Ted Kennedy has been dead for more than three years, but his shadow hangs over the battle for his old seat between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren. It’s the people’s seat, all right, and the citizens of Massachusetts deserve a senator who can represent their interests and their values. Still, each candidate claims a piece of Kennedy’s legacy — Brown, as a politician willing to cross the aisle, and Warren, as a fierce advocate for improving the lot of working families, creating educational opportunities, and expanding medical research.
As Kennedy’s career revealed, an effective senator needs both qualities — not just giving voice to important causes, but also following through with legislation and building alliances across party lines to change policy.
Comments
After scuttling John Tierney, a man every bit as deserving of this kind of support, the Globe almost redeems itself with this well written editorial supporting Elizabeth Warren. The Sixth District has had some sparkling and feisty leaders (Mike Harrington comes to mind) but John Tierney has been the workhorse for all the values described herein. One can't help but think that the Globe thought to throw Tierney overboard to enhance its support of Warren. I will unhesitatingly vote for both...but I'll vote for Tierney first.
Your start your article with the mention of Senator Kennedy. For sure Kennedy was as liberal as anyone. He also found a way to work with Republicans to get things done. Warren cannot mention a single Republican that she could work with. So if you like what is happening in Washington, she will be perfect. She will be voting with Harry Reid on every bill, like he is some brain trust.
This comment has been removed.
Back in the days that the two parties could work together we didn't have as many crazy religious right wingers in control of the House of Representatives. The religious right is waging a war in this country. They will not be happy until they control the entire government and dictate just how everyone should think,act and belive.
I for one am not falling for their noncensical line of BS! I also think there are a lot more intelligent people in this country who are not falling for it either!
SORRY FOLKS! BUT THE SUN DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE EARTH,THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT AND THERE ARE NO HOLY GHOSTS OR UNHOLY GHOSTS. WE ARE ALL THERE IS AND WE HAD BETTER START CARING ABOUT EACH OTHER,IF WE KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR US.
Surprise, the Globe endorses Warren! This editorial could have been predicted, and was probably written, last spring. Just like the top of ticket, she is basically an unproven ideologue and will be a disaster in correcting the virus that has hamstrung Congress for the last decade. But the voters get what they vote for. Geez, keep looking for the "D" to pick your candidate.
I don't read the Herald but I can bet the Herald endorsed Brown. Am I to be surprised. Right, the Herald is objective and the Globe is biased. I do so love the way the Globe haters, read it, comment on its bias all the while knowing it leans left. It would be like me going on the Herald and ragging on its right wing insanity. Both papers do what they are supposed to do. Reflect the views that they hold.
Spoiler Alert: The Globe endorses the Democrat. God, I didn't see that coming.
The reasons why she is such a poor choice are numerous, but I will list a few here: Here claim to be an Indian is not a question of affirmative action, it is a question of character. Her motive for this deceit, is meaningless. Her choice to decieve was immoral, and that alone should disqualify her.
Her election will help the Democrats under Harry Reid maintan control of the Senate. The Democrat stewardship of this body has been reckless, and abusive, and unable to work with the House of Representatives. It has not prduced a budget in three years.
She was not able to name a single Republican senator with whom she could work, she is far too radical to represent this state. Under a Romney administration, she will have little power to so anything special for Masschusetts. Vote for moderation, Vote for Scott Brown, even if you are supporting Obama.
And under a Romney administration with full Republican control of the House and Senate, Scott Brown, our 'bipartisan' Senator, will have no one to share his bipartisan flare. He will be the little puppet he his now, worshiping at the altars of Grover Norquist, Mitch McConnell and his favorite Supreme Court justice, Anton Scalia. Sorry, but the Globe isn't drinking the kool-aid. They got this one right. Oh, and in case you missed it, Republicans have had complete controll of the House of Representatives since 2010.
Note to RBMMD: the House has submitted a budget to the Senate, but Democrats in the Senate refused to put it to a vote.
When Brown signed the Norquist Pledge, he effectively abdicated his responsibility to Massachusetts voters, and the inflexibility that pledge requires makes it hard to believe he really cares anything about the debt and deficit.
But he really doesn't talk about that (or his party affiliation). Rather, he talks about Warren's heritage, and says she's 'not who she says she is.' It's an interesting deflection.
Brown has talked about "secret meetings with kings and queens and prime ministers and business leaders and military leaders," and all those phone calls he's getting from the White House ("And the president had called me, and vice president calls me, and Secretary [of State Hillary Rodham] Clinton calls asking for my vote all the time.").
And then there's the STOCK Act, which Joe Lieberman wrote and Scott Brown claimed as his own in radio and TV ads. Doesn't he say he reads every bill before voting? I guess he didn't read the first page of this one.
And how about his support for women's reproductive rights and equal pay? He says he supports these, yet his votes show otherwise.
Scott Brown - He's not who he says he is.
This comment has been removed.
Warren will lead us too more debt, listen to her talk, never mentions the deficit, just investing.
And what is Brown planning to cut?
Among other things, Brown has opposed the wasteful, unfunded Affordable Care Act which will ultimately cost the country hundreds of billions a year that we can't afford.
A few months ago the globe editorial complained about not having enough moderates in the congress,yet here they are endorsing a far left wing nut rather than a moderate. Do you think warren will work we'll with the right wing base. One of the reasons that congress is not working is because it is full of wing nuts from each side.
What a surprise! The Globe would have endorsed Mickey Mouse for Seantor if he was a Democrat. They have been running puff pieces about the Professor for months. They and the rest of the moonbats are in for a BIG surprise on November 6.
I thought you cancelled your Globe subscription. And, please, how BIG of a surprise will it be since this race is a statistical dead heat.
Don't worry about me. I will be laughing for the next six years. I'm worried that you'll have to increase your meds after November 6.
Just sad.
Hey Cindyloulou..Please tell us what is a Seantor?
Maybe she can bork someone like Kennedy
This comment has been removed.
Yes the Globe supporting another Democrat! Why what a surprise that is! Didn't see that coming. The Globe support every democrat that will allow the number of people on the dole to increase. Go Romney!
This comment has been removed.
Let's see. You guys also endorsed Martha Coakley a couple of years ago, didn't you? Thankfully, the people of Massachusetts were too smart to let such a sleazy person replace Ted Kennedy, and wisely chose someone who is a solid citizen, soldier, and political moderate.
Now you're endorsing an ultra liberal with little or no national experience except for helping create another wasteful agency packed with six-figure bureaucrats focused on suing corporations. This is the kind of political leader we need like a hole in the head.
What case has been made for Warren to be a Senator? At least Brown had statewide political experience before running, not to mention a business and law practice background, as well as many years in the Guard, not to mention an ability to relate to the common working people.
Warren is a $350,000 Harvard professor with little or no experience out in the real working world. What on earth qualifies her to be a Senator? Her fiery populist speeches may play well to the shallow liberals in Cambridge and Amherst, but what would she actually do? She's just another empty suit, albeit a female one that claims Indian heritage to get the "people of color" vote. She has no roots in Massachusetts, either. How exactly is she planning to represent a state that she barely knows?
Warren is a very poor choice to replace Brown. Brown clearly isn't perfect--who is?--but at least he has done a credible job as one of the few moderate, bipartisan members of the Congress who is willing to work with Kerry and the other Democrats to get bills passed. Ms. Warren would likely be a very partisan and marginal Senator, similar to Obama himself during his brief stint as Senator, and she would thus be part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
This comment has been removed.
Booooooooooo!
This comment has been removed.
Yes, Warren will get important things done, like a Congressional insider trading ban. Oh, wait, Senator Brown already got that done, in 2 short years. I know that because I read sources other than the Globe.
I'd like to thank Elizabeth Warren for her help in overturning affirmative action. When the Supreme Court takes up affirmative action, they will discuss her case. Never suffered discrimination, using 'folk lore and high cheek bones' as a reason to check the box as a minority. Touted by Harvard in its publications and EEOC diversity reports as a minority. Elizabeth Warren's example shows that affirmative action does not work, and results in more rather than less discrimination.
WSD - Didn't those other sources tell you that the insider trading bill that was signed into law WASN'T the one Brown wrote? It was Joe Lieberman's bill, and yet the guy who claims to read every bill before voting either didn't know that or purposely lied about it in TV and radio ads.
I'm pretty sure all other (honest) sources reported that, and yet you apparently missed it.
If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself.
Then you'll have to decide if spreading a lie that is so easily checked (along with all his secret meeting and "all the time" phone calls from the White House) is more or less dishonest than repeating family ancestry lore.
the chance that she and the rest of the dems help the middle class is about as likely as the Globe being impartial. How are those subscription numbers?
" her candidacy lies deeper in her character"....isn't that the truth? Warren has never rebutted the charge that she used a fictional tie to minority status to advance her academic prospects. Harvard was thrilled to call her a minority and happy not to dig too deeply into her assertion. Yes, the silence from Harvard on who the "minority" person on their faculty AFTER Warren was appointed speaks volumes about Harvard, Warren and liberal "integrity" in general. Warren has also been practicing law out of her Massachusetts office without benefit of being a member of the Massachusetts bar (its not clear where of if she's a member in good standing anywhere). One would imagine this behavior is relevent to "character" and should deserve some scrutiny by the Globe and Massachusetts bar officials. But , then again, the Globe isn't much interested in something as grave as the Benghazi debacle so I guess its a lot to ask for them to actually look into behaviors of the latest pet liberal candidate here, isn't it?
Brown has beat this stuff to death. There should be a price for him to pay for all the ugly, nasty advertisements that have become the Republican hallmark in this campaign. If you can't argue the issues, go after somebody's mother or wife. I hope voters will reward the Karl Roves of the Right with a resounding defeat. Lee Atwater who ran the Willie Horton ads lived long enough to apologize for his behavior. Maybe Scot will too...but meanwhile, he should not be rewarded for his ugly, personal attacks.
Warren's 'character?' OMIG - too ridiculous to challenge!
The editorial says regarding the reduction of the NIH budget by 1 percent, "...this in a federal account that Kennedy twice succeeded in doubling over five-year periods. One of every five of those dollars goes to Massachusetts." It's about time Senators considered what's best for the country, not just what's best for Massachusetts. I was disappointed when Brown (and John Kerry) appealed the decision to cut jet engine production for a new air force fighter. The alternate engine was not needed and not requested by the Pentagon. Our Senators supported it because it was manufactured in Massachusetts. Disgraceful, vote grubbing behavior, and almost all politicians are guilty of it. Ond the other hand, on the subject of compromise, Brown would be more likely to move the discussion to the middle than Warren. Of course, all of this is moot. Democrat turn out for this election will be too big for Brown to overcome. The candidate with a D after their name will win, as they almost always to in Massachusetts. Warren will win the election primarily because she's a Democrat; Brown will lose because he isn't.
You ARE incredible! I'm 70 years old, so my only interest is my social security, medicare, and, if I fall on hard times, my medicaid. Right? Actually, no. I'm interested in making sure there is no sole source for a prime defense weapon system because (and a conservative should know this), competition keeps prices lower for the taxpayer. Keeping GE in the mix now may look more expensive, but, in the long run it will mean a lower price and better quality production. That's economics 101. I'm glad Tierney and Kerry supported both our workers and the taxpayers in general on this. Brown should lose this election for two reasons. First the negative, distorting campaign he's run. His ads are personal and ugly. The asbestos workers support Elizabeth Warren in this election as well they should. She has spent a lifetime looking our for the little guy. If your main interest is making sure billionaires have enough money to but a second yacht or three...vote Brown. If you want to make sure credit card companies and big banks have fair rules to play by...vote Warren.
You say that "Tierney and Kerry supported both our workers and the taxpayeers in general on this." Why no mention of Brown's support? And your argument in favor of the alternative engine is baloney. GE's loss of this contract will not result in their exiting the jet engine business. Nobody wants the engine except GE - for obvious reasons - and the pols who would like the few hundred votes they may get from supporting it. It's pure pork for Massachusetts. The Air Force doesn't want it. Neither does the Navy or the Secretary of Defense.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
The most astonishing comments below are the ones that seen not to understand how capitalism works. The most necessary requirement for capitalism to work is free, fair competition. This has been central to Warren's whole career. Protecting corporations from competition, especially drug makers and big banks, has been Brown's focus. Trickster economics (tricking someone into buying something that has no value by deceit) is not good capitalism and it's bad for the consumer. Again, this is Warren's passion. If we are going to get our house in order it will have to be on the basis of sound, compassionate and fair economics, not protecting the super rich at all costs.
Yeah, free and fair competition. Tell that to Tom Conroy, Marisa DeFranco, Alan Khazei, Bob Massie, Herb Robinson and Setti Warren. Hand picked by Harry Reid to carpet bag in and kick them aside.
Nahantjim, say it loud and clear. We need free, fair and SAFE practices from our pharmaceutical industry in particular. Maybe Scott Brown should rethink his "regulatory uncertainty" spin speech when he lobbies for his industry friends at New England Compounding. Even our Tea Party, Far Right fellow citizens deserve mold and fungus free medication.
No surprise here! At least the editorial staff did not have to swallow the same bile they likely experienced endorsing JK3! This must have been cathartic after being forced to endorse a republican (Tisei). If you want journalism (who, what, where, when and why) then look elsewhere. If you want to hear the Democratic Party line, keep reading these pages.
A lot of good points in this very fair, well-reasoned endoresement. I figured the Globe would endorse Warren, but I am pleasantly surprised by the cogent reasoning. I'm looking forward to see her take on the job.
As a long-time seven day a week subscriber, I am at the breaking point. The Globe has been on a full court press to malign Senator Scott Brown, a moderate Republican who has done a commendable job in his first two years, and who speaks for a broad cross-section of this state's citizens. The Globe's Editorial Board lives in a left-wing bubble and is out of touch with ordinary well-educated Massachusetts residents. The Globe Editorial Board, together with its stable of reliably liberal columnists, has been puffing for Elizabeth Warren and has overlooked her numerous faults. Liz Warren offers a platform of high taxes, high spending, weak national defense, and a pro-entitlement culture which will keep the economy weak and stagnant. Moreover, she is an ideologue who has acknowledged that there is not one sitting Republican Senator with whom she can work. She will be a puppet for President Obama, and will march in lockstep with Senator Kerry and the leftist congressional contingent. Moreover, it is absurd for the Editorial Board to argue that she "earned" her position at Harvard Law School. Liz Warren colluded with Harvard to get onto the faculty by falsely claiming to be a woman of color. That is why Harvard celebrated her alleged minority status. The Law School was under fire for a lack of diversity. Liz Warren, a graduate of a mediocre college and mediocre law school, was the only professor with such a weak academic background to make it to the elite ranks of the Harvard Law School faculty. Amazingly, she dropped her Native American status as soon as she got tenure. Some coincidence!!! The Globe Editors have danced around her fraud. As long as she has a D after her name, fraud is not relevant. The endorsement of Warren only compounds the insanity of endorsing Joe Kennedy. The Boston Globe has totally lost my confidence as it has become a one-sided Democratic Party newsletter. If the Globe even pretended to be the paper of record, with some independence, it would be worth reading. It is no surprise that readership is continuing to decline. I am ready to join the ex-subscribers Globe and spend my money on the WSJ and Herald. That will actually cover all the news is fit to print.
I'm so damned proud of you. You have no idea how proud.
Dude, maybe it's time for you to move to a conservative state in the South.
WARREN WOULD NOT LEAD - Warren would be ostracized due to her bad behaviors.
SHe is winning the race. That's not "Ostracized".
What bad behaviors? Do you mean the lies that have been hurled against her and some people are so lacking in independent thought that they believe. NOTHING Brown and the Republican party has said against her has any document, witness or verification. She has dozens of witnesses including former Brown supporters such as Charles Fried who now support her. Far from Ostracized she has gained the respect of a majority of MA voters and of the Democrat party. She is winning.
She has lead the largest volunteer political effort in this state since WWII. There are more Warren volunteers than ever Ted Kennedy or Deval Patrick ever had.
Her leadership will be proven next Tuesday. Brown's failure to lead, catering to childish and churlish followers rather than really making a coherent point is why she is winning. Your childish statement is why she is winning. Rememember these words and perhaps on 11/7 ponder why you were pointless.
Elizabeth Warren doesn't have a moderate bone in her body.
Based on what? Hurling churlish insults is not argument, does not help whatever you support. You have no real content to anything you write. That nobody in the Brown camp has any real talking points, can't say a single thing positive for your candidate and demonstrates utter ignorance of his opponent is why he is losing.
Elizabeth Warren is not the radical that she has been ridiculously portrayed as. Her words are well founded, sensble and easy for others to understand. Try reading her books. You do read don't you?
How exactly has Warren been a fierce advocate for expanding medical research? Yet another example of an unfounded conclusion from the Globe's Editorial Board!!!!!!
Why don't you read the real news. She has. Instead of stating the conclusion is in your private and anonymous opinion "unfounded" why can't you look at the foundations for the statement? Why don't you really look at what Elizabeth Warren is? You can't. If you read any of her books, if you read what others have written about her you would not be so silly.
In the beginning of this race, I was for Elizabeth Warren based on her CV and positions on the issues. I had no personal animus towards Scott Brown. Now, I have absolutely come to revile him. I find him obnoxious, vulgar, rude, small minded and petty. He is utterly loathesome and odious. PLEASE, Elizabeth Warren, win for Massachusetts and the US consumer and spare us the ugliness of Scott Brown, the creep.
It doesn't matter if Warren didn't benefit from affirmative action by claiming to be Native American. What matters is that she tried to. Clearly she isn't Native American enough to qualify as a minority, but she checked the box anyway. It proves she has no moral character. And her work on behalf of Travelers Insurance in the asbestos case shows she isn't for the little guy. She was paid by the big corporation to represent its interests. She says she was working to make sure a fund for victims was set up, but the fact remains, corporations don't hire lawyers to help their opponents. In exchange for setting up the fund, Travelers was made exempt from all future lawsuits. That's what Warren did for Travelers. And Travelers paid her well for that.
Oh just stop. She did not try to. Dozens of witnesses have weighed in and she did not try to. She didn't need to. She was hired on her merit as every other Professor Harvard has hired has done.
Her work for Trafvelers and for LTV WAS FOR THE LITTLE GUY. How do we know? The little guy and their lawyer said so. What she really did, the opposite of what Brown claims is on the record. She was paid by the big corporations to comply with a court order which it later wriggled out of. Travelers was not made exempt from all future law suits. Quite simply a trust fund for the victims was created by Warren which would be protected from the corporations bankruptcy. This trust was not funded by the corporation which wriggled out of the court order that required Warren be hired. She was not in control of it. All this is public record in court transcripts and you are foolishly repeating a lie.
And why do you think all your nonsense? Not because of your research or even review of conflicting information. You believe it because you swallowed a partisan line from Brown and his party.