Associated Press
In Massachusetts' closely-watched U.S. Senate race, there's quite a bit of interest in seeing incumbent Sen. Scott Brown (R) face off against his Democratic challenger, Elizabeth Warren, in a series of debates. There's just one problem: Brown really doesn't want to.
In recent months, both Brown and his staff have "refused to meet" with Warren or her team "to discuss invitations, dates, and terms for debates." When the Republican signaled a willingness to participate in some radio-only debates, Warren's campaign manager emailed Brown's campaign manager, "asking if they could sit down and work out a mutual schedule." Brown's aide rejected this outreach, too.
Yesterday, the Republican senator said he'd attend an upcoming debate, but only if some conditions are met.
Senator Scott Brown said he will accept a debate at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute but only on the condition that Vicki Kennedy stay neutral in the election and that MSNBC not be included as a broadcast partner.
The Brown campaign said in a press release that it would agree to allow former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw to moderate.... Following that statement, the Brown campaign said it would negotiate logistical details after its conditions are met.
First, MSNBC has explained it hasn't even been approached to broadcast the debate, so Brown is likely to get his way.
Second, Brown's demand to silence Ted Kennedy's widow -- not just before the debate, but until after the election -- is quite distasteful. I can appreciate why the partisan Republican candidate might be reluctant to participate in a partisan Democratic event, but it would be Tom Brokaw, not Vicki Kennedy, moderating the debate, and there's no reason to think either candidate would be treated unfairly.
What possible reason could Brown have for insisting that Kennedy's widow remain silent? Sure, the senator feels like he has some leverage -- everyone wants a series of debates, so he might as well create a wish list of demands -- but wouldn't it be better for him to show a little more class and leave Vicki Kennedy alone?
Leave a Comment:
You didn't mention Brown's demand that the debate be held in the nude. . .
So Brown also is giving MSNBC a round of applause, I am. You have to be good at reporting and journalism when The Countrys' majority leaders do not want to have anything to do with you. Keep up the good work. The truth will always prevail. They are the ones that made the mistake of lieing. And the audacity to stick by their story and not even apologize for what they did and are still doing. You cannot lie to The American people and get away with it. Your time is short as an official and a speaker for the people. They only represent themselves and their pockets. They just throw us some crumbs or whatever is left over.
Brown's "condition" that the debate not air on MSNBC is quite telling (despite the fact that MSNBC never agree to air it). Any candidate running for US Senate would clamor for the chance to articulate their policies and positions simultaneously to a state and national audience. But Steve Benen is accurate, Brown really doesn't want to debate at all. And God forbid he certainly doesn't want to do it on a cable network that has a show hosted by Massachusetts' resident Maddow. Ultimately, here, he's more concerned about Maddow than Elizabeth Warren.
No, Brown wants the event covered by local/state media because those are who will be voting. Your assessment that "any candidate running...would clamor" for a national audience is incorrect.
Would you expect Ms. Warren to agree to a debate on Fox News? (I know, you think there is a difference between Fox News and MSNBC but objective people do not think so. Each has a political lean.)
The event was to be hosted by a self professed non-partisan group yet its leader will not agree to be non-partisan.
Seems like me the Brown campaign is playing this part very smart.
There's nothing that says the debate wouldn't be covered statewide in Massachusetts on either its public broadcasting or major network channels. In fact, that would almost certainly happen. The question is whether or not anybody else will be privy to it. Brown simply doesn't want anyone to see it outside of Massachusetts for fear that more eyes will find more errors on his part.
Also, objective people DO realize that there is a major difference between Faux News and MSNBC. As a network, NBC has a bias in favor of solid, objective reporting. MSNBC has both liberal and conservative hosts at key points during the day. FNC, on the other hand, is nothing more than a key media arm of the Republican Party. It's GOP TV. It's entire raison d'etre is the promotion of the Republican Party and the extension of its power and control.
What conservative host? (Same old prediction, no host name forthcoming. Occasional guest, yes. Host? No. To this end Fox often has someone representing both sides as well.)
WHAT!!
I don't often yell but that statement in the article really got me.
"Brown's demand to silence Ted Kennedy's widow -- not just before the debate, but until after the election..."
What kind of patriotic, Constitution-honoring American - especially a US Senator - would even THINK that a fellow citizen should be silenced, much less DEMAND it!!
Calming down somewhat, the statement that was quoted was "... on the condition that Vicki Kennedy stay neutral in the election..." This is not exactly the same as "...demand to silence..." and is fairly inflammatory (as witness my reaction).
BUT even taking just the quoted statement, bending over backwards to be reasonable, I still have to say WHAT!!!
That is silencing her.
What else can anyone expect fro a RABID-REPTILE-REPUBLICAN-BUG. All such creatures just cannot stan being confronted with fact, truth, honesty. After all, they don't have such attributes themselves, so they are immediatelt handicapped, weighed down, defeated by anyone or group who does.
On the issue of Brown's demand that Vicki Kennedy "stay neutral in the election"...what a great opportunity for Elizabeth Warren to say "the last time I checked, this is America and every citizen, including Vicki Kennedy, has a right to free speech and to openly support the candidate of her choosing."
Should his wife and daughters, stay neutral also?
I realize that I don't live there, but I can't imagine Massachusetts voters putting up with this. Warren is a viable candidate of a major party. You don't refuse to debate. Period.
This, by itself, should disqualify Brown in the eyes of a large segment of the electorate.
Brown puts a pretty face on some ugly politics!
I just hope the voters in Massachusetts can tell the poseur from the real deal. This next election cycle is very perilous as the Republicans are doing their damnedest to hoodwink the low-information voters among us to vote against their own interests! Now this - Scott Brown dictating whom should open her mouth and speak her political conscious before an election? Just stupid and repugnant!
Elephant striped partisans seem to have absolutely no shame these days! -Kevo
Massachusetts must be "proud" of your choices of Repub. Political candidates.
he's a scardy cat.
a chickenshyt of the highest order.
He's a coward
He and Romney are two peas in a pod. If there's ever a serious fight, we can count on these two to be behind those doing the fighting--waaaayyyyy behind.
Little, little man.
Does he also think various Republiklans should be silent until after the elections?
SHEESH!
Scotty wants to play by HIS rules or else he's not playing. So there!
Well now you know - Scott Brown is fearful of MSNBC and I have to assume Rachel since she votes in his state. In addition to her show, Rachel has a birds eye view of Mass. politics. Elizabeth Warren is a force to be reckoned with. Scott Brown and the banking industry better get used to it - win or not - Elizabeth Warren will continue to voice against inequality. I was very disappointed that Pres. Obama didn't fight for her.
Joan that's the Goper way its my way or nothing, Ill take my ball and go home. Same kind of crap they pull in Congress will not deal or compromise, very un-American.
Sometimes you just can't believe what a Republican will come up with to prove, yet again and beyond a shadow of a doubt, he is a massive dick.
I can't say WTF and OMFG loud enough....
Or as the segment goes on SNL "really? Really? REALLY?"
Let me get this straight, Scott Brown wants a Senatorial candidate to tell a private citizen that they cannot publicly talk about their personal choice of candidates? And why would this private citizen agree to comply with a request from a person running for office? Mrs. Kennedy's position cannot be bartered by anyone other than herself. Man up Scott and call VIcki yourself, and good luck with that, HAH!
It's funny since Brown evoked a statement by the late President John F. Kennedy in one of his ads when he was trying to get the Senate seat. Yet now, he wants Vicki Kennedy to not say anything at all and to not show any leaning toward any candidate?
The current holder of the seat is using his wife (Gail Huff) in an ad telling how he was always there for the kids while she was working for Channel 5. Yet...he is telling the widow of the man whose seat he took over for to not show any favor at all during the election? Does that make sense to anyone? "Sorry Vicki, can you keep out of this. Oh, here's my wife to tell you about how great of a guy I am."
Maybe Channel 5 should stay out of the whole thing too, since they didn't do that great of a job when he was running for the seat in '10.
Warren should reject the terms. It's time to make a point about the Brown Recluse. There are other places to hold debates, and if Kennedy's widow wants to work for Warren and campaign for her, I fail to see what harm that could do to him. But if he gets that concession, then Warren should accept so long as Mitt Romney agrees to remain neutral and not campaign for the Brown Recluse.
Typical Republican bullsh!t. He won't debate on a level field because all he has is a pitiful record to stand on
So, Brown wants to control the terms of the debate with Elizabeth Warren and he wants to silence Vicki Kennedy. Sounds like his male ego is threatened by powerful women who have an opinion and who are not afraid to voice their opinion.
Isn't that what is wrong with all republicans. They are all afraid of strong females whether they are in politics or not. Look what happened in MI where they wouldn't let two women rep. speak. They'd have us burned at the stake if they could. It is time to make the majority of our rep. female, or other then white male. If Brown is afraid of Vickie Kennedy, she and other clan members need to get out and support Elizabeth Warren. Forget about the debates if that is what it takes, and let everone know Brown is afraid of two women.
Robin Williams said that if the world was run by women, there would be no war -- just intense negotiations every 28 days.
Really? Does it matter? In the end, they'll just flip the votes in their favor with no paper trail and no investigation - just like they have done in Wisconsin, Florida and the three Bush elections. If democracy isn't dead, it is at least in a coma.
Okay, I'll take one for the team and give him what he really wants.
Senator Brown: If you agree to debate Ms. Warren, then I, Dan BV, will stay neutral in the Massachusetts senatorial race.
Remember, you read it here first.
Why, oh, why do Americans keep voting for these people? I read the comments, I listen to the news and yet, boom, these people--and by people, I mean rabid, destructive right wing Repbulicans--still get voted in. Look at Wisconsin. After all the opposition to Scott Walker, what happens? MONEY floods in (outside money, not Wisconsin money( and, again, boom, he's voted back in.
America, Land of the Free? Or, America, Land of the Bought? or, America, Land of the Stupid?
And now you may even get a Birther for a Judge in the person of Gary Kreep. That IS creepy.
I'm really, REALLY baffled. Pleae someone explain.
It is all about the churches who are bascically telling their members that the country is going to hell if the Dem get in.The other problem is Fox news. The repuc. think they have real facts when all they have is fox fiction. I can't put my statements on my wall, because most of my friends and family are repub. I've had four people defriend me, and I try to keep it very mild.
grandma: You give me hope for Texas, keep up the posts because we could use a sane voice from the Lone Star State.
It's not a completely off the wall request, much as I hate to admit it. I'm not from the region and only know what I read from that one story that the quote above came from, but it seems like Vicki Kennedy signed the letter inviting Brown and Warren to this debate and I think suggesting the moderator so they want to make sure she stays neutral. She's definitely not just a bystander to the proceedings that happens to share a name with the site where the debate is going to be held. I think the "through the election" part is going too far, but I can understand the request. I think perhaps if they'd have requested that the Kennedy Institute and it's representatives stay neutral through the election it might have been less jarring than what they did request.
The moderator is Tom Brokaw, not Vikki Kennedy!If he can't handle this, how could he possibly handle the senate Job? Boo hoo Scott, you're nothing but a little pussy!
Where's the "thumbs-down" button? Come on, Bob-553811, you don't have to be from "the region" to see that this is just plain wrong.
Then she can stay neutral DURING THE DEBATE. But to ask her to stay out of politics this cycle is beyond the pale.
I am sorry but I disagree. Denying any citizen their First Amendment Right is unconstitutional.
Yes, Bob, it's a completely off the wall request.
What other conditions will Brown put on whether or not debates will be held? That Sean Hannity moderate the debates? A guarantee that Romney gets California's 55 electoral votes? The Red Sox overtaking the Yankees for first place in the AL East? The sun rising in the west and setting in the east?
Brown will keep looking for excuses not to debate because he knows Warren will call him out for his support of the financial industry at the expense of the citizens of his state. And a lot more. You only run when you have something--or someone--to run from.
As a counteroffer, can Ms Warren specify that Fox News not be included as a broadcast partner (even if only to make a point) and insist that Limbaugh stay neutral in the election?
That would be used by the Repuglicans to say Elizabeth is trying to suppress votes and free speech - exactly what Pretty Boy is trying to do. Remember ol' twist-it-around Herr Karl (Marx) Rove?
LOVE IT !
typical replublican. don't give a damn how they win as long as they win. what bull@!$%#, but i am not surprise. wakeup america, see who really is the con.
Not so true any more. Now it's about equally (if not more) important to destroy the enemy as it is to win.
His position on the issues must be pretty weak to make such a request. He has heard of freedom of the press, and that he has a lot of arrogance if he thinks it's okay to ask for someone to be neutral until after the election. What is he afraid of? Is he hiding something? Maybe he should drop out of the race, after all this is the U.S.A..
Why can't I vote on the comments this morning?
Pretty Boy is in no position to be making demands on the next US Senator from Massachusetts. His interim position is about to expire so he's clawing at any hope he thinks he might have of keeping that seat.
Hey, Massachusetts, is that what you want representing you in the US Senate?
He is scum, and is terrified of MSNBC.
Make his demands public, let the voters decide if censorship is acceptable in this election.
Aren't the rethugs the ones who were having so much enjoyment ridiculing MSNBC? What goes around comes around I guess. LOL
Who the hell does that jerk think he is? How dare he think he has the right to take anyone's first amendment right away! These Republicans are so so out of control. Anyone that thinks that this will be a democracy if they get in, is in for a rude awakening.
He wants demands this guy is priceless, bottom line is he and the tea Party both Know that he has a better chance of giving birth to Twins than he does of ever winning a debate against Ms. Warren, Brown this is a man who voted against extending health care for first re-sponders, who was against planned parenthood but is now for it and only because the tea party gave him the OK he'll do the same thing walker did in Wisconsin , who voted against the equal pay bill and he has two daughters, let him debate her on faux news and have Hannity moderate the debate Elizabeth will turn both of them inside out, Bottom line Elizabeth will really bring the stupid out of him, Not Only that she will be the GOP's Worst nightmare he is afraid his people are afraid the GOP is afraid the tea party is afraid the Koch brothers are afraid Bye Bye Brownie welcome aboard Sen Warren !!!