I’m not exactly sure what I expected from the first Senate debate, but I know I didn’t expect what we got.
It was terrific. No, that doesn’t go far enough. It was shockingly fantastic. Everyone who missed it Thursday night, which I suspect is just about every normal person in this state, should be furiously figuring out where C-Span is on their cable dial to catch it as a rerun.
Comments
i'm sure the people who are going to vote for a person strictly on the basis of skin color or continuing to receive city, state or federal handouts with nothing given in return heard loud and clear warrens saying over and over again she hopes obama continues as C in C. ma
Obama was elected by white people. If you can't understand that I suggest you do a little Googling.
I think he's indicating he votes *against* a person based on their skin color. Why else would he have brought it up?
An amusing hoir of politcal theater. Brown even managed to get a reference to his truck in. Such a 'regular guy', but where was his barn coat? How many times did he mention his 'house full of women', and how protecting his mother from an abusive step-dad demonstrates his support for women? Perhaps if my mom, wife, and daughter were being chased by his angry step-dad I feel compelled to vote for him. Fortunately, they are not.
When I listen to Warren's condescending tone, it reminds me how much I do not want a know-it-all liberal telling me how to live my life.
"Do as I say and not as I do" perfectly describes her type.
Thank you for your content-free contribution to the conversation.
This comment has been removed.
I was captivated as well, so spot on Mr. McGrory. The discourse was civil and your comparison to Divorce Court is unfair. A man and a woman should be able to debate without being compared to a dysfunctional marriage. You come dangerously close to referring to Warren as a gender-specific slur ("You half expected Brown to unload with a, “You miserable (derogatory term here).” This is a problem that underscores that gender-based inequity is alive and well. Sir, I expect you (as a gifted journalist) to be aware of your own gender biases & suspect those in the article were committed without your full awareness.
You seem to think you know what the "derogatory term here" would be. I can think of at least a dozen derogatory terms that would fit so I didn't assume any particular one. If you think it was a gender-specific derogatory term then that says more about your own biases than Mr. McGrory's.
McGory, this was brilliant ... You half expected Brown to unload with a, “You miserable (derogatory term here),” while Warren shook her head and muttered, “I hate the way you breathe.”
I hope to live long enough to see disagreement without disdain come back to American politics. The voters are shortchanged when the candidates call names at each other.
Agreed, except the majority of voters are getting what they said they want, and through their own actions, have set the same example by which the candidates conduct themselves. Of course, you know that based on the partisan vitriol you had to sift through already.
He came across as a BULLY, sweated profusely and decidedly UNLIKABLE! Took the first statement as a CHEAP SHOT at her native American ethnicity! Told the viewers she didn't "look" like a native. He sounded lie Sherriff Arpayio in Arizona the creator of the papers please law and consummate racist. He could have sown his doom first moment out. Brown showed himself to be a politician in the worst sense of the word! If I disliked him before the debate, I LOATHE him now. I hope the small percentage who will decide this election see him for the typical Republican sleazebag that he is!
This comment has been removed.
So true. Keller knew exactly what Brown was going to say. He not only led with that question, but gave Brown the first shot.
And I do not look Scottish although family lore had my grandfather's Ellis Island experience saying his name was MacMoore. Awe heck the official said I'll sign you in as Rosen. These family lore stories come up ALL the time. I believed her 100%
With you 100%. For years, we'd been told our family name was "Pennsylvania Dutch." It wasn't until my uncle retired and took up researching the family geanology as a hobby that we discovered we were good old Scots-Irish.
This comment has been removed.
I'm really surprised that he went to the Native American non-issue right off the bat. Isn't that the sort of thing a smart politician leaves to his proxies?
There are plenty of non-issues to tag Brown with (vowing to repeal Obamacare while deriving benefits from it, claiming credit for bills he didn't write, the, er, not-quite-how-everyone-else-remembers-it childhood story). Hopefully, Warren will know to go to the Mitch McConnell issue early.
The first question posed was about character and integrity. Slamming Warren on the Native American claim is fair game. She has yet to explain her application status, did she file for minority hire? Why no answer? If that doesn't show you what kind of person she is, well you're going to vote for her anyways.
willow2 -- Would it matter to you if the American Indian issue didn't exist? Would you vote for Warren then? I think not. If she was the Republican candidate, would you vote for her anyway? I think yes. That makes your opinion of no importance.
100 Warrens in DC...even one's a scary thought!
They should let Jon Keller moderate every debate...no opening, no closing, just tough questions. He did a very good job in keeping it fair and focused. I'm a Democrt voting for a Democrat, but I have to admit Brown's performance exceeded my expectations and I would concede the debate to him.
I'm sorry to say that, as a Warren supporter, I felt as you did about the debate -- that Brown came across stronger. However, I do think that Warren held her own to a great extent. Brown came off aggressive right from the start, which usually works on TV. But, I really thought that at times he was going to explode (he is known to have a quick temper), and I was hoping that Warren would say something to cause that kind of explosion from Brown. Both, however, kept their cool and mostly stayed to their regular talking points. I don't know if we learned anything really new from the debates, but I partially agree with McGrory that Brown at least really is contemptuous of Warren. The last thing I'll say is that it was interesting how much Brown kept away from his Republican connections, never mentioning Romney and comparing himself a number of times to Edward Kennedy. That may be an area that Warren can dig into in the future.
THESYSTEMWORKED: "If Brown didn't treat Lizzy like a Senate candidate he would have been attacked by the unhinged liberals as 'patronizing'." OBVIOUS FACT: You don't have to be "unhinged" (or a liberal or a Democrat or a woman) to note that calling the senator "Brown" and his opponent "Lizzy" is more than patronizing enough. TSW's SCORE: Still 100% creepy, boorish nonsense from this stealth Republican operative.
I hope the Republican's are paying THESYSTEMWORKED because they'd be wasting their money. Actually, though, I can't believe the Republicans would be that stupid. SYSTEM is losing them votes. Who in their right mind, regardless of their political stance, would want to be connected with him.
Brown votes with McConnel when told and they allow him to vote with the Dems from time to time on matters of less importance. The crazies want McConnel as Senate Majority Leader so nothing will ever get done, and Inhofe will be in charge of environmental committees. We'd never vote for these guys yet we want Brown back in the senate? Notice that the paid posters below will not even mention McConnel, Inhofe, cantor, Baenor, or even Romney, and certainly not the Tea Party!
lordchaucer, I Agree. And Brown NEVER says he is a Republican. After all, who would want to identify with the extremist control of today's Republican Party? And, as you said, by voting for Brown, people are also voting for a majority Republican Party in the Senate, which will be devastating for all of America. For example, there are 3 U.S. Supreme Court justices that will be in their 80s in the next four years. What political party in the Senate will have majority rule to vote "yes" or "no" for any new presidential judicial nominees? Will a Republican majority in the Senate control that vote for any new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court? Across the board a majority Republican Party -- extremist rightwing controlled in the Senate -- will reap havoc. This is damn serious stuff. Elizabeth Warren is correct, a vote for Scott Brown may mean Republican Party majority control in the Senate! And this is definitely NOT your father or your grandfather's Republican Party of moderation. BTW, Brown's retort about "bi-partisian" stuff is pointless. Why? Because he is a Republican. And his presence as a Republican in the Senate adds another number to Republicans in the Senate. As such, if Brown's presence in the Senate makes the total number of Republicans as 51, then Republicans are in control of the Senate. Off the wall extremist Republicans. No wonder Brown never says he is a Republican!
Nothing was said by either candidate that hasn't been said many times before. We learned nothing. Actually, we really never learn anything from these debates. They always boil down to who comes up with the best one-liners, hardly something I want to base my vote on.
So, Brown clearly Ms. Warren did well, and Brown did not -- and clearly he's not a nice guy, but a nasty, sloganeering, light weight.
I remember when Brown was running for State Senator in my district. Every week in everyone's mailbox (in each town in the district) there was political literature from Brown. Where did all that money come from? Maybe someone would ask him that. I knew even then he was being groomed.
I find the reference to Divorce Court objectionable in this context. However, as you brought it up, I will comment that in my opinion, the comparison was applicable only to Scott. Elizabeth stuck to the issues as much as possible in spite of Scott's personal attacks. She did an excellent job of cutting through Brown’s constant effort to portray himself as bipartisan. She kept pointing to his actual votes – against the jobs bills. (Scott voted against three jobs bill, including one to protect teachers, firefighters, police officers, and another for construction workers) against tax cuts for the middle class, for oil subsidies, for the Blunt amendment against birth control insurance, and against the confirmation of Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice.
I resent anyone callling Harvard people "elitist". It's a fabrication and aold canard. Check out the population of the school and you will learn that it is a very democratic place... students are accepted on merit and grades are based on merit.
Also, Scott Brown made an issue of Ms. Warren's heritage, someting she was told about as a child and which she grew up believing to be true.
Shortly after his election when Scott Brown went to the Senate, Osama Bin Laden was killed. Sen . Brown announced to the Press that he had been briefed on the death and also that he had seen pictures of the body. That was a fabrication, a lie.
As he campaigned around the state in the last year, he stated on several occasions that he consulted with kings, queens, and prime Ministers in the course of his duties as Seanator. That also is a lie.
I question his character as these are whopper fabricated lies, not "mis-speakings."
I also found Brown's continually calling Warren "professor" not only odd but with malicious intent. The way Senator Brown said it makes it sound like it is a dirty word. When did being a teacher, or policeman or fireman become a negative? Oh yeah now I remember, it's when the Republicans started stating service workers are on "welfare" and don't work hard.
Jon Keller was not as horrible as he usually is .... his right wing leanings still came through.
I agree. Before the campaign really heated up, I regarded Senator Brown as a moderate Republican who was just happy to be in the right place at the right time, but now that he is contemplating the loss of all that celebrity and importance, we are seeing who he truly is. I was never going to vote for him, but I will now enjoy voting against him, and probably helping to oust him. In my six decades, I have met a lot of phonies, and Senator Brown sure seems like one to me.
Someone has already said it: Liz Warren exposed that she is not ready for prime-time. Jill Stein would have been a more capable and competent candidate. Liz should have run for a lower office at the state house. She is not ready.
I don't see the comparison, but what's wrong with Jill Stein? Are you opposed to women's rights on top of everything else you're opposed to?
What is Warren not ready for? You made the charge, now defend it with facts. If you can't defend it, you shouldn't have said it.
Brown's use of the title "Professor" was a feeble attempt to inflame any town vs gown animosities he could. Like most of Brown's recent attempts, it fell flat. By sticking to some heartening facts, Warren is maintaining her integrity and resistance to swinging with political puches. A good deal of responsible Mass. voters apprecaite that. A similar comparison could be made between Romney and Obama. Romney is trying like hell to inflame voters while Obama is sticking to the facts of our current situation, and what really matters most.
I was shocked at Scott Brown's ignorance of RAce when he said , " Elizabeth Warren claimed to be a minority and as you can see she is not" Is that guy stupid or a racist or both? You can't tell a person's racial heritage simply by looking at the color of their skin and I would hope that Scott Brown would know that.
I think it was because she didn't have a feather in her hair, or maybe because there was no paint on her face, or some other stereotype. The racism was blatant. As soon as he said it, I was in disbelief. And then he said it again....
Great point! Thanks for pointing out the shallowness of Senator Brown's "thinking" on racial identity. Apparently he skipped class on the day when they covered genetics. Does he know the President's mother was of European descent?
This comment has been removed.
I thought it was a good debate, but I was shocked at Scott Brown's remark at the very beginning refering to Ms. Warren's claim of Indian Heritage, i.e. " Elizabeth Warren claimed to be a minority and as you can see she is not" Really? I cannot believe that more pundits are not talking about this. To me, that borders on racism. Also, I thought that Senator Brown appeared to be disorganized at times and actually had to read directly from notes, whereas Ms. Warren seemed very at easy and did not appear to have to rely on notes for her responses. I truly liked how she kept bringing up his votes. Senator Brown could say she was "lying" till he is blue in the face, but if people just look at his record I think they'd find that it is Scott who seems to have caught "Mittiditis", i.e. the new chronic liar syndrome. All in all a good debate.
That's the crux of it. Scott seems to think he can win by playing to the Herald crowd. This is still Massachusetts. Even my Republican friends thought the gambit was offensive.
I thought Scott Brown came off like a mean bully with his badgering Elizabeth Warren about the whole Indian Heritage thing; His TV Commercials have Gail Huff talking about how much Scott likes women because he has a wife and 2 daughters that he likes; I guess if that is all you have to do to run for Senate then I qualify as well. I just need to go buy a pickup truck and get a Barn Coat and I'll be all set.