Yet Sen. Alan Grayson, for reasons that should be held up to skepticism, has begun to circulate a petition asking “The President should appoint Warren right now, before the end of this week. That would make it a “recess appointment,” and Justice Warren could take office immediately. The obstructionists in the GOP couldn’t do anything about it.”

Whatever the motivation of Grayson, I think this is a terrible idea. Why?

In the first place, it would potentially limit whatever actions Warren might be taking to reign in the financial sector. She may have flaws in a variety of areas, but she has done some great things also that I think need to continue. Taking her away from that Senate seat would take away a great advocate for banking reform.

Second, it would effectively nullify the potential for a Sanders-Warren ticket in 2016. At this point it is almost impossible for Sanders to overcome the super-delegate fiasco, but there is the highly unlikely chance in Hades and Hyannis that things might change. But by taking away his most likely running mate, that would become more of an outside chance. And as Nate Silver has pointed out previously, a major element of the original base in the Sanders campaign came from when the Run Warren Run PAC dissolved this summer and sent its members to, as it were, Feel the Bern.

Third, does Grayson remember that raving psychopath Scott Brown, the Tea Party darling who made everyone miserable with his faux-rugged tough guy attitude and boneheaded behavior? What is to say that either

• Warren would not be replaced in an electoral free-for-all that would allow all sorts of goofballs and doofuses near the levers of power, or
• Governor Charlie Baker would not appoint someone with deep ties to the financial, tech, and pharmaceutical industries that find solace in the Boston area, particularly since Baker has long-standing ties to the medical-industrial complex?

This of course is assuming that the Democrats would act in good faith and actually want to hold the seat. But I do not think that is a sure thing. If one thing is abundantly clear from this election season, it is obvious that Bernie Sanders, whatever his flaws (and they are many), has absolutely horrified the banking and medical industries that are known Democratic Party donors. The whole charade of the debates and controversy involving the behavior of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is demonstrative of a party in the midst of a massive identity crisis.

On the one hand, the Democrats are the party of Wall Street, the tech/drug/education deform advocates that make no bones about busting public sector unions and raiding pensions to help out their buddies in the banks. On the other hand, their major voting demographics are sick to death of this status quo paradigm and want to return to New Deal/Great Society Keynesian economics under the auspices of Sanders and Warren, something Hillary Clinton and her donors would rather drink hemlock than allow.

I would go as far right now to predict that, if through some absurd miracle Sanders does win the nomination, the Clinton machine and their slimy weasel operatives like David ‘The Real Anita Hill‘ Brock and Sidney ‘Birther Numero Uno‘ Blumenthal, along with the godforsaken mainstream press (MS DNC/Clinton News Network/New York Time/Time Magazine/whatever other birdcage liner you can name) would go into overdrive and actually work against a Democratic Party victory to protect Wall Street. Why think something so radically insane?

Because the Clintons did it before!

Arguably one of the finest moments in American Left history in the past two decades was the “Battle of Seattle”, the 1999 protests of the World Trade Organization conference that saw everyone from green anarchists to the Teamsters take to the street to protest a job-killing policy initiative that could have furthered neoliberal hegemony for decades to come. Bill Clinton knew he was in hot water when Jimmy Hoffa Jr. could not be silenced. And yet, in an electoral year that in hindsight we know was so vital for so many reasons, Bubba nobly soldiered forth. In fact, it was only because delegates from the Global South looked outside and knew they would be crazy to sell their countries down the river on a platter that more damage was not done.

A year later, my editor at CounterPunch, Jeffrey St. Clair, and his writing partner, the late Alexander Cockburn, promoting their account Five Days That Shook The World: Seattle and Beyond, told a packed crowd that one could make a decent case that what killed Gore’s votes in key states was the events in Seattle. Activists and socially-conscious liberals who were disgusted by the police brutality and refusal of the Democrats to cede to the whims of democracy were finally fed up and went to vote for Ralph Nader. This is not to say that Florida and the actions of the Bush political machine were not real, it is to say that Florida would have just been a side-show story with no impact on the election had Clinton and Gore listened to what people thought about their wretched World Trade Organization. But back then, the corporations were more important than the voters.

What’s to say they would not do this again? It’s why I have been keeping my vote for Jill Stein squeaky-clean all year while everyone else goes nuts for Chairman Bernie.

Workers at many retail and food service companies are required to always be available for work as management waits until they have up to the minute sales data and weather reports before deciding on whether or not to bring the worker in and pay them. This wreaks havoc on a worker’s ability to arrange for child care, organize a school schedule, make travel arrangements to and from work or secure a second job to make ends meet.

A report, Set Up to Fail, demonstrates the difficulty many low-wage workers with unfair schedules face. “For many low-wage working parents, the conditions of their jobs effectively set them up to fail: meeting both their work and family obligations becomes an impossible juggling act. And too often, despite their best efforts, parents’ low wages and work conditions undermine their children’s chances for success as well.”

After the success of fair scheduling legislation in San Francisco, activists in Minneapolis were cautiously optimistic about passing similar legislation in their city, until Mayor Betsy Hodges withdrew her support after getting pressure from the local Chamber of Commerce. According to writer Justin Miller, “In late September, opponents formed the Workforce Fairness Coalition by the Chamber of Commerce, and included prominent members like the Minnesota Business Partnership (which represents about 80 businesses, including Target, U.S. Bancorp and Xcel Energy) and the Minnesota Restaurant Association. They took specific issue with the scheduling law, saying that it would impede operations and could force businesses to flee the city.”

Here in Rhode Island, the fight over fair scheduling began when the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce (GPCC) brought the subject up at last week’s luncheon. GPCC President Laurie White asked RI House Minority Leader Brian Newberry (R, District 48 North Smithfield and Burrillville) about fair scheduling, what she referred to as, “long term work scheduling requirements, otherwise known as predictive scheduling.”

“How do we set the right balance between employers and workers in order to keep our small and mid-sized businesses competitive,” asked White, “and also keep Rhode Island businesses competitive vis-à-vis other places?”

“You folks know better than anybody what kind of mandates help or hurt your businesses,” replied Newberry, “so when it comes to [mandates such as fair scheduling] we need to hear from [business leaders], because there are always… well meaning advocates out there for all kinds of groups who are less interested in the fundamental cost of what they want… You need to talk to us. The business community in this state, not just the big business community but small businesses need to be more active [in lobbying government representatives]… if you don’t do it, we don’t hear from the right groups of people and we will make mistakes.”

The language and contours of the coming fight are already taking shape, and advocates for fair scheduling here in Rhode Island have yet to raise their voices. Note that advocates for fair scheduling are condescendingly pronounced “well-meaning” by Newberry, as if their concerns simply emotional and compassionate, lacking any sense of business reality. Note that Chamber President White can’t bring herself to call the scheduling “fair,” that implies present scheduling is unfair, so she calls uses the words “long term” or “predictive” scheduling instead.

Note how Newberry recommends that the Chamber and other small business groups show up when these kinds of bills are being discussed in General Assembly committee meetings because presumably if the “right” groups of people don’t advocate for profits over people, then the wrong groups of people will secure additional legal protections for people, something Newberry refers to as “mistakes.”

Fair scheduling legislation has many different parts, but taken together, it empowers workers so that they are protected from abusive scheduling practices. Included in typical fair scheduling legislation are the following ideas:

• Advanced notice of work schedules- Requires employers to give 3 weeks notice of schedules and 3 weeks to notify workers of changes to their schedules. It also allows workers to decline work hours not included on the original schedule.
• Compensation for changed shifts- Provides one hour of predictability pay for employer-initiated changes to the schedule and provides minimum reporting pay when a shift is cancelled or significantly reduced with less than a day’s notice.
• Right to request flexible working arrangement- Allows workers to request scheduling accommodations without fear of retaliation.
• Right to rest- guarantees a day of rest every week (workers do not have to work more than six days in a row) and guarantees adequate rest between shifts (no more “clopens” where a worker closes the store at midnight and opens the store at 6am.)
• Equal treatment regardless of hours worked- prohibits discrimination in pay, promotion and benefits based on the number of scheduled hours
• Retention pay- Requires employers to compensate workers for their availability by making a minimum biweekly payment of $150, which can be met through wages or benefit payments. No worker can be paid less than this amount for two weeks work.
• Offer of work to existing workers- requires employers to offer work to existing qualified part-time workers before hiring new staff or temporary workers.
• Also included in any legislation will be language on protection of these rights with penalties for employers who violate them, prohibitions of retaliation against workers who claim these rights, the posting of notices explaining these rights to workers, and enforcement requirements.

A decent list of fair scheduling resources can be accessed here at the National Women’s Law Center. As with minimum wage and tipped minimum wage, women are disproportionately impacted by unfair scheduling.

Jobs with Justice has a terrific overview of fair scheduling legislation with links to additional resources here.

Also, CLASP (Center for Law and Social Policy) has a national repository of fair scheduling news articles, briefs, analyses, etc.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been out front on this issue, and has introduced the Schedules That Work Act, though the likelihood of such a bill passing on the national level in a Republican controlled Congress is low.

This is why the battle for fair scheduling is being done on a state by state or city by city basis, and why the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce is already making moves to oppose such legislation.

We cannot live our lives serving the whims of work. Work exists to serve people, and when we forget this, families suffer. Fair scheduling is a small step in addressing this injustice.

If not, that’s exactly what the corporate interests – like big pharma and Wall Street – who wrote this trade deal were hoping. The TPP would be the largest such multinational pact ever and it’s been crafted entirely in secret. “It’s a trojan horse in the global race to the bottom,” said Robert Reich, “giving big corporations and Wall Street banks a way to eliminate laws that get in the way of their profits.”

Thankfully, the progressives in the US Senate are finally starting to vocally oppose it – even though it puts them at odds with President Obama, who supports it. Elizabeth Warren had this op/ed in the Washington Post this week, and 8 senators spoke on the floor yesterday to oppose such “free trade” deals.

“I start with a state that has been on the losing end of these trade deals,” said Rhode Island’s Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. “Rhode Island, not a big state, has lost more than 50,000 good paying manufacturing jobs since 1990.”

Whitehouse was joined by sens Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

“I don’t like the process very much either,” said Whitehouse on the senate floor yesterday. “It is secret, we are kept out of it and who’s is in it is some really big corporations and they are up to I think no good in a lot of these deals.”

So does Pascoag resident Chris Currie, a member of the RI Progressive Democrats who has been sounding the alarm about the TPP locally since before many in the beltway even knew it existed.

“As we have seen in the recent mid-term elections, multinational corporations have been collectively spending billions … to rig and/or otherwise determine the outcomes [of] elections, and they have succeeded in that regard in many ways,” he said in a recent email. “But they are well on the way toward achieving such objectives in the future without having to spend anywhere near that much money by financing the implementation of the so-called Trans Pacific Partnership (“treaty” and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) “treaty” which have the full support of President Obama, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and most our Republicans in Congress.   Once either of those two “treaties” are implemented, multinational corporations won’t have to worry about bribing our politicians anymore, because if our federal, state, or municipal government enact ANY KIND of legislation that impedes the “expected profitability” of multinational corporations.”

Currie has been sending warning emails about the TPP for years. Here’s an excerpt from one sent in August of 2013: “Promoting (and attempting to “fast track”) the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans Atlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) treaties which will surrender our nation’s sovereignty to a cartel (world government?) of greedy multi-national corporations (that have no god but money) by empowering them to effectively nullify US federal, state, and local laws which “interfere with the profitability” of their corporations. It would be like surrendering our national sovereignty to greedy bastard (and deadly) corporations like Monsanto!”

There is a strong movement among the liberal base of the Democratic party encouraging Senator Elizabeth Warren (D – MA) to run for President. With social media pages like Run, Warren, Run popping up, and local gatherings organized by Democratic fund-raising powerhouse MoveOn.org, it seems that, in spite of the Senator’s own vehement denial of Presidential ambitions at this time, popular pressure might have built momentum too strong to abate.

I, for one, do not want Senator Warren to run for President.

I am a Senator Warren devotee, bordering on being zealot. I organized field for her in 2012 as a canvass-team leader in Fall River, Massachusetts, in a joint effort of SEIU and the Coalition for Social Justice. I had the honor of meeting her twice. Once as a candidate and then as Senator. I have followed her from the Obama apointee to head the Consumer Protection Bureau, blocked by Republicans, to her vindication as the now senior Senator from Massachusetts, to her current role as the polestar of the liberal (or progressive … whatever) wing of the Democratic party.

I have cheered as she has publicly shamed usurious banking cartels and corporate plutocrats for the economic imbalance that they caused with their collective greed. I have watched her verbally eviscerate the entire fallacy of supply-side economics in just over a minute, while speaking before leaders of AFL-CIO, championing the resurrection of the middle class and the empowerment of working families.

Why then, one may ask, do I not want her to run for the highest executive office in the nation?

From her legislative office as a high-profile Senator with a mobilized following, she is able to maintain her liberal ideology and focus on very specific issues without having to compromise the very values and agendas that make her so laudable. To run for president, I fear she would have to water-down her principles and move to the center. No longer would she need only to appeal to her constituents in the very blue and historically liberal state of Massachusetts when seeking re-election as an incumbent. Rather, she would have to cater to a much broader audience on a carefully coordinated national path, including key battleground states where Democrat is often defined quite differently.

From a Democratic primary perspective alone, pitting Warren against the far more centrist Hillary Clinton, would not only showcase Warren’s relative inexperience in foreign affairs as compared to the former Secretary of State, but would factionalize a party that needs to rally behind a unified message that spotlights sanity and pragmatism as a stark contrast to the Republican theatre of the absurd that is currently staging its primary play with a cast of thousands.

Well then, one may say, can she do both? After all, since her six year term as Senator in Massachusetts is not up until 2018, she would not be appearing twice on the ballot. Therefore, she can run for President without sacrificing her seat if she loses.

Running for President is an exhausting, time-consuming, and expensive undertaking that would expose her to a level of public scrutiny against which she has not yet had to defend, forcing her to take positions on issues that may not be within her realm of expertise. It is one thing to cast a vote as one one-hundredth of a chamber in a bi-cameral legislature. It is quite another to have to explain a position on which you may be expected to speak on behalf of your entire party and, potentially, lobby support of the nation and even multiple nations. Additionally, the level of fund-raising needed to run for President in the era of Citizens United may very well force Senator Warren to accept contributions from groups that would compromise her integrity and contradict the very values that she wields as her populist arms.

Clinton, on the other hand, (and I use her only as an example because it is a certainty that she will run and she has a prior presidential campaign history with which one can compare) is far more economically conservative and seasoned at fund raising. She is a far more corporate-friendly political pragmatist and, therefore, more likely to attract the kind of money necessary to compete against the nearly $900 million the Koch brothers alone have pledged to a Republican Presidential victory. Clinton also has the advantage of her skeletons being publicly aired ad nauseum, and a husband who spent eight years as Commander in Chief and still boasts a higher approval rating higher than our current president even after a decade and a half out of office.

Does the idea of a centrist Democrat in the White House make me squeamish? Somewhat, yes. But not as much as the idea of Bush 3, Mitt 2.0, Ted Cruz, or any of the radical right wing Republicans vying to be tied to the marionette strings of Corporate America. And, to those who find little difference between a centrist Democrat and a right-wing Republican overseeing social security, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the most frightening military the world has ever seen, you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Then there are those who think that Senator Warren, herself, is hypocritical in her economic progressive rhetoric. Unfortunately for you, Alexander Supertramp has no plans of running for elected office.. But, I digress.

I do not believe Senator Warren would win a presidential election. That does not make me respect her or support her any less. But, from a political strategy perspective, it is a distraction from her current job at which she is excellent and, in which has a responsibility to her constituents and supporters to continue performing to the best of her abilities. Running for president would not make her a better senator for the next two years. One does not run for president to make a point. One runs for President to be President.

I do not know if I am “Ready for Hillary.” None of us know, for certain, who all will be running for the 2016 vacancy. In that time, my mind may change … multiple times. For now, I do know that I hope Senator Elizabeth Warren decides to continue devoting 100 percent of her efforts to her role as senior senator of Massachusetts, fighting for a level playing field, speaking as the voice of the working families, promoting policies that restore economic equity, and doing what she does best: legislating for a better future.

Stay, Warren, stay.

Don Weilberg is a 79-year-old retired orthodontist who lives in Saunderstown. He was a member of the Westerly Democratic Committee, the state Democratic Committee in the 1970’s, and a George McGovern delegate to the 1972 Democratic presidential convention.

And on Saturday, he’ll be one of three Rhode Islanders – one of the 224 across the nation – who will host a house party to help inspire Massachusetts Senator and progressive champion Elizabeth Warren to run for president.

“Young people have become so disillusioned with politics,” Weilberg told me. “They have tuned out. They say there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, and in many ways they are right.”

Weilberg said Warren can help reverse this apathy.

“Warren is a very different kind of politician,” he said. “She just doesn’t back down. She’s very strong for the middle class. That’s why she is galvanizing the country.”

Move On, Democracy for America and Ready for Warren are helping to organize some 224 house parties to entice Warren to run for president. Ian Donnis, RIPR’s political beat reporter, recently interviewed Anna Galland, executive director of Move On and a Brown University graduate, on why the grassroots organizing organization is focusing its efforts on Warren. She told him, in part:

…she’s uniquely suited to take on some of the toughest challenges our country faces: income inequality, a skewed playing field, the middle class and working people taking it on the chin. She’s proven she’ll stand up to lobbyists and corporate interests, and fight to give the rest of us a fighting chance. That’s what we need right now…

Warren is America’s liberal superstar, her popularity increasing almost as sharply as the income inequality she’s made a reputation battling. She first electrified the liberal base in September, 2011 with her now legendary “you didn’t build that” speech. She went on to beat moderate Republican Scott Brown to win her Mass. Senate seat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-P-CoSNYaI

More recently, as a senator, she seemingly by herself defeated President Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Treasury. In a piece titled “Behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Treasury takedown: How the Massachusetts senator rallied the left and blindsided the White House”, Ben White writes:

“The game in Washington had changed … Elizabeth Warren, sometimes disregarded by the White House as a largely irrelevant nuisance, could no longer be ignored. Bolstered by grass roots groups eager for any anti-Wall Street crusade and a vibrant progressive media that hung on her every word, Warren succeeded in knocking out Weiss’ nomination.”

Warren isn’t the only progressive considering running for president; Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is also keeping the option open. Meanwhile, ahead of the house parties this weekend, expected Democratic establishment candidate Hillary Clinton is sending signals she doesn’t see Warren as a possible competitor. According to Politico: “A Democrat familiar with Clinton’s thinking said: ‘She doesn’t feel under any pressure, and they see no primary challenge on the horizon. If you have the luxury of time, you take it.'”

The idea to come in and say, “Oops!  We’re really sorry about that, but we’re going to have to cut the pension,” I just think is fundamentally the wrong approach.

Warren went on to excoriate pension fund managers for hedge fund investments, warning that many pension funds made a “big mistake…when they invested in one of the big hedge funds that it turned out fooled them about how much that investment was going to be worth and ended up taking a bunch of money from them.”

Often we hear Raimondo apologists pretend that slashing pensions or dumping retirees’ money into hedge funds is the progressive thing to do.  Fortunately, we have Elizabeth Warren to destroy those arguments with her signature passion, poise, and (presidential) gravitas.

*Illinois has a similar conservative Democrat problem to Rhode Island, albeit on a much smaller scale.  Perhaps the most famous example of this is when Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan attended a fundraiser for John Boehner.   Interestingly, when Raimondo’s husband was on its board, the corporate charter school outside money group Stand for Children worked very hard to elect conservative Democrats in Illinois.

Hailed as one of Wall Street’s worst nightmares and the intellectual godmother of Occupy Wall Street, Warren told me that public investment in education and infrastructure is the top priority for progressives in Congress. She also said the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is looking at ways “to get more people of moderate income to be able to build their own pensions so they have something in addition to Social Security when they retire.”

Here’s the video:

Were the conservative, right wing Republicans relaxing? Were their minds changed and their hearts quiet? Was their spirit broken and did they skulk away quietly, tail between their legs in acceptance of America’s new direction of a liberal and populist agenda? Does the phrase 2010, mid-term elections answer that question?

Shortly after the 2008 election, the general public was struck with the reality of the total economic collapse of the American banking system, the bottom dropping out of the stock market and the the real estate bubble bursting. Frightening and confusing terms like “derivatives,” “toxic assets” and “ARM loans” were brandished by the talking heads on the cable news networks and the true inheritance of the new electorate was made apparent and they reacted accordingly. President Barack Obama consulted with his cabinet, with economists and stepped up, proposing a Keynesian stimulus package that stalled an economy in free-fall. No need to further recount the history of so recent a period in history; one in which wounds are still in various stages of recuperation and rehabilitation.

Suffice it to say, the Republicans were quickly seeding the sky with storm-clouds. The population, just moths before filled with warm, sunny hope was scared. And rightly so. Jobs were lost in record numbers. Income was falling while prices were rising and the conservative, Republican agenda was ready and mobile with a new and radical group of flashy and simple politicians called the Tea-Party. They catered to the three Gs of right wing, fear-mongering: God, guns and gays. They tied these social-issue weapons of mass distraction to the real, pressing issues of the day and (quite neatly and effectively) laid blame for the Nation’s rapid decline, both socially and fiscally, on the President and his socialist administration.

It worked like a charm. The 2010 mid-term elections were a cyclonic victory for conservatives. The super-majority was blown away and the House of Representatives was owned by the Tea-Party influenced Republicans. Surely the less than honest messaging of voices like Eric Cantor and the less than heartfelt tears of men like John Boehner are worthy of blame for the GOP sweep. Not to mention an entire cable news network dedicated to promoting untruth, injustice and the Glen Beckian way. But just as important to consider is the lack of preparedness and distracted complacency of the Democrats.

Obama promised to reach across the aisle and compromised in spite of having the power to push through any progressive agenda the Democrats and their constituencies wanted. The Democratic message was convoluted and tried too hard to explain why and how and, in a stagnant economy, it is nearly impossible to use economists to prove a negative and certainly impossible to win an off year election on that message. There was no “Go! Fight! Win!” There was no message of solidarity and spirit.

The 2012 elections were a very positive message for progressives. The light shone through the clouds and, once again, the Democratic agenda allows for a deep breath and an enjoyment of the light of populist understanding. But only for a few moments. In this administration, there can be no room for error. There can be no time for compromise. There can be no sacrifice of agenda in exchange for good faith because the anti-progressive movement, given an inch, will take a mile.

In a lesser known speech, Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote:

“… Until the Democratic Party [through this convention] makes overwhelmingly clear its stand in favor of social progress and liberalism, and shakes off all the shackles of control fastened upon it by the forces of conservatism, reaction, and appeasement, it will not continue its march of victory.”

The progressive movement, if it wants to survive and burn off the cloud-cover of the remaining storm, it must not rest on this victory. The election may be over but the great work just begins. The middle class must stand together. Unions must double their efforts. Progressive politicians must dissent, speak up and speak well. They must not merely make their voices louder, but also their arguments better. The 2014 mid-term elections are just around the corner and, if the issues embraced by the the majority this year are truly issues of importance to those who voted, the progressive campaign must begin immediately. The preservation of Medicare and Medicaid as we know them and the expansion of affordable healthcare to everyone and the taxation of the wealthiest while regulating the disenfranchisement of the working class by those same wealthiest – these and many more progressive agendas need to be reinforced and protected a little more every day.

The work is not easy. Nor should it be. Frederick Douglass, a true American champion of freedom, once said, “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the the awful roar of its many waters. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” Progressive Democrats want social justice, but they also want to be nice and expect that if they are nice, so will be the other side.

Although often mistaken for one and the same, there is a difference between what is safe and what is comfortable. And, if progressive Democrats believe that there is safety in American solidarity over the opposition’s beliefs in safety being individual financial insulation at the expense of those less fortunate, then progressive Democrats need to be willing to fight, to throw comfort to the wind and to keep on keepin’ on.

At a rally in Boston’s Dudley Square last week, a congregation of labor and activists reminded one another of what the power of unity can do: hello Elizabeth Warren, goodbye Scott Brown. Hello Barack Obama, goodbye Mitt Romney. “E pluribus unum” has been proven by the American voters to be a preferable national ideal to “sic semper tyrannus.” But, like any dream, ideal or hope for a nation , it requires foresight, strength, perseverance, blood and sweat. It takes a will to fight. Progressive Democrats remember, “When we fight, we win.”

Those in the latter group have probably stumbled upon this article by mistake and may wish to return to searching for video footage of pocket sized canines dressed as famous seventies sit-com characters. For the rest, however, the pro and anti candidate propaganda has become as familiar as it is nuclear in nature.

But in the spirit of fairness, Elizabeth Warren’s media blast to her political universe is purely self-defense. Senator Scott Brown, along with his super PAC America 360, has launched a campaign of misinformation, misdirection, racism and lies. And the sad part is, to an unfortunate extent, it is working. They are not dubbed “low information voters” for nothing.

He has drawn attention to her Native American heritage. This is something Mrs. Warren was informed of by family members as a child and grew up believing to be true. It may have been a family tie of which she held some pride. Or, it may have been a legend that was misconstrued among the oral history passed between generations, as is the case in many families. Who knows? Who cares? This much, however, is guaranteed: to be Native American has certainly not been advantageous for Native Americans since the first Europeans decided to claim this land as their own. So, for Brown to allege that Warren has achieved her success due to her claiming a small percentage Native American heritage is merely fueling distrust and racism. It has even led to such bigoted name calling as “Little Liarwatha,” and “Granny Pocahontas.”

If that is not enough to make one’s blood boil, Brown has accused Warren of cheating victims of asbestosis and their families out of settlement money during her time as an attorney with Travelers Insurance and profiting from their misfortune. The slanderous statements are a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. In fact, Mrs. Warren fought for the victims and their families and set aside a half-billion dollar trust to compensate the workers affected by the asbestos, both present and future. True, she earned wages for her legal services rendered as most working people do. But it was only after she was no longer employed by the insurance company responsible for the case that Travelers weaseled out of payment of the trust. Mrs. Warren no longer had any say in the matter. Furthermore, it is suspected that, upon separation with her former employer, she signed a confidentiality agreement forbidding her from commenting on this or any other legal matters.

Are Brown’s ads only slamming Mrs. Warren? Is he taking any measures to promote himself? One might think that, in a political climate where likeability is often more important that facts, how is Senator Brown attempting to win the hearts of his constituents? Keep in mind, the Massachusetts political universe is deeply and sincerely Democratic and the seat currently held by Senator Brown was previously occupied by the beloved and quintessentially Democratic, Ted Kennedy.

In fact, Brown has been distancing himself from certain political personality traits associated with the Republican party. His television ads show him as being just a regular working guy as a means by which to paint his opponent, Elizabeth Warren, as elitist and out of touch with working class people. He is seen driving a truck and wearing plaid and eating a hot dog at a farmers market. Personal experience has confirmed that, in fact, many voters actually think he is running as an independent.

One of Brown’s television spot shows his support of women, a voting demographic that encompasses a large percentage of the registered independent voters in Massachusetts. The advertisement is composed of a montage of women extolling Brown’s virtues as a strong supporter of women’s rights.

This is a different Scott Brown from the Senator we have seen before. In fact, his record shows that many of these statements are either misleading, coded or just plain false. The Senator voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, in spite of the ad’s promise to “fight for” equal pay. He was a co-sponsor of several bills related to ant-choice positions, including the Woman’s Right To Know Act, which would force a woman to wait 24 hours before getting an abortion and view pictures and literature about the fetus. Senator Brown was in favor of the Blunt Amendment, designed to allow employers and insurers to deny women any health coverage they might find morally distasteful. Furthermore, Brown has also voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood. And, while it might not be in direct relation to women’s issues, the repeated use of phrasing pertaining to “families” suggests both strong anti-choice and anti-marriage  equality sentiments.

Elizabeth Warren makes no secret of her support of Unions and growing the middle class, not from the top-down as proposed by supply-side economics, formerly known as “trickle-down” economics. She believes in a level playing field and government providing a strong safety-net role in economic regulation to promote fairness and job-development. Warren sees affordable education as a real and necessary foundation to growing a stable workforce. She was the architect of the Consumer Protection Act that has led to punishment for predatory banking and credit card practices.

Scott Brown, on the other hand, was called “Wall Street’s favorite congressman” by Forbes Magazine. Perhaps it was because during the December, 2010 debate on terms for extending the Bush tax cuts, Brown voted against an amendment to keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, but end them for people making over $1 million a year. Or maybe it had something to do with the May, 2011, vote to block a bill that would reduce the federal deficit by closing special tax loopholes that benefit oil and gas companies. This specific measure was designed to target only the world’s five biggest oil companies, not small producers, and could have reduced the deficit by nearly $21 billion over ten years.

What has he done for his home state of Massachusetts? Brown voted against a bill to keep 2,400 Massachusetts seniors from losing in-home care and assistance with basic living activities, and protect vulnerable children.He voted for a bill cutting Pell Grants for approximately135,000 Massachusetts students and for budget cuts that would have cost Massachusetts 17,000 jobs and job training for 27,000 residents.

Perhaps Brown is moderate by Tea Party or radical Republican standards. One probably will not catch him saying that pregnancy occurring as a result of rape are is God’s will or referring to Mrs. Warren as acting unladylike. But make no mistake, Scott Brown is a GOP man through and through and when it comes to the decisions that will define the plot of this nation’s drama, Brown will have no qualms about playing the protagonist that leads the rising action to the right, to the one percent and to a tragic outcome for the dwindling working class whom he sees fit to do nothing but fill the cheap seats.