A word on stagecraft at these Senate debates: It’s better when the candidates sit. Somehow, they’re less testy when they’re on their behinds. Maybe they’re just less tired.
That’s one way of explaining why we saw a better, calmer, more articulate Scott Brown Monday night. In the last debate, he seemed tense, flummoxed by the clock. On Monday, he stunned the audience when he coolly told Warren, “I’m not a student in your classroom, please let me respond.” (Snap! You know he’d been holding that one in his pocket.)
Comments
The "Richard Lugar" answer was actually a very good one. The demise of Mr. Lugar was at the hands of the Tea Party wing of the Republicans. They have threatened with a primary any Republican who is at all centrist, even Orin Hatch who, after all, isn't really very centrist at all. The point was that the Republicans punish either by marginalization or outright defeat anyone who reaches across the aisle. So far they've given Scott Brown a pass but that's because they hate and fear Ted Kennedy, whether dead or alive.
No it wasn't. It shows what a poor grasp Prof. Warren has of the current status of the Senate. Lugar won't be in office if she were to get in. A very sloppy error on her part and indicative of her inexperience. She herself admitted her response was "a problem". Try and spin it however you like but it wasn't a good answer.
I am sure she was being ironic. But, of course, irony isn't big in this or any other campaign. Bob Dole was pretty good at it, though.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
a better question would have been; how many republican senators can you name. SHe is a hyper-liberal who will vote lock step w/ Reid.
L-O-L ! No Sir, *I* am a hyper-liberal. & lovin' it.
Quick BeGolfing - name the accomplishments of 5 Republican Senators. Without going to Google.
Were Scott Brown's ancestors at the Little Big Horn? How else do you explain his obsession with Indian affairs? Another question comes to mind after last night's debate, 'Does the National Guard need a lawyer whose specialty is real estate closings?' How often does that come up in the military? Makes me wonder what he does during his weekend warrior drills.
The Scalia response was the most honest response Senator Brown made all night, and when he realized that, he threw out Sotomayor to get back on track with usual lack of candor.
The two parties have been at loggerheads in Washington for a while now. In some sense they just don't agree on things. In some sense, compromise has fallen out of favor lately. In particular (in my opinion) some tea partiers in the house would vote against something that would help their constituents even if it contained some compromise just to ensure that the president fails. In theory, putting in someone who's bipartisan will help improve this broken culture. In practice, for those who agree more with Democratic viewpoints (some would say Massachusetts voters at large), putting in a bipartisan like Scott Brown lost the supermajority for the Democrats and enabled the gridlock. Scott Brown was seen as a hero to Republicans. For those who didn't want Obama to succeed this was a victory. To hear Scott Brown posture like he's more a fan of Obama than Romney seems a little disingenuous to me. In the older days a super liberal like Senator Kennedy was able to get compromises with super conservatives. Being a moderate is not a requirement for getting things done, simply a sense of priorities, of flexibility: a creativity. A no-tax pledge is not one of these things.
Generally I do not post the same thing on two different articles but in this one instance I will.
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.
How ridiculous to vote for Warren to give the Dems a Senate majority. Scott Brown is such a breadth of fresh air unlike the stale stench we've had for decades with Kerry and Kennedy. What we don't need is all this government oversight to "watch" Wall St. and all this regulation and control that does nothing but stifle our economy. The failed policies of Obama and the out of control bills brought forth by Dodd and Frank have sent this economy into a tailspin. Now both Dodd and Frank have retired or are about to retire after being the two most responsible for wrecking our economy.
Then you oppose Veterans Benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid those things that are at the soul of the nation. You would turn your back on the veterans of Afghanistan of Iraq and of Vietnam. For that is what these southern senators and representatives propose and support. I can only assume you are one of those who says "Thanks for your service" and thinks nothing more of it. Do not say these men do not support these issues for it is on the record in Ryan's budget in comments in local papers here in the South. So like every citizen go ahead vote your consciounse one can only hope you understand what your voting for.
Scott bipartisan!! Only when campaigning. Brown is Wall Street's favorite senator - they voted on it last year.
During the Dodd-Frank financial reform debate in early 2010, newly elected Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts was referred to as an ATM for the bankers -- meaning that whenever they needed some more cash, they would stop by his office. It was not paper money he was handing out, of course, it was something much more valuable -- rule changes that conferred a greater ability to take on reckless risk, damage consumers, and impose higher future costs on the taxpayer.
Mr. Brown had this ability because he represented the final vote needed to pass Dodd-Frank through the Senate. He could have asked for many things -- including greater consumer protection, a more thorough investigation into mortgage practices, and reforms that would have cleaned up unscrupulous lenders. He asked for none of those changes -- or anything else that would have made the financial system safer and fairer.
Simon Johnson: Scott Brown: ATM for the Big Banks
Scott Brown: ATM for the Big Banks.html