Scot, what if Brown called on the Globe not to endorse as a condition of his engagement in the consortium's debate? I imagine your attitude would be different.
What advantage would Vicki Kennedy have given Warren? Surely the campaigns would have agreed on the setting and format, and you can't get a more respected moderator than Tom Brokaw. We're not even talking about the Kennedy Institute endorsing a candidate. We're talking about a private citizen expressing her support for whichever candidate she finds best suited for the job - why should that even be on the table?
OK, let's say Kennedy agrees not to endorse anyone. How does this change anything? How is the proposed debate affected by this non-endorsement? Do people really think that Kennedy doesn't support either candidate simply because she doesn't state it out loud?
Ted Kennedy blew off most debates with his opponents. Vicki should have to explain why. Did the local TV channels and the Globe care? not that I know of. Therefore, the Kennedy Institute should not be a debate host. Other than that, Scott Lehigh's article also doesn't meantion the many other Obama donors on the Kennedy institute staff.----------- And today, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell was caught EDITING and FAKING a Mill Romney campaign speech in PA. MSNBC should be completely DISQUALIFIED from hosting ANY debates. Because of MSNBC's unethical journalism, the score should be Mitt 10, Vicki 0.
Scott, you are SO right. I'm, quite frankly, embarassed by Vicky Kennedy's position. It seems she wants to bring him into 'hostile' territory and then campaign against him, to boot!
As a democrat, this just smacks of super-wrong politics... and she should be ashamed. I believe in fair fights. This proposition wasn't fair from the get-go.
So what if Kennedy thinks her endorsement is so important.
To quote Scot Lehigh:
"After all, it's not as though voters are going to make up their minds in the Brown-Warren race based on whether or not Vicki Kennedy publicly supports Warren."
Again, what is Sen. Brown so afraid of? And if he is not afraid of anything, why does he object to the debate?
Vicki Kennedy has zero qualifications with voters. She and the rest of the moonbats truly believe that it is "Kennedy's seat " and not the peoples seat. May I remind you that Scott Brown is the sitting Senator and unlike Ted kennedy who very rarely debated an opponent, he has already agreed to a number of debates with Prof. Warren. Anybody that believes that the EMK Center is non-partisan needs to have their head examined. The Dems were outflanked by Scott Brown. They are finding out that they are dealing with a skilled politician not a neophyte like Prof. Waren.
Why will you not answer my question? As I wrote earlier:
So what if Kennedy thinks her endorsement is so important. To quote Scot Lehigh: "After all, it's not as though voters are going to make up their minds in the Brown-Warren race based on whether or not Vicki Kennedy publicly supports Warren." Again, what is Sen. Brown so afraid of? And if he is not afraid of anything, why does he object to the debate?
BTW, do you think that her endorsement is worth anything?
So what if Kennedy thinks her endorsement is so important. Do you think that her endorsement is worth anything?
To quote Scot Lehigh: "After all, it's not as though voters are going to make up their minds in the Brown-Warren race based on whether or not Vicki Kennedy publicly supports Warren."
Again, what is Sen. Brown so afraid of? And if he is not afraid of anything, why does he object to the debate?
And what difference does it make if he is the 'sitting' senator?
I initially had a vision of a hatchet job on Scott Brown, for the position he took, regarding the debate. Shame on me!! I think your analysis is right on target, but more importantly, I am impressed with the level of objectivity in your analysis. Thanks, because I am on the verge of qualifying for the standard moniker of most of your patrons ( as I envision it), 'of one of those haters'. Thanks for the objectivity on this issue.
The reason the public backed Senator Brown on this issue is that there isn't a fair-minded soul in Massachusetts, or the United States, for that matter, who believed Vicki Kennedy when she made the completely laughable claim that this was a non-partisan offer. It is the kind of naked, bold-faced lie that turns off all but the most partisan Democrats and Kennedy lemmings ( Phil Johnston to weigh in here ). The debate offer was a set-up ( MSNBC--need anyone say more ? )and the public wasn't buying her obviously contrived and incredible claims to the contrary. Quite simply, Vicki Kennedy had no credibility and people didn't buy what she was trying to sell them.
The MSNBC charge is rather tenuous; was the network really involved? While the Institute is nonpartisan, why should Mr. Brown and Mr. Lehigh try to stifle Ms. Kennedy's right to free speech as an individual? There was enough of that this spring.
It's sad when a Senate campaign is reduced to debates about debates. And it doesn't help when columnists encourage such behavior by declaring winners and losers as if it were even worthy of such attention. The Senator's handlers (whom we apparently elected) are delighted, I'm sure. Me, I'm still waiting for honest discussion of key issues and, until that happens, for columnists who forgo the reindeer games Brown's staff excel at in favor of more important matters.
Scott you have expressed an opinion not a valid conclusion. It is unclear how the voting public will react to Scott Brown's reluctance to engage in debates where there will be a wide audience both at the venue as well as over media. If he cannot represent himself and explain his votes to the electorate at large it sure speaks to how he represents the rest of us. Vicky Kennedy was not the issue but allowed to be one because so called pundits take every move of politicians as something significant. What did he actually gain here? Not a thing and the public made up of 54% of Independents is snubbed. Does he ask the Democrats to leave the room when he speaks and argues in the well of the Senate? There was also not a peep out of you when his wish was to have debates on right wing radio in the middle of Summer. Talk about arranging a dog and pony show. Now that takes the cake and quite revealing as to his political courage. Sen Brown and his campaign surrogates have done everything but defend his actual votes. Maybe he truly knows that if he explains his views he will lose votes not win them. This is the issue. He says he holds the "people's" seat. Why then is Senator Brown avoiding the Massachusetts voting public? What in the world is he afraid of?
MSNBC was not involved and the moderator would be Tom Brokaw, hardly a obviously partisan interviewer. No Sen Brown is chicken plain and simple. He is sweating out having to explain overly Republican votes on most occasions when he boasts a split on the major issues of the day. He is a great showman but not an asset to the people of this state.
This type of wrangling over debates is actually quite common in senate races. Clearly, the incumbent has the power to decline specific venues, and Brown wisely did so here. MSNBC is not to be trusted, and Vicki Kennedy is someone who has a dog in this hunt. Brown would be a fool to accept terms such as these. It always amazes me how Republicans usually seem to accept debates moderated by the left wing media types like Tom Brokaw. They always go down ratholes that are meaningless, simply to be good advocates of the liberal narrative. The GOP primary debates proved that mainstream media broadcasters have no business being debate moderators. Hopefully Brown will use his power to have serious moderators in his debates with Warren.
There are 2 possibilities. Scott Brown is an empty suit and the people who own him wont let him get on stage or he is afraid to debate. Both possibilities say a lot about Brown.
Comments
So wrong. Scott Brown showed he's being managed by the republican play book. Truth 1 Scotty )
You are way off here, SB is a wimp for backing out. Why is he afraid of VK supporting EW? You are just a tool for the GOP, why don't you admit it?
Scot, what if Brown called on the Globe not to endorse as a condition of his engagement in the consortium's debate? I imagine your attitude would be different. What advantage would Vicki Kennedy have given Warren? Surely the campaigns would have agreed on the setting and format, and you can't get a more respected moderator than Tom Brokaw. We're not even talking about the Kennedy Institute endorsing a candidate. We're talking about a private citizen expressing her support for whichever candidate she finds best suited for the job - why should that even be on the table?
This comment has been removed.
OK, let's say Kennedy agrees not to endorse anyone. How does this change anything? How is the proposed debate affected by this non-endorsement? Do people really think that Kennedy doesn't support either candidate simply because she doesn't state it out loud?
Gee, who are you endorsing?
This comment has been removed.
Ted Kennedy blew off most debates with his opponents. Vicki should have to explain why. Did the local TV channels and the Globe care? not that I know of. Therefore, the Kennedy Institute should not be a debate host. Other than that, Scott Lehigh's article also doesn't meantion the many other Obama donors on the Kennedy institute staff.----------- And today, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell was caught EDITING and FAKING a Mill Romney campaign speech in PA. MSNBC should be completely DISQUALIFIED from hosting ANY debates. Because of MSNBC's unethical journalism, the score should be Mitt 10, Vicki 0.
Scott, you are SO right. I'm, quite frankly, embarassed by Vicky Kennedy's position. It seems she wants to bring him into 'hostile' territory and then campaign against him, to boot! As a democrat, this just smacks of super-wrong politics... and she should be ashamed. I believe in fair fights. This proposition wasn't fair from the get-go.
So what if Kennedy thinks her endorsement is so important. To quote Scot Lehigh: "After all, it's not as though voters are going to make up their minds in the Brown-Warren race based on whether or not Vicki Kennedy publicly supports Warren." Again, what is Sen. Brown so afraid of? And if he is not afraid of anything, why does he object to the debate?
Vicki Kennedy has zero qualifications with voters. She and the rest of the moonbats truly believe that it is "Kennedy's seat " and not the peoples seat. May I remind you that Scott Brown is the sitting Senator and unlike Ted kennedy who very rarely debated an opponent, he has already agreed to a number of debates with Prof. Warren. Anybody that believes that the EMK Center is non-partisan needs to have their head examined. The Dems were outflanked by Scott Brown. They are finding out that they are dealing with a skilled politician not a neophyte like Prof. Waren.
This comment has been removed.
This might be one of the worst written articles I've ever read...I can't understand the argument being made here. Scott speak english
Why will you not answer my question? As I wrote earlier: So what if Kennedy thinks her endorsement is so important. To quote Scot Lehigh: "After all, it's not as though voters are going to make up their minds in the Brown-Warren race based on whether or not Vicki Kennedy publicly supports Warren." Again, what is Sen. Brown so afraid of? And if he is not afraid of anything, why does he object to the debate? BTW, do you think that her endorsement is worth anything?
So what if Kennedy thinks her endorsement is so important. Do you think that her endorsement is worth anything? To quote Scot Lehigh: "After all, it's not as though voters are going to make up their minds in the Brown-Warren race based on whether or not Vicki Kennedy publicly supports Warren." Again, what is Sen. Brown so afraid of? And if he is not afraid of anything, why does he object to the debate? And what difference does it make if he is the 'sitting' senator?
I initially had a vision of a hatchet job on Scott Brown, for the position he took, regarding the debate. Shame on me!! I think your analysis is right on target, but more importantly, I am impressed with the level of objectivity in your analysis. Thanks, because I am on the verge of qualifying for the standard moniker of most of your patrons ( as I envision it), 'of one of those haters'. Thanks for the objectivity on this issue.
The reason the public backed Senator Brown on this issue is that there isn't a fair-minded soul in Massachusetts, or the United States, for that matter, who believed Vicki Kennedy when she made the completely laughable claim that this was a non-partisan offer. It is the kind of naked, bold-faced lie that turns off all but the most partisan Democrats and Kennedy lemmings ( Phil Johnston to weigh in here ). The debate offer was a set-up ( MSNBC--need anyone say more ? )and the public wasn't buying her obviously contrived and incredible claims to the contrary. Quite simply, Vicki Kennedy had no credibility and people didn't buy what she was trying to sell them.
The MSNBC charge is rather tenuous; was the network really involved? While the Institute is nonpartisan, why should Mr. Brown and Mr. Lehigh try to stifle Ms. Kennedy's right to free speech as an individual? There was enough of that this spring.
Bravo Scot. Normally your columns make me roll want to roll my eyes but this was well thought out, well written and made total sense.
It's sad when a Senate campaign is reduced to debates about debates. And it doesn't help when columnists encourage such behavior by declaring winners and losers as if it were even worthy of such attention. The Senator's handlers (whom we apparently elected) are delighted, I'm sure. Me, I'm still waiting for honest discussion of key issues and, until that happens, for columnists who forgo the reindeer games Brown's staff excel at in favor of more important matters.
Scott you have expressed an opinion not a valid conclusion. It is unclear how the voting public will react to Scott Brown's reluctance to engage in debates where there will be a wide audience both at the venue as well as over media. If he cannot represent himself and explain his votes to the electorate at large it sure speaks to how he represents the rest of us. Vicky Kennedy was not the issue but allowed to be one because so called pundits take every move of politicians as something significant. What did he actually gain here? Not a thing and the public made up of 54% of Independents is snubbed. Does he ask the Democrats to leave the room when he speaks and argues in the well of the Senate? There was also not a peep out of you when his wish was to have debates on right wing radio in the middle of Summer. Talk about arranging a dog and pony show. Now that takes the cake and quite revealing as to his political courage. Sen Brown and his campaign surrogates have done everything but defend his actual votes. Maybe he truly knows that if he explains his views he will lose votes not win them. This is the issue. He says he holds the "people's" seat. Why then is Senator Brown avoiding the Massachusetts voting public? What in the world is he afraid of?
MSNBC was not involved and the moderator would be Tom Brokaw, hardly a obviously partisan interviewer. No Sen Brown is chicken plain and simple. He is sweating out having to explain overly Republican votes on most occasions when he boasts a split on the major issues of the day. He is a great showman but not an asset to the people of this state.
I like it when you call your fellow Americans moon bats. My name is Scott Brown and I approve this message.
This type of wrangling over debates is actually quite common in senate races. Clearly, the incumbent has the power to decline specific venues, and Brown wisely did so here. MSNBC is not to be trusted, and Vicki Kennedy is someone who has a dog in this hunt. Brown would be a fool to accept terms such as these. It always amazes me how Republicans usually seem to accept debates moderated by the left wing media types like Tom Brokaw. They always go down ratholes that are meaningless, simply to be good advocates of the liberal narrative. The GOP primary debates proved that mainstream media broadcasters have no business being debate moderators. Hopefully Brown will use his power to have serious moderators in his debates with Warren.
There are 2 possibilities. Scott Brown is an empty suit and the people who own him wont let him get on stage or he is afraid to debate. Both possibilities say a lot about Brown.