Senator Scott Brown wants to arm some of the rebels battling Syria’s brutal dictator, a step his challenger, Elizabeth Warren, is not ready to embrace. Warren wants to accelerate the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan while Brown wants to stick to President Obama’s timeline. Both candidates support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Brown is adamant that Jerusalem be the undivided capital of Israel, a condition past administrations have left open to negotiation.
Brown, a Republican, and Warren, a Democrat, have barely mentioned foreign policy on the campaign stump. But in written responses to questions from the Globe about Syria, Russia, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and other areas, Brown and Warren provided a broader picture of their views on some of the thorniest foreign policy questions facing the United States. The winning candidate will, as a US senator, be in a position to help shape policy and act on treaties and declarations of war.
Comments
Thank you. We can use more articles of this sort. It almost takes the place of the discussion the candidates and voters shoudl be having.
Scott Brown fumbles his priorities as a United States senator when he makes non-negotiable pronouncements on foreign capitals.
To paraphrase Brown's thought process toward his opponent, he "doesn't look" like an C-student so he must not be one, right?
As a voter I'd want to choose the leader who represents the best interests of all Americans.
www.tangenjill.com/2012/09/the-bully-brown.html
Senator Brown and Professor Warren may generally have similar views on this nation's foreign policy, but Warren plainly is way over her depth on such issues. She is naught but a bellower of leftwing Democratic Party dogma, with a strong touch of pacifism that must be popular near her Harvard Square digs. Brown's expressed wish that Jerusalem be solely Israel's capitol is a bit radical in the real world of Israeli-Palistinian nationhoods. Warren's major weakness in the foreign policy area is her lawyerly approach, parsing her position into niggly wiggly details.
centrist? Scott Brown?? with a couple of propaganda votes, he votes lock-step with the right wing fringe yahoos. views? sure, what is said in bull sessions. what matters is what party you caucus with and for Brown, we have the imperialist bully party. they would invade every country which doesnt buckle under in the mideast. look at the mess of the last decade ...
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: