#MaSen redux

by BlueberryT

  

From 1985-2009, Massachusetts was blessed to have two “liberal lions” of the Senate representing us, and we saw no turnover in our Senate seats.  MA voters first elected Ted Kennedy to the Senate in a special election for his brother Jack’s former seat in 1962. Ted was not old enough to be appointed Senator when Jack was elected President in 1960, so the Kennedy family made a deal with the Governor, who appointed Jack’s former Harvard roommate, Ben Smith, to fill the seat until Ted was old enough.  Ted defeated Republican George Cabot Lodge in 1962, ran again in 1964 for a full term and was reelected 7 times, becoming one of the longest-serving Senators in United States history; he served for 47 years until his death while in office in August 2009.  The seat had been held continuously by Democrats since JFK first won it in 1953. 

The other Mass Senate seat was held continuously by Republicans Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (1937-44), Sinclair Weeks (1944-45), Leverett Saltonstall (1945-1967) and Edward Brooke (1967-1979; the first African-American Senator since Reconstruction) - in total, it was in Republican hands for 42 consecutive years, including much of the terms of Democratic Presidents FDR, Truman, local son JFK and LBJ.  I want to stress that the politics that these Republicans practiced bore little or no resemblance to the GOP politics today.  

Paul Tsongas, a former Peace Corps volunteer and strong progressive, finally captured the seat for the Democrats from Brooke in the post-Watergate 1978 election.  Tsongas would easily have won reelection in 1984, but he was battling non-Hodgkin lymphoma at the time and had to retire from the Senate.  (Tsongas’ widow, Niki, is now a Congresswoman.)  So it was that in 1984, Mike Dukakis's Lt. Governor, John Kerry, ran for and won the Senate seat that he has held ever since - for almost 28 years.  A newly interesting footnote to the 1984 Senate race is that Congressman Ed Markey ran in the Senate primary that year, but withdrew before the nomination.   

(Another interesting historical footnote is that both Kennedys and their brother Bobby, along with Mike Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, John Kerry and Mitt Romney all ran for President, but only Jack Kennedy won; Lodge ran for VP on Richard Nixon's 1960 ticket and lost.  Something about Massachusetts politicians and national office...) 

Twenty years later, when John Kerry ran for President in 2004, Mitt Romney was Governor.  At the time, the heavily-Democratic state legislature was concerned that Republican Governor Romney would appoint the Senator to finish his term if Kerry were elected President, so they changed state law to leave the seat vacant until a special election could be held to fill the seat for the remainder of the 6-year term.

This change in the law backfired big time, then and now.  Kerry lost, so the change in law proved unnecessary in the first place.  Then, with Ted Kennedy’s terminal illness in 2009, they changed the law again, but instead of reverting to a gubernatorial appointment, they gave the (now-Democratic) governor the power to appoint a replacement to serve for a few months, pending the results of a special election. Note we are now up to two law changes and the result is an interim appointment and  special election.  Of course, they thought the Democratic candidate would be a shoo-in.

This special election took place right after the holidays in 2010, following a tough Democratic primary in which Attorney General Martha Coakley had to spend a lot of time and money to win the nomination in a crowded field.  Thus, during the holidays, she had to focus on fundraising, and few people were paying attention to the fact that little-known then-state Senator Scott Brown was raking in money from outside interests (Koch Brothers, NRA, etc.).  Many Dems, myself included, felt that “Ted Kennedy’s seat” was secure, and we didn’t realize the changing dynamics until after the holidays, when it was too late.  Scott Brown ran and won, reclaiming the seat from the Kennedys/Democrats and becoming “#41” - the vote that allowed Republicans to break the Democratic super-majority and fililbuster.  They have used this tool with a vengeance. 

So, now where are we?  In 2012, we saw progressive Elizabeth Warren challenge Senator Brown in a very tough battle.  This was one of the most highly contested Senate races in the country, costing more than $68 million.  (I wrote about this race here  and here.)  

Many of us breathed a huge sigh of relief when Elizabeth Warren won, becoming Massachusetts' first woman Senator-elect.  Remarkably, Brown lost even though he held a 57% positive approval rating on election eve.

Now, I know this is a bit petty of me, but I am a bit bummed about Senator Kerry’s appointment as Secretary of State, not because he isn’t the right guy – he is! – but because it means we have to hold another friggin’ #masen election so soon. Apparently the legislature doesn’t have any inclination to change the law back to what it was in the first place.  PolitiFact rated the Massachusetts legislature’s actions as a “flip-flop.” I would just call it a colossal FLOP. 

To give Kerry his due:  he is highly qualified, having served for many years on, and for the past four years as Chairman of, the Foreign Relations Committee.  Those old enough will remember that he first rose to prominence when he testified before this very committee, when he was a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.  This is when he asked his famous question, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”  (The entire testimony is worth re-reading; it is gripping.)

He is of course well-known throughout the country, having been the Democratic nominee for President in 2004.  Thus he has been extensively vetted, as well as subjected to the outrageous “Swift Boat” smear campaign that impugned his Vietnam War service.  His personal and family background, including experience living overseas, also helped prepare him for the job.  His wife, Teresa, provides an even greater international perspective, as she is from Mozambique and has family roots in Portugal, England, Switzerland, Italy, France and Egypt; she also worked as a UN translator prior to her marriage to Senator John Heinz. 

Kerry has signaled his intent to include global warming in the scope of his work as Secretary, which is much needed.  Kerry has strong environmental credentials, second only to Al Gore among recent Presidential contenders, and that bodes well for bringing greater urgency and attention to global warming.  Given how this issue is so closely inter-related to energy policy, I hope that we will see somewhat more progressive policies going forward. 

Kerry has also been very loyal to President Obama.  He fully deserves this honor, and his confirmation is a sure thing, especially after Republicans successfully maneuvered to scuttle the nomination of Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice.  That maneuver was ugly enough, but knowing that it was a ploy to allow for Kerry’s seat to open up for a potential comeback by Scott Brown is particularly galling.

But we in Massachusetts will just have to suck it up, because the Massachusetts legislature has “no taste” for changing the Senate succession law again; apparently, they think it might make them look craven (cough, cough) to change the law a third time (back to where it started). So, after two Senate races in the last 3 years, it looks like we will have another special election this year, and then another election for a full-term in 2014.  That is four Senate races in less than 5 years.  Oh, joy.  Thank you, Massachusetts General Court (aka state legislature).  

If Scott Brown runs – and he openly promoted Kerry’s SOS nomination and even in his farewell speech in the Senate signaled that he might be back - he will probably begin as the presumptive favorite.   He still enjoys a majority approval rating.  He would also have the advantage of not running amidst a national election with a charismatic Presidential candidate drawing people to the polls.  He lost this fall because his opponent is such an inspiring progressive voice that she brought a lot of excitement and money into the race, although, as I wrote here, he did himself no favors.  His support for Antonin Scalia as a “model” Supreme Court Justice will likely continue to haunt him.  The same generic argument that Warren used successfully against him – that he would enable further Republican obstructionism – is still perfectly valid, and I’m sure we’ll hear it again.  It's true.

There are a few other Republicans whose names have surfaced, if Brown decides not to run - former Governor William Weld, former state senator and 2010 Lt. Governor candidate Richard Tisei among them.  They would be real long-shots, in my opinion. 

Why wouldn’t Brown run?  Well, he just lost a very tough race, and this race is another temporary position, meaning he would have to run again in 2014.  So, it would put him in the position of running four times in 5 years to win a permanent Senate seat.  His record is 1 and 1 - he might lose again.  If he did, it would really damage him politically, more than the recent loss to Warren did.  Maybe running for Governor in 2014 is more appealing, especially since Mass voters have elected Republican governors often over the past two decades. 

But, if I had to bet today, I would say he’ll run for the Senate seat. 

If so, who will run against him?  I sincerely hope that the Democrats will avoid a protracted and costly primary battle, which helped to undo Martha Coakley’s candidacy.  (Here is an interesting article on that campaign, including some good insights about the candidates.)  Fortunately, a few of the potential candidates are beginning to take themselves out of the running.  We now know that Ted Kennedy Jr. and Ben Affleck – both with instant name recognition – will not run.  Martha Coakley, the state Attorney General who ran against Brown in the 2010 special election, has ruled out a run.  It sounds like Barney Frank won’t run, (“I’m tired”), although he might accept the interim appointment. Vicki Kennedy, Governor Patrick, former Governor Dukakis and others have also been mentioned as possible candidates, but all have disavowed interest in the position.

Who else might run?  Here are a few potential candidates, in no particular order:

Rachel Maddow  – She needs little introduction among our readers!  Maddow is the well-known host of her own program on MSNBC, a very progressive self-described “national security liberal” who holds an undergrad degree in Public Policy from Stanford and doctorate in Politics from Oxford University.  She is also the author of a well-regarded book, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power which tackles questions about how America goes to war in the 21^st Century.  Interestingly, Scott Brown previously claimed in fundraising appeals that she was likely to run against him in 2012; Maddow said she was not running and demanded that he retract his statement and apologize for using her as a fundraising ploy.  Building on excitement over Tammy Baldwin’s election as the first openly lesbian Senator and Warren as Massachusetts’ first woman Senator, Maddow would provide instant appeal to the gay community and women.  She is not without her detractors and attackers, of course, but she is by far the most media-savvy of the potential candidates, an expert debater, and would be one of the few people with the name recognition and support base who could mount a successful race against Scott Brown, IMO.  I think it's unlikely she will run, but OTOH, she’d be great.

Ed Markey – Congressman, Mass 7^th District; the “Dean” of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, having served since 1976.  Markey is a very smart, very solid progressive, strong on energy policy, also knowledgeable about telecommunications, internet privacy, the pharmaceutical industry and many key issues.  He is also strong on environmental issues and has repeatedly challenged "big oil." I take some small pride in having written to him several times (when he was my Congressman, early in his career) about nuclear power, because he subsequently became one of the most outspoken critics of the nuclear industry.  He declined to run for Senate in 2009, at which time he was the Chairman of a key House committee; however, with the GOP’s House majority seemingly set for years, there is some speculation that he may consider a run.  He is very popular in his District, and relatively well-known statewide.  He would be a great Senator, IMO. 
BREAKING NEWS (THURSDAY NIGHT): Congressman Markey has announced that he will run for Senator Kerry's seat.  More here and his new campaign website is here.  This HuffPo article has the text of his statement announcing the run.  If the Dems unite around Markey quickly, it would make sense for Governor Patrick to appoint him as the interim Senator; this would open up his House seat, of course.  Here is WaPo on this story.
BREAKING NEWS (FRIDAY):  Senator Kerry, along with Vicki Kennedy and the DSCC, have come out in support of Ed Markey as the Democratic candidate for Senate.  

Mike Capuano – Congressman, MA 8^th District.  This is the same district once represented by Jack Kennedy, Tip O’Neill and Bobby Kennedy’s son, Joe Kennedy II.  Capuano is the former mayor of Somerville, MA, part of the Boston metropolitan area.  He is a strong progressive with solid credentials in the House, and has the reputation as a scrappy fighter, but in all honesty, I don’t think he has the statewide profile needed to win against Brown (if indeed that is his opponent).  He ran for the Senate seat in the primary against Coakley, but lost.  Thursday night: I doubt he will run, now that Markey has announced.  

Setti Warren –  Mayor of Newton, MA (an affluent suburb of Boston which is largely white; Warren, who is African-American, grew up there) and, jokingly, Elizabeth Warren’s “cousin.”  Setti Warren is a rising star in the Massachusetts Democratic Party, and served in several roles in Bill Clinton’s White House and John Kerry’s campaign and staff.  He was also the New England regional director of FEMA and is a veteran who served in Iraq.  He ran in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat but dropped out early (in September 2011), once the idea of an Elizabeth Warren campaign began to gain momentum.  He later worked on Warren’s campaign and is taking on new leadership roles and speaking out as part of the coalition of Mayors Against Gun Violence.  He seems like a really bright and personable guy, and an up-and-comer.  Still, his candidacy would be a long-shot, and he would not want to lose a bid for the same position twice.  

Benjamin Downing – Downing has expressed interest in the seat.  He is a young, well-liked state senator from Western Massachusetts who previously worked for Congressmen Delahunt, Neal and Olver.  As I understand it, he is a guy who wears a barn jacket and drives a pickup truck in real life, and might peel away some of Brown’s male supporters.  OTOH, he would be a real long shot.  While he is popular in his part of the state, he is an unknown elsewhere and Western Mass has a lot less people than the eastern half of the state.

I sincerely hope that some others mentioned as possible candidates, like Congressman Stephen Lynch or former AG Scott Harshbarger, will decline to run, as in my opinion they would not stand a chance.  I feel the same way about Alan Khazei, the former head of City Year and CEO of Be the Change, who is a good guy but who ran in the primary unsuccessfully twice; the same goes for Marisa deFranco, who ran a spirited campaign against Elizabeth Warren in the primary, but got crushed.  

I personally believe that the candidate needs to already have a strong "identity" and name recognition with the electorate.  There is simply not time to establish that from scratch.  Of course, Scott Brown did not have that when he ran in 2009-10, so I could be proven wrong – if the right mix of circumstances came together.  The Governor could make a big difference with a strategic interim appointment.  Whatever happens, if the legislature will not address the idiocy and expense of having 4 Senate elections in 5 years, I hope the Dems will be "in it to win it," as we were with the Warren campaign.  

Elizabeth Warren Rally – She's Fired Up and Ready to Go!

by Blueberry T

Imagine my surprise, a few days ago, to have a phone message from the mayor of Beverly, MA,  inviting me to a rally for Elizabeth Warren that he would be hosting.  Now, there is a backstory here that I won’t go into, but suffice it to say that I have known the mayor for a long time, and we haven’t always agreed on everything (OK, anything).  Although he introduced himself today as an independent, IMO he has often been more closely identified with Republican politics.  So, I was intrigued that he was hosting the event, and very happy to learn that he had endorsed Elizabeth Warren a few months ago.  (Kudos to him; I missed that!)

The rally was mobbed.  Standing room only.  I was very lucky to get a decent seat.  The atmosphere was very high energy; people were “fired up and ready to go.”  There was a band playing for what seemed a very long time before the rally finally got underway with blessedly short but effective speeches by the local state representative, the mayor and his counterpart from Newton, MA, Setti Warren, who kiddingly introduced himself as Elizabeth’s “cousin.”  (He is a former staffer/adviser to both Bill Clinton and John Kerry, and initially announced a run for Scott Brown’s Senate seat too, but dropped his bid last fall.)  Veterans played a prominent part in the event as a whole, as a group was on stage during all the speeches and service members/veterans’ issues were a key focus.    

John Tierney, the 8-term progressive Congressman from the Massachusetts 6^th District, is the top House target of the GOP in the entire country.  He is running against a nationally-funded Tea Party favorite, Richard Tisei, who has strong name recognition because he ran for Lieutenant Governor two years ago.  Tierney is in big trouble, not because of his own record, but because his wife is embroiled in a family scandal.  He briefly alluded to the nationally-funded multi-million dollar smear campaign against him, but his spirited speech focused on how important this election is on issues that are so important to veterans, women, workers, and students.  Overall, he was upbeat, in keeping with the mood of the crowd.  (More credit to Mayor Scanlon, who also endorsed Tierney; could I have misjudged him?  Or, maybe he's changed...)  

The next speaker was former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia.  Cleland is an American hero who lost both legs and one arm in a grenade blast in Vietnam.  He went on to serve as head of the Veterans Administration and Georgia Secretary of State prior to his election to the Senate in 1996.  In 2002, he was the target of one of the lowest and nastiest smear campaigns in history, questioning his patriotism (a prelude to what the Republicans did to John Kerry in 2004 and what they are trying to do to Tammy Duckworth today).  Sadly, the "swift-boating" smears succeeded in turning around a campaign that Cleland had been leading, and Georgia elected that paradigm of patriotism, Saxby Chambliss.  (It still pains me to type that, ten years later, because it was such a travesty.)  To his credit, Cleland has not let this bring him down to their level.  He gave a rousing speech about the importance of the election and introduced Elizabeth.

She was really fired up and ready to go!  She stressed that it is a really tight and important race, and that Scott Brown is promising his donors that reelecting him could help Republicans win a majority in the Senate.  She also reminded us that Brown is a favorite of Wall Street and could help weaken key laws like Dodd-Frank Act, which Mitt Romney has promised to repeal.  This law includes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that she set up.  She referred to CFPB as the little agency that could – it is only one year old but has already made a big difference in protecting Americans from financial scams and abuses, returning $50 billion to consumers in the first year.  She gave a lot of credit to Holly Petraeus for working with her to ensure that the Dodd-Frank Act would specifically protect service members and veterans, who are particularly vulnerable to credit scams.  Then she focused on Scott Brown’s record, listing his votes against bills that would have created jobs, rebuilt infrastructure and employed veterans.  She also listed three key votes against women’s interests:  equal pay; contraception coverage/the Blunt Amendment; and confirmation of Elena Kagan, a pro-choice, highly qualified woman, to the Supreme Court. 

She had a great line when telling about how she is weathering Brown’s nasty personal attacks, along the lines of: “After growing up in a house with three older brothers, I’m pretty tough and nothing like that is going to push me around.” 

Short and sweet!

UPDATE:  Our reader Older_Wiser pointed out this Daily Kos article about how Scott Brown's negative campaign is coming back to haunt him, and deservedly so.  And here is my earlier post on how Scott Brown is destroying his own "Mr. Nice Guy" brand and this post on Warren and Brown fundraisers this past spring.  

No More Mr. Nice Guy: How Scott Brown Is Damaging His Own “Brand”

by Blueberry T

Scott Brown carefully cultivates his image as a regular guy who likes sports (as opposed to “sport”), drives an old pickup truck  and wears a barn jacket.  

  Who does that remind me of...?  Hmm.  Oh, yeah...

 

Until recently, his campaign revolved around the image that he is a nice guy and an independent, moderate voice in Washington.  But is he?

He did some serious damage to his “nice guy” brand in last Thursday’s debate with Elizabeth Warren. Commentators across the board thought he was “nasty,”  “snarky,” “desperate,” “aggressive” and “visibly irked”. 

He came out of the gate swinging, with a personal attack on Warren’s claim of Native American heritage that he has harped on for months.  This is an anti-affirmative-action dog whistle, and apparently it’s all he’s got, because he keeps harping on it even though voters are unmoved; 69% say it is not an important issue for them.  

Compounding the negativity of Brown’s attack was his ignorant and/or racist statement that “Professor Warren claimed that she was a Native American, a person of color and as you can see, she’s not.”  Would Scott Brown point out Christopher Stevens, John Baker, or Bristol Palin and her son Tripp as “persons of color”?   

    

  

Bristol Palin's son, Tripp Johnston is 1/32 Native American, like Elizabeth Warren. 

Notably, despite Brown’s false claims, a geneology researcher has found documentation that supports her contention that the family believed it had Native American heritage.  Warren has repeatedly explained that this is her family history, told to her by her parents and grandparents, and she is not going to disavow her family roots.  She also said she received no favorable treatment on job applications, a claim that was corroborated by those who hired her, including Reagan's Solicitor General, Charles Fried. 

Several reviews of the debate commented that resurrecting this dubious argument seems to show some desperation on Brown’s part; while he was trying to damage her credibility, he probably did more damage to his own reputation, as he looked petty, bullying and ignorant.   Nevertheless, he doubled down on this charge in a new campaign ad.  

In a new, even more damaging development, here are photos of Scott Brown’s taxpayer-funded staff at a political rally, using offensive and racist gestures to call attention to the controversy about Warren’s Native American heritage.  I will leave it to you to consider what the likelihood is that Brown's staff used such offensive gestures out of the blue, or whether such behavior may have happened previously with the Senator himself.  Now the controversy has blown up in Scott Brown’s face, with calls from the Cherokee Nation for him to apologize.  (I think he should resign.)

Here is Elizabeth Warren’s response to the controversy.  Rachel Maddow and Melissa Harris-Perry connected the dots about the latent racism in both Scott Brown’s and Mitt Romney’s comments, and how this relates to broader issues such as voter ID laws.  

Onward.  Later in the debate, Brown attacked Warren’s role as an attorney representing Travelers Insurance in a lawsuit by asbestos victims.  In an attempt to discredit her as a consumer advocate, he claimed that she took the side of the corporation against the victims.  This is a gross distortion of her role in a decades-long case with many legal complexities, twists and turns.  According to reports by the Boston Globe and others, Warren tried to preserve victims’ rights to receive damages after bankruptcy.  She sought to broker a settlement that would have resulted in Travelers paying $500 million in damages in exchange for immunity against further lawsuits; at the time, the settlement was supported by the largest group of asbestos victims. However, after she left her role in the case, the company reneged on the settlement, and it is still tied up in court. 

Brown’s attack on Warren for protecting Travelers Insurance is further blunted because Brown himself has received $9000 in campaign donations from Travelers, among the highest in the Senate.  If he thought they were wronging the victims (which they are), one might fairly ask why he accepts their support.

Brown also took a very petty swipe at Warren’s salary as a professor at Harvard, and tried to tie this to his portrayal of her as a “tax-and-spend Democrat” by saying she should have checked the box to pay more taxes than she owed.  The attack on her salary made Brown look small, and is rather ironic given the GOP’s recent claims that President Obama and Democrats are opposed to “success.”  Elizabeth Warren is an amazing success story, which inconveniently runs counter to the GOP’s false narrative. 

In a similar vein, Brown also continually called Warren “Professor,” in what seemed like an attempt to portray her as elitist.  I actually think that anti-intellectual streak doesn’t play too well in Massachusetts; a lot of people of all ideological stripes are strongly committed to education, including higher education, which is huge in this state, home to many colleges and universities.  I suspect that most people think it is a point of distinction and honor to teach at Harvard.  Many people respect Elizabeth Warren’s accomplishments in education and her expertise on bankruptcy law and financial regulation, as well as her personal “by the bootstraps, with help” success story.  So, I doubt that his remark damaged her in the first place, but it certainly made him look petty. 

As an O/T but funny aside, calling her “Professor” reminded me of Gilligan’s Island, and THAT reminded me of the analogy that David Brooks made just last week when he referred to Mitt Romney as Thurston Howell Romney.  That was probably NOT the association that Brown was aiming for. ;-) 

The MSM, blogosphere and pundits criticized Brown’s disparaging tone and pettiness.  It damaged his nice guy brand, which was ill-advised.  After all, if you take away likeability, he doesn’t have all that much left to offer.  I guess this is stupid season for Republicans.  

But even more importantly, Warren owned Brown on much of the key substance of the debate, notably:

• Showing that despite his image as a moderate, Brown’s voting record is not very moderate at all,  particularly his votes against tax cuts for the middle class, fair pay for women, low-interest loans for students, health care reform, and for the Blunt Amendment that would have restricted women’s health care choices, among other things
• Making the point that despite Brown’s claims that he supports women’s rights (which he “proves” by living with his wife and daughters), his voting record on women’s issues is mixed, and that in contrast, she will always be there for women
• Making clear that she understands that people are not looking for a handout, just a fair shot, and that she is committed to fairness and opportunity for the middle class, veterans, the elderly, students, women and the poor
• Expressing her commitment to working so that the rules are not rigged for millionaires and billionaires over the interests of the rest of America
• Clearly supporting and associating herself with President Obama as Commander-in-Chief, and tying Brown to Mitt Romney (ironically, Brown has a new ad featuring him with President Obama; I guess he’s trying to run away from Romney as fast as he can)  
• Strongly making the case that this race is important because control of the Senate is at stake, and a vote for Brown is a vote for more GOP obstruction and dysfunction in Washington, including having climate change denier Jim Inhofe overseeing EPA. 
• Remaining poised, substantive and on-message throughout, while Brown was none-of-the-above.

Warren could have said even more (and probably will in upcoming debates), like that Scott Brown is one of Wall Street’s favorite Senators, while she is considered “Wall Street’s toughest critic.”   

She could have said that Scott Brown ran as #41 – the 41^st vote that would enable Republicans to filibuster legislation and thwart progressive legislation.  As a result, the GOP has filibustered more than ever before in American history - more than 360 filibusters/threats during Harry Reid’s tenure as Majority Leader.  Now the reality is that all legislation needs 60 votes; it is the tyranny of the minority.   

She could have said that Mitch McConnell, who famously said that his top priority was making President Obama a one-term President, will be Majority Leader if the GOP wins the Senate.  

She could question why he attended a fundraiser in Florida hosted by Pepe Fanjul, a "sugar baron" who has been accused of “modern day slavery.”  (Could it have to do with making sure Brown votes to continue taxpayer subsidies of the sugar industry?)  Politicalgates wrote about Brown and Warren fundraisers here. 

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Brown's connection to the Koch Brothers as well.

I imagine Warren may consider some of these subjects fair game in future debates, especially if Brown continues to take the low road. 

One of the points that I hope Elizabeth Warren will also make is that Brown is almost running as a Democrat – his campaign literature (which I have at hand as I’m typing this) touts his endorsements by a few Democrats, and his campaign ad tries to link him with President Obama instead of Mitt Romney.  Okay, I can see that he would want to distance himself from Romney (and Warren did make this point very well).  But, hey, Scott, if you want to be a Democrat, please change parties, and when you do, say that you could no longer in conscience be tied to such a bunch of extremists who don’t have the interests of the country at heart.  Until you do that , if we the voters want to elect a Democrat, we won’t vote for you.    

Brown’s weak performance, which was widely panned in the press, was subject to further ridicule when Harry Reid revealed that Brown tried to use a Thursday afternoon Senate vote to dodge the debate.  Reid actually interrupted Senator Al Franken on the floor of the Senate, to say that he was cancelling votes for that afternoon to prevent Brown from missing the debate.  That’s probably as close to getting a public spanking as happens in the Senate.

Outside of the debate itself, here is another big blow to Scott Brown’s image, which may hit especially hard in the demographic where he is strongest.  

Before I close, I can’t resist a word about the pickup truck.  I know the pickup truck is the sacred emblem of Brown’s manhood, but it is a gas-guzzler  that adds excessive greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, for no good reason.  A lot of people need pickup trucks for their work, but the only reason Scott Brown needs a pickup truck is to burnish his image.  He does a lot of driving, mostly to campaign events, and it would be better for the planet if he drove a fuel-efficient car.  His truck gets just 18 miles per gallon at best, whereas he could be driving something that gets twice that many mpg or better.  He gives a glib answer about doing more to combat global warming (but then talks about more oil & gas drilling); maybe it’s time to focus on his own behavior and stop giving him a free ride in the old gas guzzling pickup truck.  Okay, maybe his manhood would threatened, which I could understand. ;-)  

Another aside:  for those who may not be aware, Scott Brown’s wife, Gail Huff, works for the ABC/CNN affiliate in Washington, after many years at the Boston ABC affiliate, WCVB.  So, be aware of that when looking at ABC/CNN reporting on the Massachusetts Senate race.  

To wrap up:  while it’s too early to say conclusively, most of the reviews indicate that Warren won the first debate, and most recent polls show her with a lead.  But it’s certainly a close race.  Brown did himself no favors by destroying his carefully cultivated moderate nice guy image.  It’ll be interesting to see whether he changes his tune, or his or tone, in the next debate on October 1^st.    

UPDATE:  

Thanks to cheeriogirl for this link, about Scott Brown's prior work as a real estate lawyer, which involved him with some of the companies involved in mortgage document fraud in Massachusetts.  Here is more on this emerging topic. 

Also, hat-tip to Molly_WI and others for pointing out this gross billboard, put up by a Scott Brown supporter in a town near where he lives.  Keep it classy, Scott and your supporters!

Countdown to Election 2012: Week Seventeen in Review

by Sunnyjane

President Obama:  But the best part is, he wants me to apologize!
Vice President Biden:  No shit?  Apologize?   Bwhahahaha!

In what in a bygone era would be called That Was The Week That Was, we're going to review the weeks before Election 2012, and the last week was a humdinger!  As we have come to learn -- in a very painful way -- Mitt Romney's relationship with the truth is somewhat, um, strained.  He has always been able to mutate the facts surrounding his business and political experiences according to which way the political wind is blowing.  But this isn't 2001, when he was running for governor of Massachusetts; nor is it 2008, when he lost in the presidential primaries to John McCain.  No, this is an entirely different election, and Mitt Romney hasn't gotten the message that it's become much easier to actually check the facts. 

Before we know it, the political silly season will be upon us and it makes sense to keep track of everything that's going on as the weeks race by.  So let's take a look at what happened in America during Week Seventeen.

A Contrast in Dedication to the American People

At the end of the seventeenth week before Americans elect the next person to lead the government of the United States, President Barack Obama stood in the rain to speak to thousands of Virginia voters. 


Meanwhile...








Mitt Romney lounged poolside at his opulent home in New Hampshire -- not with some of his, ahem, dedicated super-sharp campaign advisers, but with one of his five wealthy sons and his iPad. Is there an app for Tone Deaf on that thing?





The Pain of Bain that Refuses to Wane

So Mitt Romney had a bad week.  Tough!  He deserved everything he got -- and more.  But we've all read the articles and seen the videos of Mitt's adamant refusal to release more years of his tax returns for his time at Bain Capital.  And he continues to insist that he did not have any authority or any dealings at Bain after 1999, and even demanded an apology from President Obama for making statements he found offensive.  That little pimple became a festering boil as the Obama campaign continued to give the lie to Romney's assertion that he's a jobs creator, and the Democrats virtually said, Yeah, while at Bain you created jobs -- in China!   So despite various proof to the contrary -- including SEC filings that say he was, indeed, active in Bain business during his time orchestrating the 2002 Olympics in Utah -- Romney still maintains the opposite. There's a lie in there somewhere, and Americans know it. For one thing, because he wanted to run for governor of Massachusetts and had to prove that his major residence was in that state, he gave sworn testimony in 2002 that he remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation during that time.  OK, let's see the tax returns, Mitt.


You know the fecal matter has hit the oscillating air mover when even Fox News goes after the presumptive Republican candidate.  In a scorching commentary on July 11, Joe Trippi made the case that if Mitt Romney were not at the top of the ticket, he'd never even pass the vetting process for vice president.


Think about it, wrote Trippi. What candidate for president -- even a GOP candidate for president -- would pick a guy as a running mate who would only hand over one year of tax returns, as Mitt Romney has done? 

And would anybody pick that guy if that one tax return revealed Swiss Bank accounts and more than $30 million in off-shore accounts in the Cayman Islands -- especially in an election year when public anger at Wall Street remains so high?

   

The answer is: no. No presidential candidate in their right mind would pick such a candidate as their running mate.

It does make you wonder how horrified John McCain may have been when told about the contents in those twenty-three years of Mitt Romney's tax returns when he was being vetted as a vice presidential running mate in 2008.


Did Arthur Culvahouse say:  John, we've had a thorough look at Romney's tax returns.  You'd be nuts to even consider this guy. Better to go with the twit from Alaska and hope for the best. Surely your guys can teach her a little something and keep her on message, right?   Hello?  John?

Other Issues in the News to Muse

Unflappable Me

-- Former Vice President Dick Cheney, the guy who convinced George W. Bush to go to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and that's where al-Qaeda was hiding (neither of which had any basis in reality), held a fund-raising dinner for Romney.


It's not that the Romney Campaign's coffers are running on empty, but rather that Cheney can't stand sitting on the sidelines.  So, the man with the bought-heart chose to make a pretty choke-provoking statement.   After declaring that Mitt is the only man who can make the right decisions in unexpected foreign policy crises, he added insult to injury and continued:


When I think about the kind of individual I want in the Oval Office in that moment of crisis, who has to make those key decisions, some of them life-and-death decisions, some of them decisions as commander-in-chief, who has the responsibility for sending some of our young men and women into harm's way, that man is Mitt Romney," Cheney said to applause.

Ha, Ha!  I'm white and you're not!

-- After saying in his speech to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,  This is going to be a battle about describing my heart, my passion to help -- if you will -- the great majority of Americans,  Romney declared that he would cut all unnecessary spending, including Obamacare.  That's terrific, Mitt; cut one of the things that the majority of Americans desperately need: affordable health care.  Of course, he knew full well in his racist heart that he'd get booed -- it was his plan all along as he pandered to his fellow bigots out there in far-right land.  He did fail to mention that he is in favor of Voter ID Laws that would potentially disenfranchise more than two million African Americans in November.  If Mitt Romney possesses one core value, it's racial prejudice.


Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone had the best take on Romney's speech to the NAACP that I read:  Romney really showed us something in his luridly self-congratulating N.A.A.C.P. gambit, followed by the awesomely disgusting "free stuff" post-mortem speech he delivered the next night in front of friendlier audiences. The twin appearances revealed the candidate to be not merely unlikable, and not merely a fatuous, unoriginal hack of a politician, but also a genuinely repugnant human being, a grasping corporate hypocrite with so little feel for how to get along with people that he has to dream up elaborate schemes just to try to pander to the mob.

-- During the week, former President George H. W. Bush got a wee bit torqued up at Grover Norquist's tax pledge and said, The rigidity of those pledges is something I don't like. The circumstances change and you can’t be wedded to some formula by Grover Norquist.  It's -- who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway? 


-- Eric Holder, United States Attorney General, said that the voter ID laws being passed in various GOP states were nothing more than poll taxes,  which are illegal under the Constitution.  


-- Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown introduced the Stolen Valor Act bill.  The inspiration for the bill, Vietnam veteran Doug Sterner, is pleased about the bill, but says he is supporting Elizabeth Warren because of Brown's determination to help repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act.   "That weighs very, very heavily on my decision to endorse [Elizabeth] Warren," the lifelong Republican said. Expanding access to health care is "very much a matter of humanity."  


-- A study finding that House GOP female staffers make $10,000 less than their male counterparts.  That's called Equality, Republican Style.


-- The Democratic Governors Association released a video attacking three GOP governors and Sarah Palin for being assholes lying about the Affordable Healthcare Act.

-- In Florida, 98% of welfare recipients who were tested for drug use passed.  Cost to the tax payers?  $178 million. Savings from the 2% who didn't pass?  $60,000.


Way to hold costs down, fools.




-- CBS reported that those overly zealous spending-cuts advocates in the House have spent nearly $50 million -- thus far -- to repeal Obamacare.  Let's see, that's about a comfortable annual salary ($50,000) for 960 Americans.  Of course, they went to great lengths to protect their own healthcare plans.  And after such a laborious session, the congress creeps spent valuable tax payer money having a long discussion on the two Congressional golf teams.  Do we understand House priorities now?

-- Nobody likes the idea that the Olympic togs designed by Ralph Lauren were made in China, while the textile manufacturing industry in our own country could certainly have used a nice contract to make official clothing for athletes representing, uh... America.


Not that having America's sports ambassadors rigged out in clothing made in other countries is new, you understand.  No, in 2002 while Mitt Romney was chief honcho of the Salt Lake City shindig, the manufacturing of the official wear was outsourced to Burma, or as the committee at the time stated indignantly,  The torch relay clothes were NOT made in Burma. They were manufactured in Myanmar.  So there!  Only problem is, Burma and Myanmar are the same country, and one which has the most devastating record on human rights. 

End Note

Sixteen weeks to go, fellow Americans!   There are the Olympics being held from July 27 to August 12 in London, a vice-presidential running mate to be chosen, the Republican National Convention in Tampa from August 27 through August 30, the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte from September 3 through September 6, those presidential and vice presidential debates, and all that campaigning to be done.  Hold on to your magic underwear, folks -- it's going to be a wild and crazy ride from now until November 6.

Vice President Biden:  So, how'd that apology to Romney go?