What has Warren done other than academic accomplishments and to sit on a politically oriented Obama appointed panel ? She talks in such generalities:
- Families are getting hammered (She left her own Oklahoma roots cuz she was "embarrassed" by her own family. Notice how she has dropped "the daughter of a janitor" from her ads... Same repetitive lines are getting old:
- Level the playing field - rebuild our infrastructure (in bed [yuck!] with the unions)
- Wall St., Big Oil - The "system" is rigged against middle class
- Protect / fight for the middle class . Now she is focused only on woman voters ???

People are thinking long and hard about the consequences of a Republican controlled Senate. Another Scalia, tax policies favoring the very wealthy, anti-science, anti-education, "know nothingism", etc.. Warren is a far better candidate who should and will win.

Brown is the only one who can help this state unite and create a stronger economy.

Well Iron Mike, it appears you and me are not among the undecided. So our votes cancel out.

I don't have a clue why this race is seemingly so tight. Anyone with half a brain sees right through the crap that the Dems and Warren's camp are dishing out. You can't get any better than Scott Brown.

Scott Brown claims he is bipartisan but his voting record shows that he supports big banks, big oil and the 1%. Scott voted against three jobs bills and has said he will not vote to cut taxes for the middle class unless the millionaires and billionaires also get a tax cut. Are you familiar with Scott Brown’s voting record?
(see rethinkbrown.com if interested)

Scott is in close contact with Karl Rove and uses Rove’s tactics of trying to turn a person’s strengths to weaknesses against Elizabeth Warren --including lies about her and trying to defame her character. Elizabeth’s significant work on the Consumer Financial Protection bill is one key reason they do not want her where she can fight for strengthening the middle class. Elizabeth will vote for education and education jobs, infrastructure jobs and research jobs.

With the national debt already out of control and our dependence on foreign countries (china) to fund our government while we push the debt burden onto the younger generation, ..... why would anyone in their right mind go far left and vote for Warren? All she talked about during the debates was more spending - never mentioned the fiscal crisis or constructive ways to tackle the problem. Brown is a moderate and is exactly what we need more of in the senate.

Warren will vote for spending money we do not have to the detriment of all. She rails against Wall Street & big banks, yet has millions of dollars in stock; she claims to be for the consumer, but has sided with Travelers Insurance against the little guys injured by asbestos and with Dow Corning against women hurt by breast implants. Additionally, the "1%-ers" she says she abhors include the "Hollywood elite" that have donated multi-millions to her campaign. She complains about the high cost of college for students, yet collects a yearly salary of over $300,000 as a professor at Harvard University. Webster's dictionary would define these stands as hypocritical. The facts speak for themselves: Not only does Warren not have the credibility or experience to represent the people in MA, but but her unyielding, radical ideology would create more grid-lock in Washington than there is now. Additionally, her far-left progressive/socialist agenda isn't what this country is all about--and it will be the demise of this state and this nation if it, and all its proponents, aren't defeated on Nov. 6.

Cherokee Hiawatha using unions in a whole new way, telling them to show up or Pocahontas will doc your pay.

There is absolutely no real reason to vote for Beth, and no real reason to vote against Scott, but the Dumbmocrats in this state will vote lock step with their party only to complain their is no bi-partinship in Washington. Go Figure! JB above said it well, we need fiscal responsibility.

Warren could care less about MA voters, she's running in order to support the party's national agenda. No one hear much from her in this state before she decided to run and after this is all over (win or lose) you won't hear much from here then.

Well, the question in the survey was -- who do you think will WIN the election, not who do you think is the best candidate. I'll speak up for the small group of respondents in the survey who think the race is too close to call. There will be a lot of spin moves between now and the election that will try to make it look like the momentum is shifting one way or the other. This time around it seems like a vast majority of voters are pretty much locked in on their choices and the pollsters are having a miserable time reliably catching up with the small group of undecideds. I am skeptical of poll results in general, but I will be especially skeptical of any polls that come out between now and the election. And I think the choice of subjects that the newspapers make for their articles on each of the candidates between now and the election will tell us a lot about their objectivity during this election cycle.

Mrs Warren is part of the progressive conspiracy - formerly know as the Communist party. All of her talking points come from their take action drop down box - class warefare, tax the rich and racism. For more of their talking points visit http://cpusa.org/feeling-locked-out-of-the-american-dream/.

IS this truly what you want for our country? for your children?

If communism was so great why did we have to bail out Russia during the Reagan years???? Why did people fight so hard to defect? Think about it before you vote for the progressive Mrs. Warren!

Here is her agenda: Debt, Debt and more debt, using unionized workers to be their little soldiers to strong arm those who disagree and the don't do as I do but do as I say mentality.

If you do vote for Mrs Warren, here is the agenda for the socialists of Boston meeting 2 days after the election:

http://dsaboston.org/calendar.htm

Presentation at activist meeting by Rev. Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou, Editor-in-Chief of Spare Change newspaper and author of Gods, Gays and Guns: Essays on Race, Religion, and the Future of Democracy

As Socialists they are truly concerned about how well they are destroying our democracy.

The real problem here is that there really isn't that much of a difference between these two except their integrity. Look, when it comes right down to it, they are both life-long politicians. Sure, Warren has never been in office, but she has been in the lobbying field for years. She knows the players and she knows how it works. No one gets that close to being a presidential appointment who isn't a politician. Her record is absolutely clear, she will do exactly what she feels like doing when she feels like doing it if it is best for her. Whether it is yelling at a bank one day for foreclosing on people's homes, or turning around and flipping those very same homes herself. She is coming out and saying, "I protected 'people' in these big corporate cases," which, if she did, she violated her oath as an attorney to protect her client, which was the big corporation.

Brown has never made any secret about who he is. He is a moderate New England Republican. As a moderate, he makes his own decisions when to vote with his party and when not to do so. Warren has made it very clear that she will vote the Democrat party line.

So, the real question in this election is not whether or not you want a Republican or a Democrat, the real question is who can you trust to vote their own conscience, regardless of what it means to their party?

Kemosabe...tell pale face no vote Warren or heap big indian nation go on warpath.

That's right Frank....what was I thinking....there is absolutely no room for integrity in politics is there?! I apologize! Deceive away Lizzie!!!

First, Brown is no moderate. Second, no such thing as a moderate Republican. Any Republican in the U.S. Senate is at the very least an enabler of the crackpot, Republican agenda. Brown is getting desperate, as are his supporters. He must see it slipping away..Don't be surprised if he makes an announcement prior to the election that he is dropping his Republican party affiliation. If he does, don't be fooled. It would be meaningless. He would still function as an enabler/supporter of the Republican agenda.

Aw Frank, lighten up a tad.

Yes, you're absolutely correct that the left-wingers will jump on the Indian jokes and brand us all racists. They like branding us...with any label.

But Warren has kept doubling down on her lie, - so she's created the problem. It would have been VERY EASY for her to have made it go away at the outset – with a simple apology.

IF – she wins [shudder], people will continue to demand a peek at her paperwork – just like we still want to see Obama's college records. So voting for Warren will just keep this alive. The MoonBat crowd wants her because of the D – they're quite used to ignoring ethical vacuums in their politicians.

Do you remember when the joke was that our congressional delegation contained 'a homosexual, a pedophile, and a murderer'? Nobody on the left was EVER bothered – all three were reelected many times. It's part of the Massachusetts sickness.

So now in 2012, the pedophile and the murderer are dead, the homosexual has married and is retiring to Maine, and now we have a career left-wing progressive trying to unseat the next Joe Lieberman. Some folks will be overly touchy and sensitive, - but others will mock her hypocrisy for the rest of her life.

I just shudder at the thought of her on my TV screen for the next six years....

Iron Mike, you seem to represent the true and authentic Republican and Conservative way of thinking. Your comments seem heartfelt. Please comment more, and more often.

Hi Frank,
Trust me there are plenty of moderate Democrats, starting with President Obama. See Colin Powell's endorsement today of Obama and Obamacare.(I'm sure we both agree that Powell is no socialist/Marxist/communist.). And yes I am very comfortable with what you refer to as the "Democrat [sic] agenda."
I'm curious why Brown would lose your vote if he switched parties. Why does his party affiliation matter to you?

Frank, I agree with you. Party affiliation does matter. Never more than now.

TO: GM:

Your analysis of 'two paths for our country' falls short of the reality we really face.

You Ass/U/Me that both parties are essentially honorable – when they're not being selfish.

Have you ever considered that Obama and his Cartel are not particularly interested in the long-term viability of the USA?

Have you ~ considered ~ that many of his words and actions are suddenly making sense – IF – you factor in somebody who actually believes that our country needs to be humiliated, humbled, and reduced to the same economic level – of say Indonesia or Kenya?

So, for purposes of this article, Brown is a mushy Republican on his best days, and Warren is an Obama handmaiden.

Actually that sums it up. Dance with the one that brung you? It's also called following the Pied Piper....They tell you jump off that bridge....you jump. Party affilliation today means get in line or else. God help you if you want to think for yourself and take a concientious stance.

Senator Brown will be victorious in this election because those who want to retain the right to think and speak for themselves and ensure our country's survival as a free nation will vote for him. This is the country people come to in order to escape big government that thinks it knows better than its citizens, controls their lives, and uses their money for whatever it wants. If Warren is able to promote her far-left, progressive/socialist agenda on Capitol Hill (whether it's good for MA folks/businesses or not), many Americans may become the ones looking to flee. Warren's priorities are not in the best interest of the middle class, the so-called "99%", or even the percentage of people in MA still struggling in this dismal economy--and her "investment" (spending) policies will only serve to increase the already unsustainable national debt. Her priority is, and always will be, her party ideology. Her "do as I say, but not as I do" actions illustrate her lack of integrity and further indicate how unqualified she is to credibly represent us. We need legislators in Washington like Senator Brown who will work with both parties to reach agreements that are in our best interests; we do not need someone who will ignore our voices to force on us the progressive/socialist ideology that tramples on the freedoms and principles on which America was founded and stifles the opportunities for individuals to pursue the American dream.

I also truely believe that if a poll of "strictly independent voters" were taken that the overwhelming majority would state that there was not a single deciding factor for their choice for President, they simply voted for who they hope and believe to be the "lesser of two evils"....and that's far from reassuring.

I also think Brown would do more for the whole state, not just the liberals. Although he is classified as a replublican he votes on what he thinks is best for Mass, not with his party. Not like she will be and what Kerry is now

JT and GM,

Elizabeth Warren is a shrewd debater and does use "code" words as you say. Have you noticed that she always uses the word "revenues" instead of "taxes?" She doesn't want you to know that her policies will raise your taxes, so she speaks in code. Senator Scott Brown tells it like it is, which is why I admire him.

Okay people. I know I'm just a kid, but I've watched the debates (and I have to say, I'm pretty smart.) Scott Brown is the one who can really help us. Elizabeth Warren is just a liar, besides she obviously can't think for herself. C'mon people, don't you have brains???

The problem is noiven to one can say what warren is with proof. She supported the wall street protestors. She says wall street is the reason for the finacial crisis, but she doesn't disagree with the mortgages given to people that couldn't pay it. She says she for middle class but the only thing she has done for the middle class was profit from them. The country is in terrible shape because of things she supports. As a Hard working American veteran, I will not vote for someone with her views.

To all the young people taking the time to listen and learn about candidates before voting: Watching the debates and getting involved so you can learn the diferences between the candidates is both admirable and crucial to be an informed voter. There is plenty of information out there--not necessarily through the main-stream media--for all of you to make an informed decision about the candidates, and it sounds like some of you have been doing some research. It's often frustrating to see how many people miss the obvious and seem to think that intergrity isn't important in a candidate, and unfortunately this is the case too frequently. The best way to convince people of your convictions is to relate the actual facts to them that brought you to your decision--and there are plenty of facts out there to share with others. Facts are what MANY still need to hear in this year's CRITICAL elections!

Thank you for your service Jay.-- and you're right--Senator Brown has the integrity, experience and commitment to work with all sides to put America on a better fiscal path, get folks working again, and support the individual freedoms our county was founded on, as well as support our servicemen/women who sacrifice every day to keep us safe.

Elizabeth Warren does not pass the “Smell Test.” How can a Harvard Professor not do her genealogy to prove that she was part Indian? Shame on Harvard and shame on Professor Elizabeth. Now, having said that, I have done my family genealogy back to the 1700’s. It is not that hard for a professor to do.
Elizabeth Warren has a “Heap Big”, credibility problem. Scott Brown does not say that he is anything but a normal guy like I am. When you cast your vote on Nov. 6th, please vote for Scott Brown and not the make believe Indian Warren. Heap Big Fraud, is the best term I can use!

Professor Warren has several issues which she and her supporters choose to ignore.
1. She claims to be "concerned" regarding the high cost of education, but conveniently ignores the fact that she collects $340K to teach one class at Harvard. Cause and effect?
2. Her lack of integrity regarding her lineage and claiming minority status.
3. Claiming to be for the little guy, but taking a BIG salary from insurance companies in order to limit payouts to working folks.
4. Her practice of flipping foreclosed homes to pad her fortune. Not consistent with her supposed empathy with the working class.
Anyone, who is not a “die hard, I don’t want to know the facts or care about the facts card carrying Democrat”, has to be suspect of her message. Couple that with Scott Brown’s record of bi-partisanship and you have a recipe for a Scott Brown victory.

Interesting video telling about Warren
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN2FGuYgtlY

A vote for Brown is a vote for Akin, Mourdock, the right-wing Rapepublicans, Coulter, Scalia, the Kock bros., Sununu and some advisor who thinks a comparison to the navy of 1916 is valid.

Sununu played the race card because he didn’t want people talking about Colin Powell endorsing Obama so Sununu said Powell only endorsed Obama ‘cuz they’re both black. Now people are only talking about Sununu’s comment. Let’s hear someone defend Sununu. Coulter called Obama the r-word in a tweet after the 3rd debate. Anyone care to defend her Republican self?

Vote for Brown and you’re voting for Grover Norquist and his ‘pledge’. How is it that Massachusetts Republicans think it’s OK for Senators and Congressmen to sign away their decision-making power even before confronting the legislation before them? Anyone want to defend that?

What has Brown done in the Senate to build a moderate block of Republican Senators? Who is the first most bipartisan Senator? The third? The fourth? They were there -- why didn’t Brown build a coalition of moderate Republicans?

Why did Brown not routinely vote to bring bills to the floor for a vote? When asked if he would vote for Mitch ‘Filibuster’ McConnell for leader, Brown said he would wait and see if anyone challenged McConnell. Yeah, like that is going to happen.

Why would Massachusetts Republicans support a position that causes tax cuts for the middle class to be held hostage to tax cuts for the top 2%?

Brown is nice guy but maybe he’s a moderate Republican just like Romney is ‘severely conservative’. Massachusetts Republicans have been feeling abused and neglected for years so I can understand you wanting a Republican Senator. But at what cost? Brown in the Senate empowers the radical right-wing of the Republican party to which you do not subscribe.

You don’t think God endorses rape; you don’t play the race card or use the r-word. You think rape is rape and it is never ‘legitimate’ or sanctioned by God. You wouldn’t sign a pledge giving away your decision-making power without considering the options.

Politics makes strange bedfellows but the folks Massachusetts Republicans will find themselves in bed with will make their skin crawl.

But that is where we are in 2012.

The fallacy of Scott Brown’s purported "bi-partisanhip”

“ProgressMass identified 53 bills that had the support of at least 50 senators but lacked the 60 needed to break Republican filibusters and bring the measures to up-or-down votes.

On these bills, the study found, Brown sided with his party 76 percent of the time. “

Voting with one’s party three-quarters of the time does not make one ‘bi-partisan’. When Brown was voting with the Republicans this 76% of the time, he was voting to support Republican filibusters to prevent bills to brought up for a vote. He was supporting Mitch McConnell.

Brown could have worked to be bi-partisan by voting to bring these 53 bills to a vote. He choose not to.

“On 32 bills before Warren became a candidate, Brown voted with Republicans 30 times.” This does not equate with Brown’s “voting record spanning party lines”.

“An even broader measure can be made from a Washington Post database of all Senate votes, which shows that on legislation supported by most Republicans, Brown has voted with the GOP 70 percent of the time.” Again, this is not bi-partisan.

http://tinyurl.com/9o43mzt

OMG, just go to the website of the progressive advocacy group you mentioned and it’s immediately clear it is not a bipartisan group. Where do they get there funding from?

http://www.progressmass.org/

If you can name a specific bill that you think Brown should have voted for and why, that would be more helpful.

I get a similar biased feeling when I see our current governor go onto major news outlets like CNN and completely bash Romney’s governorship, without naming anything specific. I think it’s unbecoming and disingenuous. After all, what has happened under Patrick’s watch? Besides higher unemployment, the biggest event is the crime lab scandal where 34000 cases have been compromised as well as the integrity of the state. And it’s all “Annie Dookhan’s” fault – not the supervisors or anyone in the management chain. His energy policy is horrible – throwing money at wind turbines while letting the MBTA get dilapidated and raising fares. Are fewer users of MBTA a green thing? But that doesn’t stop him from trashing Romney….

Brown should have voted against Republican filibusters that prevented bills from being brought up for a vote. He did not. If he had, that would have made him 'bi-partisan' or even 'independent'. Brown was supporting Mitch McConnell's goal to make Obama a one term President. Doesn't matter if Brown's vote would have prevented the filibuster or if the bill would have passed or not. I don't need to cite a specific bill; this is a pattern of behavior. McConnell's goal, and Brown's support of that goal, was an all-American way to take care of the nation' business.

Let's not support the next crop MBA's by refusing to spend money on education and student loans. Education is the single biggest factor that leads people out of poverty, off food stamps, into the middle class and contributing to the GDP. Let's spend two trillion more a year on the military that the Pentagon hasn't asked for.
P.S. Patrick isn't running for election.

Perhaps it would be wise to look at the CONTENT of those votes Sen. Brown made instead of the number of them & with which side of the aisle he voted. Did you ever think what's in them might be the reason for his decisions? The "devil is in the details" more often than not. And if you're worried about Brown's stands, why aren't you worried about Sen. Harry Reid's stonewalling and refusing to bring a dozen budget proposals passed by the House to the floor of the Senate for a vote in nearly 4 years? How responsible is that? The national debt is out-of-control--actually UNSUSTAINABLE--and the same progressive/socialist policies that Warren supports are the ones that Washington continues to foster--such as "investment" (taxing citizens more) for many failed, government-picked losers like Solyndra. Remember government is "investing" with our hard-earned money but without our approval in most cases. Progressive/socialist agenda is not condusive to the rights and freedoms of Americans to think and speak for themselves, nor is it supportive of the opportunities afforded us in our great countyr to work hard and be successful. The lack of credibility and inconsistencies of Warren's record & experience already indicate that she is just running to drive her far-left, unyielding progressive/socialist agenda over 2+ centuries of American liberty & ideals that people flee other countries all over the world to embrace here.

If you think you can make a case for Brown voting to sustain a filibuster on even half of those 53 bills based on the CONTENT of the bills -- bills that had the support of at least 50 senators but lacked the 60 needed to break Republican filibusters -- and bring the measures to up-or-down votes, go right ahead. The pattern of his behavior is sufficient to convince me that Brown is neither moderate nor independent. Brown was voting to support Mitch McConnell. Brown choose to play partisan politics instead of voting to let the Senate debate those 53 bills. Brown trampled all over the American liberty & ideals that people flee other countries all over the world to embrace here by refusing to vote independently against McConnell filibusters.
Harry Reid is not up for election in Massachusetts. You can toss around the word socialist all you need to; it has no impact here. You can ignore the government-picked winners like the auto industry. Your generalities about Warren are useless.

My contention is that you Massachusetts Republicans do not have much in common with the right-wing Republicans of Kentucky, Missouri, etc. Yet, you are willing to get in bed with them. You aren't trying to defend Akin, Mourdock, the right-wing Rapepublicans, Coulter, the Kock bros., Sununu and some advisor who thinks a comparison to the navy of 1916 is valid. These are the folks with whom you'll be in bed.

JB, Just went to that progressive link. You should give warning like very disturbing or some might find this content brain damaging. That was like looking at a bad car accident. My skin is crawling.