What in hell is Scott Brown doing in Massachusetts?

Duck Soup

Since Scott Brown's comfortable lead in Massachusetts evaporated - he's been down in 4 of the last 5 polls - he's started using a very weird tactic.

In his first senatorial TV debate with Elizabeth Warren, he immediately starting questioning Warren's racial make-up. He said at the debate last Thursday in Boston, "Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of colour — and as you can see, she is not."

He continued: "That being said, she checked the box. And she had an opportunity actually to make a decision throughout her career when she applied at Penn and Harvard, she checked the box, claiming she was a native American, and, you know, clearly she’s not."

So the inference is clear. Elizabeth Warren got ahead through affirmative action. The problem is Scott Brown has absolutely no proof of this. In fact, the chances of her being given tenure as a Harvard Law Professor on the basis of affirmative action are somewhere between nil and zero.

But that hasn't stopped Brown. He followed up his out-of-the-blue debate attack with a TV ad on the same theme and then Brown staffers turned up at a Warren rally, making mock native American war whoops and tomahawk hand chops.

The man leading the war chants is Brad Garrett, a local Massachusetts Republican operative. The guy in the camouflage shirt joining in is Scott Brown's Constituent Service Counsel, Jack Richard.

Fr Tod Umptious

Much earlier in this campaign (last sping if I recall) there were a lot of questions about the validity of Warrens claim to Native American ancestory, whcih if I recall where not origionally highlighted by Brown or the GOP, but by others.

If you can look through the Boston Globe the articles may be still on-line

I am not up on the deatils but it seems that Brown is re-visting the whole controversy closer to election day.

It reminds me of John Kerry, for yaers he claimed Irish ancestory and used it during elections etc
But then it was revelaed that he was actually Austrian, and had no Irish blood.

joseph brand

Boston's WCVB identified three of the Brown supporters as Brown deputy chief of staff Greg Casey, constituent service counsel Jack Richard and Massachusetts GOP operative Brad Garrett.


"Scott Brown and his staff are launching outrageous and offensive personal attacks to distract from the issues that matter," House said in an email to HuffPost. "The behavior of his staff is completely inappropriate, but the tone of the campaign is set by the candidate."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/25/scott-brown-elizabeth-warren-native-american_n_1912920.html

This really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Why doesn't he just call her old and ugly? Not that she is, but, he's appeared half naked in some magazine. Just Google him. Centerfold Scott 'Wants You'!

Manach

BBC have posted on article on this and a claim against the democrat challenger on another matter.
link.

Amerika

I guess it only matters if one thinks a persons professional integrity matters when it comes to being a powerful US Senator. Elizabeth Warren’s entire career was built upon this lie. She juiced it for all it was worth... all the way from law professor at increasingly prestigious schools to running for the Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. She had no qualms using it to get some unfair advantage, therefore taking away from some other legitimate Native American's ability to get ahead. She now claims she used the now accepted fabrication, listing herself as a Native-American, because she wanted to meet other Native-Americans. Yet she never bothered to attend one event sponsored by Harvard’s Native American Program, nor has seemingly ever attended any events anywhere which had the purpose of introducing Native Americans to one another.

And now it has come out that Warren apparently is not licensed to practice law in the state of Massachusetts, yet used her Harvard Law School office to dispense legal advice, write briefs, and represent clients. All activities that meet the legal definition of "practicing law."

So apparently when it comes to INTEGRITY, this professional minority victim DIDN’T BUILD THAT!

But the voters are just supposed to ignore all of this... Democratic SOP.

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

I guess it only matters if one thinks a persons professional integrity matters when it comes to being a powerful US Senator. Elizabeth Warren’s entire career was built upon this lie. She juiced it for all it was worth... all the way from law professor at increasingly prestigious schools to running for the Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. She had no qualms using it to get some unfair advantage, therefore taking away from some other legitimate Native American's ability to get ahead. She now claims she used the now accepted fabrication, listing herself as a Native-American, because she wanted to meet other Native-Americans. Yet she never bothered to attend one event sponsored by Harvard’s Native American Program, nor has seemingly ever attended any events anywhere which had the purpose of introducing Native Americans to one another.

And now it has come out that Warren apparently is not licensed to practice law in the state of Massachusetts, yet used her Harvard Law School office to dispense legal advice, write briefs, and represent clients. All activities that meet the legal definition of "practicing law."

So apparently when it comes to INTEGRITY, this professional minority victim DIDN’T BUILD THAT!

But the voters are just supposed to ignore all of this... Democratic SOP.

What I'm asking is where is the proof that in any instance she was preferred over another candidate based upon her claim of native American heritage?

Did she get into a school or university with lower test scores bacause of it?

Was a better qualified candidate passed over to give a job or position in an elite instutute of education to Warren?

If there's a shred of evidence to support any of these allegations, now would be a good time to produce it.

So where are the proofs of the allegations?

Amerika

Duck Soup wrote: »

What I'm asking is where is the proof that in any instance she was preferred over another candidate based upon her claim of native American heritage?

Did she get into a school or university with lower test scores bacause of it?

Was a better qualified candidate passed over to give a job or position in an elite instutute of education to Warren?

If there's a shred of evidence to support any of these allegations, now would be a good time to produce it.

So where are the proofs of the allegations?

Wouldn't it be the responsibility of Warren to produce the evidence supporting her claim, since she was the one advancing her career using Native American heritage?

Anyway... here is something to sink your teeth into.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/10/harvard-law-dean-cited-affirmative-action-in-1993-elizabeth-warren-hiring-academic-qualifications-questioned-in-1990/

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

Wouldn't it be the responsibility of Warren to produce the evidence supporting her claim, since she was the one advancing her career using Native American heritage?

Anyway... here is something to sink your teeth into.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/10/harvard-law-dean-cited-affirmative-action-in-1993-elizabeth-warren-hiring-academic-qualifications-questioned-in-1990/

I'm lost. Brown is the one advancing the theory that Warren used a claim of Native American heritage to advance her career.

If you're asking the background to her heritage, she's already said that her parents had to elope to get married as her father's parents didn't like the fact that her mother had Cherokee heritage.

But she hasn't been shown to have used her family background to advance her career. What you link to is a discussion of Harvard looking to use affirmative action to get more female staff. I'm assuming that Brown is not contesting that Warren is female.

So we come back to it. Brown claims that Warren 'ticked the box' and gained career preference because of it.

So where's the proof?

Fr Tod Umptious

Duck Soup wrote: »

I'm lost. Brown is the one advancing the theory that Warren used a claim of Native American heritage to advance her career.

If you're asking the background to her heritage, she's already said that her parents had to elope to get married as her father's parents didn't like the fact that her mother had Cherokee heritage.

But she hasn't been shown to have used her family background to advance her career. What you link to is a discussion of Harvard looking to use affirmative action to get more female staff. I'm assuming that Brown is not contesting that Warren is female.

So we come back to it. Brown claims that Warren 'ticked the box' and gained career preference because of it.

So where's the proof?

Covered in the Boston Globea few months back if I recall, but would have to go searching for it.

Amerika

Duck Soup wrote: »

If you're asking the background to her heritage, she's already said that her parents had to elope to get married as her father's parents didn't like the fact that her mother had Cherokee heritage.

The "elope" thing just doesn't make any sense. A religous ceremony 14 miles from their home? More family "folklore" with no proof perhaps?

But she hasn't been shown to have used her family background to advance her career. What you link to is a discussion of Harvard looking to use affirmative action to get more female staff. I'm assuming that Brown is not contesting that Warren is female.

Listen, Warren has pretty much accepted and admitted there is no proof to her claims of Native American heritage... as it is all based completely on just family stories. But did use the claims in her career advancements. Why can't you seem to accept it?

Family folklore has me descended from the medieval monarchy of Ireland. Can I claim royalty, or would I need some proof?

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

The "elope" thing just doesn't make any sense. A religous ceremony 14 miles from their home? More family "folklore" with no proof perhaps?



Listen, Warren has pretty much accepted and admitted there is no proof to her claims of Native American heritage... as it is all based completely on just family stories. But did use the claims in her career advancements. Why can't you seem to accept it?

Family folklore has me descended from the medieval monarchy of Ireland. Can I claim royalty, or would I need some proof?

So you want to see her birthcert now?

What happened in that video is very low and childish. Particularly coming from staffers. You pay those people ya know!!

Looks like Scott is losing and grabbing at straws now.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Wouldn't it be the responsibility of Warren to produce the evidence supporting her claim, since she was the one advancing her career using Native American heritage?

Wow. Innocent until proven guilty doesnt matter to republicans huh?

If someone makes an accusation then they should back it up with evidence not assume that the person accused has to disprove it.

:eek:

matthew8

I think it was worse when Warren attacked Brown for posing naked to pay his way through college. Brown had one of the best comeback lines ever though. She is right to be called out for abusing the affirmative action she and her party supports.

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

The "elope" thing just doesn't make any sense. A religous ceremony 14 miles from their home? More family "folklore" with no proof perhaps?



Listen, Warren has pretty much accepted and admitted there is no proof to her claims of Native American heritage... as it is all based completely on just family stories. But did use the claims in her career advancements. Why can't you seem to accept it?

Family folklore has me descended from the medieval monarchy of Ireland. Can I claim royalty, or would I need some proof?

I completely accept that she described herself as being of Native American heritage.

What I'm looking for is a shred of evidence that it has, at any stage, gotten her entrance to a college as a student or a job as an academic that she wouldn't otherwise have gotten.

As that's the substance of Brown's claim - and the whole reason he's going all-out on the matter - it's not an unreasonable request.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Wow. Innocent until proven guilty doesnt matter to republicans huh?

If someone makes an accusation then they should back it up with evidence not assume that the person accused has to disprove it.

:eek:

I'm 126 years old... pay me my social security!

Good enough, eh? :rolleyes:

Think what you want, but most everyone here understands what she did.

The Association of American Law Schools desk book, a directory of law professors from participating schools, included Warren among the minority law professors, beginning in 1986 and continuing through 1995. The listings are based on professors reporting themselves that they were members of a minority group.

Harvard Law School had been promoting her as a Native American faculty member in the 1990s, and was listed as a minority professor in American law school directories for nine years before she landed at Harvard. And even noted Warren as their first woman with a minority background to receive tenure.

Come on, now Warren claims she doesn’t “recall” if she used here native American heritage when she applied for her $350,000-a-year job at Harvard Law so many moons ago. Pretty big-wampum wouldn’t you agree?

joseph brand

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Much earlier in this campaign (last sping if I recall) there were a lot of questions about the validity of Warrens claim to Native American ancestory, whcih if I recall where not origionally highlighted by Brown or the GOP, but by others.

If you can look through the Boston Globe the articles may be still on-line

I am not up on the deatils but it seems that Brown is re-visting the whole controversy closer to election day.

It reminds me of John Kerry, for yaers he claimed Irish ancestory and used it during elections etc
But then it was revelaed that he was actually Austrian, and had no Irish blood.

You have to do your own digging. Please provide links.

Amerika wrote: »

I guess it only matters if one thinks a persons professional integrity matters when it comes to being a powerful US Senator. Elizabeth Warren’s entire career was built upon this lie. She juiced it for all it was worth... all the way from law professor at increasingly prestigious schools to running for the Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. She had no qualms using it to get some unfair advantage, therefore taking away from some other legitimate Native American's ability to get ahead. She now claims she used the now accepted fabrication, listing herself as a Native-American, because she wanted to meet other Native-Americans. Yet she never bothered to attend one event sponsored by Harvard’s Native American Program, nor has seemingly ever attended any events anywhere which had the purpose of introducing Native Americans to one another.

This is laughable. Suddenly Republicans have compassion for their fellow 'Native' Americans. Faux sympathy indeed.

Amerika wrote: »

And now it has come out that Warren apparently is not licensed to practice law in the state of Massachusetts, yet used her Harvard Law School office to dispense legal advice, write briefs, and represent clients. All activities that meet the legal definition of "practicing law."

So apparently when it comes to INTEGRITY, this professional minority victim DIDN’T BUILD THAT!

But the voters are just supposed to ignore all of this... Democratic SOP.

Out of context quote used inappropriately.

Amerika wrote: »

Wouldn't it be the responsibility of Warren to produce the evidence supporting her claim, since she was the one advancing her career using Native American heritage?

Anyway... here is something to sink your teeth into.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/10/harvard-law-dean-cited-affirmative-action-in-1993-elizabeth-warren-hiring-academic-qualifications-questioned-in-1990/

The onus is on the accuser I'm afraid. That is why journalists must have their a$$es covered before writing a story. Not, the other way around.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Covered in the Boston Globea few months back if I recall, but would have to go searching for it.

Please. Feel free to 'go searching'.

Amerika wrote: »

The "elope" thing just doesn't make any sense. A religous ceremony 14 miles from their home? More family "folklore" with no proof perhaps?

Listen, Warren has pretty much accepted and admitted there is no proof to her claims of Native American heritage... as it is all based completely on just family stories. But did use the claims in her career advancements. Why can't you seem to accept it?

Family folklore has me descended from the medieval monarchy of Ireland. Can I claim royalty, or would I need some proof?

I don't even.

matthew8 wrote: »

I think it was worse when Warren attacked Brown for posing naked to pay his way through college. Brown had one of the best comeback lines ever though. She is right to be called out for abusing the affirmative action she and her party supports.

A comeback line, so good, it's not worth mentioning or forgotten.

Personally I don't think Mr Brown looks very intelligent. His naked centrefold photos may have won him some female voters, and some members (no pun intended) of the gay community. But this infantile tactic by Brown's staffers, to perform an 'Indian war whoop', and 'tomahawk chop' is degrading to both the Native Americans (who Amerika cares about) and the chanting fools with their placards. I got embarrassed watching that clip.

Good article here on the Warren v Brown debate.

Scott Brown is running against Elizabeth Warren here in Massachusetts. They both agreed early on that the race would be about issues. That's a promise that Warren has kept, but that Brown seems to have forgotten as soon as he uncrossed his fingers behind his back.

Warren continues to talk about issues that concern working families across the country and in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, while Brown prefers the catty, bitchy, snide remarks that we'd expect to come from the cast members of "Mean Girls."

If you like your debater to be condescending, snide, repetitive, off topic, rote, eager to get personal, willing to toss out extraneous comments and charges, and full of phony manners (thanking the host for every question), then Sen. Scott Brown is your man.

Let's be very clear that Brown's claim about Warren's background has been addressed ad nauseum and she was clearly vindicated of this fabricated accussation - it's old news. To perpetuate this lie is beneath any elected official, much less one who replaced the late Ted Kennedy. Let's also be clear that Brown continuously calling Warren "Professor" during the debate wasn't out of respect, but was a dog whistle to the blue collar and working class people in Massachusetts who have always been at odds with, and hold a fair amount of contempt towards the Harvard and MIT crowd in Massachusetts.

Brown is like one of the 'jocks' in those 80's movies. They beat up our heroes, get the nice girls, come from wealthy families and play sports. But none of us watching the movie seen anything good in them.

Amerika

joseph brand wrote: »

This is laughable. Suddenly Republicans have compassion for their fellow 'Native' Americans. Faux sympathy indeed.

LOL!!! Did you know our country had one Native American Vice President... and that he was a Republican?

Out of context quote used inappropriately.

Now that’s really laughable, as Elizabeth Warren was the architect of the "You Didn’t Build That" phrase. Obama borrowed it from her.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I'm 126 years old... pay me my social security!

Good enough, eh? :rolleyes:

Think what you want, but most everyone here understands what she did.

Everybody thought they knew what happened when an Oregon cop emptied a clip into a retarded Irishman too. Public opinion didn't hold up to facts, or to court.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055327321

We have a legal system for a reason. For the same reason nobody can exactly arrest Romney for not paying taxes because he hasn't made those records public: it's not up to Romney to prove that he paid them, it's up to the accuser to prove that he didn't.

Same situation here. I'd be more thoughtful about which argument style you wish to adopt from one day to the next.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

LOL!!! Did you know our country had one Native American Vice President... and that he was a Republican?

3/5ths of one president?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

3/5ths of one president?

I’m not completely sure what you mean there, but do you think Charles Curtis felt very paleface-ish when he spent years of childhood living with his maternal grandparents on their Kaw reservation?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Same situation here. I'd be more thoughtful about which argument style you wish to adopt from one day to the next.

So, do you feel you should proof if you are using a claim such as this, in order to get benefits intended for a particular group of people, or should the word of a Liberal Democrat be taken at paleface value?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

So, do you feel you should proof if you are using a claim such as this, in order to get benefits intended for a particular group of people, or should the word of a Liberal Democrat be taken at paleface value?

I'll say it again: burden of proof is upon the accuser. semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

Fr Tod Umptious

joseph brand wrote: »

You have to do your own digging. Please provide links.

............................

Please. Feel free to 'go searching'.

...................................

.

I really could not be bothered to be honest.

I read the Boston Globe a bit (I lived there once) and I saw some stories about Warren a few months back.

I was just passing that on to the OP if they or others are interested in reading what I read.

So if you want to find out more off you go.

vetinari

A someone who lives in Boston, I think Scott Brown has made a terrible mistake in campaign strategy.
Up to now, he's been portraying himself as a non partisan republican. And to be fair, I thought he was doing a good job of it. His voting record hasn't been as extreme as some senators and he's managed his public image well.

This line of attack though is ridiculous. No evidence and on top of that it feels uncomfortably close to racism. There's an unintended implication from Brown that if she had just said she was white, she'd have been fine. She's in effect getting criticized for acknowledging part of her ethnicity! Because that's what it is without evidence of her using it for personal gain.

Duck Soup

vetinari wrote: »

A someone who lives in Boston, I think Scott Brown has made a terrible mistake in campaign strategy.
Up to now, he's been portraying himself as a non partisan republican. And to be fair, I thought he was doing a good job of it. His voting record hasn't been as extreme as some senators and he's managed his public image well.

This line of attack though is ridiculous. No evidence and on top of that it feels uncomfortably close to racism. There's an unintended implication from Brown that if she had just said she was white, she'd have been fine. She's in effect getting criticized for acknowledging part of her ethnicity! Because that's what it is without evidence of her using it for personal gain.

That's the strangeness of it all. Previous to this, I'd been listening to Brown's claims that he was the most bipartisan senator in the Senate, how he was pro-choice - all the stuff you'd expect from a moderate/borderline liberal Republican attempting to keep Ted Kennedy's old seat to say.

Now he's gone on this weird race issue. I get the intent - call into question Warren's integrity. But to do so, using race, in liberal Massachusetts of all states? Politically, it makes zero sense. There are big issues of substance to decide and plenty to talk about.

I can only assume Brown sees himself losing the battle and is getting down to old-fashioned negative attack politics. The other thing I noticed was the constant reference in the debate by Brown to Warren as 'Professor Warren' or 'the Professor'. I suppose there's a sub-text of her being elitist behind it. But I can't help but think that between the two issues there are ugly race and anti-intellectual currents to how Brown is now campaigning.

That's what makes no sense. I can't see either playing well in Massachusetts.

Duck Soup

The principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, Bill John Baker, put out a statement yesterday, saying what he saw in the video was "far beyond what is appropriate and proper in political discourse."

"The use of stereotypical 'war whoop chants' and 'tomahawk chops' are offensive and downright racist. It is those types of actions that perpetuate negative stereotypes and continue to minimize and degrade all native peoples. The individuals involved in this unfortunate incident are high ranking staffers in both the senate office and the Brown campaign. A campaign that would allow and condone such offensive and racist behavior must be called to task for their actions."

Amerika

IMO... Going after her professional integrity makes good political sense in regards to Massachusetts. It’s still a local election but with national attention. Let’s face it, Elizabeth Warren is considered an "outsider" there, regardless if she teaches at Harvard. And if her integrity is in question, it is a reflection of the people of Massachusetts. Warren is now giving credence to the term "Massholes" which is often used to refer to people of the state by those outside the state.

karma_

Amerika wrote: »

IMO... Going after her professional integrity makes good political sense in regards to Massachusetts. It’s still a local election but with national attention. Let’s face it, Elizabeth Warren is considered an "outsider" there, regardless if she teaches at Harvard. And if her integrity is in question, it is a reflection of the people of Massachusetts. Warren is now giving credence to the term "Massholes" which is often used to refer to people of the state by those outside the state.

Integrity? It's funny you don't seem to worry about integrity when it comes down to Republican candidates.

Amerika

karma_ wrote: »

Integrity? It's funny you don't seem to worry about integrity when it comes down to Republican candidates.

I'm obviously backing the candidate with integrity in this race.

karma_

Amerika wrote: »

I'm obviously backing the candidate with integrity in this race.

If making accusations about someones past without the slightest shred of evidence equates to integrity, I'd hate to see what your definition of integrity actually is.

Amerika

Looks like Elizabeth Warren has even bigger problems than her claim of Native American heritage. Practicing law without a MA law license… OH MY! And now Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, has been called out for his partisan agenda in trying to protect her. Brown will most certainly draw on this in the debate tomorrow.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-law-license-problem-goes-to-court/

What is sad is MA has a senator in Scott Brown, who has proven he doesn’t hold the Republican party line and works across the isle, and is behind in the polls. Yet uber-liberal Elizabeth Warren, who will refuse to work with the other party, has a good chance of winning a US Senate seat, to write the laws of the land which she herself has little regard for.

Fr Tod Umptious

Amerika wrote: »

Looks like Elizabeth Warren has even bigger problems than her claim of Native American heritage. Practicing law without a MA law license… OH MY! And now Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, has been called out for his partisan agenda in trying to protect her. Brown will most certainly draw on this in the debate tomorrow.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-law-license-problem-goes-to-court/

What is sad is MA has a senator in Scott Brown, who has proven he doesn’t hold the Republican party line and works across the isle, and is behind in the polls. Yet uber-liberal Elizabeth Warren, who will refuse to work with the other party, has a good chance of winning a US Senate seat, to write the laws of the land which she herself has little regard for.

Actually Brown has now gone ahead according to one poll this morning
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/09/brown-retakes-lead-from-warren-new-poll/fLDSMJYqUVdWVJTcxqk9PP/story.html

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

What is sad is MA has a senator in Scott Brown, who has proven he doesn’t hold the Republican party line and works across the isle, and is behind in the polls. Yet uber-liberal Elizabeth Warren, who will refuse to work with the other party, has a good chance of winning a US Senate seat, to write the laws of the land which she herself has little regard for.

Won't someone think of the children!!!!

I would contend that term "uber-liberal" is an oxymoron, liberalism is a sort of wishy washy centerism and a general lack of commitment. They're only left wing when judged through a right wing lense.

What is it about Ms. Warren that makes her so Liberal I ask? How do you know she'll refuse to work with the other party? Since when does the tea part support bipartisanship?

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

What is it about Ms. Warren that makes her so Liberal I ask? How do you know she'll refuse to work with the other party?

Perhaps her own words...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/02/elizabeth_warren_s_non_gaffe_on_dick_lugar.html

nagilum2

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps her own words...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/02/elizabeth_warren_s_non_gaffe_on_dick_lugar.html

I have to say I watched the embedded video on that link, and I don't think the Fannie/Freddie example she gave was a bad example at all of an area that she could work with Republicans. There are other things I might pick on about her, but probably not that answer.

Duck Soup

The financial services industry regards Scott Brown as their favourite son and for nineteen billion good reasons.

http://rapideddie.blogspot.ie/2011_10_01_archive.html

joseph brand

briankeating wrote: »

Won't someone think of the children!!!!

I would contend that term "uber-liberal" is an oxymoron, liberalism is a sort of wishy washy centerism and a general lack of commitment. They're only left wing when judged through a right wing lense.

What is it about Ms. Warren that makes her so Liberal I ask? How do you know she'll refuse to work with the other party? Since when does the tea part support bipartisanship?

You're forgetting about the extreme moderates.

Fr Tod Umptious

You would really have to wonder about the Democratic party machine in Mass.

Ted Kennedy keeping that seat for years really did affect them in a bad way.

This is the second election in a row now they have failed to put up a decent candidate against Brown.

I though the complacent Martha Coaleky was bad, Warren seem a lot worse candidate what with all the questions sounding her academic credentials.

Ozymandius2011

What is he doing? He's winning if the first post-debate poll is anything to go by.