couldn't have said it better but you left out the fact that Brown lied about his voting record which can be found on line. Elizabeth Warren was accurate

I give the edge to Brown, but I thought both candidates served their positions well.

But Brown being arrogant, etc.? Were we watching the same debate? I remarked to some colleagues this morning that I appreciated the debate last night in that I thought the questions were fair and balanced, it was fairly moderated, and both candidates were prepared and civil.

I love these characterizations - Brown didn't lie about his voting record, he explained his votes, which he did very well, btw

The implied lies were by Warren, for example, characterizing Brown as not for women's issues because he did vote for Elena Kegan. Brown's explanation was more than plausible - he did vote for her because she didn't have enough experience on the bench. Where's the lie?

Elsa, that covers what I was going to say! Thanks for getting here first.

I think FindBalance is quite mistaken: Scott Brown has been running ads saying he supports womens rights. Yet he voted for the Blunt Amendment - which lets your boss decide if women may have contraception, and against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay act which ensures that women get the same pay as men - for the same work.

Lastly, Scott Brown voted to give billions of tax dollars to the oil industry in the form of subsidies - he's giving *my* tax dollars to the most profitable companies on the planet for no good reason at all (except so that they can help funnel dark money back into his campaign). Redistributing my tax dollars to oil companies does not help my small business or my hard working family.

I guess we’re at opposites, RS - I think you are mistaken about why he voted for the Blunt Amendment – and I challenge your ridiculous characterization that it lets your boss decide if women may have contraception. Any woman is allowed any contraception she’d like, and an employer cannot prevent her from attaining it. But your position is that an employer must be *made* to *include it* as part of her compensation package, even if contraception goes against the employers conscience. Is that where we are – we have to rely on the govt to dictate to our employers what the compensation should be for our jobs?

Also, you may be surprised that I agree with you on oil subsidies – cut them out gradually, so as to have minimal impact on the economy, transportation, etc., but do cut them out (and do not replace it with giving subsidies to solar and wind companies).

We'll put you down as an "undecided." :-)

Hey look, Joe, someone's gotta give an alternate point of view. ;-)

Warren is lying mean spirited crusty old wombat, who enjoys taking jobs and money allocated for minorities. I have seen enough of her to be truly afraid for my wallet if she gets in.

Now THAT's an argument, John Ford. Well reasoned, mature, and supported with evidence. At least you admit that fear is your primary motivator.

"Brown arrogantly thinks he is the arbiter of someone else's family ethnic heritage."

What does that even mean? And Warren has never proven that she is American Indian, just has stories of that heritage from her family. When you're applying for things from applications to colleges and Harvard Law School professor, you better be more sure of your heritage than stories from your family.

There isn't a whole lot of information available to prove or disprove...if Elizabeth Warren says she is part Native American then who is Scott Brown to say otherwise and why does he raise the issue? Is a person part Native American not good enough to run for the office he currently holds?

Excellent point Dr. Cogan!

Marlene - You sure don't understand the issue. She is perfectly welcome to run for political office if she is Native American. The issue is that she checked a box that gave her an advantage (else why check the box?) for important things (acceptance to college, Harvard Law Professor job) without being of that heritage - that is an issue that goes to her character.

Brown very often votes R, yet he is the 2nd-most bi-partisan Congressman, based on his votes. Which charactereization do I believe - the statement by RS, or the facts based on Brown's votes?

And so far, almost eveery post here has consisted of character assassination of Brown - typical Saul Alinsky tactic.

Brown follows the republican leadership less than 60% of the time. What has Warren said that makes you think that she will not fall in lockstep with the Dem leadership on every vote?

...and govt solutions

Warren was careful to state there should be balance. Big difference. A system that favors big money interests rigging the system is not balanced - and definitely needs to be regulated... to bring things into balance again where voters and businesses can thrive together.

Not quite accurate, RS - Warren advocated a balanced approach *only* for reducing the deficit (or debt), not in her governing philosophy. And we know how that works from when Reagan trusted Tip O'Neil with the same concept - raise taxes now on the promise of long-term spending cuts. The spending cuts never materialized on O'Neil's side - fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me...

I have not checked mine either. Who does? This is how information becomes distorted as it is passed from generation to generation.

DH - It is irrelevant whether Scott Brown verified his background - he didn't check a minority box that gave him an advantage for college acceptance, a job, or anything else. That is what is relevant about Warren not having verified her background - she checked boxes that would give her an advantage (why else check the box?); when you do that to get into a college or get a Harvard Law Professor job, you should be damn sure of the heritage you are claiming.

When you list yourself as a minority for personal gain, you darn well better have the documentation to back it up. She doesn't, so that makes her a liar for personal gain in my book.

Interestingly, there's an incident in Scott Brown's past where he embellished his own ancestry. When he first appeared in Cosmo back in the 80's, he was interviewed by the NY Times. He told the interviewer that he was the great-grandson of Arthur Prentice Rugg, a chief justice of the MA Supreme Court in the 19th century, and he found it funny to be studying briefs in law school that were penned by his great-grandfather. Two days later, the Times had to print a retraction, when it was discovered that Brown and Rugg were only distantly related.

Original article: http://bmgmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NYTRugg.pdf

Retraction: http://bmgmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NYT-Rugg-correction-001.pdf

To everyone who is outraged that Warren claimed Native American heritage, where's your outrage at Scott Brown for this bit of mendacity?

John Tehan, You are misrepresenting the article regarding Scott Brown and Arthur Prentice Rugg. The relationship was defined by the author of the article, Judy Klemesrud. Had it been stated that way by Scott Brown it would have been quoted. So the misrepresentation was the fault of the author and editor.

larry - What are you talking about? What evidence do you have that he was smoking cigars in the back room, or that he is a sheep in wolf's clothing? What makes you think he picks and choses which vote will bring him more votes?

Oh, and Warren may be for the working people, but if she is elected, she will work to give them what she thinks they should have, when she thinks they should have it (govt solutions and govt control, because she knows best; after all, she is Harvard intellectual elite).

Brown is also for the working people, but his efforts are focused on providing private sector jobs that allow the middle class (and everyone) as many opportunities as they wish to pursue.

Character is an important and real issue, Theresa. Checking the Native American box for few college or prestigious job positions without knowing that you are truely of that heritage is simply gaming the system. And a Cuacasian box is never used to give a Caucasian an advantage when applying for college or a job.

FindBalance, I have to agree, character is important, and misrepresenting your ancestry shows a lack of character. See my post above, where I described how Scott Brown misrepresented his own ancestry in an interview with the NY Times - who are you going to vote for now?

Let's say you are right, John - was Brown trying to be get something out of an anecdotal story he gave in an interview? Probably not. And by the article, it says he is related to the judge, anyway. Brown did not use that story repeatedly, either, like Warren did/does. So, on balance, what Warren did is far more disgraceful than what Brown did.

@FindBalance, you think Brown "probably" didn't seek any type of gain with his story, so that's good enough for you? Warren has repeatedly explained that she also did not seek to gain anything by relating an anecdotal story about her ancestry - why is that not good enough for you? Brown has no proof of his assertion that she ever "checked a box" to gain any advantage. Based on anecdotal family history, she listed herself in a registry of professionals with Native American heritage. This heritage was not used to gain access to law school, or in gaining employment. That's "probably" good enough for me to say that it's not an issue - if it's not good enough for you, it's because of your partisan blinders.

John Tehan, You are misrepresenting the article regarding Scott Brown and Arthur Prentice Rugg. The relationship was defined by the author of the article, Judy Klemesrud. Had it been stated that way by Scott Brown it would have been quoted. So the misrepresentation was the fault of the author and editor.
Regarding partisan blinders, Elizabeth Warren admitted the heritage statement and the concern is whether she received an advantage over another minority that should have received the advantage. Were I a minority that applied for the same positions, I would justifiably be outraged. Why take an article that speaks about Brown that clearly has quotes from him and state a point the author made outside of the quote as being said by him? But even so, let's assume he did state that and he hoped to gain from it as he did state "modeling...so I can make a lot of contacts..." . That was done to publicize his desires as an entertainment lawyer. There is no comparison to disregard for affirmative action or Equal Opportunity Employment.

Again, it goes to Warren's character.

Gordon - Why did she check the box if she did not think it would give her an advantage?

And the system is set up for the very reason to give someone an advantage who check a minority box, so it is unlikely that her Native American status was not taken into consideration, but that is an aside. The issue is that *she* checked the box. Again, why would she do that if it was not to give her an avantage?

Proven? Where????? It's been DISPROVEN! And she won't even meet with the Indians in her tribe to discuss it. And how do you know she didn't gain any advantage? Do you read minds as well?

I have to agree with FindBalance. Elizabeth Warren's heritage isn't the issue - the issue is why did she check that box? She's a smart and very well educated woman - surely she knew the purpose of that box on the application.

It doesn't really matter whether or not the University considered her heritage in hiring her. The plain fact that she checked the box, knowing that it might give her an unfair advantage that she wasn't really entitled to. And, now that she's been called on it, she comes up with all kinds of fanciful excuses about how her Grandmother told her she had "high cheekbones".

Does she really think Massachusttes voters are dumb enough to believe that?

This whole incident shows her true character. And it's not pretty.

Linda,
Really, Brown has a proven record here in Massachusetts and inthe U.S. senate of working with the other party. I guess your democratic colored glasses won't let the facts in.

It's not dirty politics; Scott Brown needs to take responsibility for the way he votes on women's issues.... see the Blunt Amendment and Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act. He can't vote against women and also expect their support.

Democrats don't care for her? Which Democrats are you seeing? I see thousands of Democrats donating millions of dollars to her campaign, making phone calls, walking door-to-door and otherwise working to get her elected.

Harvard promoted Warren as their FIRST NON-WHITE FACULTY HIRE. I guess that where her experience and skills took over.

I like your post, Elsa. The native American issue is a big NOTHING and if it were Scott Brown who had that issue then you would hear a chorus of Republicans saying we were whiners. Well, I guess it's their turn. This issue will do the opposite of hurt. I now feel it helps as Brown handled it brutally cruel!

Boy, more people who don't understand the issue. Elsa and Linda - of course not just any Native American could get the Harvard job. But by checking the box, Warren was trying to get an advantage (unfairly, since she has not proven her Native American heritage) over other qualified candidates, most of whom are not Native American.

... if you think it's okay for him to send your tax dollars to highly profitable oil companies, through federal subsidies. Then, yes, he's the candidate for you.

yeah, I guess you're right. Oil companies don't pay enough taxes. Currently 41 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of businesses in Standard & Poor’s 500. Majority of what folks refer to as subsidies are actually tax credits to encourage exploration & production, including accelerated depreciation for capital. Let's take all that money and invest in ventures like Evergreen Solar and Solyndra. Yeah let's do that instead.

Yes , maybe we should tax oil companies more so they can then raise the cost of fuel more. Then everything else will cost more. Every item in a supermarket and any other store needs to be transported there. How would raising the cost of fuel benefit the consumer?

pcworld3 - Brown was childish and lost his cool; were we watching the same debate? Just more character assassination from a liberal.

I could participate in character assissination, too. I could say Warren was meek and mousey, and that shows she doesn't have the gumption to fight for the people of MA. But I won't, because I thought she *performed* well, even though I disagree with the majority of her positions.

And Brown's concepts are about people and prosperity for all through private enterprise, whereas Warren's concepts are about "taking care of the people" through govt control, govt programs, and govt-provided solutions. When you think about it, Warren's concepts are more about govt deciding what is right and just for people.

Wow Natalie - you've gone from being in the middle to far to one side in the blink of an eye - curious; not sure who won the debate all the way to "[Warren] is THAT good".

Do you know why Brown brought up Warren not having Native American features? Because Warren said she has high cheekbones as evidence of her Native American heritage. Warren opened the door herself!

You are right about 1 thing - why doesn't Warren take a DNA test and put this all to bed?

And more character assassisination, painting Brown as a bully and despicable. Is warren a bully and despicable for buying foreclosed properties in Oklahoma and evicting the residents? Or is she for the middle class?

Also, the Republican party is selling hope to all Americans by proposing plans to create sustainable private sector jobs, not to spend more taxpayer money for jobs that will go away when the govt has no more money to spend.

I think the "angry" line has become a standard attack line in Republican politics. That's what they called President Obama too - he's not an angry person, and nor is Elizabeth Warren. Scott Brown is moderate only in his political ads - when it comes to voting, he takes the corporate and GOP party line, because that's who pays him now and will also pay him once he is voted out of office.

MPR - If you take out the reference to Warren coming off as judgemental and angry, your other points need are plenty to show who Warren is, and what she will do.

RS - Read the posts in this blog again - of those who attempt to incorrectly paint their candidate's opponent as arrogant, bully, angry, the ones against Brown outnumber the obnes against Warren by about 10 to 1. I find that "Democrats" use character assasination way more than "Republicans" do, but since it seems to work so well for them, I can understand why "Republicans" would be tempted to do the same.

RS - Also, I find it confusing how you can believe the "Brown takes the corporate and GOP party line" line of thinking, when Brown is the 2nd-most bipartisan Congressman, and has a long record of bipartisanship in the MA legislature.

That is not true and is well documented that Scott Brown voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act as recently as June this year. If we stick to the facts of Scott Brown's voting record, it is clear his campaign ads say one thing, but he does another. See this Boston Globe article for the facts: http://bo.st/LjCDvI

Why do you have a problem with Elizabeth Warren achieving the American Dream?

She earned her success. And she wants more, not less Americans to have an opportunity to be successful too. That's not hard to understand at all.

RS - I re-read Bill C's post - I don't see him say or imply he had a problem with Warren achieving the American Dream. He said he does not believe she is in touch with the middle class.

And how would she provide more Americans with an opportunity to be successful, if she demonizes as the problem corporations, banks, and the private sector - the very things that provide (through competition, not through govt mandate) Americans with opportunities to be successful?

Brown was the victim but now somehow he is the criminal. Where is your compassion, Patty - oh, that's right, your compassion is for everyone but Republicans.

By using the term "Professor", Brown was respecting the highest professional position that Warren has attained. If he hadn't used "professor" would you have complained that he didn't respect the level she attained?

Linda - you didn't need to call Bill C petty and small-minded, so please elevate the discussion.

To the issue of Warren making $350k for 1 class - great for her (if she completely earned it ;-) The real point is that Warren criticizes the cost of hihger education, but her salary is a significant part of the reason - if she were to be elected as Senator, it seems to me that she would be conflicted on this...

Don't forget Scott Brown's vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act - to stop women being cheated out of money they earned fair and square. See http://bo.st/LjCDvI

Jusy, you said "Elizabeth Warren did an excellent job of giving her positions and pointing out Brown's votes."

Agreed - I thought she did a good job doing that.

And you said "He simply cannot run from his votes on the Blunt amendment and tax bills which support the very rich."

I disagree with your characterization of "running from his votes", and I disagree that he cannot explain them reasonable. I believe he did both own up to the votes, and explained vey well his reasons for his votes.

If that is how you think Bill, you could move to a red state.

You're right, RS - he is rather independent and leans to the right, and it shows in his voting record!

Concerned Citizen,
What would you say to your child if they ended up teaching at Harvard and earning $350,000 for teaching one course? Would you try and make them feel guilty? Correct me if I am wrong, but I would think that a large number of Harvard graduates end up earning far more than $350,000.

Patty, I'm sorry but you missed what the issue is - it is not that Warren makes $350k a year - good for her! It is that she criticizes that college is too expensive, yet her salary is part of what drive up the cost of college - she can't have it both ways.

Joescarp,

Where did you see me say or write that Mitt Romney's success was a problem for me? Please get your facts straight and go back and read my comment to Concerned Citizen again. Thank you.

" in order to keep his [Romney] tax rate from dropping below 13%" - Dennis, and the proof of this is...?

"I don't get all the yelling about Warren's salary."

Here is what all the yelling about Warren's salary is about (and btw - I say "good for her") - from a previous post:
it is not that Warren makes $350k a year - good for her! It is that she criticizes that college is too expensive, yet her salary is part of what drive up the cost of college - she can't have it both ways.

Dennis - Warren is complaining about the high cost of higher education while at the same time sticking her hand in the students pockets. As long as it increases her income, just like claiming to be a native American, Warren is all for it.

Dennis Wilson, loved your work as a beach boy!

Ron,

I love it when folks like you step in with the facts and not just sound bites! Bravo!

Patty and Ron, you miss the issue:
it is not that Warren makes $350k a year - good for her! It is that she criticizes that college is too expensive, yet her salary is part of what drive up the cost of college - she can't have it both ways.

Actually, Ron touched on that, but I disagree that it has nothing to do with EW - it does. In a free market, her salary would go down, as would the cost of college. When you introduce public funds, it artificially keeps the price of college and professor salaries high.

If Warren were elected to the Senate, that would be a conflict of interest and bias on her part if she provided public monies that would help her pay colleagues and kindred spirits (profs in colleges and universities) salaries.

Joescarp,

I don’t have a problem with how much money anyone makes as long as they pay their fair share of taxes. I for one want to see Romney’s back taxes to see if he took part in the 2009 IRS amnesty program for international tax dodgers.

From: USA Today

“The paycheck bill was aimed in part at putting Senate Republicans in tough races in the hot seat over a key women's issue. One, Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, issued a statement emphasizing his support for pay equity but calling the legislation "the right cause but the wrong bill."

"On the heels of last week's dismal jobs report, the last thing we should be doing is putting more job-killing burdens on small businesses and employers," he said.

Tweeted challenger Elizabeth Warren: "Scott Brown voted NO on Paycheck Fairness, telling MA women he thinks it's ok that they continue to earn less than men."

My take on what Brown said is that women will have to wait until the economy improves. We have waited long enough!

My take is that Brown is looking at the bigger picture, and willing to consider something more reasonable that achieves equal pay.

BTW, serious question, because I do not know - do these equal pay bills make sure others, like males, get equal pay as women get for equal jobs? Because I know of many women who get paid more than males for the same job, even if the averages may be against women.

I can tell you why. Let me give an example - Mitt Romney works hard for his money, but the Democrats want to make what he makes an issue, like being successful and earning tons of money in the private sector is a crime. Just watch the next Obama for President commercial if you do not believe me. BTW I am pretty sure Obama never broke a sweat, has he ever worked? Like a regular job before he went into politics? Did he go from traveling the world, then Hawaii, then straight to Harvard was it? then it was off to Chicago? Where did he get all his money? He certainly doesn't have a history of working somewhere or anywhere where we can all see where he worked and how much $$$ he earned like we can with Romney now can we??? Its funny how I hear all this whining about MONEY from Warren and Obama, who seem to have lots of it, but no one else is allowed to be wealthy, and certainly no one dares call them out on how much they have and make, or how they obtained their money. Bottom line is if you enjoy paying higher taxes then vote for thin lizzy, if you do not vote for Brown. If you enjoy entitlements, vote for liawatha, if you do not, vote for Brown.

There is nothing wrong with being successful. That is the American Dream.

But when your success is built on vulture capitalism (which is the opposite of building companies), and then you want to run as an economic boom magician, people are going to call Mitt on that, and that is what's happening. The only prosperity Mitt creates is his own (which, again is fine). But this is in contrast to people who build companies like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc...

John Brown--Is it "Lizzie's" thinness you resent? Or that she puts you in mind (inexplicably) of a wombat? Romney's work--including a lot of outsourcing of American jobs--is the murkiest of all fields of inquiry. Like pulling teeth with him, to have him explain anything that he's done. You haven't, by the way, given "an example" when you said that "Mitt Romney works hard for his money"--you've stated a belief, without any details. Romney, who comes from a political family with some pretty scandalous baggage, has never worked as hard as President Obama over these past four years. I don't necessarily love that my taxes go toward keeping up the roads you drive on, educating your children (I am speaking generally, not providing specific "examples" such as you pretend to provide), keeping you safe and fire-free--but then, fear of taxes is not what motivates me. And you might want to adopt a slightly more mature tone when you talk to and about women--you're on record as treating most people shabbily on The Patch, but especially females. Don't you care about their votes? Typical conservative.

Max, what worries me is politicians on the public payroll basically attacking private universities and demanding things like personnel records. Harvard, one of the world's great universities, and a private corporation, has made it clear that Ms. Warren was not hired because of a box she checked, whether wisely or unwisely. I think Brown is way out of line here. He is not only suggesting Warren is some kind of dishonest sleaze (although probably not in the 47% LOL) but that Harvard somehow is, unless his opponent releases personnel files which she does not own. This is dangerous stuff. If Obama attacked a university or IBM or anyone else in terms of their hiring practices the Barack the socialist, communist, whatever howls would be out in force. Aside from all this, I don't think most of these critics have a clue as to what they are talking about in terms of how universities hire people. Lets get on with issues, votes, etc. I was always somewhat sympathetic to Brown. But when he signed on to the Blunt amendment I starting going south. Now I am running south, and from what some of my friends and neighbors say, I am in good company. Oh, if Warren or many other Harvard profs went into the free market they would be paid a heck of a lot more. The GOP positions is sheer politics, and dangerous ones at that.

Max, I am confused - you copy my post that says I have no problem with Warren's salary, and compliment her for her attaining that level, then you talk about how Republicans have shouldn't have a problem with this. I don't! But I have a problem with her being critical of the cost of tuition, to which her salary contributes.

If Republicans want folks in the northeast to vote for them, they should try to convince their southern wingnut brethren to move to the center. We who live in these parts don't think unyielding cretinism is any recipe for solving the world's problems.

It's hard to keep track of the spin. Elizabeth Warren cannot foreclose on properties - banks and mortgage holders do that.

Are you saying that Elizabeth Warren isn't allowed to do buy and sell houses to make a profit because she's a Democrat? And when she buys a foreclosed house, she has to pay for the the previous occupant's housing?

That's just crazy. It makes no sense.

"Are you saying that Elizabeth Warren isn't allowed to do buy and sell houses to make a profit because she's a Democrat?"

No, but she is a predatory opportunist who preys on the downtrodden, which is something she professes to oppose and abhore.

"It's hard to keep track of the spin. Elizabeth Warren cannot foreclose on properties - banks and mortgage holders do that."

I did not say Warren foreclosed on properties - I said that she buys [bought] foreclosed-on properties.

So, is that your spin, RS, or did you mis-read my post?

How is buying a foreclosed home preying on the downtrodden? When you are buying a foreclosed home, you're buying from a bank... not from the person who didn't make their payments. This is just silly talk... trying really hard to find something or anything wrong with Elizabeth Warren.

RS: I think, however simple and sad it is, it boils down to the fact that Elizabeth Warren is a smart and successful FEMALE. Romney outsourcing American jobs is "good business"--here here!--but Elizabeth Warren doing anything an intelligent man might do? Unnatural! It's mundo bizzarro. This is a facet of conservatism that sounds more and more like Strange Tales from the Time of the Dinosaurs.

David - Are you implying that Republicans/conservatives don't think women are intelligent and capable? I am suprised, because you rail (sp) at posters who allegedly make those kinds of statements.

And outsourcing American jobs is a lot better than giving companies taxpayer money to outsource American jobs.

RS - Sorry, I said "she is a predatory opportunist who preys on the downtrodden" because that's the kind of twisting I expect from a liberal argument - I shouldn't have stooped, and sincerely apologize.

However, Warren does criticize banks for the kinds of activities that led to her being able to buy foreclosed properties, and that is not consistent.

A few Democrat votes here and there... Insignificant legislation, too, like being the determining vote to let Frank/Dodd come to the Senate floor for a vote. (While I did not agree with that vote, I can live with Brown as Senator vs Warren, because I know she will vote 100% Dem)

...the Democrats seem to want to talk about Scott Brown's voting record, and when Republicans point out that his voting record is the 2nd most bipartisan in Congress, they don't want to acknowledge it.

Republican spin, sort of like Democratic spin...

Republicans saying Scott Brown is the so-called 2nd most bipartisan member of Congress is irrelevant. When Scott Brown voted to give my tax dollars to oil companies, that don't need the money, I didn't say... well, I feel okay about that because Scott Brown is supposedly the "2nd most bipartisan" member of Congress.

That vote didn't help me and it didn't help my business --- but it sure did give the oil companies billions of dollars of help they didn't need (but, but... Scott Brown is the 2nd most bipartisan member of Congress... who cares, it does not matter, people vote for who will represent them best ALL of the time, not some of the time)

I guess giving tax credits to oil companies is your wedge issue, then, RS.

BTW, giving tax credits to oil companies keeps oil prices down, which helps your business.

For me - and Scott Brown - these credits should be reduced gradually so as to minimize the impact on oil prices rising because of it, which would have an awefull affect on an already fragile economy.

Using your flawed logic we could give everyone tax breaks and pay less for everything... The price of oil is not set by tax breaks. It is set by supply and demand, with some price manipulation thrown in. But, then, we live in a world where many people believe the fairy tale that tax breaks pay for themselves.

"we could give everyone tax breaks and pay less for everything" No, I don't think that at all - I think there would be a break point where there would be diminishing returns. That's the danger of applying a certain logic to a situation to which it was not intended.

And I do think we should eliminate (gradually, but definitely) oil companies' tax credits. The fact that they still get them is not a wedge issue for me.

What you are saying does not make sense -- the oil companies are the largest and most profitable on the planet. If they need help, then EVERY other company also deserves tax payer funded help.

For sure Warren would not have voted against it. We need a Senator with legislative experience, who will not support larger governement agencies to fix all problems, and more able to bridge the gap between the parties. Especially important since it looks like Obama will be re-elected. I might feel differently if Mitt was going to be elected.

But Linda - they didn' tget *caught* then! Why would he possibly do the right thing until it's a big news story? Sheesh!

:)

Here's how.

http://www.nativecircle.com/mascots.htm

It's childish and unbecoming a United States Senator. We have serious problems to solve, and Scott Brown would rather waste time attacking Elizabeth Warren's heritage than talk about his votes in the Senate. Anyone, except staunch party loyalists can see this.

Read below

OMG , BAHAHHAHAHAHA!