Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Brown's Actions are as bad as Akins

Let's be clear, what Scott Brown's doing with his campaign -- turning it about race and not even apologizing for his staff when they use "war whoops" and "tomohawk chops" at campaign events -- is absolutely as disgusting as what Rep. Akins did in the Missouri Senate race.

This should be a national story and, like Akins, he should be run out of office. There is no place for racism in any campaign, and this is the first time I can remember ever seeing a race in Massachusetts in which the racism has been so blatant.

Not even in Kerry Healey's Willy Horton ads did we see anything like this.

In light of the fact that he refuses to punish or even apologize for his staff's actions -- even after he's been called to do so by the leader of the Cherokee Nation -- we have to start asking if this is exactly the kind of man he is in real life.

Given that he seems to find these kinds of racist actions funny, it's starting to be hard to imagine otherwise.

Friday, September 21, 2012

My Takeaways from the Brown-Warren Debate

While there was no clear knock-out, it's helpful to look at the debate by questioning just how well each side reinforced their message.

Warren's message these days is that Scott Brown's votes hurt Massachusetts, and unlike him, you can count on her to be on the side of Mass residents all the time.

Brown's entire campaign is based on the fact that he's nice, works well across the aisle, and makes people feel all tingly inside. 

Warren, by linking the Senate campaign to the national level and by continually beating up on Brown on the fact that he's all about protecting the obscenely wealthy on taxes -- even at the cost of the 98% of us -- scored well on her fronts.

Brown's petulant, nasty personal attacks hurt him.

If he goes out to the rest of the debates like that, he's going to lose the election, as each debate wakes more and more people up to the fact that he's not nice at all.

One other comment

Scott Brown, during the first question at the debate:
Professor Warren claimed that she was a native American, a person of color, and as you can see, she's not.
There's something deeply offensive about Brown's notion that there should be some sort of heritage litmus test based on whether or not someone sufficiently "looks" like that ethnicity, which is exactly the point he made when he attacked Elizabeth Warren on her Cherokee-ness. 

She didn't "look" Native American, and therefore -- according to him -- is lying. In a country that's becoming increasingly diverse, there's more and more interracial families. Not all of the children in those families will look like the minority (or both of the minorities, in many cases). 

Is Darren Criss of Glee not half Filipino, because he looks Irish? Is Grady Sizemore of the Cleveland Indians not half black, because he looks Italian? Is Patrick Chung of the Patriots not part Chinese, or Jamaican for that matter, because he looks black?

My extended family happens to be very diverse, but it's not always clear if all you did was look at the color of their skin, or the shape of their eyes. Scott Brown's notion -- that they somehow don't get to claim their heritage because they don't 'look' the part -- is, or at least should be, a disqualifying statement for office in the 21st Century.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Questions for Mitt


I just had Martin Bashire on, who mentioned that 61% of the 47% figure Mitt mentioned pay payroll taxes and were the working poor, many working 2 or even 3 jobs to keep a roof over their heads. How would Mitt explain that they're not "taking personal responsibility of themselves?"

Or what about the 10%+ of the country who are seniors, on Medicare and SS, but don't earn enough to pay income taxes? What does he say to them, who have paid into the system their entire lives, some in nursing homes or otherwise sick or not as mobile as they used to be. Are they not "taking personal responsibility?"

How about people with disabilities? Or who've sent out a hundred resumes in a hundred days? Are they not taking personal responsibility?

Lynne talks about many of these same issues here, and asks what Scott Brown thinks about it. Every Republican should be asked the same question. Do they stand with Mitt? Are the working poor, disabled and seniors of the country 'moochers,' or people who deserve our respect?

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Gotta Love it: Patrick Stumps for Warren

Can anyone ask for a better advocate than Deval Patrick? The Governor's enthusiastic endorsement and support for Elizabeth Warren is going to make a difference, adding to Liz Warren's great day.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

That $210 million fine on Capitol One? Thank Elizabeth Warren

From MSNBC NBC News:
WASHINGTON -- Capital One Financial agreed to pay $210 million to resolve charges by U.S. banking regulators that its call-center representatives misled consumers into paying for extra credit card products. 
The enforcement action, announced on Wednesday, is the first by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which said it unearthed the activities through an examination of the bank. 
And who created the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau? That's right. Liz Warren.

It's amazing to see the CFPB already have this much impact on protecting consumers. Let's hope it's just a small example of what's to come.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Today's LeftAhead Podcast w/BMG's David on ACA Futures

BMG's David Kravitz, with all his constitutional law background, came on for a special LeftAhead episode on the Affordable Care Act. The show's below, or you can download it at the above link, iTunes or other podcast aggregators.


Listen to internet radio with massmarrier on Blog Talk Radio

Friday, July 13, 2012

Romney's Lies Have Finally Caught Up to Him

No matter how skilled the habitual liar, if they do it long enough, they're eventually going to get to the point where they can't come up with a new lie to cover the old ones.

As BMG makes clear, Romney's now thereWelcome, Mittens.

Let's look at this tangled web.

He claimed to be retired from Bain from 1999-2002 to the SEC/IRS, but Bain claimed he wasn't to the SEC, critically paying him a salary as chief executive. So, was Romney lying to the IRS, or was Bain lying to its investors and the SEC?

Now, Romney claims that his status as CEO of Bain from 1999-2002 was just technical jargon and wasn't his real position. In fact, he says he was totally removed from Bain and had no intention of coming back, despite the fact that he was still attending board meetings for companies Bain owned.

That's his answer to voters and his defense against what he listed on his SEC/IRS claims, but that's not what he was saying to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where he insisted his time in Utah was just a leave of absence and that he always intended to return to Bain -- as his basis for why he should remain eligible to be Governor of Massachusetts.

This latest claim of his undermines his previous claim, that he was never going to go back. It's all the more serious a lie because, without it, it's likely he wouldn't have ever been Governor of Massachusetts.

So, what are we supposed to believe? What Mitt told the SEC and IRS? What Bain told the SEC? What he said to explain away the divergence of what he said to the IRS and what Bain said to the SEC? Or what he told Massachusetts, in order to be eligible to run for Governor?

Each claim is slightly different than the next, and undermines the others more and more. All that's left is the facts: whatever he says, he was on salary to be the chief executive officer of Bain and, contrary to his insistence that he had nothing to do with the company, was regularly flying in to Massachusetts on Bain business, even while living in Utah.

The bottom line? Other people go to prison for the kind of lies Mitt Romney habitually makes.




About Ryan's Take