Brown-Warren MA Senate 3rd Debate – Brown Wins Handily – Media bases Warren Win on Audience Participation!

The third debate between Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and Democrat Candidate for Senate, Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Professor, was held last night in the City of Springfield in Western Massachusetts. The debate attracted an audience of 2600, the amount of seats available for the event and the fact that the debate was sold out, was hyped by the media, including traffic reporting about where to park! Not for nothing, but if Springfield is going to be the site of a casino, hold concerts at the Mass Mutual Center, and generally attract people to events in the downtown area, and make a dime, it is hoped they can attract more than 2600 individuals. One has to just love the hype over, just about anything.

It was a feisty debate as dubbed by most of the media, however, the clip below from WWLP local NBC affiliate, might be the best show of bias in local media. Although the audience was equally divided (See entire debate via C-Span, link provided below), watching the news clip from the affiliate, one sees a different debate: one clip of boos for Senator Brown, two clips of applause for challenger Warren and finally an analysis that the debate was won by Warren on crowd response. Of course, the local is counting on the fact that no-one has watched the debate earlier, most likely a safe bet – but, what is the audience share of the evening news in a small market, which has three network affiliates vying for a limited viewership, and finally, does the individual viewer actually trust the source? That’s debatable.

From policymic.com, Brown decidedly wins the debate with Warren (overview included with timeline). The reasoning given was simple – content and delivery of questions asked and answered. One thing is certain, Elizabeth Warren has her talking point of “Billionaires” down, in fact, she has it memorized, and that appears to be about the extent of her “experience”. That and the woman can outright lie, but that fact, of course, is considered an “attack” if pointed out by Scott Brown or anyone else. One cannot dispute the facts, however, and Warren, who is outside her depth when it comes to the economy and foreign policy, how Brown voted (apparently she hasn’t visited the Congressional Record), and her own resume.

It is difficult to support a candidate who is so flawed, period, and Warren takes the cake. Warren released an ad in the market depicting one sympathetic woman who had lost her husband due to asbestos exposure, the premise of the ad being Brown lied about Warren’s roll in the entire case, noting that Warren too the case to the Supreme court for the people! (Apparently the same firm that made the Obama-PAC video featuring the man who insisted Mitt Romney gave his wife cancer, somehow, six years after he lost his job.) Warren worked for the Asbestos firm, period. She was a lawyer for that firm, and well, that would give one the impression that if she went to the Supreme Court to fight, it would have been for her client – the asbestos firm.

But, apparently spouting endless quips about Billionaires – is brilliant.

Brown, in an attempt to point out Ms. Warren’s less than honest claims, is called out for attacking the poor woman.

What is, frankly amazing, are the polls showing the large percentage of undecided’s in this case, however, one can hazard to guess those undecided’s will go down along party lines. As much as the state has been polled in the last few weeks, compared to other months, and several of those polls have focused solely on the Presidential race, one might have the impression that the Brown-Warren matchup isn’t the only hotly contested race in the Bay State. The release of polling data to date shows the President leading Romney handily in the Bay State, with the majority of the polls either University or performed by Public Policy Polling, but one poll, in a congressional race, with a solid makeup of current voters, tells a different story, and that poll was taken in a county that went heavily for Obama in 2008, who is now, within one point of former Governor Mitt Romney – in Massachusetts. That poll, conducted in September, before the Presidential Debate, showed Brown with a double digit lead over Warren and Romney in a statistical tie with the President. Looking at the questions, they were not leading, the makeup of the electorate was spot on, and the district polled is a microcosm of the Commonwealth. On one hand, for Progressives and the Obama Campaign, it is critical that Warren appear to be winning, due to the huge amount of polling (non-Senate) being taken in Massachusetts. Point: Massachusetts offers up a few more electoral college votes than say, New Hampshire. Massachusetts is the last bastion of Progressive think, or so it’s portrayed, however, the 51% of registered unenrolleds, may have something to say about the matter. They did in the Presidential races in 1980 and 1984, an anomaly to be sure, they did so again in 2009 in a special election. It is the unenrolled who will decide who wins or loses the Massachusetts senate race and the electoral votes.

Of course, there’s always ballot stuffing and the usual bag of tricks, however, in the first Brown Special Election, all eyes were on Massachusetts, and the five point final lead (some suspect it may have been higher) Brown had over Coakley was decisive. Once again, all eyes will be on Massachusetts, as this is being billed nationwide as the one Senate race to watch, a fact apparently, lost on the Commonwealth’s Progressives, and local media. Not having a crystal ball, but being a tad pragmatic, one might see the race come down with similar results in 2012, with the Western part of the state giving the majority of votes to the Progressives, with a few exceptions (Brown lost heavily in Springfield, Northampton and points west throughout the hill towns, expect nothing more or less), and then cleaned house in the balance of the Bay State. Should those unenrolled vote a straight ticket, fueled by either Romney or Brown it will be an historic event for Massachusetts. Those are big if’s, considering the level of hi-jinks that is displayed in elections in the Commonwealth, but it would not be an anomaly for Brown and Romney to defy the polls and the pundits and pull out a win, a miracle by virtue of the media spin, but not an anomaly.

Clips below.

WWLP News at 11 segment on the debate, watch this first, then watch the actual debate

Sen. Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren’s 3rd Senate debate

The entire debate on C-Span is available at www.c-spanvideo-org/program/MassachusettsSenateDebat Not yet available for embedding, clips only.

A few of many resources available

Asbestos Victims Travelers Insurance Elizabeth Warren, “Asbestos legal work could taint Elizabeth Warren”(The Boston Globe)

Warren’s work for other firms, including Travelers (ABC News)

ElizabethWarren’s Law License Problem (Legal Insurrection) – Apparently Warren was not Licensed, however practiced law without.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) Debate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) – Brown Bests Warren in 2nd Debate – Warren Comes Across As Occupy-Partisan

Scott Brown, the former State Senator and now U.S. Senator has, in representing either the people of his district or the Commonwealth, been extremely independent minded. It is rare to hear Brown even smack of partisanship – one knows he is an independent simply because he is angering either straight Republicans or straight Democrats, and is not what, one would call, a consistent party-line vote.

Therefore, when Elizabeth Warren, College Professor from Harvard, and former Obama Administration Appointee, announced she was running for the Senate, it was with some surprise, considering that Brown is an extremely capable, competent and perhaps, the only independent-aisle-crossing-get things done, bi-partisan representative the people have, be it in Massachusetts or the rest of the nation. When Warren began her campaign it was evident that she was, for all intents and purposes, particularly partisan, in an almost anarchic “Occupy Wall Street” way – It’s all about Billionaires and the “rest of us” – a class warfare set-up that highlights both her ideology and her demagoguery when it comes to political thought. In her closing statement to defend hers candidacy last evening, she appeared all party-line, giving a hint of what would be should she go to Washington and cast straight-party-line votes. She thanked the moderator, and then went into a diatribe on how Scott Brown supports Billionaires! She sounded fresh out of college rather than a college professor. For starters, anyone who has followed the legislation of Scott Brown (R) knows that he is for the “little guy” rather than big business, unless supporting business brings jobs. In his first term in the Senate, Brown pointed out that Legislatures were allowed to do a little insider trading, something he found a bit underhanded, wrote the legislation and got it passed. Warren lost her opportunity to outline her plans, to put out her plea to the voters, instead haranguing Brown in her closing statements. It was evident that she is new to the political arena or the debate arena as she appeared to harp her way through the entire debate, sometimes appearing “coy” and using her femininity rather than displaying herself as a strong woman. This begs the question from a feminist point of view – When will any party in Massachusetts put up a strong, non-partisan woman to run for a higher office? Until then, the answer to the question of “Why hasn’t a woman been elected to the Governor’s office or the Senate in Massachusetts?” will continue to evade those moderators who ask ridiculous questions at debates.

On Brown’s part, he was straight-forward, typical Boston, take no prisoners, debate from the hip, rather than the lip, and that caught the independent, once again. Where Warren makes her error is in plain got her base, the 30% of the Democrat voters in MA, which, not unlike the 11-12% of Republican’s can get no-one elected. One has to be in the middle – squarely – and no one does that better than Brown.

The one clip that is being played as a “Mistake” on Brown’s part, is the answer to a question on Supreme Court Justices – Brown hesitated, saying they were all good, and began by listing Scalia, first, followed by Kennedy, Roberts and finally Sonia Sotomayor. Which is to say, he could not decide because he pointed out, they all are good justices. In Brown’s true format he chose from the right, the center and the left – an independent point of view. That said, Warren immediately chose Kagan, the justice that must recluse herself from most cases due to her partisanship.

Go figure.

The full debate is below via You Tube, and the next debate will take place in Western Massachusetts , on October 10th at Symphony call according to Masslive

Video - via You Tube



Note: If a woman were to run, say one former Senator and now Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, she would have the vote. This is because she proved herself to be a positive influence while in the Senate, and able to work across the aisle to actually accomplish much – As to admired women in public service, she is, perhaps the epitome of what younger woman should strive to emulate. Whether one agrees with her personal politics, or not, it is the way that she voted, her ideals and her unabashed straightforward method of dealing with situations that make her, or anyone who has even a hint of her persona, as a woman, a credible candidate. Unfortunately, those who would be choosing women to run for office in Massachusetts do not look towards what one might call the “Clinton Model” – they should – then, and only, then would one see a women elected in the Commonwealth. Which is why women in the Commonewealth won't vote for just "any woman" they have an ideal that can and should be met.