At this point, it seems, absolutely no one is disputing that Scott Brown was, at first, totally cool with being sworn in to the US Senate on February 11. So what changed?
The letter sent yesterday by Dan Winslow, Brown's attorney, says Brown decided to hustle after learning about "a number of votes scheduled prior to that date." That's the same explanation cited by Matt Viser in today's Globe.
There are, however, a few other intriguing possibilities. Maybe Brown is rushing to Washington specifically to vote against National Labor Relations Board nominee Craig Becker, a theory advanced over at Blue Mass. Group. Or maybe--as the AP's Glenn Johnson speculated last night--Brown decided to hurry up following pointed criticism of his protracted victory celebration. Case in point: the Herald's Howie Carr snickered yesterday at Brown's "three-week victory lap" and mocked Brown's fondness for "liveshots," a term Carr sually reserves for John Kerry. (Carr's colleague Lauren Beckham Falcone had some similarly harsh words for Brown's protracted celebration.)
And here's a third theory: maybe, when Brown picked a far-off date, he was already planning to delight conservatives by changing his mind and demanding that the Massachusetts Democratic establishment seat him as soon as possible! As a Blue Mass. Group commentator puts it:
Sen-elect Brown comes up with an artificial date to be sworn in.
Then he can "move up" the day he is sworn in so he is even more of a
(Growing the legend of Sen Scott Brown.) This is all a PR plan, set forth weeks ago.
Whatever the intentions of Brown and his handlers, his rapid-onset Potomac Fever seems certain to help his political brand. As Johnson notes, when the aforementioned letter from Winslow was posted on the Drudge Report, it generated so much traffic that readers couldn't open it.