In the guise of an apology, Republican congressional candidate William Hudak writes that Sen.-elect Scott Brown promised to support him and then reneged when the Hudak campaign went public. Hudak writes in an op-ed that appears in today’s Salem News:
Scott and I spoke personally and he agreed to help my campaign. But pressing forward with an endorsement announcement without his written permission or review of our press release, was wrong and for that I have apologized.
Hudak also apologizes for putting signs on his lawn depicting President Obama as Osama bin Laden — that is, if you were among the “some” who were offended — and tries to make it sound like his birther views, which he recently disavowed, were based on super-special information that came into his possession because he’s an attorney, rather than the same Internet crap we all saw.
I think the Brown team has handled the Hudak matter fairly well up to this point. But it’s time for Brown himself to say something that will cause Hudak to cross him off his Christmas card list once and for all.
17 thoughts on “Hudak’s backhanded apology to Brown”
Dan, here’s why you’re not a campaign manager or a political adviser. Senator Brown doesn’t need to say anything. Anything he does say will only draw attention to a story that marginally involves him and offers him zero upside.
I think Mr. Brown is going to focus on his new job which entails not only a job but adjusting to some degree, to a lifestyle change. He’s certainly in the public eye now, and I don’t think he’ll be wishing Mr. Hudak any bad will. Towards the end of the year they will probably be exchanging their Peace on Earth greetings as we should do with everyone even if their political views differ, or swing further from center.
It appears Mr. Hudak has decided to become less of a cartoon character himself by bringing a little dignity to his campaign in the hopes to be taken seriously by voters.
If that is the case, I think Mr. Hudak owes a tremendously huge expression of thanks to Dan Kennedy for constructively pointing out campaign flaws that apparently had been overlooked.
I gotta say that in this case, I agree with Dunque, especially now that Hudak is taking all of the blame. But Brown should at least be prepared to answer questions about whether it was true he said he would support Hudak’s candidacy, and even then, time will tell if he does or not.
That being said, I confess Hudak himself comes across as almost human in this editorial. I almost believe him when he says he now repudiates most everything he has demonstrably believed in the past. Almost.
But for him to say he does not engage in personal attacks after riding around with those caricatures on his car is simply laughable.
The horse is dead, Dan.
Except that Hudak is so far off the ledge, all this nonsense bears repeating every time he sticks his noggin in a public forum. This is a man who absolutely no judgment or common sense. I’m not saying he doesn’t have the right to live — he does, barely — but he certainly has no right to bury his views or actions and call for a do-over “just because.” He’s a nutty nut job, and the public needs to be reminded of this, to be sure they know exactly what they are doing if they ever consider checking his name on the ballot.
I don’t think Hudak meant that he was privy to any special information when he referred to something on file with the U.S. Supreme Court. Virtually every filing with them is a public document.
Since we’re getting into another election season, I wonder how many of the elected officials (or candidates) toying with birtherism — or using Marxism, socialism, or facism tags for the president — will now find themselves publicly distancing themselves from their own crazy rhetoric, like Hudak just did. Otherwise, their crazy statements are bound to turn into their opponents’ campaign ads.
@Michael: Hudak wrote, “As an attorney I received information in 2008 on file with the U.S. Supreme Court that could lead some to speculate about President Obama’s citizenship.” What do you suppose he means by “as an attorney”? At the very least, he’s showing off and making it seem like he saw documents other than the crazy stuff circulating on the Internet. In fact, it’s exactly that crazy stuff that made its way into the Supreme Court brief.
So, we traded an obsession with Sarah palin, to an obsession with Hudak?
Hudak is either a big fat liar claiming he believes Obama is an enemy as contemptible as Osama Bin Laden or he’s as dumb as a post. Either way I find people like him contemptible but I don’t think it’s incumbent on Scott Brown to do more than he’s done with regard to Hudak. Hudak is not his problem. He’s ours.
“it’s time for Brown himself to say something that will cause Hudak to cross him off his Christmas card list once and for all.”
@Tom G: You’ve left out a third possibility.
Welcome to the Internet, lou.
“So, we traded an obsession with Sarah palin, to an obsession with Hudak?”
It’s quite human to slow down when passing a car wreck and gawk.
I’m sure it suits Brown just fine to say nothing with respect to Hudek. Brown may or may not actually support Hudek, but Brown benefited from the crazy wing of the Republican party (which Hudek represents) to provide that “enthusiasm gap” that got him elected.
Earlier, Scott claimed that he was NEVER in communication with Carrie’s Mom, yet during one of her appearances on Fox “News”, she stated otherwise. Scott may wind up doing more backtracking than a decapod.
Now that’s funny!
He’s a nutty nut job
Is he really? Or just a guy with no sense or feel for what’s inappropriate?
I think a generation listening to talk-radio probably has produced lots of Hudeks, but most don’t act it out when off the phone.
@O’R1on, if the “nutty nut job” fits…
Comments are closed.