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.
Welcome to the fold, Brian!!
"If by now you haven't realized that Scott Brown is lighter than air, you're not paying attention."\
Finally, the media is paying attention!! I never thought I would be able to post that opinion!
Brown's campaign is hurtling down a racist road which was laid out and paved by Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. Yeah, Mr. Independent. Brown is over on that right wing fringe that now controls Republicans in the House, the Senate minority and the Mind of Mitt.
Strategy is to take your opponent's strengths and turn them inside out into negatives, so Brown has been, is and will continue to hit Warren over the head with being an affirmative action baby (she's one smart woman who has done it on her own), a chronic liar (couldnt be more honest and straight) and ineffective (anyone familiar with her battle to protect consumers and the Senate Republicans jihad against her for it knows that is untrue).
Scott Brown should be the last guy throwing aspersions on Elizabeth Warren's personal and professional reputations.
How did the guy serve 32 years in the Mass ARNG and never go on a deployment (6 months to a year or so) during one of the numerous wars our country has fought since 1990? What are Scott's grades and military record really like? Did he really fulfill the educational requirements necessary for promotion to lieutenant colonel? Would anyone ever trust him with a big legal case? What big time political leader skips most of his party's convention? Notice how he (almost) always ducks the press...and possible questioning of his roots.
Maybe his family background makes him unsuitable. Also, he shouldn't use crib sheets in the next debate. He should just stand and deliver...if he has the emotional stability and intellectual ability to do so.
Brown's unit, to the best of my knowledge, was never activated, so he never saw active duty. The other two questions are not so easy. In his own words, he did not fulfill the obligations of the Guard, which are pretty easy, and was separated. He never did complete his tasks. The full colonel rank is really grating on many servicemen and women. The key in the door is Mitt Romney, a sitting Republican governor in a Democratic state confronted with a request from a sitting Republican legislator. In my words: "Governor, I need help" led to a call to a sitting Republican president who had his own troubles with the Guard. Here's Brown's statement:http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/07/guard_service_a_key_to_candidate_brown/?page=3
Top that with going to Kabul to 5 days and staying in a hotel at Federal Expense (and god knows how much force diversion to protect a Senator) so he could go out in the hotels parking lot for a photo op.
How pathetic. Brown is a hollow, empty facade of a man, with nothing inside. He has little left but to vainly attempt to cast aspersions on the character of Elizabeth Warren. He is either deliberately distorting the facts, or lacks comprehension of the issues. He is most certainly not qualified to be a Senator in the Congress of these United States. He misrepresents his voting record, and relies on character assassination, with just a hint of racism, rather than respond to fact-based criticism of his record. How pathetic.
Good article, Brian -- I agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
duckman wrote, "The game of politics is ruthless, unforgiving and sometimes unfair, but that's the way it is played."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The game of politics is played the way "the people" allow it to be played. Those who don't play in what the public deems a constructive manner (eg, Scott Brown) will lose.
A vote for Scott Brown is a vote for Mitch McConnell's candidacy as majority leader in the Senate. If you aren't convinced by his own record, voting against a Republican majority in the Senate is reason enough to vote against Scott Brown.
Republicans would need to pick up a net of 4 Senate seats to get the majority.
Potential chances of seat going to Republican: Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Virginia, Connecticut, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, and Missouri.
If you assume that Angus King (I) wins in Maine and caucuses with the Democrats, then Republicans must win 5 of these 10 races.
If Elizabeth Warren wins in Massachusetts, then the GOP has to win six.
Nice hatchet job that has been well received by the liberal horde if the comments section is a proper indication. The senator has embarked on the only credible path of engagement with Professor Warren. She has no political record,she stands only for the"family"and whatever ideals she wishes to express. Sen. Brown is attacking those chimeric claims by pointing out that the Professor has been inconsistent in suggesting that she stands for the common man.Only in her world can she be paid by insurance companies to represent the interests of the other party and not be subject to the loss of licensure she never had.Only in her world can she claim Native American ancestry and then blame her mother when she's caught in the lie.And only in her world will her defenders rise in righteous indignation when a gesture commonly used by Atlanta Braves fans is used to taunt the Professor's supporters.But these same perpetual complainers, like the author of this article, give the Professor a free pass when she levies the greatest insult at Native Americans-claiming a common identity with them for personal gain. Here's news for you. It ain't bean bags.And effective attacks, ones that are real and believable,are not going to hurt the Senator's image.Based on the response to those atacks one can fairly assume that the Professor's image is being effected.
Forget about the Braves; what about Florida State? The entire stadium rises as one and starts the "chop". But two dudes with Brown signs do it, and suddenly we are talking as if it's South Boston circa 1974.
bobganleyjr If you can see the difference between a baseball game and a "few dudes"--more like a crowd(get the facts straight dude) attacking and mocking a persons heritage I would say you are clueless...
This comment has been removed.
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?
You can like Warren based on her ideology, but there is nothing wrong with her character being questioned over her shady past, and voters have the right to be reminded.
Are you thick? Really - just how thick and ridiculous can someone be?
The idea that someone can "Climb the professional ladder" at top law schools in the ridiculous lie that Scott Brown has been telling is ridiculous. Only a fool would have ever believed him and especially when he has no document, no witness at all for his nonsense. Nevertheless, what defends Elizabeth Warren have in answer? Dozens of interviews with almost all the persons involved in hiring her and not a single one supports even a particle of Brown's nonsense. One of them Charles Fried, a nationally prominent Republican, Solicitor General for Ronald Reagan, former Scott Brown supporter has stood up and said that all of Scott Brown's nonsense is just exactly that.
She has no shady past. Scott Brown has a lot to answer for and only a fool would believe him. Stop being duped. It's sad for you.
You really sound like a racist fool with this garbage. I'll bet you also believe that President Obama only got through Harvard Law because of HIS heritage too. If this is all Brownie has...he is doomed to failure. Ms. Warren is a highly paid and highly sought after legal mind. She earns a lot of money and is in demand by virtue of her knowledge and accomplishments.
Scott Brown looks good in a truck or centerfold.
I like the way Brown supporters call Ms. Warren "the professor". So, if I were a less serious person I might be tempted to say, "it's the professor versus the UPS guy (what can Brown do for you?)".
I think Zot's suggestion that Brown would make an excellent member of the Town of Wrentham's Sewer & Water Commission captures the essence of this senate race. Brown's voting record, in spite of his slick political commercials, is right in line with his republican cohorts (http://rethinkbrown.com/the-complete-record.php)
I'm a Democrat and a union member. I don't know anyone who is voting for Warren. The leadership may support her but the rank and file do not. She is a liar and a fraud. Brown will win by 10 points.
So why be a Democrat? Nice to support your party. Interesting that you apparently just vote for whoever your pals are voting for. Please- just switch to the gop already and be done with it.
You are living in a cave if what you say is true. There are literally thousands of Union members and Democrats standing out for her.
What you refer to are lies told by Scott Brown and disproven. If you were actually a Union Member and a Democrat or even someone who acutally reads the Globe, you would know that your outrageous statements are lies which evidently you are dim enough to believe. Seriously - read up.
I voted for Brown last time. Unfortunately, he has spent the last two years playing both sides against the middle. He does not have the political skill to pull this off. I honestly don't have a clue what he truly stands for, but I guess that is by design. I do not believe in the positions that Warren stands for, but at least I respect the fact that she lets me know where she stands. Why do we always get stuck with such crappy choices. Sad
This comment has been removed.
Brown doesn't seem to want to admit he's a Republican - nothing on his signs or website - and wants to talk about anything but his Senate votes. He doesn't even breathe Romney's name in public.
He tells tales of secret meetings with kingas and queens, frequent phone call from the White House, and a special briefing, whith photos, about Bin Laden's death. And then he makes Warren's family's heritage the central focus of his campaign, and holds press conferences to discuss cases in which she was involved - but distorts her role in them.
The real Brown is coming out now - the bully.
He's been in the Senate almost 3 years now - I'd rather he discuss his actions and votes there. He should stand proudly on his record since he says everything he does is for the people of Massachusetts - so why is he so reluctant to talk about it?
Best comment.
Brian McGrory, you have exposed yourself as a total fraud. I may never again waste my time reading your column. I mean that.
This comment has been removed.
Nice to see Republicans DO read the Globe anyway.
This comment has been removed.
I never really "got" what ppl meant when they criticized the Globe as overly liberal. Now I get it. And amazingly, the Globe readers are just as biased and ignorant as those of the conservative rag, The Herald. These comments amaze me!
That would be a lot more compelling if you hadnt been posting in the Globe comments section since 2010.
How about some specifics? Just because you don't like to hear a particular fact doesn't mean the statement is bias.
This comment has been removed.
Can't wait for election day.
All this nonsense will be history.
Hopefully, MA will elect a real senator. One who knows how to make things happen and it not an impediment to our future.
Today, I have decided that I will no longer be brow beaten by those who have no class and insult my intelligence to make a choice based on the issues.
Elizabeth, you have my vote, and I want everyone to know that I am one of the true independent voters in Massachusetts and have been so my entire life.
When the candidate said to Warren, "You're obviously not a person of color", he was showing his true colors: meanness and ignorance. Newsflash! Most Americans today with Native American ancestry look more like Warren than Sacagawea, since the gene pool has been diluted by many generations of intermarriage between those of European and Indian origin. And nobody has suggested that Warren ever checked a box that claimed she was a 'person of color', just that her heritage was part Native American. In fact, it does appear to include some Cherokee and Delaware ancestors, although until very recently such intermarriage was often hidden from both the public and genealogists. It's actually a complicated issue, and Senator Brown has shown a real knack for distorting complicated issues like this, or like Warren's work to broker a fair asbestos settlement, to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Just the sneer with which he addressed her as 'Professor' is calculated to incite the ignorant's disdain for the educated. Brown is not a 'nice guy' or more 'real' than Warren - he's really a rather dishonest bully. It's quite clear he's desperately hoping voters don't notice how heavily his campaign is relying on disinformation and dumbing down at a time when we need the best and the brightest to find solutions to the country's pressing problems.
Nice try. And you obviously don't know any native Americans. If you did, you would know not ONE of them looks anything like Liz Warren ANYWHERE in North America!!!!!!!!!
She is by her own admission 31/32 white. You can't claim minority status with that. It is ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!
This comment has been removed.
Brown is a Republican? He never admits to that...McGrory must be bending the truth again. He is in the party of Cantor, McConnel and Baenor, and was with the Tea Party? No way...we'd never elct a guy who hangs with the tinfoil hat crowd...would we?
the Real Warren: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/092512-627038-warren-like-soulmate-obama-is-con-artist.htm
She's also written scholarly papers on health care and bankruptcy without showing her data, and crafted federal health and banking regulations without a brain. Warren is the intellectual architect of the massively unpopular Dodd-Frank Act and ObamaCare, both of which are dragging down the U.S. recovery.
She's been accused by several law professors of "repeated instances of scientific misconduct" in authoring papers that have provided the academic underpinnings for financial and health reforms. Peer reviews have dismissed her research as "deeply flawed."
The Atlantic magazine, moreover, found a disturbing "pattern" of using bogus metrics to inflate the case for her leftist nostrums. Despite repeated requests, Warren has refused to provide the data she has used in her shabby research.
@begolfing: you do realize you're quoting an unsigned, unsourced opinion piece from a C grade online finance site? The piece starts out by calling Ms. Warren "sleazy" then gets nasty. I guess it's a step up from quoting the Breitbart comments section, but still hardly compelling.
Why not come up with something positive about your guy? Maybe an accomplishment or something?
go look at his website. or is tht not a legitimate source either?
More on her license too
New documents uncovered from the 2001 bankruptcy of GAF reveal that Warren was hired as a Special Legal Consultant to the Asbestos Claimant’s Committee. It’s not clear what that Committee did (i.e., were the “claimants” individuals or corporate entities), but what is clear is that Warren rendered legal services and advice.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/2002-elizabeth-warren-charged-675-per-hour-as-special-legal-consultant/
Brown's friend,Jon Keller, was trying to help him by starting the debate with the loaded and leading question"Does character count"? It seemed,instead, to have revealed much that is negative re Brown,his campaign and his senior staff.
In the Brown Coakley race the Globe frequently trotted out the Cosmopolitan pictures of 22 year old Scott Brown. How did that work out? This campaign every Globe piece is anti-Brown. EW is not likeable. Senator Brown will be re-elected!
Candidates who bully and wilfully mislead are not likable, Sunday@1. And those who attack others' families are REALLY unlikable.
Candidates who bully and wilfully mislead are not likable, Sunday@1. And those who attack others' families are REALLY unlikable.
"So much of it comes down to whether Warren can rise to the moment, whether she can lift herself above an increasingly ugly fray." The last sentence of this article is all we need. All the negativity is wearing thin, on both sides. I wish anyone luck who is not voting along party lines and is trying to find either of these two candidates likeable. There is a great deal at stake at the upcoming debates, and if these two haven't figured that out by now, then they never will.
Brown's voting record is not something anyone would be proud of and certainly doesn't belong in a campaign ad in Massachusetts. He has nothing else but his truck and to make fun of Native Americans because at this point I am willing to give Elizabeth Warren the benefit of the doubt. You see because Native Americans didn't come here with paper work because they were here first.
I don't agree with Elenor that Jon Keller was trying to help out "his friend" by asking the character question. Not so sure they are friends, and, regardless, I think he was just trying, like most media players, to be provocative -- as when George Stephonopoulos started a primary debate asking Mitt Romney about contraception, which wasn't until then even an issue. I'd respect this column more if Brian had noted, accurately, that Scott was just responding to a question from Jon, instead of implying that he couldn't wait to gratuitously attack.
I can't agree with you. Jon Keller has a Republican background, but maybe he wasn't throwing a bone to Brown. I can't read his mind and know his motivations, and neither can you.
Nevertheless, Brown was prepared for that question. He could have said a lot of things in answer to that question, but he chose to make a vicious attack. I was obvious that he intended to make that attack whenever he had an opening to do so. I bought his nice guy ads; I have to admit that. I was shocked at how mean he was during the debate.
Never forget. Scott Brown CO-SPONSORED the BLUNT AMMENDMENT and he forged his alliance with the Koch Bros and other Republican power elite ($$$) by signing the GROVER NORQUIST PLEDGE. One or the other should be enough to vote him the heck out. Add to that his narcissistic fantasies about, and I quote, having "secret meetings with kings and queens." The man has always been a lightweight, flimflammer. His true colors are now showing, and it's not a pretty sight.
Thank you Brian for calling it as it is.
There's little doubt about his narcissism. It's seems to be rarely mentioned, but posing in a state of undress for a national magazine is blatant evidence of that.
Well he was modeling at the time to pay for law school, and the Cosmo layout paid for a whole year of law school. That hardly makes him a narcissist, and the Cosmo layout is "rarely mentioned?" Really? It's mentioned constantly, by nitwits and moonbats like you.
perhaps his campaign should bring back Donald Trump to review the birth certificates of Warren's anscestors? that really works for them. (just kidding)
Pointing out to voters that Warren has been less than truthful about her alleged Native American heritage and "fighting for families" credentials is not failing to be a good guy ... it is preventing voters from the buyers remorse they would feel if Warren won.
Excellent column . I had lost all respect for Scott Brown because of his smirks, and snide personal comments about Elizabeth, not to mention his lack of substance. Thank You.
This comment has been removed.
There are fair and even-handed criticisms of both candidates here. Warren's lawyerly past leaves her open to all manner of embarassments, as lawyers, by trade, are paid to represent their clients without judgment and often see unexpected consequences unfold after the fact. As for the debate, it was sad to see how little Warren fought back when Scott Brown played the character card. This from the man who lied about meeting kings and queens and being briefed personally about Osama bin Laden. When a man in power feels a need to puff himself up to look bigger than he is, it raises serious questions about integrity. Brown and character? Black and kettle is more like it.
I don't find Elizabeth Warren likeable or unlikeable. She just seems very smart and pragmatic and not at the beck and call of the corporate elite.
Brown, on the other hand, is the the furthest thing from likeable. When he ran last time, and no one knew anything about him other than a couple of tv ads of him driving a truck, yeah, maybe he seemed likeable. But after his actions, his lies, and his snide behavior, I find him to be one of THE most unlikeable people in politics. I just can't respect the man. He lies, is rude and crass, avoids the actual issues and his own voting record at all costs, and comes across very arrogant, a like corprate elitist.
Brown just acts like he's entitled to the job, and how dare anyone else try to earn the position. But aside from how he comes across, his voting record is the scariest part. He is clearly bought and paid for by big business. He told us he would be independent, and he's been the furthest thing from that. We don't need another Romney-esque politican in Washington, who's going to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.
Brown’s current bar status is listed as “inactive” in Massachusetts. However, Brown reported on Senate financial disclosure forms earning $58,000 in 2009 and $81,000 in 2008 from his law practice in Wrentham.
There is also another video from this summer, with Scott Brown speaking while his staff is doing Indian whooping and hand behavior.
Warren did represent a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts on a Massachusetts legal issue.
"The case was [a 2001] appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston in the case of Cadle Company v. Schlictmann.
"The case involved a dispute as to a lien on a contingent fee earned by Beverly, Massachusetts lawyer Jan R. Schlichtmann, who was the subject of the film A Civil Action. The issue in the case was whether a creditor or Schlictmann was entitled to the contingency fee earned in a case which started prior to Schlictmann’s personal bankruptcy but did not conclude until long after the bankruptcy.”
Blogger Mark Thompson at the League of Ordinary Gentleman, who had been Ms. Warren's most ardent defender until this new revelation, has changed his mind about Jacobson's argument that Ms. Warren has engaged in the unlicensed practice of law in Massachusetts: