Elizabeth Warren just sent precisely the right email to her supporters, and asked us to share it. I love the tone, and I think she knocked this one out of the park.
Here’s the email:
Elizabeth Warren for Senate
____________________________________________Tom,
I spend a lot of time talking about Scott Brown’s voting record — and Scott Brown doesn’t like it one bit.
Yesterday, a news reporter asked Scott Brown to respond to my statement that he supports the national Republican agenda. Scott Brown said — and I quote:
“I don’t need Professor Warren talking or speaking or commenting on my votes.”
Sorry, Scott. I am not going to stop talking. If you don’t want anyone to talk about your votes, you shouldn’t have voted that way.
Scott Brown voted against three jobs bills that would have supported 22,000 jobs in Massachusetts. I’m going to keep talking about that.
Scott Brown voted to protect tax breaks for oil companies, some of the most profitable companies on the planet, rather than investing in clean energy. I’m going to keep talking about that.
Scott Brown voted against the Buffett Rule, legislation that would make sure millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes. I’m going to keep talking about that.
Scott Brown voted against equal pay for women. I’m going to keep talking about that.
And Scott Brown voted for the Blunt amendment to limit women’s access to birth control and cancer screenings. I’m going to keep talking about that.
I’m not going to stop talking, and I hope you won’t either. Talk to your friends — call them, Facebook, tweet, send them a fax if you’re old fashioned. Talk to the person behind you at the grocery store, and talk to the person pumping gas next to you.
Let them know why this race is so important.
We can do a lot more than talk about Scott Brown’s voting record — we can hold him accountable for it on Election Day.
Thank you for being a part of this,
Elizabeth
P.S. There is a lot at stake for women in this election. Listen to our new radio ad about the dangerous Republican agenda for women:
I think we’re seeing the other side of the “likeable” Scott Brown in the Herald piece — “I don’t need Professor Warren talking or speaking or commenting on my votes.” Sounds like another example of the contempt Scott Brown has for women. It sounds to me as though our junior senator prefers his women to be silent and subservient.
He said, “Shut up!”
Disgusting, isn’t it.
$90 billion by Obama ain’t enuff. Wonder if that is code for a carbon tax? Tom, do us all a favor and reply to the email asking where she stands on that issue.
If that is all she has, start preparing the concession speech.
Ask her yourself.
I’m more interested in what Scott Brown has to say about these issues. I’d also like to know why Scott Brown thinks there is something inappropriate about Elizabeth Warren “talking or speaking or commenting on my votes”.
Ms. Warren will keep doing all those things. The fact that Mr. Brown is so flustered by that speaks volumes about his real attitudes — towards voters, towards issues, towards politics, and towards women.
It isn’t always what you want to talk about. This discussion is about “Mr. Bipartisan” or his claims to be. Now you are getting a public flavor of Scott Brown’s negotiating style. It doesn’t seem to bother you. To tell someone who is engaging in a policy debate based on a person’s voting record does not call for telling them to be silent. Not only is it arrogant, it is impolite, and mean spirited. During the whole indian heritage dust up, Elizabeth Warren kept her composure and insulted no one. Sorry, but he has just blown his cover as someone who talks respectfully with his opposition. Accepting such behavior in a legislator is one of the reasons we have gridlock. Instead of exercising decent people skills Scott Brown displays attitude. We already know that this was a significant issue for him as a teenager by several family accounts. Apparently some has stayed with him. This alone should dent people’s confidence in his judgment. He is a media made personality. Yesterday we saw the real deal. It is a “makaka” moment.
“Investing in alternative energy” is not, and could not possibly, be correctly interpreted as “taxing fossil fuel energy.”
That’s not to say that both are or aren’t fine ideas individually or in tandem… but saying “I like blue” is not saying “I don’t like red”.
It’s typical behavior from him. From swearing at school children, to suggesting a female journalist get drunk and dance in the back of his pick-up, to posting a photo of his barely dressed young daughters to his fundraising page – he’s just a very creepy guy in an expensive barn coat.
I hope so dearly that Scott gives us the Rick Lazio moment that he is so capable of giving us…
Obama should hire you to employ whatever card is needed at the time.
How do you get this…
So Scott Brown comments on the person he’s running against, who just happens to be a women… and you turn it into a sexist remark. WTF? I shouldn’t be surprised since you are worried EW is losing ground. If EW was black would his remark have been racist?
EW is in the big leagues now and she should get ready for some stronger language coming her way, but in no way should anyone think of attacks as “sexism”. Do you think so little of EW that you have to resort to pulling the “sex” card, really????
His words were:
In essence, “Shut the F*** up, bitch”.
“Professor Warren” is the nominee of the Democratic Party for national office. The voters need that nominee to be “talking or speaking or commenting” on his votes.
Do you really think he would have said this if “Professor Warren” were male? I don’t. Not for a minute.
I think they’re are lots of times candidates have told the other candidate to be quiet or to speak about their own record. Brown is a big boy and should take whatever EW says about him, they are both in the big leagues now. But just because he unjustly complains about something doesn’t tun it into a sexist remark. You are being a typical example of how those cards being pulled inappropriately takes away from when a person truly does deserve to have a card pulled on them. You’re sounding a little paranoid.
I held the door for someone the other day and they said “thank you sir!” WTF was up with the “sir” thing, does he think I’m stuck up, did he think I thought I was royalty… he might as well have been telling me to go F*** myself. OR… it was nothing.
Loosely paraphrased, I suppose. But if a Republican sneezes, you guys “interpret” that to mean “I want to annex the Sudetenland and invade Poland, and maybe repeal the Amendments 13, 14, 15 and 19 from the Constitution”
When was the last time you saw a male incumbent tell a male challenger to “hush”? For that matter, when was the last time you ANY male professional express that thought to another male professional peer?
That sentiment is generally reserved for superiors speaking to subordinates — or sexist men towards “uppity” women.
Meanwhile, the substance of Elizabeth Warren’s rebuttal demonstrates why Scott Brown wants to keep her quiet.
like politics, not known for small egos.
Opponents in campaigns get snippy with one another. I’m not going to infer more into it than that, and I can see that Warren is not foolish enough to imply it.
I will award her the round, on points.
In my field (technology), such exchanges among men are very rare.
I’m glad that we agree that Ms. Warren handled it well, however we outsiders might view the exchange.
Would Scott Brown have ever told a man to shut up about his voting record?
I highly doubt it.
In what way isn’t she ready? Looks to me like she’s had a field day with his comment.
Unlike what Scott Brown wants from her, she doesn’t want him to shut up. When he actually has to answer questions… or talk in front of people… he acts like a dumb-ass.
Seriously, I can’t remember a single speech or Q&A he’s taken where he hasn’t stepped in it.
Face it, he’s not US Senate material. If he doesn’t have as many takes as he needs or he can’t read from a script, the guy’s a bigger liability than Joe Biden. (At least Biden is capable of hitting things out of the park, and his gaffes are usually more humorous than damaging.)
She isn’t ready because remarks like this cause a problem.
Elizabeth Warren acted forcefully and correctly in response to Scott Brown’s clumsy “shut the F*** up”.
Scott Brown is the one with the problem, not Elizabeth Warren.
you do!!!!
He told her to shut up (or “shut the F*** up”) SO WHAT? Imagine if she ran against Rahm Emanuel or Barney Frank, she might hear a lot worse, but I still would say it’s just the way it his, nothing to do with sexism. You’re just choosing the lazy route.
Scott Brown is an incumbent in a campaign for national office. Challengers in such races are expected to “[talk] or [speak] or [comment] on [the incumbent’s] votes”. I have no clue about Rahm Emanuel’s attitudes towards women. I know Barney Frank, he was my representative for ten years, and the Barney Frank I know loves and relishes any opportunity for debate. I can’t imagine Barney Frank telling another candidate to “shut up”. Further, neither Rahm Emanuel nor Barney Frank are candidates in this race.
I think Scott Brown has an attitude problem. I think he has the idea that he’s entitled to his seat, and I think he takes particular umbrage at being challenged by a woman. He has a long history of behavior that demonstrates his contempt for women, this is just the latest episode.
Having said all that, how about a wager?
I’ll contribute the magnificent sum of TEN WHOLE DOLLARS to the campaign or charity of your choice if you can provide a clip or verified quote of Scott Brown telling another male politician, in public, to shut up. If you fail to provide that clip or quote by election day, then I will provide a URL where you can contribute the same amount to a charity of my choosing.
What do you say, John? Fair enough?
The sample size is too small. It is always harder to prove innocence, a good lib like you must acknowledge that one.
I thought we had settled that.
I’ll repeat my second question, so you can answer it.
I profoundly disagree about your answer to my first question, so I’ll add a follow-up. Find me one example of a man who has ever dismissively told another man challenging him to “shut up” about something as legitimate to talk about as a candidate’s vote. Just one. If you’re correct, that shouldn’t be too hard, right?
It should be noted that the man who told the other man to shut up should be viewed as a legitimate candidate, not any random crazy.
In the context of a fellow Republican speaking unadulterated and unfiltered sexism, amidst the very crudest understanding of biology, a tepid refusal to speak to the issue sounds very much like agreement.
A sexist remark, therfore… QED.
I’d hate to see what you call a single.
You sound like sox ownership telling us they can go on an eight or nine game winning streak and be in the playoffs.
Face it people, Lizzie cannot win this.
John Kennedy and Bill Clinton were the only Presidents ever successful in forcing a senate candidate on a state. Kennedy forced his brother upon us and Clinton forced his wife on NY.
Mass voters are going to vote for Obama while at the same time telling him to take his senate candidate and shove her up his ass.
Just casllin’ em as I see em.
The polls show a very competitive race, it’s a presidential election year with a more favorable turnout for democrats than the special election two years ago, we have a candidate who fights back and is going to out-raise the Wall St. money machine, no ads from Koch and Company… and we haven’t had a single, solitary debate yet.
And she can’t win the election?
EB3… are you crazy? She’s the underdog, certainly, but to suggest she can’t win is one of the most inane comments you’ve ever written.
You know as well as I do that 1) most people aren’t paying attention yet and 2) a lot of people actually do watch the debate and even more will listen to the reaction from their friends and the media.
If Scott Brown gets on stage and tries to talk about the Red Sox and trucks, do you really think he’s going to be able to withstand the onslaught that will be a women who’s much smarter and sharper and wittier than him? One who went to school off a debate scholarship?
At some point, this race is going to become about the issues, and Scott Brown can’t survive a campaign like that. Even he knows it.
The Fat Lady’s singing in Fenway, but she’s not even on the stage yet for 2012.
I don’t think they do anything at all unless someone screws up, and badly.
If Democrats are counting on the debates to carry them, then they need Brown to screw them up, Lazio or Silber style. It does appear that he is a bit thin-skinned, so I guess you can’t count that out, but it sure is a long shot.
… so, therefore, you won’t see it until you believe it.
While I can’t rule out sexism here — but nor is this enough evidence to confirm it, it does sound more to me as if he is asking Professor Warren to not comment on the real world things he’s actually doing and stick to the abstract and the theoretical.
The Scott Brown’s campaign seems even more enamored of Ms. Warren’s title than certain GOPers are of Mr. Obama’s middle name.