Senator Scott Brown and Progressive Democrat Challenger Elizabeth Warren - image with article from www.ankagallery.com
Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat challenger to Scott Brown for the U.S. Senate Seat, recently suggested that Brown release 20 years of tax returns, as he had been in public service for that period of time. When asked to release her returns beyond four years as an Obama appointee, Warren, according to the Boston Globe reporting on this latest Warren flap “Warren backed off her demand, saying today that six years was enough. She did not, however, offer to release any more of her IRS filings.
Both candidates were asked by the Globe in April to release six years of tax returns, a common request to check for conflicts of interest, and contradictions between a candidate’s policy pronouncements and personal financial practices.
Brown agreed to allow reporters into his campaign office to inspect all six years of documents. Warren would only agree to allow reporters to inspect four years worth of returns, releasing some documents outright and allowing reporters into her office to review the supporting documents covering the same period.”
(Boston Globe)
Warren, who has had some fits and starts over several controversies was supposed to be a more viable Progressive Democrat alternative to run against Brown, however, unlike former Brown opponent, Martha Coakley, Warren’s advertising to Massachusetts voters does not mention her party affiliation, which is a bit odd, considering that she is a Progressive Democrat in a heavily Democrat state. That said, perhaps not that unusual, as Massachusetts Democrats and Republican are often just as independent as the states majority voters – the 50 plus percent who designate themselves as “unenrolled” (no party affiliation). Some might view this attempt as somewhat deceptive of Warren, who casts herself as rather benign figure in advertising; however, Brown’s ads have contained the same theme, his independence. The difference is that Brown truly has been an Independent Republican as he served in the State Legislature, and the State Senate, as well as the U.S. Senate. To politically survive in Massachusetts, while holding an elective office, one apparently must be truly independent in practice in order to get things done. Brown took his Massachusetts independent streak to Washington, and has irked both Progressives as well as hard Conservatives with some of his votes – that means he’s doing his job. Warren, who has never held an elective office, has been on the attack on the stump, while Brown has been out on the stump, comparing and contrasting, while picking up one endorsement after another – of Democrat heavyweights in the State. One has to ask why? – It’s the fact that Brown honestly is one of those rare politico’s who looks at both sides of an issue, beyond party politics and makes the decision based on what he feels is best for Massachusetts. While State Senator, Brown was extremely accessible to his constituents, and has remained the same since moving to the U.S. Senate – this remains rarity for most politicians.
Perhaps it was his Massachusetts upbringing, perhaps it is his lengthy service in the National Guard, which gives Brown that quality of a “boy scout”, but he remains a fighter – that’s the Massachusetts in Brown.
What about Political Party and the Democrat Hold on the State? – It matters very little, for the majority of the electorate – if given an opportunity to choose a politician that is not corrupt (this is Massachusetts, which has more than its share of embarrassing politicians serving time and being subpoenaed so often it’s almost expected), over someone who is forthright, regardless of party, that individual will win – if they have the ability to cover the state or district – which is where the money game comes in. That said, one can see politico’s crossing party lines, regardless of affiliation to stump for and support someone from the “opposition party over one of their “own” – it comes down to the individual. There is also a difference between Democrats in Massachusetts, which, one can expect, is a nationwide theme – it is simply this: there are the Progressive Socialist Democrats, and then there are the rank and file, old time Democrats, those who belongs to the party that stood for the poor, the unions (when they represented the factory workers who faced seriously hazardous conditions and those Police and Firefighters who risk their lives every day – rather than those who pay dues to hold desk jobs.) – They were fiscal conservatives (no kidding), and few were obviously partisan. That changed, but those old time Democrats, are now referred to in some instances as Blue Dogs – a Democrat who is somewhat like a Republican – or, in real speak, a Democrat who is somewhat independent of party. Warren is not one of those Democrats, she is a Progressive to the core and it shows, despite the ads that depict an otherwise non-partisan message.
This may be why Brown is picking up the heavyweight endorsements, specifically that of former Boston Mayor and Clinton appointee as Ambassador to the Vatican, Ray Flynn. The Boston Herald reported on July 27, that Flynn was appearing in a Scott Brown Ad, endorsing Brown. There are more Democrats who have come out in support of the Senator – An article in today’s Southcoast Today, in which Paul Walsh, the former Bristol County DA, will appear in an advertisement for the Brown campaign. The article suggests that Walsh is one of those “old time Democrats”, as he has endorsed both sides of the aisle – only the article was more accusing than matter of fact about the nature Walsh’s endorsements.
The list goes on, so much so that national news outlets, finding this one of the most “competitive” races in the nation (based on campaign funds collected (Warren has the edge, with the majority of her contributions coming from out-of-state, while two thirds of Brown’s contributions are from Massachusetts – which speaks volumes (US News & World Report)
The U.S. Article referenced above suggests that Brown is gaining momentum on Warren due to the types of endorsements he has received, especially Ray Flynn, who is compared to the legendary, Tip O’Neil, in the piece. One might take a look at the polling with a grain of salt as well, the last polling conducted by the Mass Inc. Polling Group (via Real Clear Politics – PDF), shows Warren with a 2 point lead, in a survey of 445 registered voters, taken July 19 – 22nd , 2012. Brown has an overall favorability rating of 50% with 33% (somewhat to) unfavorable and 17% undecided/never heard of, while Warren has a 47% favorability rating, with 26% (somewhat to) unfavorable and 26% undecided or never heard of.. Of course its summer, and that may be the reason that those polled had no idea of who Brown or Warren were – as the never heard of were equal to those undecided’s. Mass Inc bills itself as a non-partisan organization – visit site at www.massinc.org. (Or all national polling that shows a "tight" race at this point, for that matter.)
One might be more inclined to rely on Ray Flynn’s assessment at this point, and look at polls coming from local sources to have Warren up by 15 points the weekend of the election (See Boston Globe from January 10th, one week from the special election, which had Coakley up 15 points over Brown. The end result was more Flynn Like – Brown up by 5 over Coakley.
Brown endorsement and Small Businessman with Scott Brown on Warren’s statements
No comments:
Post a Comment