The reaction to tonight’s debate (which, due to conflicting professional obligations, I have not yet watched) seems pretty consistent from the punditocracy (setting aside the obviously partisan ones, whose reactions I could have written before the debate began).
The Globe’s Scot Lehigh wrote perhaps the most damaging piece on Brown. Lehigh is a middle-of-the-roader, a person who would like to see people like Brown have a place in the GOP, and someone who frankly probably has a good deal of sympathy with some of Brown’s views. Here’s his take:
Warren hits her stride, while Brown stumbles
A petty performance by senator
It was a good night for Elizabeth Warren — and an ominous one for Scott Brown.
Warren accomplished two important things. First, she cut through the fog on Brown’s tax stance. The senator talks as though he’s the tribune of the middle class. Warren, however, drove home the point that Brown would hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage to protect those for families making more than $250,000….
She also highlighted a political reality that helped kill Bill Weld’s Senate hopes back in 1996: A vote for Brown is a vote for Republican control of the Senate. And if the GOP takes control, Warren warned, that would put Senator James Inhofe, a climate-change denier, in charge of the committee that oversees the Environmental Protection Agency.
Brown’s retort — “You are not running against Jim Inhofe. You are running against me, professor” — was both nonresponsive and supercilious.
It gets worse.
In pressing her case, Warren kept her tone reasonable and her focus political, not personal.
Not so Brown. His calling card is his supposed nice-guy-ism. But he often seemed petty and personal. It was an off-putting mistake to start the debate by attacking on the issue of Warren’s (undocumented) Native American ancestry. People open to deciding their vote on that matter probably already have. Further, suggesting that Warren is a hypocrite because she supports higher federal taxes on upper earners but doesn’t voluntarily pay more in state income taxes herself is an eye-rollingly silly attack.
Overall, Brown was underwhelming on a night when he needed to be senatorial.
Wow – “petty and personal.” “Off-putting.” “Eye-rollingly silly.” That’s a pretty harsh assessment from someone I’d expect to be fairly sympathetic to Brown.
Joan Vennochi, whom one might expect to be more pro-Warren, saw things similarly.
The woman who made Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner squirm made Senator Scott Brown sweat.
Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat who is challenging the incumbent Republican, was poised and collected — just as you might expect from a Harvard professor with years of experience testifying in Washington before Geithner and assorted members of Congress…. That first attack [on Warren’s heritage] was all Brown had for much of a debate that rocked with smirks and verbal jabs….
Brown … seemed rattled at times…. Was he too tough? He wasn’t as tough on her as she was on him.
And here’s Adam Reilly, late of the Phoenix and now at WGBH.
About 20 minutes into tonight’s WBZ Senate debate, I tweeted: “Anyone else think Brown’s smiles and general body language echo Al Gore in 2000?”
It wasn’t a compliment. As you may recall, Gore was roundly mocked for his exasperated sighs after his first debate with George W. Bush. Brown didn’t sigh tonight. But he smirked, licked his lips, looked at the ground, and had trouble clearing his throat (or maybe sneezing?). He also kicked off the debate by questioning Elizabeth Warren’s claims of Native American ancestry with an unexpected, unsettling degree of intensity. For about 30 minutes, Brown was hot and Warren was cool — more relaxed than she’s seemed in months, actually. And the contrast wasn’t working in Brown’s favor.
Reilly goes on to say that, in his estimation, Brown improved markedly in the second half of the debate, a view echoed by the Globe’s Tom Keane, who thought “Brown made a weak first impression in last night’s Senate debate: stumbling over words, lacking mastery of the facts, and falling back on sound bites.” Reilly said that “I’d give the first half to Warren…. The second half felt like a draw”; Keane concluded that “[t]here was no knock-out punch for either.”
One of the most interesting commentaries comes from the Phoenix’s David Bernstein, who seems genuinely worried about Brown.
Something seemed off to me about Scott Brown in tonight’s debate. Like, he hadn’t slept, or was a little groggy from cold medicine or something — that kind of off.
He seemed, to me, to be having trouble concentrating. It was particularly noticeable when he wasn’t talking, which unfortunately for him was captured by WBZ’s extensive use of split-screen. At one point, while Elizabeth Warren was speaking, Brown clearly zoned out for a few seconds and then aggressively blinked himself awake.
Then, after the debate, Brown sent out a spokesperson rather than do his press availability — which, when asked about it, the spokesperson attributed to Brown having had a long day.
This is not like Scott Brown. He’s a guy in tip-top physical condition — he runs marathons, for cryin’ out loud — and he can drive himself around to events and talk to voter after voter after voter without sagging in the least. He isn’t wiped out from a long day at 8:15pm, in normal circumstances.
Maybe Brown takes Dramamine when he flies to stave off airsickness? That could explain it – Brown’s afternoon flight from DC can’t have gotten to Boston much before 5 or 5:30 pm, so he could have still been feeling the effects of medication he took before or during the flight. Anyway, Bernstein concluded that Brown’s performance was “sub-par, but not terrible”; of Warren, he said that “she did pretty well. Not a home run, but a solid base hit; maybe some will even say extra bases.”
Finally, a write-up (not an opinion piece) in Politico by Dave Catanese echoes the sense that Brown got weirdly personal, and seemed rattled.
Warren appeared to soften her tone in this high-stakes setting. She smiled often, did not appear to allow Brown’s scathing barbs to get under her skin….
On the other hand, Brown appeared to become agitated at certain moments, as Warren relentlessly pegged him as a legislator who wasn’t looking out for the middle class. The punches he threw were undoubtedly harder and more personal.
So, there you have it. Overall, sounds like Warren turned in a solid, if not brilliant, performance. Next week’s face-off should prove interesting.
that are partisan but nonetheless worth reading: Todd Domke (Republican) and Dan Payne (Democrat) at WBUR. The key point is that Domke, a Republican, scored the debate a draw, but on the question of “who did you like in terms of sincerity, affability and charm,” Domke saw Warren as the clear winner, giving her a 6 to Brown’s 4. For Scott Brown to lose the likability contest in the eyes of a GOP pundit, well, that’s a shocker.
I noted that same thing on my dkos post which is, right now as we speak, near the TOP on the recommended list. JINX!!
Congrats on that – I read and recommended earlier!
learn something new every day.
In 2008, wickedlocal posted video of meeting (debate?) between St. Sen. candidates Brown and Orozco… He was jumpy, exasperated looking, all over the place. Reminded me of tonight.
90% of the posters/readers on this site are jaded. keep that in mind while you enjoy what you are reading. The Prof needs more of a platform besides tax the rich to feed the poor. Also the $300k per year to teach one measly course hit home for me. She’s whining about college tuition, while pulling in $300 G’s for teaching one course. Really?
I agree that Warren did not do well answering the 300Gs or the Travelers thing but I suspect the real highlight of the evening, when people were really watching, was the Indian thing. Scott hit her hard and quick, not something that one does if one is just a nice guy, her response about her parents and her father’s parents objecting to the marriage was really strong and I think it put to bed that issue.
Otherwise, I thought it was a draw leaning toward Warren.
It was a good night for Elizabeth Warren, except for the asbestos moments. She needs to clarify that if it comes up again. She ignored the charge that she kept victims from getting their fair shake as a lawyer for a insurance giant. On this one, she acted like Brown did throughout the hour — tossing out a self-serving talking point while not addressing the question. To me, that was her one shortcoming all debate.
That was one her big flop. Generally I thought she was much better at the beginning when she was much more direct and specific with the questions and then trailed into more talking point land later on. Brown just had five talking points for the night and kept hitting them, but in a dickish way.
I wish that at one point early on, Warren would have turned to him and asked if he was even listening.
Also, Keller was useless (per usual).
Sorry for the formatting error. No moree preview button? I has a sad.
It should read (in order to separate comments) thusly:
Not so sure…
… though, in the context of a single debate, you are correct. But in the first of four debates, it might play out differently: if she is playing a long game then, should Browns accusations prove wildly off the mark (like I think his attack on her heritage and the spurious call to have Harvard release her personell records wat…) then the backlash (or the “factlash” , if you will..) will be severe for him.
After the debate last night, Sen. Brown refused to answer questions from the media. Elizabeth did, and was asked about the Traveler’s case. Below is her response:
EW: You know, I’ll just be clear about what happened on Travelers Insurance. There was a very important legal principle at stake, and that’s protecting trusts, so that people who’ve been injured by asbestos, not only the current people who are injured get some recovery, but also people who discover their injuries in the future. That’s what was involved, that’s what I did, and that’s what I’d do again. Because it’s really important that people who’ve been harmed by big corporations have a legal device available that makes sure that they can get compensation. That’s what I’ve been fighting for for many, many years.
…for the next debate, Doug. That was her lone fumble, at IMHO. Great job otherwise – and her Intrade stock is up today!
THe Globe website (Boston.com) has a very complicated explanation of that and it is easy to see why she would find it hard to respond even though what she was doing was the right thing.
I was frustrated by Warren’s failure to turn questions back on Brown. It is easy to get under his thin skin, and she needs to do that in a way that isn’t aggressive.
She can’t let him paint her as a tax and spend liberal. It’s not really accurate and it’s potentially damaging. The flip side of that coin is Scott has no answers for dealing with everything.
Citing the NFIB and US Chamber of Commerce, call those sources out for what they are.
I really didn’t listen to much of the debate content, flipping to WBZ every once in a while, but every time I tuned in, I noticed Warren looked like a deer caught in the headlights when she wasn’t speaking — wide-eyed, forced smile, looking left then right, nervous.
I thought Scott Brown must have had way too much coffee, really hyper.
What little content I heard from Warren fell into 2 categories: (1) trying to attack Brown’s record, and (2) the typical content-free pablum about “fighting for the middle class.” Brown seemed to handle the attacks on his record OK.
It felt like personal attack after personal attack by Brown, he could have taken the high road in the beginning and brought up credibility later in the debate. But it felt like attack after attack. For a person who is banking on likeability didn’t seem like a good strategy. He already has the Howie Carr vote, the attacks seem dumb given the issues people face today. My feeling is that he elevated Warren by sinking low in the deabte.
You have said what I was trying to, better. He didn’t even have to leave all of that ammunition in the hallway, he just needed to mix it up a little. That’s what I meant by thinking that the Cherokee thing was fair game, but a lousy opener.
Warren was poised and conversational ala Clinton’s Sec of Explaining stuff speech. Brown looked completely rattled and he seemed to be hard-pressed to fill his answer time with cogent points. We can’t eliminate the oil subsidies when gas prices are high because the market is too volatile? Really?? It was absurd.
Warren missed a big opportunity to tie Brown to the Norquist NO NEW TAX pledge. How can Brown claim to be bipartisan when he signed such a partisan pledge. The pledge ties one hand behind his back in terms of solving problems. This is very damaging IMO and goes right at his bipartisan credentials. If I were advising her, I’d trot this out next time.
Warren impressed as both smart and likeable- a combination not seen in her TV ads to date. Next time, I say punch back with humor on Brown’s erroneous. The least partisan senator with this GOP crowd is not saying much.
I generally put little stock in these staged debates. They’re kind of like holding tryouts for a basketball team by staging a bicycle race: it might be very exciting, but it doesn’t tell you much about what you wanted to know.
That said, I agree that he seemed testy, and she didn’t, and this probably therefore benefits her marginally. He didn’t go all Rick Lazio, but it seemed touch and go there at times. I still think the Cherokee thing is fair game, but not strong enough for the opening shot. So, he looked weak and testy.
As for Warren, I don’t care about the asbestos thing. If claimants “got what they were entitled to” then only a small few would have gotten anything, and the great many would have been shafted. She got jammed on this because she can’t explain that simply without seeming to backtrack on months of “corporations are evil” schtick.
I thought she seemed weak when it seemed like she was trying to run against every other Republican in the Senate except the one at the other podium. No one except people who are already her strongest supporters believe this. In any event, he was prepared for this, and nailed his comebacker.
In the end, I don’t think these things have much effect at all. They give the campaigns something stupid to snipe about when there isn’t anything worthwhile to talk about: “She’s ducking the debates!” “Why is he afraid to have 42 debates in the format and place of my choosing during the next three weeks?” They give the campaigns something to cheerlead, as if they are at a Pats game. Yayyy, Liz! Gooooo, Scott! But unless someone really, really, really screws up BIG TIME, I don’t think they change much.
Another brilliant turn of phrase. CMD, you are on an excellent roll lately!
OK, I’ll cop to be a strong supporter, but a Scott Brown victory greatly increases the chances that the Senate will flip to Republican control. So, even if Brown claims to be the most bipartisan, most moderate Republican in the joint, his presence still increases the chance that chairs of important committees will be Senators well to the right of him and most Massachusetts voters. I don’t understand why pointing this out is such a problem.
And that puts us back to I should vote for Warren not because Warren is good, but because Harry Reid is so unbelievably awesome that I should vote for him even though he is not running.
First, Harry Reid isn’t so zzzzzzzzz. Sorry, fell asleep again thinking about Harry Reid. And second, I am going to choose the better candidate in the race I am voting in.
It just seems weak. Particularly since it doesn’t matter. It is looking nowadays that the Senate may stay under the sway of Reid’s extreme awesomeness, but still by a close enough margin that Reid’s awesomeness will have to contend with the unspeakable evilness of Senator Not Going to Sing Along Mitch.
it’s about making sure people understand the full consequences of a Republican Senate. It’s not about voting for Warren because Reid is ‘good’, it’s about voting for Warren because Brown puts ‘bad’ people in positions of power.
It may seem weak to you, but it’s worked before as a campaign strategy. Just ask Lincon Chafee. Voters in Rhode Island loved him (and his dad), but voted him out of the Senate because the rest of the GOP was so terrible. After he abandoned the GOP, Rhode Islanders elected him governor.
It is fair enough that I am responding personally, and that this was a factor in the ousting of Chafee. Maybe it is working here as well, polls are running in favor of EW at the moment.
I am just saying that it diminishes and weakens the challenger. Nor can it be said that anything of any significance has happened in the last two years because Rhode Island has Senator Whodat voting for Harry Reid.
it does matter. At the moment, you’re right that polling favors the Dems in a bunch of close Senate races (including ours), but certainly that can change over the next few weeks, and if it does, this race could indeed be the one that determines control of the Senate.
That said, Warren should not overplay the Mitch McConnell card. But I don’t think she overplayed it last night.
Warren made this point (about Inhofe, btw, not Reid) in a conversation that followed a question about climate change.
From the point of view of climate change the conversation was unbearably obtuse and dumb, with Brown veering off into the need to keep gas prices low (how will that save the polar bears, Senator)?
On that score Warren missed some great opportunities.
But she did something very important instead, which is to nationalize this election.
It would have been really entertaining for me had Warren challenged Brown to say where in the Commonwealth he wants to site those coal plants he is so hot on. However, making this election national was certainly the better use of her time.
I guess we’ll see if you’re right.
But from my sofa, it seemed like she was afraid of Scott Brown, and instead prefers to run against various other Republican Senators that might be more easily beaten. In other words, the nationalized election is up-ballot, and EW isn’t in it. She is in a Massachusetts race for Senator.
What is the “nationalized” issue? Health care? Is there some Big Thing on the Democrats’ agenda for which they are all campaigning? No, there isn’t, unless it is top secret. The “nationalized” issue is that Republicans Really Suck. True as this may be, it has been the issue in every election since 1860; before that it was “Whigs Really Suck” and “Federalists Really Suck.” This is not a national issue; it is simplified politics.
From my world, i which a lot of people were perfectly content to vote for Democrats and Republicans alike, depending on the factors of the time, Brown is acknowledged to be a moderate, and pretending otherwise suggests an existence in a political bubble.
To the extent that Brown has hit a downdraft because of a national issue, it has been the same issue hitting every other senate race: it is that the guy above him on the ticket has been doing his Seamus act for the last two weeks, and there does not seem to be a calm problem solver anywhere who can hose off the car.
“If you woudn’t vote for Newt, why vote for Blute?” worked here as recently 1996. Peters Blute and Torkildsen were both casualties of the ‘Republicans Really Suck’ campaign.
As I said, this is a valid line of attack on Brown that has worked in similar local (or in the case of Chafee, local-ish) races where the ‘moderate’ Republican was forced to wear the national party around his/her neck like an albatross. Heck, I’d even argue Healey lost in part because her campaign reminded people too much of the Republican Party’s negative swift-boat attacks against John Kerry two years earlier.
This exchange was in the context of a question about climate change. She wasn’t talking about Harry Reid, she was instead observing — correctly — that a GOP win means the James Inhof would resume his leadership of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works. This would be absolutely devastating for national climate policy.
The other point she made was that a GOP majority is likely to have a great impact on the makeup of the Supreme Court. Again, I think she was correct and this observation has nothing to do with Harry Reid.
I’m no fan of Harry Reid — given the Democratic Party bench strength, I think we can do much better than Harry Reid. Nevertheless, it seems to me that a Republican majority in the Senate would be a catastrophe for national governance.
because her pointing it out, is like saying, “even thought I’m as dynamic as a ham sandwich, at least I’m a democratic ham sandwich.” it got quite a few chuckles in this house.