crittenden gratefully cites Neo-neocon, who wrote that on Dec. 9 Crittenden correctly predicted the conditions that could rob Coakley of the easy coronation she expected.
I could be wrong because I didn’t comb the entire blogosphere, but I think the scoop for rallying Republicans nationally to support Scott Brown to become the 41st Republican senator, able to stop Obamacare with a single filibuster, belongs to Prof. William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, and Hill Buzz, the blog of a group of moderate Democratic gay men in Chicago who campaigned for McCain/Palin after the nomination was stolen from Hillary.
In contrast, Crittenden’s post on Dec. 9, the day after the primary vote in Massachusetts that selected Martha Coakley for the Democrats and Scott Brown for the Republicans, was dripping with disdain for Brown, his chances AND anyone who was determined to fight for his election:
Brown, talking up tax cuts and slamming stimulus hackery, talked about how all the jobs that were created were Democratic hack jobs. Which is among the reasons he’ll lose. In a low-turnout election, the many, many hacks of Massachusetts will call the shots.
… Legal Insurrection rates me “reasonably pessimistic.” I’ll rate him reasonably wishful, as he notes a Brown win would be “something else” and includes a link to donate to Brown.
… A reader just berated me for insulting Ayla (Brown’s daughter, a singer who was a contestant on American Idol). Apologies to the lovely and talented Ayla Brown from an F-list political commentator. My kids are fans and have your autograph from a Hanover Mall appearance. No offense intended though I entirely understand how it could be taken. Sorry, once I get started with the harsh realities …
Same reader also berated me for failing to be sufficiently optimistic about her dad’s chances and for failing to engage in GOP cheerleading. Sorry, once I get started with the harsh realities …
The big news stories in December were Climategate, Obamacare and the Christmas panty bomber. Prof. Jacobson published posts on Dec. 9 and Dec. 17 calling for Republicans to support Brown. Then, on Monday, December 28, Hill Buzz published a post endorsing Scott Brown. The headline read, “One of the hardest things we’ve ever had to write: Martha Coakley should NOT be the next Senator from Massachusetts,” and they made this impassioned plea:
Our decision to support Scott Brown has nothing to do with Martha Coakley.
We would not support any Democrat running for that Senate seat, because for the sake of the country we believe Democrats should lose the 60-vote edge they currently are abusing.
Every Democrat blindly voting for the Healthcare Rationing bill is doing a great disservice to this nation. They have not read this bill. They do not know what’s in it. They are not executing their sworn duties as representatives of the people to work in their best interests. This is a pork-laden bill filled with hundreds of millions in bribes. It is a bill that will, for the first time in history, usurp the Constitution to force Americans to purchase products against their will. It is a bill that dictates how Americans can spend their own money. It is a bill that will eliminate the Flex Spending Accounts so many families we know of depend on to make ends meet in their household budgets.
It is a tragedy of legislation, rushed through Congress for no valid reason. Instead of behaving in a considered and responsible way, Democrats are ramming this junk through the Senate at full speed while they have those 60 votes. They know that, without that 60-vote edge, they would never be able to wreck the havoc they intend for this country.
So, it is thus with a very heavy heart that we say, clearly, that Martha Coakley must be defeated — this time — in her bid for the Senate.
Coakley has said she will vote the party line on the Healthcare Rationing Bill. That’s enough for us to say she should not be installed in the Senate next month.
Democrats should not have more than 59 votes, so that bills this massive and economy-changing cannot be shoved through in secret in the dead of night.
Support Scott Brown, and stop liberal tyranny from destroying this nation, while we still have a chance to do some damage control.
This was an about-face from Hill Buzz’s post supporting Coakley for Senate published on Oct. 1. After explaining their change of heart, Hill Buzz continued to inspire people to donate to Brown’s campaign and phone bank for him. They also made sure to get ahead of a possible negative that Coakley could use: Brown posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine when he was in law school. And even I can tell the man is smokin’ hot. Hill Buzz made this photo an asset by nicknaming Brown, “Hottie McAwesome.” (Imagine the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over that at the Coakley HQ!)
It looks like Jules Crittenden picked up the story on the GOP’s abandonment of Brown from the Boston Herald, where he is an editor, on Dec. 29, the day after Hill Buzz’s endorsement. Also on Dec. 29, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air and Prof. Jacobson wrote posts about Crittenden’s story on Brown and his importance as the 41st vote against Obamacare and the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda for America.
If Scott Brown wins the Senate race in Massachusetts on Jan. 19, it will be called the Massachusetts miracle, but I believe it began with the love-of-country and determination to fight regardless of overwhelming odds of Prof. William Jacobson and the dear gay boyz at Hill Buzz.
P.S.
Dear Moe Lane also has been quite the staunch supporter for Brown but he does not have an archives plug-in so it’s not easy to go back and see when he first started posting for Brown.
Update, 1/17/2010, Sun.:
Thanks to dear Dan Collins of POWIP for pointing out that Massachusetts blogger Sissy Willis has been a vocal supporter of Scott Brown since he won the Republican primary on Dec. 8 (and probably before, I didn’t check her archives). And I can’t resist adding that dear Little Miss Attila linked Hill Buzz’s campaign in support of “Hottie McAwesome” on December 31.
Update, 1/17/2010, Sun.:
Over at Neo-neocon’s today a commenter and the eponymous blogger note that I “muffed” this saying: failure is an orphan. I actually do have dysphasia, although I usually Google my way out of it.
Don’t forget Sissy Willis!
What a thorough explanation! Than you very much. I haven’t heard a thing about Brown until last week. Anyway, I wish he could win. Heck, I (excuse me for that word) hope he wins.
A little digression: Mel Gibson was driving drunk and nevertheless was held accountable for what he said, so James Cameron being sober should be nailed as a ecoterrorism sympathizer. Or man-made-ecodisaster, should I say? I wish now Avatar wasn’t such a success…
.-= Dr. sipmac´s last blog ..James Cameron, that’s it! =-.
I have been LOVING the posts at HillBuzz – the enthusiasm and the exhortations. And, I’ve shared the “Hottie McAwesome” with so many people, and they ALL laugh.
The momentum is on Brown’s side. He is the first wave of the sea change that is coming – especially when all out military men return home.
Here’s to sanity, to reading a bill before you vote on it, to restoring fiscal sanity and responsibility, and to seeing the end of ACORN/”Working Families Party” and Union thuggery.
.-= Rose´s last blog ..MSNBC’s Schultz- I’d Cheat To Keep Brown From Winning In Massachusetts =-.
Since I’m down here in Texas and hardly anyone reads my blog I’ll just quietly cheer, and pray the Brown margin is large enough that the cheating from ACORN is nullified.
Just got done campaigning in Springfield, MA for Brown and there is a real excitement brewing. Republicans and Independents don’t often have the power to decide the outcome of a Massachusetts election.
Coakley is an awful candidate who was installed because she is a DNC “yes” woman who will be the lamb of the Senate, not the lion and will do what the party machine in MA and DC order her to do.
Brown must serve the people as Senator if he wants to be re-elected.
Coakley will only serve the speial interest, and the people of Massachusetts of BOTH parties know this is the truth.
.-= Alcove-One´s last blog ..Massachusetts Miracle =-.
Thank you, Dan Collins for setting the record straight, and thank you, Cynthia Yockey for the update!
As a matter of fact, Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection and I started — independently, unaware of each other’s work at that point — blogging about Scott Brown on December 9, the day after Scott Brown’s primary victory.
If you’re interested in more, including my latest — “Scott Brown Democrat: “Somebody’s going to have to pay for this” — published this morning, the archives are available here: “Scott Brown for Senator.”
I don’t want to get into any religious wars, but from my point of view here in Chelsea-by-the-Sea just north of Boston, Jules Crittenden has been a leading player in the discussion from the start.
.-= Sissy Willis´s last blog ..Scott Brown Democrat: "Somebody’s going to have to pay for this" =-.
The gang at Hillbuzz have been wildly enthusiastic, and I’ve loved being a part of it. Alcove, on behalf of many of us outside the state looking in, I offer heartfelt thanks to you. I truly hope Tuesday night brings cause for celebration!
Hi Cynthia—As far as I’m concerned, you’re beating a straw man here. In my post that mentioned Jules Crittenden, I was not writing about who was first to pick up the Brown cause. And although the question of who was first on the Brown bandwagon is no doubt an interesting one, it’s not the one that interested me.
In my post you’re referring to, the one that mentioned Jules Crittenden (and Sissy Willis, by the way), the point I was making is that Crittenden foresaw and described the specific circumstances under which Brown might win, even though Crittenden himself was skeptical. Here’s the full quote from my blog post:
So I’m hardly saying that Crittenden got the scoop for rallying Republicans to support Brown. In fact, although he finally came aboard (hi, Jules!), he was a bit late to the bandwagon.
In closing, let me just say that all of us are eagerly anticipating Tuesday, and hoping for a Brown victory!
.-= neo-neocon´s last blog ..Coakley campaign’s calumny =-.
neo-neocon,
The quote you provide here was linked in my post both your to blog and Jules’s. I do not think Jules deserves credit for foresight when all he was doing was using the skill of ass-covering employed by all prudent columnists. In addition, he was using the ass-covering statement you quote to enforce his point that Brown could never win. Since his intent was to be snide and spread gloom, he deserves no credit for foresight of any kind.
Cynthia
The RNC abandoned Brown because they are not in the business of winning elections. Michael Steele admitted as much on Fox. EVERY positive development in the past year, year and a half, for the GOP has come about in spite of the RNC, the NRSC and the NRCC, not because of them. They are trying to stuff ‘approved’ candidates into every state they can based on a model that plays comfortably in the conference rooms and restaurants of DC, not the nation.
Do not expect this to get better. If you’re going to donate to GOP candidates — and please please do — donate directly to them. The RNC and its lackeys are just a waste of money under the present antiLeadership.
.-= Richard McEnroe´s last blog ..Chris Dodd Digs Up Dead Ted for Coakley! =-.
I have been all over the blogosphere and it was Hillbuzz and legal Inserection that started, and kept the ball rolling. Yup, everyone else seems to or wants to take credit for it but those 2 sites were the starting force and readers shared those sites with other. Other bloggers picked it up but credit where credit is due goes to HB boys and the Pro.
Jules and others are full of crap when they try and take credit for it. They know it and so do we
Cynthia: well, I’m in an expansive mood. I’m willing to give everyone credit—everyone who started out supporting Brown early on, and everyone who jumped on the bandwagon later on and spread the word, and everyone who’s going to vote for him tomorrow.
But I do think one can be pessimistic about a person’s chances and yet have foresight about what might happen to turn that around.
.-= neo-neocon´s last blog ..Comparisons =-.
neo-neocon,
It’s very gracious of you to drop by and I do appreciate your willingness to give everyone credit. I jumped in to defend the honor of my dear Hill Buzz boyz, who had farther to go than Republicans to campaign for Scott Brown since they had endorsed Coakley on Oct. 1. They also have been extremely generous in explaining to Republicans how to campaign and in rousing Republicans from stupors of hopelessness and laziness. When I looked into the matter, I found that Proj. Jacobson also saw the importance of Brown’s candidacy and got busy when the odds were still overwhelming. Dan Collins pointed out Sissy Willis also got to work for Brown immediately, as did Moe Lane, even if he is humble and attributes his support to a good work ethic, although I think his exact words were “party hack.” And Little Miss Attila was so far-sighted in support of Brown that she states she has been supporting him for senate since she was three. I’ve done nothing because I have personal projects that are urgent.
I’m truly sorry I still can’t quite agree with you about Jules having foresight in the post you cited, though, for three reasons. First, he was using the sequence of miracles you cited that would have to happen for Brown to prevail to prove why he would lose. He was extremely derisive. I just can’t give him credit for dumb luck when it was the faith of people with genuine foresight who got busy that made those miracles happen. Second, he was insulting and derisive toward Brown’s teenage daughter. Clearly he didn’t think he would ever need to be able to interview Brown in person without getting a punch in the snoot. Third, I can’t recall seeing where Jules took into consideration that even if Massachusetts has three times more registered Democrats than Republicans, it has more independents than Democrats and they are fast coming to the realization that they made a horrible mistake in voting for Obama. However, I see you have an excellent post explaining why so many people in Massachusetts are independents.
So I hope we can agree to disagree on this one, but maintain a cordial and respectful relationship as we converse with one another through our respective blogs. I predict Big Fun.
And Massachusetts voters: vote for Scott Brown for Senate on Tuesday, Jan. 19.
Cynthia
Cynthia: yes, I think all of those people have done wonderful work. And it will be even more wonderful if Scott Brown wins today!!! I am on pins and needles.
.-= neo-neocon´s last blog ..Comparisons =-.