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!

Mr. Lehigh is rather correct that Sen. Brown overdid the tired issue of the Professor's Indian ancestry and what it means.  But blame that one on the moderator, who merely duplicated the guy who ran the first debate in using the Indian topic as an intro. Though it might be seen by the left listed mob as unimportant, the more important candidate response during this debate was aolmost surely the professor's inability to name anyone from the opposition party that she could work with on legislation, except a guy who was defeated in a primary.  Her apparent ignorance of this matter was doubled when the Professor tried to recover with some sort of balderdash about heading one of Washington's infamous bipartisan commissions. That entire scenario adds up to unipartisanship by the good Professor, and to helk with the bipartisanship.

To be honest the "Professor" schtick is even more tiresome, especially when re-used by his surrogates on here (Boatwrote uses it three times in one post alone).  It came off as snotty in the first debate.  In the second, he just seemed like a jerk.  His obviously practiced ""Excuse me, I’m not a student in your classroom" zinger was completely graceless, especially given that he talked over Ms. Warren all evening.

Hey TheSystemWorked.  There have been Native Americans in the US Senate for over 100 years.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/minority_senators.htm

Native American Indian:

Charles Curtis (R-Kansas), 1907-13; 1915-29 (Kaw)

Robert Owen (D-Oklahoma), 1907-1925 (Cherokee)

Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colorado), 1993-2005 (Northern Cheyenne)

You guys need better talking points. I know the Brown campaign is anti-education, but sheesh. 

What happened to all the comments?

I joked after the first debate that Brown did everything except war whoop and do the tomahawk chop - it was a joke, but his campaign seemed to take it as a valid campain strategy! Do we really need six years of THIS guy AND McConnel?

I joked after the first debate that Brown did everything except war whoop and do the tomahawk chop - it was a joke, but his campaign seemed to take it as a valid campain strategy! Do we really need six years of THIS guy AND McConnel?

I joked after the first debate that Brown did everything except war whoop and do the tomahawk chop - it was a joke, but his campaign seemed to take it as a valid campain strategy! Do we really need six years of THIS guy AND McConnel?

I joked after the first debate that Brown did everything except war whoop and do the tomahawk chop - it was a joke, but his campaign seemed to take it as a valid campain strategy! Do we really need six years of THIS guy AND McConnel?

Scott is obviously the man for the job.  Willing to work with others, and wants to trim the tremendous amount of fat in government before raising taxes on anyone.   He is a leader and will not just blindly follow the party line like E Warren undoubtedly will. 

But Scott, you're a blatant left-winger, so obviously you're put off when the candidate you want to win has her credibility questioned. It's not about whether she can substantiate her claims of being Native American, at this point she clearly cannot or she would have already. The question is why did she lie so many times about this issue?? Lying comes down to character. Do we really need another say anything politician who doesn't deny she will vote in lockstep with her party?? I'm not gonna tell anyone how great Scott Brown is, I don't think he's great at all. But claiming to be something he's not for years and then lying over and over to cover it up, Scott Brown has not done anything like that. 

I also want to write that the Warren claim that she was hired by Traveler's Insurance to make sure the people suing them got paid what they were owed is one of the more ridiculous claims I've ever heard made in a political campaign. Corporations don't hire lawyers to help the people suing them... anyone who disagrees with that doesn't understand a thing about either business or the law.

Warren - Shovel Ready Government Jobs. Yep. Worked so well last time.

Warren - Drivers licenses and In State Tuition for Illegals. Crickets.

Warren - Killing jobs during a Recession (1.3% GDP last QTR is abysmal) by raising taxes on Small Business owners who are classified as S Corps and pour profits (that evil word) back into their companies to hire and grow. Brilliant.

Warren - 100% in lockstep with the Reid/Pelosi Cabal. 100%. That will surely be Bipartisan. No growth in Government there.

Warren - No plans, none, to cut or scale back one Government Program. Guess the Billionaires will have to pay down the $16 Trillion debt all by themselves.

Can't wait to have her wagging her finger telling me the right thing to do for the next 6 years.

You write "She gave viewers a good sense of the jobs approach she’d take. Although she dodged a little on Simpson-Bowles..." The reason to dodge on Simpson-Bowles is because it's a terrible plan. Inside the Beltway it's sacrilegious to say that, but we can do better than that. For example, I don't think we should raise the Social Security retirement age. They did that based on the false assumption that beneficiaries are living longer, but life spans are only increasing for well off people, not the ones that would actually need the benefits. It also lowers marginal tax rates despite a complete lack of evidence that this is an important thing to do. So, we have to stop saying "Simpson-Bowles" as if that's the holy grail. It was a bad compromise that came out of a Tea Party tinged political environment, i.e. the best compromise they could get at the time. No reason to pledge to support that now though.

Well I'm not voting in the Mass Senatorial election this year as I no longer live in my old home state.  I now live in Florida and living here has convinced me of one thing.  Those Republicans who represent the South cannot be allowed to gain control of the US Government a government that they at every opportunity disparage to the public. 

It is my hope that the voters of Mass. recognize that there is more at stake here besides whether Mr. Brown or Ms. Warren gains the Senate seat of Massachusetts.  The election of Mr. Brown could give control of our government to a group of people who have no love nor respect for the things that we of the north have long valued.  Fairness, equity, the support of our communities and our people.  They mouth respect for our soldiers yet would reduce the benefits and the privileges and the support that they need.  From food stamps to benefits for Vietnam Veterans to job bills for Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.  All of these things these people have opposed not merely verbally but by their votes in Congress.

I have no great dislike for Mr. Brown either personally or politically but it is my hope that the voters of my old home state will support the candidacy of Ms. Warren if for no other reason then to prevent a southern cabal from destroying our country.

While I can find things with President Obama that I disagree I will also vote for him as I do not wish to be a party to such people gaining control of our government.  Perhaps when my old Party the Party of Rockefeller, Brookes, Dirksen, Dole and many others regains its sanity I can once again support the Party of my youth. 

I had to look it up, but there have, in fact, been no female Senators from the Commonwealth and only one female Governor (Jane Swift, ousted by Romney).  Nikki Tsongas is the only female member Representative and the only the third in history. The last before her was Louise Day Hicks in 1971.

Even odder, Shannon O'Brien was the first female elected to statewide office. Martha Coakley only the second.

Dick Gregory's question was actually quite a good one.  Wish he'd asked Mr. Brown.