Senator Brown failed as a national Massachusetts legislator since his party's approach to government is at odds with the majority of people in this state. His attempts at so called compromise have never really materialized. His monied constituency that ponied up for his campaign treasure chest, however, they certainly got their money's worth. His votes show he voted for increasing unnecessary defense spending, interfered with meaningful reform of banking and investing firms, over-tilting to employers rather than employees, repeal of health care reform, despoiling the environment, and scrimping on needed help for the unemployed. A couple of beauty votes here and there and he hoped someone would not see that the emperor has no clothes. Now some ugliness of his personality is showing by trotting out some minor unsubstantiated questions about Elizabeth Warren's past. We all know his campaign is the origin of these charges but this he-man feigns he is just learning about this things like the rest of public. In spite of Prof Warren's sterling record as a teacher, researcher, and author he goes along with making this the focal point of who should be the next Senator from this state. This pettiness does not fit with the stature of the office he hopes to keep. Unless one is married to reactionary ideology Sen Brown will increase your taxes(except if you already have a lot), limit personal liberties, shortchange education, loosen environmental laws, deny needed care to women based on bogus reasoning, enhance our chances of getting into foreign conflict, and pull the wool over the eyes of the public on unethical and unlawful practices of some of our biggest banks and corporations. Sen Brown is no bipartisan, he is a firm obstructionist Republican, something he hopes no one will notice. A recent well researched book by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann, "The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America," puts the major blame on congressional Republicans. A vote for Senator Brown is a vote to shoot yourself in the foot.

Interesting to read that Scott Brown's voting record is that he votes with the Democrats 24% of the time. Bi-Partisanship goes both ways. What is the voting record of John Kerry and the rest of our Congressional delegation towards the same? My guess is that it close to ZERO.

Warren has her own super PAC, the Boston Globe. And the Globe can't still figure out why they are losing readers.

Curious why Scott Brown's pledge of allegiance to Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform is not mentioned in this piece. This pledge in the words of former Republican Alan Simpson, a co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is a commitment to "no taxes, under any situation even if your country goes to hell." Since Grover Norquist comes first, and country comes second, wouldn't that be something people might want to see examined in more detail? When Brown promotes his independence, as someone 'guided by his own star', wouldn't a big asterisk next to those statements be in order? When your voluntary stroke of a pen allows an unelected individual to usurp a potential function of an elected Senator, isn't that worth a question or two? Oh, I forgot, Senator Brown refused to be interviewed for this piece.

Let's get an 'occasional article' about the woman of color, Elizabeth Warren. What color was that, again, Liz? Soon to be a major Motion Picture. The Squaw, Who Would Be Queen, or is it Sachem? The flacks at the Globe will help her out with the details, no doubt.

The dislikes are a "Red Badge of Courage For Me." Obviously looking into the mirror for some people is difficult. I know I can support what I have said. The other side has a deficit of "disagreement management" and descends into ad hominem attacks, out of context criticisms, and outright deception and lying.

Sen Kerry did not promote himself as a bipartisan but a partner in reasonable compromise. Scott Brown was trying to wipe away his Republican brand and promote himself as an independent. This, of course, is not how he actually voted but always seems adept on presenting it differently So far he has not presented himself in any general voter forum to fully explain himself. Scott Brown's votes on the Democratic side were either non earth shaking or doomed to defeat because of the 60 vote rule in effect on everything in the Senate. Let's modify this filibuster and see if the good Senator still votes 24% of the time with the Democrats.

Oh over at the Herald they're doing swell. They use the NY Times to publish their newspaper for goodness sakes. I guess not enough made up stuff on candidates you oppose appears in the Globe. Better stick to the Herald and Fox News.

And yet you're still paying for it. Hmm.

Go post ovet at the Herald and don't waste your time here. You're not changing minds by throwing out childish insults and schoolyard BS.

The major problems here are that Scott is not very bright, not very good at any job except centerfold, and not terribly honest. He needs this job or he will have to end up actually working for a living instead of being a political prostitute for whoever looks to be in power.

Isnt he really lapdog eric fehrnstrom anyways? n