From his so-called “secret meetings” with Kings and Queens to false claims of frequent phone calls from the President, we all know that Scott Brown has shown a tendency to stretch the truth when it comes to his tenure as US Senator. So during tonight’s debate, we’re taking to twitter to try and keep him honest, and we hope you can join us.
No matter how Brown may try to spin his anti-Massachusetts votes tonight, we know the truth – and MASSUNITING will be ready to fight back with the facts. We hope that those of you watching will be able to join the conversation using the hashtag #BrownFactCheck or joining us at MassUniting.org/BrownFactCheck.
Please share widely!
the truth is not supposed to matter, but I would think Brown is going to get hammered by the fact checkers. Seriously, American business may have a high tax rate, but they don’t pay it. Is that going to work?
Brown is a clown. You can see he’s touchy, he needs to be subtly provoked. He’s bringing up the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as a source. That deserves to be scoffed. The NFIB is another right wing organization. They need to be called out.
Warren must be getting prepped by the people producing her old commercials. She was unprepared for the Traveler’s attack and had poor rebuttals for most of Brown’s other attacks.
He pitched a lot of bullshit on sticking up for women. Stepping between his mom and his step-fathers. That’s nice and all. But it wasn’t up but his step-father wasn’t up before the Senate. She should have said that.
When he brought up the heritage issue, she should have told Brown to stop attacking her family. It’s a non-issue. Tell Brown to leave her family out of it. And don’t take no for an answer.
Brown got his message out multiple times, and Warren really didn’t do much damage.
Her position on taxes is nuanced, but he effectively painted her as a tax and spend liberal. She only responded with a message.
Warren’s debate prep better get its act together.
“Why do you continue to assert that my mother and father are liars, Senator? Do you have to continually attack my family, who are not here to defend themselves, because you want to obscure your voting record?”
Call it what it is and move on.
It’s my understanding that she set up a trust fund to allow all litigants to get some kind of a settlement, rather than allowing the first batch of litigants to bankrupt the company.
was, yes, defending a provision of bankruptcy law that would have made it possible for more people to get a settlement. After the Supreme Court part of the case, which she worked on, was done it was sent back to a lower court, which eliminated the trust fund set up for victims. She had nothing to do with that and should have hit back HARD. It was about as disingenuous an attack as I’ve ever heard, up there with the Swift Boats, and she let it slide for the most part. Perhaps worried about seeming “unlikeable” by being aggressive as per the Globe’s pre-debate piece. I think that’s why she didn’t go near the step-father thing. But she could have said “I can appreciate Senator Brown’s courage in standing up for his mother at such a young age, but the question is how he will vote on the issues that affect women in the United States Senate.” The whole choice/women’s issues segment should have been a knockout and I don’t think it was.
I agree she was too repetitive and less supple in her answers. Brown was his usual slippery self but we’ve seen it work before. She scored some points but not enough.
Here’s the relevant background:
Source: articles.boston.com/2012-05-01/metro/31499452_1_asbestos-case-asbestos-victims-travelers
The issue is how to deal with the guy whose cancer shows up after the bankruptcy, and after the assets available for creditors have been spent.
There were a great many claims in litigation against Johns Manville, the asbestos company. Travellers was JM’s primary insurer. There was so much exposure on these claims that Travellers set up special units to deal with it. In JM’s bankruptcy, the plan was to make a BIG pot in the form of the trust, which would be administered in order to make sure everyone got something, even future claimants. The option would be that some got a very large amount, and the remainder get nothing.
So, the plan got Travellers, in large measure, to fund the big pot of money. They were willing to do this because, in theory, it relieved Travellers of all future asbestos liability. Pot funded, order entered, all in 1986. All good for everyone.
Asbestos claimants then came up with a new theory– that Travellers by defending JM all those years, conspired to hide the bad effects of asbestos, and that Trevellers had some duty not to do that. So, a new mountain of lawsuits against Travellers. Travellers defended saying that it had settled these claims in 1986, but eventually agreed to settle, again, for a we-mean-it-this-time final settlement. This was going to be a big settlement of a half billion dollars.
Along comes another buch of asbestos claimants– this time Chubb Insurance. Chubb has asbestos exposure, but thinks that any asbestos claims it has to pay result from old JM, dead these last 20 years. But that means Chubb could get repaid by Travellers as well. They objected to the really-mean-it settlement, because they want to be able to sue Travellers as well. Since the really-mean-it settlement was an extension of the 1986 plan for claimants, Chubb attacked the 1986 settlement.
Note that the 1986 plan was a solution for what lawyers call “mass tort” cases in which there just will not ever be sufficient assets to pay every victim. The plan was designed to prevent early claimants from collecting big judgments, leaving nothing to compensate late victims.
Enter EW, who defended the 1986 plan, and successfully, at the Supreme Court. Exit EW. Your mass claimants were bound by both the final settlement from 1986 and the really-mean-it-this-time settlement, if implemented.
Back at the lower courts, the Second Circuit, which has been pooping on the whole plan for 20 years, found that Chubb never got notice of the 1986 settlement, and so can’t be bound by that or the really-mean-it-this-time order.
So now Travellers has agreed to pitch in an additional half billion for a really-mean-it-this-time order, except that oops, it doesn’t mean it after all, because Chubb can still chase Travellers forever. So, in the end, Travellers didn’t get its really-mean-it order, and so did not make its half billion dollar settlement payment.
EW came in to defend the system used to deal with the case, which tries to be fair to everyone, and has been used in various contexts other than the asbestos cases. And succeeded.
I really appreciate your explanation of all this. I knew some of this, but only at the 50,000 foot level. Like most serious issues, the complexity of this explains why Ms. Warren chose to duck the specific attack last night. I’m sure that she and her staff will be working to find a way to summarize all this in way that is (a) accurate and (b) accessible to the public.
In my view, it demonstrates why Mr. Brown’s attack is so unprincipled. Scott Brown turns the facts of Ms. Warren’s participation on their ear, while simultaneously using the complexity of the case to deceive the voters.
This is what politicians do. All politicians. No different than putting (i) Popular Thing and (ii) Obscure Complex Awful Thing into a bill, and then saying “X doesn’t support Popular Thing” when X rightfully votes no.
The skill that makes a politician good at what they do, and thus likely to be successful, is the ability to set these traps for others, while avoiding ones set for you.
This particular matter is difficult to explain because she did indeed advocate, sucessfully, to get a Large Corporation off the hook for injuries to sympathetic victims, and any because any explanation of this will necessarily require her to discuss business and corporations in a tone that will sound funny to people who have been hearing her talk about corporations as if they are lung cancer for the last year. That awkwardness is a largely self-inflicted problem.
… the Amerindian issue ‘fair game’?
Not for big points though. It pretty neatly skewers the 1990s diversity fetish that afflicted Harvard and many/most other universities. Her campaign didn’t deal well with this when it first popped up and seemingly still isn’t.
Tblade penned a fairly useful response to this above. Another might be to disavow the diversity and “politically correct” silliness as the incumbent President of the United States once did. Either, and any number of other variants, could have been used to stick it right back up his nose.
I guess I am saying that “Mom, he isn’t playing fair” isn’t a useful tactic in a political campaign.
Cue the Bruno “Please don’t hurt me” speech from the West Wing.
n/t
I thought when considering the ‘legitimacy’ of an issue you were measuring it against reality as opposed to tactics and technique. I guess for me reality needs to assert itself more in the realm of ‘legitimate techniques and tactics’.
I think you’re right that this is what politicians do. There was a time when exposing these kind of deceptions was the role of journalists. I fear that today’s coverage-by-press-release media have only very limited ability — never mind desire — to fulfill this role.
I think the consequence of expecting opposing candidates to perform this is that it creates precisely the he-said-she-said garbage that uses so much ink (or bits) and conveys so little useful information.
I think this is explains at least some of why so many of today’s voters are so badly misinformed.
Warren needs a tidy way to sum this up and deflect Brown’s attack on it – complex case, and tough to do, but I’m sure she and her staff are kicking it around as we speak.
that Warren is the wild-eyed, radical architect of the Occupy Movement?
(in bizzarro world), which is why they don’t have jobs.
Ger it?
It’s the either/or argument – either she’s the radical godmother of Occupy or she’s a corporate shill, but surely she can’t be both!
“You know my kids, right John?”
…for a lack of a better word.
I caught that comment, too.
She was effective in her delivery of the lines about whether Brown “stands with us” or with the billionaires and big oil companies. She tended to repeat some of those lines once or twice too often, however.
Brown, in my view, did himself no favors with the constantly derisive tone he adopted toward Warren. He reverted to calling her “she” for much of the debate, which belied the nice-guy image he tries to project.
He was also far too agressive on the Native American heritage issue, right at the start. The nice guy who drives a truck has now been exposed as a petulant college kid who was almost mocking in his use of the term “professor” when he directly addressed Warren at one point.
Nevertheless, I do think Warren herself went on the attack too much. She should have said more about what she would do as senator, particularly to get more people back to work. It’s clear that Brown and Warren dislike each other intensely. I didn’t expect really Brown to rise above that, but I expected a little more from Warren in that respect.
First I don’t like Jon Keller. Second, I didn’t like the way it started with Brown questioning Warren’s heritage. I think she was nervous and hopefully will do better next time.
http://www.mhasegawa.com
I really don’t understand why he’s considered some great local commentator. I find his voice irritating and his commentary largely either obvious or inane. It’s hard to believe a market this size couldn’t come up with someone better to kick off this series of debates.
I really don’t understand why he’s considered some great local commentator. I find his voice irritating and his commentary largely either obvious or inane. It’s hard to believe a market this size couldn’t come up with someone better to kick off this series of debates.
I listened to the debate on the C-SPAN app and, without realizing who it was, said to myself “who is this hyper-adenoidal dick with the smug expression?” Yes, that’s right. I listened to the debate and I could hear the smug expression on his face: Everything he said fairly shouted “look at how important I am!”
… or maybe I’m just not sufficiently caffeinated.
… he actually did fine. His commentary later tonight, that’ll probably be a very different story.
Usually the moderators take up too much debate time.
Meehan ISN’T moderating the next one. Thank the stars.
some time ago that his son worked on a republican campaign in New York. Any idea who that was? Palladino?
Barney Keller now works for Grover Norquist at the Club for Growth. His resume also includes working for Rick Lazio, the Mass state GOP, and Jim Ogonowsk.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/aboutus/?id=891
thanks
…I can’t imagine women will respond well to his attitude and his Professor Warren shtick. EW could have responded better to the asbestos nonsense but not going to be important. It was clear she has him panicking which is why he was way too aggressive.
being objective on this one, as in seeing “how the average undecided voter” would see it…but I will say, as was stated on twitter by ProgressMass, that Brown totally tossed away his “nice guy” image with his totally unnecessary negative tone and relentless beating of dead, not relevent horses.
And while he might not have boffed it totally, he certainly didn’t give anyone in the middle ANY real reason to vote for him.
As for Warren, there were moments I wanted her to combat specific comments from Brown, like the whole Chamber bullcrap – she might have stated how right wing the Chamber really is, as well as that other group he mentioned to attack her on taxes/budget. Other than a few moments like that I thought she got it all in. Maybe a little repetative but that might not be a bad thing for undecideds…it’s the core principle of marketing campaigns, that someone has to hear something multipel times before they remember it.
Scott Brown did a terrible job in this debate. He seemed hostile and stressed out. You can tell he only deals well with adulation and applause. When challenged, he loses it.
so I missed the heritage question. I give her about a C for this debate. One question that I would really like an answer to is how can we tell all of these kids to spend the money to get a college degree when there are no jobs for them after they graduate. She answered it by saying it’s important to get an education. That is no answer and I found that a bit irritating. Investing in government jobs isn’t really an answer for them (however, that is the answer to how to improve our country’s infrastructure and create construction and other specifically focused jobs, which is important). She could have given encouragement by listing some careers that are doing better than others in the current job market. She could have stressed that as the economy turns around, there will be more jobs available. She could have mentioned that it’s really important to learn which degree programs have the best results in after graduation employment. I also thought she should have fought back regarding the asbestos thing. No-one knows about what happened, so unfortunately, people will take S. Brown at his word believe that she did side against the victims. She has to speak up and set the record straight. These debates may be her only opportunity to reach people who are otherwise not paying attention. Also, she is not there to give a shout out to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. These debates are about who will be representing us in the U.S. Senate. It’s not an opportunity to do an advertisement for another candidate. I’m really not sure how this is going to go over with people. I will fight back on her behalf regarding the things that were not explained. However, my outreach capability is a tiny boat in a vast sea of votes. She needs to do it herself, and stop relying on the people on the ground to try to get the whole story out, especially when it’s far easier for her to do it in the first place, since she is standing right there in front of a large portion of voters that we on the ground will never see or talk to.
They were both repetitive with Brown being more repetitive. Warren looked flat footed on the Travelers Insurance discussion. Both missed opportunities and I’d be hard pressed to declare either a winner. Supporters may claim victory but I think most MA undecided will remain undecided.
I think Elizabeth Warren did a great job of responding to the heritage question, and Scott Brown doubled down on being an idiot. Really, no-one cares. If that was his curb appeal for the real estate showing, he lost a lot of value before they even opened the front door.
Untrue.
Brown opened going strong on this heritage question for two reasons: 1.) because record and party affiliation are not the brightest highlights on his resume and more importantly 2.) because a lot of the Herald crowd and low-information crowd have bought into this myth and are responding to it. Anecdotally, I can’t tell you how many comments I hear at work about “Chief Warren” and how many Facebook statuses I see from my the dumber of my FB friends that use words like Cherokee or Pocahontas in reference to Warren. The same goes for local blog/news sites that are neutral or right-leaning.
I have to conclude that Brown’s folks have done some polling to test the Native American heritage line of attack and they found significant enough evidence to show that if he and his side harp on it, it will move the numbers.
Brown tipped his hand from the debate’s start and It would be a HUGE MISTAKE to think that the heritage question won’t play and people don’t care. We know people respond to what the perceive as unfairness and people are buying the unsophisticated idea that Warren received an unfair advantage. It’s a shame, too, because Warren herself is taking on real unfairness that actually affect Massachusetts citizens’ lives; unfortunately her message is more sophisticated and not as easy to understand as is the snarky and seamy one liners about Warren being dishonest.
“I have to conclude that Brown’s folks have done some polling to test the Native American heritage line of attack and they found significant enough evidence to show that if he and his side harp on it, it will move the numbers.”
First, I very much doubt they really put much polling into this, or the other inane attacks. But – we know from polls in the spring that it DIDN’T move polls at all, actually, even after a month or more.
It’s red meat to the base, the entirety of his performance was, oddly, red meat to the base, and where his base is 11% of likely voters or whatever…I’m scratching my head at it, frankly.
He spent a lot of time telling us he was a moderate, and then proving he was really a fairly in-the-bag Republican with his “job creators” and whatnot. It was weird.
My conclusion is pure conjecture and your analysis seems entirely plausible and may be more probable than mine. I could be completely wrong in that aspect.
But I do think it is a mistake to let the whole “Chief Warren” slander fester and metastasize a la the swift boat and secret Kenyan Muslim lines of attack. I don’t know how do it, but someone at the Warren camp needs a stronger and more decisive strategy combat this pernicious idea.
And methinks it’s not a good strategy.
In the past, Warren’s explained her positions with background and context, but tonight she did not. For example, instead of saying “we need higher taxes on the top 2-3% because we need more jobs and because it’s fair” as she basically did tonight, the “old” Warren would have vivisected Brown with something like:
“12 years ago we dramatically cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans, so they’ve been paying far less than the middle class. And now we have far fewer jobs in America, and a huge debt. Why on Earth does my opponent believe that this is a good strategy, when we know from real experience that it’s a catastrophe? My opponent is ducking from real results the way he ducks from his actual votes. He wants to double down on proven failure.”
I strongly suspect someone is coaching Warren to not explain too much lest she be branded an academic. However, we need only to look at Bill Clinton’s speech at the DNC to see that people are eating up explanations, and facts and figures in context. The new Bill Clinton reminds me a lot of the “old” Elizabeth Warren. Like Clinton, Warren has the rare ability to explain important issues in pithy, commonsense ways. And when people understand the facts, they inevitable vote for Democrats.
I hope the “old” Warren shows up at the next debate.
Sorry!
spelling notwithstanding!
than my impression. I think I am scarred by Bush-Gore, Bush-Kerry, Max Cleland, Scott Brown 2010, etc. into thinking a faux-populist GOP candidate talking about low taxes will bullshit most of the undecided most of the time.
Not hitting back on the asbestos thing was, I think, a big issue. Finally she said “it’s just not true” but there are 40 right-wing websites out there that will pretend it is.
I would have mentioned wanting Obama to win once, not more. I think she wanted to grab Obama’s coattails in Mass. and remind voters that Brown’s on the other team. Didn’t do a bad job but perhaps could have been done more artfully.
I think she was warned not to be too aggressive and to keep it simple, on message, no wonky details. Might have gone too far with that. At times Brown seemed (stress seemed) to have more details, with his CoC and NFIB stuff, or even his repeated recitation of all the types of energy that exist, absurd though it may be, and she used boilerplate in response.
Someone sent me McJoan on DailyKos portraying it as clear win for Warren. I didn’t see that but I don’t think it was a disaster either.
She made her point that this is about Brown’s record, not his nice guy image, and Brown accommodated by being his thuggish self.
The Traveler’s shot threw her, but explaining why Brown was wrong would put us all to sleep. Saying the Globe vetted it was a succinct response. Also Brown looked like he was throwing the kitchen sink at her with that statement.
On no issue did Warren lose. She ignored the Asbestos thing (the campaign should issue a release), which needed attention. She did not need to go after the Chamber or the NFIB, because I don’t think they moved much for Brown’s side. Think of this in Nixon-Kennedy debate terms. Visually, she was far better than Brown. In terms of the substance of what she said, her lowest moment was the asbestos thing, really. The college cost thing could have easily turned into a community college point, but at the same time, she might have opened herself up to Harvard-bashing with that one. However, she hit well on Kagan nomination, taxes and control of the Senate. Was it a home run? No. But she got a solid hit. Brown, at best, fouled off.
I would note the Boston Globe write-up did not flatter Brown, while it was the analysis piece that played Solomon. I think its says something when the “just the facts, ma’am” part is the more damning (I don’t mean to exaggerate, they don’t slam him, but they fawn over him either).
Brown is a genuine a**hat, how would anyone come away with a different opinion after this debate?
Brown has been running on being likeable and bipartisan. Elizabeth tied Brown repeatedly to the the national Republican party and got Brown flustered enough that he came across as a bit of a jerk. Meanwhile she was level, clear and perfectly likeable.
It was a good night for team Warren.
Remember, it’s not really a debate. Logic doesn’t matter. Facts don’t really matter a lot, either. It’s more style than substance. And, Scott Brown looked bad. He appeared to be uncomfortable and annoyed. He made multiple personal attacks. He certainly wasn’t the nice-guy he tries to portray. By comparison, Elizabeth looked to be confident and calm.
Elizabeth won this debate!