Massachusetts Senate Debate: Brown vs. Warren
Many people think that the United States Senate is dysfunctional. They think it doesn’t work, or that it’s run by a bunch of lobbyists and self-interested millionaires and billionaires.
On Monday, October 1st, at the Tsongas Center, the second debate between the incumbent Senator Scott Brown, and the challenger Professor Elizabeth Warren, took place. It was hosted by David Gregory from Meet the Press.
The first point that the candidates were asked to address was the personal. The debate started with a question posed to Professor Warren about her supposed Native American heritage and the controversy surrounding the whole issue. She says that she has not used it for any advantage, but yet says she listed herself in minority faculty directories from 1986 to 1995. She doesn’t really answer the question of whether she considers herself to be a minority. She also doesn’t answer the actual question asked; that if she truly has any Native American heritage or not. It felt like she’s starting to act like a true politician. It reminded me of what I read about the HBO movie "Game Change". This movie is depicts how politicians are prepared in different ways of not answering a question posed to them. They redirect or “pivot” their answers to some other subject matter, totally irrelevant to the primary question that is asked. I guess this issue is one of those for which she used a "pivot". It felt to me like Warren was trying to either hide something or cover something up. Whatever it is, something was definitely “off” about Warren while the issue was being debated.
As the debate on this question went along, a sub-point about releasing each candidate’s personal records was raised. Senator Brown said that he has released a list of all of his clients as a real estate banker. He accused Professor Warren of not doing the same. As such, he accused her of siding with big corporations and against the working class. He even went so far as to say that she hurt asbestos victims. At this the professor appeared slightly offended. She responded that in the battle between two insurance companies, the asbestos victims would be paid compensation only if one company won. She stressed that she even went to the United States Supreme Court in an effort to give asbestos victims their due. She claimed that the asbestos victims supposedly admitted to her that they feel she is on their side, not Senator Brown. She also asserted that the victims’ lawyers supposedly told her that Senator Brown’s accusations are deliberately dishonest. Warren even cited the Boston Globe, which said that Brown’s accusations were misleading. Professor Warren ended here rebuttal with the statement that “if she had the chance, she would do it again.” Brown tried to once again bite back, by claiming that the asbestos victims got 1/40th of Professor Warren’s salary, which he cited as somewhere in the five figure range. The argument on personal issues ended here, as the moderator, David Gregory, announced the start of the debate on national policy.
My reaction is this: especially in the personal section, the accusations and allegations and the explanations and justifications only made me wonder who is lying and to what extent. Maybe both are. Is this what we as people have to expect? Lying, possibly cheating, and exploitation of any and every situation are the only way to get ahead in politics? One of them uses a possibly fake heritage to get ahead and the other uses asbestos victims to do negative campaigning to his opponent. Does either candidate truly care about the victims? It used to be that the leader of a group of people was expected to be honest and truthful, not disingenuous and duplicitous. How do you trust either? It probably can’t get any worse.
The universe just loves proving me wrong, doesn’t it? The national policy section of this debate came with a large chunk of discussion on who is more bipartisan and less partisan. Senator Brown claimed that his voting record is 50% with his party, and 50% with the Democrats. He also reiterated that he is the least partisan and the second most bipartisan senator in the entire United States Senate.
Professor Warren now got her chance to speak and give back some of that negativity she got from him. So she directed a whole lot of accusations at Senator Brown, and claimed that on three occasions, Senator Brown voted in lockstep with all other Republicans on three jobs bills, preventing them from becoming laws. She also further rebutted Senator Brown’s bipartisan claim by repeating what he supposedly says to voters across the country as he fundraises for his campaign: that if reelected, the Republicans will control the Senate and block President Obama’s agendas. But when asked which Republicans she herself could work with, she dodged the question, not naming any names. She instead pulled out the old “depends on the situation” trick. However, she twisted it in her favor by saying that in terms of “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” she could work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, who wanted to revise them. Senator Brown in return accused her that he doesn’t think she would work with those from the opposite party because few people in the Democratic Party actually do so.
Being a senator shouldn’t be about one’s party, or blocking the opposing party’s agendas. Being a senator should mean doing what’s best for the people that are being represented. Senators shouldn’t sit and squabble over party differences; they should work together and do what’s best for this country. If this were the case, a discussion of bipartisanship is not needed, because everyone is already working together anyway.
The debate then moved on to taxes. This is a relatively short topic. Brown cited that he had eliminated some tax deductions that he felt didn’t help the middle class. He also assured that he kept others that he felt helped the middle class. But Warren, in a statement which I somewhat agree with, pointed out that Brown had reportedly signed an extremist right-wing pledge never to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. The Republicans, Professor Warren added, reportedly shot down the Buffett Rule, which would have made it such that millionaires and billionaires would have to pay at least as much as their secretaries in taxes.
At this point David Gregory announced a break for commercials. I will take this time to reflect on the first part of the debate. Firstly, who’s winning at this point? I would say that at this point, the debate is a draw. Both sides were unrelenting in self-promotion. Both displayed enough negative adversarial remarks. Both sides had their good and bad arguments. Both sides tried their hand at deflecting questions. Both sides had their “pivot” moments.
Now we move on to the second part of the debate. This was the student questions portion of the debate. The first question was about job creation, especially for recent graduates. This question is especially relevant to me because I will be in the same situation in 3 years. Professor Warren had 2 answers: a short term and a long term. In the short term, she said, she supports jobs bills, which are designed to put paychecks in people’s hands. The people then spend this money in the economy, increasing demand, making manufacturers hire more workers, creating jobs. Senator Brown, however, pointed out the flaw in this plan. In today’s economy, even if the demand is present, people are afraid to hire because they are afraid of the new tax policies. Thus, this plan doesn’t work. Professor Warren said that in the long run, we must invest in our future: education, research, transportation, energy, etc. These will create jobs in new fields as we advance into the future. Lastly, she ended her answer with the fact that Massachusetts is a great place to live because we are on the cutting edge; we are making the advances that are then spread through the rest of the world.
The question about jobs was really applicable to people my age, or not much older than me. I think that job creation needs to happen. It shouldn’t be very difficult for recent graduates to find jobs. But employers still consistently try to hire seasoned professionals over recent graduates. When these “seasoned professionals” themselves are finding it hard to secure a job in the current market, how would a fresh graduate even stand a chance?
The 2nd question addressed a controversial issue: immigration. In particular, it asked about the Dream Act. Senator Brown was against it; Professor Warren was in favor of it. Senator Brown called the act “a form of backdoor amnesty” for illegal immigrants. He fully supports legal immigration, but the Dream Act essentially, in his words, allows the illegal immigrants to cut in line in front of the millions of people trying to get in legally. Lastly, he criticized Warren for being against securing our border, and for being in favor of in-state tuition and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. Professor Warren agreed with some views, but not all of them. She supports the Dream Act, but said that she agrees with Senator Brown on the need for immigration reform now, calling the government to action in the phrase “we can’t keep putting it off.”
Though the issue of immigration isn’t really applicable to me personally, I know that it is a very controversial issue. There are those who are trying to get in legally. My parents themselves had to go through lot of paper work, immigration lawyers, spend a lot of money and wait few years to get here legally. Then there are those that try to get in illegally, because they cannot afford to do in any other way or they are practically desperate to get here. But all are coming here for a better life. Most of the people we call illegal immigrants are most likely of the second group. We need to make it easier for skilled people to come here legally, and at the same time, we need to treat those who are desperate with better amnesty rules, not turn them away.
The war in Afghanistan is almost over. The only thing that remains is bringing everyone home. Should be simple enough, right? Wrong. Seriously, do these people have to argue over everything? Even here there’s disagreement. Professor Warren said that we need to get our troops home as soon as possible, considering only their safety, even if this is done before the president’s timeline. Her next statement I am sure a lot of people, who are supporters of both candidates, agree with: that we need to stop spending $2,000,000,000 a week on the war. Her opinion is that we can’t stay and help rebuild Afghanistan forever like we did in Iraq. It’s just too costly to do so. All Senator Brown said on the matter is that he would respect the opinion of the generals on the ground, and of the president. So, both agree that the soldiers need to be brought home, but they never agree on how and when they should be brought back. By the time these people decide, many more soldiers will be dead.
As the debate starts to come to an end, two questions are left. One is about what each candidate admires in the other. Professor Warren complimented Senator Brown on his nice family, and agreed strongly with his decision to vote in favor of getting rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Brown also complimented the professor on her hardworking family, and said that she is a very qualified teacher.
And so the seriousness comes to an end, as David Gregory asked the candidates if Bobby Valentine should stay another year with the Red Sox. Professor Warren said yes, and Senator Brown said to leave it up to the Red Sox management. I know they were trying to wind down the debate with some light natured banter, but it feels like a crime to even talk about such frivolous nonsense in face of the crises facing the country.
I guess in the second half of the debate, especially as things came to an end, Senator Brown wasn’t in direct opposition to Professor Warren’s views; rather, he was ambiguous.
And so, as I conclude my discussion of the debate, I must comment on my favorite moment. It was early on in the debate. Professor Warren kept on trying to interrupt Senator Brown. Then Senator Brown told her, “I’m not a student in your classroom, OK? So please let me respond. Thank you.” It was just plain funny.
On Monday, October 1st, at the Tsongas Center, the second debate between the incumbent Senator Scott Brown, and the challenger Professor Elizabeth Warren, took place. It was hosted by David Gregory from Meet the Press.
The first point that the candidates were asked to address was the personal. The debate started with a question posed to Professor Warren about her supposed Native American heritage and the controversy surrounding the whole issue. She says that she has not used it for any advantage, but yet says she listed herself in minority faculty directories from 1986 to 1995. She doesn’t really answer the question of whether she considers herself to be a minority. She also doesn’t answer the actual question asked; that if she truly has any Native American heritage or not. It felt like she’s starting to act like a true politician. It reminded me of what I read about the HBO movie "Game Change". This movie is depicts how politicians are prepared in different ways of not answering a question posed to them. They redirect or “pivot” their answers to some other subject matter, totally irrelevant to the primary question that is asked. I guess this issue is one of those for which she used a "pivot". It felt to me like Warren was trying to either hide something or cover something up. Whatever it is, something was definitely “off” about Warren while the issue was being debated.
As the debate on this question went along, a sub-point about releasing each candidate’s personal records was raised. Senator Brown said that he has released a list of all of his clients as a real estate banker. He accused Professor Warren of not doing the same. As such, he accused her of siding with big corporations and against the working class. He even went so far as to say that she hurt asbestos victims. At this the professor appeared slightly offended. She responded that in the battle between two insurance companies, the asbestos victims would be paid compensation only if one company won. She stressed that she even went to the United States Supreme Court in an effort to give asbestos victims their due. She claimed that the asbestos victims supposedly admitted to her that they feel she is on their side, not Senator Brown. She also asserted that the victims’ lawyers supposedly told her that Senator Brown’s accusations are deliberately dishonest. Warren even cited the Boston Globe, which said that Brown’s accusations were misleading. Professor Warren ended here rebuttal with the statement that “if she had the chance, she would do it again.” Brown tried to once again bite back, by claiming that the asbestos victims got 1/40th of Professor Warren’s salary, which he cited as somewhere in the five figure range. The argument on personal issues ended here, as the moderator, David Gregory, announced the start of the debate on national policy.
My reaction is this: especially in the personal section, the accusations and allegations and the explanations and justifications only made me wonder who is lying and to what extent. Maybe both are. Is this what we as people have to expect? Lying, possibly cheating, and exploitation of any and every situation are the only way to get ahead in politics? One of them uses a possibly fake heritage to get ahead and the other uses asbestos victims to do negative campaigning to his opponent. Does either candidate truly care about the victims? It used to be that the leader of a group of people was expected to be honest and truthful, not disingenuous and duplicitous. How do you trust either? It probably can’t get any worse.
The universe just loves proving me wrong, doesn’t it? The national policy section of this debate came with a large chunk of discussion on who is more bipartisan and less partisan. Senator Brown claimed that his voting record is 50% with his party, and 50% with the Democrats. He also reiterated that he is the least partisan and the second most bipartisan senator in the entire United States Senate.
Professor Warren now got her chance to speak and give back some of that negativity she got from him. So she directed a whole lot of accusations at Senator Brown, and claimed that on three occasions, Senator Brown voted in lockstep with all other Republicans on three jobs bills, preventing them from becoming laws. She also further rebutted Senator Brown’s bipartisan claim by repeating what he supposedly says to voters across the country as he fundraises for his campaign: that if reelected, the Republicans will control the Senate and block President Obama’s agendas. But when asked which Republicans she herself could work with, she dodged the question, not naming any names. She instead pulled out the old “depends on the situation” trick. However, she twisted it in her favor by saying that in terms of “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” she could work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, who wanted to revise them. Senator Brown in return accused her that he doesn’t think she would work with those from the opposite party because few people in the Democratic Party actually do so.
Being a senator shouldn’t be about one’s party, or blocking the opposing party’s agendas. Being a senator should mean doing what’s best for the people that are being represented. Senators shouldn’t sit and squabble over party differences; they should work together and do what’s best for this country. If this were the case, a discussion of bipartisanship is not needed, because everyone is already working together anyway.
The debate then moved on to taxes. This is a relatively short topic. Brown cited that he had eliminated some tax deductions that he felt didn’t help the middle class. He also assured that he kept others that he felt helped the middle class. But Warren, in a statement which I somewhat agree with, pointed out that Brown had reportedly signed an extremist right-wing pledge never to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. The Republicans, Professor Warren added, reportedly shot down the Buffett Rule, which would have made it such that millionaires and billionaires would have to pay at least as much as their secretaries in taxes.
At this point David Gregory announced a break for commercials. I will take this time to reflect on the first part of the debate. Firstly, who’s winning at this point? I would say that at this point, the debate is a draw. Both sides were unrelenting in self-promotion. Both displayed enough negative adversarial remarks. Both sides had their good and bad arguments. Both sides tried their hand at deflecting questions. Both sides had their “pivot” moments.
Now we move on to the second part of the debate. This was the student questions portion of the debate. The first question was about job creation, especially for recent graduates. This question is especially relevant to me because I will be in the same situation in 3 years. Professor Warren had 2 answers: a short term and a long term. In the short term, she said, she supports jobs bills, which are designed to put paychecks in people’s hands. The people then spend this money in the economy, increasing demand, making manufacturers hire more workers, creating jobs. Senator Brown, however, pointed out the flaw in this plan. In today’s economy, even if the demand is present, people are afraid to hire because they are afraid of the new tax policies. Thus, this plan doesn’t work. Professor Warren said that in the long run, we must invest in our future: education, research, transportation, energy, etc. These will create jobs in new fields as we advance into the future. Lastly, she ended her answer with the fact that Massachusetts is a great place to live because we are on the cutting edge; we are making the advances that are then spread through the rest of the world.
The question about jobs was really applicable to people my age, or not much older than me. I think that job creation needs to happen. It shouldn’t be very difficult for recent graduates to find jobs. But employers still consistently try to hire seasoned professionals over recent graduates. When these “seasoned professionals” themselves are finding it hard to secure a job in the current market, how would a fresh graduate even stand a chance?
The 2nd question addressed a controversial issue: immigration. In particular, it asked about the Dream Act. Senator Brown was against it; Professor Warren was in favor of it. Senator Brown called the act “a form of backdoor amnesty” for illegal immigrants. He fully supports legal immigration, but the Dream Act essentially, in his words, allows the illegal immigrants to cut in line in front of the millions of people trying to get in legally. Lastly, he criticized Warren for being against securing our border, and for being in favor of in-state tuition and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. Professor Warren agreed with some views, but not all of them. She supports the Dream Act, but said that she agrees with Senator Brown on the need for immigration reform now, calling the government to action in the phrase “we can’t keep putting it off.”
Though the issue of immigration isn’t really applicable to me personally, I know that it is a very controversial issue. There are those who are trying to get in legally. My parents themselves had to go through lot of paper work, immigration lawyers, spend a lot of money and wait few years to get here legally. Then there are those that try to get in illegally, because they cannot afford to do in any other way or they are practically desperate to get here. But all are coming here for a better life. Most of the people we call illegal immigrants are most likely of the second group. We need to make it easier for skilled people to come here legally, and at the same time, we need to treat those who are desperate with better amnesty rules, not turn them away.
The war in Afghanistan is almost over. The only thing that remains is bringing everyone home. Should be simple enough, right? Wrong. Seriously, do these people have to argue over everything? Even here there’s disagreement. Professor Warren said that we need to get our troops home as soon as possible, considering only their safety, even if this is done before the president’s timeline. Her next statement I am sure a lot of people, who are supporters of both candidates, agree with: that we need to stop spending $2,000,000,000 a week on the war. Her opinion is that we can’t stay and help rebuild Afghanistan forever like we did in Iraq. It’s just too costly to do so. All Senator Brown said on the matter is that he would respect the opinion of the generals on the ground, and of the president. So, both agree that the soldiers need to be brought home, but they never agree on how and when they should be brought back. By the time these people decide, many more soldiers will be dead.
As the debate starts to come to an end, two questions are left. One is about what each candidate admires in the other. Professor Warren complimented Senator Brown on his nice family, and agreed strongly with his decision to vote in favor of getting rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Brown also complimented the professor on her hardworking family, and said that she is a very qualified teacher.
And so the seriousness comes to an end, as David Gregory asked the candidates if Bobby Valentine should stay another year with the Red Sox. Professor Warren said yes, and Senator Brown said to leave it up to the Red Sox management. I know they were trying to wind down the debate with some light natured banter, but it feels like a crime to even talk about such frivolous nonsense in face of the crises facing the country.
I guess in the second half of the debate, especially as things came to an end, Senator Brown wasn’t in direct opposition to Professor Warren’s views; rather, he was ambiguous.
And so, as I conclude my discussion of the debate, I must comment on my favorite moment. It was early on in the debate. Professor Warren kept on trying to interrupt Senator Brown. Then Senator Brown told her, “I’m not a student in your classroom, OK? So please let me respond. Thank you.” It was just plain funny.