Wake Up Elizabeth, Wake Up


Not to be disrespectful, but in case you missed the allusion to the Everly Brothers song, I could have titled this piece “Wake Up Little Lizzie, Wake Up”

The Boston Globe ran the article Scott Brown seeks underdog role in today’s newspaper.  This is the article I was thinking about in my previous post, The Elizabeth Warren Train Wreck.

Here are a couple of paragraphs to kick off my flame.

He pointedly referred to Warren’s claim to be the “intellectual foundation’’ of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which he said rejects the capitalist, free-enterprise system.

His comments reflect a theme that is expected to dominate the upcoming Senate race.

Here is an example of Scott Brown using this line of attack.  The second sentence reflects The Boston Globe‘s reporter recognizing that this theme will reappear.  Rather than explain the “intellectual foundation’’, the Warren camp seems to be trying to ignore this comment that she made, and is posted on YouTube.  Perhaps she thinks this will all blow over.  Are Elizabeth Warren and her campaign the last people to be able to see what is coming?

In October 2011, she did defend her remarks.


The number of people who saw this response on New England Cable News is miniscule compared to the number of people seeing the Karl Rove attack ads. Does she really think the Republicans are going to let her get away with a single response, and concede the point to her. They know that in advertising, repetition is the key to success. By the time they are finished, very few will know anything about her response. All they will know is the charge. She doesn’t expect her opposition to tell people what her answer was, does she?

Other items from The Boston Globe article:

Brown, who used a South Boston diner yesterday for a round of brief, 15-minutesit-down interviews with Massachusetts reporters, sought to paint himself as a bipartisan, moderate Republican.

While he touted himself as the most bipartisan senator, Brown did not hesitate yesterday to draw on Republican talking points when he accused the Democrats of stirring class strife with their call to raise rates on wealthy taxpayers in order to ease some of the cuts that both parties agree are needed to deal with the federal deficit.

Democrats are only starting to fight back in the class warfare that the Republicans have been waging for over 30 years. The typical response of Democrats to this accusation is to back off because they don’t want to come across as too radical. Is defending yourself being radical? Silence on the part of Democrats is not going to make this go away. If you are going to fight back against something the other side has been doing for 30 years, isn’t it rather foolish to think that one attack on their war is going to suffice?

He said the Democratic efforts are aimed “to single out particular classes of people and to start this class warfare thing.’’

“I don’t know when we started to demonize success in this country,’’ Brown said.

When a single class of people is responsible for making huge profits from almost destroying this country’s and the world’s economy, don’t they deserve to be singled out? Are we supposed to pretend that they didn’t do what the evidence clearly shows that they did in the hopes that they won’t do it again? Those who are responsible for the disaster would surely love you to believe that. Can you imagine the “law and order” Republicans treating people who commit other types of crimes in this way? Do you have to ask, “Whose side are they on?”

During the depression era Bonnie and Clyde became folk heroes to some. In this era it is the rapacious ultra-wealthy that the Republicans are trying to turn into folk heroes. Their kind of success is great for them, but it is killing the rest of us. It’s not like the banks forcing people into foreclosure are building anything for America’s future.

He also suggested that attacks on the rich can hit middle-class families that have large incomes. “Remember those are the policemen and teachers and nurses who are working overtime to pay the bills and have the mortgages and the two cars and two tuitions, in Massachusetts especially,’’ he said.

Large incomes, my donkey. When the question of taxing the rich comes up, we are not talking about millionaires who have managed to save up this amount of money as a nest egg over a lifetime of work. We are talking about people who earn a million dollars every year. That is, they earn over $90,000 a month. The latest proposal that Brown voted against was to tax them $200 a month.

Yesterday, Brown described Warren, his leading Democratic rival, as a “very competent, credible candidate’’ and pointed to her credentials as Harvard Law School professor. But, he added, she is “very, very liberal.’’

Elizabeth Warren used to be a Republican before she did some research into the lives of people filing for bankruptcy. She found that the Republican fantasy about who these people were was grossly mistaken. For that she has sought to relieve the conditions that force people into bankruptcy. Yet, she still holds many conservative ideas. Too conservative for me, in fact.

The Warren campaign’s response is not to defend the effort to protect the middle-class from going bankrupt, but to try to prove that she is not a liberal.

Warren needs to talk facts, not labels. She needs to educate the public about what she does stand for and why it is important to stand for these things.

No matter how many times I communicate this message to the Warren campaign, they are too afraid of public reaction to act on my message.

I tell them that even if they manage to win the election, she won’t be able to accomplish what she wants to as Senator if she wastes this opportunity to educate the public about why she wants to do the things she wants to do.

Six years from know, I can hear her re-election mantra. “Yes, I wanted to do a lot, but I had to compromise, given the political landscape.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a Senator who said in six years, “I accomplished a lot, because I took the political landscape as I found it, and with the help of an informed electorate, we changed that landscape.?” Marisa DeFranco is the Senate candidate most likely to be able to make the triumphant request for re-election. I am afraid that Elizabeth Warren will be the one to try to give us the Obama excuse.

Elizabeth Warren cannot depend on the fact that the Republican party will run such a bozo against her that she will be a shoo in. Martha Coakley already tried that approach with disastrous consequences.

Besides, even a bozo can look great if he is able to tell his fiction with no adequate response from the other side. Scott Brown proved that, and he is about to prove it again.

Ted Kennedy wasn’t called the lamb of the Senate. He was called the Lion of the Senate. It is time we heard some roaring from our side. Marisa DeFranco is the one to do it. She just needs the people’s mic to go into action and amplify her roar.

Flame off.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.