Senate debate open thread

Just saw it on YouTube. Keller opened to Brown by saying 'each of your campaigns (referring to both Brown's and Warren's) has appeared to question the character of your opponent. Is your opponent's character an issue in this race?' So it could be argued that Keller gave him an opening, but Keller did not raise the 'Indian Issue' himself.

Brown was asked if Warren's character was to be questioned. He said "yes, look at the Native American issue".

Contrast with Warren's response to the same question, "no, Scott's a nice guy" which forced Scott on response to stumble out "oh yeah, she's a nice woman too...but personnel records will tell us about her and Native Americans."

If Brown had left the Native American nonsense with the childish Rovian crap, his answer would have been to acknowledge Warren is a good person just like she did for him and they would have moved on to issues, not attempted character assassination on made-up bullshit.

To frame it as anything else is just absurdity. You should live in reality more often. You should also be more respectful of both her and Native Americans instead of exposing your racism using ignorant slurs. You should also learn how to spell asbestos. You should also learn the truth behind the lawsuit he mentioned before you go using it as an attack, because it is actually another example of how she was helping the victims.

You see, if a company goes bankrupt as a result of having been sued for having injured a large number of victims, they have no obligation to pay the victims who sue them if they run out of money. So, Warren was arguing that Travellers, the insurance company covering the asbestos insulation company going bankrupt, should put up a large trust fund to cover paying victims for years to come. However, in doing so, Travellers should be allowed to consider the result final and not get sued any more for the same problem because the trust fund will handle any future claims. That was her involvement because she was an expert in bankruptcy law...not insurance law or civil injuries. She wasn't defending Travellers from the victims, she was arguing for their appropriate response to help victims AND Travellers resolve a beneficial solution for both groups. She left the case when that was settled. After her departure, Travellers pushed for a new solution that left whether they had to set up a trust fund in question, thus screwing the victims. That had nothing to do with her involvement.

Now, try to explain that in a 30s rebuttal on TV. That's why Warren didn't respond well. It was a classic case of putting a Big Lie out there which requires so much work to correct because it is that far off track that you lose the audience explaining what really happened. In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't give a shit what I just said and will respond poorly because you aren't interested in what really happened. "Your team" scored a touchdown and that's about as much effort you are willing to put into it.

can be whatever she wants.

Also seems to be the new front. Which perplexes me, because it's pretty clear cut that Warren was not involved when the trust fund she set up to pay victims was dissolved. The Brown campaign is welcome to their opinions, but this one is a clear fact that's not going to work well for them. Still Howie and by fox loving uncle have been posting about it all day, claiming she beat up asbestos victims and stole money right out of their hands.

Scott also seemed to really love Obama, and talk up their mutual work. Is an endorsement coming soon? I was also perplexed at his attack on Warrens salary at Harvard. She nuked that smile of his, when she pointed out her first job was teaching for $13,050 or so, she worked her butt off, and made it to the top.

Since when is the GOP against hard work and success? If warrens making too much, what does that say about Mr. Romney and Scott Browns friends?

Brown was way off the more I think about it. He seems to be crossing his TeaParty and Occupy talking points into a big bowl of WTF. Scotto, never take Dramamine before an important event!

can they?

Why a popular, bi-partisan, effective Senator has to resort to this sort of mud-flinging is telling. He's losing, and it's because he doesn't have a record to run on. At least one that aligns with his claims.

especially;

That means we need EITHER a Republican controlled Senate or a Republican president

or I am taking that out of context?

A safe Dem from librul Massachusetts has a lot more leeway to bring home the bacon, and fight for their constituents because they don't have to worry about money, being primaried, bucking the leadership.

My hope was that Brown would realize that he had that leeway with his popularity here at home, but he's utterly failed to live up to his independent, bipartisan claims. On a vote of any importance, where he would make a difference, he's toed Mitch Mcconnell's line hook, line and sinker.

It'll be seen if Warren lives up to her promise to fight for the middle and working class, because she will have to pick with her own leadership. But we already know Scotts answer.

His lying mouth, or his clear voting record? He doesn't break with the party line, unless it's a vote he knows will fail. It's the oldest trick in the playbook.

As for Dems running obstruction, have we already forgot 2000-2008? While they did block some of the GOP's most egregious overreaches, by and far they worked to make sure government was functional. They compromised quite a bit, in the name of getting things done.

The current crop of GOP'ers in power have no such desire, because they seem politics as a zero sum game. They win, or America is lost; and they have no plans to split the difference 50/50 in the name of getting things done. Their nihilism knows no bounds.