It was a good night for Elizabeth Warren — and an ominous one for Scott Brown.
Warren accomplished two important things. First, she cut through the fog on Brown’s tax stance. The senator talks as though he’s the tribune of the middle class. Warren, however, drove home the point that Brown would hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage to protect those for families making more than $250,000.
Comments
I thought she missed a few opportunities but overall did a good job. Brown connects with Joe Sixpack though, looking into the camera at you S-corp owners, union guys, regular Joe's and spinning that bull about tax-and-spend. It's effective, unfortunately. I was surprised she didn't knock down the Travelers/asbestos stuff. She clearly did right by victims in her work there but she didn't defend herself. I also think she should spell out the Supreme Court issue more convincingly. Overall, she didn't mess up, she held her own, but to the average voter, she has more work to do to nail this down.
Actually, she made a little over 200K over three years of consulting - not that much. Also, she did a *good* thing for victims. Here is the reporting from the Globe on this, showing a whole other reality than your attempted smear: "Travelers won most of what it wanted from the Supreme Court, and in doing so Warren helped preserve an element of bankruptcy law that ensured that victims of large-scale corporate malfeasance would have a better chance of getting compensated, even when the responsible companies go bankrupt. But after Warren left the case, it continued to twist and turn through the legal system, leaving a result that has been disastrous for asbestos victims. Travelers, in part because of its Supreme Court victory, has held onto its immunity from most lawsuits. But a ruling on Feb. 29 in a separate court has taken the company off the hook for paying out the $500 million settlement. In the words of one judge who tried to preserve the settlement, Travelers received “something for nothing.’’ While Warren’s Republican opponent in the US Senate race, Scott Brown, has highlighted this business arrangement as an example of hypocrisy for a candidate who has portrayed herself as the champion of consumers, a Globe examination of the convoluted legal record paints a murkier picture."
hmmm, seems like a repeat of the debate with TheSystemWorked playing the role of the snide, insulting demagogue Brown vs StillThinking... matter of fact, point highlighting, thoughful and thorough Warren.
Brown came off as a total creep. After all the laundry folding ads, he comes out as a bully. Wasted money.
Scott didn't actually watch the debates. He had this Puff Piece prepared beforhand. Scott already has the results of the remaining debates as well.--- (To me it looked like Scott had an answer to nearly everything Elizabeth said. The only times he remained silent was when Prof. Warren used debate time to shill for Barack Obama's foreign policy (ignoring the current events in Egypt, Libya, Iran, the Obama apology video in Pakistan, and the current violence), and Brown also remained silent when Elizabeth referred to the Boston Globe to back up her statements. (We all know that the Globe is an accurate news source, don't we?).
Yes, we do. It is most of the time and this time two editorialists were correct!
Brown is a corporate tool. He is also a Republican, complete with bad, bad Republican ideas.He has no idea what he is talking about on an entire range of political issues.We certainly don't need any more republicans in the Senate.
TOTALLY agree. Perfectly put when I had trouble putting my finger on his problem. He was NOT senatorial..he was amateur like he belonged in the local state house NOT in the national Senate. He was I thought initially a bully and led with the Cherokee thing? ?:?? really Mr. Brown..my goodness, people out of work, out of a home, and a job the 1% making out like bandits and creating our debacle in the first place and he wanted to play cowboys and indians. ... GIVE US A BREAK. Masachusetts my beloved state please send Brown the abberation packing. I am proud I come from the deepest blue state as I LOVE the color I call political blue!
I wondered why Elizabeth did not challenge Brown on his prevaricating ways. When he was caught lying for a year about meeting with kings and queens, he says he misspoke. Huh? Is misspoke the new synonym for aggrandizing, fabricating and lying? Didn't he falsely claim to have seen a photo of Bin Laden's corpse? The character question was a two way street; she should not have conceded it to Brown. There was a moment in the debate when Brown appeared to be agreeing with Elizabeth for her support of President Obama. She missed the opportunity to have some fun with that and make him say R-O-M-N-E-Y. In fact did he once either on of the R words in the debate?
Good for you, Scot! Lehigh, I mean, not Brown! Scot Lehigh watched the same debate I did; and saw much of what I saw: a cocky junior senator condescending to a woman with more depth than he ever imagined a woman could have. He's too slick by half--toadying to Jon Keller, calling him by name at every question, and condescendingly calling Elizabeth, 'Professor'. I was very surprised, frankly. I thought he would be 'nice' and feared she might be a bit strident. Au contraire, he was sneering and she was professional. The policy differences were more or less unsurprising, but the attitudes? Hurray for Elizabeth Warren!!
This election is an easy one for me. You want more government in your life, you want the government to create temporary jobs at a high cost to the tax payer, vote Warren.
You want less government, a free market, free enterprise,private sector to start hiring again, vote Brown.
We cannot tax our way to proseperity, people cannot prosper living off the government, time for a better economy, we have been stagnant for 4 years, plenty of money on the sidelines just sitting there, let's open it up and get our country moving, we need a more friendly business environment.
16 trillion dollars in debt is also another factor for us, it's destructive, both parties are to blame for that, time to stop living above our means, balance the budget and start paying down the debt, our children are counting on that. Read some business, money articles, the predictions are scary, some say a crash worse than 2008 is coming with the feds falsely propping up the stock market and devaluing our dollar.
Running a government is not the same as running a household.The same rules do not apply.You have bought a lemon and you are wrong. Don't believe what republicans are saying.They don't care about deficits.Look at military spending under Bush.The Bush tax cuts didn't work, didn't produce any jobs. In the last thirty years, Republicans have engineered the largest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich in this country's history. Wake up!
giermund, I care about the deficit, ME. I care about the future of my grandchildren. Both parties have added to our deficit, if you read my comment, you are sadly mistaken if you think I favor a party over my country. How could anyone!!!! Pack of idiots.
When Americans decide that our country is the more important than which party is in the white House, we might actually get back on the right track, problem is, when it's your party adding to the deficit, all's well, when it's the other party adding to the deficit, it's bad.
How about we just concentrate on the deficit. this is not the legacy I want to leave to the next generation.....
Every supposed "fail" cited by Scot Lehigh was a win for Scott Brown in my view. If the next few debates go this "poorly" for Scott Brown, he'll walk away with this election and EW can go back to her $300 gig teaching one law school class.
This comment has been removed.
Anyone planning to vote for Brown must have been physically ill watching his petty, high-school-jock-like attempts to get the upper hand.
This comment has been removed.
It's very clear that each candidate appealed to different people in different ways. Simply no clear winner in the personality department, from my vantage point. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses. Neither is as strong as I would like for the position. Warren's strength is to run against Brown's voting record and the spectre of Republican control of the Senate. Her weakness is a sense of edginess and poor ability to be plain-spoken and answer direct questions. As another commenter said, she should have addressed the insurance case history. Brown, on the other hand, probably connects with more people with a more casual style. But his position on the issues is deep red, and his ability to frame choices can convince people without adequate awareness of the details that he's on the best side of the issue for the common man. Inevitably, the devil is in the details of these kinds of debates. If Warren wants to convince people that she is on the side of everyman, she needs to find a way to take her deep understanding of the details, and frame it in a way that works for the broader audience.
Didn't see the debate. No longer live in Mass. But I'll give you kudo's for a good solid comment. You've gotta be an independent.
No clear winner in the personality department? I beg to differ. Brown sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Was poised, self-confident and clear spoken. Warren sounded like she was teaching errant children that they should be afraid of those nasty old Republicans and they should vote for her because she will be another 100% yes man for Obama, (as though MA needs another one of those) and not someone trying to reach across the aisle to those scary Republicans.
As for Brown's position on the issues....I wish it were deep red, since I am a conservative. However, I understand that he actually does exactly what he said he would do. That is, read every bill and consider it's affect on the citizens of MA and of the country. He does not always vote as I would have him vote, but I respect his decision making process.
I recall that a few months back, I wrote to both our Senators and to my US Congressman. The ONLY ONE who sent me a thoughtful answer and not a boilerplate meaningless response was Scott Brown. He actually addressed the issue I wrote about, much to my amazement!
LOL!....what a joke! We apparently were not watching the same debate. I saw a poll this morning on WBZ-TV showing that Brown CLEARLY WON the debate....Brown - 50%, Warren - 40%. That, my friend is a 10 point win by Brown.
Lizzie the Liar could not answer Brown's points, she clearly was lying but this time he was there to rebut her lies. She actually had very little to say except the same old thing...big oil bad, taxes, spend and redistribution good. Brown, meantime, pointedly said that the only thing she can say about him is that he won't raise taxes. He said he accepts that accusation...he won't raise taxes, especially on small business who are the primary job creators in this country and state.
Spoken like a really good Democrat, Mr. Lehigh!
Scott Brown is in deep trouble, judging by last night's debate results. He was exposed for a bully, a lightweight with very little command of the issues, and a liar who tried to pull random numbers out of the air to make his point and was called out for it. He tried the Mike Tyson tactic of rushing out blindly firing punches, hoping to overwhelm his opponent. But Liz Warren is nobody's patsy and she counterpunched very effectively ringing his chimes on a number of issues, especially regarding his willingness to hold the middle class hostage in order to appease his wealthy campaign donors and see to it that they got more tax breaks to enrich their Cayman Island bank accounts. No, indeed, not a particulalry "Senatorial" performance by Scott Brown...more like a tantrum by a petulant two year old trying to get his way.
Yes, because Harry Reid has done such a grand job running the Senate.
Google: 'filibuster mcconnell'.
Brown came acros as a liar and a bully who doesn't have coommand of the issues; he's an intellectual light weight who resorted to perconal attacks because that's what bullies do.
@TSW- Overture, cut the lights/
This is it, the night of nights/
No more rehearsing or nursing a part/
We know every part by heart!
Overture, night of nights/
This is it, we'll hit the heights/
And oh what heights we'll hit/
On with the show this is it!
Brown clearly won this debate. He was likeable and knowledgeable and exposes Warren's hypocrisy on both student costs (citing her $350,000 per class salary) and on fighting for the middle class (citing her support of an Traveler's insurance against asbestos sufferers.) Prof. Warren also showed who her true masters are when she couldn't even say the words "pro-life" - she practically was spitting when when referred to that side of the abortion debate as "anti-choice." Watch the tape on that one. She's very unpleasant to listen to - she needs to stop lecturing everyone.
Mr. LeHigh, you once asked for suggestions for a column to write. Well, here's an idea. Today's WS Jnl writer Fouad Ajami writes about "Muslim rage and the Obama retreat" in an Op Ed piece. What's your take on Jimmy Carter's 444 days of Iran holding the Embassy hostage followed by Mr. Obama's bridge building with Muslim nations? Ajami writes that "No American president before this one had proclaimed such intimacy with a world that stretches from Morrocco to Indonesia". This election so far has been diverted from the reality of Obama's failures onto the trivial blasting of rich people. America has never seen such upheaval both economically and in foreign relations. Who gets tagged with the responsibility?
@TSW- Overture, cut the lights/
This is it, the night of nights/
No more rehearsing or nursing a part/
We know every part by heart!
Overture, night of nights/
This is it, we'll hit the heights/
And oh what heights we'll hit/
On with the show this is it!
Mart: A poll? A self-selected response thing, no? In other words, WBZ didn't commission a randomly selected survey, did they? Scot
Scot, I saw it differently. I saw Brown as confident, experienced and straight forward. Warren looked tense, evasive, and with no ideas of her own, just the usual liberal democrat failed policies.
At the DNC, Obama told us that the economy is fine, and suddenly according to the liberal media (which is every major outlet except Fox Neews), it's no longer an issue worth addressing. Liz Warren strikes out big time in the debate and the liberal media rushes to her defense pretending she did great. Scot, no one with any sense is buying this garbage any more. Brown cleaned her clock.
I bet Scott had this written ten minutes before Brown's plane landed at Logan.
I bet Lehigh thinks Warren's 53 references to "the Globe" were meant for him--liberal hack to liberal hack.
Really, that's all you've got?
The best debate synopsis of the four columns running today and miles ahead of the front-page writing.
What I have found most disturbing this election season is the squeezing out of independent and third party candidates. D and R now represent extremes that I cannot in good conscience support.
Oh, I saw it, Chavez, or do you still prefer Hal? Neither major Presidential candidate has convinced me. I perhaps should have specified, however, that I find it disturbing that third party candidates have been squeezed out of the debate in the MA 2012 Senate race. Granted, Bill Cimbrelo doesn't seem to be trying very hard, and no one else has even made it to onto the radar, but neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party have proven themselves capable of governing, legislating, or, more importantly, working together.
liz02131 wrote, "Brown came acros as a liar and a bully who doesn't have coommand of the issues; he's an intellectual light weight who resorted to perconal attacks because that's what bullies do."
I mostly agree, Brown is a nasty, sloganeering, light weight.