Another round over.

I am going to start out to day referring you to a Boston Globe piece in the Political Intelligence blog by Glen Johnson.  The same addresses, among other things, the "stumbles" by the two candidates in last nights debate.

For Brown, according to that writer, it was a no no to chastise the Professor for interrupting him.  Quite frankly, he should have directed his criticism to the moderator for allowing her to do it.  The same moderator who subsequently also had to tell her later she had her say, and that was it.

If that was a stumble for Brown, well so be it.  

The other "stumble" was stating Justice Scalia in the list of Supreme Court Justices he admires.  He is a "conservative" justice.  It was considered a no no to list him.  Given the fact that more people are likely to associate "Scalia" with a type of bread rather than a sitting Supreme Court Justice, the ill effect from any stumble is limited to the boos from the fat left.  I wouldn't have picked Scalia, but I don't see this one as a big bust for Brown either.

A Warren "stumble"?  Here is one:

For Warren, though, her ­authenticity as a candidate — or at the very least, her articulateness — was drawn into question when she was asked to rebut the suggestion she would be overtly partisan as a senator by naming which Republican colleagues she might be able to work with in the Senate. 

She immediately named Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, even though he is leaving Congress in January after being beaten in his own party primary earlier this year. Brown and Gregory replied in unison, “He’s not going to be there.” 

Warren then backpedaled, saying, “But he’s not going to be there, and that’s a problem.”

Who is she willing to work with on issues if elected?  Since the one guy she named is leaving and won't be there is she is elected, a fact everyone but her realized, she will let you know when she gets there and if working across the aisle meets her needs. 

This was a stumble.  It was a big stumble.  Whether it registers like it should will remain to be seen.

If you are tired of the "us" vs. "them" mentality, you would do well to heed her position.  When one starts to take about the "national" ramifications of who gets elected, keep in mind the party faithful are counting one her to be with them 100% of the time.

I have said it before and I will say it again, I do not want to elect anyone who is going to follow in lock step with any one philosophy.  As liberal as I found Sen. Ted Kennedy to be, he knew you had to reach across the aisle to get things done, he knew who to reach for and he was willing to do so.

I have heard nothing from Elizabeth Warren to indicate she could even come close to a sincere bipartisan effort.  In the event you are tempted to attack Brown's record, the 65% +/- party line on all votes and the 77% +/- party line on the "important" votes is light years ahead of the vast majority of Democrats, most of home toe the line over 90% all the time.

You wouldn't be a "Democrat" or a "Republican" if you voted against your party more often than not. You can't be bipartisan voting for your party more than 9 out of 10 times either.

Keep in mind, a fair number of those partisan votes are on initial attempts at legislation which failed on the first vote, but which ended up being passed after compromised changes in the end as a result of a bipartisan effort.  

You may not like his positions of matters.  You may not agree with his votes.  But in today's political world, Brown's record does speak for itself.  He has to this point been as bipartisan as it gets.  When compared to the opposition, there isn't any doubt in my mind who will be more willing to work with the opposite side of the aisle.

What was up with all those people on the stage? They had a staggering two questions from them.  Talk about window dressing.  If you didn't see these questions, find the video on line and watch it.  Get to the last 20 minutes or so.  Listen to the questions, and the answers.  The stances on immigration, and the "specific" answers to the jobs question.   

In the dumber than dumb category, you have to give the award to the moderator for the "Red Sox - Valentine" question.   Seriously, what ever attempt at levity this might have been, it was foolish.  Don't get me wrong, I am sure there are a few people out there that will in fact cast a vote one way or the other on the responses.  That is what makes the question dumber than dumb.

But it was asked.  Brown admittedly dodged the hard answer.  Leave it up to management.  Unfortunately for Warren she had to answer the question first.  Luckily for her most voters aren't going to use that answer to decide who to elect.  I have been conducting a year long informal poll on the issue.  The near universal consensus is Valentine should have been fired at the All-Star break, I know two people who had cardiac arrest at the thought of another year. 

So who won?  Well from the show and glitter aspect there was no knock-out by either candidate.  Warren started out stronger than Brown.  They fought to a draw in the middle with Brown gaining momentum, and in my opinion Brown finished stronger than Warren.

Using the ten point must system, I give Round II to Brown, 10 points to 9 for the challenger.  It is this close because Brown didn't handle the Simpson Bowles questions effectively.  He did a heck of a lot better than Warren, who made it pretty clear by her dodge that cuts don't go hand in hand with her calls for increases in "revenue", a.k.a taxes.

Other notes:  I am just waiting for someone to ask Warren to list the "some good votes" he has taken which she keeps referencing.  

This whole "professor" thing is irritating.  How should Brown refer to her?  By surname only?  Ms. Warren?  Atty. Warren? (this one opens up a whole can of worms by itself).

I have yet to hear just how she wishes to be referenced.  

She has a Juris Doctorate, but I know of only one state that allows the use of "Dr." by obtaining that title, and it isn't Massachusetts.  As noted, an "Attorney" tag has its own issues  For more see Business Insider, one of many sites beginning to highlight the issue)

So why is the issue raised that the reference to her by the title which she has earned is somehow an insult to her?  Can you imagine the uproar which would have started if she had been referred to simply as "Ms." rather than "Professor".  

Okay, that's it on this for today.

More locally, I didn't get a chance to watch the selectmen's meeting.  I have it recorded and will hopefully get to it at some point.  In today's S-T there is an article about the demand for a public hearing on the wind turbines.  Might get to that tomorrow.  

And that's it period for today.  I am out of time.  Have a safe day, and take heart in knowing the election is so very, very soon.