It's Not Just Who Is Warren ... But Why?
Photos
Did it ever occur to you that as hard as you would like to learn, some things may just be beyond your understanding? Here are a few of my examples:
- College education costs - why do they increase greater than the inflation rate every year?
- Why do traffic jams just suddenly clear up without any sign of the cause as you regain speed?
- Despite the complaints about the inadequacies of one-party government, why are only 11% of Bay Staters registered as Republicans?
There are just so many things that defy rational explanation. And now, after seeing the headline that Elizabeth Warren had doubled Scott Brown in first quarter fund raising, I am having another of those moments. What can possibly qualify Elizabeth Warren for US Senator?
It's all so strange to me. In a state filled with Democrats, why isn't one of the many long-term elected officials running for Senate? Doesn't that seem more logical - putting up a candidate whose record can be judged on a broader scale? After all, wasn't it Congressman Capuano who spoke so passionately about retaining Teddy Kennedy's seat when Martha Coakley was the favorite to assume his position? Why has he taken a pass? But there are so many other choices, so why not our own Congressman, James McGovern? He has a great name for a politician, and he has proven that he has all the liberal credentials that a Massachusetts Democrat could hope for - and then some. Seems perfect.
But instead it's Warren, and a lot of people, particularly from out of Massachusetts, have donated a lot of money to her campaign to get her elected. But why? What do they know that we don't? Or, is she just being put up by the Democrat National Party to be the "Sotomayor of the Senate"?
Ms. Warren has never held an elected office. Her background has been in academia and she has written a few books. She has taken credit for providing the "progressive" philosophy to the Occupy Wall Street Group which apparently means that she is strong on redistributed wealth and long on "free stuff" distribution. Doesn't this makes her something like a community organizer?
She has even been called "the Hollywood 'it' girl" by no greater authority than MSNBC. Now there's a qualification.
Is this the "new normal" for candidates for the Democrat Party? At least she hasn't voted "present" yet.
Compare this with the experience and qualifications of Senator Scott Brown who began his political career as an Assessor, before being elected to the Board of Selectman where he learned how Town Government ran in the real world. He was subsequently elected as a three term Representative to the Great and General Court, before being elected and re-elected as State Senator. Brown has learned that in the real world Republicans must learn how to work with Democrats if anything is going to get done for the people they represent. And, for the past two years he has been our US Senator, even as he continues to serve in the US Military.
How can the qualifications of these two candidates even be compared ... unless experience doesn't have value any longer.
But here's the thing, according to the US Congress Votes Database, Senator Brown has voted with the Republican Party only 72% of the time, a fact that has disappointed - and even angered - a good number of his supporters who have wanted him to be a more conservative voice. Compare Brown's record with Senator John Kerry, better known for attempting to avoid his fair share of taxes on his yacht, despite being reputedly the wealthiest US Senator, who voted with Democrats 97% of the time - placing him among the least bi-partisan Senators. Even Congressman McGovern "only" votes with the Democrat Party 93% of the time.
The point is that as a Nation we need the Parties to work together far more constructively to achieve positive solutions that advance the culture and maintain our place in the World community. Senator Brown has learned from his years of experience in Massachusetts government how to work with the other party. If he is not the kind of Republican politician that Independents and even disappointed Democrats can support, then I fear that all is lost for Republicans in Massachusetts.
As I said, there are a lot of things that I do not understand. Perhaps some of you will fill in the gaps.
Amy Buttiglieri
9:48 am on Saturday, April 21, 2012
Hi, Jim. Focusing on the "experience" comments in your article: I'd heard about Warren's lack of political experience, but never considered the implications. No matter who we elect, once they get to Washington, they represent all of us. They need to have experience with "the business of politics" or they will lose every fight they take on and our state will get absolutely nothing we need.
You mentioned Jim McGovern - much better candidate for the reasons you stated. If we need to choose between a Republican and a Democrat, better to pick from 2 qualified candidates - our state will "win" in Washington either way. Send a politically inexperienced person to Washington, and Massachusetts gets no real benefit - might as well have only 1 senator.
Jim Hatherley
11:56 am on Saturday, April 21, 2012
Amy, thank you for your note, and you raise a point I had not previously considered ... "What happens after the election?" While Democrats will hardly agree, there is a very good chance that wwe will have a new President in November. There's an even better likelihood that the Senate will turn Republican and the House will remain Republican. Therefore, what good will a second Democrat Senator do for Massachusetts? For that matter, I cannot think of any legislation connected to Senator Kerry that is of consequence to Massachusetts (another opportunity for enlightenment). All you have to do is consider the lack of influence the Massachusetts Congressional delegation has in the House right now - zero - because there are no Republicans to reflect our interests. This is another reason why the re-election of Senator Brown is so important.
Moderate from Massachusetts.
12:40 pm on Saturday, April 21, 2012
Jim, I don't comprehend why Warren is the "it girl" in Hollywood. Cher wishes she lived in Massachusetts so she could vote for her. 20% of her 4 th quarter funding raising is from California. I didn't realize Massachusett had so much in common with the west coast.
Jim Hatherley
2:02 pm on Saturday, April 21, 2012
Thank you, Moderate, you have added an important Elizabeth Warren endorsement to the discussion - Cher. They must have a lot in common, although in Warren's case I have never seen that her words had to be bleeped off the public air. But where do Democrat presidential candidates campaign heavily - California and more specifically, Hollywood. That so much of Warren's money is coming from California further suggests that the Democrat National Committee bypassed the Massachusetts delegation completely to front an even harder core liberal who Obama can count on to push his agenda. I would think that by itself this would be offensive to Massachusetts Democrats, especially after several years of trying to convince their supporters that sow's ears policies are really silk purses in disguise. What a reward for their loyalty. THe bottom line, Moderate, is that you are as incredulous as me, so stay tuned - I am hoping that someone will enlighten us about "the why for Warren".
Adam
4:59 pm on Thursday, April 26, 2012
Hi Jim,
The need for bi-partisanship in Washington has never been greater yet the possibility never further from our grasp. Why is that the case? the role of money? The media’s desire to polarize? Voter apathy? Whatever the reason, I agree that Senator Scott Brown has broken the mold and done more to reach across the aisle than most of his senior colleagues that should arguably have more flexibility in their own voting records?
Senator Brown has demonstrated the strength of character to break with his Party on many issues and serves as a delegate to his constituents in Massachusetts. It is certain that several of these votes have caused him to fall out of favor with many of his fellow Republicans and curtailed his ability to raise money on a national scale. However, I believe that it is critical that we the people of the Commonwealth demonstrate to the rest of the Nation that we support the Senator Brown for his ability to break with ranks and to cross the aisle. I think that both Republicans and Democrats can agree that despite, her lack of a voting record, Ms. Warren’s rhetoric suggests she would likely surpass Mr. Kerry’s 97% party line voting record if given the opportunity.
Fear not for Republicans in Massachusetts, Senator Brown’s bi-partisan record and considerable real experience will shine over the hollow and myopic ideals of his opponent.
Alas, I cannot answer the why Warren
Jim Hatherley
6:52 pm on Thursday, April 26, 2012
Adam, thanks for your note. AMEN.