During the first debate, Republican Scott Brown mocked Democrat Elizabeth Warren for her Native American heritage based on family lore. He accused her of using minority status for advancement—a claim without a shred of evidence and categorically rejected by her Harvard colleagues (in other words, an ugly smear). Scott Brown even seemed to claim a built-in heritage detector with the following statement, "Professor Warren claimed that she was a Native American, a person of color, and as you can see, she's not."
Last week, at a rally, Brown’s paid staffers—paid with our tax dollars—jeered with war whoops and tomahawk chops. Brown’s purported response, “I’ll have a talk with them.” Perhaps a better response would have been, “they will be fired.” With all the momentous issues facing the nation why is Scott Brown reducing the debate to this “who cares?” affair—and dredging up ugly racial stereotypes in the process? Is he trying to distract us, the voters, from facts and logical thought?
Republican Scott Brown’s claims of being bi-partisan lack the logic of arithmetic. A degree in mathematics is not needed to know that when he voted 90 percent with the Tea Party commandeered Republican Party his first 18 months in office he clearly demonstrated admiration for the extremists wing of the Republican Party. I do not need to be a detective to see that the myth of Scott Brown being bipartisan is one thing but, in reality, Republican Scott Brown has been part of the divisive partisanship in Washington.
Being on the fence of where to vote in this election, after looking at his voting record, was never in my picture but if it were, Brown's mean-spiritedness and exploitation of racial resentment and degradation would prove unacceptable.
Got something to say on the Nov. 6 election or any other issue? Send letters to the editor to email@example.com. Be sure to include your full name and street address. Election letters will be accepted up until one week before the election (Oct. 30).