[Cross posted from Left in Lowell in full. What a douchebag.]
I’ve already proven it before, but this bears real repeating: Scott Brown is lying about Elizabeth Warren on many fronts. The most despicable lie is not the racist “and, as you can see, she’s not” questioning of her heritage…lying, despite evidence to the contrary, that she got any benefit from letting a law directory know her verbal family history of native blood. No, the most terrible lies of all are around Scott Brown’s crass use of the dead and dying to win political points, in regards to the misleading – nay, downright untruthful – representation of Warren’s work on the Travelers Insurance asbestos case.
I’ve already pointed out [as has David] that asbestos union workers are angry at Scott Brown. These are people who have family members or friends who have died or are dying of asbestos poisoning. If Scott Brown were telling the truth, these are the people who’d be applauding him. But he’s not telling the truth – he’s lying, and using their tragedy to smear Warren. As the letter from Boudrow states, “Warren represented Travelers at a time when the company was on the same side as a vast majority of asbestos victims” trying to preserve the use of settlement trusts as a tool for victim compensation (both present and future), joining the case to argue in front of the US Supreme Court.
But nothing showcases the hollow morals of Scott Brown like his latest ad on this subject. Since his campaign is either too scared or too incompetent to post the ad on his YouTube account, I took the liberty of waiting until it came on the air, and filmed my TV with my smartphone. The end result is that I missed the first few seconds (mostly the “I’m Scott Brown and I approve this message”) but got the rest online.
Here is the Globe article quoted in Brown’s ad. He selectively takes out quotes, all of them out of context, but the worst one is the last quote he pulls. I’ve highlighted in yellow the beginning of the sentence Brown’s ad highlights in green with the voiceover reading.
Brown’s ad says, quoting the Globe, “the results were ‘disastrous for victims.'” The quick focus and movement around the image of the article is, I’m certain, so you can’t read any of the rest of that sentence, which is in full, “But after Warren left the case, it continued to twist and turn through the legal system, leaving a result that has been disastrous for asbestos victims.” Hardly a condemnation of Warren when you read it in context, is it?
Here is Warren’s response to Brown’s ad, two ads featuring the real story of victims. They can’t go into as much detail as I can in a blog post, but they do call him out:
But this is what we can expect from Empty Suit Brown. He has nothing to run on that the Massachusetts voters would support, so he is attacking from his position of weakness with Karl Rove tactics of lying to smear your opponent on their strengths. Don’t let him get away with it. Your job is to tell your friends and neighbors about how Scott Brown is using victims of asbestos poisoning, against their wishes, to score misleading political points.
Youtube iframe = bad, editors? Jus’ wondering.
why do we have to put up with this language on BMG? Is Lynn special? O thought there were standards. My goodness.
To refer to someone as a female hygiene whatever it is is clearly against out protocols.
What are you guys gonna do about it?
I’ve seen and used these terms before. Is it that offensive to you Oh Sensitive One?
I could change it to asshat, if you like.
it’s about standards. Something I value.
But then I’m not from Lowell
que evil laigh
No insult to you lynne, one of my favorite commentators here, but I hate this ole boy habit of men insulting men by calling them a name related to female genitalia.
is that this is somehow some ole boy name.
I’m perfectly feminist, and I don’t have a problem with the term.
I’ll own “vagina” and I’ll own this term too. There really just is no better way to express how crappy this line of attack is but to use the term “douchebag.”
How about enema face?
n/t
My mom likes the term, because, in her estimate, D-bags are totally unnecessary, just like Scott Brown.
There has been extensive discussion of the use of that word in this context before.
Perhaps EB3 was recalling being excoriated for the use of the term. But, it seems to me that this attempt at ironic humor fails because the lineup of pro- and con-, at least in that thread, bears no relation to the usual partisan faceoff here, and so there is no pertard upon which to hang anyone here.
Interesting, what offends you.
and if that falls to me than so be it.
Really, I never.
I’ll agree with that – I’ve never seen you speak up for standards before.
I deliberately applied the adjective to my title (starting on my own blog, I wasn’t planning on crossposting it here). Know why? The term “liar” DOES NOT CUT IT. It doesn’t express just how bad his brand of Karl Rovian lying really is. There is really no other word that expresses how much of a liar he is and how angry I am about it, there really is not. Not one that has any impact.
The fact you are PO’ed about it? Proves my point.
Waltham.
sometimes it fits.
Scott Brown is a douche bag. That is the description that best applies.
For the record, douche bags aren’t… ahem… necessarily female specific….
…I think EB3 is engaging in irony/projection. There was a time he was BMG’s worst offender in the sexist comments department.
He’s a cunt!
that bad. Here there’s no excuse for it.
feels good to have the ratings back. Brought out the inner me.
Besides, you guys know I work blue.
First, if the editors have a problem with it they know they can edit the title and I leave it to them, as I always would.
Now, would we be having this conversation if this wasn’t a word in the title? What if I had used it in the actual post? Not one person would be commenting on it, I bet money on it. Well, that seems a little weird to me. It’s a title but it’s still English. As a title I suppose you can argue it’s more important as visual emphasis is placed, but as language, if it’s not considered all that bad in a paragraph, then complaining about it in a title is a bit hypocritical.
The term “douchebag” and “douchebaggery” is common parlance on a million blogs. In fact, I’d argue it’s more common than an equivalent word that means something similar, “dick.” The two can be used interchangeably and yet, for impact and for “pithy” commentary, people use douchbag. Take it up with the thought police if you have a problem with that, I didn’t create the situation.
Let’s talk about the misogyny claim. I can see the point of view but I don’t agree with it. For one thing, it is not a term used to put women down. In fact, typically, women aren’t ever called this term. They ARE called the C term and as EB demonstrated, it is not popular. The term douchebag isn’t used to make fun of women, and you don’t even picture the actual thing when you hear the word – you picture that frat boy jerk you knew in college. Let’s compare that to something comparable, say… colostomy bag. If I called Scott Brown a colostomy bag liar, that’s a pretty visceral image. Yet for many reasons (including heavy usage), “douchebag” does not have this visceral imagery associated with it any more. But mainly, again, its alter ego is “dick” and that is NOT a female-insinuated word. The term passes the “shoe on the other foot” test because non-female-related synonyms exist, and have about the same “meaning” and connotation to them.
Now, can we for the love of little green apples actually talk about Brown and HIS douchebaggery??
Fransis
My goodness, I am so discombobulated by Lynn’s vulgarity that I forgot how to spell Francis.
Like I told a certain SOB who has long been a complete tool on my own blog, go to hell. Seriously. You are the one who brought this up, and I am responding. When someone responds, you always do this – “lighten up” as if it were some big joke on your part.
Man up.
I’m shocked that you would say such a thing when you purposely made unsuspecting readers like me conjure up the disgusting image of all the gross, dirty, toxic, and putrid containments of the female private parts.
Absolutely not what we in the BMG community find acceptable.
Good day Lynne.
And as I stated, the terms are commonly used on blogs everywhere INCLUDING here, including on comedy shows like Jon Stewart.
And who are you to be the goddamned thought police? You are so not qualified.
But I’m sticking with reality.
Again, there is no place for the vulgar likes of you on this blog.
I said “Good day”
if you could at least give me the courtesy of spelling my name correctly.
And I hope you can get over your conniption fit well enough to have a good day. But hey if a little thing like a common turn of phrase is enough to disturb you, then I’m not holding my breath.
after I said, “I said ‘good day'”, you aren’t allowed to reply.
Those are the rules in every debate.
Be done with you Lynne.
I must now take my leave.
now they know!
Thanks for posting, EB3.
Now he’s setting rules for a debate!
Wow, he’s really assumptive there.
as soon as someone mentions Hitler or Nazis, the debate is over. I forget the name of the principle.
…for any thread the probability that a nazi comparison will be made eventually goes to 1.
Godwins corollary states that once such a comparison is made the debate is over and whomsoever it is that makes the comparison has lost.
Godwin has not, to my knowledge, endorsed that corollary. He does not seem to be invested in “winning” and “losing.”
Simply because references to Nazis are sometimes appropriate, I don’t find the corollary of much use.
But “sometimes” really means: “when engaged in a discussion of the government of Germany from 1932-45.”
When used as an analogy in other contexts, it does generally seem to convey, in an argument, “I got nuthin’ so I’ll just say some meaningless stuff.”
So if we’re having a discussion about Mussolini’s Italy, or Stalin, or WW2 Japan, you can’t tolerate any mention of Hitler or Nazis? And we can’t even approach an evaluation of GHW Bush’s claim that Saddam was “just like Hitler”?
I refuse to be painted into such a corner. If you want to cover your ears whenever those words come up, that’s your choice, but it’s not objectively justified.
In retrospect, the description of Saddam as “just like Hitler” was probably an apt example of my second paragraph, above.
A discussion of WW2 Japan is not “a discussion of the government of Germany from 1932-45.” Nor are the other two. As described, your restrictions are not so flexible as you pretend.
As for GHWB’s claim, using Godwin to dismiss the President’s justification for a war looks really silly.
Saddam was a devoted Stalinist… and Stalin was just as bad (if not worse) than Hitler. QED. I make the comparison because it is useful, not because “i got nuthin’
The notion that nothing and no one could ever again be as bad as Hitler and, therefore, that all such comparisons are odious is, in fact, specious. It’s entirely possible (probable even) that someone could be as bad as Hitler. To say otherwise is to close your eyes to evil in the world. And it is the open-eyed approach that will prevent someone as bad as Hitler from ever again being as EFFECTIVE as Hitler was…
The worst of Hitler’s evil was, in my estimation, his uncanny ability to uncover and enable the worst in other people: Himmler, Heidrich, Goering and Goebbels were all loathsome people and Hitler elevated them to positons of real power.
This is not unlike Cheney who enabled and uncovered the worst in Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Libby, Bolton, Yoon, etc… Cheney elevated bottom feeders to positions of real power in US in the same way as Hitler did in the Reich. And, in my studies, no other historical analogy suffices.
I just made an entirely valid and historically quite justified comparison of Cheney to Hitler. I’m quite glad that Cheney wasn’t as EFFECTIVE as Hitler… but that doesn’t obviate any and all comparisons between them.
that if you are unable to discern any meaningful degree of difference between the Bush administration and the Third Reich, then either (i) the Third Reich wasn’t really so bad after all, or (ii) you are a douche.
I was standing at the train station earlier today and I noted that the sign across the way was exactly the height of the man standing next to it… I made a comparison between his height and the sign. According, however, to you I am “unable to discern any meaningful degree of difference” betwixt him and the sign…
…or you are the one simply “unable to discern any meaningful degree”.
Do you have aspergers?
Question EB3: What the “F” is your problem? Grow up, douchebag!
that people took my rant seriously no matter how much i tried for sarcasm.
How fucking stupid is lynne?
in the manner you intended your sarcasm to be viewed, perhaps, just maybe perhaps, the failure is on your part.
Just saying!
… that not everyone ‘gets’ you and your humor – situation probably exacerbated by the nature of blog-comments vs. in person contexts.
Congressman Tierney?! Only Tierney gets to set the rules of debate. (Sheesh, can’t believe I’m injecting myself into this particular thread….I deserve whatever comes next).
love to hear you defend Scott Brown
It’s been a while. I have sadly had a chance to watch our federal government divide along political party lines while our Nation teeters on the brink of economic disaster. These idiots (a bipartisan observation btw) even punted the fiscal debate to a 12 person “Super Committee” (including our own JFK) who were tasked with finding a $1 trillion solution to a $4 trillion problem. And still couldn’t. Instead, they walked America to the edge of a self-created fiscal cliff on the assumption that adults would place country before Party when it really mattered. Yeah, good luck with that. The LAST thing we need is any more US Senators who will vote along Party lines. Brown has proven that he is willing to cross Party lines.* Warren, in her prior service in DC, has proven a complete inability to work across Party lines. Does anyone seriously doubt that Warren would be anything other than a 100% reliable Democratic leadership vote? That’s what this race boils down to for me. The solutions for our future lay in the sensible center and we need to elect leaders willing to go there.** I’m with Brown. (In past election, I disclosed that I was Brown’s campaign general counsel. Given my own campaign and district obligations as a State Representative, I have not served the Brown campaign in any formal capacity this time around).
**And don’t give me the We Need Warren to Keep the Senate Out of GOP Majority argument. The Senate will NOT be GOP majority even if Brown is reelected in 2012. See King, Angus (I-ME) on google.
*This reply is buried deep within the appendix to BMG, so I might avoid the swarming replies of ankle biters who will tell me that Brown still votes with GOP leadership a majority of the time. It’s true. But don’t feign indignation about Brown’s party line percentage until you can point to ANY Democrat from Massachusetts to votes off party line more often than Brown.
Just tell us how many kids you put away for possession of a joint.
saying about the “sensible center,” but I couldn’t disagree more with you more.
The center hasn’t been sensible for a long time. In fact, it has been almost completely eliminated from your party. The long-standing tradition of Republicans of wanting to slow change down has been replaced by an activist, reactionary agenda. In a different time, we could pretend the center was sensible and could “act like grownups,” but today, when your party lacks any sort of center at all, it’s ridiculous to talk about Scott Brown being part of it.
Perhaps you missed it, but the Republican Party has been waging war, not just on the social safety net, but on any Democratic opposition to its radical right agenda. The idea is to create a “permanent Republican majority.” The GOP has been that way at least as far back as Clinton was first elected. The right-wing (which now owns your party) did everything it could to bring him down. That included Gingrich’s attempt to stop funding the government until Clinton acquiesced to his demands. And it included his uncalled for and unnecessary impeachment. It then continued with SCOTUS’s bizarre decision in Bush v. Gore. It’s laughable that Scott Brown could do anything other than apply the patina of bipartisanship to the reactionary agenda of the Republican Party.
I sincerely hope Elizabeth Warren works hard and effectively to advance the goals of the Democratic Party. I have no doubt she will cross party lines to do so. Unlike today’s GOP, our people have not set out to eradicate opposition.
why would you vote to put another Republican in the Senate — especially one who is fundraising around the country touting himself as key to Republicans control of the Senate? If he truly opposed his leadership’s hard-line positions, why would he do that?
If you care about a woman’s right to control her own body, it doesn’t make sense to vote for a guy who claims to be pro-choice but cites Antonin Scalia as the Supreme Court justice he most admires and voted no on confirming a pro-choice justice, does it?
If you feel strongly about properly regulating the big banks to prevent a repeat of the 2009 meltdown, it doesn’t make sense to vote for the guy who claims to be all compromisey while playing a key role in weakening Dodd-Frank, when instead you could vote for the woman who spent years battling effectively to get a financial agency that would protect consumers from predatory lenders does it?
Stats I”ve seen show that Scott Brown voted way more often with Republicans before Elizabeth Warren announced interest in the seat. Anyone who thinks Scott Brown wouldn’t revert to form for at least 5 of the next 6 years were he elected to a full term is naive to put it charitably.
Kudos for saying “(Sheesh, can’t believe I’m injecting myself into this particular thread….I deserve whatever comes next).”
But don’t most people trying to win play things to their advantage?
Another clever idea from Dan-the-idea-man.
haha
…that every comment (and yes, I made one too) on this thread is somehow related to the propriety of a single word (one I personally would not have used, FWIW), but nothing on the substance of the diary!
about Scott Brown’s deceptive references to Elizabeth Warren’s legal work. But the best argument against throwing a gratuitous term into a post may be that the term itself can hijack the discussion.
a FUCKING DOUCHEBAG LIAR!
that’s better
It is clearly an insult to you to call Brown a douchebag. I apologize.
You wrote, “But don’t feign indignation about Brown’s party line percentage until you can point to ANY Democrat from Massachusetts to votes off party line more often than Brown.”
Massachusetts Democrats ARE strong Democrats, thank you very much, and these days I don’t think bipartisanship for its own sake is a good thing. We’ve seen four years of a President bending over backwards to be bipartisan and virtually nothing to show for it. I for one am not necessarily saying Brown SHOULD be bipartisan, though it might be politically wise from a basically blue state. I’m more upset that he CLAIMS to be bipartisan when he isn’t, at least not when it counts. I don’t want Dems like Ben Nelson who goes back and forth so often it’s difficult for Dems to govern. Voters should choose a side and which ever side wins should govern until the next election. Obviously there need to be negotiations if there is divided government, but those negotiations need to be in good faith, and the GOP has not shown that in recent years. This is NOT a matter of both sides being equally guilty.
Exactly right. Dan – I’d respectfully point you to this (bipartisan!!) commentary from two highly respected scholars entitled “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.” Here’s their book along the same lines.
If being “bipartisan” means having to water down good policy to get extremists to sign on, count me out. And, regrettably, that is the situation in DC right now.
David, any guilt–however apportioned–is equally damning. I have spoken to Norm Ornstein on this topic and I don’t think he’d disagree. Most major federal legislation in our lifetime had the majority support of both political parties. Most members of Congress, however fiercely they disagreed by day, found social connection and knew and could talk about each other’s families and lives. By personality and disposition, that’s Scott Brown. Elizabeth Warren is precisely the candidate to send to DC if you think the only solution is to overwhelm the opposition and impose your views. Good luck there. In my lifetime, as I know you and I could despite our differences, I want Republicans and Democrats to find common ground for the good of the country. PS to MindingDeMint: I favor legalization of marijuana. People who thought Prohibition was a crackerjack idea might disagree.
So taking absolute and uncompromising positions again and again such as the Grover Norquist pledge has less to do with reaching bi-partisianship agreements than having a beer with the other side? That’s rhetorical Dan.
Here’s the real question.
How can Scott Brown be the guy finding social connections and such when right out of the box he attacks his opponents character and her husband for having a decent job?
His entire campaign is based on personal attacks. He relies on Eric Ferhnstrom, a man who built his career by destroying opponents’ and sometimes their family members’ reputations.
Character is an issue Dan.
about the Obama administration. Consider PPAA: chock-full of republican ideas, from insurance exchanges to the individual mandate. It was bi-partisan and designed as such so that the loyal opposition could vote for it too. But instead, republicans saw it as an opportunity thwart the party in power in an effort to regain control of the government. As far as Brown is concerned, he ran in 2010 as the vote to defeat PPACA and is now running to repeal it. Romney, for his part, now claims that his own plan in Massachusetts is a bad idea. Let’s be honest, if ths administration was unable to pass “ObamaCare,” Romney would be touting MassHealth from the rooftops as the solution to the national health care crisis. And all those people who now have or are soon to have affordable coverage? The republicans care not a whit about them.
Then there is the stimulus: the republicans proposed a $700B stimulus plan but the democrats $800b stimulus plan was passed. Since that time, the right has done nothing but claim the stimulus failed and spent money we don’t have, blah, blah.
And would the republicans accept even $1 in revenue for every $10 in budget cuts? Oh, no.
PS: Your response to my question might make a nice bumper sticker but it didn’t answer the question.
– see Consumer Financial Protection Board – without even holding office. I’m highly confident she can be even more effective in the Senate. As for Scott Brown the centrist … Blunt amendment? No on Elana Kagan? Weakening financial regulations? Signing a pledge not to raise taxes on the super-rich to the eminently reasonable levels under Bill Clinton? Opposing any change in taxes on the wildly profitable oil industry?
Sorry, but if that’s the 2012 definition of “bipartisan” and “moderate” – and I’ve voted Republican at times back when there were real moderates in the party – no thank you. Anyone who admires Scalia and follows Nordquist simply isn’t a centrist as I define one.
To me, “moderate” isn’t someone to the right of Richard Nixon (wage & price controls, think Brown would go for that?) and Ronald Reagan (raised taxes 5 times).
I’m not going to pass up voting for a candidate who is truly going to represent people like me instead of big money, with a proven track record of success, to help Republicans have a token not-insanely-conservative Senator. I am quite confident that Elizabeth Warren can work with reasonable people in Washington. Didn’t Scott Brown basically agree in the last debate when he took credit for implementing her idea by voting for it?