Vicki Kennedy and Senator Scott Brown – representatives of the old and new guard in Massachusetts politics – reached an impasse in an escalating battle of wills Tuesday, all but dooming a high-profile US Senate debate in the fall.
The struggle between the two, who have had a tumultuous relationship, has become a sidebar drama in the Senate race between Brown, a Republican, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat and Harvard Law School professor.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
warren continues to be deceitful. This is a definite set-up. To claim that the Kennedy institute and MSNBC is non partisan is a fraud. How about a debate at a West Point with Fox news participating?
The Cherokee Nation has requested a debate between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren.
Scott Brown hides again. Anything to avoid talking about his actual record with someone (especially a woman) who asks tough questions. Our Junior Senator is a coward.
At least Brown doesn't treat working people as DUMB. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HkkFOnO770
My initial reaction is to applaud Scott Brown for taking this position. But then I consider the fact that Tom Brokaw would be moderating the debate and I truly believe he would be fair so that makes me rethink my position. Now I guess I don't know how I feel about the issue. As an aside though, why doesn't Vicki Kennedy go back from whence she came and leave us alone. I loved Ted Kennedy - I don't love her.
That's quite a reach there, migh. What has Scott Brown done FOR working people while in office? How many working people can afford for their children to attend college without student loans? Scott Brown has voted not just once but THREE TIMES to DOUBLE the interest rate on student loans.
Scott Brown's decision is simply another example of the Republican's mantra,"It's my way or no way!"
Senator Brown is no one's fool: He made the right decision.
As a self avowed liberal, I would still have to admit that a debate sponsored by an institute and host who have practically declared support for one of the candidates seriously compromises the appearance of impartiality. Even if Tom Brokaw's history strongly suggests he would be a fair moderator, Warren would equally justified in declining an invitation from Rush Limbaugh to debate at the Ronald Reagan library (yes, I know Rush and the site have nothing to do with MA).
... so was Brown an idiot to agree to the same debate sponsor in 2010?
Globe headline writers really stretched with the headline "Vicki Kennedy refuses Brown guideline for debate." The paper edition says "Vicki Kennedy refuses Brown guideline for debate." We all know that Vicki Kennedy refused Scott Brown's DEMAND that she not endorse anyone in the election. That's so different from a "guideline" as to be misleading, as well as bad journalism. And when she wouldn't accept his demand to be muzzled, which is a ridiculous demand, he took his ball and went home. How come he's OK with a debate hosted by Dan Rea (WBZ) who has already said he plans to vote for Brown? He knows how this looks and that's why he moved to kill the headline by accepting the media conglomerate debate today. That campaign is very good at controlling the media.
Because Dan Rea does not claim to be the leader of a non-partisan institute.
No one controls the media better than the Kennedy family. Any utterance or stray thought of running for office is front page news.