PLANK AUGUST 22, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
When I was in Massachusetts recently reporting on Elizabeth Warren’s struggles to unseat Scott Brown, I heard a common lament from several members of the state’s Democratic old guard: Warren needed to do a better job of nationalizing the choice facing voters. That is, she had to remind the voters who were leaning toward voting for both Barack Obama and Scott Brown—the decisive swing vote in Massachusetts—that even if they liked Brown and viewed him as relatively independent-minded, he was still a Republican and his holding his seat might well put the Republicans into the Senate majority. No matter how often he bucks his party, said Larry DiCara, a former Democratic president of the Boston City Council, “He’ll cast one bad vote, and that’s to make Mitch McConnell head of the Senate.” DiCara proceeded to rattle off the other consequences of a GOP majority—such as James Inhofe regaining the chairmanship of the environment committee.
But others worried that it would be hard for Warren to get this message through to voters. “For a lot of these people, it’s ‘who the fuck’s McConnell?’” said Tom Birmingham, the former president of the state Senate. “They don’t know what you’re talking about.”
It would seem, though, that Warren’s job in this regard has gotten easier in the past two weeks. First, Mitt Romney picked as his running mate a member of the same Congress in which Brown is serving, a man whose draconian budget plans are presumably not appealing to at least some of the Massachusetts swing voters who are now leaning toward both Obama and Brown. Second, Republicans nationwide are now burdened with Todd Akin, whose curious notions of reproductive science and women’s rights are, we can be pretty sure, not a big hit in Natick and Scituate. Brown is of course doing his best to limit his association with both Ryan and Akin—he points out often that he voted against Ryan’s budget (a meaningless vote that his party elders freely allowed him to take) and he was among the first Republicans to condemn Akin’s comments. In that sense, one could argue that these two figures simply offer another foil for Brown—yes, I’m a Republican, but not like those guys. (Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council just assisted in this regard by calling Brown “off the reservation” for his condemnation of Akin; Boston Globe reporter Noah Bierman joked that Brown will be sending Perkins a “box of chocolates” in thanks.)
But Warren can’t allow him to get away with this—she needs to drill into voters’ minds that even if Scott Brown is not Todd Akin, his holding this seat would put the party of Akin—and men not so unlike him, such as Indiana’s Richard Mourdock—into the Senate majority. Can she pull it off? Dave Weigel was with Warren after the Ryan selection, but before the Akin explosion, and reported back that she seemed to be doing a better job of framing the choice as larger than Scott Brown:
Warren’s speech in Dorchester was short, all contrast-building with the Ryan plan. “I’ll tell you,” she said, “I never thought I would run for office, but when there’s a vision like that—and it’s put forward as the serious vision of the Republican party—then it’s time for all of us to get involved in this race.”
But a day after his piece appeared, a new PPP poll came out showing Brown up by five points. Then again, that was before the Akin storm had blown in from Missouri. Warren is, as my piece made plain, a first-time candidate who is still learning how to deliver a message with the necessary deftness and touch. But she also has piles of money left to spend; surely, she should be able to use much of it to yoke Scott Brown firmly to his fellow sharp-chinned Republicans, Ryan and Akin. To put it in the terms of Warren’s academic background, this is Politics 101.
*Update, 1:30 p.m. Well, Warren must be hitting the Akin note, because she's already provoked outrage for it in the conservative Boston Herald. Columnist Michael Graham:
Of course Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and Scott Brown denounced Akin’s idiocy. There is no “legitimate rape” caucus anywhere in American politics.
“Scott Brown and other Republicans want to pretend Todd Akin is an isolated individual, but he is clearly in line with the Republican agenda,” Warren said in a statement.
And what, according to Warren, is that agenda?
“To limit access to health care. . . to select a vice presidential nominee someone who co-sponsored legislation with Rep. Akin to ‘redefine rape,’ ” Warren says.
Got that, ladies? Forget Brown’s record, forget his denunciation of this Akin dope, forget how he’s actually lived his entire life: Scott Brown hates women! He’s soft on rape! Run before he molests you himself!
I hate to break it to Graham, but there actually is a "legitimate rape" caucus in American politics. Some 150 House Republicans, including Paul Ryan, last year supported revising the rape exception for the ban on federal funding for abortions, to narrow it to excepting only "forcible rape." Akin himself has made clear that he meant "forcible" when he said "legitimate." There's been a lot written on this subject. Here's just one for Graham's edification, from the other newspaper in his town.
**Update, 11 p.m. I finally got around to reading Kit Seelye's New York Times piece today about Brown trying to distance himself from Romney, Ryan, et al, and it included this:
Democrats in Massachusetts were thrilled with the selection of Mr. Ryan, whose conservative fiscal and social views are out of sync with New England Republicanism, and Ms. Warren is determined to pin him on Mr. Brown.
She refers constantly these days to the “Romney-Ryan-Brown” ticket and to the stringent “Ryan-Brown-Romney” budget plan.
And this evening I heard a clip of a very tough new Warren radio ad invoking Akin that included this line: "But it's not just one extreme Republican candidate in Missouri. It's part of a Republican pattern. Just imagine if Republicans were in the White House or gained control of the U.S. Senate..."
Yes, so far it seems that the Warren team if well aware of the chance it's been offered.
follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
13 comments
I really like Warren; I wonder if she's a compelling enough politician to unseat Brown. ?
- Sophia
August 22, 2012 at 1:09pm
"I’m a Republican, but not like those guys." Often, when a diner is reluctant to order fish in a restaurant, someone might suggest: "Oh, try the fish, it tastes like chicken." Why not just order chicken?
- Nusholtz
August 22, 2012 at 1:43pm
Especially if you're a woman and the fish is bad for your health.
- VAliberal
August 22, 2012 at 2:47pm
did anyone tell Warren that her yard signs need a redesign? and, I guess she could get some kids to go around and steal all the Scott Brown yard signs sharing a yard with yard signs for down-ticket Democrats for congress? Seeing those bi-partisan yards makes quite an interesting statement on the independence of some Massachusetts voters who dare to live in liberal towns.
- K2K
August 22, 2012 at 3:32pm
Answer: no. Warren needs to harp on votes like filibusters or something similarly substantive. He has a fairly "clean" record, so tying him to national pariahs with specious logic sounds like a long-shot, at best; it's not something people would quickly accept without thinking twice, at least at this point. Start point out things like voting to block job-creating legislation or something, or saying nice things about Ryan's budget, and then maybe you can make a case.
- GSpinks
August 22, 2012 at 5:41pm
I think Democrats tried the "party matters!" tactic against Maine's Susan Collins in 2008. She appears to be a moderate, but rarely will she break ranks to be the 50th vote or 60th vote. If you're not going to change the outcome when the result is on the line, what difference does it make on other votes where crossing party lines doesn't matter? But Democrats never really gained traction against Collins despite having what I though was a pretty good candidate. I think most people don't pay that much attention to the larger structural issues, so it may be hard to make control of the chamber important to voters.
- dsimon
August 22, 2012 at 6:47pm
Just a pointer for Ms Warren, I wouldn't take campaign advice from TNR. I think K2K has better advice. I think he knows Mass better.
- CRS9TNR
August 22, 2012 at 8:40pm
For what it's worth, here's Warren's radio ad trying to make an issue out of party control of the Senate: http://youtu.be/_fm0slS54bY Don't know how effective it will be, but it doesn't preclude other avenues of attack.
- dsimon
August 22, 2012 at 10:51pm
thanks dsimon. Still, Massachusetts voters who think of the national impact are already voting for Elizabeth Warren. Those who are fed up with the extremes of both parties mucking everything up will still think the GOP needs more Scott Browns in the Senate, as a rare moderating force. Those of us who finally decided that protecting Roe v Wade should no longer be what divides Americans, well, that radio ad just reinforces the view that the Dems are cynics, solely trying to distract women from the far worse threat to everyone: the debt. Besides, I still think the Medicare cuts since 2007 make the Dems look like hypocrites, spending so much political energy on saving Planned Parenthood while those of us on Medicare look for a cave to hide in while we die from stress.
- K2K
August 23, 2012 at 7:16am
To say there is a "legitimate rape" caucus in American politics is gross, false and disingenuous to name a few. It is only in the fringe aspects of the most extreme party in US history, the Republican, male, anti-abortionist, enrich the rich party. Lots of issues discussed by Republicans aren't within the realm of rationale, much less reasonable. Legitimate rape has absolutely no legal, biological, medical, religious, or ethical standing, and like most of the bizaare platform of the Republicans, most of their issues only exist in their vicious inter-party squabbling. The only legitimate rape I am seeing is of the US taxpayers because, collectively, we voted for the US House of No Compute. Like an excellent reader comment on this same topic, "are we going to have to talk about whether the earth is in the center of the universe again?" Once your party starts denying science, you are on a slippery slope to no where, but not fast enough.
- smabry03
August 23, 2012 at 8:47am
K2K: "Those who are fed up with the extremes of both parties mucking everything up will still think the GOP needs more Scott Browns in the Senate, as a rare moderating force." The problem, as I noted above, is that the "moderates" don'tn use their force to moderate when it matters, in which case all their moderateness is useless posturing. When their votes are needed by the party, they almost always vote the party. Not one Republican Senator, including Brown, broke ranks to support campaign finance disclosure, a measure which seems to me should have been relatively uncontroversial on policy grounds (if the moderates had problems with the particular bill, they've done a good job keeping acceptable alternatives to themselves). Of the three Republican moderates who voted for the stimulus, one had just won reelection, another is retiring, and the third was essentially forced to switch parties. The appearance of moderation does not constitute actual moderation or produce effective moderation. But, again, most people aren't paying attention even to immediate issues, much less these structural ones.
- dsimon
August 23, 2012 at 11:33am
agree dsimon, but, even if it is happening too slowly to salvage what remains of America, both parties are fracturing and regrouping. If all the fiscal conservatives decided en masse to sideline the social conservatives and the liberals who keep making Roe v Wade the main issue, we might actually have a functional government (yes, like what Mitch Daniels seems able to accomplish in Indiana). Elizabeth might be perceived as adding to the hyper-partisanship (I am still surprised at how she became such a polarizing figure) whereas Scott Brown is seen as one of the few GOP Senators who still have the stomach to be "moderate" (I include Corker and Isakson in that small group, which may yet include Lingle from Hawaii; ironically, McCaskill is the last fiscal conservative still standing in the Dem caucus.) If the Democrats want to fight over contraception as "preventive medicine", but think anyone on Medicare no longer deserves to know their cholesterol more than once every five years, then I guess this version of the Democratic Party only wants a base of women under 40, and college students. Just think it is a bad strategy to pounce on this Akin idiocy when the economy, jobs, and the deficits are far more important. and, fwiw, Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, and Obama should be ashamed that he refuses to say that today.
- K2K
August 23, 2012 at 1:47pm
Years ago I noticed that the word "liberal" had become a quasi-racist word for many conservative to sling who would never dream of using the word "nigger" even if they hate and fear black people). "Obama care" has also become a code word for that "black President we hate and fear." I fear that liberals are taking on the same kind of prejudice. I very well may vote for the Republican candidate for governor of Washington state. So there. And while I applaud K2K's comment, I am not sure why I should regard Jerusalem as the "eternal capital of Israel."
- skahn
August 23, 2012 at 2:53pm