In the latest Rasmussen poll, Scott Brown is tied 45-45 with Elizabeth Warren. The voters don't seem to be buying Brown's brutal attacks on Warren, nor do they seem to be buying Brown himself.
I'm not surprised. I was born in Boston, and I have been full-time staff to Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. I've also worked for Paul Wellstone, and my favorite professor was Elizabeth Warren. So I've been watching Scott Brown's aggressive campaign to discredit Elizabeth Warren with fascination.
Now, I get that Scott Brown is a former male model, and is loaded with charm. I also believe that he's a smart guy. But despite his active attempts to portray himself as a nice man, I have to say, I don't agree.
Attacking Elizabeth Warren for discussing her Native American heritage the very moment he is voting to freeze the ridiculously high loan interest rates of Massachusetts college students isn't nice.
Voting with the extreme right-wing Republican agenda over 75% of the time is not nice.
Voting to kill a massive middle class tax cut extension, while supporting the extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires, is not nice.
Voting for Mitt Romney's individual mandate in Massachusetts, then attacking Obama for extending that plan to the rest of the nation, is not nice.
Opposing an offshore wind farms that would greatly reduce Massachusetts' dependence on foreign oil is not nice.
Opposing an end to the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits gays from marrying, is not nice.
Actively supporting most of the NRA's extreme positions on gun rights, while supporting the ultimate in cruel and unusual punishment (the death penalty -- a policy soundly rejected by the State of Massachusetts), is not nice.
Plagiarizing Elizabeth Dole's "lessons I learned from childhood," on his own website instead of coming up with his own, is not just embarrassing -- it's not nice.
Signing Grover Norquist's infamous no-new-taxes-under-any-circumstances pledge, regardless of the harm that pledge has caused this economy and will cause to future economies, is not nice.
Trying to keep Boston's own Elena Kagan off the Supreme Court by claiming she lacked experience, is not nice.
And ruthlessly attacking Elizabeth Warren, who is perhaps the nation's greatest and most tireless consumer advocate, is not nice.
Elizabeth Warren was the professor who taught bankruptcy to me. Before I took her class, I wondered -- why on earth would a professor choose, as her main area of expertise, an issue as depressing and limited (and potentially profitless) as bankruptcy? It certain didn't seem to be a sexy issue. Not a lot of money representing the indigent.
But then I took her class. And saw how much she cared about low-income families. How much she cared to look into the policies that made people lose their jobs, or homes, or retirement incomes. How carefully and objectively she explored the frustratingly obscure rules that mostly only those facing the greatest challenges suffer through. How much of an advocate she was for single mothers, students saddled with incredible debt, and even -- yes -- wealthy individuals and corporations needing to restructure themselves in order to still be of service to their employees, stockholders, and communities.
I learned when I was 23 years old that when the chips are down, you want Elizabeth Warren in your corner. And as her career progressed, and she started coming to Washington to testify, and actually brought the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into existence, I realized what I hope the state of Massachusetts is starting to realize:
The earlier you have Elizabeth Warren in your corner, the better.
Oh. And spending your entire career being an advocate for those who need you most, and creating policies so that that people never reach that level of need in the first place? There's a word for that.
Elizabeth Warren is nice.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
- Voted with the extreme right-wing Republican agenda over 75% of the time
- Voted against the middle class tax cut extension
- Supported the extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires
- Voted for Mitt Romney's individual mandate in Massachusetts & attacked Obama for extending that plan to the rest of the nation
- Opposed offshore wind farms that would greatly reduce Massachusetts' dependence on foreign oil
- Opposed the end of DOMA
- Signed Grover Norquist's infamous no-new-taxes-under-any-circumstances pledge, regardless of the harm that pledge has caused this economy and will cause to future economies
Lame.
That's against Harvard not Warren. She's the REAL deal - Scott is a bland, Republican rubber-stamp. MA deserves better. They deserve Elizabeth Warren. We all do.
Millions will be spent against her - I'm sending her money because I don't live in MA and can't vote there but I WANT Elizabeth Warren in the Senate.
Scott Brown himself does not agree with you.
Please list all the female leaders they support come election day.
Start with Coakley than work your way down.
We'll wait.
If she doesn't drop out soon and save herself and her party some embarrassment we might just witness the Trail of Tears II.
F&F
with her using the Native American tag to get affirmative action advantage
to fuel her rocket like rise in the academic world!!!
reality is that she is no Native American and her ancestors actually were soldiers
guarding the Cherokee on the "trail of tears."
The next bomb shell will be all of her ancestors were slave holders and part of the
Daughter of the Confederacy!
She is the ONLY professor of law at Harvard that didn't graduate from a top-10 law school.
Now I ask you, if only 'family lore' is what's required to claim to be a minority, why shouldn't my kids put that on their college applications? Why should I use it in job applications also?
And that makes her less of a professor how?
Because she IS and you and your kids are NOT?
What else do you want to ask me? (Be nice!)
- Voted with the extreme right-wing Republican agenda over 75% of the time
- Voted against the middle class tax cut extension
- Supported the extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires
- Voted for Mitt Romney's individual mandate in Massachusetts & attacked Obama for extending that plan to the rest of the nation
- Opposed offshore wind farms that would greatly reduce Massachusetts' dependence on foreign oil
- Opposed the end of DOMA
- Signed Grover Norquist's infamous no-new-taxes-under-any-circumstances pledge, regardless of the harm that pledge has caused this economy and will cause to future economies
So, why does Scott Brown deserve a full term?
Women deserve better. Elizabeth Warren deserves better. The nation deserves better. The nation and Massachusetts deserves Elizabeth Warren.
You cannot and simply by saying silly things doesn't mean it is true. You are discrediting your own views, your own party and Elizabeth Warren's opponent as all a bunch of flailing yahoos. This helps us and for your insipid comments, I thank you.
She can brush it off all she wants, but this is still awkward.
These events occurred 180 years ago. He has no actual account of exactly what he may have done. Nor any proof to discredit the claim that her way back grandmother was not of native American descent.
In short you have nothing and this news story no matter how much you whip it is irrelevant to the life and works of this good woman 180 years later.
The Boston Herald is a news corp paper, rupert murdoch. Do you seriously think your link has anything to do with her credibility (even if it is true which I don't believe) ... that says more about you than anyone.