Left In Lowell

Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs

 
2013 Candidate Questionnaire Responses!
 

October 5, 2012

Rove-Driven Scott Brown

by at 10:29 am.

By now, you’ve probably seen all three lying scumbag ads from Scott Brown tripling down on the Cherokee heritage thing. In it, he outright lies, since there is evidence that Warren did NOT get ahead because of her listing herself in a lawyer’s directory as having Native blood, and there no evidence whatsoever that she did get ahead. Yet the ads say over and over “she got ahead” because of it. (The ONLY argument you can make is that Harvard, for a time, “got ahead” by listing her a female minority briefly. However, Warren was hired by then, and she had nothing to do with that. To accuse her of “lying to get ahead” is to A) assume she is lying about her heritage that was passed down by her parents, and B) that everyone and everything that has come out about how she never used this to get her jobs is lying. Occam’s Razor, people.)

You might have also seen the latest ad where Brown attacks her work on the asbestos case he has been bringing up over and over at debates. He selectively pulled out quotes from the Globe which were seriously out of context, and distorted the truth to the point of lying again.

This is the result of having a Karl Rove acolyte running your campaign. Everyone remembers the swiftboating of John Kerry - lying about his war record, taking what is a big strength of Kerry’s and making it an albatross around his neck. It became so synonymous with Karl Rove tactic it became its own verb.

I think the voters of Massachusetts deserve way better than Karl Rovian, swiftboating lying scummy campaigns. And so do the people affected by the asbestos lawsuit against Travelers…not a one of the victims, workers, or any other person on the victim’s side of that lawsuit from Travelers has said anything but positive things on Warren’s role in the case, preserving future victims’ rights to sue and get compensated. The “disastrous results” Brown quotes in his ad are from long after Warren left the case, in a decision that Warren utterly disagrees with (vacating the payments).

So also say the Asbestos Workers Local 6. If Warren indeed was on the side of wrong on the asbestos case, these are the people you would think would be applauding Brown for his attacks and highlighting of this issue. Instead, they are calling on Brown to pull his ad immediately for being a lie. Via BMG, their open letter (bold mine):

Dear Senator Brown:

At your first debate with Elizabeth Warren, you accused her of siding with Travelers Insurance Company to deny people with asbestos poisoning their benefits and added, “I hope all the Asbestos Union Workers are watching right now.”

As the Business Manager of Asbestos Workers Local 6 – which represents 450 asbestos workers in Massachusetts – I can attest that many of us were watching and were shocked and upset by your mischaracterizations and politicization of this serious issue. We were also disappointed to see your totally unsupported and unsupportable subsequent allegation that asbestos victims “have died as a result of her efforts,” as well as to see you repeating these false attacks in your second debate and in a new false, misleading, and offensive television attack advertisement.

The truth is that Elizabeth Warren represented Travelers at a time when the company was on the same side as a vast majority of asbestos victims. Elizabeth fought for a principle that most asbestos victims agree with strongly: that settlement trusts are an important part of the law and should be continued to be used. To say otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a cynical lie designed to trick people to vote for you.

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer caused by asbestos exposure. There is no cure for mesothelioma and the average life expectancy from diagnosis is generally from six to eighteen months. In our union, many of us have watched family members and or friends suffer and die painful deaths from this horrible disease.

We think it is inappropriate of you to use misleading personal attacks to distract people from your record against working families in Massachusetts, and we think it is offensive for you to campaign on the backs of suffering mesothelioma victims to win votes.

We would like to request a meeting to discuss this issue with you further as soon as possible and certainly before the next debate on Oct. 10, and before you make more false attacks. We are indeed watching your comments on this and other issues and have a keen interest in them.

Sincerely,
Francis C. Boudrow
Business Manager
International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local #6
303 Freeport Street
Dorchester, MA 02122
(617) 436-4666

Anyone wanna take the bet that Brown will meet with them or pull his ads? Didn’t think so.

24 Responses to “Rove-Driven Scott Brown”

  1. Todd Feinburg Says:

    It doesn’t matter whether she succeeded in her scam or not, or whether what she says about her family heritage is true. What matters is that she listed herself as someone deserving of affirmative action benefits, and that is a crime against the notion of affirmative action. Anyone who believes in giving preference in hiring to people who have suffered as a result of their race or ethnicity must be enraged.

  2. Jack Says:

    Todd,
    What proof do you have? You can’t cite other accusations. You can’t call on Warren to prove the accusation is false. In a court of law, this “stuff” about Warren would get laughed out of court.

    Bring something solid, tangible evidence.

    Maybe better, tell us several policy positions that Brown is better on than Warren. Wouldn’t it be a riot, if we talked about issues?

  3. Lynne Says:

    Wow, we’re getting wingers from WRKO posting here! We’ve made the bigtime.

    (Yes, this is sarcasm.)

    No, no, please, keep doubling down on this issue…it’s so awesome, it’s a great motivator for our side. I’m going canvassing tomorrow morning because of it!

  4. Mr. Lynne Says:

    Warren is a person of immense integrity who’s been a fierce advocate of the middle class for a long long time. She was on my radar long before the Senate race or even the Consumer Protection bureau. She was a ‘go to’ source for Frontline reporters in order to understand and present the particulars of how the system screws the middle class.

    So naturally the Roveian tactic (hit ‘em where they’re strongest) is to label her a self-serving opportunist who screws working people.

    I really think that there’s so much to like about her that people are clinging to this baloney because they know that they don’t want to like her because she’s a Democrat so the id searches for something to cling to. And so lies (now in the form of tribal dogma) are regarded as truth to avoid the obvious cognitive dissonance.

  5. Todd Feinburg Says:

    I’m stating a fact that she’s confessed to - she listed herself as a minority in a professional journal, and has come up with silly, shifting explanations for why. If you’re a believer in affirmative action, why isn’t that an affront?

  6. Jack Says:

    Use Teh Google, Todd.

    Warren Listed as White in School Records
    Democratic Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren listed herself as white in personnel records at the University of Texas and declined to apply to Rutgers School of Law through a minority program, records show.

    Oh, I did find this:

    The American Association of Law Schools directory doesn’t specify which professors are Native American, but instead clumps all the “minority law teachers” together in a distinct section. As such, it’s no surprise that Warren didn’t connect with American Indians through the listing — they wouldn’t have known she was one of them.

    Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School.

    The former chairman of the American Association of Law Schools, David Bernstein, told the Herald that the group’s directory once served as a tip sheet for administrators. “In the old days before the Internet, you’d pull out the AALS directory and look up people,” he said. “There are schools that, if they were looking for a minority faculty member, would go to that list and might say, ‘I didn’t know Elizabeth Warren was a minority.’”

    Warren said she didn’t know Harvard had used her heritage as proof of diversity until reading about the issue in the news, according to a Herald report. She also denied that she ever tried to gain a professional advantage through her lineage.

    Warren also says that she was recruited for these positions — she did not “apply” for them, as Brown asserts.

    The Globe obtained a portion of Warren’s application to Rutgers, which asks if prospective students want to apply for admission under the school’s Program for Minority Group Students. Warren answered “no.”

    For her employment documents at the University of Texas, Warren indicated that she was “white.”

    But Penn’s 2005 Minority Equity Report identified her as the recipient of a 1994 faculty award, listing her name in bold to signify that she was a minority.

    The Herald has twice quoted Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, saying that the Democratic candidate’s heritage didn’t come up during the course of her hiring. “It simply played no role in the appointments process,” he said. “It was not mentioned and I didn’t mention it to the faculty.”

    The Herald later quoted Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, saying, “I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned.”

    Not easily whittled down to a bumpersticker, Todd.

    So, Warren DIDN’T use her understanding of her heritage, as Brown and you assert. No outrage is warranted.

  7. Lynne Says:

    See you on November 7th, Todd. Worried much?

    And, are you for or against Karl Rove? Just out of curiosity.

  8. Todd Feinburg Says:

    Huh? That implicates her. Sometimes white, sometimes minority, directory used as a tip sheet for administrators. Why did she suddenly become minority for the tip sheet, and stop after being hired by Harvard?

  9. Lynne Says:

    WTF is a “tip sheet”? I have NEVER heard that term for a lawyer directory. Freaking hilarious.

  10. Jack Says:

    Todd, your cherry picking through ALL of the facts is tedious.

    Did you not read this part?:

    The Herald has twice quoted Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, saying that the Democratic candidate’s heritage didn’t come up during the course of her hiring. “It simply played no role in the appointments process,” he said. “It was not mentioned and I didn’t mention it to the faculty.”

    The Herald later quoted Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, saying, “I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned.

    Should we talk about Scott Brown’s abuse as a child, and how he has played that like a fiddle? The answer is “No.”

    So far, Todd has not mentioned an “issue” that matters to Bay Staters. Jobs? War? Pay equality?

  11. Mr. Lynne Says:

    They have to have this one thing, they’ve got nothing else (which is to say they have nothing).

  12. Christopher Says:

    You don’t even have to go way back in this case. Elizabeth Warren’s PARENTS had to elope because her mother was too Native for her father’s family’s tastes. If you want to re-elect Brown, that is certainly your right, but kindly defend his record rather than going birther.

  13. Jack Says:

    The the family ancestry is a rabbit hole which smacks of “birther.” I’m not convinced we should pursue it any further. It is a distraction. Maybe for every stupid “birther” comment, we should post something like this?

    We are questioning judgement?

  14. lowellgal Says:

    love that consumer financial protection bureau, 60% of its 958 employees make more that $100,000 a year, 5% are out-earning U.S cabinet secretaries by raking in $200,000 or more annually. not close to the %50,00 median annual salary of the working stiffs paying for these outrageous salaries. Not to mention consumer information in 187 languages and guess what no accountability for the over $447 million dollar budget. I called Professor Warren and spoke to her on a Boston Radio station asking her to explain why the huge salaries. She said “I don’t know what you are talking about” yet she was questioned about the excessive salaries by congress in May of 2011. Another Bureau, add that to the other 9 that couldn’t catch Bernie Madoff.
    A government agency created to protect the consumer, who is protecting us from IT?

  15. Mr. Lynne Says:

    Oh yeah. That ambu… er… committee hearing. I remember it well, including the classy way the GOP scheduled it. You know,… with lying.

  16. lowellgal Says:

    please post the one with Congresswoman Buerkle, from oversight, it’s very easy to find. I was talking about ’salaries” and her response that she didn’t remember being questioned. This will show that she was questioned and she justified these new hires in her brainchild the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Yea, I guess we need to pay someone fretting out credit card fraud more than the Secretary of State or Attorney General of the United States. If I were making $325,000 for teaching a couple of classes that would make sense to me, but not to the average working class person.

  17. Mr. Lynne Says:

    I found your video, but I’m not giving google-fu lessons.

    Why is it that everyone figures that if any job can make X in the private sector, when the government hires for the same set of skills they should make 1/2 X? No wonder you hate government - you make sure its run by the bottom of the labor market.

  18. lowellgal Says:

    tell that to Hillary Clinton (bottom of the labor market)

    quote from Robert Reich about this legislation which includes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “Mountain of Legislative paper and a molehill of reform” that coming from the Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton. I didn’t think you would post the video, after all you are a “liberal” blog and Elizabeth Warren did blow me off and this would prove she was not “truthful” when she stated that she didn’t know what I was talking about. How in the hell do you get questioned by a Congresswoman and forget it a year later. Not falling for that one. Maybe Tim Geithner was right in opposing Warren for head of this bureau. I don’t hate government, I hate the way it’s run, too costly, too partisan and not responsive to the average person.

  19. Todd Feinburg Says:

    No one has responded to my argument, which is both amusing and a confession that you can’t. For your convenience, I’ll restate - The crime she committed was scamming the system by pretending to be deserving of special benefits because she’s a woman of color. She may have Indian heritage, but even if she does, her claim does not make her deserving of affirmative action benefits.

    Does anyone care about the truth enough to refute that, or will you just revert to personal attacks or tell me again about Charles Fried (whose statements aren’t important - see above)

  20. Jack Says:

    TF says - “Charles Fried (whose statements aren’t important - see above)”

    1: marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence : valuable in content or relationship

    This sounds important:
    Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, saying that the Democratic candidate’s heritage didn’t come up during the course of her hiring.

    Todd,
    You don’t get to frame the parameters for the debate. We have confessed nothing, regardless of your pouty assertion. Further, the hyperbolic thrust of “The crime she committed,” further erodes your credibility in this forum.

    I will not entertain the premise of your question, as it is without merit. There is no issue here. Watching you expose how bankrupt your debate ethics are doesn’t make me, or anyone elese here, any better informed.

    For your troubles:

    Link to video.
    3/4/11: At the opening ceremony of the MIT Koch Cancer Institute, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) thanks petrochemical billionaire David Koch and his wife Julia for their support in Brown’s special election, and asks for more money for his re-election campaign in 2012.

    Will Scott Brown take on “big oil” special interests? Elizabeth Warren will.

    Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren electrified the crowd at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night with her trademark feisty rhetoric and populism, casting Wall Street and big oil as villains while praising President Obama as a defender of the middle class.

    The system is rigged,” Warren told delegates packed into the Time Warner Cable Arena. “Look around. Oil companies guzzle down billions in profits. Billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. And Wall Street CEOs—the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs—still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them.”

    Watching Scott Brown fondle David Koch’s ego is a testament that the system is rigged.

  21. joe from Lowell Says:

    “It doesn’t matter… whether what she says about her family heritage is true.”

    The modern Republican Party, ladies and gentlemen.

    It doesn’t matter if what someone says is true. Isn’t that basically Mitt Romney’s debate performance in a nutshell?

  22. joe from Lowell Says:

    I care enough about the truth to note that Todd is lying his ass off.

    There is not the slightest evidence that Elizabeth Warren ever sought, or received, any special consideration whatsoever based on her heritage.

    None. Zero. You have provided none, Scott Brown has provided none, the web sites you are cutting and pasting from have provided none.

    Not on this thread, not on any thread. You are making things up, or repeating something someone else made up.

    The entirety of your case relies upon the assumption that anyone with any minority status who achieves success just gotta be a beneficiary of affirmative action. That’s pretty awesome, Todd.

  23. Lynne Says:

    The modern Republican Party, ladies and gentlemen.

    Awesome.

    And Todd doesn’t LIKE that the facts, unspun, don’t support his MA birtherism. Joe, stop trying to tell us the facts. You’ll hurt the little guy’s feelings.

  24. Lynne Says:

    It’s sad that this person has an audience. Even in MA we have low info voters willing to be led around by their noses and have someone else think for them, I guess.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

[powered by WordPress.]


If you are not on Twitter and want to follow our feed on Facebook, click "Like" for our FB page.
BadgermillCity logo

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

October 2012
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Other:

Email us!

(replace spaces, ['s, symbols)
Lynne | Mimi

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Politics Online

The Arts in Lowell

Trad Local Media

40 queries. 1.049 seconds