Republican candidates are most annoying, hands down. Their strategy is laughable. One minute they are doing their best to sound like Democrats, the next, viciously attacking their opponents' character. I can see why they are so desperate when you look at what they DO stand for. If you say "yes" to any of the following, you should vote for a Republican (1) Do you like pollution? (2) Do you want to gut our natural resources? (3) Do you like war? (4) Do you believe in Creationism? (5) Do you want to restrict stem cell science research designed to help cure diseases? (6) Are you against equal pay for women? (7) Are you against abortion? (8) Do you like to discriminate against LGBT? (9) Do you support Romney and the like to hoard the Global Wealth off-shore? My idea of a representative is someone who will work in the best interest of the citizenry and future generations not someone interested in maximizing their own party's GREED! Do yourself a favor and vote for ALL THE DEMOCRATS!!!

Let us thank God for small victories...Kerry was not running this cycle.

shut up. You are beyond ignorant

Apparently Tricia, you have no issue with a $16 TRILLION national debt, 8% unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, in short, the things we people in the real world worry about. Not to mention that our fearless leader Barry opted to allow 4 Americans to die in Benghazi in order not to offend sub-human savages but, more importantly, jeopardize his reelection. Btw, in the event you are part of the "low information" branch of Obama supporters, Ben Ghazi is NOT as person (as Obama supporters on a recent YouTube video pointed out). For your information, Republicans, in general, typically "respond" to Democrat ads, flyers, etc. only when Democrats choose to take the "low road" which is, well, always.

Mickey,

I guess you liked it better when Unions could give as much as they wanted to support candidates but Corporations could not?

Democrats call the time before Citiznes United the time of the "level playing field", just like what Lieawatha wants for all of us.

I support her because - more than any time in our history - there is a separation in the "haves" and "have nots" in this country, and this troubles me greatly. Elizabeth Warren is uniquely qualified to help change this. She is widely recognized as an expert in this area of financial dichotomy, and was asked to start the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a way to level the playing field for all. Her research & academic background supports her arguments for the middle class with FACT, and her discussion of what it takes to make the middle class (and, thus, the rest of the country) successful again makes logical sense.

Please put aside the cynicism and listen honestly to her for 10 minutes. If you can do that you'll be impressed, and probably learn something too. :)

Wow, "Andovahhh Resident", straight from the Democrat Party "talking points" regarding Lying Lizzie (or from something you might hear on CNN, MsNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, etc.). Were you aware that Lizzie has been practicing law in Massachusetts (for years and years) without a law license ? Were you aware that Lizzie lied for decades about her heritage, claiming she had Cherokee blood when there is ZERO evidence that she does have Native American blood ? Were you aware that she checked off the "Native American" box on applications to further her career and then, after gaining tenure at Harvard, suddenly became Caucasian again ? This blatant lie meant that a TRUE minority was excluded from a chance at a bter life because Lizzie decided to "game" the system. Now I know the threshold for integrity for Democrat candidates in Mass is pretty low but wouldn't you want someone in the Senate who at the very least told the truth occasionally ? Finally, are you also aware that Lizzie is one of the "haves" and that she and her husband have a combined salary of $750,000 per year at Harvard ? Her salary is $300K a year for teaching ONE class a week. The "have nots" pay exorbitant college tuition due to people like Lizzie and her husband so how can you even consider votinf for this prevaricating elitist ?

Ha Greg I got the same call. I thought someone was trying to pick up my wife :-)

The Tisei mailers you speak if we're probably Tierney mailers...he cannot talk about his record so the mailers totally talk about Tisei without even mentioning Tierney. What a slime ball.

Too Bad!! They are the best canditates and what this country needs asap. Get used to honesty!!

Cyn, you are the liberal reason why this country is in trouble.

Jeremy and Bill, is there some reason you have to resort to name calling? This is exactly why people are fed up with all politicians, regardless of party. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion even if it does not agree with yours.

Listen Pat maybe you should mind your own business. I have nothing to say to you. If I wanted to hear your pathetic excuse of an opinion then i would have asked for it

Jeremy, grow up. Seriously. There's absolutely no reason to be acting this way. You hate the democrats? Fine, but keep it to yourself or say it without being a jerk.

For God's and our Countrys sake--PLEASE vote for Romney. Are you serious? How about the LIES Obama JUST is guilty of saying and letting our American heros die for us in Bengazi. Disgusting and he doesn't have the character to step up and hold a press confrence to face us and explain yo the American people---who he works for---in case he has forgotten. How about our economy? We are in terrible scary shaape and I am scared to think what the next four years will be like with more Obama. We can TRUSTROMNEY---he has proven he can turn this financial pproblem around. He is a very good man---can't you see this??

Warren's ancestors keep coming up only because Scott Brown trying to distract you into caring about something other than his voting record. Scott Brown can't win if people are focused on THINGS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER.

I would think repeatedly lying ACTUALLY MATTERS.

I agree that if she were lying it would matter. But when it comes to her family heritage there's no documentation one way or another. Like with most families, it's hearsay. (I've been told I'm Irish, but I've never fact checked my mother's claims.)

But, bottom line, even if Warren was wrong about her Native American history, it has been stated & proven time and time again that SHE NEVER GAINED ANY ADVANTAGE by passing along this (potential) "family myth." The whole issue is a giant red herring meant to distract from more important issues directly relevant to voters.

Are you certain that Elizabeth Warren is not a Native American? Did you know that Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libyan, who was recently killed, is the son of a Chinook indian? Neither did I. But, in reading about him after his death, I learned that his mother is Chinook - who would have thunk it? Blue eyes, blond hair? Can't always go by how a person appears. As for her being an 'idiot' - you may disagree with her views but she has been an advocate for financial reform for many years and the reforms that she introduced while working with Congress, are good ideas which benefit you and me in terms of truthful disclosure of terms of financial products - she is intelligent and she advocates for the 'little guy' - Scott Brown voted against the 'little guy' when he buckled under pressure from Wall Street and the big insurance companies - Brown is not a bad Senator but he is in a troubled Republican party which is owned by Big Oil and Wall Street - not in the best interest for regular folks.

I am right with you. Warren can't even remember her lies--just keeps on telling more and digging herself in deeper. Wow ---do we want her leading --us?? I don't think so!!

You are so wrong here it sickens me. Keep your bias opinion to yourself. I recommend you do not go out and vote tuesday cuz its people like you that are destroying our country

Actually, all the political junk mail is one of the postal services bright spots. It will help keep it less below water that normal.

YOU ARE SICK!! THIS IS AMERICA AND YOU DON'T GET THE MEANING. DO YOU LIVE UNDER A ROCK?

I'll give you a million dollars if either Brown or Romney is involved with or tries to "set women back to the 50's" or does anything to restrict birth control. Pure fiction and fear mongering by Obama and Warren who have both run despicable campaigns. And gullible people like you have fallen for it. Makes me sad for our future.

Bill- You're willing to bet Scott Brown won't try to restrict birth control access?? He has ALREADY tried... He supported the Blunt amendment, which allows organizations to restrict access to *all kinds* of health care for *any* reason they declare immoral. Wake up!

Blunt Ad (which failed) was about protecting religious freedom. It said that religious organization could not be forced to go against their beliefs. It does not stop anyone from getting birth control products at any corner of the country.

Incorrect, Bill. The Blunt Amendment was overly broad and allowed any organization (not just religious) to restrict access to any health care (not just birth control) for any moral reason.

So, for example, Bob's Mythical Repair Shop would have been allowed to restrict access to chemo therapy because they're morally against the color yellow. Silly, right? (But absolutely true.)

Tell you what, if you can't afford the 10 bucks a month for condoms or birth control pills don't take a job with an organization or church that is exercising their first amendment right to freedom of worship and expression. All about choice for everyone - isn't that what you are after? Choice. A person's freedom of religion is more important than your need for someone to pay for your birth control.

C'mon Lisa don't you pay attention? Brown votes with the enemy (libs like you) as much as he does with his own party. Pay attention.

No, salemst, it seems more likely that Scott Brown is NOT FOR *ALL* OF US because he voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act (S.3220, a bill to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex). Or maybe it is his support of the Blunt Amendment (which allows organizations to restrict access to *all kinds* of health care for *any* reason they declare immoral).

It's nice to see him (at least pretend to) be independent with when it comes to common sense issues (the repeal of don't ask don't tell or planned parenthood funding, for example), but his true colors shine through when harder decisions for women are on the table.

Most likely. As a registered Republican I never seen these 'informative' L'Italien pieces for the sensible reason that I'd just laugh at them and be glad the socialists were wasting their money.

Romney and Brown. The democrats had their turn and after promising hope and change for the better they have just sunken the country. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE! Johnny you are pathetic for voting for these people

No, salemst, let me help you understand Brown's voting record on this one:

The Lilly Ledbedder act is S.181 and it was signed into law on January 29, 2009. Scott Brown was not yet elected when this was voted through the Senate.

Scott Brown voted against S.3220, The Paycheck Fairness Act, on June 5, 2012. Sounds more like equality than superiority to me, but you can read the bill for yourself here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3220

So, let me help you with the math: When given the opportunity to advance women in the workplace, and put in place law to provide remedies in the case of pay discrimination on the basis of sex, Scott Brown has VOTED NO 100% OF THE TIME.

Have you ever heard any government legislator suggest private sector salaries should be dictated by the government? Are you seriously fearful that would ever happen? With due respect, that sounds a bit paranoid.

Also, I would argue that the reason college tuition is as high as it is because IT CAN BE. Good ol' capitalism at work: Charge what people are willing to pay.

Regardless, Democrats (and, most specifically, President Obama) take a lot of time to talk about the HUGE problem of student loan debt, and they're bringing some good ideas to the table. For example, they've instituted caps on student loan repayment installments based on income, and made it favorable to consolidate all outstanding loans to cut down on complexity and repayment risk.

You're wrong that loans would be less expensive if the government got out of the business... Federal student loans have always been cheaper than those given by private lenders. In fact, Obama's 2010 budget specifically restructured federal student loans so that the subsidies traditionally paid to private lenders were cut out, saving costs. (The CBO estimated this savings as $68M+ over 10 years, which is being used to increase funding for Pell Grants.)

Please read the bill. You've missed the point.

It doesn't say women don't have to work hard (because of course everyone should). It doesn't say talented people should get paid the same as their under-performing colleagues (because of course higher achievers should make more).

It says that all people - regardless of sex- should be paid based based on performance, and provides allows remedy in the case of discrimination. And Scott Brown voted against it.

Why on earth can anyone vote for this woman? She is disgusting!!!

I'm not Liberal, just logical (and also registered Independent). Wouldn't it be nice for LOGIC to have a voice over "Democrats" and "Republicans" in Washington? Crazy, right?!

Andovahhh just own who you are... You can't expect us to believe you are an Independent. You are obviously a Warren operative. Logic says that if 70 percent of the Massachusetts Registered voters are not Liberal then they should not vote for one of the most Liberal candidates in the entire country.. Go ahead .. give us another Warren talking point....

JG, Why do you think Andovahhhh is a Warren Operative? Because she is so smart? Thanks Andovahhhh for all your informative posts; keep up the fight. You are making a difference!!!

The feeling is mutual

So by your reply you think becoming pregnant after a rape is God's plan?

Bravo, K.S.C. Honestly, if someone can't debate without resorting to name calling, I'm more likely to vote for the candidate they oppose. I have always said I'd give my full support and even campaign for any candidate that took the obscene amount of money spent on these ads and use it for something like helping the hurricane victims or put it towards the national debt. Before anyone starts calling me names, I know this isn't going to happen, but imagine the dent that could be put in the debt if all the candidates from this election, nationwide, could donate the money towards it.

Um... The supporters of political candidates donate money for political activities not for social services. If they do spend it on welfare rather than campaigning, their supporters will not send them any more money. Even moonbats work the same way.

You suppose wrong. Your bias is showing.

Dave G. - At what point in a baby's prenatal existence do you stop supporting dismembering said baby and sucking the remains into a bucket?

Wow, this went off the rails pretty quickly. I don't see any mention or discussion of abortion in any of Gray's earlier comments, so I don't know why this crazy assertion was made.

I would guess Gray's comment ("the nut jobs who think becoming pregnant after a rape is God's plan") was referring to the words of Richard Mourdock - Republican candidate for Senate in Indiana - who during a debate last week said, "I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something God intended to happen." Many people find this to be offensive because it can be seen to suggest that rape can somehow be condoned.

When you combine this with (six-term) Republican Congressman Todd Akin's recent misguided statement about women being able to "shut down" conception in the case of "legitimate rape" it really makes you scratch your head about what some of these Republicans are thinking. It makes my skin crawl too.

damn I got 5 of those in the mail today

In all honesty, is there ANY documentation that you would accept that "proved" Warren's heritage? Would photo really settle this for you? Perhaps Warren learned a lesson from the Obama "birther" hysteria.... First there are demands to see a birth certificate, then when that's not good enough it's a "long form" birth certificate, then that's still not good enough so ask for passport documentation. If you're not convinced you can't be convinced, so why bother?

When it comes to Elizabeth Warren's heritage there has been no documentation one way or another that says she DOES or DOES NOT have Native American ancestors. Like with most families, her personal background is hearsay. (I've been told I'm Irish, but I've never fact checked my mother's claims.)

But, bottom line, even IF Warren was wrong about her Native American history, it has been stated & proven time and time again that SHE NEVER GAINED ANY ADVANTAGE by passing along this (potential) family myth. The whole issue is a giant red herring meant to distract from more important issues directly relevant to voters.

I understand fear mongering can be effective, but in reality the CBO has proven Obamacare will SHRINK the deficit by billions of dollars over the next decade. The status quo of healthcare coverage and cost in this country has been on a completely unreasonable trajectory, and health care reform (Obamacare) will help fix that.

Do bears sh*t in the woods ?

Not sure there are any woods left after all the mailers I got. That's why the bears are showing up on the cape.

Well said, Mr. Vassily.

Back in the kitchen, Barbara.