LETTER: Why I am Voting Against Scott Brown and For Elizabeth Warren

Reader Lizbeth DeSelm shares her views on this year's Senate race.

Why I am voting against Scott Brown:

Senator Scott Brown has claimed many times to be a moderate, and to be bipartisan[1]. How anyone who can claim to be bipartisan, and yet still vote with their party greater than two-thirds of the time is beyond me.

I will concede that in this extremely partisan congress, voting with the other party for 33% of the time[2] is newsworthy, but on key votes he has failed me. He voted against women’s healthcare and their personal liberty[3]; against granting a path to citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants who know and love the United States of America, are willing to serve and die for this country, and were brought here by no choice of their own[4]; and he voted against tax cuts for middle class Americans like myself[5]. 

Let’s talk about the business climate: corporations in America already pay lower taxes than the majority of citizens[6]. Scott Brown did vote to close the Ethanol Subsidy[2], but he refuses to vote to close subsidies for oil companies who are making record profits[7]. 

Furthermore, he voted (four times!) for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a bill that affords everyone a measure of cost certainty in healthcare. A word on this: It isn’t about the mandate. We all accept we are mandated to buy car insurance, and I see no difference here. It is about the cost of healthcare, an emphasis on the practice of preventative care, and a change in accounting for how you pay for the healthcare of those who do not have any or have unsubsidized coverage.

Before Romneycare, in this great Commonwealth, if someone who was uninsured got sick, they went to the emergency room and if they could not pay, we, the taxpayer, got stuck with the bill in the form of higher state taxes and fees. In fact, this is how then-governor Mitt Romney balanced the Massachusetts budget in 2003.[8]

Lastly, Scott Brown deeply offended me in the first debate by attacking Elizabeth Warren’s heritage. A number of questions come to mind: Can he tell, just by looking at her, that she isn’t Native American? Is he trying to raise the specter of Affirmative Action? Is he calling her a liar? Is he bigoted against Native Americans? Just what is he really trying to say, and why is her possible heritage an issue, when there are a significant number of policy topics that should rank much higher in the debate?

Why I am voting for Elizabeth Warren:

I believed I was a quarter Jewish from the time I was born until the time my grandmother died, when I was 32. I believed this, in no small part, because my mother told me it was so and I had no reason to believe otherwise. I later learned this may not be true, but outside of genetic testing, there was no way to know for sure. Can Scott Brown tell me if I have Jewish heritage by simply looking at me?

On the subject of issues, I see the role of government as providing for the public safety of its’ citizens: from criminals; from decrepit infrastructure; and from predatory business practices[9], to name a few. Elizabeth Warren has fought for consumer’s rights[10,11], for pension rights and for equal rights for all Americans[12].  She also supports providing a path to citizenship for those young adults who were brought into our great nation illegally through no fault of their own[13]. Self-deportation is a joke[14], not a policy[15]. My view of government are more closely aligned with Elizabeth Warren, than Scott Brown.

Yes, there is less substance here in my argument for Warren over Brown. She does not have a voting record where he does. But the fact of the matter is simply this: To vote for Brown is to vote for a GOP Majority in Congress, the party of which Brown is a member. If he wanted my vote, he should have stood up to his party more, recognized and called out those who remain obstructionist to this day, and reached across the aisle more. Is he the bipartisan moderate leader he claims to be? You know, clearly he’s not.

[1] Scott Brown Launches new TV Ad, Again focused on Bipartisanship http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/09/22/scott-brown-launches-new-again-focused-bipartisanship/lvogO3KM0xBk0BqnFKmazK/story.html

[2] Scott Brown’s Full voting Record

[3] Scott Brown Defend Defeated Blunt Amendment Healthcare bill

[4] Brown Emphasizes his Opposition to the DREAM Act

[5]Scott Brown Votes Against Extending Tax Cuts

[6] The Corporate Tax Rate Is Lowest in Decades

[7] Brown oil vote becomes instant issue

[8] How Mitt Romney handled Massachusetts spending problems

[9] On Regulating Wall Street...

[10] The System is Rigged.

[11] Obama passes over creator of consumer bureau

[12] Elizabeth Warren to speak at HRC

[13] Immigration Reform group flags Brown-Warren race

[14] ‘Self-Deportation’ really is a joke

[15] The ‘self-deportation’ fantasy

Jeff October 05, 2012 at 06:25 PM
I was fine with Scott Brown until he started attacking Whole Foods because they were making an effort to focus on providing sustainable seafood in their markets. I don't even shop at Whole Foods, but in that situation he just lacked all common sense. Ironically, several other local grocery chains practice the same exact thing. It made me wonder what else he would sacrifice for a few votes.
cali marie October 06, 2012 at 01:51 AM
A few votes?? Those are his constituants! Fishermen have kids that get hungry and wear shoes, just like teachers and firemen..... Those stores will just get the fish from foreign sources who are exempt from those restrictions. See that's why you can't vote dem anymore they're beyond clueless when it comes to the working folks.
Dan Heystek October 06, 2012 at 01:53 AM
I really doubt that Warren will vote with anyone, "vegans... etc," unless they adhere to a strict Democratic orthodoxy. Then again I thought Hillary Clinton would be a terrible Senator and later Sec of State. I was wrong. Perhaps Warren will flip flop into a compromiser and would be well served to do so. In today's hyperpolarized world the fact that Brown voted 1/3 of the time with the other party is pretty darn good. Also look at Mitty touting the fact that RomneyCare passed with 87% of the state legislature being in the other party and only two votes in all going against. That is bipartisanship. Vote for Warren or Brown or vote for Willard or Barry, but at least acknowledge that in this election cycle to tout these Democratic candidates as anything but uber partisan is bull. I personally admire politicians that can advocate for their beliefs, but at the end of the day can reach compromise. That is why I feel compelled to vote GOP.
Lynne Thompson October 06, 2012 at 03:13 AM
Brown is doing in Washington what we intended, voting for what he believes in. IMHO Scott has integrity, and there's certain a shortage of that in Washington. Rather we have gridlock because of pettiness and partisanship. Warren is sactimonious and self-righteous (and if you disagree, that's ok, you're entitled to your opinion). I don't see Warren as a compromiser, as someone who would reach across the aisle. Add to that her lack of experience as evidenced by her debate performance and the fact that she seems ready to vote regardless of the tax increase consequences, and I'm firmly voting the GOP ticket all the way. I agree with Dan on Romney's ability to get things done and expect him to address the deficit.
Ray B October 31, 2012 at 06:09 PM
See a doctor. You aren't well


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »