Just in case you missed it, the Warren campaign hit back fast and hard on the claim by Both Ways Brown that the Mother Defender of the Massachusetts middle class is a legal lickspittle to the Travelers Insurance Corporation by day (while, of course, basing his entire campaign around the idea that by night she is the malign black-clad genius/Hell raiser of the global Occupy movement, urging on the rabble with pitchforks and torches against the shining towers of New York).
Top advisor Doug Rubin at 9.27 am in a comment on David’s “Warren won” debate thread:
Elizabeth’s response to Traveler’s at the press avail after debate…
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. – doug-rubin @ Fri 21 Sep 9:27 AM
Meanwhile Brown, as a study in campaign contrasts, blew off the Fourth Estate to pull beers in Brighton:
ramuel-m-raagas says
but Senator Scott Brown has taken more corporate money from more corporations to fund his campaign.
doug-rubin says
In addition to Elizabeth’s statement above, I wanted to make sure you saw two additional statements in support of her work:
“As someone who has represented over 4000 asbestos victims in Massachusetts and across the country, I can say that Senator Brown’s attacks are either misinformed or intentionally dishonest. Elizabeth Warren fought to preserve the ability of current and future asbestos victims to obtain compensation for their injuries – and for Senator Brown to say otherwise is flat out wrong.”
– David McMorris – Attorney for asbestos victims, Law Firm of Thornton & Naumes
“As a member of Asbestos Workers Local 6 for 39 years, no one understands the impact of asbestos on workers and their families more than my brothers and sisters at Local 6. Elizabeth Warren has stood up for working families her entire career and Scott Brown’s attacks on her are misleading and are an attempt to distract from the issues that matter to working families across Massachusetts. Elizabeth Warren is on our side and the victory she won at the Supreme Court was critically important to protect victims.”
– Francis C Boudrow, Business Manager, Asbestos Workers Local 6
karenc says
He sure doesn’t look tired at the bar.
kbusch says
A lot of Brown’s campaign has been based on building up his perfectly marvelous personality. In this photo, he looks good, doesn’t he? Further, a trip to a bar to celebrate sends a message more useful to his campaign than anything he might have told interviewers afterward. It communicates, “I won!”
bluewatch says
Scott is attacking Elizabeth to distract attention away from his miserable debate performance. It’s the republican playbook. Scott is not burdened with facts. He just attacks to make Elizabeth defend herself.
lynne says
because of that last sentence, which puts it about as succinctly as it gets!
methuenprogressive says
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/09/21/scott-brown-asbestos-fact-check-true-but-misleading/nu1TAHsEexXYA5LvVWvpYI/story.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed2
centralmassdad says
Yeesh. What does “unlock” mean? Does it mean “clear the roadblocks, so the settlement can proceed” which is what her role was? Or does it mean “undo”?
It is simply untrue that her role was the latter.
massmarrier says
Brown apparently intends to play this beyond all worth. Today’s paper are full of his trying to milk it, facts and nuance be damned.
He’s likely hoping voters will turn to this and away from his vast list of God-awful votes. Sigh.
fenway49 says
Surprise, surprise
Patrick says
whosmindingdemint says
if Travelers contributed to the Scott Brown campaign.
Patrick says
He accepted $9000 from the Travelers Companies PAC:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00376376&cycle=2012
whosmindingdemint says
How did I miss that?
Patrick says
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=&state=&zip=&employ=Travelers&cand=Brown&c2012=Y&c2010=Y&sort=N&capcode=yjk6q&submit=Submit+your+Donor+Query
centralmassdad says
in the role of bad guy in this? Did I miss something?
whosmindingdemint says
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09
Brown received the most contributions of any senator from Insurance companies with a take of $454,855.
Total contributions by Insurer’s to Republicans in 2012 is $25.7M most of which appears went to House republicans.
Total contributions by Insurer’s to Democrats in 2012 is $13.2M
Travelers contributed $613,880 to election campaigns, 71% to republicans.
Law firms gave Warren $1.17M in contributions; Brown got $1.01M
Elizabeth Warren didn’t poison anyone. Scott Brown continues to poison the electorate with lies about Warren and vows to repeal ObamaCare on behalf of the insurance industry.
hoyapaul says
This Travelers attack is seriously the dumbest, most ignorant attack in the whole sea of idiocy that has been this campaign season. At least Romney’s campaign knew they were taking Obama’s words out of context with the “you didn’t build that” comments and the like. I’m not sure Brown even understands the basic principles behind this Travelers settlement.
Let’s break it down for Sen. Brown. There are two main ways to compensate asbestos victims: the tort system (i.e. lawsuits) and the administrative system (i.e. asbestos trusts). While the tort system is capable of achieving justice for individual victims, it suffers from many flaws. It is inefficient, more expensive (because of legal fees) and more inequitable than the administrative system, and it also has trouble identifying the broader range of victims affected by asbestos.
The administrative system of asbestos trusts, which Warren defends, is far more efficient than the tort system because it gets money to victims much faster than going through the lengthy and confusing legal system. Unlike the tort system, which tends to over-compensate a small number of victims and their trial lawyers (through massive tort judgments) and under-compensates a large number of victims who get nothing at all, the administrative system is much fairer. Victims get compensation based upon their injuries, not their ability to hire a good lawyer.
The best possible system would be one in which the federal government set up a nationwide asbestos trust to pay out claims. Of course, like just about everything else, Republicans have refused to go along with this sensible plan. We are left with either relying on the tort system or innovative solutions like that pursued by Warren. By defending this settlement between victims and Travelers, she was defending an efficient and fair system for victim’s compensation.
My question for Brown: what system do YOU support to help compensate asbestos victims? The inefficient tort system run by lawyers or the fair administrative system pursued by Warren? Warren needs to get Brown on record detailing his approach to these issues, now that he’s brought it up.
Patrick says
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AE0FFD9A-2F57-4C4C-8C47-314BF84F1BE4
Patrick says
This is from the guy who run’s Legal Insurrection, a site that for the past year seemed to be devoted to Warren’s heritage. Before that he had other things to say:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/05/bye-bye-brown/
That’s William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor, Cornell Law School.
whosmindingdemint says
Tea Party at Perrysburg | May 23, 2011 at 8:05 pm
“We knew he was a snake when we put him in our pockets.”
wow
Patrick says
eom
hoyapaul says
I think Warren should go after him on this point:
“Sen. Brown, you’ve stated that you support tort reform. This would make it very difficult for victims of corporate wrongdoing, including asbestos victims, to go to court to achieve justice. So does this mean that you support the types of solutions that gets fairer and quicker compensation for victims? That’s the pro-consumer solution I’ve defended, including in the Travelers case. Since Sen. Brown has no plan other than to eliminate lawsuits, his approach would make it impossible for victims to achieve justice. That’s not the America I know.”
I’m sure a response could be made much snappier, but that’s the idea. Turn Brown’s support for tort reform around on him and force him to explain how he would achieve justice for injured consumers.
Trickle up says
Throw everything and see what sticks is not the strategy of a disciplined winning campaign.
SomervilleTom says
Scott Brown has been pursuing a disciplined strategy of whining from the get-go. This is just the latest round.
oceandreams says
Trying to up vote it on a small mobile device screen and finger hit the wrong pkace, sorry, can’t seem to take it back. No more voting for me unless I’m at my desktop
Mr. Lynne says
… the editors notice this issue.
cannoneo says
What was Brown’s excuse for not letting that Guinness settle before yanking it off the bar? Friggin amateur.
shillelaghlaw says
I was going to make the same comment!
pat-jehlen says
she gives a tough answer instead of one that looks like she’s dodging. I’m afraid that people have told her not to sound wonky, but there’s are several good answers here. I hope they’ll get out widely and soon.
Ryan says
when she said ‘the Globe looked at this, it’s simply not true.’
The problem is it took her a while to get there.
Brown will no doubt repeat this line of attack at the next debate, so now she’s going to need an even better answer than if she had just started with the fact that the Globe looked at it and said it wasn’t true.
She should still start with that, then say that she worked out a trust so that all victims could benefit from it, but unfortunately it got sent back to lower courts, after her involvement was over, and that stripped away a lot of the good she tried to do.
It doesn’t have to be too wonky to be clear.
whosmindingdemint says
She should put out an ad now that explains it and turn the tables on Brown and “tort reform” and ask the question, “If the senator finds working for Travelers to ensure all the claimants get paid is so despicable, why did he take $9,000 from them in PAC money?
Ryan says
Putting out an ad only calls attention to it. Better to quickly address any press questions, like they did, via press release and have her ready with a sharper answer for the next debate.
They should hit back at him at the next debate with the $9,000k PAC line, as in, “if Travellers and I have such a great relationship, Scott, why did they give you $9k in PAC funds and me nothing?”
whosmindingdemint says
not politics.
Ryan says
on hitting back with the PAC money was spot on, so you’re doing something right 🙂
sco says
You ask an open-ended question like that, you get an answer like, “I don’t know, Professor, maybe you didn’t do a very good job for them.” Or “Maybe you should ask yourself why the people who you worked for and know you best are supporting me?”
fenway49 says
he will address this in the next debate. Bring it on. We should make sure the campaign knows he got 9 grand from Travelers.
Ryan says
Bring it on. Liz will be ready for it next time and Scott will only make himself look like more of a fool if he harps on it at the next debate like he harped on Cherokee-gate at the first.
Don’t worry about the campaign knowing about it. The Democratic Party in Massachusetts is a truly professional outfit. I’ll take our guys over any other state’s set, Republican or Democrat, any day of the week.
Trickle up says
she’s got to pivot and talk about his votes in the next breath. The whole purpose of these dumb attacks is to throw dust and derail that discussion.
Her ability to cut through that BS in debate # 1 should be a model.
SomervilleTom says
Elizabeth Warren supported the interests of the victims. That has been a matter of public record for years. This was all published and vetted when she first came into the public eye, long before her candidacy.
Scott Brown is lying — he is turning the truth on its ear, and counting on the electorate to be unable to discern or understand the truth. THAT is the issue.
The $9K is a distraction.
centralmassdad says
This may be an overstatement.
She didn’t represent the victims, she represented the insurance company. And the insurance company was trying to get permanent immunity from any lawsuit in which the word “asbestos” appears, forevermore. To get this, they were willing to pay a very large sum of cash, today. But the primary reason they were willing to pay such a large sum is because they had concern that, absent the order, they would be hit for far more, a piece at a time, by asbestos victims.
She advocated a procedure that is ultimately in the best interests of the victims AND the insurance company– which is why the victims supported her position– but cannot be said to have represented the victims interests in the litigation.
_______________________________________
I will add that this foray of the Brown campaign into an area in which I have some expertise is souring me fairly steadily on the Senator.
SomervilleTom says
The First Mate and Captain had served together on the same vessel for years. The Captain relieved the First Mate on a graveyard watch and noted, in the ship’s log, that the First Mate smelled of alcohol. “Jeesh”, complained the First Mate, “Why did you put that in the log?” “Because it was TRUE” replied the Captain. When the Captain relieved the First Mate on the next watch, the First Mate entered into the ship’s log “Captain came on duty sober — tonight.” Things that are factual are not always true.
As you observe, when Ms. Warren was involved with the case the interests of her client coincided with those of the victims. She has said, repeatedly, that it was because of this that she accepted the case. All the evidence supports her contention.
Scott Brown surely knows this, and surely knows that his attacks turn this truth on its ear. That’s why I characterize it as a lie.
merrimackguy says
if either the the captain and the first mate were charged with being drunk on duty:
1. The log entry about the First Mate would be considered evidence supporting that charge.
2. The log entry for the Captain would not.
Where do you get this stuff? I’d like to see you going around saying facts are not true and see how many people agree with you. Maybe in parts of Somerville, but certainly not in the rest of this state.
Mr. Lynne says
…., on a TV hit ad, less so.
It doesn’t fly in the law precisely because innuendo isn’t allowed. It is, however, all over the place on TV.
I would have thought this fairly obvious.
centralmassdad says
It is hard to summarize, which is why we are discussing it.
But I would hate to see her respond to distortion with an equally-innacurate counter-distortion.
For the Warren campaign, any realistic explanation of what she was doing has to acknowledge that the interests of a big corporation and those of the poor asbestos victims were in alignment. That is a degree of nuance that has not been characteristic of her positions on the commercial sector to date in this campaign.
I would imagine that the Brownnoses are trying to get her to say something like “Its complicated” or “Corporations aren’t always necessarily wrong” so they can call out some video of her taking a less nuanced position, and then bog her down in clarifying questions.
I don’t even think that this would be an unfair question to her campaign– I would indeed like to hear a bit about the nuance myself (but understand why that isn’t a great message 5 weeks before election day).
The thing that has irritated me about the Brownies is that the tactic they are using to get at a reasonable question is to describe the entire Travellers case in a way that is either (i) deliberately false, or (ii) shows that they have no idea what they are talking about. Whichever of these options is true, I am increasingly losing respect for the candidate.
SomervilleTom says
I don’t believe that they have no idea what they are talking about.
I therefore conclude that they are describing the case in a way that is deliberately false — that’s what I mean when I say they are “lying”.
centralmassdad says
certainly seems to support that view.
Donald Green says
Scott Brown worked to allow banks to continue to gamble with money in ordinary banks. It was the ransom for passage of the bill. The fuller story is here.
demeter11 says
Headline: Behind the Scenes, Some Lawmakers Lobby to Change the Volcker Rule
Here are a few excerpts- italics mine as are perens:
Internal government documents provide a glimpse of one such lobbying effort last year, when an aide to Senator Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, appealed to the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.
The documents show a back-and-forth between the Fed’s top lawyer and Mr. Brown’s staff. “I have a very urgent request,” Nathaniel Hoopes, Mr. Brown’s aide, wrote in an April 2011 e-mail. Seeking to fine-tune an exemption, he argued that a broad range of bank customers should be allowed to invest with hedge funds under the Volcker Rule. “My boss has been hearing it from constituents,” he added, referring to the rule’s impact on Massachusetts-based financial firms. {Financial firms are his constituents? -)
The exchange with Mr. Hoopes came months before regulators opened a public comment period or even publicly released a draft version of the Volcker Rule.
The e-mails also indicate how, even after passing the Dodd-Frank Act, some lawmakers are still tinkering with its machinery.
Mr. Hoopes, who previously worked for an arm of Lehman Brothers, also pressed his case with the Treasury Department. In an e-mail to a Treasury official, he said, “This should be very simple and straightforward and I think the Fed is over-complicating it.”
Mr. Brown, whose donors include major mutual funds like Fidelity, has been particularly vocal.
He supported the Volcker Rule after chipping away at one of its core tenets. During the debate on Capitol Hill, Mr. Brown championed an exemption that allowed banks to invest up to a 3 percent stake in hedge funds. Banks can also offer hedge fund investments to outside investors like pension funds.
Now, Mr. Brown is fighting over the details of the exemption. While Democrats want to restrict access to customers who already have an account with the bank, Mr. Brown wants to expand the definition of “qualified investors.”
In his lobbying, Mr. Hoopes first appealed to the Treasury Department, but then took his concerns to the Fed.
End of exerpts
Brown’s efforts here speak for his priorities. Maybe too complicated for a debate but if anyone can put it in basic terms EW can. And she has the advantage of this actually being true.
whosmindingdemint says
You ask an open-ended question like that, you get an answer like,
“I don’t know, Professor, maybe you didn’t do a very good job for them.”
Response: I did a pretty good job for the claimants.
Or “Maybe you should ask yourself why the people who you worked for and know you best are supporting me?”
Response: Looking at your campaign contributions, it seems they all support you, Scott.
Donald Green says
There are 4 debates with 90 seconds to expound. Scott Brown has aired his bad boy stuff. I believe future debates will take him behind the wood shed. The facts are not on his side. It is important to deftly twist his language so he is shown for the petty liar he is. To me his image was one of 4 year old putting blame on someone else. This will become into clearer focus. Canvassing is going well and our group met a big goal, 30,000 doors in a week.