Scott Brown’s Angry Response
October 2, 2012 by Tony Posted in Uncategorized 9 Comments
If you missed Scott Brown’s now famous “I’m not a student in your classroom” statement last night here it is. It is interesting to watch the Senator’s face just prior to the comment as Elizabeth Warren pounds him on his poor voting record on middle class issues. Brown’s angry response here could hurt him in the long run. .
9 Responses to Scott Brown’s Angry Response
Did we just watch the same debate? I have no axed to grind here–I’m one of those independent folks who didn’t go into this debate in the tank for either of these candidates. But it amazes me how prevailing bias colors what we all see and hear.
Among those around me of all political stripes, the vast majority scored this one a clear advantage to Mr. Brown, and it’s fascinating to read D-biased pundits citing the “whoa!” crowd reactions as “boos”, and others, as has been done here, painting the sitting Senator as “angry” as opposed to coolly delivering a clearly-rehearsed line that indeed successfully portrayed Dr. Warren as the shrewish scold she herself portrays herself to be. (One pro D (!) woman next to me who is never going to vote for Scott Brown in a million years owing to his being a Republican, exclaimed at one point after a particularly nanny-ish tirade, “how does her husband not stab her in her sleep?”)
The repeated use of the word “Professor” by Scott Brown was the single most effective aspect of the entire debate, if you don’t count the Professor’s willingness to play right along with the characterization. That he got a chance to point out her shrill insistence not to let him speak uninterrupted at this point in the debate was fully to his advantage if you ask me.
I’m with Kad Barma. , though thata does not mean I am necessarily going to vote for Brown. Warren did come on as abit of a shrew. I want to see her employent records.
Oops , hit the wrong button. I wated to say that I do not believe in the dream act. IMy daughter-in-law is a naturalized citizen. She got here the right way and had to go through a lot to do so. I also know other people who came here legally , have good jobs and are now jumping though hoops trying bring other relatives here. It is not right that people who are trying to do the correct thing should be superceded by others who broke the law.
That line about stabbing was repeated by Teddy Panos this morning, apparently from his restaurant. So you were not the only one to hear someone make this crude comment. But giving any credibility is what is surprising.
That was not an angry response by Sen. Brown. He was being
interrupted by Mrs Warren and it was a clever way of stopping her. I will vote for Sen. Brown and no I am not a Republican.
Joan, you know the DREAM Act is for people brought here as young children right? Are you really going to hold them accountable for “breaking the law” when they are Americans in all but the paperwork?
David M: Yes, you are a Republican. P. S. Warren won a clear and convincing victory. Mr. Brown needs debating lessons.
One question David Gregory asked that was deserving of more discussion was why no woman has been elected US Senator in Massachusetts (or governor for that matter notwithstanding Jane Swift who filled a vacancy). A big reason is that otherwise rational people continue to refer to woman candidates as “shrewish” or “shrill”, adjectives never used to describe a male candidate. It’s a blatant double standard, it’s unfair, and it’s not limited to politics.
I’ve lived long enough to have turned the “shrew” and “shrill” canards around in my head every which way one can. One thing I have decided it is not, is “unfair”. Politics is perception, and debates above about “flat” are exactly in the same vein. It’s not considered “blatant”, a “double standard” or “unfair” to talk about “flat”. Nixon was “sweaty”. Mondale was “wooden”. Warren was “a scold”. I have no idea why we have grown so thin-skinned as to need to deny our own emotional reactions to politics, and the fact that we have not had a female Senator from Massachusetts is ALL about Martha Coakley being “wooden” just like Fritz was all those years ago. Ron Paul is “a whiner”. Is that the sexist equivalency to “shrill”? You tell me. That we have gender-bent terms for people is an expression of our base nature. (“Base” as in foundational, not “base” as in ignoble). You can appellate with “Ms” all you like, but we still recognize gender ahead of almost every single attribute of a human individual. If we choose a word like “shrill” to describe a woman, perhaps we are tuned into the higher frequency of the average woman’s voice? Is that a “double standard”? Or is that just the way that particular facet of our beings IS?
Politicians employ voice coaches and all sorts of other coaches to help them navigate the rocky waters of mass human perception. I, for one, am old enough to never again be cowed by cowardly “liberal” sensitivities about gender. If I’m sitting among women who call Elizabeth Warren “a scold” and I repeat their words, what about what I’m doing is “unfair”, actually? Am I required to sit mute and let their “unfairness” pass unacknowledged? Because some MAN feels that he can speak for them, and criticize me for having the temerity to speak it out loud?
Take a related example: Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren have deigned to speak for Native Americans in criticizing those who were chagrined that Elizabeth Warren claimed Native American heritage. Elizabeth Warren denies intending to claim the heritage, yet she feels perfectly justified in scolding us about how we might view the issue. That’s being “a scold”. That has NOTHING to do with her gender. Sure, “nanny” has gender overtones, too, and that’s another adjective being bandied about here, but, see, we use all of these because Elizabeth Warren IS a woman. Deval? Maybe folks would say he’s being “paternalistic”. Certainly no one shies from tarring all D’s with the “nanny state” thing Maybe you see negativity in “nanny” that you don’t see in “paternalistic”, but, see, we’re criticizing here. So we prefer the most negatively connotated word we can. Elizabeth Warren in a scold. She’s “nanny-ish”. She just is.
You want unfair appellations used against men from which to compare? Is that it? Take debate critiques against John Kerry. Were those sexist? Is it because “automaton” isn’t sufficiently male-biased in our interpretation of the word? Is it sexist to disagree with Elizabeth Warren’s politics or debate performance because she is a woman? Has it really come to this?
Elizabeth Warren puts off huge swaths of potential supporters because of her mannerisms. It is what it is. Is it sexist to point that out?
If so, very much close to half the electorate is sexist, and I know that is what you are trying to imply. But I would argue with you that somewhere in these criticisms is the essence of something real, not something sexist, and you’re being sexist to excuse her for it and not hold her to a higher, winning standard. Tell her to stop scowling and furrowing her brows. Tell her to stop shaking her head in a way that causes her hair to swing and further accentuate the motion. Tell her to mimic Scott Brown’s calm demeanor because it looks more senatorial than the agitation she projects. Because I’m done telling. I’m a sexist.