Did I say double? I meant like, heptaing down at this point.
I saw this new asbestos attack ad last night after the debate, on NECN I believe.
Hey look! He found a singular family member of a victim who will attack Warren for her work. Considering all the Asbestos Union, asbestos victims’ lawyers, and asbestos victims’ families who are very unhappy with Brown for his misleading (at best) attack, that’s impressive.
Once again, Brown pulls the tail end of one single sentence of a long, complex article in the Globe to lie about Warren yet again (AND the Globe, insinuating they accused her of being at fault in the article, which they did not – they actually covered the complexity of the situation). He repeats the use of sentences out of context, like the “disastrous for victims” line, despite how the sentence begins with “But after Warren left the case…”
He might not have brought it up at the debate last night (or rather, he tried to and failed) but he’s still at it. Douchebag does not begin to describe this guy anymore. But whatever you call him, let’s call him a half-termer, please. I can’t stand the thought of Brown representing me after this election. Someone so arrogant and morally bankrupt, utterly in the pay of big corporations like oil companies and investment banks, scares the crap out of me. He’s already done enough damage to our democracy.
LET’S GET TO WORK!
Gee ‘Andrea from Canton’ says Warren screws asbestos victims. Impressive. I’ve been waiting for Andrea to weigh in. But I guess we’ll never know her full name, party affiliation, or what connections she may have to the Scott Brown Lie Machine or the Karl Rove “Scumbag Politics” operation (aka Crossroads).
I think I’ll take the word of the Asbestos Workers Union, the Boston Globe and virtually every other reputable fact checking org that says Warren brokered a great deal for the victims. And the deal only fell apart after Warren left the case and the insurance cos renegged.
Thanks for posting the video.
Someone, somewhere will recognize her and when they do I hope they post it here.
Also, notice how the commercial distorts the Boston Globe masthead? I bet it’s because Mr. all-lies-all-the-time Ferhnstrom thinks it protects his deliberate distortion of the story..
When she says “She was not on the side of the victims”, she closes her eyes for a few seconds – not a blink, she closed them and didn’t reopen them until she had almost completed the statement. That’s a serious “tell” – she knew she was lying.
The most aggravating thing of all is the notion that an insurance company is evil. They didn’t manufacture asbestos, or expose anyone. All they did was write an insurance policy. They agreed to contribute to a settlement in order to end claims on the insurance. I’m sure that the amount they agreed to contribute was more than the policy limits.
WELL after EW’s involvement, it became clear that they would not succeed in ending claims on the insurance. So they did not “renege.” They didn’t get what they bargained for. Was Travellers supposed to just pay a half BILLION dollars to people, in return for nothing ?
It would be as if you bought a car, for cash, and came home to find a bill for the purchase price of the car. Why would you pay twice?
This particular issue has just about driven me crazy the last few weeks. I have to mute the TV during commercials so as not to rage at the TV.
But, the fact remains, EW did the best she could for the clients. And the whole deal fell apart after she left the case. Brown is the Scumbag here because he is lying saying it’s EW’s fault — exploiting the pain, suffering, and deaths of victims for his own political gain. Can’t get much lower.
I don’t disagree with this, or fenway’s point immediately below, at all.
that has argued, over and over, how “obvious” it is that the big insurance company could not possibly be on the side of the asbestos victim. They have taken that as a given and are asking voters to do the same.
Warren’s campaign has stressed that in this case, at least during the time she was involved, the insurance company’s interests and those of the victims aligned.
Scott’s lines from the debates word-for-word.
Unfortunately for Scott the lead law firm representing the victims, and all the other victims in the Warren ads, don’t agree with her take on the situation.
he’s trying to muddy the waters and make voters question Warren with this. Truth can be on your side but if voters don’t go seeking out the information, it has now become he-said, she said. That’s why the canvassing/phonebanking is so important.
n/t
…shouldn’t it help Warren? After all, she was there and Brown wasn’t. Thus if all I had was each of their interpretations to go on, I’d likely side with the person who was actually there.
Also, she LOOKS more genuine and truthful when talking about it…but I guess we’ll see how many voters fall for it…
One thing I do see, is an utter hatred by Republicans out there right now. They are acting UGLY, it’s as though they know they’re losing and they’re setting it up to have a Clinton- or Kennedy-level vitriolic hate on her once she’s elected.
Funny, I don’t remember acting this ugly to opponents when Brown won his special election. I just remember feeling angry at our nominee and her campaign staff. My guess is that they’ll start blaming Warren for somehow cheating or lying her way to a Senate seat, ANYthing but look in the mirror. Another difference between the two sides. (Poll and job truthers anyone?)
I think that might be some selective memory.
Sure there was a little: “Well, he ran a better campaign, and the voters have spoken” but then there was a “Buuuut…
Brown was a fluke. Only supported by out of state tea partiers. Stupid. A model. An alcoholic. He posed naked. He “pimped out his daughter”–I wonder if he abused them? He’s stupid. A himbo. Vain and superficial: see posing naked in a magazine. He was at a bar, he is an alcoholic drunk driver. He is dangerous to be near children because he said “fuck” to some once.
None of these points were exactly “on the issues” and seemed more like speculative personal attacks against a disliked but victorious opponent.
He was a fluke. Special election with huge funding against a lackluster opponent at a low point for national Democrats.
He was supported by out-of-state tea partiers (not only by them, but with a big assist from them).
He did offer up his daughters on television. Not quite “pimped out” but not particularly cool either.
He was a model and posed close to naked. So what?
He’s not stupid at all, but he does strike me as somewhat vain and not a big intellectual.
if you’re on the wrong side
ugly and personal is “THAT ASSHOLE blah blah make shit up.”
You know the visceral hate I am talking about, the one that spawns these people to spout lies about Clinton even now, or talk about Kennedy with snarl in their voice and they HAVE to bring up Chappaquiddick EVERY time even now, after he’s long gone.
I might severely dislike Brown, but it’s for what he’s done policy wise (Blunt) and in this campaign (USING asbestos victims and their families and blatantly lying about it, among all his other crimes).
When he won the first time, I didn’t viscerally hate him, nor did I hear of any other dedicated Dem activist say things like that against him. Sure, we said to one another that he would be a Half Term Senator, etc, but nothing like what they are saying about Warren, or have about Clinton, or Kennedy. That is what I am comparing it to.
In my view, “ugly and personal” is fair game if the behavior is (a) true and (b) relevant.
I did not vote for Ted Kennedy after his reprehensible behavior on Chappaquiddick. I admired his courage in fighting his way back to prominence — nevertheless, the fact that he literally got away with homicide hobbled the progressive agenda during Senator Kennedy’s long post-Chappaquiddick career.
There is clear evidence that Monica Lewinsky was a willing and even eager party to whatever happened between her and Bill Clinton. There was no truth to the allegations to the contrary, and the episode was not relevant to Mr. Clinton’s performance in his office. In my view, the consequences of whatever did or did not happen are the concern Mr. and Mrs. Clinton — they have made their peace with each other and moved on and so should we.
The Scott Brown attacks on Elizabeth Warren are, on the other hand, not true and not relevant. I think that is why they are so offensive, and I hope that the voters of Massachusetts feel the same.
I do not like Scott Brown’s policies or party one bit. I hold them responsible for doing major destruction to my country on multiple fronts. I do not like Scott Brown personally all that much based on what I’ve seen of him. I certainly don’t like the Scott Brown fans doing war whoops outside the Eire Pub, or the “Squaw-ntum” sign holders, or the guy who did a war whoop at the gas station in Ware on Monday, or the woman with right-wing bumper stickers all over her car who tried to spit on my Elizabeth Warren bumper sticker in Waltham last week.
But I specifically said he was not stupid, and I don’t think he’s an alcoholic, or a pimp, or any of that. That he has risen to the U.S. Senate, raised two daughters well, etc., I can admire. That puts me far ahead of many — not all — Republicans, whose level of vitriol is off the charts.
No man and father who respects the womanhood of his daughters would do what Scott Brown did in that first national press conference. The attitude towards women betrayed in that episode is pervasive in his campaigning. The notion that merely living with three women somehow makes him a supporter of women’s rights is itself sexist. The undercurrent of his campaign against Elizabeth Warren has been sexist from the start — would Senator Brown attempt to use “Professor” as an epithet if his opponent had been male? I don’t think so. Would the tasteless and offensive display in Squantum have occurred if she had been male? I don’t think so.
I can think of no better and more accurate phrase to describe his behavior in that first presser than “he pimped out his daughters”. That’s what he DID, and some of us find that creepy and revolting.
Finally, lest someone make the argument that it’s “personal” and therefore off the table, we need look no further than his co-sponsorship of the Blunt amendment (and subsequent lies about it).
Scott Brown is a man with serious personal issues about women, and he projects his resulting sexism/misogyny into his ongoing performance in the office he seeks re-election to.
the term “pimping” being applied to him was to mock, and point out, the creepiness of WHAT HE DID ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. It was at minimum a weird moment, but in context of his other comments, actions, and supported policies, it is downright, as you say, misogynist. Therefore, completely fair game.
No credible Dem I know said anything about alcoholic. We make fun of his nude pictures but, again, it’s what he DID, why is that not fair game for mockery? His comment after the Dem debate in 2011, lest we forget, when Warren quipped “I didn’t take my clothes off” to answer “how did you pay for college,” was “Thank God”. Creepy as hell.