Skip to main content

chicken
Sen. Scott Brown
Scott Brown failed in his effort to slap a gag on Ted Kennedy's widow, Vicki, as a condition of appearing at a debate sponsored by the Kennedy Institute. The Kennedy Institute rejected those demands in the grounds of "duh," so Brown petulantly withdrew.
The Brown campaign was unpersuaded, answering, “We respect Vicki Kennedy’s decision but we regret that we cannot accept a debate invitation from someone who plans to endorse Scott Brown’s opponent. The Kennedy Institute cannot hold itself out as a nonpartisan debate sponsor while the president of its board of trustees gets involved in the race on behalf of one of the candidates.”

Ah, hypocrisy. The debates Brown has agreed to, unilaterally, are two wingnut radio debates, one hosted by Dan Rea who "espouses conservative views and openly describes himself as Brown’s friend," and one sponsored by the Boston Herald, the conservative rag that has all but endorsed Brown by virtue of it's ceaseless sexist and racist attacks on Elizabeth Warren. Brown also agreed to a televised debate, limited to one station, hosted by political analyst Jon Keller, "a veteran media personality and debate moderator known to be especially tough on the state’s Democratic political culture."

Brown's camp refuses to negotiate on any other debates, other than to issue the out-of-bounds demand that Vicki Kennedy shut the hell up. Scott Brown doesn't want any "partisan" debates, unless they're partisan on his side. It's no wonder. He's going to need as friendly crowd as possible if he stands a chance to not be utterly humiliated by Warren.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 08:38 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see how anyone who pays attention (15+ / 0-)

    can vote for Scott Brown over Elizabeth Warren.  

    What is really sad is how the Democrats botched the special election and allowed idiot Brown into office in the first place.

    "Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person." David Korten, When Corporations Rule the World

    by Delta Overdue on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 08:47:02 AM PDT

  •  Brown has issued some other demands (38+ / 0-)

    1) Debates must include both an evening gown competition and a swimsuit competition
    2) Warren must drive a pick up truck to the debate
    3) Warren cannot use any words that Scott Brown doesn't know
    4) Debate winner to be decided by a vote of judges - Rush Limbaugh, David Koch, and Grover Norquist
    5) Use of either facts or logic to be strictly forbidden

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 08:47:48 AM PDT

  •  Anyone expecting anything different? (16+ / 0-)

    Brown is the lightest of lightweights in this fight, and Warren is the heavyweight. He has a reason to be afraid, very afraid.

    I think, therefore I am. I think.

    by mcmom on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 08:55:19 AM PDT

    •  Few would be brave enough to debate with (5+ / 0-)

      Elizabeth Warren, Scott Brown certainly is not one of them.

      At Northwest Classen High School, she was named "Oklahoma's top high-school debater". She received a debate-team scholarship to George Washington University at the age of 16.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/....

      “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

      by ahumbleopinion on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:00:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd debate Elizabeth Warren (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tb mare, mayim, PSzymeczek

        If I can limit the topics to things like hypergallic propulsion systems and Dungeons and Dragons class feats.

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

        by blue aardvark on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:40:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ms. Warren has more intellegence in her (7+ / 0-)

      vagina than Sen. Brown has in his head.

      That's right, I said vagina!  Bite me, Michigan!

      "What I find curious, is how the elected children of Republican politicians, from George W. Bush to Rand Paul to Ben Quayle and on, always happen to be crueler and dumber than their parents." With thanks to MinistryOfTruth.

      by Taxmancometh on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:48:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You want to see a REALLY unbalanced debate? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, PSzymeczek

      Wait for the one between Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and his challenger Josh "The Empty Suit" Mandel. Only that might not happen either. Mandel backed out of the primary debate and I would not be surprised if he backs out of the general election debate too. It would be almost unprecedented not to do the City Club of Cleveland debate and would earn Mandel a tsunami of bad press from a conservative state media that's already going after his jugular (except the Cincinnati Enquirer). I'm not aware of when any senate candidate refused to do one, although I believe Kucinich once refused to debate an opponent. But for a challenger rather than an incumbent to do this would show an incredibly high level of evasiveness, contempt, and yes, fear.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:56:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PSzymeczek

        It's not unusual for incumbents to turn down a debate, but it's highly rare for a challenger.

        This just proves (again) what a smarmy, cowardly shit Josh Mandel is.  The Ohio GOP would have been better off nominating Bob Taft.

  •  he's just chicken (11+ / 0-)

    looking for an excuse. she can think and talk circles around him, and the entire affirmative action lie implodes when her intelligence is openly displayed.

    he may actually be less stupid than i thought. he seems to be at least smart enough to understand how much smarter she is than him.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:07:49 AM PDT

  •  Not Only (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    Is Brown and Asshole, he's a pussy.

  •  Boy--the Brown-noser (0+ / 0-)

    really has some loser mentality goin' on there-doesn't he?

    "Power is a fleeting thing. One day your souls will be required of you." Bishop Peter Storey---Central Methodist Mission, Johannesburg, June 1981

    by lyvwyr101 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:13:58 AM PDT

  •  The picture in this story is hilarious (5+ / 0-)

    He's such a chicken. He knows Warren would destroy him at any fair debate.

  •  He's a hypocrite. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    That also falls under the "duh" category Joan mentioned, but it's worth noting.

  •  Anyone thinking Romney will do any differently? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    p gorden lippy, PSzymeczek

    Then I have a bridge to sell you...

    •  Yes. I think Romney will debate (0+ / 0-)

      The presidential debates are simply too established and high-profile to avoid. And RMoney won't be in a position to call shots at all. If Rmoney bails on presidential debates after people have come to expect them as a matter of course, add 3-4 points to Obama's margin of victory. That wouldn't go well for the perception that Rmoney is an unaccountable patrician who is out of touch with people. I think even the media would start to bite him at that point.

      He'll debate.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

      by anastasia p on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:59:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  rank hypocrisy is required of all R candidates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gowrie Gal, PSzymeczek

    so what he is saying is, he will only accept debate invitations from someone who plans to endorse HIM!

    are the people who admire him really too ignorant to see how unfair that is?

    maybe they just brainwashed Republicons who don't believe in fairness!

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    DEMAND CREATES JOBS

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:18:50 AM PDT

  •  FWIW...The Boston Globe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk, Anonyman

    Scott Lehigh, usually pretty discerning comes up with this

    Scott Brown bests Vicki Kennedy in debate over debate  

    Our story so far: Amid concerns that Senator Brown might try to duck high-profile Senate campaign debates this fall, Vicki Kennedy, widow of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, invited Brown and Elizabeth Warren to participate in a Sept. 26 debate hosted by the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate and UMass Boston. The event was to be moderated by Tom Brokaw, and (perhaps) televised by MSNBC.
    This was an important moment for both Brown and Kennedy.

    Brown passed. Kennedy stumbled.

    The same can’t be said about Kennedy. When she told me, in January of 2011, that she wasn’t going to run against Brown, Kennedy stressed that she wanted to help build the Kennedy Institute into a place that has an important educational and research role. Great — but if she wants Brown’s participation in an event that would highlight the institute, it’s certainly fair for Brown to expect that she, as president of the institute’s board, won’t later be hitting the campaign trail against him.

    But Kennedy seems to have decided her political role takes precedence over the institute’s nonpartisan educational one.

    That’s mystifying. After all, it’s not as though voters are going to make up their minds in the Brown-Warren race based on whether or not Vicki Kennedy publicly supports Warren.

    Ideally, Kennedy would backtrack and accept Brown’s offer, though I’m not holding my breath.

    As for Brown, he handled this skillfully. Still, that skill shouldn’t obscure this reality: He still owes Massachusetts voters a couple of high-profile prime-time Boston-area TV debates.

    Again, Globe editorially...not me..This is not going to be as easy as the FP thinks to pigeon hole Brown, though, of course, he should be.

    Somebody said Party! I got excited. I love Parties! Especially Parties with exclamation marks! Now I'm sad because there's not a Party! h/t AnnetteK ;-)

    by EdMass on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:19:45 AM PDT

    •  I'm afraid I don't see the connection (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PSzymeczek

      between the Kennedy Institute's being offered as the venue for a political debate and Vicki Kennedy's campaigning as a private citizen for whomever she wishes to support.  She may be president of the institute's board, but it's not the Institute that would be endorsing a candidate.

      I guess I can't see the connection because I'm not on the editorial board of a newspaper.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:56:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "i can't See!"... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PSzymeczek

        For your dining and dancing pleasure.

        Frank Zappa, Nanook Rubs It.

        The deadly yellow snow
        Great Googilie Moogilie!
        Heh...

        Somebody said Party! I got excited. I love Parties! Especially Parties with exclamation marks! Now I'm sad because there's not a Party! h/t AnnetteK ;-)

        by EdMass on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:11:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  'Cause ur not wearing rightwing glasses to look at (0+ / 0-)

        it thru.

        See, it makes total sense that if you want a Thug t debate his opponent and a 'corporate person' you happen to be associated with offers to help that you give up your 1st A rights.  

        Its not as if the 'corporate person' was going to spend millions on ads for Thugs, which is totally protected and sacred even!

    •  According to Rachel Maddow, (0+ / 0-)

      MSNBC was in no way going to be involved with this debate.  I thinnk I believe Rachel way before I believe Scottie.

      The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth. - William O. Douglas

      by PSzymeczek on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:30:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Allow me to propose a compromise (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    p gorden lippy, PSzymeczek

    Vicki Kennedy retains her right to endorse whomever she wants, but I, Red Bean, promise not to make a public endorsement prior to November. While I am reluctant to curtail my potential influence in this race, I accept this constraint in the interest of having this important debate go forward.

    The ball is in your court, Scott Brown.

    The people have spoken and they're both named Koch. - Andy Borowitz

    by Red Bean on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:19:53 AM PDT

  •  Scott Brown. What a f*cking coward. (5+ / 0-)

    And my apologies to f*cking cowards out there for insulting them.

    God be with you, Occupiers. God IS with you.

    by Hohenzollern on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:24:28 AM PDT

  •  I really wish I could be vulgar (4+ / 0-)

    Out of respect for the community I won't, but Brown is the epitome of a coward.  He's lucky to have won that Senate seat to begin.  Now he's desperate to hold on.

    My guess is the pathetic bastard wants an Oompa Loompa and he wants it now.

  •  How did we get to this situation? (6+ / 0-)

    Brown is a worthless goofball but who could have thought an institute named for Edward Kennedy would be a good place for a partisan debate for his old Senate seat?  It's as ridiculous as expecting Warren to do the wingnut-hosted debates.  Don't we have a League of Women Voters to organizationally host these things, and hotel meeting rooms to physically host them?

    Romney '12: Bully for America!

    by Rich in PA on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:25:36 AM PDT

    •  Uh, because it's Massachussettes. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark

      Kennedys are kinda prominent there.

      Obama is at war with radical anti-American terrorists. The radical GOP is at war with American women. Take that and run with it DNC, you inept fucking pikers.

      by GOPGO2H3LL on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:37:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Except Warren HAS (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark

      agreed to wingnut-hosted debates.

      Barack Obama is not a secret Marxist class warrior who wants to redistribute wealth in America. But I'll still vote for him, anyway.

      by looty on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:41:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree. I'm not sure the voters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      will see it as all that unreasonable that a candidate will say no to a debate essentially hosted by somebody that endorses their opponent.  

      If Brown said no to a debate that would appear to be pretty non-partisan, that's problematic.  But if you are talking about an institute named for a big Democratic partisan like Senator Kennedy, when those who are running it are not committed to being non-partisan, I'm not sure that, to the average voter, Brown is going to seem unreasonable for refusing that -- unless he refuses to debate at all, which would be problematic for him.

      It's sort of like if the right were pressuring President Obama to debate Mitt Romney at the Reagan Library.  I don't think he'd look all that bad for saying no, let's have a debate on a more neutral site.  

      •  The debate would be hosted by the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Peace JD, bdop4, Anonyman

        Institute, not by Vicki Kennedy, and she would not be the moderator.  That would be Tom Brokaw.  At most she would, as board president, welcome the audience to the institute and introduce the debate participants, although even that small part could be filled by another Institute board member.

        If Scott is that concerned about the appearance of partisanship, why would he agree to debates hosted by a known conservative radio show host and a newspaper that has already implicitly endorsed him?  His problem seems to be the appearance of partisanship against him, not non-partisanship as a prerequisite for fairness.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:28:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm talking about the appearance (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          to your average voter.

          Do you think that the Kennedy Institute, named after Senator Kennedy (a clear Democratic partisan), will not seem partisan when the Board President endorses a candidate?

          Like I said, this seems to me to be as if the President were asked to debate Mitt Romeny at the Reagan Presidential Library.   Sure he could agree to it if he wanted to, but I don't think most voters would think he was out of line if he said he wanted some place less partisan.  

          At any rate, if Ms. Warren were presented, for example, with the option of debating at a location named for a prominent partisan Republican, with the location headed by someone who, shortly after the debate, was certainly going to publicly endorse Sen. Brown, I don't think the voters would blame her for saying that she wanted a more neutral site, either.

          My point is that I simply don't think this story is going to seem outrageous to the average voter.  

          •  Average Voters Haven't an Effing Clue (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tonedevil

            as to how debates work. If the rules are clearly delineated and the moderator is non-partisan (as Tom Brokaw is), it doesn't matter if the KKK is hosting the debate.

            Brown is acting as though Kennedy has written the rules and questions. In televised debates, it doesn't work that way. Not sure how the right-wing radio stations are handling it.

    •  Well, since Brown debated Marsha C (6+ / 0-)

      at a Kennedy Institute debate in 2010, that question has been answered already.

      Brown's problem is 0% with the host of the debate, and 100% with the person at the other podium.

      He's afraid of a smart woman.

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:43:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's because he didn't think he would win... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        ...and any publicity beats bad publicity! But he's a senator now and I cant blame him for using his leverage.  My only complaint is that he should have politely declined any possibility of the Kennedy Institute as a sponsor rather than accepting it with bizarre conditions.

        Romney '12: Bully for America!

        by Rich in PA on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:54:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree. It would hardly be good optics from (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anonyman

      Brown's POV to appear at the Kennedy Institute, reminding everyone at every moment that this about EK's seat.

      On the other hand, Jon Keller?????????????

      A strutting little popinjay whose every story is about HIM, and how great he is playing gotcha on local pols. His high, nasal, whining voice will have the audience thinking they're listening to fingernails scratching a chalkboard.

      Oh, for the League of Women Voter days of hosting and moderating these affairs, instead of tiny little minds with delusions of adequacy and relevance.

      Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

      by p gorden lippy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:45:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  To Sen. Scott "Chicken" Brown (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The BigotBasher, PSzymeczek

    The following YouTube video should be played whenever you make an appearance in the Great State of MA.
    (Also-Stop trying to raise money off of Rachel Maddow, since you are too chicken to appear on her show!)

     http://www.youtube.com/...

  •  This just proves Brown is smart, but unqualified. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    p gorden lippy, VTelder

    After all, by backing out of this debate, but staying in the others, he just admitted that he can't beat Elizabeth Warren in a debate without having a stacked deck.  How can he ever handle himself in the Senate?

    Oh right, he can't.

    The Scout Law (trustworthy, loyal, helpful...) is a GREAT liberal manifesto.

    by DaytonMike on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:33:25 AM PDT

  •  If a Dem pulled this cowardly shit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    the race would be over.  Signed, sealed, delivered.  Done.

    Fucking double standards.

    Obama is at war with radical anti-American terrorists. The radical GOP is at war with American women. Take that and run with it DNC, you inept fucking pikers.

    by GOPGO2H3LL on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:35:07 AM PDT

  •  So this is a funny (typical) response from Brown (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GOPGO2H3LL, PSzymeczek
    Scott Brown is accepting the debate invitation from the Boston media consortium,” Brown campaign manager Dan Rea said in a statement. “He will be at the first debate at WBZ radio on June 27, just seven days from now. We hope that Elizabeth Warren will stop dodging and join us next week so we can discuss the problem with her extremely liberal tax and spend policies and why they will kill jobs and further damage the economy.”
    TPM

    Of course, Warren has already agreed to that debate, so the "dodging" is pure Rovian "I'm rubber, you're glue" b.s.

    Barack Obama is not a secret Marxist class warrior who wants to redistribute wealth in America. But I'll still vote for him, anyway.

    by looty on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:36:19 AM PDT

  •  Utterly humiliated by Warren? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Taxmancometh, PSzymeczek

    I've been under the impression that the race was depressingly, bafflingly neck-and-neck.  Has this splendid candidate pulled ahead?  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:37:40 AM PDT

  •  W Bush (0+ / 0-)

    This is so Republican--remember W vetted audiences at campaign stops.  The rich tend to be self centered spoiled brats, and only see how things affect them.  

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:39:41 AM PDT

    •  Bush got his ass handed to him (0+ / 0-)

      in both debates with Gore and Kerry, but it didn't matter because all the pundits could talk about afterwards was how great he was since he didn't pee his pants when asked a question.

      The bar was set ridiculously low for him.

  •  Sen. Kennedy was popular and respected in MA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    How in the world does Scott Brown think disprespecting his widow would gain him anything at all?  That's spectacularly out of touch.  He's dropping all pretense of being a moderate with this move.  This kind of thing will get noticed by voters who don't pay that much attention to politics.

    A lost battle is a battle one thinks one has lost. ~ Jean-Paul Sartre

    by ParkRanger on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:40:11 AM PDT

  •  This guy's a mess... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, PSzymeczek

    Delusional...paranoid...obsessed with Rachel Maddow (not in a good way)...never mind a campaign manager, he needs a psychiatrist. This behavior alone should raise the concerns of any voter with half a brain.

  •  asdf (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mspicata, skillet, VTelder, bdop4

    Brave Sir Scotty ran away.
    ("No!")
    Bravely ran away away.
    ("I didn't!")
    When danger reared it's ugly head,
    He bravely turned his tail and fled.
    ("no!")
    Yes, brave Sir Scotty turned about
    ("I didn't!")
    And gallantly he chickened out.
    *Bravely* taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
    He beat a very brave retreat.
    ("all lies!")
    Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Scotty!
    ("I never!")

  •  Don't get yer panties all in an uproar Scotty. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twcollier
  •  This is the obvious result of (0+ / 0-)

    blind partisanship.

    Any question that doesn't come framed from the right wing point of view is biased and doesn't even need to be addressed.

    Like Bush, and now Romney, only friendly crowds and friendly interviewers are allowed.

    Which is good news for John McCain.

    by AppleP on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:52:35 AM PDT

  •  That's really not very smart. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    There are many many weaknesses in today's Massachusetts Democratic Party, but one sure way of at least papering over them for one election cycle is for a Republican to slam the Kennedys.   That fine for a Ray Shamie or a John Lakian that's just making a symbolic run and wants to ruffle feathers and make a name for himself, but for an actual incumbent Republican to make that mistake is a totally unforced error.

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. ~ Anatole France

    by ActivistGuy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:53:08 AM PDT

  •  The American electorate baffles me (0+ / 0-)

    So we have a state which is solidly ahead for the sitting democratic president vs their former GOP governor, yet their romneyesque GOP senator is neck and neck with a candidiate with real gravitas like Warren who has been nominated for a position in said incumbent democratic president's administration. Am I missing something?

    Just another day in Oceania.

    by drshatterhand on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:57:11 AM PDT

    •  Well, just think of how dumb the average* (0+ / 0-)

      American is and remember that half of the country is even more dumb that that.

      *If you are here, then by definition you are smarter than the average American.

      There is no saving throw against stupid.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:24:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, but it's more than that (0+ / 0-)

        There's no internal consistency in the voting patterns. If polling is correct, does it make any sense that a fair number seem to want to vote for Brown AND Obama? It's not just dumb, it's irrational.

        Just another day in Oceania.

        by drshatterhand on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:35:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's because people aren't rational, they are (0+ / 0-)

          emotional.  That is why liberals have so many problems, we try to use rational arguments to argue our case but they are being "short circuited" by the emotion based right wing advertising.  Do you know how advertising is tested?  Believe it or not they actually hook people up to MRI machines to make sure the ads are pushing the right emotional buttons (it's called neuromarketing)

          There is no saving throw against stupid.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:27:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Scott Brown did not "fail in his efforts"... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    He never had any intention of participating in this debate, and he knew that Vicki Kennedy would never agree to this ridiculous demand. He's getting out of a debate he'd lose, and playing to his base...they get their red meat of "Brown defending himself against liberal bias" with a side of Kennedy hatred for good measure. It's a bit of a tough spot for Warren, actually. On the one hand, I'd love her to do something like demand that Dan Rea and the Boston Herald agree to not endorse Brown...on the other hand, Brown is eagerly looking for any way to get out of debating and might try to torpedo all the debates.

    •  He's got to debate her at least once (0+ / 0-)

      If he rejects all of the reasonable venues, even the media will start jumping on him cuz everyone likes a good fight.

      The press have to write about something, and if they can't report on a debate then they will report on why there aren't any scheduled. That will not play well for him in the long run.

  •  He's a jerk and he gets away with it so far (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    because he is "handsome".  (at least to some).  I did not know much about him initially, but then he made a cutting remark about Liz Warren's looks.  And then he had a photo op with his wife and made yet another stupid sexist remark with that aw shucks of his shoulders as he said it.  That's when I knew what kind of guy he is.  The kind you can't trust.

    He reminds me of that handsome dude in HS who says he really likes you, gets you into bed, dumps you shortly afterward, and then disparages you in the locker room to the guys.

    The woman with the maroon hair had fallen to her knees and was asking the sky, “What I done wrong, God? Tell me, Lord. I been good.” “You’re kneeling on Rex’s grave!” Ignatius shouted.

    by gracielove on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:13:15 AM PDT

  •  Keller is OK (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, he's "known to be especially tough on the state’s Democratic political culture", but that's really the only political culture the state has had, mainly.

    He's mainly stayed away from the Cherokee issue, and in his recent story he spends equal time questioning the motivation of the critics.

    Some people don't like his tone of voice (which drips with sarcasm most of the time), but he'd be a tough and fair moderator.

  •  Shut up the widow? You can't walk that back. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Solution for Warren: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek, bluebrain

    Debate Scott Brown on his terms (meaning the three debates they've agreed to).

    Appear at the Kennedy Institute with an empty podium next to you and field the questions of the panel.

    Nothing will say "chicken" more than the image of the strong woman who appeared, and the coward who was afraid to face her on her turf (esp. after she willingly faced him on his - 3 times)!

    Now THAT's the president I voted for!

    by RevJoe on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:43:54 AM PDT

  •  This reminds me of the (0+ / 0-)

    Texas Governors' race in 2010. Rick Perry refused to debate his Democratic opponent and came up with every lame excuse not to do so...he was re-elected easily.

      Turned out to be a good strategy, too, 'cuz once Ricky Shortbus decided to throw his hat into the GOP Presidential nomination ring, he could not avoid appearing on stage with the other candidates, and the entire nation (not to mention the Texans who kept re-electing him) found out what a fumble-mouthed doofus he is.

      Scott Brown is self-aware enough to know he'd get his clock cleaned debating Elizabeth Warren on live TV, so he's probably going to do everything he can to not let that happen.

    "I don’t wear no Stetson, but I’m willin’ to bet, son, that I’m a bigger Texan than you are".- Robert Earl Keen

    by Kellybee on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:48:17 AM PDT

  •  Brown is a fool! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    What an utter fool is Mr Brown!
    Having baited the Widow Kennedy as he did,
    he has just set her up to endorse Pres. Obama,
    and probably more lavishly than she would
    otherwise have done.  And everyone will notice.
       I very much hope Mrs Elizabeth Warren beats
    Brown, and I have a hunch she will.  He can retire
    and just disappear from view, which is what he
    deserves.  He's too old to pose for Play Girl in
    the nude any more!
       Gott im Himmel, where do they find these
    ridiculous Republicans?!!

  •  Truth is: Brown has ALL to lose by debating (0+ / 0-)

    Hence he will stay away from ANY debate for whatever reason, the same way Rick Perry did in Texas against Bill White...

  •  This guy is pathetic :P (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twcollier

    Srsly

  •  How are debates not required? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    It's kind of part of a senator's job to debate, listen, learn, problem solve, speak - all of it.

    Play this tripe, office-ransom demand list over and over, folks, and put a full name to it: REPUBLICAN Scott Brown.

    I guess like Mitt,  and every other ALEC-led conservative, we'll just have to wait and see what his ideas will be when he gets back into office. Pure Bullshit.  

    Strange but not a stranger.

    by jnww on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:08:44 PM PDT

    •  Debating is a central political metric (0+ / 0-)

      It requires command of subject matter, the ability to articulate an argument based on said subject matter, and the ability to respond to a counter-argument.

      That's what is SUPPOSED to happen in the halls of Congress. Not so much these days, sadly.

  •  Jon Keller is a bloviating db (0+ / 0-)

    Seriously, the guy is as bad as Dan Rae.  
    He used to be on 'FNX in the mornings, pontificating on the democrats in Mass.  When his little section would end, they DJ's would basically question out loud why the hell he was allowed to voice any opinion.
    I like to hear myself talk.  He REALLY likes to hear himself talk.
    And he has a stick buried so far up his ass that he is sprouting leaves out his ears.
    Complete ass.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site