US Senator Scott Brown today defended his aggressive debate performance and amplified one of his attacks from Thursday night’s showdown with Elizabeth Warren, accusing her of hypocrisy for representing an insurance company in an asbestos lawsuit.
Kicking off the morning after the debate, Brown, a Republican, held a press conference at his campaign headquarters in South Boston, hours before Warren, a Democrat, is to receive the endorsement of Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, a fellow Democrat, at a rally in Roslindale.
Comments
Scott should stick to something that he knows about, like pandering. I'm afraid this case is way over Scott's legal understanding..
So let's get this straight, Elizabeth Warren tries to get a settlement that compensates asbestos victims via a trust fund and exchanges this for immunity from future suits. The fund would stand as a reserve to pay legitimate future claims. There would be no further litigation. This would lead to compensation, not easily gotten otherwise for victims and it would take years to pull off . Deal done. Then Travelers hires other lawyers to not only get immunity but to keep the money in the fund. So the unethical behavior of a corporation, something Elizabeth Warren was trying to avoid, poisoned what she had achieved. The villains in this piece are the insurers. They operate without conscience in spite of their culpability. In spite of the opportunity to settle this in a fashion that would have preserved their reputation they chose the path of screwing people. Elizabeth Warren gave them a way to raise their bloody heads and approach doing the right thing. Travelers chose not to do so. Shame on them. However bigger shame on Scott Brown who as a lawyer has some knowledge of complex arrangements, prolonged court battles, and languishing victims and their family. The whole loaf of compensation was not available and Scott Brown knows it. He is the master of the cheap shot, prevarication, and egomania. His morals by the way do not pass the smell test. Too many times he has been caught with his pants down on several pronouncements. His abrasive invective style last night was but a peek of who he really is. Stay tuned for the next debates. I believe he will have his come uppance.
Those who remember Scott's reference in the debate to Elizabeth's salary from Harvard of $350,000 might be interested in his income.
$839,520 in 2010
$510,856 in 2011.
For details, see a MassLive article on both Senate candidates incomes.
And this comment in the Washington Post from an Indian.The only way she could use her Native American ethnicity to get any kind of preference would be if she was a registered member of a recognized tribe. She made no such claim, so she got no preference. As to any charge that she used racial stereotypes, that is nonsense. I have native american genes (tsalagi) and I took no offense from anything she said. shanti2
Sounds like Warren was going for a win-win for Travelers and the victims.The Globe does not do a good job here of explaining the background of the case.What does"unlock"a settlement mean? It seems to me that term could mean several possible things/scenarios. If Brown is truly off base I would really like to understand exactly why.Looks like I'm going to have to research elsewhere.
What a crappy headline. Shouldn't it be "Brown Derides Warren's Savvy Defense of Asbestos Victims"? Brown's campaign committee has gotten far more money from Travellers' lobbyists than Warren ever did for her court mandated advocacy. You owe your readers the full story - in bold face type.