You write so regularly Anna, - are you incapable of recognizing sarcasm at face value?

In Massachusetts Democrats have controlled elections for well over 60 years [that's three (3) generations]. They continue to elect – then re-elect - deeply flawed drunks, perverts and criminals – such as Ted Kennedy, Gary Studds, Barney Frank, the three speakers, Lurch, Jim McGovernment, Jim Marzilli, Susan Fargo, JamieBoy Eldridge, Chuck Turner and Diane Wilkerson.

In this state anything with a 'D' gets elected, even if it comes with a DUI. Then you wonder why this 5th SMALLEST state has the HIGHEST DEBT per capita... Sarcasm Anna, sarcasm!

Iron Mike is right, Golnik's DUI of alcohol & drugs conviction, and subsequent lies about it, disqualify him from office.

"I’ve come to know Jon too well. ... He lied to me then, and to several RTC groups since – saying that he had nothing negative in his background. ...When his DUI/drug arrest was revealed this week, it became apparent he has been blaming others most of his life."

http://rabidrepublicanblog.com/2010/09/03/grading-the-mass-5th-republicans/

I agree with you Anna, minorities should run for office more often if they expect to be equally represented, and if all women worked outside the home the US would have the same demographics problems as Japan. Though Iron Mike is right as well in that it's time to stop assuming that the liberal party is correct or morally right all the time. Change should be FOR THE BETTER, not just change

Mike,
Just for the sake of argument, would you disqualfy Ted Kennedy if he was running today, he was kicked out of school for cheating, drove of a bridge and left the scene with a young woman dead, and was a serial womanizer. I am also bothered by Golnik, but faced with Tsongas, it is not as easy choice. By the way, EW has some character issues as far as I am concerned as well, misreprentation of her scholarship, her heritage and her fighting for the little people while being paid by the big company. And if you want to argue that she was trying to protect the victims, why did she keep the money when it became obvious that they were getting "hammered" to you her words. By the way, she could have worked "pro bono if she was really in to do so as she says.

Republicans support Golnik in spite of his alcohol and drug problems, and then come here to talk about dishonesty and a Ted Kennedy tragedy from 1969? Do you realize Ted Kennedy isn't running for office and that 1969 was 43 years ago?

It's clear to me that whatever complaints you care to make up about Tsongas, Warren, or Obama, you don't apply those same standards to your candidates.

That's a shame, because frankly it's bad for our democracy when you slime candidates and supporters alike with your veiled racism, cold war era fears of socialism, and when you make it impossible for voters to have a real discussion about the merits of each candidate.

Iron Mike, you're angry and confused so let me help you out: Golnik is not running against Warren. You should re-read your own post about Golnik.
http://rabidrepublicanblog.com/2010/09/03/grading-the-mass-5th-republicans/

Golnik's DUI wasn't just drinking, it was drugs. Since he was driving, it's just pure luck someone wasn't killed. It was followed by years of lying. But I'm not surprised you give him a pass, since your posts about Warren and others have been long since proven to be lies.

We could have a discussion about the real differences the candidates and parties have on issues that matter, but instead we get your ongoing smears. At the last debate, Scott Brown spoke at length on Warren's heritage and concluded by saying that she's not a liar, and she is qualified for her position as a Harvard professor. Then why isn't he ready to talk about the real issues facing our nation? Why aren't his supporters interested in talking about them?

And now Martinez is afraid to debate. Is fear a common trait among Republicans? Is that why you can't talk about the real issues?

The simple proof that Elizabeth Warren helped people is that the people she helped are grateful.

If you think people have to work for free to prove they want to help people, then you should think again. Teachers, firemen, police, our men and women in the armed services, people at non-profits, clergy and staff all get paid. The opposite, making a lot of money, does not prove that you are evil. In fact, I think the smartest people figure out how to make a living while doing something positive for their community.

As to her heritage, as soon as I see you complain about people being proud to be part Italian or Irish, then I'll believe that you see this as a real issue. Until then, it seems clear that this is just a way to stir up racial resentment. Scott Brown said clearly that Warren wasn't lying and that she was qualified for her job. Was he lying?

Mike,
I usually can deal with people with a different agenda but you make it hard. The people that her campaign found, are not representative of the people affected. As far as pro-bono every lawyer does work pro-bono work in fact most firms require their attorneys to donate time and effort every year. You may want to actually inform yourself before you submit a comment. For someone who is working for you, see has never found the time to do what almost every attorney does all the time. I have no problem making money, it seems like you want Romney to apologize for it though. I have a problem with someone who makes it part of their campaign and their actions belie the speeches. I am sorry, Mike that you seem totally incapability of seeing what is in front of you. I also see that you seem to want to avoid the direct question about Kennedy, would you disqualify him if he was running today, and I do not want to hear about how it was history. You are disqualifying someone for something that happened in the past as well. For my money killing someone and leaving the scene is never okay.

Elizabeth Warren was praised by a law firm for the asbestos victims, showing Brown's lies about her. Here's part of the letter, and a link to the whole thing. If you really care about honesty, you'd reject Scott Brown's campaign over this issue.

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/10/asbestos-victims-law-firm-scott-brown-lies/

To our clients:
In the recent debate between Massachusetts US Senate candidates, Scott Brown charged that Elizabeth Warren represented Travelers Insurance Company against asbestos victims. We presume this is an important issue for you, and want to assure that you have an accurate understanding of this situation.

* Asbestos victims and Travelers SETTLED the case for $500 Million.

* Another insurance company challenged the establishment of that fund, and that challenge went to the Supreme Court.

* Elizabeth Warren represented Travelers at the Supreme Court, and thereby the interests of asbestos victims, to protect the settlement.

* Elizabeth Warren won the case for Travelers and the victims, and the settlement was upheld at that stage.

* After Elizabeth Warren’s work was finished, and she was no longer their counsel, Travelers has attempted to renege on other grounds.

Elizabeth Warren won $500 million for the asbestos victims. When the amount was challenged by another insurance company, she went to the Supreme Court and *won again*, preserving the $500 million settlement for the victims.

*After* Warren left Travelers, Travelers has tried to renege on the deal.

Anna, if you have ever seen someone suffering from malignant mesothelioma you would thank Warren for her work winning a large settlement for these victims and you'd be angry at Scott Brown for lying about their situation to score some cheap political points.

Elizabeth Warren focused on jobs and the middle class tonight while Brown tried to distract with questions with petty attacks.

He complained about tuition at Harvard, a private institution which should be able to set their own prices and implied that they should cap salaries. At the same time, his policies have cut funding for our state colleges and schools and he voted against a bill that would have frozen interest rates on student loans.

Brown and his supporters want to keep talking about Warren's heritage. We can do better with a Senator that knows which issues matter and which don't.

And Ron, you want me to say that Ted Kennedy was wrong 43 years ago, in 1969, to drink and drive? Okay: Ted Kennedy was criminal. And Golnik was CRIMINAL to drink and use drugs while driving.

Mike,
The question was would you disqualify him, not was his action criminal, I know it was. As far as setting tuition, you are absolutely correct, and by the way the free market allows this to happen. In other words if a person at some point, decides that the cost of tuition is not a good value, the market would adjust. The issue is this though, EW argues that student loans are out out control, when the biggest reason they are increasing is the cost of college. My youngest son is attends an ivy league school, which fortunately we can pay for, he is smart enough to also receive scholarship money which increased this year and then so did the tuition. The point is Scott Brown is not alone in proposing that colleges cap increases as a condition of receiving student loan dollars. The fact is and again please do not lecture me on the free market system, but the biggest part of budget for any school is salary and benefits. EW is like many liberals, see wants as she said millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share while she has clearly enjoyed the benefits of the free market system herself and at the same time has donated little time or money. If she was not running and representing herself as a champion of the middle class, I would say good for her. The fact is she is though and for that I say she is a fake and a hypocrite.

Al, it's a lovely idea but count me out ... I'm liable to blow my top and say more than I should and I don't consider myself eloquent enough to state my positions. I feel them strongly but expressing them vociferously is not my strength at all. I can think and feel and I can express some of my thoughts via these comments, but that's about it. If you do manage to get this thing going, perhaps it can be televised on local TV ... I would love that.

You forgave Kennedy's DUI in 1969, so we should forgive Jon Golnik's DUI in 2001? I don't think that's a very good case, Ron. Jon Golnik's arrest included drug use, and he subsequently lied about it. That's not a good indication of leadership.

Even Iron Mike called Golnik a "serial liar", "Jon has made a career of riding the sympathy / victim wave, - never taking personal responsibility for his screw-ups."
http://rabidrepublicanblog.com/2010/09/03/grading-the-mass-5th-republicans/

Before I respond to another word from you, Anna, or Iron Mike, I'd like to know why honesty only matters to you when you're talking about Democrats.

Al, I think face-to-face debates are only useful for style. Facts can't be checked in real time, and there just isn't any concern for the truth (sadly). Brown and Romney exploit this.

Warren helped the asbestos victims and won a $500 million dollar settlement for them. There are videos of them thanking her and now even a letter from their law firm. The dates of the Supreme Court case (2009) and her later departure from Travelers (2010) is public information.The fact that AFTER Warren left Travelers they reneged on the deal is simply being ignored here. What are the odds that the Republicans here would be more respectful of the truth if it were face-to-face?

I've had some fascinating discussions with other Democrats with real disagreements about policies (like the drone attacks, indefinite detention, school funding, our role in the Middle East), but those succeed because neither party is going to lie to score points.

I hear your responses but I think my main interest is not people coming to fight in person to score points - but to meet fellow citizens and reduce the bombast that comes across when you are sitting alone on a computer. it locks you in a cycle where you just repeat your points quietly as you compose the same accusations and arguments that have already been constructed a hundred times over (on stories that have nothing to do with the tropes people keep bringing up)....i.e. you name anything, Mr. Fahrquar can tie it to the fault of 'Libruls'. I don't think anyone's mind would be changed but you might waste less time yelling at each other if you met the other person and realized they aren't the jabbering herald of society's destruction you make each other out to be. I would like to ask Mr. F how he thinks he's any better than Mike Combs: he repeatably makes a point of bashing people who can't help but vote for anything Democrat....but he's just the flip side of the coin. If you say you'll never vote for a Democrat - and I'm assuming this is the case given the endless vitriol and bile you spew reflexively, on a hourly basis about anything 'with a D after it' - then you are just as blind and gullible. You are a party man as much as the others. Whatever party wins in an election, they will do fine for themselves in the long run. Meanwhile people on the street ruin their lives, friendships & community and get little or nothing in return for their booster-ism. It's ridiculous

The offer of refreshments still stands, no matter how much I disagree with you. It's about meeting your neighbors. Though of course I think Mr F isn't actually a neighbor...but he seems to be looking for human interaction. So he's welcome.

PS ... and one of the biggest, most important issues is being brave enough to stand for what you believe is best for your constituency, having allegiance to the people you are sent to DC to serve and not being beholden to a party simply because they endorse and support you.

Anna,

Just a few comments on your post 1) it has not been proven that Ms. Warren used heritage to advance her career - that is just your opinion 2) Couldn't you say the same thing about Romney and working for the middle class? He says that he is for the middle class yet made millions from companies that eventually went bankrupt. Specifically, the example of the company where took $80 million out and the employees lost their pensions. They couldn't leave enough to cover the pensions? You begrudge Elizabeth Warren for making money but not Romney? 3) What exactly is the definition of a true resident of Massachusetts? Do you have to be born here to not be considered a blow-in? There are a lot of wonderful people who have moved here and contributed to their communities here. I truly dislike the term "blow-in" 4) And while you believe Ms. Warren is not trustworthy, I don't believe Mr. Brown is trustworthy. He says he is a moderate and his votes do not reflect that position. He definitely does not stand up for my rights and also my daughter's rights.