One of the toughest charges Senator Scott Brown leveled against Elizabeth Warren in Thursday’s debate targeted her work for Travelers Insurance in a case involving asbestos victims. Brown said Warren, who has built her reputation as a consumer advocate, helped a major insurance company deny payment to asbestos-poisoning victims.
Brown’s facts were largely true, but the impression he left was somewhat misleading.
Comments
Everyone in law whether civil or criminal deserves a defense. Some well known progressives work on cases of disreputible clients and in criminal law some clients are guilty.
In civil litigation against huge compnaies if they had no defense our entire system would collapse!
Warren WILL work for the 99% END OF STORY. It's what she will do now that counts!
She had an understandable rationale for how her Travelers work would ultimately benefit victims. She should just say that this was a learning experience - she got to see how corps can take advantage of people and even their own lawyers. She didn't make that much money for the work considering it was over 3 years and she is a national expert on bankruptcy at Harvard Law school. Plus, let's talk about the Consumer Financial Protection Agency she conceived, designed, lobbied for and got started with Obama! If you want a real data point on how committed she is to protecting regular people, that's the big pizza pie staring you in the eye! Brown keeps scraping the barrel for proof that she isn't what she really is - no Native America heritage, not really fighting for you, etc etc. It's all sooo lame.
I don't see anything misleading in Brown's description of Warren's work for Travelers.
Then you are not reading the article correctly.
Then please explain where Brown was misleading. You can't because he wasn't. He spoke the simple truth.
Brown's logic would seem to dictate that his vote NOT to extend unemployment benefits or the middle class tax cuts means that he thinks the unemployed are lazy and the middle class overpaid? Warren could argue this using Brown's selective logic!
It's interesting that the Globe article cites a prior Globe article as the definitive authority on the case. That's like saying belive me because I say so. Anyway, if Warren was trying to help the victims, but it turned out disastrously for them.........why do I want her representing me? I don't want to become another one of Warren's victims!!! Warren says that Brown only cares about the 2% group....if that's so, then why does another article in today's Globe say that Mayor Menino believes Brown to be an incredible retail politician with a real ability to connect with everyday people. Can you really see Warren as someone that can connect with everyday people? C'mon
Connecting with everyday people is important for getting elected. When it comes to trusting public policy decisions to a candidate, you should be picking someone that is on the right side of those policy debates. Tax cuts for the rich, more deregulation, and cutting important public services is not going to solve any of our problems. We need jobs bills. He votes against them and she will vote for them. Who cares if Travelers tricked their lawyers?
If you can't connect with the everyday people that you're being elected to represent, then how can you do a good job representing them? I don't think that the professor can connect with everyday people. What jobs bills are you talking about that she'll vote for that he won't.....maybe you could help me there? As for the tax cuts, everyone benefited from them. Why is it a good thing for a smaller and smaller group of people to pay for more and more of the cost of our government? If all of these programs are so great, well then let's pay for them now and not starting in 2016. As for more regulation, why don't you ask the 16,000 employees that Bank of America is about to layoff how well that's working for them? As for where we are going to make cuts in spending, what does the good professor have to say? Don't we already have her role covered with John Kerry?
By the way ... is it misleading for the Globe to say that Brown also benefitted from Travelers because they also gave to his campaign? Just wondering...
If something is true but misleading, then it's not true. Fix your headline. It should be: "Scott Brown's asbestos accusations were misleading." Stop this fake objectivity.
A sample of Lizzy the bankruptcy law professor working for the middle class... with a pretty muddled up conflict of versions of what happened and what didn't happen and whose side who was on and the bottom line that the middle class asbestos workers got nada, nothing, null and void... at least partly due to lizzy the bankruptcy law professor who got herself paid $212,000. All this according to the Boston Glob... Lizzy's chief media backer in the state she wants so ... well... sorta much . . . to represent as a U.S. senator, an office she has absolutely no preparation for. Sending Lizzy to the U.S. Senate, without even as much experience as her hero, Obama, or even her opponent, Brown, makes as much sense as Harry Truman's pardoning James Michael Curley from a prison term for a mail fraud conviction in the 1950s (this is not meant to suggst that Professor Warren is criminal in any way).
So why doesn't your article state near the beginning that Brown also received money from Travekers? You are misleading leaving him to the bottom of the page where many will not even read that far.