C-Span: Massachusetts US Senate Debate between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren
19:09 I started late. What the FUCK is Scott Brown doing going on about the Native American heritage of Warren and whether she got an advantage for hiring for Harvard?
19:14: On tax policy - Warren seems to have more specifics - Brown is on the defensive regarding taxes. He's confusing middle-class with upper-income individuals.
I like the format/moderating of these debates - they let them go at it. Reminds me of Game 7 2010 NBA Championships, where the refs didn't call as many fouls and just let the teams go at it.
19:17 Brown is trying to bait Warren into attacking the Chamber of Commerce and the independent businesses group. Warren isn't taking the bait, and attacks Scott Brown's record. Warren dodges the trap of looking anti-business.
19:20 Thought Brown was lying about the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world - confirmed by HuffPo.
19:23 Wow. This race is personal. Brown is taking yet another personal swipe at Warren's history. As someone once pointed out, men need to take care to appear not to be bullying women during debates. Joe Biden was cognizant of that during the 2008 VP debates.
19:25 Brown really hasn't been able to mount an effective counterattack against charges that his record shows him to be favoring big businesses at the expense of working-class families.
19:29 "Balanced approach" is now the catch phrase for taxes and cuts in spending. Not complaining, but it does surprise me how Republicans can credibly combat the deficit without looking at the revenue side. It's like saying that I will lose weight just by eating less, and not looking at exercise at all - it could work, but a combined approach might be healthier.
19:30: Major themes so far -
Warren - Brown's record is one of supporting billionaires.
Brown - Warren will raise your taxes.
19:31 One place where Warren has an advantage - Brown has a record, and Warren less so. Gives Warren an advantage, even if Brown's record isn't particularly bad.
19:32 Another personal attack by Brown. He basically implied that Warren supported Kagan because she was "her boss".
19:33: Heh - "anti-choice". Nice re-re-branding, Warren.
19:34: They're actually pretty close on abortion.
Oh, first mention I've heard of the late Senator Kennedy. (But I missed the beginning of the debate.)
19:37: They're both fighting for the mantle of Kennedy, and characterizing his views on the Blunt Amendment providing exemptions for employers for moral obligations for contraception.
19:39: Brown seems a bit more comfortable discussing criteria for military intervention - no doubt in part because he is apparently a colonel. Waiting to hear how he feels about Libya.
19:43: Both sound a bit more nuanced than traditional neoconservative ideology. Brown wisely isn't arguing against Obama's foreign policy record, or Secretary Clinton's work.
19:44: Brown does want a harder line on Iran. Apparently "nuanced approach" is now a dirty word too! But they're actually pretty close on these policies. Warren is bringing the Presidential race into it, which I think is a good call, except that this is probably not a foreign policy election.
19:46: Wow - Brown is directly attacking Warren's livelihood!
19:49: Warren needs to avoid the academic habit of nodding when someone is lecturing/speaking. It makes it look like she's agreeing with Brown when he's attacking her.
19:53: Hm... Brown landed a decent blow on the Travelers Insurance case. Warren didn't directly reject it, and went back into a standard response. Sounds like the Globe investigated.
A question: who had the longer career as a corporate lawyer?
19:55: Warren is running against the Republican party.
Scott Brown ripostes by saying "You're not running against Jim Inhofe. You're running against me."
19:57: Not sure who has the better argument. Brown has a point that Warren is running against him, and that the overall argument about which party has control over the Senate is secondary. But Warren has a point about the fact that Inhofe is a paleorepublican on environmental issues, and probably shouldn't have a major position regarding US energy policy.
Post-debate thoughts
One thing both seemed to agree - on the economy, there was a lot of talk about Commonwealth jobs. But this race was more national than local.
The Republicans - possibly - could run a stronger race by localizing it, depending upon Brown's record, and by hammering away that Warren probably would vote with the Democrats nearly all the time. Because Massachusetts is the second-bluest state in the Union (after Hawaii), he has to push the bipartisanship button.
The Democrats benefit somewhat by nationalizing certain aspects of the race, by making it clearly a referendum on two different visions for America. Warren posts lots of stuff on her FB feed about helping small businesses. But the bigger issues that are presently salient - debt reduction, Middle East policy, and energy costs - are national policy issues, and it may be fair game to run against the party as well as the candidate.
I have no idea what's salient for voters in Massachusetts. That it's close means that a fair number are pretty happy with Scott Brown.
In terms of mannerisms, I think Brown came off a bit more hostile and personal than he should've. Although women enjoy plenty of disadvantages in American politics, one advantage they do have is that a man has to be at least somewhat careful to avoid looking like a jerk when attacking a female candidate. Brown took some cheap shots, mostly centering around Warren being part of the Harvard community. He may need to take a more positive and less defensive tone.
Warren, for her part, is a good communicator. But I think her head does bob around quite a bit, and again, it's an academic habit of nodding one's head when listening to a lecture/speech. Brown was also obviously a bit more practiced about the little nicety segues - although I don't think anyone bought that he would really like to chat with Warren's brother about his tours in Vietnam. So, even if subtly so, Warren did come off as somewhat more partisan.
No comments:
Post a Comment