Salon has a story about Warren’s Brockton event at which she was challenged by an attendee regarding Occupy Wall Street. Was anyone here there who can tell us anything more than what we see in the video about this incident? I’ll put the link in a comment since I’m having trouble linking on diaries.
UPDATE (by David): Here’s the video.
Please share widely!
Christopher says
…is here.
chrismatth says
I was towards the back of the packed room in Brockton last night.
This happened right when she started – she was introduced by a DSC member and as soon as the applause died down a bit, as you saw, this guy stood up and asked his question. It seemed like he was just frustrated and unemployed from my vantage point, but as soon as he mentioned Occupy Wall Street, I knew where it was going.
Elizabeth Warren really impressed me with the way she handled this. As folks started to tell him to sit down, she said no. She answered his question. What he did after that I missed because it got so loud – he called her a “Socialist whore” and referred to Obama as her “foreign born” boss. Here’s the story that HuffPo has had frontpaged all day: Elizabeth Warren Heckled By Tea Party Supporter
My favorite part was when Mr. Tea Party attempted to storm out a locked door after he finished his spiel. Talk about a walk of shame as he had to walk by the crowd toward the back door.
Elizabeth Warren really, really impressed me – when I met her at a house party, I figured she was going around the back yard introducing herself because it was a house party. Last night, with hundreds of people streaming through the doors, she shook every hand and spoke to every person. She’s very endearing and that’s going to translate well to retail politics.
As far as the tea party guy goes, he has to resort to calling her a whore to try to get his point across. What’s sad is that knowing the tea-party folks in this area, if that was said in a room full of tea party folks at a Scott Brown event on the South Shore, I’d bet good money it would get a healthy round of applause.
gladys-kravitz says
From the video, at least, I thought she did a terrific job in what is always a difficult situation. A good omen.
johnk says
Warren very graciously slammed him, the poor dumb bast**d didn’t see it coming. He tried to walk out the door, but the door was locked, he tried three times to open it. Then he had to walk slink across the crowd to back exit. Too funny.
hubspoke says
I also was at the Brockton event but arrived just after the mini-ruckus. This was my third time seeing Elizabeth in person (first in New Bedford on her campaign kick-off day and then at the Fairmont Copley event) and Brockton was easily the best. She’s honing her message and delivery and truly connects with people in a warm, personal way. Here’s the deal (as Elizabeth would say): I like her a whole lot and she will be a fine senator.
For a study in contrasts, compare how gracefully Elizabeth dealt with her disgruntled heckler in Brockton with how Paul Ryan’s beefy goons pounced on people who interrupted him at a recent town hall meeting. The goons let the first guy talk but imposed good old GOP discipline on subsequent interrupters.
Also note: when the Tea Party disrupters famously ambushed Barney Frank and other Congressmen during the health care reform town meetings, I don’t believe the Democrats employed goons like this to eject them.
shawn-a says
Nowhere does the guy say he is a Tea Party supporter..
But I guess that makes a great headline.
johnk says
hope that helps.
stomv says
until the fourth or fifth time I replayed it, and then really only “[some-long-word] whore.” It’s right before he says “and your boss is a foreign born…”
Now look, she’s a public figure, and before the event, he likely was not. But this is the kind of thing where I’d love to see Chanel X news track the man down, put a camera and a mic in his face, and ask him why he called Elizabeth Warren a “socialist whore” while his name and town is written on the television below his name. Private citizens are entitled to their privacy and their opinions, but when you go to a public event, stand up, and have a dialogue with a public figure in front of a room full of people, you’ve just made that slice of your life public. If the media confronts you about it, good. If you’re embarrassed that your spouse, your mama, your preacher, your 7th grade language arts teacher, your dentist, and your kids soccer coach learned that you behaved that way in public, *great*.
michaelbate says
what else need I say about the tea party people?
Bob Neer says
People like this chap were an important block of support for Brown in the special election. That’s why he was nationally identified as the Tea Party candidate. In fact, he helped launch the Tea Party to national prominence. That was then: a special election in the middle of an economic collapse. This is now: having his supporters calling Elizabeth Warren a “whore” at a community meeting is only going to win Scott Brown votes among a small minority likely to vote for him anyway. It will strongly alienate many others.
petr says
Some troglodyte said something truly offensive? Ho hum…
… or, as Charlie P says:
Expressing surprise that Elizabeth Warren would be called a ‘socialist whore’ is charming in its naivete but ultimately only slightly less perspicacious then noting the color of the sky. This is nothing new: John McCains black baby; Purple heart band-aids; Continual congressional investigations even impeachment; Birth certificates; Manufactured and manipulated war; Every third sentence ever uttered in reference to Hillary Clinton by Newt Gingrich; whisper campaigns…
We get it. They are vile. This is proven. They don’t even much bother to deny it anymore.
However… In the past few days I’ve seen quite a bit of outrage at BMG: outrage at Howie Carr; outrage at Scott Brown; outrage at Jon Corzine outrage at the attack of the 50 foot egos; outrage with no (apparent) purpose besides venting of frustrations. Sure the outrage is justified: people are doing and saying outrageous things!!!
We know how vile this will get. Stipulated. If you want to be outraged there’s going to be daily outrages coming in waves until the election.
What will you do?
…I dare you to put down the outrage. I dare you to think of that man who swore at E Warren in Brockton NOT with malice, but with pity, for there is a maelstrom of emotions before which he is clearly powerless. I dare you to stop reading and to stop listening to Howie Carr. I dare you to stop looking for things to be outraged about.
I dare you to respond reasonably. In short, I dare you to break the cycle: to bust out of the circle of zeal and froth and anger that does ONLY two things; it shuts down thinking and creates NON-voters. There is a vast citizenry who DO NOT VOTE because they see the one side spouting nonsense and the other side frothing at the mouth in a rage filled response. This they see and they decide that politics is not for them. This is NOT APATHY. It is nausea.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not advocating you ignore or excuse the outrageous behaviour of the Right. Not in the slightest. But to move forward you’ll have to accept that they are going to be outrageous and decide how you will reply.
I dare you to sit down with that man in Brockton, or anybody, and explain to them what socialism is, what a whore is, why E Warren fits neither of these descriptions and how they, and we, will all be better off with a body politic that is sane and reasonable. I dare you to think and to make efforts to get other people to think.
I dare you to be the calm you want to see in the world.
seascraper says
.
scout says
I agree with you only in relation to this guy at the meeting. He is basically a dupe of right-wing propaganda, does deserve pity more than anger, and is more of a symptom than a problem.
As for the rest, you’re totally wrong. Ignore these things only makes them more powerful. They need to be highlighted and challenged aggressively (and not just on this blog, but wherever possible). If anything, there is an outrage gap that has been costing progressives elections for decades.
Finally, who gives a crap what Tom Brokaw says? He was right there cheerleading for war Iraq. He’s been just as big apart of the false equivalence syndrome in the media as anyone else and this failure to call the GOP on their BS, to say oh, well both sides do it, has contributed as much as anything to where we are today.
Mark L. Bail says
the guy than Scout, but agree on the outrage gap. Emotions are infectious–so is stupidity–and must be met with equivalent force.
petr says
… equivalent aggression, which is childish. But if you are going to insist that reasonableness, thoughtfulness and calm aren’t forceful, in and of themselves, then it’s game over: we might as well just arm ourselves now and start shooting at each other more or less randomly.
But, I insist, that force which was used by Gandhi was quite equivalent to that which was employed by the British Empire without ever being aggressive. That force which was used by MLK jr, was quite equivalent to that employed by Bull Connor without ever devolving into outrage.
What’s the matter? Not up to the dare?
Give it a try. It’s not like the outrage isn’t going to keep until you get back to it. It’ll be there. Put it down. Pick up reason. Try it for this election cycle. If you don’t like it, the outrage will still be there when you get back to it.
SomervilleTom says
It is certainly true that MLK did not, himself, advocate violence.
It is also true that he stands out because so many of his contemporaries were advocating violence. I think a great deal of his power was created because his non-violence was so compellingly preferable to the less restrained alternatives. The threat of violence greatly increased the leverage of MLK, and I strongly suggest that the changes most of us now claim to celebrate would not have occurred without that threat of violence. I suspect the same is true of Gandhi, but I don’t know enough of Indian history to offer more than a speculation.
I am reminded of the aphorism that the display of the instrument is a far more effective form of torture than the actual use.
In my view, revolutionary social change (and we ARE talking about revolutionary social change here) requires a wide spectrum of support — ranging from quiet voices encouraging their children to “pay attention because this is important” to extremists raging in the street.
I get that you, apparently, have chosen to forswear outrage. While this may be marvelous for you and I hope you benefit greatly from it, it is by no means universally best — either for all people or for all social issues.
scout says
Aggressive and violence are two different things. MLK and Gandhi most certainly were aggressive (and confrontational), they were also non-violent.
scout says
Why do you think the Bull Connor confrontation was so effective for the civil rights movement (as opposed to the thousands of times people had been beat by police that no one has ever heard of and have been forgotten by history)?
Answer-
Because people saw it on TV and were outraged and disgusted.
Of course, it there were blogs back then someone would have posted a clip and then someone else would have been like “You guys, don’t be so flippin’ outraged. I’m not going to waste my time on that clip and neither should you. You fools need to just stay calm”
Mark L. Bail says
I’m not talking about equivlent aggression. I said “equivalent force.” In almost all cases, that would be equally stupid and non-productive. What I should have said was “emotions are infectious and should be met with equivalent emotional force.”
Anger doesn’t need to be met with anger, though sometimes it’s appropriate to do so. Anger can be met with an equivalent amount of kindness; aggression can be met with an equivalent amount of non-aggression in MLK’s case. The key thing is that emotional force be met with equivalent emotional and/or rational force. Had the Civil Rights movement been purely rational, had it lacked emotion, it would not have worked.
Incidentally, condescension can be met with an equivalent amount of anger or reasonableness.
petr says
I specifically took pains to note that I am not advocating that you ignore anything. Can you comprehend what you read? How is it that you read what I wrote and can reply thusly? You must not have read what I wrote or if you did you failed, utterly, to comprehend it.
In the clearest terms I can: you can respond to demonstrably bad behaviour with further outrage, high blood pressure and aggression leading to your own bad behavior or you can respond with reason and calm leading to truth. The choice is yours.
Outrage is not the only motivation available to use.
scout says
I did read that sentence, and did also the other 90% read the rest of your comment, which seems to argue the exact opposite. I don’t understand what it actually is you want people to do, except “be the calm you want to see in the world”- which is a little vague. Maybe, as a learning exercise for everybody, you should rewrite the posts you criticize for this poisonous outrage in the “calm” style you are saying will be so much more effective. Or, just pick some new issues you care about and show us what you mean.
I certainly hope you’re not going to be this short-tempered when you sit down for coffee with the poor sap in the video above. Or do you expect he’s going to be so bowled over by the power of your Zen that his entire worldview is going to be turned around by the first thing you say.
If you’ve come up with so new way to achieve progressive goals, I’m genuinely impressed and encourage you to go for it. But, you should really lead by example…and not just yell at everybody to do it like you would.
petr says
Where would you get the notion that merely pointing out that you missed the entire point of my comment somehow means I’m “short tempered”?? Your perception is warped: I can say something with which you disagree with, and which is even be disagreeable about you, without being angry…
Let us step back: this whole hooraw started when when I said I had better things to do than to be outraged. I further added that I think you do as well. I meant that. One of the better things I have to do (apparently) is to argue with a putative ally (you) over whether or not your rage clouds both your perceptions me your judgements.
During the course of this argument I said “don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating you ignore the outrages…”
…to which you replied, “I disagree, if we ignore the outrages..”. Which is a clear, distinct and transparent misreading of my comment. I called you on this in an effort to keep the conversation within the bounds of coherence. How does that mean I am short tempered?
scout says
…comprehend what they read would fit well within the definition of short-tempered and is also somewhat insulting. Presuming there has been some sort of miscommunication (always possible), there would be many nicer ways to try to address this- yet you went there after my first response to your calling my post out.
You still haven’t explained what it is your so insistent everybody else do to replace what you find so bad. Let’s be constructive. Show us.
petr says
On the rare occasion I might regard your feelings, it is without respect to them. If I have a doubt about whether or no you can comprehend what I write, I ask. Straight up. I am trying to respect your intellect and your stated aims (under the theory that anybody who would be against Howie Carr ought to be an ally of mine… ) As I explained, your answer indicates you did not take note of what I read, so I asked. If I wanted to insult you I would then take a greater regard for your feelings (mostly because you seem captive to them) and really push some buttons. I have no desire to insult you. I also have no desire to coddle your feelings by being less than honest.
If you see it as an insult it may be because you are aswim in a world of strike and counter-strike, attack and defense where everything is some form of advantage seeking. I don’t live in that world and I don’t wish to do so.
You are mistaken. I have at length been explaining my position ad nauseum, though I suggest you read the entire threads rather than just my comments, as others have said things of value also.
There is more, and should we ever get the BMG 2.0 comment archives online here, I can provide a great many other examples.
Mark L. Bail says
fights.
After attributing an opinion to me, which you then call “childish,” you then proceed to be purely obnoxious by taunting me for an opinion I don’t hold. In the middle of your comment, you ask me questions to which I can’t respond before you insult me by telling me what to do :
You might give yourself, nevermind the rest of us, a chance to catch up with your racing thoughts.
petr says
… fights?
I think you’ve been in too many fights. Maybe you’ve picked a few yourself. Maybe you’ve been jumped on. But if you’re going to respond to what I wrote with accusations that I’m picking fights, then I’m left to assume that you’ve been in so many fights you’ve lost the tenor of what a straight up debate is.
I did write something disagreeable about your point of view. Granted.
I would not, however, have said it if I did not think it true. I’m perfectly willing to be wrong. That’s a place I’ve been before but I think not in this instance.
My intention is not to pick fights but to call you higher. That’s what an honest dare does. And I repeat it: I dare you to forgo outrage, aggression and anger. I dare you to meet the oppositions smear, fear and outrage with an equal force of truth, rationality and calm. And, for you, that starts with realizing that truth, rationality and calm are indeed equal forces that can meet the calumnies and outrages of the opposition and that simply punching back is aggression and it is childish.
Peace, you see, doesn’t mean the absence of conflict and violence, as most people seem to believe. Peace is the affirmative presence of the will to reconcile. And without that, any ‘victory’ is just sowing seeds for the next conflict. You have to want a working health care system that is for Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney as much as it is for people of your ideological bent. You have to want a society and an economy that sees to the needs of Howie Carr as much as to your own family. You have to want to reconcile with Howie Carr even if he doesn’t want to reconcile with you. Outrage stands in the way of this, engendering hate and ultimately a desire for punishment for outrages rather than for a more perfect union.
Despite what some people thing (I’m looking at you scout…) I’m not proposing a magic weapon: I’m not saying this is easy or that once you adopt this all doors will open… no. You will sleep better at night, I can guarantee that, but little else can I assure you. It is hard and you will fail again and again, as I have failed repeatedly. But, to bring it back to To Kill A Mockingbird, where Atticus Finch says:
Mark L. Bail says
I’ve picked fights. Been in fights. Here and elsewhere. That’s irrelevant.
It’s also somewhat ironic that you’re arguing for peace after smugly telling me what I think and mean. That’s aggression. You continue that aggression in this post by saying,
Telling someone what they are, what they mean, and what they don’t know is a form of aggression. It doesn’t belong in debate or indeed polite conversation. It also contradicts your message of peace. I don’t know you, you don’t know me. Yet you condescend to “dare” me to aspire to a higher level. That’s boorish, Petr. If I’m unclear, why not ask me, what I think? Why assume? If I say something you disagree with or seems at odds with reality, by all means call me on it.
Straight up debate, I would argue, involves not making assumptions about the other side’s position, but asking questions for clarification. I used to coach high school debate, and making assumptions about what the other debater thinks doesn’t win arguments or score points. In fact, policy debate has 4 cross-examination periods where the opposition gets to ask questions.
petr says
Unless you are prepared to argue that your contributing posts and comments here are neither authentic nor in earnest, then you can’t make the claim that I don’t know you. I know you fairly well. Without an understanding of each other, or an attempt at understanding each other, this blog has very little meaning. I know a lot of the posters here pretty well. They (ought to) know me. I may not know (nor care) about the your physical appearance or geographic location but I do know a lot about you, your concerns, responses and where you put your efforts: the very idea that you would spend some amount of your spare time arguing with me says a great deal about you; and when you are here what you say and how you say it, including the words you use, says even more. The same ought to obtain for you with respect to me: I’m neither lying nor goofing (much) in my interactions with you.
Even the fact that BMG has duplicitous posters like the pseudonymous EBIII and Peter Porcupine (who are two, possibly eight, confused individuals) is a death blow to the idea that one cannot know another through the medium of the written word: EBIII and Porcupine are so scared to death that we might know who they really are they adopt clumsy and outsized personas to hide themselves behind. They do this because they, too well, know how well they can be known otherwise.
Mark L. Bail says
genuine explanations of what I think at a given time. What I think now, however, may not be what I think later. I reserve the right to disagree with myself.
I think, however, this medium has its limits. We–or at least I–are more polite in real conversation. Feedback is more immediate and your words are not written down. If I’m offending someone in person I can read the non-verbal signs and adjust. Once I post or comment. That’s it. Complicating matters is the fact that others may pile on. Discussing OWS in person with JimC would have been much more successful in person than it was here. Jim clearly felt misunderstood.
And as far as knowing people here goes, I have a feel for some and not for others. I don’t know what anyone here is like in person. Aside from meeting Charley once, I don’t know anyone here. I know their writing, but that’s only a part of who they are. I certainly don’t make assumptions about what people are like beyond BMG.
JimC says
I feel like you both have good intentions and could work this out over a beer summit.
Mark L. Bail says
he’s buying.
petr says
But if you order anything from Anheuser-Busch, Coors, or indeed any of the weak-tea, American macro breweries (Sam Adams excepted…) you’ll leave wearing it…
Bruce the philosopher:
Q: Why is American Beer like making love in a canoe?
A: Because its fucking close to water.
Mark L. Bail says
jokes. I like Newcastle myself.
gladys-kravitz says
I’m not sure why you included my post Attack of the 50 Foot Egos in your comment about misplaced outrage.
This was a post about sitting democrats, members of my own party, not republicans or tea partiers, desperately in need of a hat size alert. Boom.
And for the record I’ve never listened to Howie Carr and Tom Brokaw seems like kind of a tool.
Also for the record, for more than 4 years I’ve done considerably more than express outrage. And yet, the only response to my myriad, well-researched, politely expressed views on the expansion of gambling – has been the legislation of more gambling expansion.
My experience has included polite sit-downs with the Governor, his cabinet and staff, the Attorney General’s office, and a lot of other people who don’t care what I have to say because I don’t own a casino.
Instead of alienating people who don’t vote the way I do, my “outrage” has allowed me to appeal to, connect with, befriend and work successfully with a collation that includes democrats, republicans, tea partiers, progressives, green-rainbow folks, occupiers and independents.
Do me a favor and check out my blog, starting back in June of 2007 and trace my journey through the world of ACTIVISM, not APATHY, from then to today, before accusing me of misplaced outrage.
My outrage is justified, well-documented and will linger in the digital universe long after the ink is dry on any gambling legislation.
petr says
I’m not sure why you think my comment was about misplaced outrage.
It was not. It was about outrage. My point is that outrage, however justified, is neither sufficient for nor quite aligned with liberal efforts, nor is it adequate motivation for good works because it clouds the mind, blocks compassion and engenders division and even hate. It is possible to continue with your efforts, in fact be even more effective in them, without outrage.
I’m sure your outrage is justified. If you will go back an actually read what I wrote (because your mistaken assumption about what I wrote indicates to me that you did not read it) you’ll note that I stipulated that the outrage is justified.
I do think your efforts are laudable and I hope they continue until you succeed. In fact, I’m trying to do what I can to help you succeed in them.
gladys-kravitz says
My sense was that you were saying outrage is not sufficient, as you’ve reiterated here. And I totally agree with that. I also wish more people would act rather than fume.
My point is that my outrage has lead me, and and as a result, a lot of others, to become more active. A lot more active in some cases. In fact, I don’t have time to list all the positive actions that my outrage and anger have fueled!
And that, by selecting my blog – and me – to make your point, was off-base. That this particular blog – and me – are a bad example to use to make this particular point, and doesn’t appear to respect the collaborative work I’ve managed to accomplish over the course of several years.
Perhaps to you, the attack of the 50 foot egos just seemed a random spite post. It wasn’t. That’s why I gave you the link to where my journey in activism started. And that’s why I’m writing a book about it.
Sometimes anger and outrage are the appropriate responses to a problem – if that anger and outrage cause you to act appropriately to attempt a solution. I feel I’ve done that pretty consistently for four and a half years. My posts have motivated many others. It’s not my fault if Beacon Hill is bought and sold.
I do want to thank you for your own efforts to stop gambling expansion in Massachusetts.
Keep ’em coming!!
merrimackguy says
One day last fall I was standing near where Rep Niki Tsongas was shaking hands and at least two or three people shouted rude things to her as they went by. It’s part of the job in 2011.
I do not think this guy is a TP’er. If they wanted to get involved, they would have gotten a group together and organized a real disruption like with the Secure Communities hearings.
sue-kennedy says
where constituents go to express their views to their elected officials.
This was a organizational meeting for campaign volunteers.
The heckler was using Tea Party talking points and tactics.
johnk says
Town Hall meeting is what Scott Brown should be doing.
Isn’t it sad and pathetic that Elizabeth Warren has engaged with more with people in the sate than Scott Brown. closed to the public Business Chamber of Commerce meetings not withstanding.
Bob Neer says
He knows exactly what he is doing.
stomv says
folks have been wondering how well EWarren will handle being “in the mix” since she’s never run for election before. This is really about EWarren more than the ignorant jerk.
sabutai says
I’m gladdened to see Warren deal deftly with the caliber of kook she’s going to get from bystanders, radio hosts, and associated morons if she’s going to run for Senator. This to me is her first (insignificant) test, and she dealt with it rather well. It makes me a little more comfortable, or little less uncomfortable, with efforts toward a coronation in the primary.
David says
with Harvard law students for years. 😉
hubspoke says
I want to give this comment a thumbs-up.
sabutai says
And of course the media has dissected each encounter with these millionaire-funded firebrands.