Scott Brown has a good case to make for himself.  In a Senate paralyzed by partisanship, he comes off as a moderate problem-solver. His willingness to cross party lines gives him clout he can use to help his constituents.  He has an image and a record that should appeal to Massachusetts’ independent voters.


So why has he made his Senate campaign all about his opponent’s race?


Brown says, as he did in the Senate candidates’ second debate Monday, that he is attacking Elizabeth Warren’s truthfulness – about her race. But if all he’s got to challenge her integrity is her claim to be part Native American – which he can’t prove is false – and his claim she benefited from it – which he can’t prove is true – then we’re not impressed.


Brown has expanded his attacks to include Warren’s record as a lawyer, but his reason is similarly strained.  A lawyer himself, Brown accuses Warren of representing the interests of those who hired her.  A friend of business, he accuses Warren of being hired by businesses.


I blame moderator David Gregory for devoting the first 18 minutes of Monday’s debate to  Brown’s attacks on Warren’s character. Several media organizations  have chosen to stress non-issues from the candidates’ pasts over real issues about the nation’s future.


But no one has forced Brown to base his campaign on personal attacks instead of policy choices. His latest round of TV commercials, featuring nameless “voters” rehashing the tired Indian heritage business shows the ground on which he’s chosen to fight for re-election.


It’s always tempting to note that politics is a contact sport and both sides do it, but not in this case.  Warren has not attacked Brown’s character or his family. She has stuck to his record and their differences on issues.


In the few weeks remaining in this campaign, that’s what both candidates should stick to.


Scott Brown has a good case to make for himself.  In a Senate paralyzed by partisanship, he comes off as a moderate problem-solver. His willingness to cross party lines gives him clout he can use to help his constituents.  He has an image and a record that should appeal to Massachusetts’ independent voters.


So why has he made his Senate campaign all about his opponent’s race?


Brown says, as he did in the Senate candidates’ second debate Monday, that he is attacking Elizabeth Warren’s truthfulness – about her race. But if all he’s got to challenge her integrity is her claim to be part Native American – which he can’t prove is false – and his claim she benefited from it – which he can’t prove is true – then we’re not impressed.


Brown has expanded his attacks to include Warren’s record as a lawyer, but his reason is similarly strained.  A lawyer himself, Brown accuses Warren of representing the interests of those who hired her.  A friend of business, he accuses Warren of being hired by businesses.


I blame moderator David Gregory for devoting the first 18 minutes of Monday’s debate to  Brown’s attacks on Warren’s character. Several media organizations  have chosen to stress non-issues from the candidates’ pasts over real issues about the nation’s future.


But no one has forced Brown to base his campaign on personal attacks instead of policy choices. His latest round of TV commercials, featuring nameless “voters” rehashing the tired Indian heritage business shows the ground on which he’s chosen to fight for re-election.


It’s always tempting to note that politics is a contact sport and both sides do it, but not in this case.  Warren has not attacked Brown’s character or his family. She has stuck to his record and their differences on issues.


In the few weeks remaining in this campaign, that’s what both candidates should stick to.