Does Scott Brown’s manliness feel threatened by a female teacher??

Sorry I missed the debate tonight.  However, here’s the carefully rehearsed ‘zinger’ Scott Brown used on Elizabeth Warren tonight:

In case you missed that exchange, here’s how the Boston Herald reported it:

Maybe the line of the night so far came when Warren tried to interrupt Brown as he attempted to make a point.

“Excuse me,” he said, “I’m not a student in your classroom.”

He keeps calling her Professor.  It’s not Professor Warren or Ms. Warren.  Just Professor.

So, does he feel he has to reassert his manliness when he debates her?  Put her in her place?  “That’s right, I’m not a boy you can push around, Teach!”  {{strut while sitting down}}

Why does he feel the need to do that?  Does Brown have a problem with women authority figures?  Is he appealing to the white male voters out there?  Any guesses?

Check out the look on Warren’s face.  It’s like, “I can’t believe I’m only slightly beating this guy”

Yeah, I can’t believe it either.  What are Massachusetts’ voters thinking??

About these ads

11 Responses

  1. It may be that. It may also be an expression of the contempt which
    “lay-people of action” affect to feel towards “egg-head academics”. I have heard this term used by male layfolk against male academics. I suspect Brown is using “professor” as a term of disrespect to get the insecure backwardite stupidites on his side.

    It is the same thing as when Shrubya Bush pronounced “nu-clee-er”
    as “nu-kyu-ler”. He did it on purpose to get the clever people to laugh at him in public so that the masses who also feel laughed at by the clever people would identify with Shrubya Bush. (By the say, when I lived in a student housing co-op, I once met a nuclear engineering graduate student who referred to himself as a “nucular engineering” graduate student. I suspected that if he knew enough about nucular engineering to be in the U of Michigan nucular engineering graduate program . . . that I had no place or bussiness to “correct” his pronunciation).

    If Warren and Brown are having any more debates, maybe she could refer to him as “candidate” every time he refers to her as “professor”. Perhaps she could put the most possible contempt-oozing sneer into her pronunciation that she thinks would “play” on TV.

    • Maybe she should call him on it. She should ask him if he thinks he underestimates his supporters’ intelligence or if he’s only projecting his own inadequacies.

      • She has to play this as a campaign issue, so, were I she, I’d toss this to the seasoned campaigners. After the election, she can deal with smart asses differently. George Wallace got a lot of campaign mileage out of “pointy headed intellectuals.”

        When you’re in public life, spontaneity is a rare luxury.

        • So, what are you saying? That she should confront him on it? Or let her surrogates and campaign staff craft a response?

          • If she’s “innit to winnit” at all costs, she should get all the best advice from all the best and most successful political warfare consults, and then apply the advice she feels personally able to consistently apply.

            If she’s prepared to risk losing her way rather than win someone else’s way, she can set herself free to respond however she feels best.

            I am reminded of a story a captain of artillery told on a PBS show once. Or maybe it was a story leading to some aphoristic advice. His advice was that when you are a captain of artillery you accept the fact that “you are playing a round of You Bet Your Bars every time you give the order to Pull That Lanyard”. Is Warren ready to play You Bet Your Bars?

            I have no idea what she should specifically say or specifically ask at their next confrontation. I have no idea whether she should poke Brown with a sharp stick in a velvet glove, or whether she should swing a tire iron into his open mouth.

          • Neither do I and as Warren is not a seasoned campaigner with solid experience in these matters, I think she should take the opinions of people who are. It could be less what makes her look good than what makes him look bad: this is all about perception. That said, it’s really her bars to lose. My guess is she’ll give him the old theater standby when you go up in your lines: you assume a pose that suggests the other actor has whiffed.

          • With the qualification that her advisors (in that case) should be in it to win it. Which they might not be.

  2. She is more of an idgit than he is. With all her missteps, you all complain about the word ‘professor’. Is she, or is she not? I hope she loses.

  3. Brown’s victory was for the “People” of Massachusetts, not the Kennedy Senate seat. The People have given the Academic Administration a full term, and despite Warren’s fine work, she was unable to become an enforcer of her own edicts because politicians out-muscled her. The truckin’ center-fold will have to be beaten. And although it’s Blue Mass, it’s gonna take something other than another Academic to take him out of that seat. From here, it seems the Independent Voters of Massachusetts are going “R” just to get an honest day’s work out of their reps because they’ve been let down by the “it works in theory” earnest but stupid Dems.

    • Well! . . . that reads like a prediction that Brown will win. If so, that is certainly a specific prediction.

      If Brown wins the way you predict, that would be some support for the validity of your analytical framework and the predictive power of your theory of politics. If Brown loses, that would tend to call the validity of your analytical framework into question.

      Time will tell.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 470 other followers

%d bloggers like this: