Scott Brown will not run for the Senate again.

"I was not at all certain that a third Senate campaign in less than four years, and the prospect of returning to a Congress even more partisan than the one I left, was really the best way for me to continue in public service at this time."

I'm thinking that he didn't want to hear the criticism: you just lost. Why should he win on this fluke of the other seat opening when the people just voted him down? Exactly what would you say to that?

Scott Brown will go back to the Senate, into the seat Kerry will vacate...

... unless this poll is way off.

The strongest potential opponent is Deval Patrick, and he's running 7 points behind Brown.

Won't Scott Brown end up back in the Senate...

... if John Kerry is tapped for Secretary of State?

"I’m not a student in your classroom," said Scott Brown to his lady lawprof opponent.

That happened at last night's debate.

After Warren listed the instances in which Brown voted against Democratic-backed bills, a back-and-forth ensued, as the senator tried to respond with a defense of his record. His line brought him some boos. Brown is pitching himself as the likable candidate in this race. Lines like this one could cut against that image he has carefully crafted.

That's WaPo's Sean Sullivan, spinning Brown's effective quip. Boos? I heard cheering. [ADDED: That is, a kind of "ooh!" that sounds to me like appreciation.] The worst thing to me about the clip, which you should watch for yourself, is that Brown lets it show that he's pleased that he got off the funny, telling alternative to "Let me finish" or "I didn't interrupt you, now, please don't interrupt me."

But let's talk about likeability. (Note: I prefer the spelling "likeable" to "likable," even when the candidate seems lickable.) Brown found a memorable, amusing way to cut off an interruption, which made him look good, at least to some people. The key is to look good specifically to those people who are not already strongly against him or for him. Now, the subtlety here is that the man cut off the woman, and he did it in a way that called attention to her position as a teacher, and that's a bit like calling her a schoolmarm, except that we know she's a Harvard law professor, and thus a powerful, elite sort of professor who exercises power in a setting that is traditionally male. She wields masculine power and presumes to control and channel the speech of less powerful males. That's the image of the law school classroom, as depicted — talk about memorable! — in the movie "The Paper Chase."

Now, nearly everyone watching that iconic scene — just linked — in "The Paper Chase," identifies with "Mr. Hart," the student, who resists the control of the imperious lawprof Prof. Kingsfield. And that's how Scott Brown positioned himself, making him a man of the people and her a member of the entitled elite.

Did Scott Brown staffers make anti-Indian gestures at a rally?

I'm not saying it was good or wise for them to make the "tomahawk chop" gesture while yelling in a way that the news report characterizes as an "Indian war whoop." And Scott Brown has said he doesn't condone that sort of acting out, but I just want to specify that the staffers' gesturing and noise-making doesn't count as antagonism toward Native Americans.

Someone doing the "tomahawk chop" is himself playing the role of Indian. This Indian character making a stereotypical gesture can't be read as expressing hostility toward Indians. The Indian is his hero. At a certain level of political correctness, the tomahawk chop is considered offensive to Native Americans, but somehow it's not offensive enough to have stopped Atlanta Braves fans from doing it.

Anyway, these fake Indians, the staffers, are pretending to be real Indians, miming an attack on Elizabeth Warren on the ground that she's a fake Indian. There's a lot of fakery in there, but no one is expressing the view that it's bad to be Indian. That's all I wanted to say, and I do understand how real Indians might prefer not to be represented as stereotypical characters. And maybe they'd object even more if a non-Indian got a great job from an employer who was practicing affirmative action in hiring or self-promoting by claiming diversity.

"Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of color. And as you can see, she’s not."

You can see?

NY Mayor Bloomberg endorses Massachusetts Senator Brown — over his Democratic challenger, Elizabeth Warren.

Questions:

1. Wait. I forget... Is Bloomberg a Democrat or a Republican? He's an "independent" now. He was a lifelong Democrat, until he ran for mayor (in 2001) as a Republican. He came out as an independent in 2007.

2. What does the mayor of New York have to do with Massachusetts? He was born in Massachusetts, grew up there, and went business school there.

3. Why did he pick Brown over Warren?

[T]he mayor had chosen to support Mr. Brown... for opposing a “national concealed-carry reciprocity amendment,” which would have required states to honor concealed-weapons permits issued by other states.

Concealed-carry reciprocity "would let people with gun permits from rural states like Arkansas and Kentucky carry hidden handguns in New York City," according to the mayor's spokesman.

It's not as though Warren opposes gun control, but when you "take a tough stand and buck party orthodoxy that helps the city of New York, the mayor would like to support you."

Interesting. By the way, why specify "rural states like Arkansas and Kentucky"? That has a bigot-y feeling to it. I suppose they might mean that in a system of decentralized gun regulation, what's right for a rural state is different from what a place like NYC needs/prefers. Federally imposed reciprocity undercuts the federalism values inherent in letting the states decide for themselves. But "rural states like Arkansas and Kentucky" — to my ear — sounds more like disgust for hillbillies.

"Where miracles are made. Not in Washington, D.C."

"Should President Obama have gone to Wisconsin?"

Asks WaPo's Chris Cillizza:

The majority of Democratic strategists we spoke to over the weekend, however, insisted that the combination of Obama’s personality (and that of his political team) as well as the unique dynamics in the Badger State lessened not only the likelihood of a presidential visit but also its potential efficacy.

“If a recall race becomes purely partisan, there is a strong backlash from independents,” said Steve Murphy, a leading Democratic media consultant. “Obama was smart to stay away, for both himself and Barrett.”

That's too vague. What's wrong with "Obama's personality" (and the "personality" of his "team") that  would have been bad for Barrett?

Another Democratic operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about strategy said that polling suggests “Barrett’s problem is is white men, lots of them union members, and Obama doesn’t cut much ice there.”

Thanks, anonymous Democrat. Thanks for the insight. Obama shied away from Wisconsin because of the white men. But I thought it was all about turnout. His lack of ice-cutting with white men wouldn't have prevented him from stimulating the women and minorities.

“Everyone knows how risk averse Obama is,” said a senior party strategist. “At least he’s consistent.”... 

In the end, Obama, like all of us, is shaped by his own experiences. And roughly two years ago, Obama gave in to pleas for him to make a last-minute campaign stop for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), who was struggling to hold the seat of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Obama’s trip changed nothing. Coakley lost to now-Sen. Scott Brown (R), and the president had to endure a series of stories about whether he had lost his mojo.

Seen through that lens, Wisconsin looks like a no-win situation for Obama. As one Democratic consultant closely following the race put it: “From his point of view, (there’s) not much to gain and something to lose.”

So, basically, don't help Democrats who need help. Stop by for some win when they are already winning. But I'm not going to criticize Obama for not associating himself with the recall calamity. It's enough to hide the anger that surely must be there about the way the Wisconsin recall is hogging the political spotlight, draining donation money that might have gone elsewhere, and providing a ripe opportunity for advertising the success of conservative policy.

Elizabeth Warren accuses Scott Brown of having "launched attacks on [her] family."

These "attacks" consist of the questions about her claimed Native American ancestry (and whether she has sought or received special benefits because of that). How do these questions constitute "attacks on [her] family"? Here's the quote, answering the question how she knows she is Native American:

"Because my mother told me so. This is how I live. My mother, my grandmother, my family. This is my family. Scott Brown has launched attacks on my family. I am not backing off from my family.”

So it seems the argument is: She believes something she heard from her family, and if you question the factual soundness of what she believes — or ask additional questions about the consequences of the fact believed — that you are attacking her family.

Does that make any sense? It makes a little sense to say: Hey, this is a family story, and it means a lot to us, among ourselves, and it's unkind of you to intrude into our very personal intimacies. You are attacking the cozy warmth within our home. That would make sense if it were irrelevant whether she were Native American or not. It could just be something you believe, like you believe your father loved your mother or that you were the cutest little baby in the world. You're not arrogant or a fool for believing things like that and never inquiring more deeply, and a political opponent or a reporter that gets all pushy about the factual content of such beliefs is a big clod and could be told so.

But... if you sought career advancement by making a claim that was not factually grounded, then it is relevant as you seek political office. It goes to your character, your honesty, your fairness. Now, it might nevertheless be something of an answer to the question to say: You know, I now realize that I didn't have an absolutely sound basis to believe what I believed, but I did genuinely believe it. And I know that I did expose this belief in a way that could have attracted benefits, and I did come to regret it. I've forgiven myself, and I ask you to forgive me, because my mistake was a daughter's belief in what her mother told her was true, a granddaughter's belief in her grandmother's knowledge and honor.

If she came that far, and Scott Brown were to respond: Your mother and your grandmother were either liars or fools — that would be an attack on her family.

That hasn't happened, and who can imagine it would? Thus, the inappropriate attack here is on Scott Brown, because he has not attacked her family.

Catching up on the news about Elizabeth Warren.

1. "The University of Pennsylvania, where Warren worked from 1987 to 1994, listed her as a minority in a 'Minority Equity Report.'  The report comes after Harvard Law School claimed Warren as a diversity hire in 1996."

2. "There is nothing left of the claim that Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee. The documentary sources have been debunked, and the genealogist and genealogical society which originated the story and upon whom the Warren campaign relies are not talking."

3. As for Warren, she says: "I feel like Scott Brown is raising ugly insinuations and I think he is doing it because he doesn’t want to talk about what is happening to Americas families. Middle class families are getting hammered and 72 hours ago Scott Brown voted to hammer them harder. And that is what this campaign should be about. Whose side do you stand on?"

4. Meanwhile: "Ben Affleck, Matt Damon to host Warren fundraiser."

Scott Brown: "Serious questions have been raised about the legitimacy of Elizabeth Warren’s claims to Native American ancestry..."

"... and whether it was appropriate for her to assume minority status as a college professor. Her changing stories, contradictions and refusal to answer legitimate questions have cast doubt on her credibility and called into question the diversity practices at Harvard."

“The best way to satisfy these questions is for Elizabeth Warren to authorize the release of her law school applications and all personnel files from the various universities where she has taught. I have released hundreds of pages of confidential employment records relating to my 32-year career in the National Guard, and I would encourage Professor Warren to do the same with respect to her personnel records and previous applications. As candidates for high public office, we have a duty to be transparent and open and not hide behind a wall of silence in the midst of public controversy.”

The response from a Warren spokesperson is that "Brown is shamelessly attempting to divert attention from his record on the issues that really matter" and that the "questions that have already been answered.”

Elizabeth Warren explains that she listed herself as a minority lawprof "in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon..."

"... a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off."

That's a transcription of something she said, and I think the punctuation makes it confusing. I'm guessing she said "I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group — something that might happen with people who are like I am."

So the assertion is that she used it as a way to make associations with other people, to network, with lawprofs, but this was somehow disconnected from career advancement. That's a strange line to draw and it makes her sound naive. We are talking about the years from 1986 to 1995. That's a long time, and it's a period when there was a tremendous amount of attention to the enterprise of increasing racial diversity among faculty.

(Here at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, we had Donna Shalala as our chancellor during that time period, and her central agenda — celebrated in the NYT — was "the Madison Plan," which included "doubl[ing] the number of minority faculty members by adding 70 within three years."  Taking advantage of the Plan's incentives, my law school hired 4 new faculty members — all drawn from other law schools.)

Here's video of Warren attempting to field the question:



Note that she says:

"The only one as I understand it who’s raising any question about whether or not I was qualified for my job is Scott Brown and I think I am qualified and frankly I’m a little shocked to hear anybody raise a question about whether or not I’m qualified to hold a job teaching,” she said, pushing to put Brown on defense. “What does he think it takes for a woman to be qualified?”

This is nonresponsive to the issue, an attempt to distract. The question is not whether she was qualified. The question is whether she tried to obtain or did obtain a special advantage, with race taken as a plus factor. In affirmative action, the concern is not whether those who are hired are qualified. It's whether the most meritorious candidate received the offer and whether race should boost one person over the next person.

Now, I assume that Professor Warren supports affirmative action within the law schools where she has worked. Ask her about it! Does she vote in favor of admissions policies that count race as a plus factor? Has she supported faculty appointments, choosing one person over another, with race as a factor? I'd be extremely surprised if she hasn't. Assuming she has, why is she acting outraged that anyone would say that it seems that it benefited her and that she sought that benefit?

By the way, does anyone think it's acceptable to check the "Native American" box on an job/admissions application based on one distant ancestor? Affirmative action isn't about genetics!

Elizabeth Warren chose not to pay a voluntary higher tax rate, which is an official option in Massachusetts.

No one takes that option, now, do they? But Warren — the Harvard lawprof who's trying to wrest Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat out from under Scott Brown, a Republican — has been lambasting Brown for voting against the so-called millionaire's tax.

As Warren deftly — and professorily — put it: "I paid the taxes that I legally owed. I did not make a charitable contribution to the state." Yeah, who expects anybody to make a charitable contribution to the state?

The state is all about compulsion. It's a crisp, cold force that says you owe, and we will punish you if you don't pay. So you do exactly that (if you're reasonably competent and rational). There's no warmth and love left over. If you're feeling charitable, you go looking for something more specific upon which to lavish your love-in-the-form of money. In fact, it would be kind of screwy to love the government like that, to put your love-money into the general pot from which the state pays all its general expenses, even if you want the people of the state to put you in a position to cause the government to rack up even more expenses.

Brown’s campaign called Warren a hypocrite for not checking the optional higher tax rate on her personal income. “The problem with running a campaign based on self-righteousness and moral superiority is that you had better live up to the same standard you would impose on everyone else," said the incumbent's campaign manager, Jim Barnett, in a statement. The Brown team said Warren earned over $700,000 in 2011, adding, “This is the sort of hypocrisy and double-speak voters are sick and tired of hearing from politicians, especially those who can't keep their hands out of others' pocketbooks."

Is it really self-righteousness and moral superiority?  Or is it a crisp cold calculation of what each person's share of the expenses is? You will be billed for that, and you will pay in a calm and orderly manner. There will be no love exchanged, no enthusiasm. It's just your share, that you owe, as determined by the democratic majority, who like to think that more is owed by those other people, those millionaires, and not little me. And it's not that $700,000 doesn't make Warren a good target for the democratic majority who would like to require more from somebody — somebody else. Obviously, she is. And I think she would agree!

When your vision is of the majority making the cold calculation and assessment, all you need to do to avoid hypocrisy is to pay what you owe... coolly and emotionlessly, with no extra gushings of love or cash.

Is Warren a hypocrite on the theory that she can't keep her "hands out of others' pocketbooks"? If she had a seat in the Senate and enough political sway, would she not vote to increase the tax rate for people who make $700,000 (or $500,000 or $200,000 or even $100,000)? I think she would. It's not politically wise to say that, but I assume she'd jack up tax rates if she could. In a calm, calculated manner. And everyone should pay their share, as determined by the government, to cover the expenses of the government, as determined by the government, in a Democracy where the people gave her — and people like her — seats in Congress.

There's no self-righteousness and moral superiority anywhere in this vision for America. It's just gray, bland exaction and compliance.

Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard lawprof, learning to campaign.

"She is new at it, and learning on an unusually prominent stage."

Despite her folksy approach, the response of those who meet her for the first time is often polite formality, not the warmer, more familiar type of exchange that voters tend to have with [incumbent Senator Scott] Brown.

At a St. Patrick’s Day lunch in Quincy, Ms. Warren gamely joined a dais full of local politicians and offered a few jokes that promptly fell flat.

“I’ll get there with you guys,” she ventured after a joke about Rick Santorum fizzled.

What was the joke? Can we get video?

Yet two days later, at a much larger breakfast in South Boston, Ms. Warren breezed through a comedy routine, drawing particular laughs when she said she had heard that Mr. Brown’s barn jacket cost $600.

“Wow, here’s a guy who could use a consumer advocate,” she said.

Who was at this "much larger breakfast"? Why can't the NYT anticipate my questions and answer them?!

Like Mr. Brown, she is also using social media to share personal details that might help her connect. On Saturday, she posted a picture of herself on Facebook dyeing eggs with her young granddaughters. She has posted on Facebook and Twitter about her golden retriever, Otis, and about the fact that she bakes “a wicked apple pie.”

Pictures please. Or at least links. Blah. I'm just visualizing generic grandkids, Easter eggs, and golden retriever. By the way, I added the specificity of "Easter." The NYT just has here dyeing eggs. Maybe she had a non-Easter agenda. I shouldn't presume.

By the way, the new Rasmussen poll has Warren ahead of Brown 46% to 45% (and he was leading her by 5 in February). Interestingly: "Warren leads among those who rate their finances positively; Brown leads among those who consider them poor." Isn't it funny that the more well-off tend to go for a Democrat who offers to speak for the less well-off?

Ah! I've found the Elizabeth Warren joke about Rick Santorum. Commenting on the absence of Gov. Deval Patrick at the St. Patrick's Day event, she said: "He's in Rick Santorum's favorite place today- the Virgin Islands."

I can see why the NYT left that one out.

Scott Brown leads Elizabeth Warren by 10 percentage points.

A new poll.

"The Brown-Warren agreement does not seek to equalize spending between the two candidates, both of whom are well funded."

"It is a sort of suicide pact, providing... that the two 'donate to charity half the price of ads that are run in their name in the state.' Says Brown: 'By having 50 percent of that negative or positive ad buy go to charity of the other person's choice, it's an incentive to keep those groups out.'"

Brown is pandering to Massachusetts liberals who hate Citizens United and don't understand the underlying principles of free speech.

Elizabeth Warren's put-down of Scott Brown elicits a return put-down from Scott Brown.

Are they even now? Or is this going to come back and bite Scott in his once-publicly-naked butt?

In Tuesday's debate — among Democratic candidates to challenge Senator Brown — Elizabeth Warren said "I didn’t take my clothes off" to pay for school. That was a reference to the fact that Brown posed for a photograph in Cosmo and made money to pay for college. Asked by a radio DJ for a response, Brown said "Thank God."

So... is he allowed a tit-for-tat insult or will this little lapse work wonders getting women voters to turn away from the ultra-handsome politico?

Obama, referring to the "narrow window" of time when he had 60 votes in the Senate: "after Franken finally got seated and Arlen had flipped, but before Scott Brown won in Massachusetts."

Arlen had flipped.

Happy/sad.

Scott Brown is "sad" that Barack Obama was "amused."