Round III & and presenting today the letter "S"

The third Brown/Warren debate was last night. The only thing to distinguish this round from the first two was the lack of any reference to ancestry.

No slam dunks, no home runs, and if this is all we have to look forward to in the final installment, do us all a favor and cancel it.  But by all means keep the empty chair debate.  That should turn out to be as amusing as the Big Bird stuff.

But there were tidbits here and there. There are always tidbits here and there.  If there weren't what the heck would we talk about.  

The one gaffe, if you can call it that, was Warren's reference to what was wrong last week in the Romney/Obama debate.

Not so sure I would be reminding folks of the thumping Obama took at the hands of Romney last week.  Whatever, Warren thinks Romney was wrong about then, I think you can pretty much bank on the fact Obama wishes he had made the same types of mistakes.

But that's just an opinion.

I am not going to address the "foreign policy" segment.  Recent information should make it abundantly clear as to whether there is any in this country at the moment that should continue to be supported.  Oh heck, I am going to address it.

Plain and simple, she is wrong, and in my opinion she is fairly naive as to her stance on national security, and the effectiveness of present administration policies.  If the facts of the Libyan consulate attack that are coming to light do not bare this out for you, than obviously we will disagree.

If you read this blog regularly you know where I stand in the senate race.  If you watched last night's debate, you should also know that nothing happened or was said that is going to change my mind, nor do I think the mind of any person who has all ready backed a candidate.

It is also doubtful the few undecided voters left found any flashes of brilliance from either candidate upon which to cast aside their doubts.

The only clear winner in last night's debate was the moderator, Jim Madigan.  Question, answer, rebut, rebut, next question.  It was a pretty good pace, fairly balanced, and he kept the whole thing in line.  

Hopefully the V.P. debate tonight can proceed along those lines.  

While neither candidate walks away with the brass ring, last night was relevant in the distinctions drawn. It should have been pretty obvious as to the what differentiates the two candidates prior to the third debate.  It is pretty clear right now.

But one exchange I think deserves to be pointed out, the one fatal flaw in my mind with much of Warren's strategy on Scott Brown's votes, concerns the quite frankly her failure to be completely honest about his voting record.  I speak specifically on the "student loan interest rates".

Indeed I would submit to you that any student making the same argument she made last night in a classroom would receive an extremely poor grade (not on presentation, because she presented it extremely well, but not fact).  Brown did indeed vote twice against the student loan interest rate bill as originally submitted.  The third time, however, he supported the amended bill and it was passed.  

The original bill would have been made for by closing a deduction, some say loophole, but it would have been just for Warren's favorite group of millionaires and billionaires.  As Brown correctly pointed out, it would have been at the expenses of many small businesses.  If you don't know what a sub-chapter S corp. is you should.  Odds are if the plumber, contractor, electrician, mechanic, or any small business person you use is incorporated, he or she formed a sub-chapter S corp.  

It was misleading at best to say Brown voted against the student loan interest rate, without adding he subsequently worked for and voted for the compromise bill.  If Warren really had a valid argument she should have criticized the bill that was passed, not the flawed original proposal.  By her logic, the preferred corporate entity for the small business owner, and I mean small business owner, you know the ones in Warren's middle class, would have been the ones to pay for the low interest rate.

As to her fair share argument, well I agree.  Everyone should pay their fair share.  I agree not everyone is paying their fair share.  Where I disagree is just what every entity and person's fair share should be. 

The tax code needs to be overhauled from top to bottom.  No one should get away with paying nothing. No one should be able to get a refund for more than they paid in.  

As to her continuing complaints about Brown not supporting Justice Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, sure if a potential Justice's nomination should be viewed solely on his or her stance on abortion, you have a complaint.  Quite frankly I find these arguments about a person's personal beliefs being the primary or sole predicate for confirmation to be a slap in the face to the entire judicial system, be they by Democrats or Republicans opposing an opposing party nomination.

The fact that Kagan never argued a case in a courtroom prior to becoming Solicitor General in 2009 would in my mind weigh very heavily on whether to approve a nomination.

Least we forget, Earl Warren, Chief Justice during the famed "Warren Court Era" was a Republican appointment.  Five of the seven votes in the majority decision for Roe v. Wade were Republican appointees (one of the two dissents was a Democratic appointment).While I can go on, I will simply add that Obama Care is the law of the land based on the swing vote of current Chief Justice Roberts, a Republican appointment.

Voting no for Kagan was not a bad decision against women.  It was a reasoned decision based on a nominee.  Brown has stated his reasoning for his vote several times, as he has done on the student loans and as he has done on a number of the other votes Warren criticizes him on.  

Warren has not once, to my knowledge, specifically challenged the stated reasoning, but constantly falls back on the same mantra his votes show he isn't for "you".

Simple question, is lack of courtroom experience, as an attorney or a judge, a factor that should be given significant weight when making an appointment to the highest court in the land?

I will also disagree with the good Professor that we need a senator that any one group, class of persons or sex can count on all of the time.  

If that is the criteria, then everyone else who doesn't fall into that particular category is going to see competing interest ignored.  

We need a senator who everyone can count on to represent the overall best interests of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its people, all of the time. 

I would be a bit remiss not to point out the fact that As of yesterday's close of business, Romney has taken a 1.8% lead in the RCP poll average.  Tonight's debate between the V.P. candidates looms ominous for both Romney and Obama.  A poor performance by either Ryan or Biden will result in a substantial shift.  

As I have said, polls are only indicators for the time period covered. But we are getting down to nitty gritty time and  the guys playing second fiddle are going to influence the momentum of this race.

RCP has substantially revised its projected electoral count to the point where it now seems that as crucial as Ohio still is for both candidates, the roads to getting 270 electoral votes have substantially increased for Romney.  If Biden can't put at least a band-aid on a gash, the Democrats are in real danger of bleeding out.

A month ago this election looked all but over. Today it is a commentator's dream and a prognosticator's nightmare.  As the saying goes in football, there is a reason you have to play all four quarters.

As lackluster as last night's performance was, tonight's should be action packed.  Whether it will be fun or not will depend on which way you lean.