Wow. "Man bites dog."

Mr. Lehigh... Thank you. You have produced a pretty absolutely fair assessment of the comparisons between Lizzy the Party Girl and Scott Brown, the traditional New England Republican senator (following traditions laid down by Margaret Chase Smith, John Chafee, Henry Cabot Lodge, and others of the once GOP). Professor Warren is a stalwart Democrat of the far leftist variety, seeing little or no room for any opposition to the inarguable dogmas chosen by party leaders. Nothing dogmatic is too much for Lizzy to endorse. Let's hope your efforts in this case help Massachusetts to keep the bipartisanship that has barely begun among its congressional delegation.

With Mr. Brown we need to wait for him to get Mitch McConnell's permission to vote for progressive legislation. We'll be able to count on Ms. Warren being on our side.

The reason I'm not voting for Warren is she will vote for every spending bill, she wants a stimulus package for infrastructure, higher taxes, doesn't seem to be concerned about the deficit, no thanks.

Jborque, apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit as you missed the entire point of the article: who is the candidate that won't blindly vote for the party. You are correct though, Warren is the one if that's what you are looking for but don't complain if the senate stalemate continues.

Brown came into office in the Kennedy shadow. He deserves considerable credit for weathering the expectations that were inherent in that position. And, yes, he has voted across party lines a couple of times. But always lingering in the background is the Republican party platform, in all of it's complexity. Brown leaves me with the need to hold my breath, keep my fingers crossed, and hope that he has the strength and good judgment to know when to stand up to the powers in his party, and actually be able to do it. If he were to do a Joe Lieberman and go independent, it would easier to vote for him. Warren, also, leaves many questions as to her ability to push back from the extremes on her end of the continuum. As it stands, neither candidate looks to be a contender for bringing strength, leadership, and good common sense to the senate. The processes in our government are very broken. We need people who can stand up to pressure and help restore balance.

The piece was a fair look, but one needs to look at the big picture. As a voter, would I want the senate to maintain a Democrat majority, or would the country be better off with a GOP led senate? If you prefer the latter, you must vote for Brown. The senate under harry Reid has become completely dysfunctional. They have passed no budget in 3 years in three years, and have simply refused to take up bills which were passed by the house. It has become simply an instrument of obstruction, and has decided that obstruction is better than working with the House of Representatives. If Romney wins, and the Senate is still being run by Reid, it will be very hard for him to govern.

First, I will never vote for someone that kneels for Grover Norquist. Second, every time shifty Scotty speaks in his whiny voice he sounds like he neither believes what he is saying himself nor does he fully comprehend what his mouth is saying. He is a party puppet desperately trying to hang onto the gravy train. He is simply not up to the job of senator from Massachusetts.

I disagree with the premise as much as the supporting arguments. This is apples and oranges. Scott Brown is a sitting US Senator, elected in a state-wide race. Elizabeth Warren is a private figure asked to do impossible tasks, without the advantage of holding elective office. If the issue were "Who is more effective at their job" then Scott Brown would be held up as a Mitt Romney clone, flip-flopping his way through Massachusetts and DC, pandering for votes and hoping irrelevant issues stick to the wall. Sometime during this thread, someone will post Scott Brown's "bipartisan" record, sorry as it is. IMHO, bipartisanship, in this Congress, is over-rated and so is Scott Brown. Following the voting process of ol' "finger to the wind" Brown is a lesson in milking the issue for all its worth. He, and the Republican leadership, will to anything to manufacture a Brown image of moderation in Massachusetts. The consequences of Brown losing to Warren are almost as dire as Romney losing to President Obama. One final thought, Scot. "Leadership?" Making something from nothing in the face of overwhelming odds is leadership. I submit Scott Brown has done nothing to compare with Elizabeth Warren's accomplishments, even one! http://janebryantquinn.com/2010/07/why-elizabeth-warren-should-head-the-new-consumer-protection-bureau/

Brown is a demonstrated moderate, and Warren is a far left liberal. Her refusal to release her tax records, her cynical claim to be a Cherokee, and her socialistic views are all one needs to understand just how bipartisan and compromising a lawmaker she'd be.

Mr. Lehigh proved me dead wrong. He gave a fair, balance appraisal. However, if you believe Ms Warren would cross the party line like Brown has, there is some swamp land in Jersey waiting for you. Brown has already has demonstrated the courage to look a little like a good Democrat sitting in Ted's well worn seat. Like it or not, those who base their votes on other factors than party loyalty should rightly question who will serve our best interests as a nation. Do you really fantasize that Warren would become a reasonable, deal making, bipartisan like Tip O'Neil was? Senator Reid's leadership in "his" senate has fueled a frozen political wasteland. Right wing, left wing, Reid's airplane has no fuselage with room for passengers. A brand new "Senator" Warren would be another little jet engine on that planes left wing rolling us into a death spiral.

Just to define the accolade of bipartisanship. It includes votes that both parties supported and beauty votes that were doomed to fail. If these are eliminated he voted 75% of the time against Democrats. On the big issues of unemployment, jobs, health care, the environment, tax relief to those needing it he dickered for exchanging it for some other program for those down on their luck or outright voted against it. He voted for a jet engine the Pentagon didn't want showing his shaded pledge to cost cutting. On Dodd-Frank he voted only after the funding mechanism for implementing it was significantly watered down. He is still in lockstep with Mitch McConnell and supports a toothless government that is suppose to efficiently help its citizens. He thinks there is no social contract. He does not think our very survival depends on our fellow citizens to nurture us as parents, educate us, provide services, products, transport us, keep us secure, or properly nourished with safe foodstuffs. A individual all by themselves with the magically hand of the marketplace will provide all one needs because it always does the right thing and never causes human suffering.

Mr. Lehigh, After reading your fluff stufff 'tis obvious to me that thee is attempting to ingratiate thyself with the'empty suit'

Trailers for sale or rent Rooms to let...fifty cents. No phone, no pool, no pets I ain't got no cigarettes Ah, but..two hours of pushin' broom Buys an eight by twelve four-bit room I'm a man of means by no means King of the road.

Third boxcar, midnight train Destination...Bangor, Maine. Old worn out suits and shoes, I don't pay no union dues, I smoke old stogies I have found Short, but not too big around I'm a man of means by no means King of the road.

What the nation needs is someone to stop the bleeding not looking for new sources of revenue. If you're looking to stop the gridlock, try looking to your left. Who in Congress is refusing to make the necessary cuts? Perhaps you'll recognize the true cause of gridlock.

Her years at Harvard, point to a much deeper ideology and leftist dogma. Academics, particularly at Harvard are not necessarily known for their mainstream, partisan attitudes.

This column is a useless diversion. The real question is what POLICIES do these people stand for. For example, should you vote for a supposedly "sensitive" senator on women's issues who voted in support of the Blount-Rubio amendment to give employers' rights to autocratically deny reproductive health coverage to women employees, who objects to helping single mom's on welfare get registered to vote, and who would no doubt vote for a Supreme Court nominee ready to ban abortion and overturn "Obamneycare"? Or should you vote for Elizabeth Warren who can be counted on to protect the rights and interests of low-income and middle-income women, and to resist the Republican war on women. You may want to think about your daughters and grand-daughters (and sons and grandsons too) before you pull the lever for the "sensitive" senator

Another (quick) look at Scot's points for Brown: He supported Dodd-Frank then worked to defund it, essentially making the bill less effective. He drafted a bill to stop congressional trading, hurriedly, to be the "first." It was a duplicate of a NY bill, it was not accepted and he "over-stated his role." The payroll tax cut? Don't read just one version, the vote. Read between the lines: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/02/380507/scott-brown-payroll-tax/?mobile=nc Domestic violence against women? He lived the part, but don't forget, he is under siege by women's groups for constantly voting against their issues, in MA and DC for years! http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20220319amid_women_woes_brown_backs_domestic_abuse_bill As fpr the START treaty? He was against it before he was for it...again.http://www.defensenews.com/article/20100720/DEFSECT04/7200303/Republicans-Continue-Assault-New-START-Treaty The Affordable Health Care Law and the START Treaty show a disturbing side of Scott Brown: the compulsion to always be "first." To be pre-eminent, to have the last word (vote.) This is obvious in his criticism of the ACA (which he could not possibly have read when he opposed it) and the START Treaty, which criticised years of negotiation. By the way, the treaty passed 71-26, hardly a courageous vote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122104371.html All in all, he's still Downtown Scotty Brown, a name given to him for launching poor shots in basketball games. He was hit or miss then (for glory) and nothing has changed.

Bi-partisanship by itself is useless. What policies does the man support? If he throws a few bi-partisan bones to the Massachusetts voters but still defends his Wall Street funders and (heaven help) ends up in a Republican majority in the Senate, who cares about his bi-partisanship?