Go ahead and stick a fork in the image — or, more accurately, the illusion — of Scott Brown as the affable everyman, the consummate good guy who folds laundry before pointing his pickup toward the docks to shoot the breeze with his fishermen friends.
It took him less than 30 seconds at last week’s debate to try and claw the eyes out of his opponent by questioning her character, honor, and truthfulness. He summoned the press corps he generally disdains to his office the following morning to distort Elizabeth Warren’s work on an asbestos case. He released his first negative ad on statewide TV Monday. His daily schedule on Tuesday included the line that he was “available to the media to address today’s revelation that Professor Warren worked on behalf of LTV Steel Company.”
Comments
as far as this hacks usage of the word UGLY, i guess beauty is in the eyes of the you know what.ma
This comment has been removed.
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC, 9pm weeknights) Had a telling piece of Brown Monday night. She distinguished him as a racist, noting that he kept gesturing at Professor Warren during their debate and saying something like,
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC, 9pm weeknights) Had a telling piece of Brown Monday night. She distinguished him as a racist, noting that he kept gesturing at Professor Warren during their debate and saying something like,
"Look. Does she look like an Indian?" and on and on. Then Rachel asked who appointed Scott Brown arbiter of Indian-ness.
Rachel and Melissa Harris-Perry had a profoundly enlightening conversation about Senator Brown's racism, and racist attitures, and racial assumptions.
They were terrific! I wish I had a tape. With any luck the national media will discover it and replay it.
I knew he was slimy and pompous, but I only just found out Monday he's a racist.
God help the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!
Gotta love liberals. Anytime anyone questions someones heritage, or brings up race in any way, they are labeled racists.
Murphy, you have completely missed the point this whole indian mess. Let me try to switch it around so you can understand the problem here:
If it became public that Scott Brown had been identifying himself as an African-American for 10 years while climbing the professional ladder, and discontinuing this trend once he arrived at the pinnacle, what would yours, and the mainstream press's, reaction be? Would you not bring it up and question it until you received a satisfactory answer?
This comment has been removed.
It would be helpful if you would write more about Brown's voting record in relation to what's important to Massachusetts voters. This is nothing more than another fluff piece. By the way, which candidate went negative first? Another hatchet job by the master...
Check out this link to read the truth about how Scott Brown votes.
http://rethinkbrown.com/the-complete-record.php
It would be really great if Brown himeself wanted to talk about his voting record. So far all his ads are about his laundry duties and personal attacks on his opponent.
Senator Brown has had a taste of real power, and the thought of losing it all and going back to being a nobody is terrifying him. He'll do what it takes to keep the"people's seat". I hope that we keep seeing who he really is. Hey Senator, if worse comes to worst, there's always Fox News. They can use a photogenic conservative, and they pay really well.
Scott Brown still thinks that his Massachusetts win was because of who he is or what he stood for, both, at the time, unknown quantities. In fact, the only circumstantial set was that the seat was occupied by Ted Kennedy and held by Democrats in a blue state. That's what made it a momentous event and made Scott Brown The Accidental Senator. "Every autobiography is concerned with two characters, a Don Quixote, the Ego, and a Sancho Panza, the Self." W. H. Auden Goodbye, Sancho.
Obviously Scott Brown is no protector of Native American rights. This is the pretense he wanted people to believe. He made the phony argument that Prof Warren had achieved her status by influence not the hard work she has clearly shown. The sophomoric behavior of his closest staff and his own comments shows he is willing to sink to moral lows to ostensibly gain political advantage. It was the Herald, a former haunt of Eric Fernstrom, Scott Brown and Mitt Romney's campaign director, that dug up this over s 20 year old episode totally out of context. To ask for "papers" or even a DNA test when Professor Warren's accomplishments in public life speak for themselves is a schoolyard ploy. Scott Brown has had a hard time facing the music on his own record. He skipped out of his convention as a speaker and after the debate claimed tiredness after a half day's work. He just wanted to go home. He refused to answer reporter's questions. He showed up within the hour in a local bar to carouse with his buddies. This is now a matter of failure of trust and dishonesty on his part at this moment in time. Moldy past history of dubious import can not substitute for lying or lack of courage in presenting your views to a national or local electorate.
A biased piece if I ever read one. When will Lizzie be charged for practicing law without a licenese? A democrat in MA will probably skate on it.
That issue isn't important to liberals who support Warren. But if Brown or any republican had practiced law without a license, I can just imagine the outcry.
McGory is a COLUMNIST! It's his job to give his OPINION! Capiche?
Supposed to be biased, it's in the opinion section.
Last week your fellow liberal station, MSNBC announced they were disappointed in Liz Warren's campaign. They felt she had not produced the same results as when she entered the race in which they had described her as then having "Rock Star Status". I have news for both you and them, from the onstage of the campaign, she never had Rock Star Status. Between her lying on her applications to get where she wanted, to defending whoever paid her the money, no matter how you spin it, she never won the independant voters over. This idea of Brown bullying her and not being, Mr. Nice Guy, is very much a part of politics. The game of politics is ruthless, unforgiving and sometimes unfair, but that's the way it is played. Your buddies from Chicago know this very well and are very good at it.
You too will be disappointed when she wins.
The lie is from Scott Brown. His ludicrous claims, without document or witness have been investigated. A dozen persons interviewed and there is no evidence whatever for what you ridiculously repeat. No Spin - Brown is a liar. Nothing Elizabeth Warren ever said or did has been shown to be dishonest - ZERO - NOTHING. So wake up and really care enough about your citizenship to keep up and learn what is true and what is not.
duckman --- you are making up stories just like Senator Brown. "MSNBC" did not state that .... a guest (a Republican as a matter of fact) stated that. Sounds like typical Republican truth twisting - as I usually say from the Karl Rove School of as long as you keep saying the lies they must be true. Senator Brown has run on being "Mr. Nice Guy" (look at me I live in a house full of women, I fold the Laundry) so to express disappointment that the appearance of him being a nice guy is not a reality but a fallacy.
What hypocrisy. The Democrats and the candidate who manipulates affirmative action to her benefit is outraged at Browns supporters stupid behaviour and demands " consequences".
I don't remember her demand for consequences for the Occupy behaviours. Matter of fact, I believe she said she inspired them. Sometimes these people just can't help themselves when they react to these situations with class and race baiting. What leadership!
Generally I wonder how minorities react when they see this sudden fake concern for their plight, that disappears almost instantaneously after the election, on to resurface somewhere down the road when another election comes along.
A history of actually helping down and outs would be more telling. How many jobs programs for Native Americans have come out of all this hype?
Like Brown, Warrens true character is showing and the illusion of concern is fading.
DO you realize that your statement is an utter lie told by Scott Brown, without a document, a witness or even any actual credibility? How can people be so foolish as to believe that academic institutions can be that stupid is beyond comprehension. Yet you believe it. The Globe themselves interviewed over a dozen persons in all the universities she worked in and found not a shred of evidence to what you ridiculously repeat.
Thoughtful people are reacting very well to Elizabeth Warren. Be a real citizen and find the truth rather than repeating Scott Brown's silly lies. Seriously - you embarass yourself.
not worth comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAceGqgrfRw Scott Brown, in his own words..... Elizabeth Warren for Senator from Massachusetts Z
Elect Scott Brown in November! (For Sewer & Water Commission, Wrentham, Mass) Z
You're all wet, Brian.
Obviously unable to explain your shallow opinion. Just like our sad shallow, soon to be former, Senator.
Geoffrey, enough with the name calling and hateful speech!
Another excellent column Brian. You have a knack. Keep up the sarcasm and great insights.
The aritcle's summary--"Senator Brown believed, or at least hoped, his good-guy image would be more important than his Senate record"--encouraged me to think I'd learn something about Scott Brown's Senate record and help me decide who to vote for. Unfortunately, the article was a waste of my time as it only talked in generalities about his campaign and behavior. Can someone give me a link to an article that will discuss Brown's Senate record and what we can expect from him if elected?
He doesn't have a Senate Record - that's the problem. He claims to be fighting for fishermen, for jobs, for veterans and generally he did nothing or voted against what he says he is for. His record in the Senate is available at Senate.Gov. You can expect nothing from him if he is elected. Quite literally - Nothing. That's what you got, that's what you will get. From Elizabeth Warren you can expect twenty years of her writing to become action in the Senate. You can expect more laws such as her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which has returned over 140 million dollars to the customers that Capital One deceived. They are now moving on to Discover. You can expect the return of the Regulatory and tax structures that we had when our country and economy was the envy of the world. Unlike many politicians, her platform was not made up by political analysts just before her campaign began - it is her lifes work.
Check out this link to read the truth about how Scott Brown votes.
http://rethinkbrown.com/the-complete-record.php
This is what happens when formerly regular guys get a no-heavy-lifting columnist gig at the Globe. They become...Globe columnists. Brian, you've become so out of touch with the rank and file Mass. residents -- of whom you used to be one -- that you don't realize just how badly we've been waiting for Scott Brown, or ANYONE, to publicly call Elizabeth Warren on her record of misstatements, half-truths and outright lies. The Globe has worked overtime to gloss over the many inconsistencies in Warren's background, painting the whole Native American flap as one of race (liberals are obsessed with the topic) instead of what it really is: one of honesty and character. Scott Brown did the voters of Massachusetts a service by exposing the "former debate champ" for what she is -- a carefully rehearsed fraud. The old Brian McGrory from Weymouth would have spotted that a couple of years ago and been cheering for Scott Brown when he exposed her. Brian, we hardly knew ye.
Scott Brown has consistently lied and what you believe about Elizabeth Warren has been actively refuted. You will find 11/6 to be an embarassing day as you realize that you are fool enough to believe Brown and the majority of MA citizens are not. Go check the facts. Learn that all the junk Brown has fed you from the work he didn't do in the Senate to his ridiculous stories about his opponent are all lies - all of it.
Geoffrey is correct, but does not go far enough. This is a US Senator we are discussing, a delusional, fabricating, devious US Senator. Lies, like 'I will not use my influence,' then picking up the phone to shill for a friend re: the slots license, or Mitt's involvement in re-instating Brown after he was separated from the Guard, are different from delusions. These are more serious. Brown saying he saw pictures of a dead Osama binLaden. Brown saying he spoke secretly and often with Kings and Queens. Brown saying the STOCK act was his. Brown saying that Hillary Clinton called him frequently. Deplorable, especially from a person representing Massachusetts. Vote Democratic so that you can live in peace, retire in peace and sleep in your own bed with whomever you wish and not worry that sickness or accident will put you on the road to ruin.
Globe is trying to bash Scott Brown again with its many misrepresentations.-- How about the fading "Good Girl" image of Elizabeth Warren? Lies after Lies coming from her. She loves Barack Obama's lies too. The iminaginary image put out by Elizabeth Warren's campaign headquarters at the Boston Globe? And why doesn't she talk to REAL Cherokee Indians about her heritage? --And she's been caught in more lies. Has she been practing law without a MA licence? Where's the Globe's "Fact Checker" on this serious issue? --And considering Warren's MISERABLE performance at the first debate (where only the Globe said she did well. And the Globe already has articles written that say she won debates 2 and 3) why should ANYONE vote for her?
They didn't have to try very hard. The article is factually accurate. Brown is bashing himself. You embarass yourself by believing him. He has lied about Elizabeth Warren and all he has said is independently refuted by careful journalistic review. You were not specific about what is inaccurate in the article or how Brown has tricked you into believing his lies - trust me, he speaks no truth and all he has said is disproven. Check facts for yourself and you will quickly be embarassed at being tricked by that shallow excuse for a Senator that Scott Brown is.
Miker6 It is really getting old. The Brown supporters make outrageous claims against Warren and have NO PROOF to back it up. The proof of the burden is on the accuser.I have seen absolutely NOTHING that makes her "guilty". Just a bunch of republican rants...
I didn't seem him try to claw anyone's eyes out, but I did see him question Elizabeth Warren's truthfulness and honesty. I don't have a problem with that at all. Mr. McGrory, a good journalist is supposed to have a BS detector. As a fan of your writing, I know that you usually have a really good one. The fact tha tyou are obviously for Warren, and I am for Brown, certainly explains part of how I see your piece as lacking in the right critical spirit -- but not all. You are letting her off way too easy. Acording to you, any unauthorized slip-up by a Brown staff member or volunteer e.g. making an odious "tomahawk chop" is evidence of his poor character, while Warren is guilty only of not having the right ads? Maybe a dry, pedantic, self-delusional hypocrite is really who she is. For one thing, her MawMaw didn't tell her to identify herself as a Native American law professor. She seriously wants us to believe that she did not grasp the implications of doing so when she made that decision as an adult, ambitious member of an academy utterly pre-occupied with diversity? That fails the straight-faced test -- as you know. And the argument that Charles Fried didn't know her self-proclaimed status makes no sense either -- as you also know. Obviously any institution is not going to tell the co-workers interviewing a prospective new hire anything about the applicant's self-declared racial identity. It's nonsense, as you know. If someone at Libery Mutual unloaded this boatful of horsefeathers on you in an interview you'd get three months' worth of columns out of it. And also, as Warren might remember better if she had ever taken the Mass bar exam or taken a CLE in New Jersey, you don't get paid by one client and really represent the interests of another, or of a cause. You zealously represent the interests of the client who is paying you, period. For Warren to try to fool us is one thing, but for you as a journalist to but it hook, line and sinker is quite another. These and other untruths reveal a character that will not be fixed by better TV ads.
The reference to Charles Fried is not an "arguement." Your citing is incorrect. The facts are different than you note. This is the Moynihan version; ("You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.")
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/05/elizabeth-warren-native-american-scott-brown-/1
The appearance of the "as you know" phrase is misleading. Where is the evidence for this? Your prose disguises a woeful lack of familiarity with both Warren's career and character.
In case you don't get it, an opinion piece is just that. You have a right to disagree with his opinion if you like, but you are way off base if you are saying that he has no right to express it. For example, your reply would seem to me to be an example of excremental overload, but you have a perfect right to express yourself.
I own homes in MA and NH. My legal residence is NH. Therefore I cannot vote in the Senate race. Recently there have been articles on how people vote. For the most part, campaigns do not change how are who people will vote for. I enjoy read both Boston papers. There is an article about Ted Kennedy and his voting. It all comes down to who you like. If you want feel good stories about Warren read the Globe. If you like Brown read the Herald. Name calling does not help make your case.
Great article Brian. One of your best.
I'm truly frustrated that this guy, who opens the first debate by assaulting Elizabeth Warren's character, has gotten a free pass on his own primary character failing; the fact that, despite his position as a United States Senator, he wasn't able to muster the courage to "out" the person who abused him as a child.
Might not one readily imagine that, through the years, this person went on to abuse other children?
Talk about a character issue!
I know you're not a journalist anymore Brian but shameless PR hack for Professor Warren, the false Indian, that's unbecoming...this column looks like it was written by the Professor herself!
Only a fool would vote for someone on the basis of whether they're an indian or not. You vote for someone because of what they will do once elected. That conclusion is based on the past record. Anyone who steers the debate away from political record is suspect.
In case you don't get it, an opinion piece is just that. You have a right to disagree with his opinion if you like, but you are way off base if you are saying that he has no right to express it. For example, your reply would seem to me to be an example of excremental overload, but you have a perfect right to express yourself.
This comment has been removed.
Great piece. Nailed it with the frat boy analogy. He's in over his head. Nobody talks about how he used the position as a platform to sell his autobiography of woe. Missing Teddy big time.
I know, me too. Teddy had tons of character, right?
Scott Brown has been hiding like a snake in the grass. It is great to see people finally recognizing that this man is ill-equiped to represent Massachusetts, and his self proclaimed and calculated "independent" claim is a farce.
It is apparent that the Brown campaign is getting desperate, as he can't focus on issues and instead has to resort to slander against a woman that has more character than he could ever possess in five life-times.