Even before Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren threw their first sharp elbows in last week’s WBZ-TV debate, the state of their race was on display along aptly named Soldiers Field Road.
Warren arrived early and enjoyed a leisurely photo-op in a sea of sign-waving supporters, many of them turned out by labor unions. Brown’s truck pulled into the parking lot barely a half-hour before airtime to cheers from just a handful of fans, the end of a mad dash from Washington after what the Brown campaign claims were partisan delaying tactics.
Comments
So Mr. Keller has his say in print, an advantage many of us don't have. He has abused it. He has been a political reporter for some time and should reexamine some of his statements. He was the one who made "character" the first question out of the box. Further an oil subsidy is a tax on the general public since allowing this industry tax credits means the rest of us have to make up this shortfall i.e. higher taxes or increased borrowing. Elizabeth Warren also favored the President's income tax policy that would ask those who not only can afford it but represents idle cash to pay in their share in a progressive tax scheme. Scott Brown thinks this 3% of people who have a hold on tax avoidance due to archaic deductions no longer germane to modern life should pay lower taxes. Elizabeth Warren pointed out Scott Brown's miserable record on issues important to women. She even gave him credit for some votes but the negative ones earned him an 80% rating from anti-choice groups on a federal level and a strong endorsement by this state's anti-choice group. She explicitly mentioned his votes against the Women's Paycheck Act, voting nay on the Disclose Act, and his enthusiastic support for the Blunt Amendment. She said her votes would have been in the opposite direction and assured the public she would be a strong legislator on issues important to women. This is a little more than placards, Mr. Keller, and you know it. It is the media's challenge to present what was actually said. Your editorializing to achieve the false notion of "balance" makes one wonder if you absorbed what each candidate said. It might be helpful to review the tape since most of us pretty much got a notion where each candidate stands.
Why do liberals call tax deductions used by oil companies “subsidies”? The government is not giving the oil companies money, they are simply allowing oil companies a deduction when they invest in equipment. More than 80 percent of the tax deductions taken by oil companies are for investment in equipment, according to CNN Money.
If the Boston Globe buys new printing presses, it gets a deduction. Why should the oil companies not be able to take deductions when they invest in new drilling rigs? Especially when these rigs are built in the United States, which means jobs in the U.S.
rdh-nh,
While these may be provisions of the tax code, I think we all understand that they were enacted to protect the bottom line of corporations. Oil is a commodity closely linked to national and economic security so it makes sense to have a national policy and to execute the policy via many vehicles, including the tax code.
However, when oil companies, even after paying exorbitant salaries, are reporting absurd profits, one begins to wonder about provisions to protect the bottom line. We call out oil companies because some provisions relate specifically to them and also because MOST, although certainly not all Americans, see the irony in protecting their bottom line while they are increasing prices at the pump and, with that, the cost of food.
If they do not behave with our national and economic security interests in mind, then I suggest we change our behavior towards them. The tax provisions look not like subsidies but like corporate welfare. The tax code should be a tool in our domestic policy and it is working against us as a nation.
Big oil adn big business don't care about American jobs and American well-being. Time to stop rpetending they do and time to get them to pay more taxes.
Why is Keller employed at the station. He I obvious bias is nauseating. Put real journalists on this and other stories
This comment has been removed.
I'm not too interested in what Keller has to say about the debate he ham-handed for most of the night. what is more telling is how little Brown has to show for his term in office. Warren will not be defeated by tossing out the abused white male card that was so successful for Brown in 2010. Also his platform on WEEI is of much less value now that fatso and forehead have been relegated to also-ran status in the ratings. Brown has no choice but to go negative even if the allegations are totally without merit because other than that what can he run on? His dashing good looks?
What are the ethics involved in a moderator for a political debate using backstage information and his own analysis of the debate in an opinion piece? As moderator, Mr. Keller was clearly not in the role of reporter of the event. I find his use of the information he gathered and "backstage" observations he made during the debate to be almost insidious. I think the moderator loses the right to reveal such information--particularly during an on-going campaign--when s/he accepts the role of moderator. Perhaps I am splitting a hair, but the moderator in such an instance is using a power that was his alone: to witness backstage goings-on and to witness from his on-stage perspective that which was granted only to him because of his standing. In this particular circumstance the reporting entailed only "white knuckles" and a "testy" retort, and the size of the fans waiting for the arrivals of the candidates, but I don't think it's appropriate to use the power of the moderator in that way. I don't think Mr. Keller should ever be tapped to be a moderator of a political debate again for that reason.
Spot on! Mr Keller is a highly suspect "impartial" arbiter as far as I am concerned. Dan Rea wasn't available??? Keller has a pronounced bent and it was inept of the Warren campaign to even accept him, perhaps they over-estimated his ability to be impartial. Scratch that, they definitely did. While I'm on the subject, he is a consistently annoying commentator, whether it is film, social commentary, or politics. He apparently missed class on the day when the professor suggested that journalists not speak down to their readers/listeners.
Yes, Warren had every advantage going into this, well rested, relaxed, surrounded by supporters vs Harry-Reid-harrassed Scott Brown having run from a flight from Washington. Every advantage, and the debate was at best a tie for her. How will she do in the next debate, with Brown well-rested and all the new items in the news ... lawyering for BIG STEEL, and ... lawyering without a license! And what about getting her licensce pulled from NJ, certainly a coverup! And will she release a list of other corporate clients, or request Harvard and Penn release her employment records? I know what she's likely to do , feign outrage at the few Brown supporters who acted rudely the other day (Brown said it was wrong) ... but that only will show her phony outrage and give Brown yet another opportunity to say that the REAL Native American insult is her pretending to be a minority for personal gain.
I'd would confidently speculate that Warren looked more confident because she is more qualified, and sure of her stance as well as her heritage and private sector career in addition to her many accomplishments.
Scott isn't really Senate material as evidenced by his low brow approach in attacking Warren's heritage and private sector career after she had him hyperventilating on his own voting record.
Even more recent, Brown campaign staff was video'd acting like drunk juveniles at a football game with a continued assault that had clear racist tones on Warren's heritage. These racist tones were layed down by Brown himself, who during the first debate declared that Warren didn't "look like a native American."
Clearly Scott Brown is not fit to lead a diverse population. In fact, today's republican party isn't fit, as evidenced by Mitt Romney's comments about the working poor. It apparently runs through the entire party.
This comment has been removed.
Jon Keller is about as bad a political commentator as one could think up. He injects himself and his half baked opinions with little or no substance. It seems he thinks his role is to stir things up and add fuel to the fire. How does this man retain his position on TV. There are other bad ones, but he is the worst.
I was surprised to see how well Jon Keller moderated the debate because I find him to be particullarly snarky and biased. Then he publishes this piece and I see that my original impression was well founded and that his debate performance was out of character.
A solid analysis by Mr. Keller that is sure to rile the nerves of both sides. Neither candidate was in top form that night and one can only hope the debates will improve with more substance from here on out.
Your handle says it all. But Keller's "analysis" is unfortunate, but any action that diminishes the likelihood that we will see or hear from him in the future is welcome. He belongs at Fox, can't imagine why no one else has thought of that. Hmmm.
Jon Keller favors Brown.His rants on WBZ TV and WGBH are grating, whiny and extremely opinionated.He's doing this false equivalancy thing because his attempt to help Brown in the debate by starting off with the character question has backfired.
At this point it is extremely clear that Warren is the one.We have had tons of info.We know where the candidates stand.
Keller is injecting this"niether candidate" bull to muddy the waters.
Those of us who stay informed are aware of Warren's strenghts and Brown's weaknesses.
Great comment.
Wasn't Jon Keller a spokesperson for the state Republican party in an earlier life?
John Keller: impartial observer! What is it the kids say? LMAO? Yes, that's it.
Jon Keller tries to seem neutral, but I've known he's a Republican a few years, since he admitted he had a close relative who worked for the Republican Party. (I've forgotten the details.) This column certainly reflects that predisposition. It would certainly be better if he just tell everyone where he stands and quit the pretense.
He often finds it hard to hide his preference. A couple of times he had a mini-vendetta against Barney Frank, night after night, over some minor issue.
On this particular column, though, I think he's committed an unpardonalbe sin for a debate moderator. I assume that the two candidates were not aware that they weren't just debating each other, they were also auditioning for a Keller essay. It seems sneaky at best.
Jon Keller proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that everyone has a right to his own stupid opinion. One should not ever confuse subjective editorializing with objective reporting, which he does regularly.
The most dismal performance on that stage was put forth by John Keller himself. It was a terribly uninformative debate, in large part, because Keller kept letting Warren and Brown repeatedly counterpoint on the same issue, and allowed them to repeat themselves over and over again even as the topic at hand had supposedly changed. Such an open format debate requires a much stronger and skilled moderator.