Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
Another day, another bizarre, fact-free attack on Elizabeth Warren. This one from conservative bloggers and their mindslaves. I don’t know if it originally came from the Brown campaign itself, though given its history, and its Rovian campaign manager Jim Barnett, and expensive consultant Eric “CrazyKhazei” Fehrnstrom, it would not really surprise me.
The basics? Brown surrogates are trying to insinuate that Warren was unlicensed or fraudulent when representing Travelers Insurance before the Supreme Court (the same case they are trying to use to attack her as somehow pro-corporate, despite the facts actually being quite the opposite).
Except, it’s all so empty an attack, that within hours, it was being debunked.
Tribe adds that Warren fully met all of the Supreme Court’s requirements for filing briefs and petitions with that court.
“This was not and could not be a violation of any Massachusetts rule,” Tribe says. “In fact, any state rule that interfered with a federal filing would be null and void under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. Elizabeth complied with all applicable federal rules.”
Seriously, this line of attack is just smelling so desperate. I had Facebook friends jumping all over this like they knew what the fuck they were talking about, but with little actual facts of the actual matter at hand. Just some biased conservative law blogger’s post (which I will not link to) and a prayer.
I get it. Brown is bleeding support and Warren is doing good, and you can’t talk about your candidate’s record because it’s rather unappealing to the voters of the Commonwealth. And you’re following your candidate’s lead, since he’s decided to take the Karl Rove low road, so you feel entitled or like you have permission or something. But please, don’t be so freaking obvious. It’s making our job too easy. And making our side feel that much more motivated to go out on the streets and talk to voters, because the attacks are such lying bullshit you feel like you want to go out and fight the stupidity firsthand.
No, on second thought, keep it up, and we’ll get all of Massachusetts canvassed like four times over by the time Nov 6th rolls around.
I just finished watching the end of the Special Meeting City Council meeting on the future of the City Auditor Sheryl Wright. She is staying based on a vote of 6-3; surprisingly newly appointed City Councilor John Leahy voted against it and I will let you guess who the other two were. In my opinion, he should have passed but him quoting CC E. Kennedy signaled a position that my friend Jack already picked up on.
As soon as LTC puts up the video of this meeting, I will post a few of the City Councilors’ comments as an update I especially liked CC R. Mercier’s comments; for example that a list of complaints against the Auditor were not presented when they met with her a couple of months ago.
In addition to the constant criticism, Campi (is it Campi or Campy) wrote an editorial last week which was moved to the front page of their web site today. The editorial told the City Councilors that “City auditor doesn’t deserve new contract.”
The opening sentence of the editorial, which you can find on line and I choose not directly link to, states “The Lowell City Council should respectfully decline the chance to renew City Auditor Sheryl Wright’s contract and instead open a job search for new applicants.”
The majority was respectful and decides to open up discussion to renew her contract. By the way this is the last sentence of the editorial “And that is why the City Council should seek new candidates for city auditor. If it doesn’t, it would be affirming Wright’s subpar performance as its own.”
The talking points listed in the editorial are quite similar to those who lead the attack against the Auditor. But this attempted move is nothing more than a few dozen attempts of “death by 1,000 paper cuts.”
For those of you who are not familiar with that saying, my colleague Jack has given a name to the campaign to change the Administration (i.e. get rid of Bernie ), therefore the culture at City Hall, back to the good old days. I should add good for them, not so good for the rest of us.
Sheryl, I guess you have been adopted and are no longer a political orphan.
Wow…this Charlie Pierce piece is pretty brutal. Worth a full read, but here are some highlights to whet your appetite (bold mine):
It’s a bit of a mystery as to why Brown has chosen to run the kind of yob campaign that he’s currently running, even though it’s contrary to the image the country has of him, and even though it makes him look like a preposterous know-nothing. (A guy who went through law school is really appalled by what a law school professor makes in salary? Please.)
On the other hand, there are some obvious explanations. For example, for all his regular-guy facade, this is a shrewd, calculating man who is sublimely impressed with his own importance as a political figure. (Again, Paul Ryan has a similar problem.) He’s also incredibly thin-skinned. It is very likely that the notion of someone challenging him in a serious manner has offended against his sense of himself as the pivotal figure that everybody told him he was two years ago.
Kings and Queens…actually, Pierce really nails it there.
Pierce goes on to mention that Brown’s “campaign manager, Jim Barnett, is a Karl Rove acolyte.”
You don’t hire Barnett to sell your pick-up truck and your barncoat and your big happy suburban family. You hire him because you want to throw rocks. Barnett is a wartime consigliere. So is Eric Fehrnstrom. This is the campaign Scott Brown wants to run because these are the people he’s picked to run it.
That’s the role he’s decided to play, even though it’s completely dissonant with the figure he’s playing in his television ads.
Oh, just go read the whole take down, seriously, there’s too much to quote for fair use on a blog post.
Scott Brown isn’t the brightest bulb on the porch.
This is a screen grab from his latest ad:
When I drive through “Old Lowell,” I see plenty of Scott Brown & Eileen Donoghue campaign signs cohabitating the lawns. Does Brown really think he will come out on top, if he tries to force Lowellians into a “push comes to shove?”
There may be a tiny Lowell crew that giggles at the idea of putting a crown on Eileen’s head. I wonder if trying to tie Warren around Donoghue’s neck, like the proverbial albatross, will have the same fantastic results?
[powered by WordPress.]
|« Aug||Oct »|
42 queries. 0.882 seconds