Nine months after just-elected U.S. Sen. Scott Brown scrambled to disassociate himself from extremist Republican congressional candidate William Hudak, Brown has endorsed Hudak as part of a blanket endorsement of all nine Republicans running for the U.S. House from Massachusetts.
You may recall that, last January, Hudak put out a press release touting Brown’s endorsement — and that after Media Nation reminded folks of some of Hudak’s antics, including questioning Barack Obama’s citizenship and putting a poster on his property comparing Obama to Osama bin Laden, the Brown camp quickly disavowed the endorsement. Hudak eventually apologized to Brown, but insisted, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, that he has never held birther views.
Hudak, a Boxford lawyer, is challenging U.S. Rep. John Tierney, a Salem Democrat.
Brown, in today’s announcement, also says that he’s contributing $1,000 to each of the nine candidates. He says nothing specific about Hudak or anyone else. It’s really just a matter of a Republican senator routinely endorsing his party’s nominees. Still, it’s an amusing coda to a long-simmering controversy.
In other Hudak-related news, the National Republican Congressional Committee has announced that it now considers Hudak to be “On the Radar” — a sign that Republicans believe Tierney may be vulnerable now that his wife, Patrice Tierney, has pled guilty to federal tax-fraud charges. And perhaps he is.
Tierney and Hudak will meet tonight at 7:30 in a debate sponsored by the Salem News and the Jewish Journal. Should be a wild time.
15 thoughts on “Brown endorses Hudak, a man he once shunned”
Pingback: Tweets that mention Media Nation » Brown endorses Hudak, a man he once shunned -- Topsy.com
While I am not surprised by the full ticket endorsement, I am shocked that Brown included Hudak. Dan has done a great job laying out his birther past and ties to extremism. For those interested in learning more, there is also this site…http://whoisbillhudak.blogspot.com/
Dan may have done his part to add hysteria to the district race, but it doesn’t seem to have had the effect that he hoped.
Hudak’s opponent and his opponent’s wife have done a pretty good job in keeping Hudak’s chances alive.
But hey, this is Massachusetts.
I wonder how indignant Dan will get if Hudak gets elected?
L.K. wonders how indignant Dan will get if Hudak is elected, given all the anti-Hudak “hysteria” that’s out there. About as indignant as anyone should get when some kook puts a sign on his lawn comparing the president of the United States to a fascist mass murderer.
@Bill Hanna. So true. LK is so stuck on his ideological line-toeing, he neglects that which most everyone else (including most Republicans) finds obvious: Rejecting abhorrent behavior transcends party affiliation.
Points remain, Mikey. Points remain. I think you know that and turn to insults because you have no argument. Typical.
And don’t assume that my pointing out Dan’s foibles means anything but pointing out Dan’s foibles.
It’s fun watching Dan bounce up and down like a rubber ball over this guy. It’s fun watching Dan bounce up and down on all sorts of issues.
You wonder why people like Hudak and Beck and Palin and O’Reilly get ink? ‘Cause “journalists” like Dan keep giving it to them.
Notice how Limbaugh has receded into the irrelevancy when the media maniacs have moved on to other prey?
I also notice that both you and Dan have been quite silent about the performance of the current administration and their penchant for putting their feet in their mouths. (Valerie Jarret is the latest talented aide to accomplish the insert-foot maneuver.)
Care to let us know why?
Why is anyone surprised Scott Brown is cozying up to Hudak? He’s looking at all these Tea Party crackpots taking down reasonable Republican candidates and having nightmares about a primary challenger in 2012. Just imagine Sarah Palin endorsing Hudak two years from now in the middle of the Howie Carr show– that’s what Brown really fears, all the time.
@LK: The better question is, when did you stop denouncing Nazis, and why?
More personal bile, eh, Mikey?
Standard fare from you.
@Mike and @LK (and not just them… me, too)
“Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
@Mr. Hanna – I remember quite a few images of a President as a fascist mass murderer.
Of course, the President in question was Bush, so that made it OK.
@LK: As usual, you ignore both the question and the point.
What allowed the Nazis initially to attain power wasn’t their ideas or their military might. Rather, it was the ambivalence (some say quiet acceptance) of the German middle class. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, Hudak is a neo-Nazi. Like the Nazis, he’s a bigot and a racist. Like the Nazis, he is hyper-patriotic, suggesting that there is two Americas, one of which the true patriots must “take back.” Like the Nazis, he supports a strange economic cocktail that eschews traditional capitalism and favors military buildup and little else. Like the Nazis, he thinks government knows best on issues like family practice and all types of interpersonal relationships. Like the Nazis, he wants to undermine the national legal system. Like the Nazis, he is is anti-left. To his core, he is precisely what he calls his liberal nemeses: a socialist. (Projection alert!)
So either you support a Nazi, or you don’t. But outside of your bedroom (for now, at least), you can’t have it both ways.
(This is about usage, not politics.)I noticed you used “pled guilty” instead of “pleaded guilty” which all the stylebooks recommend. I always thought that “pled” sounded much more natural and that you continue to use it and set a trend.
Sorry, Mikey. You’re being a wingnut. You and Hudak would make a perfect pair.
@LK: So Nazi it is! Glad we’ve learned that about you.
Comments are closed.