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.

Liberal Progressive - Elizabeth Warren, former Rehnquist Appointee, Obama Appointee, Uses “Feminist” Card Against Scott Brown – Liz Grow Some Skin!

Scott Brown (R-MA) - Independent Brown fends off attacks by Progressive "Feminist" Oklahoma's Own Lizzie Warren

Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren, who is being funded by the "The Liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee,"(Frederick News Post, MD), has had a most interesting career thus far. Elizabeth Herring Warren, who was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, as a Member of the Federal Judicial Education Committee (from Consumer Protection Agency Official Biography on Elizabeth Warren), went on to hold her first “government job” as an appointee of Barack Obama to handle TARP, and now she wants to be the Senator from Massachusetts, the Progressive Democrat to replace Republican, Scott Brown.

Those Progressives who admire Ms. Warren, are rather miffed at the entire Democrat Party failing to embrace Communism (Communism and Progressives are interchangeable), but specifically Obama, whom members feel is not effective in furthering the Progressive agenda (i.e. turning the U.S. from a Democracy to the former Soviet Union – breadlines, poverty and all). In speaking of Warren, they suggest she would be a perfect member to form a new party, devoid of Democrats, and based on Progressives only: (David Lindoff)

I’m not sure how such a movement could be started. Perhaps Sen. Sanders, who long ago showed the way to run and win House and Senate elections as an independent and a self-described socialist, could start the ball rolling by contacting some of his caucus comrades and any labor activists and leaders he’s close to, and proposing the idea. Maybe Elizabeth Warren, who was betrayed and trashed by Obama after developing the idea for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and who is said to be eyeing a run for the Senate seat held by Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown, would decide running on such a party’s ticket would be a satisfying form of payback, and could tip more principled members of the caucus, like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Keith Ellison (D-MN) or Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), to come over. (Kucinich, who has been humiliated by his party repeatedly despite being one of its smartest and most principled members, and who has now been gerrymandered out of his job, should finally be willing to stop helping the Democratic Party pretend it is a progressive organization, and should walk out.)

To be admired by the right and by the left throughout a lifetime, leads one to take a harder look at Warren, who most likely (coming of age during the 1960’s), like most young women of her time (See Hillary Clinton) were known as “Goldwater Girls” – conservative youth, it would fit with Ms. Warren’s background, coming as she did out of Oklahoma.
However, that said, is she qualified and tough enough to take on one Scott Brown? Brown, who has voted straight down the middle, is maligned currently by Tea Party Groups in the State, and who has a record that make most conservatives look askance – Brown does not vote straight party line – he is an Olympia Snow, a Susan Collins, a wild card that the Republican’s cannot always be quite sure if he’ll go along with the “program” for the sake of “party unity” – Brown votes the way he feels his constituents would benefit most. Oddly, it has worked for him in Massachusetts, where the majority of the Bay State’s electorate is: unenrolled.

That may be news to Lizzy Warren – who showed a serious lack of mettle in recent attacks on Brown.

She called him a Tea Party Member (obviously not sure what Tea Party is, or means for that matter), while not taking the time to understand the Massachusetts Tea Party, perhaps the most fiscally and socially conservative Tea Party groups in the nation, don’t often care much for Scott Brown .

Then she insulted Brown for not being moral enough – seriously – Lizzie apparently felt that Brown’s posing for Cosmo (How high is the wager that she owned the copy), was not appropriate for a young man who would be Senator. (Globe) Brown fired back – and said something not quite good enough from Warren’s perspective (about how he struggled harder and worked harder to get his degree, than say Warren, which is the truth)and she felt he was being “sexist”!

The hue and cry went up about the Globe the rest of the Bay State and most likely Bernie Sanders is lighting candles in Vermont to ease the pain poor Lizzie must be feeling.
Give us all a break and buck up Elizabeth. Call it like you see it, and stop trying to whine your way into the Senate on the back of someone who actually deserves to be there. As a feminist, there is nothing worse than watching a woman who is capable stand back and act like the Virgin of Harvard, or worse, a True Elite Progressive, who’s nose is stuck so far up her own behind, she cannot see the forest for the trees!. It is insulting to women everywhere – period. Pick a fight, then pick a good topic, and stick to it.
One can’t have their cake and eat it too, that won’t work with the Massachusetts Electorate. So, go negative Lizzie, but keep it about the issues – go on Brown’s record, but be truthful, because, the unenrolled have been watching him like a hawk, and know how he votes.

Stop maligning the Tea Party, if one didn’t know better, one would think you were one of Tea Party members who ran in local elections as Democrats and won, and who will continue to use that avenue to change from within – after all – Rehnquist appointee, are you really a Progressive at all?

From this point of view, it is apparent that although having supported Scott Brown for Senate in the special election (Martha was not qualified, period), and already knowing the Centerfold story was beat to death and is a non-issue (see Hillbuzz.org), to have a woman run for office, that woman should be qualified, (not an academic appointed by an academic administration, with no experience whatsoever in legislation but rhetoric), which is why, regardless of the fact that you a woman, it matters not when it comes to qualifications. Hillary Clinton is a qualified woman, she is qualified for the Senate, and she is more than qualified to be President – she has a record one can be proud of, and she has worked both sides of the aisle to get something accomplished – so has Scott Brown. That’s a hard act to follow Lizzie. You’re no Hillary Clinton, heck you’re not even a Scott Brown.