Elizabeth Warren – Conviction or Confliction?
There are so many political ads from Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren on TV these days that by the time September ends we’ll all be missing the commercials with the bathtubs and the beautiful meadow. Even then, however, there will still be six weeks to go, and it will doubtless get only worse. The one thing for which we can be somewhat “grateful” is that the Democratic Party takes Massachusetts voters so much for granted that they are not running Obama ads here. What a small blessing but big reminder of a political reality – this is a One-Party State, and for too many of us, our votes have had no meaning, and even less value.
Despite all the ads trying to humanize her, what is it about Elizabeth Warren that is so disconcerting for so many? A few quick thoughts:
- Perhaps it’s just that Ms. Warren is Washington’s designated candidate for Massachusetts, not the candidate of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Even Republicans, suffering from the Stockholm political syndrome for sixty years, prefer certifiable Massachusetts Democrats to raise their taxes and rationalize their nonsense.
- Perhaps it’s because the White House believed that any Democrat, however outrageous, would win in Massachusetts just by showing up. Such is the Bay State’s dubious, but well earned, National reputation. Besides, running a candidate even more radical than Obama makes him look like a moderate. After all, it was the ranting Warren who was the first to declaim that if a business owner conceived an idea, put together a business plan, financed their loan, assumed the risk, opened their door, created some jobs, delivered their product, and made a profit, “Good for you! “… but you (paraphrasing) didn’t build it without the aid of government? Whoa Lizzie, how government-centered of you!
- Or perhaps it’s just that she just always appears awkward and uneasy, her voice insincere and pandering and condescending, lecturing, not relating, Is it possible that for all her intelligence and effort, Warren is the female Romney, or is that too unfair to Mitt?
These are general observations, but Ms. Warren’s ads present other curiosities. Do her messages reflect her true conviction, or expose her confliction with the real world? Some examples:
- Warren’s ads typically talk about playing by the rules. Awesome … until you remember that the Feds decided 50 years ago that the “rules” for some groups are legally different from others, to level the so-called playing field. So, does it count as playing by the rules when you self select your entry into a special group based on an unsubstantiated tale of two cheekbones? You’ve got to admit that it takes a certain amount of chutzpah for her to even raise the issue of playing by the rules. But character and integrity matter – on that there can be no confliction among voters, even in Massachusetts.
- Another ad addresses students who are drowning in student loans. But why no reasons why college tuitions are defying gravity by rising so fast and so high? One place to start is the cost structure, like her $350K+ salary for teaching a single course. Who does she think she is, a Republican executive? Another might be that colleges willingly take tuition money, inflate grades, keep their profit center-students enrolled, allow them to major in studies that have limited financial possibilities, and take no accountability for the return on the educational investment. Shouldn’t she instead be exposing the cost structures that are making college unaffordable, the loans unpayable, and its value increasingly questionable? Shouldn’t she be offering substantive improvement recommendations, rather than simply demand that better rates for subsidized student loans be “the solution” vs. a perpetuation of the problem? Or, is there just that liberal conflict of interest that blinds her to the cost side of the equation?
- Or, how about the ads that tell of her strong conviction to protect the little guy from a system that is rigged against them? They sound great, until you read how she overcame her personal confliction when buying and flipping foreclosed homes with family members, or defending Travelers Insurance Company against the victims of asbestos claims. So much for the little guy. Hey, there’s nothing wrong with using your talent to make money and be successful, but isn’t that what the Republicans are saying?
- And, of course, she is the fighter with conviction in her ad with the boxing trainer, whose diction makes Sarah Palin’s, speech sound like the King’s English. Can we even imagine for a minute seeing Ms. Warren all buddy-buddy with someone like him while strolling around Harvard Yard, or sipping a soy latte at Starbucks with the literati and the other Cambridge swells? Talk about presenting yourself as something you obviously are not!
And yet, here we are. Given our past election history, not surprisingly four polls this week gave Warren a lead over Senator Brown. Abraham Lincoln was obviously wrong. Perhaps you actually can fool all of the people all of the time – at least enough of them – to win an election – as long as it’s in Massachusetts.
But here’s the thing, Congress is broken and the Country is bankrupt. The people are demanding an end of hyper-partisanship and a return to civility, common sense, communication, and compromised solutions. In Senator Brown we have the very personification of the Senator we say is needed. He is practical, not ideological. He plays well in the Congressional sandbox. Were there 50 other Senators similarly disposed, government could work again. No, you might not get every vote that you wanted from government, but you could be confident that you won’t get screwed in the process either.
What would a Senator Warren add to the conversation to bring about bi-partisanship? Would she advance the conversation or just harden the division?
Frankly, if Senator Brown is not re-elected, the prospect of any Republican getting elected to a Statewide office in Massachusetts is virtually zero, and all the calls for greater bi-partisanship in Washington, and better political balance on Beacon Hill, are merely empty words. Is that what is in the best interest of Massachusetts and America?
There are only about 12% registered Republicans in Massachusetts, many of whom have been disappointed that Senator Brown has been too independent and not more conservative. This means his re-election primarily comes down to the votes of Unenrolled voters and disaffected Democrats. In previous essays I asked if Unenrolled voters were noble, naïve or not interested. What I heard is that these independent voters avoid affiliation with a Party so they can vote for the “best” candidate.
It’s time put this to the test.
Let’s give credit where it’s due. Candidate Scott Brown said he would be an independent voice. He has delivered. He is the best candidate for Massachusetts and America in this race.
As always, I look forward to your comments, especially those from unenrolled voters.
Shelli Sandrew
8:19 am on Monday, September 24, 2012
I'll take Elizabeth Warren over Scott Brown anytime. He is a nice guy but he is not a game changer or someone who thinks outside the box to get things done. She is. He likes to be seen but he is not a doer.
FindBalance
12:38 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Shelli - Brown provides bi-partisan, practical solutions driven mostly by creating jobs in the private sector.
Warren wants to "change the game" so govt dictates "solutions" to whomever it determines needs to be dictated to.
FindBalance
12:39 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
...and Brown is not a doer? Au contraire - He is the 2nd most bipartisan doer in Congress.
Ed Bertorelli
11:47 am on Monday, September 24, 2012
Jim I suggest you read legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/ seems that Liz was practicing law without a Mass license and out of her Harvard Office
Jim Hatherley
12:13 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Ed, thanks. The Red State site has the details that i was looking at just as your blog arrived. This is interesting - makes me wonder what ramifications follow an attorney practicing without a license. It certainly is another question in her campaign ads that talk about the virtues of playing by the rules. Perhaps she means, "everyone else" ... We'll have to see how this plays out ... but Unenrolled voters beware!
John Tehan
1:08 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Sorry Ed, but that post on LI is just 40 pounds of garbage in a 10 pound bag - Warren does not need to be licensed in MA to appear in federal court. The person who wrote it - Professor William A. Jacobson, Cornell Law School - should be ashamed of himself. He wrote a whole lot of words with no foundation or merit behind them at all. If I was a student in one of his classes, I'd sue for malpractice.
Paul Gentile
11:47 am on Monday, September 24, 2012
Brown's raising of the Cherokee Indian issue during the debate and in the radio ads I heard this morning have disappointed me. For the first time I can tell ... he has engaged in baseless rhetoric. I was incredibly outraged about the Cherokee issue when it first came up months ago. However, I got the entire story and in my opinion it is not an issue. It does not reflect on Warren's character and it does not suggest it played a role in her hiring. The truth is that she was raised under the notion of having a trace of Cherokee blood and she and her family are very proud of that. For this, she is being judged? For this, she is being accused of ulterior motives. Her entire life, she has been taught a proud Cherokee heritage ... yet, this is spun to be some sort of affirmative action cheat.
Shame on Scott Brown.
I also see you are continuing your "baseless rhetoric" rants as well. Do you even care about the truth?
Jim Hatherley
12:03 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Paul, thank for your note, but let me confirm for my readers that you are saying that her unfounded assertion of affirmative action status is NOT a character issue, or something to be judged by voters. She was the one who raised the issue, then attempted to rationalize it for the gullible. We are in Massachusetts, after all, the home of one-way gullibility ... which is why so many Liberals are so voyeuristic about Mitt Romney's wealth.
If there is shame on anyone, why not shame on the person who talks about playing by the rules ... then doesn't? We're learning today that she may be a law professor at Harvard without a license to practice in Massachusetts. If this is true, what should be made of that, or can it be spun away because she is a Democrat in Massachusetts?
If we want openness, let's add Warren to Romney and Obama for a prime time special called ... OPEN THE RECORDS ... so we can all find out.
I am hardly a "ranter" as my prior posts clearly show, but would certainly like to know which of my opinions you see as baseless rhetoric.
All the best.
Joe Kane
1:04 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Paul - I for one am glad that Scott Brown went after Liz Warren's integrity right out of the chute! She checked the box for one reason. The only reason that these boxes are on forms is because they are used in evaluating candidates in order to ensure that they are hiring enough minorities. She saw this as a way to slip in with a better chance for hire than if she was your average majority white person. And then to try and explain it away, at one time even handing a question on the subject over to the Governor. NO ONE SHOULD EVER SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE'S INTEGRITY WHEN THAT PERSON IS IN THE ROOM!!
We question our politicians' integrity all the time because of the history of backroom deals and not holding themselves to the same laws that they have created. If the roles were reversed and Scott Brown had checked off a box that gave him an unfair advantage, then I would be screaming for him to drop out of the race as well. .....But then, he didn't did he??
John Tehan
1:34 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Actually, Joe, Scott Brown does have an episode of fabricating his ancestry - see my blog post here:
http://milford-ma.patch.com/blog_posts/scott-brown-arthur-prentice-rugg-and-misrepresentation-of-ancestry
The long and short of it is, Scott Brown got interviewed by the New York Times for a piece about student/models in college. During the interview, he claimed to be the great-grandson of Arthur Prentice Rugg, a chief justice on the MA Supreme Court in the 19th century. That was not true, and the Times had to print a retraction a few days later.
Did he do this for personal gain? Probably - the interviewer likely spoke with many, many models and only those with interesting back stories were included in the final, printed article. I have to ask the obvious question: Who are you going to vote for now?
Paul Gentile
1:55 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Interesting, John. But not enough info. You're making an assumption that it was an intended deception much like the press has made about Warren. I've since come to believe Warren's checkbox selection was no such "intended deception" and until I learn more about Brown's claim to be a descendant of a Chief Justice, I'll have to leave this out of my decision.
Joe Kane
2:03 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
John - he was 22 years old and never used it to advance his career like Liz Warren. And at least he was related, just not in the way that he originally described it. Aren't you really scrapping the bottom of the barrel trying to show that Liz Warren did nothing wrong, when the rest of the independent world knows exactly why she did it??!!
Paul Gentile
2:16 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
She's female, Joe! She already qualifies pretty well under the affirmative action category. Should she have left the Native American box unchecked and pretended to be male instead? What exactly are you supposing she should have done differently?
Chris L.
2:40 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Sorry Paul, but her "self-identification" goes right down to the very core of who she is as a person, both figuratively and literally. The Birthers hounded Obama for years, until he eventually produced his birth certificate. Liz has already told us no documentation exists, but persists that she has not gained from her "check in the box."
We all know she has. She is a "two-fer" for the boys at Harvard. They can claim they hired a Native American AND a woman, and only have to pay out one measly part time salary to do it. You are naive to think that if there were 2 resumes in front of you during the height of the affirmative action push, that you wouldn't take a 2nd or 3rd look at the Native American woman's resume. If it wasn't such a big deal to Harvard, why do they continue to identify her as such?
Ed Bertorelli
11:50 am on Monday, September 24, 2012
actually Paul I think Cherokee Indians themselves also had a problem with how she handled this--- but as we know family stories are important to us and they should be
Chris L.
2:45 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Exactly. If her story was legit, why did she not meet with the group that traveled to Charlotte to speak with her? Why was there no outrage over that snub?
I suppose if someone had questionable African American ancestry and stiff-armed a sit down with the NAACP, they'd get the same free pass in the media?
Paul Gentile
12:29 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Yes, Ed, they certainly did. Of course, they also thought she was trying to leverage it for personal gain ... they were much more outraged than I was. I followed this story closely. But, eventually, after hearing all of the sides and developing angles that surfaced in the following weeks, I came to the conclusion I had stated above.
Jim, where exactly do you see "her unfounded assertion of affirmative action status"? Did she file for affirmative action status?
Jim Hatherley
12:48 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Paul, thanks again. Yes - she checked off the boxes as an applicant (how else would the University have known). This was a big part of the debate the other night, Senator Brown was asking that she produce the records from Harvard. Ms. Warren has ignored the request to produce the records,
I am all for openness here. But I hope you agree that with all the talk about "fairness" offered up by the Democrats, it is either noteworthy that she does not play under the rules or is a hypocrite.
I say open up all the records - Obama, Romney and Warren - and whoever else want to play the voters instead of being truthful with the voters. I don't know how you feel, but I am sick and tired of all the hypocrisy - from wherever it comes. As voters we are entitled to elected officials who are honest, truthful, and who pursue the interests of the voters and the benefit of our Country. We can no longer afford to turn our heads to nothing less - it is killing the Country and the future of our children and grandchildren.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Jim Hatherley
1:09 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Joe Kane, where have you been on prior blogs? Well said.
Joe Kane
2:00 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Sorry Jim, but I work for a living and don't have a lot of time for these. Happened to catch me at lunchtime.
Paul Gentile
6:59 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Well, Joe, I can only state my favorite "Marxist" quote (..and I don't mean Carl) - "I resemble that remark.".
Paul Gentile
1:15 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Jim, checking off a box as an applicant is NOT "assertion of affirmative action status". Do you think she was pretending to be Cherokee to get a job?
Jim Hatherley
3:02 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Paul, thanks again, but you are straining credibility here. Why else would you declare an affirmative action status if you were not looking of an edge that is available to some groups, but not others?
Please, character and integrity matter - not just for the candidates who put themselves out there to be judged, but also for the voters who consider their candidacy.
Aren't you as sick and tired as i am of having to choose among candidates who are too often flawed or insufficient? I'm sorry, but I cannot support you on this.
If it helps, I might add that Brown has done things right from a developmental standpoint ... Town Assessor > Wrentham Selectman > State Rep > State Senator > US Senate. He has been held accountable by his constituents on many occasions.
Milford Senior Man
1:19 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Jim, your column is very truthful and well done. I for one am an unenrolled independent voter that will vote for Scott Brown.
Jim Hatherley
3:04 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Milford Senior Man, thank you for joining the conversation. You are the very person who I am attempting to reach, even if louder voices take up most of the space in the dialogue. Please send my blog piece to your friends and ask them to weigh in before we all get drowned out.
Paul Gentile
1:35 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
I entirely disagree, Joe. I certainly see where you are coming from ... mainly because it echoes my mindset when I first started following this case. However, you need to take into consideration two very strong points. First of all, she was applying for a teaching position at Harvard and she is female. Wouldn't you think she would already feel 100% qualified for any affirmative action bias. That is IF, and this is a big IF, she actually thought there was an affirmative action implication for the position she was applying? Secondly, she was checking a box ... not "asserting affirmative action status". It was a box, much like "Are you female"? ... "Are you an American Citizen"? What did you expect her to do? Not check off "Native American"?
Its as if you guys are condemning her for not thinking to herself "Well, let's see...here is a checkbox for Native American... if I check this off, I MIGHT get preferential treatment...and to think of it, I have never really confirmed my Cherokee blood line ... so, I should just leave it unchecked". That is in fact exactly what you are doing ... you are questioning her integrity for checking off a box to which she probably had no second thought at all in checking. You're implying that it was entirely a ploy to get a job.
Jim Hatherley
3:06 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Forgive me, Paul, but yes this is the inference. You make it sound like this very bright person is somehow a victim of her own stupidity.
No chance.
Danielle Lizotte
1:43 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
I'm unenrolled and the NA ancestry thing is a non-issue to me. I hope Brown gives justifications in the next debate for the oil subsidies for profitable oil companies. That is really a question I would like answered.
Jim Hatherley
3:13 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Danielle, thank you for commenting. My first response to you is the same as the responses to Paul Gentile. Character and integrity matter. They have to matter if we are going to trust our government ever again. Please give that more thought.
As to the oil subsidies, I agree that there must be more discussion about this. I might say that it has existed as long as I have been alive. I seem to recall arguments from my youth (too long ago) about oil depletion allowances etc., so there have been some historic reasons for doing this, but I don't know what they are, or if the reasons have faded away while the subsidy remains). Frankly, we had better start looking at more than the oil subsidies and other spending if we are going to get the budget and debt under control.
spider
2:17 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Elizabeth Warren has had zero specifics to say about any of her so-called ideas to help the middle class. Everything she has said sounds great, I want to help the students pay for their loans, I want to help the small businessman hire more people, I want to go to Washington and fight for you against the big corporations. Well I want to win the lottery and have the Red Sox win the World Series again too but how is that going to happen exactly Liz? Typical grandiose statements from a pure liberal from academia with not a solid idea backing any of it. Here's how she's going to do it, on the backs of the middle class and by expanding an already bloated government even more. Just what we all need more bureaucracies in Washington to drain more revenue when we should be paring down government and attempting to pay down this ridiculous debt. Here's a novel idea, why don't we allow people to help themselves for a change instead of giving everyone a handout.
How anyone could believe that this completely left-leaning candidate will actually attempt to lean across the aisle and compromise on anything not concocted by the Democratic party is beyond me. We finally have a Senator who not only votes bipartisanly and for what he believes is in the best interest of the Commonwealth and country. Only in this state is this a bad thing. Isn't this what we all strive for in Congress? Scott Brown is the best choice for this state.
Jim Hatherley
3:23 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Spider, thanks for adding this to the conversation. I could not agree more. Four years ago it was about the nebulous hope and change. We have seen how that works out. Now it's about the "middle class".
Can I make a comment about the so-called middle class. As I was brought up we were bought that America did not have a "class system" as existed in Dickens' novels or in histories of countries with monarchs. America had an aspirational society in which someone who grew up in the Boston projects could go to Public School, do their homework, go to college, get married, raise a family, pay their taxes, get promoted, buy a house, educate their kids, have a better life than their parents - who wanted that for their kids as a measure of success in their own lives. At the same time, people who had money had no guarantee of keeping it - there was a down escalator too.
Today, Obama and the Dems have somehow convinced too many people that we have a class system. Some people have too much and it must be confiscated from them and redistributed to someone who did not earn it. All of this class warfare is tawdry. It demeans us. I serves to place a stigma on a portion of our people who believe they are resigned to their fate - their class - and the government entitlements that are just and fair.
We have got to get re-centered on the aspirational aspects of individual achievement or we are doomed to a 21st C Utopia (not a good thing). Thanks again.
Max Walker
2:55 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
There seems to be some misconception about how faculty are hired at top research (also known as R1 schools) institutions. There is no formatted application "form". Typically for junior faculty (and this could vary based on discipline), one is asked to submit a dossier consisting of a list of one's archival peer reviewed publications, a research plan and a teaching plan which outline the kinds of research problems one wants to pursue in the coming years, and the kind of pedagogy one wants to engage in. For senior hires like I suspect Warren was when she was hired at Harvard, much of the process takes place by word of mouth before one even submits a formal application (whose contents are similar to what I described for junior faculty), except because she is an already known and proven entity, the vetting probably happened before she submitted formal research and teaching plans etc. I don't see where she may have checked any box off.
Chris L.
3:00 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
And on her way up, as she was building this resume, she "self-identified", correct? The word of mouth you spoke of, is there any way to know that there was NO mention of her ancestry?
Maybe her career is deserving of where she has ended up...but there is no evidence that she would have even been noticed if she hadn't worked her way East as a self proclaimed Cherokee. Had she remained a nondescript white woman from Oklahoma, would she have even advanced to the point in her career where working for Harvard would have been feasible?
Jim Hatherley
3:28 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Max, thanks, then there should be no controversy in her having those documents released. Believe me when I say this - please - I would love for all this character business to go away. So - I hope Warren takes the appropriate steps to take the issue off the table. i am so sick and tired of these hypocritical candidates who are flawed, but who expect us to look the other way. Looking the other way has resulted in America taking our eyes off the ball - now look where we are.
Max Walker
2:57 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
I forgot to mention reference letters. These are sought confidentially somewhere in the process.
Paul Gentile
6:54 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
I like what Chris L. states about the NA heritage issue and I think his viewpoint has helped me formulate my ever changing one. Reading his postulate does indeed confirm, for me anyways, the need for Warren to address the issue. But as Chris alludes, the issue is not in fact her application to the Harvard position but a deeper investigation into Warren's upbringing, the veracity of the NA heritage and whether it was a justifiable "self-identification" on her part. It is still possible in my mind that if we can overlook Brown mis-representing himself as a direct descendant of an ancestor when he was only "related", that we can extend Warren the same.
Speaking of which, I'm glad to learn that Brown's "deception" wasn't nearly as egregious as I originally suspected. I am still disappointed in his pursuit of the NA heritage issue however.
Paul Gentile
6:54 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Jim, I liked your post today ... up until the NA heritage issue. I still think Warren has a right to talk about playing by the rules and your conjecture that its hypocritical doesn't hold water. I really liked how you brought to attention that the democrats choice was in fact questionable ... you really touched on some good stuff. But, I read only a little after the NA heritage thing ... once again, I tend to dismiss the entire message if I see erroneous conclusions based on conjecture ... especially if that conjecture is stated as if its 100% relative. In addition, I really didn't like your reply suggesting liberals are the only ones suspect in the gullibility department. I would say its 50/50. Liberals aren't as stupid as you suggest and until we respect their viewpoints as merited, we'll never reach the ideals to which we strive - democracy.
Finally, your stuff on class warfare is right on. You should really expound on this in the future. Touch on both parties contributions, though ... but I would agree that it does "infect" a lot more of the liberal viewpoints than the conservative ones. I'm also feeling obliged to read the rest of your original post.
Jim Hatherley
7:06 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Paul, I iam glad that you liked my blog and more pleased that you are going to read the entire piece. Remember, this is my opinion - and I at least say what it is based on.
A few things to note, like the gullibility piece. I take your point on the split, but in this case the context is my supposition that the White House pushed Warren into this race, despite a State filled with entrenched Democrats, because Massachusetts Democrats would simply go along - even if she has zero political experience (unlike Brown).
I might also note - because I do take the time to respond as much as I do - that my blog is the sum of the essay and my responses. For instance, check out my response to Max just above. I am sick and tired of all politicians who present their flawed characters in front of us as if we must accept candidates who are less than we deserve. This has gone on too long - it must end, beginning now. I sense that you agree with this. All the best.
arthur
8:57 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
She's an opportunist looking for an entry to national politics. She'll never complete a full term. Her goal is 2016 Democratic Vice President running mate.
Jim Hatherley
9:19 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012
Arthur, thanks for this perspective. If that is her goal, we now have two reasons to re-elect Scott Brown.
Ed Bertorelli
6:26 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Jim H. and Paul G.- each day seems to bring a new revelation about Professor Warren- practicing law out of her Harvard University Office without a Mass. Law License and her work for Travellers Insurance and their antics in avoiding paying aesbestos victims a fair settlement and now her work for a coal company that seems out to screw workers. Lizzie is beginning to sound a lot like the "Mitt Romney- capitalist exploiter action figure" the Dems have created. Wasn't Lizzie a Republican for a span before she 'converted' ?
Jim Hatherley
6:47 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Ed, you are so right. Can you even imagine that the Boston Globe is running a piece this morning about her work with LTV helping them avoid putting aside money for their retirement fund?
So, this is the test for Unenrolled voters. Do they care about character and integrity or are they going to just rubber stamp any Democrat? We have so much experience with the latter. This election should not even be close, and yet, here we are facing this "test" in Massachusetts. Watch the comments to come ... you can predict the rationalizations to follow that somehow do not equally apply to Mr. Romney.
Dave Lenane
5:50 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
I may not be a gifted intellectually as some of the posters on these blogs. I went to school, joined the Army and then went to school again. I have lived with roomates, on my own, in rooms(horrible) and now I own a beautiful home that I worked very hard for. A lot has been made in these elections about the 1%'ers. Shouldn't that be every Americans goal in life? To be a 1%er, and not someone who lives on the dole every month just waiting for their government check to arrive. I want to be a 1%er, I probably never will (c'mon lottery) but I work my butt off everyday with that goal in the back of my head. And I'm not saying that people shouldn't get help, but they shouldn't live out of my pocket or yours. I would love to hear either of these candidates in the Senate or Presidential races, explain how they are going to tell those that live of the system to get back to work or the checks stop coming. And please don't say there arent any jobs. We have had 2 openings at my company for over 2 months without even an applicant. People dont even look for work if they know their government will tide them over for beer and cigs every month.
I'm a hopeful 1%er, andI'm proud to say that I am voting for Scott Brown!
PL
8:28 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Hi Dave, I know a couple of college educated young people who need jobs and can't find anything better than minimum wage( which is what they are working). What kinds of jobs are open at your company?
Dave Lenane
8:35 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
PL...we have openings for lab techs. Some basic chemistry knowledge is required. Can u send me contact info?
Jim Hatherley
6:06 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Dave, thanks for adding this to the conversation. There is too much talk these days about free stuff and governmental dependency, and not about individual self reliance and personal pride. We are an aspirational country. Why have we had to endure 50 years of governmental descrimination called affirmative action if the plan was to increase dependency and to decrease personal aspiration? We have only dominished America by lowering standards instead of increasing them, and we have paid severely for the downgrade. I'm glad that you are voting for Scott Brown.
Ed Bertorelli
11:24 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Jim good article in Wall Street Journal- "Handmaid to Plutocrats- Elizabeth Warren's Ironic Legal Past"
*
4:44 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
Sorry folks, Warren just does not have the "It" factor, and never will!! So, she's spending all that money that could be used for the unfed children of MA, instead of down the proverbial political drain of unsustainable life.
Dave Lenane
7:37 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
All this negative talk about Warren is likely going to make her go on the warpath!
PL
8:47 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
This is a response to Dave Lenane about whether Moveon.org or Emily's List, two of the biggest backers of EW, are PACs. Neither of these groups have corporate backing or contribute any money towards lobbying (influencing our legislators for special consideration). They are funded by everyday citizens by and large.
Did you look at the names on Scott Brown's list? Goldman Sachs? JP Morgan? He says he is an "independent". This is a lie. He is a bipartisan .... These two descriptors are NOT the same. Look at his voting record. EW is speaking the truth about it.
I further ask you, what has he actually done for the people of MA, besides telling us that he is the " second most bipartisan" senator? What does this mean? When he could vote to help the people of MA he said NO. He talks about passing legislation to prevent " insider trading among our legislators". This is a drop in the bucket attempt to fix the serious issues preventing our legislators from doing their jobs.
Lastly, although I lean to the left politically, I do watch Fox News and try to read articles from both points of view. You also put a link up about the Consumer Advocacy Bureau that EW helped to establish for the protection of the average American. She was not appointed the head of that agency, Richard Cordray was. How do you hold her responsible for the activities of the bureau? In reading the article it send that the group who is investigating may not be that objective?
Dave Lenane
9:34 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
PL...if you read the thread I was responding to, which wasn't this one, perhaps you would better understand. Emilys List and move.org are both PACs which Warren supporters seem to forget when they say she doesn't accept money from PACs. As a matter of fact it is the largest PAC in the United States To say that it doesn't have corporate backing is naive. Scott Brown is no angel...this I know. But at least where his money is coming from is public knowledge...or it seems to be. Please respond in the thread where I made my points. It's just easier and we would understand each other better. Thanks PL!
Les Masterson
5:10 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
A reminder to please be civil when making comments. We have deleted comments that were profane. Thank you.