Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Scott Brown is Really, Really Good
Below, a couple of minutes of the recent debate between Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and his Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren.
Maybe I should warn you that you’re likely to feel a touch of cognitive dissonance: Brown, the Republican, takes the liberal side of the argument, slamming big corporations–and Warren’s decision to represent Travelers’ Insurance, the biggest insurance company in the country. But, a) to get elected in the Bay State, Brown is going to have to portray himself as independent, and, b) what he’s really doing here is using Warren’s liberalism against her, placing her on the defensive by demonstrating her hypocrisy.
Go ahead and watch. Once you get over that moment of dissonance, you’ll be able to sit back and enjoy yourself. A deft act of political jiu-jitsu.
Oh, and by the way, the Boston Globe story about the Travelers’ case supports Brown, not Warren.Published in General
It gets better–Breitbart is reporting that Liz Warren admitted, this morning, that when she was representing Traveler’s she was not, in fact, licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
William Jacobsen, at Legal Insurrection, raised this issue this morning–and a radio caller brought it up during a live call-in performance she did on a Boston radio program.
This one’s a biggie–practicing law without a license is a very big deal.
Was Warren the lawyer hired to defend Traveler’s? If so, she was doing her job and I would expect nothing less than a competent defense.
And this is me defending a liberal. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
And this is me defending a liberal. Talk about cognitive dissonance. ·
4 minutes ago
Edited 4 minutes ago
I’ve been offered a lot of money to do things I disagree with morally. I’ve refused. She either did not disagree or did not care because of the money.
I don’t like it.
And this is me defending a liberal. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
But–it transpires that Warren is not a lawyer; at least not one licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And it seems at least likely that she was not licensed to practice law anywhere at the time she was collecting more than $200,000 from Traveler’s. (Details about whether she was still licensed in New Jersey are not clear.)
Representing Traveler’s? So what? Representing Traveler’s on a matter regarding the denial of asbestos claims while claiming to “fight for the little guy on asbestos” is something else entirely.
Fauxcahontas is turning out to be an even better candidate for Scott Brown to run against than Martha Coakley. (Is he the luckiest guy in the Republican party, or what?)
I have to wait till I get home to watch this, but my initial thought was “I wish more rightwingers would slam big corporations”. Corporations are not defenders of the Market and I don’t think conservatives should feel any obligations to defend them.
Wouldn’t it be lovely if election 2012 marks the moment of turn back toward truth in politics? I mean the mendacity of the left has gone so far beyond the normal fudging and spinning that the whole notion of self government and government of the people by the people and for the people is going by the rails.
She is just awful! I want to hug her and say, “Poor baby, just tell everybody to vote for Scott Brown and get it over with.”
Now, if only Barack Obama is this bad in his debates. And, you never know, he might be. They’ll be no Teleprompters, you know.
While I’m inclined to favor anyone over Fauxcahontas, listening to Brown’s annoying Mass accent while doing the anti-corporate, populist shtick doesn’t impress me.
No cognitive dissonance here. I took Brown to be slamming Warren, not big corporations, for boasting about her efforts to protect the common man while she worked against him. As for slamming corporations, I’m bothered when conservatives reflexively defend corporations. We should be defending capitalism, not capitalists, who should be judged and criticized as is warranted by their individual actions.
The sorts of folks who live in towns like Worcester and Billerica, in Lynn and Lowell and Leominster, Framingham and Dracut…..they aren’t buying the Warren “I’m in this for the little guy” pose, and they don’t see the Harvard credentials as “I’m looking out for you”.
This is the sort of argument that appeals to them, as well as Brown’s promises not to raise taxes and his accusations that Warren/Obama policies have cost MA jobs–this “Liz Warren is out of touch with the needs of hard-working families” argument is the kind of argument that swings that vote.
I think Freeven’s got the most charitable explanation so far. But, frankly, if this is the kind of argument that keeps their distrust of Warren high (deservedly so), and get’s them out in November to vote against her: the country is better off for it.
Scott Brown, standup guy and fiscal watchdog working for average families and who will vote with Republicans about half the time. Elizabeth Warren, elitist unrepentant hard-left Progressive academic who is going to vote with the farthest left wing of her party against Republicans every time.
I don’t think this is so much about “Government” vs. “Corporation” – as it is Cronyism – i.e. corrupt Government and Corporations working together against individuals.
The narrative of cronyism cannot be stressed enough, and if Republicans play it right, they can win over at least a part of the Occupy crowd that is actually worried about “biggism”.
He should win on accent alone…whatever his acu rating it will be about 2000 times better than if the intellectual mother of the occupy movement is elected.
FYI, this debate was actually last week, not last night…I thought that Brown did very well, even though he made my skin crawl a few times, like when he declared he was pro-choice.
Scott Brown, standup guy and fiscal watchdog working for average families and who will vote with Republicans about half the time. Elizabeth Warren, elitist unrepentant hard-left Progressive academic who is going to vote with the farthest left wing of her party against Republicans every time. ·
20 minutes ago
That summary strikes me as just perfect. (And very nicely put.)
Will edit the post to make this correction. Thanks for the catch.
You’re right, but in the larger context of the debate Warren demonstrated his conservative credentials on this issue — and you can hear his larger points in this segment too if you listen carefully to what he’s saying here. His point was that Warren is part of a government-business monopoly: crony capitalism.
Conservatives win in a fact-based assault on crony capitalism, because everyone on both sides of the aisle hate it. Yet Liberals continually engage in it. So, by the way, do many establishment republicans. Here is an issue where the “centre” is extreme. Those on the far right and the far left despise cronyism. Those in the center tent to engage in it. If Obama and Warren try to crowd the centre on issues of “aiding big business” they set themselves up for an honest ambush on cronyism — and they’ll lose on that front.
The conservative side has to clearly distinguish itself from cronyism. RR have the right message, that the path to prosperity means government getting out of the way and stopping choosing winners. They just aren’t playing very well to advantage. Romney better wield it like a sledgehammer in the debates.
I listened to this last night on C-SPAN radio, and thought as he was dismantling her arguments that this was the best political $25 I ever spent. To take over the “Kennedy” seat was just the frosting on the cake.
Are you telling me that Paul Rahe wasn’t just piling on when he wondered if she glossed her debate team status? You could knock me over with a Fauxcohontas Indian Feather.
And never mind that: I bet she lied about her marathon times!
Gee…If I say he beat her like a drum…does that make me racist bringing up a reference to her faux historical past?
Scott Brown used facts, Faucahontas used demagoguery (appeal to emotion: “I have been fighting for working people” without specifics) in response. She could and should have said something like, “Lawyers fight for their clients. As your Senator, I will view the people of Massachusetts as my clients, and I fight for you.” That could have turned the tables. I am glad she is as bad a debater as she is.
I’m with Freeven and R. Craigen. If we can’t confront rent-seeking industries– and insurance is right up at the top of the crony capitalist standings — we don’t really believe in free enterprise.
Warren scores unusually high on my creep-o-meter but I have to ask how is it possible that an outfit like Traveler’s hired her as legal counsel and didn’t do the due diligence to make sure she was licensed to practice law? Should be an easy thing to do, shouldn’t it?
Yes, we need tort reform, but a well functioning common law system where individuals can assert their property rights through law suits, particularly class action law suits, is a crucial part of any market based economy. And it is much preferable to a top down, one-size fits all regulatory state.
And Brown is simply holding her up to her own standards, and it is devastating.
I can’t “get over that moment of dissonance.”
That either of such hoi polloi rear-kissers (along with Harry Reid) would be in the Senate shows how sadly that body has declined, thanks to the worst Constituional Amendment ever.
Tocqueville warned about direct election of Senators:
. . .
. . .practicing law without a license is a very big deal.
I don’t know the precise technicalities here, butI don’t think this will be a big deal. If Warren wasn’t licensed at all anywhere, that would be one thing, but . . .
Most lawyers these days do work for clients that operate, or litigate, in many states. Unless you work for a small local firm, you probably advise clients in twenty states a year, by phone or in person, without being licensed in more than a couple. You help draft their deal documents or court papers. If you sign a court paper as counsel of record or if you argue in court, you need to be admitted to practice in that court (which is “automatic” for many state courts if you are licensed in that state). You need to have a license in a state where you “hang a shingle.” The formal rules governing what constitutes unauthorized practice seem strictly limiting, but as a practical matter, because of the nature of modern commerce and litigation, it’s fuzzy.
He is handsome, but she has those great cheek bones.
“To get elected in the Bay State, Brown is going to have to portray himself as independent.”
Does “independent” mean that he is not bound to vote the ‘party line’ or, rather, that he’ll say anything to get re-elected?
Either way, Mr. Robinson, are you saying that if a person runs in a liberal state, that they should take different positions than they would if running in a safer state?
This sounds like wishy-washy Carl Rove reasoning, and it’s got Mitt Romney the name, ‘flip-flopper’…