Jeff Jacoby: professional shill.  In the face of Brown's 'Paint Me Moderate' lie-filled personal gutter attacks on Warren, Jacoby goes after Warren on 'defense' spending ?  

At long last, have the Brown boosters no decency??  Well, Jacoby is a reliable propagandist for the Just Say No crowd with their Obama Derangement Syndrome.  A long, long way from Republicans the Commonwealth had a half century ago.  

Speaking of "Defense", the REAL news today is yesterday's Congressional hearings on what the Administration knew and when about the cause of the Libya embassy attacks. Everybody should watch the video of these hearings on C-Span. Democrats like Stephen Lynch tried to suggest that the hearings were political in nature. --But the REAL politics was done by Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton (who LIED on TV the next day), and Barack Obama. They all called the attacks a response to "The Video", when they knew within 24 hours that it was a well organized terror attack.--Barack Obama's flat out LIE to the U.N. is the most SHAMEFUL speech given by a U.S. President ever.--EVERYBODY should watch video of these hearings on C-Span.--The "political" reasons for the Obama Administration's insistence that "The Video Did IT"? This would show that Obama's speech and others at the DNC about Obama's supposed Foreign Policy EXPERIENCE is one flat out LIE.--This should be the front page headline today, but the Globe hopes that you won't notice it.

Good Morning, Jeff. I must have been watching a different debate. This was one of the best debates I've seen in a while and I was totally impressed with Warren. She moved me off of "the bubble" with last night's performance. Why doesn't Brown just change parties since he is running from the Republicans?

All politicians lie and change positions, if unclear on this, just rewatch Romney's last debate performance.  The GOP also says it won't raise taxes, will reduce the deficit, and maintain the military, yet you believe that?  You oppose welfare for the poor, sick, and needy, support it for the military, the wealthy, and corporations, and that make sense to you?  Who on earth instilled your sense of values in you, for when carried to their logical extreme, they yield an ugly. ugly world, one in which no one's children, rich or poor, shoud be forces to live.  Shame on you.

Jeff Jacoby's tin ear is again in play.  He distorted the debating points.  Yes Prof Warren defended not closing the base and gave a substative answer why, as opposed to Brown's lame response.  She also talked about cutting ground troops with the ending of two wars and the pentagon's plans to emphasize mobility, more highly trained troops, and smaller numbers.  Less soldiers also means less weapons, procurement, and operational costs.  Soldiers are the most expensive part of of our defense in direct and indirect costs but if not needed this makes it an appropriate reduction iin several ways.  She was right on.  On the other hand apparently 2 weeks at a well guarded hotel in Afghanistan makes Scott Brown a war veteran according to him.  It was one of a string of self accolades including portraying himself as the kingpin of the Senate when we know it is Mitch McConnell who certifies his votes.  Scott Brown is a hot air baloon.  As for the tax deductions mentioned, as a daily reader of the news, Prof Warren has advocated cuts in oil subsidies, and raising MARGINAL tax rates 5% on the top 3% of income earners.  Scott Brown mentioned taxing "job creators" who earn more than $250,000 using the Sub Class S Corporations as a model.  For those not in the know, an S Corporation allows you to pass on income to owners as salary thus showing much lower income for the company.  A total shell game.  If recipients of the income is examined as personal income tax a different story emerges.  It can be tiring weeding out distortions but this is the opposition's modus operendi.  If one lie doesn't work, try another.

'... where amber waves of grain are about as common as crowded military recruiters’ offices ...' NWEW PARAGRAPH Possibly the most insulting sentence fragment ever printed in the Globe. Where are the editors? My friends and I were taken by bus to the induction center in South Boston to fight in a war that none of us understood was a fraud. My son and literally all of his friends have served in the military, most in the Marine Corp with several deployments to Iraq, another fraudulent war. They cluttered the recruiting offices. Did you Mr Jacoby? If not, why? You need to lose your job over these comments. NEW PARAGRAPH As to the debate, Ms. Warren was referring to sequestration correctly stating that the automatic cuts need to be replaced with a more nuanced evaluation of military needs in the 21st century. I don't think the threats to national security going foward warrant more submarines, air craft carriers or a million man/woman standing army. And if we don't need these things we shouldn't be paying for them, including resources we currently fund but do not need. Take some of the savings and put it into the VA system to help those of our fellow citizens who have been physically and mentally damaged by wars that republicans love to start but never seem to want to personally fight in.

Poor Jeff, did you get your feelers hurt by the mean Democrat lady? Its all toughguy bravado and take-no-prisoners rhetoric until someone says "enough already". As soon as a Democrat stands up to the bully you call for raising the level of discourse. Sorry Jeff that boat has sailed long ago. 

It's called efficiency, Mr. Jacoby. Believe it or not defense spending isn't all or nothing. That's an approach that's already created the historical divisiveness and polarization we see today and bloated our budgets. Ms. Warren sagaciously favors keeping programs, personnel and weaponry that is effective and efficient rather than wasteful and that our own military emphatically resisted in endorsing. She prefers lean and mean as opposed to fat and bloated. And even if she did contradict herself, as you assert, maybe she's decided to take a play out of the Romney "say-antything-you-have-to-to-win" handbook which clearly instructs readers to continuously remake and re-assert policy on the fly, be as vague as possible, deny all data to the contrary and obsequiously pander to whomever you're speaking to at that given moment. Then, when called out on you obviously lies, have your campaign walk back what you said and re-declare a contrarian position that further obfuscates what you're policy actually is.

Where do I sign up to get paid for writing opinion pieces that do nothing but elaborate on one point from my favorite candidate?

Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren.  Or, maybe, Senator Scott Brown and challenger Elizabeth Warren.  Failing to name Brown's party in parallel with Warren's suggests that Mr. Jacoby on Mr. Brown's behalf is also running away from accurate labels.  Scott Browin is a Republican.  Scott Browin is a Republican.  Scott Browin is a Republican.

It would have been more credible for the author to mention Senator Brown as one portraying himself as bipartisen while he gives every major vote to the Republican/ Wall St. agenda.

Actually, if you think about it, you can “have it both ways.”  I wonder if Mr. Jacoby would accuse President Eisenhower of being some sort of dupe for his warnings about the military-industrial complex?  Or Moshe Dayan as being too dainty a fellow for warning Israel that long term occupation is a moral, military and political sinkhole?  One CAN hold a position that favors military strength and preparedness AND favor reasonable reductions in military expenditures and rational deployment of military power.

Mr. Jacoby is always a bit of a challenge.  It is not that he has never written a good column.  For instance, he has questioned the once popular Republican fascination with torture, pointing out that it is something that should be repugnant to Americans…but didn’t go on to say that those that ordered it, or allowed it, should be prosecuted.  As a rule, he is a too reliable megaphone for “today’s Republican opinion” or that of the Likud Party in Israel.  He struggles, I hope, with the fear that, ultimately, he will be nothing more than a shill for the Likud or Republican Party as opposed to a thoughtful conservative commentator. 

Jeff, apparently you have not been paying attention to what has been going on at Massachusetts air bases.  And you seem to have trouble with following a logical argument.  An effective United States military presence in the 21st century needs to "fight smarter, not just bigger".  We cannot afford nor need cold war era huge standing armies.  We (should) have learned that a "bring it on" approach to multiple wars through the middle east only rings up trillion dollar deficits  and thousands of killed and wounded veterans without compensating benefits.  And modernizing at great cost our nuclear missle defence force to protect us from a Soviet empire that no longer exists can be reexamined by clear thinking patriots.   Sensible military asset planning will involve reviewing those areas of the military where a "fighting smarter" approach is being developed, such as at bases in Massachusetts where there has been a concerted effort to integrate military needs with the remarkable scientific and technological assets found here in Massachusetts, with an eye for keeping and even enhancing them.  But continuing to maintain large standing armies for a multiwar foreign policy footing, a robust SAC, additional "heavy iron" naval vessel (like the USS GHW Bush), etc. should be rexamined.  This is the kind of intelligent review of military assets, resulting an a more cost and technically effective national military while also justifyably maintaining Massachusetts military assets, which Professor Warren would like to engage in and support.

Nobody can inflame the lefties like Jeff. Is the truth that painful?

Gee, I could have sworn that I already commented on the one who's notorious for Laughing Out Loud...  But these days seems bent on having my comments removed.... Well I've heard that a mule is an animal with long funny ears, kicks up at anything he hears. His back is brawny but his brain is weak, he's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak... And by the way, if you hate to go to school- You may grow up to be a mule.

The one thing that is clear after three debates is that Liz isn't qualified for the job!! Her childlike refrain of taxing the rich ignores basic economics. Taxing the rich also raises taxes on small businessmen who don't net much money, and it crushes new job creation. That is why Democrats didn't raise taxes when they had all the votes they needed for two years to do so! Because enough of them understand basic economics to know that would only make the problem worse! Liz Warren doesn't seem to have gotten the memo!! Liz Warren pretends that if we just let he tax the rich, all of America's problems will go away, when, in fact, basic knowledge of basic economics should inform her that taxing the rich will crush new jobs because it also taxes small businesses who create all the new jobs. Worse, taxing the rich only brings-in 15% of what Obama wants to spend over the next ten years. The other 85% gets to be paid by YOU the middle class!! You get to pay $5.3 trillion of 'EXTRA' Obama spending! Taxing the rich doesn't come close to solving the problem, any problems, but it puts a wet blanket on job creation. We are spinning our wheels going absolutely nowhere exactly because of this Democrat ignorance of economics. And Liz may be the dumbest of them all repeating this stuff! That she is still repeating the same Democrat economic fantasy three years later should be the final nail in her candidacy.

Every time Democrats cut the military, we have dead soldiers five years later.  Every time.  Clinton gutted the military to pay for his social fantasies and we had thousands of soldiers blown-up in non-armored humvees.  Clinton cut all of the weapons and equipment programs and we've lost 30 SEALS in at least two lumbering Chinooks because Clinton cut their stealthy choppers.  Democrats scream that they also 'support the troops' but historical record shows that when Democrats cut the military budget, we have dead soldiers five years later.  THAT is how Democrats 'support the troops'... and it is an obscene lie!!!

I love how low the threshold for competence is for Democrats and their candidates: the measure of Liz's success in debates has been whether she 'speaks clearly and calmly'. Hello?!?!?! How about having experience as a selectman, state rep, mayor, or state senator? How about running a company with 100 employees and meeting payroll every two weeks??!?! Liz Warren has done nothing in her life to justify her candidacy. She certainly doesn't have the experience worthy of being elected. Don't even get me started on her surprisingly lengthy list of LIES...

Wrong-o... She outlined aspects of the military that we're over-invested in(#of combat soldiers and expensive 'systems' that don't work) AND she indicated the value of our local military bases(the large, cargo/personnel transport aircraft)... Jeff, the debate is supposed to provide us with a bit more context than the ads and staged campaign events that we otherwise get... we got that... you're actively working here to strip away the context and reduce it to some sort of binary choice where we don't deliberate or discuss detail, options, alternatives... It's one thing to actively waste our time, but you're actually trying to obfuscate on behalf of Scott Brown's campaign... A more notable moment in the debate was when Brown claimed to support Warren's CFPB and took undue credit for its success based on his vote in the Senate... the crowd made it clear what an overreach that was...

The two candidates sparred over military base closures and cuts, which could affect Westover Air Reserve Base in Chicopee and the Air and Army National Guard units at Barnes Regional Airport in Westfield. 
 
In response to Elizabeth’s statement that we should cut military spending, Brown immediately claimed, falsely, that that would close those bases. Elizabeth specifically mentioned cutting our standing army. Interesting that in July, Brown ALSO recommended cutting military spending. Brown has supported targeted defense spending cuts as outlined in his deficit-reduction plan as provided to the Boston Globe: 
 
“We know that we can make cost saving changes in defense, such as (1) reducing Army end strength to roughly 490,000 and Marine Corps end strength to roughly 182,000 within the five-year budget plan and (2) stopping wasteful defense contracting, such as terminating the unnecessary Medium Extended Air Defense System, which alone could save the government $800 million.(Brown, Globe, July11,2012) 
 
I am all for cutting military spending and using the money for education, infrastructure and research as Elizabeth says. Brown, however, just used the opportunity to use a scare tactic that bases in western MA would be cut under Elizabeth's plan. He never admitted he also has recommended cutting military expenditures and that neither plan has to affect military bases in western MA  
 

I wish the Globe would hire someone who could offer at least a hint of objectivity rather than a right wing cheerleader like Jacoby.  Someone like Todd Domke at WBUR would be a step in the right (oops!), proper direction.

I think Jacoby doesn't understand what two-faced means.  It's when you say you're going to do one thing, and then do the opposite.  Here's an example: Scott Brown saying he's pro-choice, then co-sponsoring a bill that would allow healthcare entities or employers who provide healthcare to deny coverage for anything (including birth control) if they have a religious or moral exception to it.  Or saying he's pro-choice and then saying Antonin Scalia is his model Supreme Court justice. 

Of course Elizabeth Warren wants to cut military spending.  We're paying $2 Billion per week for the war in Afghanistan.  You can cut military spending without cutting bases in Massachusetts.  Of course she's for raising revenue by cutting tax loopholes, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't consider cutting the mortgage income decuction for high income earners. 

Scott Brown talks like a moderate and votes like he's in the Tea Party.  Elizabeth Warren talks like a progressive and will vote like a progressive.  Who's two-faced now, Jacoby?

Well once again Jeff writes the obvious.  Of course Warren wants it both ways on defense cuts.  We ask our pols to answer questions of national import and at the same time expect them to act locally.  If I were the senator from Mass. you would ask me should defense be cut. I'd say yes.  You'd ask how about our local bases.  I say yes.  You don't vote for me.  I say no and you vote for me not recognize the contradiction.  That's American politics.

To me it is no different then the guys sitting next to me at the VA hospital saying, I hate socialized medicine.  I love the VA.  My heart wants to say you're a moron.  But I bite my tongue.  Same with the old guys at the golf course who love their Medicare but don't want the government involved.

So what does Jeff or for that matter opinion writers on the left do.  They just add to the stupidity.  That's right cut defense and Mass. loses some defense spending.  As well it should.  This nation spends a morally incomprehensible amount of money on defense.  Perhaps we should consider doing something morally positive for awhile, something that doesn't involve defense.  Like funding those non-socialized, socialized medical programs, VA and Medicare.

Fauxchohontas would never speak with a forked tongue! She is honest and sincere, a woman of color and honesty and integrity! It is typical white man trying to keep the Indians on the reservation!! Hate speech!!!! Warren is such a parrot and puppet she isn't capable of an original thought!

Does anyone know Scott Brown's answer to the same question? Of course you don't, because, and Jacoby conveniently avoids mentioning, he dodged it completely. You would think he would have by now some actual ideas on how to answer where he would cut, since that can be Brown's only approach to deficit reduction. Good strategy Scott: avoid, pivot, sidestep. Will he say anything different next time other than his well memorized, canned, talking point answers. Don't hold your breath.

I just this moment received in the mail a large pamphlet from Scott Brown's campaign. This mailer is designed to TERRORIZE senior citizens and it's nothing but a pack of lies.

Like a sociopath, this guy has nothing but ice water running through his veins, and like Romney, he'll say anything to win. Just as one woman in a Warren ad who said he lied about the asbestos case where Warren helped the workers receive compensation, "he should be ashamed of himself!"

Senator Brown and Mr Jacoby have both visualized a future in which they are irrelevant. For Senator Brown, that is a possible future that is starting to seem more likely. Alas, for Mr Jacoby, it would be a continuation of his present situation. Also, his"column" seems a little light today, but not just in facts and persuasiveness like usual, but in the actual number of words and characters. I guess that he was just at a loss for words like Senator Brown was last night. Lucky us!