I think what you meant to say is that Scalia doesn't interpret the Constitution, but actually upholds its provisions and limitations on what the Federal government is allowed to do. That he is a believer that many of the issues brought before the Court should be left to the states because there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the amount of Federal encroachment that previous era Courts read into in that blessed document. Last time I checked there was no "Second Bill of Rights" (as FDR so famously advocated for, and HIS Court Jesters, I mean Justices upheld as law) amended to the Constitution. Rolling back that judicial overreach is not only necessary, it is Constitutional. You know, the foundation on which this country was built. If you truly believe that these policies should be enshrined in our Founding document, there's a process available to you and other advocates of your positions. It's called the Amendment process, and unlike your policy preferences, it's actually written into the Constitution.

Thank God that she does.

You mean that she does not believe in killing babies, legal discrimination and restricting lawful gun owners while doing nothing to stop illegal gun owners!

Resident - Scalia is not a woman.

Karl Weld: Scalia is the biggest ideologue (literally) on the bench. If you don't believe that then I suggest you look up a little case called Bush v. Gore.

Lying about one's heritage for personal advancement, shows a serious character flaw. No, i don't care about Elizabeth's heritage but I do care that she may be deceptive.

If you read between the lines on Liz Warren's comments I think it pretty clear that Liz doesn't know how to reduce the dept without raising taxes and from her attacks on Brown's Jobs vote, she doesn't care if it's at the hands of small business owners or workers. Taxing corporations won't do it, they will just pass the cost on to the consumer. She complains about how millionairs are successful, their tax rates and makes the concious effort not to pay more herself.

Now people are investigating her practicing law without a license in MA. She has a Cambridge Business Address but isn't licensed in MA? She did something in NJ on 9/11/12. Can she talk to why that happened?

From all accounts it appears that she consideres herself an above the law fraud. She may be Native American. Why did she use that option when she applied at Penn State (?) and Harvard Law? For who's benefit? Was it hers, what she told to by the Univeristies? Did the Universities qualify federal grants for hiring minorities? Why did she remove the title after?

It may not be her fault, she was hand picked by the "Chosen One" to win back the "D" Senate seat and to vote "D".

NOBODY cares about Warren's heritage, but EVERYBODY should care about her integrity and character. That she used her (alleged) heritage to secure a plum position, then denied doing so, and continues to try to hide that she did so, shows that her integrity is questionable.

Craig, how about when Warren couldn't name any Rebulican Senator that she would be able to work with in the Senate?

I agree with you, Craig. "...Scott Brown killed his bipartisan argument with the Supreme Court question."

Heather, et al: why do you assume Elizabeth was *purposely* lying about her herritage? My Grandpa's half brother was so obviously Indian, his nickname was "Chief". But Chief & Grandpa's mother married many times and I knew they had different fathers so I never imagined I had any Indian blood myself. I grew up knowing their mother as a blue-eyed gray haired "Grandma McAnally". Decades later I discovered she was actually 1/4 Cherokee and 1/4 Dakota. McAnally was just the name of the last man she married (duh)! Had I known this when I was filling out college and scholarship apps, I would have checked those boxes too!

BTW, In the middle of this country (I'm from Missouri) most people have many different nationalities in their family trees. I can identify 8 nationalities in my four grandparents. My husband, whose family is from Brooklyn, can only identify 2 in his grandparents. In the east, immigrants often settled in areas with people from their homeland and stayed. Those that pioneered westward didn't have that herritage anchor. (Grandma McAnally was in the Oklahoma Land Rush). Add to that the fact that many women (both Indian and "white") were stolen, enslaved or raped by the "other side", ancestry lines get very blurry very fast.

The first time an easterner asked about my herritage I had no idea what they meant. I'm a Midwestern mutt!!

Melissa and Craig care more about Brown's mention of Scalia but don't care that Warren can't name one person she could work with? Argggggh we need politicians that will not rubberstamp their party, something Warren would do since the party has foisted her upon us. Dont think she thought of running on her own. Please, for the sake of the country, lets elect those who will compromise and work across the aisle. Warren has basically said she won't.

Judith I agree neither scored big.. but I disagree with your comments that Scott Brown looked petty with the questions about Warren's heritage. The moderator Davide Gregory asked the question- not Scott Brown. As other posters have stated here-- its about her been deceptive and not forthcoming, it all goes to her credibility and that matters to me.

$11 an hour to not work? Sounds pretty lucrative to me...

Why should they get paid anything to "be" there? They weren't working. They weren't helping with operations. They were just attendees. They deserve no pay for just "being" there. Which is the whole problem with unions as a whole.

Please stop being so demeaning by calling her "Lizzie" as if her actual name is too dignified to use. It ruins your entire statement. People don't call him Scotty, because they believe he deserves respect. I believe that she does too.

Here's a comment I heard amongst the union crowd "How'd they managed to rope you into doing this?" Some real commitment there.

I agree. Warren is nothing more than Obama's handpicked carpetbagger. She will do exactly as he tells her to do, like the good little Dem that she is. Talk about being in "lockstep".
We don't need more sheep in Washington.

Wow, T, you must know the man very well?
Or, are you just making stuff up to support your pre-conceived notions? Any facts to back up your character assassination or voting record?

To me, Scott Brown comes out as most insincere: a consummate, calculating, two-faced politician. I've watched him twice :under fire" and I did not like what I saw, especially yesterday. Warren is a genuine article, hopefully, she will not change when she gets to Washington.

ABSOLUTLY! I think he is a phony its written all over. Never trust a guy with his eyes close together like a baboon's. Who cares if Warren is an Indian anyway. Is that all Scott Brown can find? Im an Independent but its Warren For ME !

Oh, and to answer the question of who won the debate between Brown and Warren? Duh.... the union workers.... obviously. :D

Can't answer to THIS occasion, but in general there has been a long-standing symbiotic relationship between unions and Democrats. It's where the term 'bought and paid for politician' comes from – unions collect dues, spend a goodly chunk of them to back friendly candidates.

It's one big reason why industry finally gave up the fight and moved out of Massachusetts. They couldn't get a fair hearing in the legislature – or before Democrat-appointed judges. Now they've set up shop in China.

Unions school their members on how to act at these gatherings, and punish them severely [beatings and no work] if they fail to show up – or screw up.

She took a job from a deserving minority. Harvard took the easy way out--not checking her status even though they took credit for as a Native American. As staunch defenders of Affirmative Action, it is hard for Harvard to be honest in this case since it shows the big flaws in AA so they ignore requests for info.

Please do not take my response to be rude in anyway. I actually told this to a mother in law and she totally agreed wiht me. She was selected to run, simply because she is a women. That's the only reason why. The Dems thought that if they placed a women against an independant man that most women would vote for her, even if she did lie for advancement. Remember this, if any one of us common citizens that don't have political connections did what she did on a job or resume, we would be terminated as an at will employee. We would also lose to get unemployment benefits. Shame on the Dems for thinking the people of Massachusetts are plain stupid and wouldn't see through the red tape. Vote for Brown and we will all be better off. Give him more than two years.

Big GUY
YOu will sway no one in a forum like this... Its like going to a Yankees/Sox game and trying to turn a Yankees fan to a Sox fan. It just isn't going to happen.

Side note. read his actual voting record before you go touting his awesomeness. He has voted against the middle class time and time again to protect the upper 3%...
he says that he doesn't want to raise taxes on ANYONE... which is honest... and awesome... but unfortunately, he is willing to let the Bush tax cuts roll back ( taxes will go up for everyone ) if we don't protect the upper 3%.

just so you know.

Susan, the Republican's in the Senate held up last year and Obama and the Democrats extended the cuts (after BTW, hammering Bush for cutting taxes during a war). They will again and again because it is the right thing to do during a recession which we are heading back into. Brown was never an us versus them guy. He was/is a no raising taxes period guy. Warren, Frank, Obama et al are class warfare people who try to survive on hostility and envy.

Don't make me laugh. Brown is not an independent, but a genuine member of the Republican party, and as such he follows the marching orders set up my Mitch McConnell and Company Don't take my word for it, just look at his record: Brown's Senate record shows him voting with the majority of Republicans 95% of the time! Some independent :~)) This why I think he is a phoney.

Quasi, you are 100% wrong! He votes with Republican's about 67% of the time and is the second most bi-partisan Senator.

Nice try though. Are you really Harry Reid? Did you hear the 95% on the street?

We finally have someone in Congress who works for us and understands how to compromise and negotiate--someone we can be proud of and who is middle of the road. We need to send him back to lead the way for the country. Liz Warren will vote with Harry Reid 100% of the time--even when it is bad for Mass. Our whole contingent voted for Obamacare that contained a job killing tax on medical device makers. They should be ashamed for not getting that out of the bill before they voted. They were just doing what bovine like followers do--follow.

Totally agreed. I never understood how someone or a party can make soooooo much money and be for the working class and poor people. It seems they all been lining their pockets over the years and eating from the trough while we hustle and shuttle or children around.

I do appreciate your time but honestly I don't relate. I'm more conservative-minded and definitely not left-wing. Warren is left-wing and it's clear to me I would never vote for her and in this race (if I was still in Mass.) I would definitely vote Brown.

Fair enough Steevo. I've just been concerned with the tone of the campaign.

Yes,
Steevo you would, indeed, vote for Brown. Because Brown votes to protect the middle class. (insert snide snicker here)

I simply cannot forsee trickle-down working this time either. Since, it never has.
Warren may not be the best politician, but she had a GENUINE understanding of the financial issues facing the commonwealth and the country. Brown racked up a whopping 2.69 GPA with a C in Constitutional Law...
If we want to talk morality... lets discus the predatory loans he facilitated that he refuses to talk about... really, if warren wanted to go negative on his character, she would have plenty of fodder. Who knows, maybe it will come to that.

Trickle down Susan? You do realize that since LBJ instituted his "War on Poverty" the US has spent over $16 trillion in aid to the poor. What has that done? We have more people on food stamps than ever before, and the poverty rate is higher than when the "war" started. (Poverty in America: obesity, cell phones and flat screen tvs, not real deprivation.) So we should soak "the rich" and send more money to DC so they can fix the problem? They haven't fixed it in over 45 years. What makes you think the likes of Liz Warren will do any better? Why do Liberals constantly think that the government spending more of the productive class' money on problems the government creates is progress? If our elites (like Warren) who run this country are so smart, how come we're broke? Our debt now equals the entire economic output of this country for one year. Every single dollar spent on goods and services in this nation in one calendar year will barely cover our debt. But by all means, lets spend more money that we don't have. We need to raise $16 trillion just to get back to zero.

Susan, at least Brown released his documents. Ask Warren, Harvard or Penn to do the same! Or is it only Republican transparency you want?

Please state your sources, Iron Mike, wrt-

-union teachers 'dumbing down our kids' where non-union teachers did not.

-the media being completely and totally biased towards liberals.

If either of these are true, great, if not, please revise your two (2) factors.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone on this board expressing their opinions. Freedom of Speech is just that, freedom to express your views. However, I do have a problem with voters and politicians stating things as facts when they are not. If you are going to make a claim, back it up.

I'll go you one better Lizbeth...

I'll issue you the exact same challenge I do other doubting liberals and knee-jerk defenders of our public cesspools [er – schools]. Ready?

Spend three (3) hours with me in the mall / outside the theater / outside the high school of your choice maybe at a football game] – and watch me issue the kids and young adults a simple history & civics quiz.

Great. Just so I can understand-

So you want to use a sample of sports-going/consumerist/movie-viewing teens as the basis for your statements? Does that include the 'liberal' bias? What questions would you ask? How would you design the experiment/survey? Do you think you should include those kids that go to the library, bible study, boys/girls scouts?

I am a (non-union) scientist. I tend to look for supporting evidence. Before you go painting me with a brush with colors akin to Fox or NBCNews, perhaps you should answer the question of sources. I am happy to debate with you, on a strictly intellectual level, but I will not kowtow to name calling, labeling, or other derision.

Sorry LizBeth, I have ZERO interest in 'debating you'. I will continue to call 'em as I see 'em, names, labels, and all. You were issued a challenge – so put up or ...

Fair enough Mike. I'll go out and poll kids with you, if and when you post your sources.

Call them as you see them for as long as you want. I prefer to review facts before I make a decision on who to support. And for the record, both FNC and NBCNews have trouble reporting the facts. I think the vast majority of the voting public buy these 'facts' hook line and sinker, without doing any research whatsoever.

I agree, going through and learning about a topic is hard work. Good for you for being able to state that, though in not so many words.

Mike, good points. Tell Liz to watch a few episodes when Jay Leno goes out and polls 20 somethings about the most obvious questions and they cant answer them. What an embarrassment.

What does Apple have to do with this? Do you own Apple products? If you do, then look in the mirror since you are one of the reasons those people work as they do.

Good observation on Kennedy/Warren. True I hear he really performed poorly at his Saturday morning debate. I do agree Warren being foisted upon us comes from Washington DC and Deval Patrick. Their fingerprints are all over this. Hopefully we can reject it.

Too bad! Bill Gates built the number one company in the world as a college drop out and you wouldn't have hired him! Take off the blinders! Grades are BS and only show what you can remember/regurgitate.

He's done pretty well coming from a hardscrabble background--you should rethink your hiring practices--common sense goes a long way. As someone mentioned you would have missed out on Bill Gates. And of course a Mass hero--Ted Kennedy--was caught cheating twice and had to have dada buy his way out of it. And Obama got D's in economics and governemnt at both Occidental and Columbia.

Scott Brown simply was there at closing to make sure no legal rules were violated. Standard run of the mill legalese. Somehow connecting a real estate closing for people who are voluntarily entering into a contract with a bank is to somehow be helping a bank or mortgage company commit a crime is patently ridiculous. The job of an attorney at a loan closing does not involve said Attorney to determine if the loan was the right decision for the borrower nor is the Attorney in cahoots with the mortgage company. A closing Attorney doesn't "facilitate" anything in that closing and was not even involved with the Bank or the Borrowers. Your post identifies you as a Demagogue who also realizes his or her candidate is falling behind in the polls so let the truth be dammed. Your accusation is merit less, dishonest and epitomizes how the Left intends to operate in the final months of the campaign. Good luck with it....it ain’t gonna fly.

How naive of you, Who Me, but so was my friend: he was just there, as a lawyer, closing the deals.

As I asked someone earlier... state some sources please.

I think Brown is not nearly as bad a guy as you state, nor do I think Warren the leader you portray, but I am open to learning more about them both. Hence my request for sources.

30 years ago at the age of 22 Scott Brown posed nude, he was appropriately covered where it mattered, and today.....it is the most pressing matter in this Senate race.

I'm gonna need at least 2 drinks with supper tonight to handle the amount of drain bamaging data I have read on here today.

"Brown took his clothes off and claimed he did it for tuition money. Why does that not relate to his credibility and honesty?"

Leo, when did Brown lie about it? He was open and forthcoming about the spread. You are right, it does relate to his honesty and credibility. He admitted it and moved on! Warren has lied, changed her story, lied again and changed her story again. And you can't see the difference?

Why, when she was younger she did not check the box when she applied for the U of Houston, then checked the box when she applied to U Penn and Harvard Law, run with it for a while and then change her status?

Someone benefited for it, either she got the job or Harvard got the minority hire and possibly Federal funding for it???

It just looks strange. And then there is the whole question about practicing law without a license. Hasn't been that publicized so I'd have to imagine that there is some sort of law that I don't certainly don't know about.

She sounds like a tremendous teacher/Professor. It reminds me of a saying that I heard when I was younger. "Those who can, will; those who can't, teach.

Profeesor, you one class begins in February, I hope your syllabus is ready. Enjoy the 350K and hope the student loan thing handles itself. Remember you checked the box.

Hums... "my blood runs cold, my Senator's a centerfold."

Ron,

"She sounds like a tremendous teacher/Professor. It reminds me of a saying that I heard when I was younger. "Those who can, will; those who can't, teach."

Sounds like you don't have a lot of respect for teachers in general. That's too bad. There are wonderful, talented, smart people out there who choose to teach. These people are responsible for preparing future generations of Americans to become contributing members of society. They deserve respect.

Opposed to the Democratic millionairs? Taxes won't affect any millionairs, there are always loopholes in the laws for millionairs. Taxes only effect the middle class and we have plenty already.

Well Quasi... I've been a lifelong Republican – on the slightly conservative side.

Most money I ever had to carry around was $1100.oo – I was single then, and had just spent a long time in the woods.

So tell me Quasi – how many POOR people have YOU known that started businesses, hired people, promoted people as their business grew, and then provided health insurance and stock options?

If you've been spending your life filled with envy, and harboring grudges that rich people are conspiring against you,...well, you could probably get a job on Obama's staff.

Iron Mike,

Nowadays, I never carry more than $$50-100 in my wallet , but it used to be $10-20. However, I certainly have not "spent my life filled with envy," on the contrary. I have been rather successful, at least in my opinion, and people conspiring against me have never entered my mind. I am not and never was a "victim." On the contrary, I have had several good breaks, some luck, I added some persistent hard work, and I can say that "I made it."

On the other end, you certainly seem to be the bitter, envious one.

It's no different than your defense of the multimillionaire I mean the tireless heroine of the "hammered" middle class who's worth $14.5 million. It's funny quasi you and the rest of her followers don't seem to have a problem with her wealth. It's just wealthy republicans that you have a problem with. The last time I checked Scott Brown is not the one worth $14.5 million. Maybe you're just like Liz, you've deluded yourself into thinking that $14.5 million is chump change and chump change doesn't make you wealthy. I'm sure that being one of her most ardent supporters you remember the interview when she was reminded of her wealth and her response was: " I know there are wealthy people, but I'm not one of them". Are most politicians hypocrites? Sure they are. But Elizabeth Warren's hypocrisy is just more brazen.

Leo, I know someone who knew Scott AND Gail at that time. It was for money. He didn't lie. He came from a broken home and moved around because of money issues with his mother.
It would make no difference if she did or didn't. This is the same BS argument you guys used about Marsha when she ran against him.
Warren admitted she had no proof and didn't check off the box early in her life because she had no proof. She didn't check it for undergrad or student financial aid. WHY?
All of a sudden in her 30's or 40's when rejected for plum jobs she checks the box and is hired at Penn. She applies for Harvard and checks the box again and is hired there. That doesn't make you question at all? Harvard listed her as a non-white facilty so they could meet their quota for government (ie. OUR Tax dollars) money. Someone lied to get that money and there should be an investigation to recover it.
I would love to discuss the real issues. The problem is the democrats keep calling me racist or sexist or what ever. You don't want to discuss issues because you have nothing to support. Gas is 100% higher, food is 25+% higher, taxes are higher, debt is higher, deficit is higher and the country hasn't had a budget in 3 years! Obama's 3 budget proposals have garnered exactly 0 votes D or R in the Senate. That should tell anyone paying attention all they need to know about his economic plans.

Gee, I thought Warren supporters were all about college students trying to afford a college education, no? Hey, people born without financial support must do what they have to to get ahead and earn money. I'm pleased with the fact that Brown paid his own way. And this heritage issue of Warren's is a big deal - she has no integrity and it shows.

Like most politician, Brown is just an empty suit.

His point on the asbestos case was that her political ads talk about "helping the little guy" but her law career shows she helped big corporations and insurance companies. That is not ok with me. As a lawyer she can do what is appropriate but now she can't claim to me see will do something else for "the little guy". She is a fraud. She will do exactly what Obama tells her to do. Don't waste a vote on her.

Petty attacks is all Brown and his supporters have. I mean seriously, we're dealing with people who are obsessed with the fact that Warren may have been mistaken about her genealogy umpteen years ago, and completely unconcerned that Scott Brown lied about his voting record this week. These are not reasonable people.

Mike, he NEVER said she wasn't qualified to be a professor. This is the BS you people are trying to do but you are speaking to people who, unlike the D lemmings of the DNC, don't follow the shiny object. He challenged her at the debate and she continues to talk in circles. Harvard got a lot of my tax money because they designated her as non-white and I want it back! It is also a crime and I want whomever did it prosecuted! Though with Marsha as AG, my bet is it will be a Captain Renault investigation!

Diana, no many people are obsessed with the fact that Warren is not the most truthful person, has zero integrity - but that's ok for a candidate? Really? I know you wish her whole "issue" would go away, but it's not. Many of us are unenrolled and not party lemmings.

I believe the moderator brought up the fake heritage issue. That was not Brown's doing.

Patricia, remember that this is the party that had 3 straight Speakers of the House indicted and convicted by the feds because our Democrat AG's never even investigated! It is the party that elected a murderer because of his name and has gerrymandered the voting districts in this state so minorities have little or no say but they are the hero's of the "little guy".

Mike,
I am always amazed by the people who support Warren blame Brown for the questions asked by the moderator. Mike, the fact is that she has mishandled the issue from the beginning. Please go back to a news conference with her and Deval Patrick before she even was the nominee and she how she ducked the question. First Deval stepped in and tried to intimidate the reporter, then after the reporter asked her to answer, your candidate's answer was "I defer to the governor"
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gov-deval-patrick-blocks-elizabeth-warren-at-local-press-conference-answers-question-on-heritage-for-her/
Also, I am not sure what you were watching, but Brown stated that he supported the President's plan for the war and they did talk about jobs. As far as Medicare, I do not recall the question being asked.
I guess he supposed to answer a question that was not asked.

Diana, we don't care that she was mistaken about her heritage. What we do care very much about is the fact that she used that heritage (ultimately proven to be false) for career advancement. She graduated from an underwhelming University of Houston and the 82nd ranked law school Rutgers. She had never claimed her (mistaken) heritage up to that point. But only after she finished school and was seeking employment did this claim appear. And once she got her tenured position at Harvard is suddenly disappeared. She used it to gain an advantage professionally when her academic background would not distinguish her from the thousands of other graduates. If you don't have a problem with that, it says more about you than us. The dean of Harvard Law admitted that at the time of her hire, Harvard Law was following an aggressive policy of affirmative action given the heat they were taking about the lack of diversity of their professors. Harvard hit the trifecta with her: a "minority", a woman, and a much-coveted lawyer husband's coat tails to ride.

You can all scream about how you care about her "integrity", but I'm not buying it until you demonstrate concern about his. Lemmings, indeed.

Scott Brown should explain why the asbestos victims support Warren and thank her for her work, and why Brown thinks it was wrong of Warren to help them. Who's side is he on? In a lawsuit between two insurance companies, why does he think it was wrong that she represented an insurance company?

To be qualified to be a Senator, he should think before he speaks.

Why Mike? The POTUS doesn't! "The Cambridge Police Department acted stupidly"

Mike, I believe Brown was questioning her on why she agreed to take on the case? I believe that Warren was hired by the insurance company in the case to defend them, not the victims who the insurance company was going to pay.The insurance company, who paid her 225K to defend them, set up a trust for the victims. She did her job for her client and did what they asked. The facts are that she put 225K in her pocket while the victims put less than 6K in theirs.

Fighting for families as long as she gets paid more. Tax them, create legislation and protect your parties interest first and then claim that your fighting for the famlies with the leftovers.

That's what happens in those cases. You can say what you want but the only winners are the lawyers. I quess she can claim to fight for and win the case for the victims but do they really win compared to the lawyers? The lawyers get paid either way from a differnt pile of corporate money.

I also heard (on conservative radio, full disclosure) but can't confirm that the Company of the victims was advised by insurance lawyers to file for bankrupcy so no additional suits could be filed. I heard that it was a common practice to protect themselves but have no way to know.

She can't run away from that rag tag group fast enough now, same with all the other pols.

Leonardo,

An impressive list, you may want to go further and read about the questions raised by reviewers of one of the first books that attacked her and her co-authors research and methods and how they conveniently "destroyed" the research, one of the co-authors who was the president of UVA came under fire as well. Good for her she is an academic and like most she has accumulated a body of work in her area of the law. However like the other other issues, her integrity was questioned.

In 1990, Rutgers Professor Philip Shuchman charged Elizabeth Warren, along with Teresa A. Sullivan, the President of University of Virginia who resigned unexpectedly, and Jay Westbrook, her two co-authors of the 1989 book, "As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America", with “scientific misconduct.”

Professor Shuchman concluded his book review with this powerful allegation:
"This book contains so much exaggeration, so many questionable ploys, and so many incorrect statements that it would be well to check the accuracy of their raw data, as old as it is. But the authors arranged matters so that they could not provide access to the computer printouts by case, with the corresponding bankruptcy court file numbers, this preventing any independent check of the raw data in the files from which they took their information."

In the footnote to this paragraph, Shuchman notes:
"A common instance of misconduct in science occurs when 'there [is] no way to verify whether or not [the] research was accurate.’ Woolf, Deception in Scientific Research, 29 Jurimetrics J. 67, 83 table 5 n.4 (1988)."

In short, she and her co-authors made stuff up to back up their ideologically-slanted thesis.

You're waiting for a government agent to bring you popcorn and a soda?

Lizbeth,
You may want to put down the popcorn and soda and do some research. EW is a fraud and a puppet of the WH. Please give me one piece of substantive legistation she has proposed. I would also, like her to do this without using "rigged" "hammered" and how she is fighting for the little guy. Obama needs her to win and she will do and say anything to try.

I Agree Lizbeth Got my Orville's on now

Boo-hoo-hoo Scotties being picked on by a GIRL. If he can't handle an academic, what does that say about his ability to handle foreign policy?

Who said he couldn't handle Warren? He romped in that debate.

Christina,
I was pointing out the mistatements in Leonardo's post, do you have no sense of humor at all. It was clearly a mistake, I fully realize that she could not have graduated from college and law school in the same year. As far as a debate team scholarship, I was not impressed with her skills, she may have lost her fastball, or she is too busy talking over people and trying to get to her now famous talking points such as "rigged" and "hammered"

What is it with the left and the Koch brothers? Is it because they are rich, or just a difference of opinion, I really don't get their hangup with them. Anyways, looks like PP Longstocking got her talking points but I'm afraid she/he is wrong. Like out of staters are going out of their way to post on Chelmsford Patch, jeez.

You don't know I'm Left, Patricia. Maybe I just like it when people buy elections. And yes the Koch Brothers and the "Tea Party" have bought this election. Spending $8 - $1 will have that effect, unfortunately. Millions of out-of-state dollars poured into Massachusetts during the last week of the election that made Scottie Boo Boo a senator. That was money from Texas. And Arizona. And other states that have agendas different from the Massachusetts one. And yeah out-of-staters are going to come to the Patch and voice their opinions. The ones that aren't paid just do it to show them darn Librels whut's whut. (Btw The Patch isn't specific to one town.)

You're close, except we need 51 fewer Democrat senators.

We need Democrats who act like Democrats, quasimodo.

Please help us, what makes it clear for you?

So you feel that Warren is best qualified to deal with a disaster - because she IS a disaster? Or because she can do an authentic Cherokee rain dance?

Frankly, the interest I want protected and advanced is to have the federal government made smaller and backed OUT of my life!

I'm amazed that the Obama ads don't focus on how horribly Romney messed up when he was in England. He managed to alienate an entire country. This is a guy who can't find enough off-shore countries to bury money in but he has zero expertise with international relations. So strange.

Yea, the guy in the Oval office has great "international relations" or more commonly know as "Forign Policy". Won't meet with the Prime Minister of Isreal at the UN becasue he has dates with the ladies from the "View" and Letterman. Our diplomats are being killed and the BO admin appears to be covering up thier lack of response to credible threats and we still have no idea what went on there. It's a disgrace, not a bump in the road.

If BO was the CFO of a public corpoartion, investors would demand his resignation or fire him.

Actually I think it's more commonly known as "ForEign policy" but to each his own. And yeah let's talk about The View. Romney called them "sharp tongued women" and a tough group to deal with. Romney's afraid he can't hold his own with the ladies on The View. Yeah. Put Romney on a plane and send him around the world. Let him tell the people in the "Soviet Union" that their trees are the right height. Yeah. Let's do that.

PP - read some of your own posts. You might find that you shouldn't be one correcting others' spelling and grammar. As for The View, the only people who care about the women on that show are the layabouts that are home to watch them.

TMHS - "Ron" corrected me and I corrected "Ron." There's really no need for you to call me out for MY spelling or grammar is there? Are there still liquor stores on the highway in New Hampshire?

You tell me. Judging by your writings, it sounds like you frequent them.

Ron,

Ok, you were joking but forgive me for not immediately coming to that conclusion. It seems like Elizabeth Warren's critics are quick to jump on anything that looks negative about her.

As far as the dynamics of the debate, you have the filter that you look through as I have mine. At one point I had to mute the television when Senator Brown was rudely interrupting Ms. Warren. I was getting so upset I had to take a break. And the constant reference to her as "Professor" was really tiresome. He said it was supposed to be a sign of respect but I don't buy it. It was an attempt to continually remind the audience of her role as a professor and all of the "elitism" he believes that entails.

And I don't really get the nice guy image that everyone believes he has. He comes off as a bit pompous and chauvinistic to me.

If you want to see a naked picture of her - why not just paint one? Or ask her...

Leo, He posed with as much covered up as you would see at ANY beach in Massachusetts. If Liz Warren posed in a bikini (God forbid I would have to rip my eyes out) it would make no difference.
So in summation, he didn't pose in the nude. He posed with his private area covered as we men do at the beach, in the pool and many ties on the street.

Leonardo,

go for it, what has she proposed. I have watched both debates, she botched the question about who is the Senate she can work with and so far all we hear is how she would have voted with the WH on some job bills. I do not care about who posed for a picture, you may want to ask yourself why she is running and if the WH did not ask, would she be running.

Quite frankly, I don't have a problem that Scott Brown posed nude when he was younger.

But come one guys! You have to agree with Leonardo that there is a different standard for women. If Elizabeth Warren had posed nude, it wouldn't be dismissed so easily by people.

"If Elizabeth Warren had posed nude"

-> pleeeeease with a bathing suit ;) Just like SB.

OK, whether it was nude or semi-nude, there is still double standard for women.

For Scott Brown's supporters, it is OK that he posed for pictures to earn money while in school. Somehow I think if Elizabeth Warren had done the same that there would have been a lot of criticism along with a myriad of tasteless jokes.

30 years ago it would have been a huge problem for her. I don't think it's that big a deal nowadays.

'Double standards' vary from country to country...

In 1987 a 'film star' named Anna Ilona Staller [screen name Cicciolina] was elected to the Italian parliment - where she served 5 years. She would give campaign speeches with one side exposed. Thus she didn't need to spend much for yard signs.

From our very own Globb (and Congressional Quarterly analysis ), it says 54% is a correct number but as usual, you can spin it however you like, ... did he know the amendments would (would not) pass before voting?

I don't have time nor the desire to set you right on the other points in an article posted on KOS, reader beware!

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/02/fact-check-debate/QkSPbkIbodITrWIXIBCPII/story.html

ISSUE: Did Brown vote 50 percent of the time with Senate Democrats?

In his closing statement, Brown sought to burnish his ­bipartisan credentials by asserting, “I’m 50 percent with my party, 50 percent with the other party.”

FACTS: It depends on how you count the votes.

A Congressional Quarterly analysis found that Brown voted with the Republican leadership 54 percent of the time. But that calculation included dozens of amendments that had no chance of passing.

As the Globe reported in May, on the most important, news-generating votes since he arrived in office in early 2010, Brown joined Republican leaders 76 percent of the time, ­according to an analysis by Project Vote Smart, a nonpartisan organization.

But Brown repeatedly points to the Congressional Quarterly study to assert that he is a truly bipartisan senator; Democrats meanwhile hold up the Vote Smart study to assert that, on matters of consequence, he is a more reliable Republican vote.

Right and the multi-millionare Senator Brown is running against will look out for the 99% right? Why has she not paid the higher Massachusetts income rate then?

BTW - Not to interrupt you spewing with facts but, he was rated the SECOND most bi-partisan Senator. John Kerry was in the 90's.

He endorsed by the Tea Party and thanked them by name when he won. That's all you need to know.

Higher than what or whom, TMHS? And plz don't waste my time listing states that have lower taxes but offer fewer svcs than Massachusetts.

MA taxpayers have the option to pay a higher 5.85% income tax rate, instead of the standard 5.3% rate. You must be one of those freeloaders who don't pay income tax, or you would know this.

TMHSGrad, do you pay the higher tax rate?

No, I don't. I am in favor of lower taxes. Higher taxes are the linchpin of the liberal agenda. But considering how liberals operate, I am sure none of the Warren supporters on this board elect to pay the higher tax rate either.

I don't think TMHS is a Massachusetts citizen. Just a guess. Maybe he's from "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire where they pay NO taxes. What do you get for no taxes in New Hampshire: hospitals so bad they med-flight people to Massachusetts hospitals every day; terrible roads and schools, lack of police and firefighters and poorly trained teachers. That's why the people from New Hampshire come to Massachusetts -- for jobs and healthcare. Then they drive back to NH on their cracked roads and slap themselves on the back for being outlaws.

Well, PP, you've been wrong about everything else...
I wish I could move to NH, but I don't want to sell my house at a loss (thanks Barney).

what an arrogant jerk you are TMHSGrad....why do you just assume that people here make enough money to even pay the higher MA income tax rate.........where do you live ??

It's not a matter of having enough money to pay the higher tax rate, Jo. It's the fact that Warren and her ilk (yourself included, apparently) preach that we all should pay more taxes, yet when presented with the opportunity to do so themselves, they pass. If that's being arrogant, then I'm arrogant. Jeez - I didn't think my point was that hard to understand.

Richard - I think you mean vote for who you dislike least - An unfortunate but necessary distinction in American politics today.

TMHSGrad..................not hard to understand... just hard to swallow--- your mightier than thou attitude is nauseating and by the way.......how does it feel to be an authority on every subject in the universe anyway?

I gotta tell ya - it feels pretty good!!!

There's no information in that article about how much of Brown's money came from out of state.

Are you sure about your claim, do you have a link or 2?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/elizabeth-warren-occupy-wall-street_n_1030974.html

Warren also said that she supported the Occupy Wall Street protests. "I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do," she added, referring to her academic research on consumer debt.

consumer debt -> taken out by irresponsible individuals who spent more $ than they had, wait it sounds like Mr 0 and our debt, go figure

First of all, I do not agree with your assessment and secondly, please go back and read the statement, the comment was "what has she proposed. I have watched both debates, she botched the question about who is the Senate she can work with and so far all we hear is how she would have voted with the WH on some job bills." I do not care about what imput she may have had in a piece of legislation that was done before, I am asking about what she will do going forward and you knew that was the question.

That might be the case but if you believe what Romney said last night, the Act sounded like a kneejerk reaction to the recession that has good points but wasn't thought through enough and caused many regulations (sounds to me like there may be a platoon of lawyers who love the Act). That won't work because the banks like Big Oil will just pay the fees and pass it along to the consumer. If you take a look at the cost of a gallon of gas and look at where those cost break out would you be shcoked if the government gets more than the Oil companies.

I don't dispute that Warren is an intellectual or that she is not qualified to be a Professor. She may be an expert on bankrupcy and an advocate for Wall Street Reform but she lacks the expecience of working in real jobs with real people.

I'm still confused and have to ask why she felt the need to check the box to get the jobs at U Penn and Harvard. Was she advised to do so and if so for what purpose? She didn't for her U Houston college and then she went from a Minority Professor to White after receiving tenure at Harvard.

My parents told me stories when I was young as well. I've learned to love carrots and I still have never seen a rabbit with classes to I guess they were right. She may have Native Americans in her family history. Unfortunately no one has been able to connect them. I'm sure that there is a Left Wing group that would love to be able to produce the documents if it was true.

riiiight, LD I know Dem dementia is incurable, the FACTs and links are for folks without that, ... thanks for your links ;)

Leonardo,
Please tell me what she is proposing to do, you are the one avoiding the question. It is easy to be on the outside looking in. I also do not care if she wants to take credit for being the intellectual architect. Its sounds like her defense of her actions when she was working for Travelers and when it fell apart she backed away.
Again, I really do not care what she did on one issue. Is that what she will do the whole time. By the way Brown was behind the crowdfunding bill which by itself has greater potential to help small business.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/092512-627038-warren-like-soulmate-obama-is-con-artist.htm#ixzz28MLbeSjB

She's also written scholarly papers on health care and bankruptcy without showing her data, and crafted federal health and banking regulations without a brain. Warren is the intellectual architect of the massively unpopular Dodd-Frank Act and ObamaCare, both of which are dragging down the U.S. recovery.

She's been accused by several law professors of "repeated instances of scientific misconduct" in authoring papers that have provided the academic underpinnings for financial and health reforms. Peer reviews have dismissed her research as "deeply flawed."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/elizabeth-warren-champion-of-consumer-financial-protection-07072011.html

The annals of academia are stuffed with provocative proposals. Most die in the library. A little over four years after she first dreamed it up, Warren’s has become a reality. Last summer, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a package of financial reforms meant to prevent another economic meltdown. One of the bill’s pillars is Warren’s watchdog agency, now called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

also "intellectual architect" of OWS, her own words!

Whenever Republicans don't have a leg to stand on they stand on tea leaves. They try to reinterpret things from the opposing candidate's past. Things like "character" and "integrity" -- things which aren't facts but 100% subjective. When Republicans are questioned about their own candidates lack of, say, integrity or character -- Mitt Romney's lack thereof being an example -- then Republicans get pretend-incensed and morally outraged at the Democrats "playing politics" over important issues. God they're boring.

"don't have a leg to stand on" -> PP have you seen the recent poll data rolling in?

"reinterpret" -> you mean like this?

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief/page/full/

please share how/where this story went wrong?

The community organizer in chief used common liberal tactics here (ie gas bag Joe's "they'll put yall back in chains" comment), ...

Just HIS special way of flipping us a big 'bird'...