So, you’re one of the 18 percent of likely voters in Massachusetts who hasn’t made up their mind on the US Senate race and you’re sitting there on the couch Monday night watching the debate in Lowell. You’re trying to figure out whether to go with Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren and you can’t get that old Peggy Lee song out of your head.
“Is That All There Is?”
Comments
Kevin after all your years of writing I'm glad you still fight for politicians to speak up for what they would do instead of the usual clouding distractions. Unfortunately for now we have to read between the lines. Antonin Scalia, Scott Brown's model jurist, is an anathema to any one who understands it is not the the 18th century anymore. I'm sure you looked outside the arena and saw very strong support for Elizabeth Warren by the organized working stiffs in this state. For God's sake Prof Warren's signs were Union Made. You can check Scott Brown's signage for yourself. How satisfying is it to college students to have Scott Brown say jobs are created by emasculating government's role. Scott Brown believes in a recession to put people back to work by lowering taxes on people who don't need it. Being patriotic Americans they should want to start businesses on their own without government coddling in order to provide jobs. They do not need help from government to add wealth to the economy. In his answer to the student's concern he also favored deregulating financial institutions, one of his main constituency, by maintaing their ability to continue destructive predatory speculative practices. It was a difficult go for Elizabeth Warren given the allowed Scott Brown filibustering by David Gregory. However it was clear she is dedicated to righting the imbalance in our laws towards those who have enough already. She will fight to help those who would like to have a stellar career or at least a livable life. From my vantage point sitting in the Tsongas Center that's what I heard. The explosive din for Elizabeth Warren in that place was another message that Scott Brown does not get it.
When you tax rich people and businesses, you crush new job growth. Even Democrats understand that, at least some of them. That is why they didn't raise these taxes the first two years when they had the chance. Learn basic economics 101.
This comment has been removed.
In a response to a question on national security, Brown rattled off his 30 year career as a lawyer in the National Guard. Not exactly Audie Murphy. But at least he probably showed up for his drills, unlike that previous war hero, GW Bush. Brown would be a very acceptable Senator if running for office in Mississippi or Louisiana. But in Massachusetts, not so much. Brown continues with the Indian race bating long after its useful shelf life, if in fact it had a shelf life at all. I take Warren at her word regarding her ancestry and the release of her personal papers, as Brown has demanded, will have no bearing on her policy proscriptions regardless of their content. The same cannot be said of Romney's tax returns.
Brown's reply using his military career, whether it be National Guard or regular Army, was more on target than Warren's 1969 peacenik reply to a question about the Afghanistan war. Her pronouncements about money better spent at home was relevant, yes, but as much on target as her reply about which Republican senators she might be able to work with: Only Richard Lugar and he's on his way out. In other words, she doesn't know the names of other Republican moderates who will continue serving in the Senate or she never neard of Susan Collins, a lady from a couple of hundred miles north of Lowell. One has to wonder if Lizzy's "personal papers", as this DBallantyne calls her employment records at Harvard Law School (the papers the Brown campaign has been calling upon her to release), would in fact weigh on her policy votes if she burdens Massachusetts voters with six years in the U.S. Senate. Would she seek to be on the committee that oversees the Interior Department and its regulation of Indian affairs?
"...so kick off your shoes and have a ball, if that's all there is..." and sadly, that is all there is...the candidates make us long for a "none of the above" box to check...the moderators play the info-tainment game...and the media has spent too much time reporting on the nonsense non-issues and poll results (the easier stories to cover)...so take a bow everyone! That's all there is.
Justice Scalia!!!
I'd love to see a transcript, because it seemed to me that Brown was afforded far more time to spew his endless talking points and was allowed to run over Gregory several times, while Warren was much more tightly managed and had less time to talk. For the rules of "no rules," according to Gregory, he sure shut her down hard. And yes, it was a complete triumph of the trivial, notable only for the policy issues of far-reaching consequence that went without the slightest mention. No questions on global warming. Scott Brown's office informed me that scientists weren't sure about global when I called once. That's...what the word for it?...a lie. No connection between Brown's pro-corporate votes and his pro-corruption support from corporate money. He's "for us?" Sure he is. His votes tell us who he is really for. It's "us" only if "us" means oil executives and the super rich. We all know that. And naturally, the root cause of all this corruption was not mentioned, either. What if Gregory asked, "What do you plan to do to reclaim democracy in the Senate? How would you rid the system of the revolving door, the unlimited campaign donations, the SuperPacs? What would you do about the tax-sheltered, money-laundering front groups that propagandize and engage in partisan politics for the rich and their coporations, despite the fact that they are supposed to be social welfare groups? Would you support full disclosure on political ads, for example?" Those are real question about real problems in our democracy. Those are questions that Brown would fail, as his voting record shows. He voted against DISCLOSE, for example.
David Gregory is a tool, but not of either party. He asked those deeply silly questions because he imagines that's what the "little people" are interested in.
This Warren supporter will drink Bud and I don't even know what Sancerre? is. While the Brown campaign thanks you for your attempts to cast this race in the overly simplistic terms of a culture war, it does little to help your tattered journalistic credibility. Re: the venue tailor made for Brown. Did you happen to hear the boos from the crowd? Just wondering. Perhaps your ears were plugged with Bud.
“Is That All There Is?”
That's what I've been asking myself about this column. If you want to see someone who focused on the trivial go look in the mirror. To actually talk about Bud vs. Sancerre in order to stereotype the candidates' supporters is just incredibly unoriginal, untrue, and just plain lazy writing.
Count me in as a Warren supporter who has no idea what Sancerre is, but have had a Bud or three in my day.
This comment has been removed.
Seriously. It says more about Cullin than it does about Warren supporters. Remember that it's Warren that has the unions behind her.
Scott is a proud member of the Screen Actor's Guild Almost certainly a Perrier and Pinot Grigio type. At least off camera.
Warren does not have the unions behind her. They take her money to hold her signs. Just like they did for Coakley. These guys aren't dumb: they only get a bigger piece of the pie than everyone else if there is any pie at all to share in the first place!! Unions will take her money and hold her signs but they will vote for Scott Brown again. ASK THEM!
David Gregory was simply AWFUL on every level. He asked superficial and irrelevant questions, lost control of controlling equal time to both candidates as he let Brown to talk over him multiples times, allowed candidates - especially Brown - to simply not answer the question asked, ... What as shame as this is such an important election.
Will somebody bring up the fact that Brown's simple LAW experience has been working as a PART-TIME lawyer in real estate (passing papers) and TWO DAYS PER MONTH as a JAG officer before he was elected to his current position? The JAG officer legal exposure is pretty much showing up, reading and shuffling paperwork. His bragging rights in the National Guard are serving over thirty years. This amounts to two days per month and two weeks per year of active duty. This computes to a total of 3.12 actual years in the guard.
So what is fordfalcon's point about Brown's Guard enlistment? Is he implying that Brown lied with a hint that he (Brown) was a covert Special Forces operator or some such? When did this campaign for the Senate become a contest over which candidate has the *****est legal career?
Um, when Brown bragged on his legal career?
Congrats, Cullen, you got it correct!!! Lizzy did, indeed, call for Valentine to get another year. It must have given you a surge of joy to see that the Herald got it wrong, saying Lizzy evaded the issue like Brown did. Oh yeah, by the way, Brown won except for his Scalia stumble.
What makes you think mentoning Scalia was a stumble?
The three weirdest moments of the debate coveragewere
1) Scott slamming Warren for predicting the Sox would be 90 game winners. What Sox fan doesn't think that at the start of the season?
2) the NECN "man on the street" after interview with an "undecided voter" who, after announcing the debate had swayed her vote, blurted "do your research and you'll vote Brown."
3) Rob Eno working himself into a froth in the after discussion on NECN. The Brown campaign needs better surrogates.
"So, you’re one of the 18 percent of likely voters in Massachusetts who hasn’t made up their mind on the US Senate race and you’re sitting there on the couch Monday night watching the debate in Lowell. "
Is is a hypothetical to the point of being complete fiction. Do these people exist, this combination of debate-watching undecideds?
Did any of the commenters change their mind on who they will vote for because of the debate?
Debates are a waste of time. Studies show that they change very few minds. What would happen if we asked the same questions to both candidates in seperate rooms and then showed it on TV?
Liz Warren simply isn't qualified for the job. She should have been a selectman somewhere and then worked at the state house as a rep or something. She's not qualified for this job and even Democrats should recognize that by now.
Question for you. You've posted this exact text in the comments for multiple articles. Do you think it actually helps your candidate?
Not one of your better efforts, Mr Cullen!