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.
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.
Don't understand. And for the word "liberal," ask yourself, what do you mean. The Bill of Rights is a liberal document. Are you against the Bill of Rights? Let's trash the words "liberal" and "conservative" from political discussions. They do nothing to promote intelligent, political dialogue. "Liberal" is just name-calling and implies simply that the so-called liberal person is wrong without specifying why. Let us only express the details of our positions to be judged on their merits, not whether they are "liberal" or "conservative." Name-calling says nothing.
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.
The biggest thing that struck me is how much Scott's comments resembled the nastier commentators on here and over at the Herald. It's already tired when rabble attack Warren as "liawatha." Coming from the candidate, it makes him look weak and mean. I watched with a Republican friend. He face palmed when Brown used that as his opening.
I'm also glad I declined to particpate in the "drink everytime Scott says "Professor'" drinking game.
None of the above is looking better and better.
I did enjoy the debate. Being an Elizabeth Warren supporter, I found to her to make many cogent points. Particularly about the importance of the Massachusetts Senate election in determing the balance in the Senate. We need a Democratic majority in the Senate to counterbalance the Republican House. If you want more of the right wing ascendancy as displayed by the Republican control of the House, a vote for Scott Brown could lead is to this outcome in the Senate. The Republican party has been captured by the ultra right wing; they are the party of non-compromise and obstructionism. They have blocked many attempts to pass jobs programs due to their demand for tax cuts and spending cuts. All of them have taken a No Tax pledge. Based on last night's stance by Scott Brown, he seems to have done so as well. Taxes on millionaires and billionaires are sacrosanct, while there is a lack of jobs for ordinary people and especially young people.
Mr. Brown continues his disrespectable and personal attacks on his opponent and then he characterizes questions by Ms. Warren about his voting record and positions as personal attacks. He is attempting to distance himself from the Republican party, yet he holds the same views and will be part of their voting block if the Republicans gain control of the Senate. The Senate can block nominations to the Supreme Court. Given the extreme views on women's rights in the Republican party, appointments to the Supreme Court will be critical in future for years to come. We cannot risk a Republican Senate due to the extreme beliefs of the current Repubican party. Mr. Brown is not carrying on the legacy of the Kennedys. Massachusetts needs a Senator who will advocate for the ordinary person and Elizabeth Warren will do that.
Warren seemed to be a warmer person than her ads led me to believe. I've been unenthusiastic about Warren because she never quite seemed human.
I guess we can ignore Brown's Mr. Nice Guy ads in the future. I was kind of shocked at how mean, bullying he was. I started wondering how he would treat me if we were having a conversation and I disagreed with him.
For a long time I was undecided about this race, until I realized a vote for Brown might give control of the Senate to the Republicans. I believe that opponents should treat each other with a certain amount of respect, so now my vote for Warren won't be just about control of the Senate.
"Bullying" is the right word. And Brown's demeanor was exacerbated by standing next to John Keller, over whom he towered. It made him seem like a big, intimidating lunk. Bad luck for Senator Brown.
Amusing how appalled all these liberals get when hard-ball politics gets played against one of *their* candidates. But when a slime ball like Harry Reid smears Mitt Romney, well he had it coming. Was Brown tough on Warren last night? Of course he was. Heat . . . kitchen.
When you say "liberal," does that mean that you oppose the liberal spirit of our Constitution and Bill of Rights? To be a true Americsan, you have to be a liberal. Now for true conservatism, try fascisim. I bet you would approve of the Patiot's Act,as well, that shreds both documents and don't forget the NDAA. That means Federal troops can enter your house, take you away with no charge, no right to a lawyer and imprisoned indefinitely. Now that's true conservatism.
When you say "liberal," does that mean that you oppose the liberal spirit of our Constitution and Bill of Rights? To be a true Americsan, you have to be a liberal. Now for true conservatism, try fascisim. I bet you would approve of the Patiot's Act,as well, that shreds both documents and don't forget the NDAA. That means Federal troops can enter your house, take you away with no charge, no right to a lawyer and imprisoned indefinitely. Now that's true conservatism.
Regarding delivery style, Scott wins hands down. Elizabeth seemed straining. Brown reminds me of Jimmy Stewart in the movie "Mr.Smith Goes to Washington." He also seemed relaxed, smiling and enviably likeable. But I wouldn't vote for him because of his typically trickle-down take on taxes. (Don't over tax the rich; they promote jobs. Sure. When will we realize, both democrats and Republicans that the trickle-down theory doesn't tricle.) I wish I could vote for him, though. As I say, he reminds me of Jommy Stewart, a great actor, veteran and great American. As for Professor Warren, take off your glasses and stop looking professorial. Note how Scott kept calling her professor. He was cleverly appealing to most or a goodly sum of the voting population who don't like the professorial elite.
CORRECTIONS; "Jimmy" not "Jommy." "Trickle" not the misspelling. Oh, I guess you figured it out. I always manage to do typos.
Brown had cultivated a nice guy image very successfully for three years. His performance last night endangered it, starting with his "funny, you don't LOOK Injun" snark attack. I think that was a tactical error on his part, one that may well cost him.
Scott Brown did not "hold back, relatively" on calling Elizabeth Warren "Professor." According to the Boston Globe's own analysis, http://www.bostonglobe.com/2012/09/22/debate-graphic/XwCnUjHpmNPc8QsGbzSA4J/story.html, Brown called Warrren "Professor" some 24 times, more often than he used the word "jobs" (19) or "oil" (6). After all, if there's one thing proven to scare Republican voters, it's the horrifying possibility of voting for somebody smart.
Hopefully, this is a sign of debates to come. Every time Brown differentiates himself from Warren, women and minorities are more likely to get behind our infamous policy wonk who is no fan of engaging in a political mud fight. Better still, if Romney and Obama can resemble this process in debate, our national choice will be much clearer to the average American. I know that many times in the past Americans have felt drawn by slanderous, self righteous spin - masters, but I hope and feel that those days are fading.
Sincerely,
-A Romney (Bain) outsourced professional