It was hard to keep up with all the charges and countercharges in Monday night’s Senate debate at University of Massachusetts Lowell. US Senator Scott Brown and his Democratic challenger, Elizabeth Warren, often accused each other of misrepresentation, as they traded jabs on her legal work, his tax votes, and a host of other issues. Here, we take a look at the veracity of four of the competing claims.
ISSUE: Would the Buffett Rule fund the government for a day as Brown suggested?
Comments
Brown has been saying Warren lied on her application to both Harvard and Penn, which she has denied, did we find any truth to this statement?
Her applications have been printed in the newspapers. She checked off her race as caucasian for at least 2 documents. In fact on one there was opportunity for her to list herself as a minority to be eligible for special consideration. She checked no.
They how did she end up listed in law school directories as Native American? The schools don't check that box for you - you have to self report. If all the applications had been "printed in the newspapers" as you suggest, then Warren could point out that fact for all to see. The fact that she hasn't and that she has not released her files from Harvard indictates that she is still trying to hide something.
Whether Brown voted 54% or 76% of the time with the Republicans is a red herring. Elizabeth Warren will vote with the democrats 100% of the time. Bemoaning a lack of bipartainship and then stating that Scott Brown votes Republican 76% of the time is hypocrisy in its grandest form.
This comment has been removed.
If Elizabeth Warren votes with the Democrats to protect my wages, my families wages, and our rights to the contributions we have made to Social Security, well, that is fine with me. Mr. Brown will vote for tax deductions for the Big Oil companies that have made billions in profits. I would prefer pay Mrs. Warren for her services.
So adding up, Brown was way off base and bolsters the assertion Scott Brown is a Mitch McConnell Republican and a strong supporter of Mitt Romney's economics. The one small dent is Elizabeth Warren's role in the LTV steel case that is mistated by the Globe. She was not trying to favor one side or the other in that case but to preserve law in the future so less strong companies could properly care for their responsibilities to their employees. Further the Coal Act guaranteed compensation for injured miners and would have been paid one way or the other. It is a disservice to the public to try to explain complex legal issues in only a few sentences.
OETKB: You said: "She was not trying to favor one side or the other in that case but to preserve law in the future so less strong companies could properly care for their responsibilities to their employees. Further the Coal Act guaranteed compensation for injured miners and would have been paid one way or the other. It is a disservice to the public to try to explain complex legal issues in only a few sentences." Well, you seem to be able to clearly defend her in two sentences, so why is it a disservice to the public to try to explain "complex" legal issues in a few sentences? It's not a disservie at all; the problem is that she hasn't done damage control and now it's too late to switch gears. If Warren has spent the better part of her career in a classroom, wouldn't you think she would have the verbal skills and the ability to distill the facts in a way that is clear and concise? Why not give the citizens of MA a little credit, or are we not smart enough to understand "complex" issues that are taught in law school? I've worked with physicists and rocket scientists (not exaggerating) that have doctorate degrees who have been able to distill and impart information in a way that I could understand, at least on the surface. Warren should be able to do the same; law isn't rocket science, you know. :)
So, there was only one fact to check on from Warren? What Brown said was. "true but there is more to the story"? This is such a biased article!
How does an attorney sleep? first he lies on one side then he lies on the other. Truth comes in many forms. Half truths, whole truths and nothing but the truth. When does a lie matter. White lies are supposed to be harmless. White liars are another matter. The media is trying to make Ms. Warren's obvious falsehood that she is a native American (Indian) a "little white lie". It is not! It is an eggregious and offensive betrayal. I asked myself if I may have been tempted to check that little box to jump the line and get that job or promotion and I honestly could not do it. Simply stated, she is a dishonest and dishonorable liar and a cheat. If you vote for her you are doing the same thing. Voting for a liar and a cheat in the long run will only harm both the state of Massachusetts and dishonor the U. S. Senate.
Unfortunate for Scott Brown that the only thing he has on Ms. Warren is that she hasn't "proven" that she has some native American heritage. Has anyone proven that Ms. Warren has benefited from checking the box in the Harvard directory? Has anyone proven that she doesn't have any native American heritage? I haven't seen it. Seems a stretch to call someone a liar and a cheat for unproven allegations that have not benefited her. Scott Brown's shrill, cry-baby tone harping on this one issue makes him and his supporters look small. I met him before he was elected to the US Senate and thought he was a decent guy. He should act like it.
Scott Brown wrote an autobiography in which he attests to being molested, fighting off attacks by his step father(s) on his mother and himself, shoplifting, and a host of other assertions that lead one to the inescapable conclusion that he heroically rose above all of these difficulties to become the man he is today. Thank God for basketball, the one activity that helped him develop a postive identity. Ironically, his is a story that fits fairly well with the bios of 3/4ths of the players in the NBA. I have read accounts from contemporaries of Brown, including friends and family members, that have a different recollection. Is he lying, or at least embellishing his past? He says the autobiography was written as a catharsis. Maybe. But it's also self serving. On balance I'll concede he didn't grow up with the advantages heaped upon someone like Mitt Romney. Whatever the reality he seems to have worked hard to get where he is today, but with some help along the way. Marrying a TV news anchor probably didn't hurt his cause. So I'm disappointed in the seemingly unending attacks on Warren's ancestry by the Brown campaign. Given the bias against native Americans in Oklahoma during her upbringing and the uncontested statements by her parents and grandparents that she is part Cherokee, there is an air of truth around her pronouncements. I don't know what boxes she checked off when applying for jobs. I don't think Harvard gives out tenured teaching positions on the basis of a racial profile. If her name appears in a law school directory as a minority, is it the school or Warren that gains the greater benefit. Like Brown she worked hard to get to where she is today. No? Let's give them both credit for conspicuous achievement and move on to the important stuff. Please!
This comment has been removed.
Globe's "Fact Check" is quite DUBIOUS. Very few "facts" were checked here. And the BIG one, Elizabeth Warren's "Indian" heritage was NOT checked by the Globe.--Of the few "facts" that were checked, the Globe at first said "true" or "false". But then it rambled on and on with all sorts of nuances..Well, maybe.. maybe not..it depends on how you look at the facts.. The REAL "fact Check" that should be done is: Is the Boston Globe a biased newspaper True or false?
So cancel your subscription already.
The Globe has betrayed the people often enough lately that we don't trust the Globe anymore, so we certainly don't trust their 'fact checkers' either.
But you subscribe. Way to show 'em!
I found the Globe's analysis on the Buffett rule to be quite misleading. Buried in the analysis is that this is true only IF you assume Congress is going to let the Bush era tax cuts expire entirely anyway. Given the Republican parties views on that idea, unless Senator Brown is willing to state he supports letting those tax cuts expire, I think the analysis should have been done from how things are now. Not some mythical reference point, which I think it is far to suggest, Scott Brown might not support. You should go back and redo the math that way instead.
Scott said the Buffet rule would generate 5 billion only enough money for one day in the US budget. Scott was sure ready with an answer on how to make five billion sound like chump change. I took 5 billion dollars and divided by 50 (states). That would be one hundred million ($100,000,000) per state. Many jobs for teachers, firefighters, policemen and construction workers could be saved or generated with 100 million. And that would be jobs for EACH state. At $50,000 per job, that would be 2000 jobs per state. That would be one hundred million dollors going into the economy of each state. That in turn would generate other jobs. And all that would be per year.
I guess Scott did not actually name the amount in his comment. Someone else figured it out and I read it there.
It would be 1/365 of the US budget.
Kristin You seem pretty good at math. Have you divided 5-6 Trillion dollars (the amount the National Debt has increased over the last 3+ years)by 330 Million (roughly the number of people in the US). Now if that had been distributed to the populace, versus sending it down the rat hole they did, the phrase, 'are you better off today than you were 4 years ago', just might be true. But thanks for the math lesson Kristin.
Among many other errors Brown committed I KNEW that night that he did NOT vote 50/50 with Dems. Republicans ESPECIALLY lie all the time and what person is going to remember to check it all. I KNEW and wrote on a comment section that that was a lie and I knew further it was 76% that he voted with Republicans. I was afraid to state the stat as I did not want to make a numerical mistake. But I was right as the Globe today stated. Thanks for the Factchecks. There is NO question who is the better candidate and her name is Elizabeth Warren. Please, Massaachusetts let's call her Senator!!