Scrolling Headlines:

Student death reported to the University Sept. 19 -

September 20, 2017

Domestic violence and experience of Muslim women lecture kicks off seminar series -

September 20, 2017

Students demand bathroom accountability -

September 20, 2017

Small trashcan fire broke out in Kennedy Hall -

September 20, 2017

Immigration policy discussed in public teach-in -

September 20, 2017

Massachusetts men’s soccer ties Central Connecticut State in double overtime -

September 20, 2017

Atlantic 10 Women’s Soccer Notebook: Saint Louis Billikens off to hottest start among A-10 teams -

September 20, 2017

Health care, DACA headline congressional town hall in Northampton -

September 20, 2017

UMass field hockey looks to continue winning streak against St. Francis and Lock Haven -

September 20, 2017

Kuerzi battles through shin splints for UMass field hockey -

September 20, 2017

Palmer, Britt starting to materialize as playmakers on UMass football’s receiving corps -

September 20, 2017

Bring the Constitution back to campus -

September 20, 2017

Why All College Students Should Still Handwrite Their Notes -

September 20, 2017

Loads of Frustration -

September 20, 2017

Fitbits, Apple watches and other devices all have the same objective -

September 20, 2017

How the runway influences the real world -

September 20, 2017

Palestinian women talk about their lives as refugees -

September 20, 2017

UPDATE: Wayland man dies following apparent fall -

September 19, 2017

Political discourse heats up at Amherst College -

September 19, 2017

Author Thomas Suarez leads talk on Israel-Palestine conflict -

September 19, 2017

A Night of Differences: Brown vs. Warren

Maria Uminski/Collegian

If there are any Massachusetts voters who are not sure of whom to support in this November’s pivotal senatorial election, just point them in the direction of Wednesday night’s debate in Springfield. The sixty-minute long exchange was filled with both candidates displaying their differences, jabbing with juxtapositions, and on the rare occasion, even agreeing.  The following are just some of the takeaways from the debate:

No mention of Warren’s alleged claim to Native American Heritage:

In what seems to be an increasingly negatively fueled election, with both sides mudslinging their opponent in campaign commercials, it came as a bit of a surprise that Senator Brown made no mention of Professor Warren’s alleged claim of a minority status. This is a stark contrast to the first two debates where it took very little time for the controversial topic to emerge.

Warren on the Offensive:

If there is anything to be taken away from the first presidential debate, between Governor Romney and President Obama, it is that the candidate who goes on the attack, will generally be viewed as the victor. Both challengers, Romney and Warren, entered their respective debates with their guns blazing. Warren used the night to highlight the differences between herself and the incumbent. She managed to point out the policies that she has proposed in topics such as education, the budget, and the gender gap, and contrasted that with the voting record of her Republican opponent. Where Brown cried administrative cuts, Warren called for more  investment in education; where the Senator asked for tax cuts, Warren wanted military spending deductions. She constantly repeated phrases and buzzwords that have become synonymous with GOP bashing, such as “the one percent”, tax breaks, top-to-bottom economics, and Grover Norquist. Throughout the debate, it seemed as though Senator Brown was more often defending himself rather than attempting to assert his superiority as a candidate.

Moderately Brown:

For as much success as Professor Warren had with articulating the differences between herself and the Senator, Brown found an equal amount of success in pointing out that he is very much a moderate. Throughout the night, Brown highlighted how he is the second most bipartisan member of the entire senate, even going as far as stating that he votes with his party only 54% of the time. He asserted his pro-choice stance, his sponsorship of many Democrat-created bills, and his belief that the current economic situation must be solved through bipartisan efforts. Moreover, he showed his ability to cross party lines by pointing out that he had the endorsement of former Democratic Mayor of Springfield, Charles Ryan. In the most hyper partisan Congress in the history of our country, Senator Scott Brown successfully appealed his claim of a moderate voice.

Respect all around:

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the third debate between Brown and Warren is that neither candidate did much interrupting. Both candidates were extremely respectful of not only each other and the time given but also of the moderator. In fact, the most unruly member of the entire debate was the audience. Both candidates were interrupted more than a few times by not only the expected cheers for their points, but also jeers for their opponent. It is an example that perhaps our president and his challenger might do well to follow.

All in all, it was a lively but respectful debate that was undoubtedly a success. Although the winner may be hard to determine, it is ultimately up to the voters to take away from it what they will and decide for whom to vote for on November 6th.

Tanvir Faisal can be reached at tfaisal@student.umass.edu.

Comments
2 Responses to “A Night of Differences: Brown vs. Warren”
  1. Joe says:

    The choice is clear to me, Sen. Brown! Ms. Warren, lies about her race? She is not an Indian! Obviously! Warren has had her daughter make a big effort to get the registration cards out to welfare recipients. If Ms. Warren really cared about the PEOPLE and not about winning votes, would she lie about her her heritage? Something that sacred? Wouldn’t she want registration cards to go out to all the people of MA., like the elderly, sick, our seemingly unrecognized military, and those abroad? ALL should be encouraged to vote. Say no more, this is all about power and not the people of MA and certainly not the people of the United States of America. We have seen ENOUGH lies coming out of Washington, why add to the corruption?

  2. Phil says:

    When a man needs to cover his true identity by a label “Independent”, he should not be trusted.

Leave A Comment