It's Good to Live in a Two-Daily Town

One of the sharpest shots Scott Brown landed on Elizabeth Warren in Thursday night’s Massachusetts U.S. Senate debate concerned her defense of Travelers Insurance in an asbestos case several years ago.

Brown whacked her pretty good in the debate, and continued the same yesterday, as the Boston Herald was happy to trumpet this AM (via the Newseum’s Today’s Front Pages):

Inside story:

SCOTT ON LIZ: SHE CAN’T HIDE

U.S. Sen. Scott Brown said Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer questions about her lucrative work defending an insurance giant against asbestos victims will not stand — and vows to hammer her about it in their next debate.

The non-response from Warren, who touts herself as a consumer champion, in a Thursday debate has dominated the buzz after the clash.

(To be fair, the Herald did give Warren’s subsequent response a perfunctory, if dismissive, mention in this editorial.)

The Globe, meanwhile, provides a bit more balance in its piece today:

As the Globe reported in May, Warren did represent Travelers in the 2009 asbestos case, but at the time, the company was seeking to unlock a $500 million settlement account for victims, a step many victims supported. After Warren’s work on the case had ended, however, Travelers won a separate court ruling that allowed the company to avoid paying out the settlement. That ruling is under appeal.

“Elizabeth Warren got involved to protect the settlement,” against a challenge from another insurance company, said David J. McMorris, a lawyer at Thornton & Naumes in Boston, who represented victims in the case.

McMorris and several officials from an asbestos workers’ union showed up outside Brown’s headquarters to  defend Warren’s role in the lawsuit.

“It should be very, very clear the victims would have no chance to get paid by Travelers were it not for the work of Elizabeth Warren,” McMorris told reporters. “She’s been with the victims then, and she’s with the victims now.”

McMorris has donated $467,435 to Democratic politicians, according to the Brown campaign, which sent out a press release about McMorris’s contributions minutes after his comments.

Warren has been inexplicably inept in handling this issue. The Herald, on the other hand, has been predictably adept at avoiding both sides of it.

There’s a donnybrook underway in the 6th Congressional district between incumbent Rep. John Tierney (D-Wanna Bet?) and former state senator Richard Tisei (R-You Betcha). Not surprisingly, the ads wars have heated up pretty quickly. Here’s a representative sample from Tierney:

And here’s a response of sorts from Tisei:

Also not surprisingly, Tierney would like all talk about his gambling problem (a.k.a. his wife Patrice) to go away, especially in the four debates he’s scheduled to have with Tisei.

Very surprisingly, it looks like he’ll get at least half his wish. Today’s Boston Herald exclusive (via the Newseum’s Today’s Front Pages):

Inside story:

John Tierney’s rules of debate

Rep moves to bar questions on relatives’ gambling ring

Facing the fight of his political life, scandal-plagued U.S. Rep. John Tierney has moved to block questions about his family’s illegal gambling ring from debates this fall, insisting on ground rules that bar panelists from asking about the controversy.

Sponsors of two of the four debates between Tierney and GOP opponent Richard Tisei told the Herald they have agreed to the congressman’s demand that they stick to questions about policy and steer clear of queries on what he knew about his wife and in-laws’ ties to an illegal offshore gambling operation.

Those two are the Cape Ann Chamber of Commerce (which said it was “very amenable to the request”) and CommonWealth magazine.

A Sept. 27 debate, sponsored by MassINC’s CommonWealth magazine, will be focused on “jobs, the economy and the middle class,” said editor Bruce Mohl. Panelists are expected to keep their questions on topic, and Tierney’s camp made sure of it, according to Mohl.

“There was a concern about whether this would veer off topic into other issues,” Mohl said. “I think you can figure out what those issues might be.”

Mohl also said the Tierney camp refused to commit to the debate if it included a proposed section allowing candidates to ask one another questions.

The hardreading staff recognizes that CommonWealth is a seriously wonky – not dishy – magazine, but we like the response of The Jewish Journal editor Susan Jacobs a lot better: “I won’t shy away from asking that question because I I believe that’s a question everyone wants to know.”

Eight-to-five she never gets to ask that question. We’re betting Tierney bags that particular debate.