As his polling advantage evaporates, Sen. Scott Brown (R) is desperately trying to convince Massachusetts voters that his partisanship on Capitol Hill is a mirage, and that he's actually a moderate independent. As Rep. Barney Frank (D) noted on the show last night, after the latest debate between Brown and Elizabeth Warren, the Republican even went so far as to say he may not vote for Mitch McConnell for majority leader.
But the efforts quickly fell apart when Brown was asked to name his "model Supreme Court justice."
For those who can't watch clips online, the Republican senator, after a lengthy pause, first named far-right Justice Antonin Scalia. This was no small admission -- for all of Scott Brown's efforts to give the appearance of moderation, here he was, after pausing to reflect on his ideal justice, identifying one of the least moderate justices Americans have seen in a generation.
After months of trying to assure voters he'll ignore his party's right-wing inclinations on a host of key issues, Brown endorsed a partisan Supreme Court ideologue who's eager to do exactly what Brown claims to oppose -- including reject privacy and reproductive rights.
In context, it's true that if you read the transcript, you'll see that the Republican senator went on to mention Justices Kennedy, Roberts, and eventually Sotomayor. But as the clip makes clear, Brown only mentioned the other names when the audience booed his praise for Scalia, and the senator felt the need to scramble.
For much of the media, the key line in the debate was apparently Brown's pre-planned "zinger" about not being a student in Warren's classroom. But theatrical sound bites notwithstanding, what voters actually learned last night is that Brown's centrist facade is thin and easily chipped away. Anyone who sees Antonin Scalia as a "model Supreme Court justice" isn't a moderate.
For her part, Warren, who seemed delighted by Brown's answer, identified Justice Kagan as her model justice.
Leave a Comment:
The lies are about to catch up with all of them who jumped on the Republican Tea party gravy train. If you want to hang with the big bad boys of the GOP you gotta be willing to take the fall with them. Americans want nothing to do with deceit whether you hide behind a glass stained curtain or not.
What's your favorite color? Blue. No! Yellow. Auuuuugh!!!
Well done.
That Scott Brown pre-planned the "zinger" about not being a student in her classroom says all you need to know about his character: he has none. The rest of the debate was just further demonstration of his complete lack of qualification and his arrogance overall was a real turnoff.
Brown can't run on the issues, so he condescendingly questions all aspects of her personal life. . Massachusetts voters understand that Scott Brown isn't one of them. Brown is a weak and pandering Tea Party hack, a partisan with a bad record and a willingness to play along with the rest of his extreme party. Elizabeth Warren is exactly what we need in Washington, a tough leader ready to hold corporate greedsters and Wall Street thugs accountable for their crimes. If Obama will not prosecute, let Warren have at them... - progressive
As pointed out last night voted "Republican " 30 out of 32 votes .
Independent? Kiss my a$$
What issues? The only "issues" that the GOTP acknowledges are abortion and gay marriage (horror, everyone freak out) - and that's all Mass. voters are supposed to care about.
Brown is a moderate and that's the story he's sticking with, next!
GO ELIZABETH WARREN!!!
Yep, every Senate needs a Cherokee Princess,
The question I would have liked to have asked is, why Scott Brown as a republican is running in circles trying to convince voters that he's a moderate.
It's a simple question, he's a republican, he voted with his party the majority of the time, he voted against jobs...
I think Brown thinks the voters in Massachusetts are so stupid, they'll vote for him on what he says instead what he has already DONE. I can't wait until Nov. 7th when we send him packing.
Sorry, Steve, this post is too much "inside baseball" for the average voter. Yes, the audience booed at the mention of Scalia, but they were there because they are paying attention.
I wager that if you offered the average "Man on the Street" in Massachusetts a $100 bill for every SCOTUS justice they could name you would keep your fortune intact.
I disagree. Most Massachusetts voters are keenly aware of what has happened to the SCOTUS in the past 30 years. In a progressive state, people are concerned with the direction a Romney presidency would take in regards to the court and also know that Scalia and Thomas in particular want to strip away hard fought for rights. This isn't South Carolina.
Almost anyone who knows a member of SCOTUS, knows Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kagan . The real question begins with naming the other 3.
Calvin, I think the real challenge comes in realizing there are nine justices, not seven.
There's a certain degree of truth to what you say (most people can't name a single Supreme Court Justice), and for that reason, I think Brown was trying send a message to core conservatives with his mention of Scalia, thinking that it would be a dog whistle to them, but wouldn't register with the rest of voters. He was obviously surprised at the crowd's response. But Steve's conclusion is an important one: anyone even the slightest bit inclined to believe that Brown is either independent or moderate can't continue to do so after this answer.
The way he kept gping to the left in naming justices, looking for a positive response from the crowd, showed that he's a "well-oiled weathervane" just like his fellow Bostonian, the Romneybot.
Scott Brown gave the single most inept answer to a question that I have ever seen in any debate.
Oh and the rest of the justices are: Ginsberg, Kennedy, Sotomayor, Alito and Breyer
So.
The "Zinger" has become the new GOP strategy, a natural evolution of the W smirk and swagger, the Rove/Cheney smugness. It's a "gotcha!" on the most superficial of terms, usually designed not to address any key point, but to throw something back in your opponents face in some rhetorical way. It can be effective, no doubt.
But the GOP may find itself facing diminishing returns, as the pundits turn their hyperfocus on the zingers..."Was that a zinger?", "Wow, good zinger", "I liked his little half-smile in that zinger"...It becomes more about the labeling of the zingers than the zingers themselves.
Not that there will be any actual analysis about whether or not the zingers are accurate, true, or add anything to the debate.
So, zingers it is, for these one-trick ponies.
"zingers" are the equivalent of Daily Show/Colbert/Leno/Letterman clips re-run the following morning for a different audience.
If you didn't see it, it didn't happen.
Zingers are great, if the person either does it naturally or they have a natural comic talent they can pull one out that they have rehearsed. The latter ability is usually lacking in politicians.
I believe that some of the more famous from the debates came out naturally. Reagan's "There you go again" is something he naturally would have said.
Staged zingers may come off great to your core, but it is all too easy to come off smart ass or dumb ass. If you have a natural grin that is misinterpreted as a smirk by most people, a zinger can really hurt you big time for those who lean your way but are soft. And, of course, you alienate the uncommitted and the soft on the other side.
Romney's natural 'smirk' and inept comic timing is going to kill him if he uses a staged zinger.
Brown's "zinger" revealed him as an arrogant butthead.
It's only a one-trick pony if the Warren campaign doesn't incorporate it into their messaging. If Warren keeps bringing it up and running that clip as prima facie evidence that Brown is no moderate, then it will get legs. I mean, watch the video again. He picks Scalia, gets harshly rebuked, and then backpedals furiously. It speaks volumes.
Scott Brown and Romney being friends really does explain everything. Brown is the same deceptive crap as the rest of the Republicans. They do not work to really help anybody, except on how they can increase wealth for the rich at the very price of everybody else. These Republicans, extremist of hatred, and extreme wealthy do embody the very worst of our human nature and go against the very teachings of Jesus. For the Catholic Church and other religious church’s to actually endorse this group of people is an outrage and shows very much that they do not represent God, Jesus, and/or the light. It is these very people that have turned against what is good in the world and finding ways that really do help people, instead of putting people into misery, despair, and death. They would prefer to keep people down and struggling in ignorance and blindness than to bring people to understand there is always better ways of doing things that really help everybody. If you take a very close look at what these people are really about, you will see darkness and their own ignorance and blindness. They are based too much on power craving, corruption, arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, and deceiving.
Your describing Warren to a "T", get to the issues.
Travelers hired Warren to represent the insurance company in its fight to gain permanent immunity from asbestos-related lawsuits; in exchange for that immunity, the insurance company said it would establish a $500 million trust for current and future victims of asbestos poisoning. Warren succeeded in that mission, successfully arguing Travelers case before the U.S. Supreme Court. She was paid $212,000 by Travelers from 2008 to 2010.
However, after she left the case, a separate court ruled that Travelers did not have to pay out the money and it never has. As one judge saw it, Travelers got "something for nothing."
As far representing yourself as a Native American by benefiting, social, employment,
governmental and financial advantage.
You better prove it, she knows it, the next is fraud.
So Warren is to be blamed for something that happened that she had nothing to do with? Interesting. By this logic I consider you to be a murderer- you're to blame for a murder that took place by someone else. I'll tell the police right away. I mean honestly that's the stupidest correlation of thought.
But all of this is mute without any evidence to back up the assertion: otherwise you're just rambling.
....she did prove it. Her great grandmother was Cherokee making her part Cherokee. But as far as it's concerned: she was hired by Harvard following Harvard's standards. That's a private college hiring her under a private contract. You're welcome to disagree with the terms of that contract, but it's Harvard to whom your complaint lies. We also do not know that they hired her specifically because of her Cherokee ancestry OR because they needed more people of diversity, asked their staff, and then put Warren on the board after she stated she was part Native American. The differences here do matter when it comes to the rationale behind her claim.
Remember a genealogist attempting to "disprove" Warren's ancestry not on the basis of a blood sample or thorough research of her family, but on the basis of his beliefs about her last name is not evidence that Warren is lying.
But all of this is an aside since your racism is showing: the only reason why you doubt she's Native American is because she's not dancing around in a headdress making woop calls.
And all of this is an aside: this has nothing to do with Senator Brown or his policies; it is character assassination that serves no purpose. You would've been better not employing the red herring, but instead talking about why Scott Brown's endorsement of Scalia isn't a big deal (as asserted by Benen) or some other argument addressing the claim made by Benen. Pandering to the fallacy doesn't give you the high ground and doesn't defend Senator Brown.
"As far representing yourself as a Native American by benefiting, social, employment,
governmental and financial advantage."
Except listing herself in a directory conferred none of that for her.
So after Warren negotiated a deal, Travelers wiggled out of it? That somehow makes HER not worthy to hold office?
The only fraud I see here is the idea that either of these non-issues has some bearing on her fitness for the Senate. We need a lot more Warrens and a lot less Browns.
I take it, you're trying self proclaim professor on the
issue. She knows the law it's very clear and precise. In order to maintain minority benefits, solid tangible proof must
be provide by majority American. native tribal council, here say by word of
mouth. is meaningless. period. You better know what you're talking about,
because you're looking a little imprudent. Self proclamation is out of the
question.
Your statement :
""" So Warren is to be blamedfor something that happened that she had nothing to do with? Interesting. Bythis logic I consider you to be a murderer- you're to blame for a murder thattook place by someone else. I'll tell the police right away. I mean honestlythat's the stupidest correlation of thought.
But all of this is mute without any evidence
to back up the assertion: otherwise you're just rambling."""
Now since you're trying to impress everybody
including yourself with your remark stated, "STUPIDEST CORRELATION OF
THOUGHT." You can take that up with
the Boston Globe, which is a very liberal information Center.. in reference to
Travelers. Warren did vacate her responsibility of the settlement. To prosper
from other ventures, But not to follow up on the reversal, is a lack of moral
fiber to herself and her personal beliefs, vacating her clients. Simply put,
there was no money, No Warren. By your
remarks, You have the Napoleon Syndrome.
without a cause. Simply put, you sound foolish !!!
There's not a bloody thing that's "magic" about the above worthless baggerbabble.
Entro----- Can you come up with a little better remark !!!!
Elizabeth Warren is 1/32nd Native American (Cherokee) just as the leader of the Cherokee Nation tribe.
As far as I know the only "benefit" she gained was that she was designated as a Native American on the Harvard law board. I don't know that she gained any other benefit. If you have proof to the contrary please share. Otherwise you're getting mad, again, because she was designated as something by her private employer. In which case, again, your complaint would be with Harvard. You do not know that Warren was hired as a Native American- which is the connotation I think you're attempting to make (very racist for you, btw)- and you do not know that her being Native American served as anything other than padding for Harvard's own credentials as being a more diverse campus. In which case your complaint is that they claimed to be more diverse than what they actually are...and, again, that would mean your complaint is with Harvard. But more to the point even if she did receive benefits the only way you can complain about her receiving benefits is if she is not Native American. Do you have proof that she is not?
You are the one making the assertion. No one else here is making a claim. I cannot blame the Boston Globe for assertions that you make.
She completed her lawsuit, no? She completed her contract, no? Then later on Travelers did something. You cannot make the guilt-by-association mark here. You cannot state that because a client she once worked for went on to do something else that you disagree with this therefore means that Warren did something wrong. This is a logical fallacy and as I said before is an absurd correlation. As I said before it would be like me saying you're guilty of murder simply because someone else at some point in time committed murder who you knew. It's just absurd reasoning.
How does this show that her behavior was lacking "moral fiber" (whatever that means)? That is a subjective statement that you're presenting as if it's fact. Whether or not you find something to be moral does not connotate that a. it is moral or b. that other people will find it moral (or vise versa). This statement does not seem to make sense. You also don't prove the premise: you say she's immoral for not doing X, but you do not explain why X is immoral. It's a false premise.
....So no money was given out by an unrelated incident and that therefore makes Warren a bad person? How am I suffering from Napolean Syndrome? I am asking you to prove your assertions as being true and so far you have not. Remember that someone fact checking you or challenging your assertions does not automatically equate to a counter argument. You're calling me names without a reason why (I didn't start calling you names btw- this is why someone else earlier said that the very second you're challenged in your assertions you go on the defensive because no one started mud slinging until you did). For all you know I live in Boston and I don't intend to vote for Warren. You cannot assume X about me simply because I am not agreeing with you or praising how awesome you are from the get-go.
What does any of this have to do with the thread topic? And why can't we question Brown's policies and past actions if he is running for office? Why must we only question Warren's?
Magic4u - I'de advise you to stay down while you're still breathing. I don't think you can take another body slam of logic from Cartoonthenews! ROFLMAO!!
Why should they? Your argument was already destroyed !!!
Scott Brown's campaign reminds me so much of Romney's. These Massachusetts Republicans who are trying to pretend that the GOP hasn't jumped off of a cliff ideologically is just hilarious. They are both flopping around on the ground like a fish out of water - gyrating in any direction hoping to find any signs of surviving.
When you are pretending to be something you are not, eventually your natural persona will rise to the surface. It is very ironic that both Brown and Romney tend to suffer the most in the polls when they actually open the curtains into their real selves.
Brown is a classic "Republican first, representative of his constituents second". The only "moderate" votes he has cast were situations where his party allowed these votes so that he would appear "moderate." The guy is a finger puppet.
Scott's love of Scalia just cost him his senate seat.
Massachusetts is not Alabama.
The folks in Massachusetts actually revere their higher education credentials that Warren and Kagan represent. Patronizing Warren as a 'Professor' and informing her he wasn't a student in her class room was another example of how the GOP'ers insult those in the education profession and further the efforts of dumbing-down the electorate.
It sure looked like Alabama, back in the 1970's, when the whites were breaking school bus windows with rocks.
That was happening in Boston, also, Day. Forced busing in Southie didn't go over too well.
I think the "I'm not a student" comment sums up the long-time GOP strategy of b*^ch slapping your opponent. It's all about smacking down hippies, academics, "elites" etc. Will it work in Mass? Guess we'll find out in a few weeks.
Something just doesn't add up with this guy. He says he was sexually abused, yet he has no problem with attacking a woman. He went on a diet so that he could pose nude. He boasts to an entire nation about how beautiful his daughters are and wants to sell them off. He definately has a false sense of himself and delves into aspects of grandiosity. He appears to be worried now, the Washington Dynasty party is over whether the Republicans believe it or not. Our great Country can't afford politicians who are there only to boaster themselves up, having little regard for the people they are supposed to represent. This man has been staring in the mirror for too long, he is stuck there. And the Mod hatter is too busy to help him.
It seemed to me that Brown would answer a question either with an answer the audience didn't like or with a non-answer and no matter how he was pressed.. he could not give clear answers to anything. I was surprised Warren didn't say 'It feels as if this debate is being held on a boat the way Senator Brown's answers seem to be swaying back and forth.. but here is where I stand quite simply." Wish she had thought of that.
I can't imagine someone coming off as stupid as Scott Brown beating Warren in a blue state. I also did not like his condescending snap at her about him not being a student in her classroom when she went to speak and cut him off. A smack down to educators? It was rude and he should have been called out on that too.
Scott Brown is proving himself to be a wimp and poseur every time he opens his mouth and opines yet another bothersome phrase to add to his already banal resume of awful and offensive utterances!
I just hope the good citizens of the great State of Massachusetts can see a con job when it is presented to them with such clarity!
Vote that Rascal Out! -Kevo
Am I the only one to think Scott Brown is SUCH a dim bulb, he simply named the first Supreme Court Justice whose name he could dig out of his thinkbone, and then once he named one, some more popped into his head and he figured he may as well name all the Justices he could remember, and hope that that will prove he's a moderate?
I'm not sure if that helps or hurts him more than what everyone else is thinking, but that's what it seemed like to me...
Based on your assertion, you feel Warren, will allow
you more prosperous advantage financially
in life. No need to criticize Brown let's talk about Warren issues.
Nowhere in slappy's post does he make this statement or imply this statement. You pulled this out of thin air.
Why is there no need to talk about Brown's issues? Is he running for office? If the answer is yes then why can he not be scrutinized?
magic4u, I can only assume that was a bad attempt at stream-of-consciousness haiku.
I'm merely saying Scott Brown comes across to me as dumber than a sack of wet hammers. You are free to discuss or to not discuss it, but that doesn't mean you get to decide what I will or will not talk about. Toodles.
Slappy...,
Some teabags are more inept than others at baggerbabble. Anti-magic lowers ineptness to new levels.
Cartoon-----Again, Your Questioning a Question !!! Take some time and study your remarks. Your trying to take control of the TOPIC. Your looking like a car salesman. Then you answer the question Professor ?????
Prosperity has been replaced with greed, I'll settle for being a number other than 1, if it means helping others and throwing away the notion of war.
slappy magoo --- So what your telling me you care not to prosper of your own free will. Warren talks about taxing the rich, taxing the Oil Companies, which pays roughly $121 Billion dollars a year. There net profit after taxes under 6%. You want capital gains go from 15% to 28%, which is insane. Do that and watch the stock market crash. Take that away, you'll make the 1929 depression look like a ladies social party. I'm a simple $100k a year tax and investment attorney. You take Capital investments away, you lose growth. Without growth ZERO employment. You complain about Romney Taxes. Go look at Buffet tax loop holes, you would be amazed. And you stand here and be a critic without solution. WOW
Am I the only one to think Scott Brown is SUCH a dim bulb, he simply named the first Supreme Court Justice whose name he could dig out of his thinkbone, and then once he named one, some more popped into his head and he figured he may as well name all the Justices he could remember, and hope that that will prove he's a moderate?
That was exactly my impression, too, @Slappy Magoo. A prompt follow-up of, "why is Scalia your favorite Justice" would have quickly proven that point.
Magic4U: Elizabeth Warren is an intellectual and more than capable of representing MA in the senate. Scott Brown, not so much, strikes me as an angry hoodlum in good looking suit.
How do you like them apples?
Hey little boy, you've peed on enough of the fire hydrants here. Best run off before we have to turn you over to the dogcatcher.
I'm questioning a question? When did I do this? You did not post a question as far as I can tell from your statement. Maybe you intended it to be a question, but you wrote it as a statement. I cannot know whether or not you intend something to be a question in writing unless you have the "?" mark behind it or send a second post clarifying that in fact it was a question. You apparently decided to just attack me instead for not knowing that it was a question even though the error was on your part.
How am I trying to take control of the topic? What are you even talking about here? YOU made an assertion of fact and I challenged your assertion. Here in you made the assertion that slappy thinks Warren will make him/her more rich. I asked where you got this inference since slappy never stated as much or implied as much. These are responses to the statements you have made. If you are changing the topic then this is a commentary about yourself that you're projecting onto other people. How am I acting like a car salesman? Last time I checked I wasn't trying to sell you anything so I have no idea what you're even referring to here. This sentence made absolutely zero sense. I am attempting to engage you in a logical debate and you're doing just about everything to refrain from having one.
What question? What are you even talking about here?
When did slappy say this or imply this? Slappy just stated that you are not allowed to tell him/her what to say or to think. That sentence right away says that someone is exercising free will. What are you even talking about here?
When did slappy advocate for this and why is it insane? You are a. presenting an argument about someone else without evidence or reason to believe that this person is presenting that argument and b. you're asserting a premise without any fact or explanation. How does this even make sense?
Provide evidence for the assertion that raising capital gains would cause the stock market to crash
Provide evidence for this assertion
This is a contradiction. If a person complains that Romney's taxes are too low and then proposes that those taxes be raised, that is the proposition of a solution. So this sentence doesn't make any sense.
Additionally you're engaging in a red herring on a subject that isn't even being discussed. Slappy was not discussing Romney's taxes nor were taxes being discussed at all. You pulled this out of, again, thin air. Where did this even come from? How do you know that slappy is upset with Romney's taxes? I am sure he/she is upset about those taxes, but where are you getting this assertion from? That claim was not made on this posting so how can you extrapolate as much? But even if slappy had made that claim you are then diverting from the claim (as opposed to addressing it) and instead are complaining about Warren Buffet who a. was NEVER brought up in the conversation and b. proposed the very same tax increases that you'd be accusing slappy of supporting (thereby debunking your statement that Buffet has too many loopholes). This is such a convoluted statement it makes zero sense.
I think that Brown, unaccustomed to thinking on the fly, went with his heart instead and named his BFF Scalia.
It was a spontaneous response, which typically reflects your true beliefs. Yeah, he fished around for the few seconds, but that hurts his case even more because he had a chance to think of a few other justices.
The guy's a freaking lawyer. I'm not about to let him off the hook on this one.
Magic4u - Dude, stay down, or better yet, get out cuz you are WAY out of your league. Oh, the humanity . . . ROFL.
Cartoon--- Your a combative little individual, with a starving ego. Your pissed off at the world. Your contradicting your self with an narcissistic behavior AGAIN. With the Big Closing statement from your chronicle. "YOU MAKE NO SENSE." WOW your brilliant. You again act comical Your full of criticism, but not one peace I've read from you toward solutions. You can tear it up, but can you put it back together? You might seek some Psychiatric help. I believe we qualify you as Megalomania which develops into a spouse beater. Your one lost Cat. Wait, wait Cartoon, That's right your part of the Democratic Socialist Party, Their spouse beaters too. Next time quit writing 8 paragraphs of crap. I need no Labor Pains, just give me the BABY.
All because he /she corrected your own mistaken comments , gop 101 , when people correct them with facts , they immediately claim LIBERALS ARE ANGRY AND FULL OF HATE
How am I combative? What have I said that is combative? What does it mean to have a starving little ego and how do I have a starving little ego? How am I pissed off at the world and how are you extrapolating any of this from my statements? When did I contradict myself and how does that meet the definition of a narcissist?
I did not say that you made no sense I said that the argument you are presenting in the way that you presented it makes zero sense to me. That is a subjective statement- you cannot fact check a subjective statement and this is especially strange since I presented it as an opinion (so in otherwords I didn't play the I'll-give-my-opinion-but-pretend-that-it's-a-valid-fact game). Your statements made no sense to me. They are either factually incorrect, incoherent in their presentation, contradictory and/or paradoxical in nature, and/or they are statements in which you are extrapolating X from someone's statement without that person having said anything or implied anything prompting your interpretation. You appear to be making connections to things that do not exist and now you appear to be coming up with a conspiracy as to my motivations simply because I had the audacity to not agree with you and challenge your statements???
I am trying to get to the truth of the statements that you've made. You make accusations against other people that are completely false or that don't make any sense or that are completely unrelated to the thread topic. Your entire premise, in fact, was to distract from the thread topic.
I do not have to present solutions: this argument doesn't even make any sense. My opinion about policy wasn't the subject of the thread. But even if it was I am a registered voter, but I am not a politician or someone in the public realm of policy making. So whether or not I feel there are better options available is irrelevant unless I am propositioning that we put my beliefs into the public realm. But even if I were going to do as much, to what situation or comment would I be prompted to "present solutions?" Nothing on this entire thread has prompted a person to present solutions since there was no problem in need of correction being presented. This thread was about Scott Brown and his performance at the debate with Elizabeth Warren. At what point would presenting solutions have made any logical sense given the context of this thread? But what is more at what point did you present solutions?
I can tear what up? Put what back together?
...what have I said that would prompt you to make this conclusion? You are making a connection to a statement, argument, position, and emotional response that never existed or was expressed and then you're making a psychological examination on the basis of this fantasy. For the record a megalomaniac has delusions about their own importance and relevance to the world. When did I ever express such sentiments? How are you even extrapolating this 'diagnosis'?
When have I claimed to be a Democrat and/or how are you extrapolating that I am a Democrat?
How are you extrapolating that Democrats beat their spouses? You have a study that proves that registered Democrats abuse their spouses more than registered Republicans? What does this even mean?
I am sorry that you find my response too long to read, but you are the one making the convoluted statements that then have to be unraveled. I will admit that I don't know how to do that in a shorter format and I'm working to make that happen. That's part of that whole attempting-to-articulate-a-complicated-thought-into-literate-writing phenomenon problem. Then again perhaps you could stop saying things that needed to be unraveled...
I was actually impressed he was able to name so many of the current SCOTUS justices. I bet Sarah Palin couldn't have done that...
"Who is your ideal Supreme Court justice?"
"All of them!"
After naming Scalia so quickly, Brown must have suddenly remembered which state he represented. So he throws in Sotomayor. It was laughable.
He was treating it like a test first: "OK, come on, Scott all you gotta do is name a Supreme Court Justice, there's 9 of them, you've had to talk about them before, just name one, come on, thinkthinkthink AHA Scalia is a Justice, I remember because first time I heard it I thought it was a kind of Italian noodle dish!" So then he said "Scalia" and then remembered "Awwww s**t Democrats hate Scalia, that's right, I was told DON'T mention Scalia DON'T mention Scalia aww man my handlers are gonna take away my juice box come on Scotty, what's a Justice Liberals don't hate thinkthinkthink..." and then he named Justices until he felt all bases were adequately, moderately, covered.
In a similar way, Warren named Lugar as a Repub senator shen can work with. He won't be there. Neither were impressive.
Actually, I think scalia is his fave BFF. 2 loonies in a pod.
"In a similar way, Warren named Lugar as a Repub senator shen can work with. He won't be there. Neither were impressive." - Tom
So did Brown, and he threw in Snowe (another retiree) to boot, so he's up 2 to 1.
Honestly, I think it's hard to think of a repub. you can work with because there are so FEW OF THEM.
Mass.voter's must realize this is a 6 year term.Brown can do a helluva lot of damage in 5 year's.5 year's you may ask,yes after 5 year's he will start his moderation,just like he did in the last six month's of his two year term. Brown, just like Romney,cannot be trusted.
My sense was that Scalia was the first judge's name Brown could come up with on the fly. Seemed like sort of a deer-in-the-headlights moment for him. Don't think Brown was expecting that question.
Well, then he truly is an idiot because to most thinking politician's, it's a gimme question. The fact that it came from David Gregory is prima facie evidence of it's softball status.
Scott Brown has come along way on his GQ looks, but I think his time is up. He's proved he is only slightly smarter than Rick Perry, and last night finished him off.
He's not even that good looking, since his a$$holery is so obvious - a smug little prick.
Can I just say David Gregory was a horrible "moderator." After allowing the first 20 minutes of a one-hour debate to be a thinly-disguised Scott Brown attack ad that focused on Warren's native American heritage and legal work, Gregory's idea of a hardball question for Brown was to ask a guy who is running as far and as fast away from his Republican Party affiliation as his little legs can carry him whether he will be a "reliable" vote for Mitt Romney should Romney be elected. That wasn't a hardball question. That was an open invitation for Brown to posture as an "independent" who favors "bi-partisanship," which he did for the next five minutes. It was a scandal. Thanks to Gregory, Brown had the home field advantage all night -- and still lost, because he refused to answer a single question openly and tap danced the whole night.
In the past I have observed that Gregory is a worthless hack with a microphone and I see no legitimate reason to change that characterization.
Both of you are soooooo right on. Gregory is a pinhead who likes to dance with karl rove.
I watched the show last night and wondered if he'd had a Perry brain-freeze. I'm wondering if the only name he could come up with was Scalia and then somehow retrieved the others he mentioned. These debates are the most i've gotten to know this man since he was elected. What a weak link!
I couldn't help but thinking that if she had not managed to contain herself (and she barely did) she would have been crucified more brutally for laughing at him that he has been for he racial comments.
They make a cute couple....Maybe the next Carville & Matalin. ;>
The Scalia remarks was a perfect summary of the entire night for Brown, who like Romney and Ryan is trying as hard as possible to keep voters from getting to know anything they stand for beyond "freedom" and "patriotism." How can you take a guy seriously who names half the sitting Supreme Court, and pretty much from left to right, when asked who his "model" Justice is? The guy admits in speeches before business audiences that he's not the brightest bulb in the room. What can you expect.