Let's be clear Brown needs to focus people away from where he stands on issues because if he did he would definitely lose. Thisultra conservative tries to dress in moderate clothing but he is a bad as Mitt rRomney .

Brown kind of lost it when he started accusing Warren of being a capitalist. Yeah, Scotty, she's a capitalist-the reasoned and balanced kind.

My Senator should also want to run far, far away from the likes of Antonin Scalia and his sidekick/lap-dog Clarence Thomas.

The general sense here is that these debates are a referendum on Scott Brown.  Scot, and his like minded readers seem confused about why Warren's minority status is an issue.  Gosh, they think, we support Democrats all the time who do far worse than lie about their ethnic heritage!!  Character is only an issue to be used against Republicans, because there is no crime which is unforviveable if one is properly aligned with the liberal agenda.

NEW PARAGRAPH:  I did not see the debate, but am glan that Brown will not let her get away with this fraud.  The other reasons she would be a disaster is that she could help keep the senate in Democratic hands, support higher taxes, and endless regulation of business.  The very stance that has kept our economy from growing there past three years.  

I agree that the constant harping on the native american thing is offputting (although I think it is an important issue which the liberal media is missing entirely). I like the fact, though, that Scott Brown will vote across the aisle and I'm fairly certain that the strident Elizabeth Warren would not. If I ran the Scott Brown campaign I would focus more on that.

Scott made it obvious that his electiosaw as a fluke and that he is incompetent with no firm grasp of imports sues are important his those that rep attempts to represent.

She gives non-specific answers about more revenue (unless you call Taxing Millionaires and Billionaires specific) and is all for “Shovel Ready” Government Jobs. Been there, tossed $1 Trillion down the drain. I am sure a Government Construction Job is just what that History Major wants when she graduates. What about Bipartisanship? How come you Globies/Libs (sorry, casting a wide net) hold Senator Brown to Lofty Standards when we know The Professor will be in lock step with the Reid-Pelosi Cabal?

I was unaware until last night that Brown had signed Grover Norquist's no tax pledge. This immediately disqualifies him from consideration. Recall that Grover was one of the Three Amigos, with Jack and Ralph, who defrauded clients over Indian casino rights in Texas. Jack went to prison and the other two should have. Having anything to do with any of these morons is a real character issue, not some canard about someone's ancestry.

Brown was just answering the questions Scot. 

Hold on there, Mr. Lehigh.  You are spinning this so fast it's making me dizzy  The character issue here is not the "unsubstantiated" -- indeed, unprovable -- question whether Warren got a benefit from falsely claiming minority status.  It's that she lied about it at first, saying "first I ever heard of it was in the Herald."  That wasn't true.  Even last night, she attempted to claim that it was all because she had misheard the original question. That's not true, either, as the record clearly demonstrates.  Scott Brown may say dumb things once in a while, like "Scalia is my favorite justice," but he doesn't repeat them for 5 weeks until he gets caught and then blame everyone else.  Where did this cost-benefit analysis come from, anyway?  I don't remember anyone weighing the benefits Nixon got from lying to us and concluding that it didn't really matter.  Why is o.k. to lie to the public now?  Rhetorical question -- it's not.  This still matters to people.

The clear loser in the debate was Gregory.  He allowed the two of them jabber without constraint far too often.  But Brown's first choice of a model Sureme Court Justice (really, Scott, Scalia??) may do him more harm in the long run than his one track campaign against Warren's ancestry claims.

Scott Brown keeps harping on Warren's heritage saying it speaks to character. Well, I think his attacks of her herigage speak more to his character than her's. Her's is a simple story and one that makes sense. Even the committee that hired her at Harvard says they did not know about her background and it had nothing to do with the decision. I used to think that Brown was a honest, stand-up kind of guy. I no longer believe that. His ongoing attacks without any proof of any wrongdoing make he realize that he will say anything to get elected. This issue polls well for him so he uses it, whether he believes it or not. His recent ad with multiple people calling her a liar, is just over the top. His ad basically called her a liar, but he will not say that himself. Maybe 2 years in Washington has changed his ethics. Or maybe he was always this way. Whatever, constantly calling her a liar without proof does speak to his ethics or lack thereof.

None of the above is looking better and better. Both Brown and Warren need to elaborate on how each will bring benefits to Massachusetts. I don't care who is more partisan or bipartisan, or in what context partisanship exists save for that partisanship that places the concerns of this Commonwealth first and foremost. If voting lockstep with one party or the other brings more jobs to Massachusetts who cares which person holds the Senate office? So far, neither candidate has made that case.

heard a good point on the radio yesterday. He needs to make this race about the person, not the D beside her name as so many in MA will just check the person that has D beside their name. This is a personal character issue. And she fails

and her answer to the question: [Senator Brown] is just wrong. I misheard a question at a very noisy press conference. I came back, I answered it when I understood it and that's it. To try to turn this into something bigger is just wrong."

Hiuh?

Thank you for your commentary on Scott Brown's focus on Elizabeth Warren's status as a Native American. As an independent voter with many libertarian tendencies, I am predisposed towards the republican candidate - but if this is Scott Brown's one and only campaign theme and his only selling point, he will not make this sale. Bob Wohler Norwood, MA

The question has been answered. Professor Warren lost BIG TIME last night. Turn the lights out, the partys over!

DBallantyne and Giermund nailed it: Norquist and Scalia are deal killers for me. 

My position remains SOLID in Warren's favor. I have written and will do so here: Brown, always the bully, showed his condescending and rude character as he told Warren she was "not his professor." Moreover, he is still stuck in Cherokee nation, to which a polled electorate clearly shows it does not care about that. Elizabeth answered as completely as possible. At this point who the heck cares what part of her DNA imprint is Cherokee and which box she checked? Why doesn't Brown simply ask for a genetic sample! Brown is NOT the Independent he says he is. He is a Republican and he does NOT vote an even Democratic and Republican split. He would vote Mitch McConnell in as leader if Republicans were to win the Senate and most probably lied when he muddied his response to that question. Not only would McConnell, for whom the unseating of the president was his only goal in a country yearning for compromise but many Republican enemies of science would be chairing committees that hold the fate of the nation’s health in their hands. When asked who his favorite Supreme Court Justice is his poorest response and one which Brown blew a hole as wide as the ocean in his candidacy was Scalia. He squirmed and figured this was NOT the right answer or it was the "right" answer in an electorate that is not rightwingnut so he then went to Kennedy and finally to Sotomayer! From Scalia to Sotomayer — two justices who could not be more philosophically further apart! Scalia is so right wing he falls off the rightwing side of the fence. The audience booed and then laughed at Brown’s preposterously ridiculous retort. The answer to THIS question, as I see it, marks Brown's loss certainly of this debate and perhaps of the election as well. It pegged him as one of the dumbest senators posing as someone who is supposed to be smart. He isn't. He is a bully who happens to throw his weight around and knows how to be a politician. Elizabeth Warren was superb and, as usual, brilliant. Her response to that question she zinged over the plate with a pitch of about 100 MPH. She answered easily and smiling as she probably knew Brown's all-over-the-map response could be his death knell said simply: Kagan. Yes, she got an "A+." I believe this is Scott Brown's Waterloo answer to a question that was simple. This floundering flub of a thug politician could not have answered it worse and it was an accurate reflection of his poor intellectual ability. This proof of his lack of cerebral acumen could not have happened to a more significant BULLY. He should and, hopefully, will be unseated in November.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-issues-incomplete-list-of-cases/#more

"Minutes before tonight’s debate, Elizabeth Warren issued a list of all of the cases she has worked on since joining Harvard.  It was an impressive list, proving what I have said all along, she practiced law on a regular basis from her Harvard office.  But she was not licensed in Massachusetts."

Here's a question, everybody. Is there anyone who wasn't already predisposed to vote for Brown who really plans to make a decision based on the Native American heritage issue? I'd love to hear an (intelligent) argument about why that outweighs the candidates' positions on the big issues at play in the land.

Scot

I agree. Let's talk about who is actually what. Brown's one-note diversion has become tiresome. cScott Brown,a union member who has no union endorsements, a Republican who is not a Republican, Pro lifer who supports a woman's right to choose, his favorite justices are both right and left wing. A vote for this guy means you get everything at once!