Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

America's Debate _ Election 2012 _ Elizabeth Warren

Posted by: akaCG May 12 2012, 05:28 PM

Many if not most of us have heard of Ms. Warren's now http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/genealogist-who-claimed-elizabeth-warren-was-132-cherokee-goes-silent-as-source-document-exposed-as-false/ claims to Cherokee heritage and employment thereof during her academic career.

It now appears that the integrity of her scholarship leaves a lot to be desired as well, to put it mildly:

QUOTE
...
... Claiming to be an "authority" on bankruptcy law, Warren has written papers and books wildly inflating the role medical bills play in personal bankruptcies.

A Northwestern University peer review of her 2005 paper on the subject, for example, ripped it apart, arguing "the methods were so poor they gave cover to those who want to dismiss the problems of the uninsured — they can say the only paper out there uses a suspect method."
...
ABC News suggested she was exercising a hidden agenda to promote a government-run health system. Sure enough, President Obama in 2009 seized on her findings to argue for socialized medicine: "The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds."
...
In 2010, as Obama was floating Warren's name as someone to run his new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, "The Atlantic" magazine reviewed her academic work and found a disturbing "pattern" of using bogus metrics to inflate the case for left-wing causes. "Deeply, deeply flawed," it said of her research. "This isn't Harvard (Law) caliber material — not even Harvard undergraduate."
...

Link: http://news.investors.com/article/610773/201205081849/warren-scholarship-found-deeply-lacking-academic-vigor.htm?p=full

Ms. Warren is currently running for the office of U.S. Senator from Massachussetts, hoping to unseat Republican Scott Brown.

Questions:

1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

2. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) should cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?


Posted by: Paladin Elspeth May 12 2012, 05:44 PM

This is not what I heard on Rachel Maddow the other night. I heard that Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee, the same amount of Native American ancestry as the new chief of the Cherokee nation is. But really, who cares? Didn't Marco Rubio say that his dad was an exiled Cuban when he in fact wasn't?

As far as the "too fraudulent" question goes, I'm not sure any more what constitutes "too fraudulent" when it comes to people running for and maintaining high office in this country. I have listened to a bunch of politicians suggesting all kinds of things and not contradicting some of the more wild-eyed fans at their rallies.

I have seen a President talk about WMD's in Iraq and warn that the "smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

I know the purpose of your thread is to discredit Ms. Warren. As a member here, it is your right to post topics such as this one. But I would suggest to any reader that what Professor Warren has done speaks well of her intentions, i.e., to serve the people, the vast majority of whom are not in the upper 1% of wage earners. The development of the Consumer Protection Agency was much needed, considering that some corporations out there should be named "Caveat Emptor." Yes, I know the thought held by some that government regulation is bad regardless of its intent. But I'm also certain of the need for an FDA and OSHA, that peoples' safety has been greater since the inception of these agencies.

Obviously, if you think the unfettered free market is the be-all and end-all of our civilization, you probably won't like Elizabeth Warren or what she stands for. If you, however, like the idea that there is an entity to whom corporations must answer when they are negligent and commit malfeasance, that the government, while it is far from perfect, is here to protect the citizens from victimization, please consider electing Elizabeth Warren to the U.S. Senate.

Posted by: AuthorMusician May 12 2012, 06:55 PM

1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?
2. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) should cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?


No to both because 1) she actually does have Native American blood and 2) Massachusetts likes its socialized medicine. Nobody really cares if some academicians (love typing that out) have torn apart her papers and books. That's what they're paid to do, and if anyone thinks that health care expenses don't lead to bankruptcies, they're living in an ivory tower protected by either tenure or piles of cash, or both.

I'm pretty certain that the Massachusetts electorate will choose Liz over Scotty despite, or even because of, these attacks. The evil spell of the TEA types has worn off, or someone went down to New Orleans and got themselves a mojo hand <up ZZ Top>. The state is fundamentally liberal, and Brown slithered in during one of those interesting, yet quite transient, times in politics.

Posted by: BoF May 12 2012, 08:26 PM

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ May 12 2012, 12:44 PM) *
I know the purpose of your thread is to discredit Ms. Warren. As a member here, it is your right to post topics such as this one.

That statement hits the nail on the head PE. While akaCG has the “right” to start such a topic, I hope members are sophisticated enough to realize that this is just more of his blatant and shameless propaganda onslaught.

He’s already dropped this bit of propaganda on the “New Political Joke” and “News that isn’t a shock to you” threads, so why not start a thread to further use the board as a propaganda dump.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=9566&view=findpost&p=100006636
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=20408&view=findpost&p=100007051

I think he's either obsessed or scared to death of Elizabeth Warren.

Posted by: Raptavio May 12 2012, 11:30 PM

The claims about Warren misusing her sliver of Native heritage (less than my own, and I never use it either) in order to gain favoritism in employment are http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/elizabeth-warren-minority-status_n_1508060.html.

They will hurt her in her election against Scott Brown, of course, because lies that are repeated loudly enough (and there's a lot of money for volume) get believed as truth.

As for the papers? Eh. It's easy to find economists and lawyers to trash one another's methodology. Especially when there's brazen partisanship involved.

But there will always be true believers and useful idiots who slurp up any gruel offered to trash one's political adversaries and lionize one's own.

But that's the state of politics in the modern era, where bad Senators and their allies love to make big elections about small things.

Posted by: trumpetplayer May 13 2012, 01:12 AM

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 12 2012, 06:30 PM) *
The claims about Warren misusing her sliver of Native heritage (less than my own, and I never use it either) in order to gain favoritism in employment are http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/elizabeth-warren-minority-status_n_1508060.html.

They will hurt her in her election against Scott Brown, of course, because lies that are repeated loudly enough (and there's a lot of money for volume) get believed as truth.

As for the papers? Eh. It's easy to find economists and lawyers to trash one another's methodology. Especially when there's brazen partisanship involved.

But there will always be true believers and useful idiots who slurp up any gruel offered to trash one's political adversaries and lionize one's own.

But that's the state of politics in the modern era, where bad Senators and their allies love to make big elections about small things.


Not so fast. This is not a small thing especially to people like ME who are actually 1/4 Iroquois Indian. Not that I need to claim or use my minority status to hold or get a job (and I have NEVER used it, nor have my employers). This is FAR worse than a 50 year bullying claim. It's also good to note that ALL of her so-called papers (that Obama used as a basis in fact) are a sham when actually peer reviewed but that is another topic. This is another shining example of extreme bias by Democrats and the media to cover up and condone this behavior.

Posted by: akaCG May 13 2012, 02:28 AM

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 12 2012, 07:30 PM) *
The claims about Warren misusing her sliver of Native heritage (less than my own, and I never use it either) in order to gain favoritism in employment are http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/elizabeth-warren-minority-status_n_1508060.html.
...

That's quite the categorical assertion, there. Care to share the basis upon which it rests? Does it amount to more than, say, "Because Rachel Maddow said so."?

Oh, and the article you cite? I got a chuckle out of the headline ("Elizabeth Warren Did Not Claim Minority Status, Records Show"), considering that in the body of the article we find:
QUOTE
...
A third document obtained by the AP Thursday indicated that the University of Pennsylvania, where Warren also worked, identified her as a minority professor.
...
A report by a committee established to review the status of minority faculty at the University of Pennsylvania identifies Warren as a minority, however, without elaborating.
...

Perhaps it was the "Asian" box that she checked at Penn, and then again at Harvard. Oh, wait. That wouldn't have been as helpful. Never mind.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 12 2012, 07:30 PM) *
...
As for the papers? Eh. It's easy to find economists and lawyers to trash one another's methodology. Especially when there's brazen partisanship involved.
...

Heh. Riiiight.

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/03/26/will-obamacare-drive-out-employer-sponsored-insurance/#more-40895the Northwestern University "brazen partisan" who described Ms. Warren's study as one in which "the methods were so poor they gave cover to those who want to dismiss the problems of the uninsured — they can say the only paper out there uses a suspect method."

And, for good measure, here' a bit more (note: you're gonna have to don a Social Scientist/Statistician "let's take a look at the evidence", as opposed to a Lefty Partisan "let's fling the ad hominems" hat, I'm afraid) regarding Ms. Warren's academic research ... shall we say ... "stylings":

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18826/#

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/why-warrens-new-bankruptcy-study-is-so-bad/18834/#

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 12 2012, 07:30 PM) *
...
But there will always be true believers and useful idiots who slurp up any gruel offered to trash one's political adversaries and lionize one's own.
...

Unless/until you can back up your earlier ("false", "lies", "brazen partisanship", etc.) assertions, I'm afraid that the above can only be described as a prime example of ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection.

ps:
I didn't provide a link to the definition/description of the term "projection" for your benefit. I'm fully aware that you're fully aware of its meaning.



EDITED TO ADD:

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 12 2012, 02:55 PM) *
...
... 1) she actually does have Native American blood ...
...

Got evidence thereof that amounts to more than, say, "I saw/heard it on Rachel Maddow's show"?

Posted by: nighttimer May 13 2012, 03:56 AM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 12 2012, 10:28 PM) *
Got evidence thereof that amounts to more than, say, "I saw/heard it on Rachel Maddow's show"?


Let us take a moment to bask in the staggering chutzpah and odious hypocrisy of an individual who started a thread to wonder how a 16-year-old girl SHOULD have responded to her boyfriend's death now demanding "evidence" about anything. dry.gif

But for giggles, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/elizabeth-warren-minority-status_n_1508060.html.

QUOTE
BOSTON -- Records show that the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts identified her race as "white" on an employment record at the University of Texas and declined to apply for admission to Rutgers Law School under a program for minority students.

The records on Elizabeth Warren were obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday. Warren's heritage has been under scrutiny after it surfaced that she had listed herself as having Native American heritage in law school directories.

Warren's campaign said the records reinforce her earlier statements that she never relied on a claim of minority status to get teaching jobs. She has criticized the campaign of Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown for suggesting that might be the case.

A third document obtained by the AP Thursday indicated that the University of Pennsylvania, where Warren also worked, identified her as a minority professor.

Brown has called on Warren to release all law school applications and personnel files from the universities where she taught.

Warren worked at the University of Texas from 1983 to 1987, when she took a job at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

A report by a committee established to review the status of minority faculty at the University of Pennsylvania identifies Warren as a minority, however, without elaborating.

The new documents paint a fuller picture of Warren's law school record.

On the Rutgers application, Warren wrote "No" in response to the question: "Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?"

Warren graduated from Rutgers in 1976.

On a personnel file from the University of Texas, Warren checked the box "White" when asked to select "the racial category or categories with which you most closely identify."

The categories included a box for "American Indian or Alaska Native," which Warren did not check.


If this is the worst akaCG and the right-wing blogs he frequents to find out what he should be hot and bothered about have to throw at Elizabeth Warren, they don't have much to slow her down from making Scott Brown an asterisk in Massachusetts politics.

This matters even less than Romney's 50-year-old bullying story. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: akaCG May 13 2012, 04:24 AM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 12 2012, 11:56 PM) *
...
But for giggles, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/elizabeth-warren-minority-status_n_1508060.html.
...

Duuuude, ...

That's the very same article that "Raptavio" already cited earlier, and which I already addressed in my response to him.

Sure hope you don't mind if I respond to your post by quoting none other than ... you:

"http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=21594&view=findpost&p=100005796" (alternative phrasing: "http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=21594&view=findpost&p=100004874")

Good grief.


Posted by: nighttimer May 13 2012, 04:42 AM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 12:24 AM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 12 2012, 11:56 PM) *
...
But for giggles, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/elizabeth-warren-minority-status_n_1508060.html.
...

Duuuude, ...

That's the very same article that "Raptavio" already cited earlier, and which I already addressed in my response to him.

Sure hope you don't mind if I respond to your post by quoting none other than ... you:

"http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=21594&view=findpost&p=100005796" (alternative phrasing: "http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=21594&view=findpost&p=100004874")

Good grief.


Here's the thing Charlie Brown, Raptavio cited the very same article. I'm quoting it. See the difference?

Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to debunk the following statement: Records show that the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts identified her race as white" on an employment record at the University of Texas and declined to apply for admission to Rutgers Law School under a program for minority students.

When you do that you'll have something substantial worthy of debating. As it stands, you don't.

Stick to fantasizing on how a 16-year-old girl thinks. You're no good at that either, but at least there you can make things up as you go along. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: akaCG May 13 2012, 05:23 AM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 13 2012, 12:42 AM) *
...
Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to debunk the following statement: Records show that the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts identified her race as white" on an employment record at the University of Texas and declined to apply for admission to Rutgers Law School under a program for minority students.
...

Heh. Nice try.

Your assignment, my dear chap, should you choose to accept it, is to explain Ms. Warren's choice to "suddenly" declare herself as a "minority" in such close temporal proximity to her becoming employed in the Ivy League (first at Penn, then at Harvard; see list below).

List of Ivy League universities/colleges (alphabetical; bolding mine; note: no part of the University of Texas or Rutgers University feature in it):

Brown University

Columbia University

Cornell University

Dartmouth College

Harvard University

Princeton University

University of Pennsylvania

Yale University


Again, ...

Good grief.


Posted by: nighttimer May 13 2012, 07:11 AM

Explain what? What is a listing of Ivy League schools supposed to mean anyway?

Despite Fox News frothing at the mouth and you regurgitating it here, there's no evidence that Warren herself described herself as a minority at Harvard or Penn University. The burden falls upon you dear boy to prove she did, not me to prove she didn't.

I'm not even sure why anyone cares if Warren did list herself as a minority. Does it matter that Scott Brown was a http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/151025/Scott_Brown_centerfold.jpg? Is it really more important than http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220512experts_jpmorgan_loss_lizs_gain/ to voters such as big banks blowing billions of dollars in high-risk investments?

QUOTE
Questions have arisen as to whether Warren used supposed Cherokee ancestry to take advantage of universities' minority-hiring programs.

Paleologos said JPMorgan’s losses give Warren an opening to push the scandal to the back burner.

"You've got an issue working against Elizabeth Warren followed by an issue that’s working for (her)," he said. "Both may cancel each other out."

A Boston Herald/UMass-Lowell poll this fall showed that Warren’s Wall Street stance resonates with voters.

Respondents picked her over Brown 47 percent to 29 percen
t when asked who "would do a better job of proposing appropriate regulation of Wall Street."

UMass-Lowell professor Frank Talty said such numbers "show that voters in Massachusetts agree with her (stance)" on the issue.


When the voters go to the polls in November we will have to see if they consider a meaningless politically-motivated flap over how much Cherokee blood Elizabeth Warren has matters more than which candidate would do a better job of keeping arrogant bankers like Jaime Dimon in check.

Posted by: AuthorMusician May 13 2012, 12:03 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 12 2012, 10:28 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 12 2012, 02:55 PM) *
...
... 1) she actually does have Native American blood ...
...

Got evidence thereof that amounts to more than, say, "I saw/heard it on Rachel Maddow's show"?


Apparently there is a paper trail on this:

QUOTE
BOSTON -- A genealogist in Massachusetts has uncovered evidence that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren does have Native American heritage as she claims.

Christopher Child of the New England Historic and Genealogy Society said Monday he found an 1894 document in which Warren's great-great-great grandmother is listed as Cherokee, which would make the Harvard Law School professor 1/32nd American Indian. Child says more research is needed.


http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e198ec0c53c4401fa2ee5149e13d4927/US--Massachusetts-Senate/

That's good enough for me, but since plenty of evidence has been brought forth that Warren never misused her Native American heritage to get ahead, it's rather moot. The big fraud therefore goes to the Brown campaign and the right-wing echo chamber.

Posted by: akaCG May 13 2012, 03:35 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 13 2012, 03:11 AM) *
... What is a listing of Ivy League schools supposed to mean anyway?...
...

"Funny" how Ms. Warren discovered her Native American roots just prior to making it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school_rankings_in_the_United_States#Schools_that_rank_in_the_top_14_.28aka_
.22T14.22.29.

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 13 2012, 03:11 AM) *
...
... there's no evidence that Warren herself described herself as a minority at Harvard or Penn University. ...
...

Yeah, I'm sure that Penn and then Harvard just took it upon themselves, utterly unbeknownst to her, to list her as a minority. Uh huh.

Here's your evidence, coming to you from Warren herself (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):
"I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061128808

Are Ms. Warren's own words sufficient evidence of her having described herself as a minority, Mr. Journalist?

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 13 2012, 08:03 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 12 2012, 10:28 PM) *

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 12 2012, 02:55 PM) *

...
... 1) she actually does have Native American blood ...
...

Got evidence thereof that amounts to more than, say, "I saw/heard it on Rachel Maddow's show"?

Apparently there is a paper trail on this:
...
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e198ec0c53c4401fa2ee5149e13d4927/US--Massachusetts-Senate/
...

That paper trail turned out to be bogus (i.e. debunked). I provided a link regarding this in the Opening Post. Here it is again, in more explicit form:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/genealogist-who-claimed-elizabeth-warren-was-132-cherokee-goes-silent-as-source-document-exposed-as-false/



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 13 2012, 08:03 AM) *
...
... plenty of evidence has been brought forth that Warren never misused her Native American heritage to get ahead, ...
...

Such as?

Posted by: nighttimer May 13 2012, 03:35 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 11:05 AM) *
Here's your evidence, coming to you from Warren herself (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):
"I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061128808

Are Ms. Warren's own words sufficient evidence of her having described herself as a minority, Mr. Journalist?


It might have been--had you not chosen to omit the rest of her "own words," Mr. Innuendo.

I'll correct that particular oversight by you. (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):
QUOTE
The Harvard Law professor argued she didn’t use her minority status to get her teaching jobs, and slammed her Republican rival U.S. Sen.Scott Brown for suggesting otherwise.

"The only one as I understand it who’s raising any question about whether or not I was qualified for my job is Scott Brown and I think I am qualified and frankly I'm a little shocked to hear anybody raise a question about whether or not I'm qualified to hold a job teaching," she said, pushing to put Brown on defense. "What does he think it takes for a woman to be qualified?"

Warren is looking to shake off the story of her Native American background, which has hounded her since the Herald first reported that Harvard Law School has touted Warren as a minority hire. She also listed herself as a minority in a law school directory for nine years between 1986 and 1995.

"Being Native American has been part of my story I guess since the day I was born," said Warren, who never mentioned her Native American heritage on the campaign trail even as she detailed much of her personal history to voters in speeches, statements and a video. "These are my family stories, I have lived in a family that has talked about Native American and talked about tribes since I was a little girl."


The obvious purpose by Scott Brown, Fox News and Mr. Innuendo who leans heavily on right-wing blogs and Wikipedia entries is to drop hints, imply slyly and try to suggest Warren unfairly cast herself as a minority to gain advantage and positions she wasn't qualified for.

If you can't win on the issues, try to make the other candidate the issue. It's an old playbook, but without any proof Warren claimed to be Native American to boost her career http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/us/politics/elizabeth-warrens-ancestry-irrelevant-in-hiring-law-schools-say.html

QUOTE
The Warren campaign confirmed on Monday that Ms. Warren had listed herself as a minority member in a legal directory, but that she had done nothing wrong and that Mr. Brown was creating smoke where there was no fire.

The Warren campaign has offered no hard proof that she is of American Indian heritage. But neither has the Brown campaign proved that she has benefited personally from the claim.

On Monday night, officials involved in her hiring at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Texas and the University of Houston Law Center all said that she was hired because she was an outstanding teacher, and that her lineage was either not discussed or not a factor.

"To suggest that she needed some special advantage to be hired here or anywhere is just silly," said Jay Westbrook, chairman of business law at the University of Texas.

Officials at the University of Texas said earlier on Monday that electronic records listed Ms. Warren as white. "Based on a preliminary search of electronic records, her ethnicity group is white," said Annela Lopez, the university's open records coordinator.


Looks like the Republican War on Women has opened a breathtakingly cynical new front. dry.gif


Posted by: akaCG May 13 2012, 04:23 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 13 2012, 11:35 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 11:05 AM) *

Here's your evidence, coming to you from Warren herself (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):
"I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061128808

Are Ms. Warren's own words sufficient evidence of her having described herself as a minority, Mr. Journalist?

It might have been--had you not chosen to omit the rest of her "own words," Mr. Innuendo.

I'll correct that particular oversight by you. (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):
QUOTE
The Harvard Law professor argued she didn’t use her minority status to get her teaching jobs, and slammed her Republican rival U.S. Sen.Scott Brown for suggesting otherwise.

"The only one as I understand it who’s raising any question about whether or not I was qualified for my job is Scott Brown and I think I am qualified and frankly I'm a little shocked to hear anybody raise a question about whether or not I'm qualified to hold a job teaching," she said, pushing to put Brown on defense. "What does he think it takes for a woman to be qualified?"

Warren is looking to shake off the story of her Native American background, which has hounded her since the Herald first reported that Harvard Law School has touted Warren as a minority hire. She also listed herself as a minority in a law school directory for nine years between 1986 and 1995.

"Being Native American has been part of my story I guess since the day I was born," said Warren, who never mentioned her Native American heritage on the campaign trail even as she detailed much of her personal history to voters in speeches, statements and a video. "These are my family stories, I have lived in a family that has talked about Native American and talked about tribes since I was a little girl."

...

LOL.

Neither of the bolded bits has anything whatsoever to do with your earlier claim that there is no evidence that she described herself as a minority at Penn and then Harvard.

Man oh man. You can't even keep track of what argument you're trying to provide support for, it seems.

Sheesh.


Posted by: nighttimer May 13 2012, 04:47 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 12:23 PM) *
Neither of the bolded bits has anything whatsoever to do with your earlier claim that there is no evidence that she described herself as a minority at Penn and then Harvard.

Man oh man. You can't even keep track of what argument you're trying to provide support for, it seems.


Oh, that's okay. Because you haven't provided any evidence to support the contention Warren unjustly claimed minority status to boost her career.

Which is expected from someone who relies upon Wikipedia entries, right-wing blogs and a dead propagandist and smear merchant for his information.

Maybe you should stick to speculating what traumatized teenage girls think? blink.gif

Posted by: akaCG May 13 2012, 05:17 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 13 2012, 12:47 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 12:23 PM) *
Neither of the bolded bits has anything whatsoever to do with your earlier claim that there is no evidence that she described herself as a minority at Penn and then Harvard.

Man oh man. You can't even keep track of what argument you're trying to provide support for, it seems.

Oh, that's okay. Because you haven't provided any evidence to support the contention Warren unjustly claimed minority status to boost her career.
...

Other than evidence that she did indeed check the "Native American" box as she was climbing into the law school big leagues and evidence that the quality of the scholarship that put her "on the map" was so shoddy that it was described as not even rising to the level of a Harvard College undergraduate, let alone a Harvard Law School prof, that is.

Oy vey.


Posted by: Raptavio May 13 2012, 11:22 PM

Oy vey yourself.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-12/news/31681374_1_elizabeth-warren-native-american-harvard-law-school

QUOTE
Officials at the colleges where she worked said the question of her heritage either didn’t come up, or had no effect on their hiring decision.


Perhaps it's time for you, akaCG, to present evidence that her hiring at any of the universities in question had anything to do with a claimed Native American heritage.

Also, an organization that refuses to get involved in a right-wing witch hunt is not, as described by you and the article you cited, running away or backing down. They're treating yellow journalism and idiotic politics as they should be treated.

Posted by: trumpetplayer May 14 2012, 12:23 AM

Warren has MUCH to explain.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/upenn-also-called-elizabeth-warren-a-minority-in-diversity-report/

Posted by: akaCG May 14 2012, 12:31 AM

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 13 2012, 07:22 PM) *
Oy vey yourself.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-12/news/31681374_1_elizabeth-warren-native-american-harvard-law-school

QUOTE
Officials at the colleges where she worked said the question of her heritage either didn’t come up, or had no effect on their hiring decision.

...

I woudn't have expected them to say anything else. I can only imagine the grief (including the lawsuit kind) they would catch from the Native American community as a result of a spot that would have gone to a real Native American going to someone whose claims to Native American heritage have been demonstrated to be bogus.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 13 2012, 07:22 PM) *
...
Perhaps it's time for you, akaCG, to present evidence that her hiring at any of the universities in question had anything to do with a claimed Native American heritage.
...

The evidence I've presented is quite sufficient for reasonable suspicion thereof, especially when coupled with Ms. Warren's meandering explanations. This ain't either a civil or a criminal trial matter, and we're not in a courtroom.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 13 2012, 07:22 PM) *
...
Also, an organization that refuses to get involved in a right-wing witch hunt is not, as described by you and the article you cited, running away or backing down. They're treating yellow journalism and idiotic politics as they should be treated.

Nah. They got caught biting claiming more than they could chew show and changing their story a couple of times as a result. And it didn't even take http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/ to do it. So now, they're clamming up.

Mike Wallace would have approved. Well, maybe not, since it involves a Liberal politician involved in a tight election against a Republican.

Posted by: Raptavio May 14 2012, 01:33 AM

Right, akaCG's evidence is nil, and nil, and weasels by calling it 'reasonable' suspicion.

Done here.

Posted by: akaCG May 14 2012, 01:48 AM

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 13 2012, 09:33 PM) *
Right, akaCG's evidence is nil, and nil, and weasels by calling it 'reasonable' suspicion.

Done here.

Heh.

Having not been able to deal with the evidence pointing to the fraudulence of Ms. Warren's claims to Native American heritage and the shoddiness of her academic research work-product, which this thread is about (check out the OP), you declare that you're "Done here."

How utterly "shocking".


Posted by: AuthorMusician May 14 2012, 11:04 AM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 09:48 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 13 2012, 09:33 PM) *
Right, akaCG's evidence is nil, and nil, and weasels by calling it 'reasonable' suspicion.

Done here.

Heh.

Having not been able to deal with the evidence pointing to the fraudulence of Ms. Warren's claims to Native American heritage and the shoddiness of her academic research work-product, which this thread is about (check out the OP), you declare that you're "Done here."

How utterly "shocking".


Yeah, your mind is made up and there's nothing more that can be said about that. You have failed to show that Warren misused her documented Native American blood, or at lest what we actually know about it indicates documentation of some sort, for her own personal gain. The directory listing had nothing to do with her being hired, and it can be argued that she indeed is considered a minority -- a woman -- for such things as SBA loans, had she ever applied for such. Within the context of her job, she probably was in the minority.

Warren's family goes way back in this country, apparently. So does mine, to the French-Canadian bloodline on my father's side. Due to the lack of European women during the frontier days, many men took Native American wives, and since there were no county records at the time, the bloodlines went undocumented. I suspect this is so from other evidence, such as an expert hunter/trapper/trader as a brother, another brother who had the classic Native American nose and some other empirical observations, similar to the high cheekbone thing.

I suppose Warren could get a DNA test to prove to you that she is right and you are wrong, but why? It's obvious that your mind is made up, and that is that. There's no vote to be gained, nor any votes to be lost if she merely ignores this barking noise from the far right from here on out.

I suppose this can be said: The swiftboating of Warren failed, but that will be more certain after Brown gets sent packing.

Posted by: akaCG May 14 2012, 04:21 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 14 2012, 07:04 AM) *
...
... You have failed to show that Warren misused her documented Native American blood, or at lest what we actually know about it indicates documentation of some sort, for her own personal gain.
...

1. There is no documentation backing up Warren's claim of Native American blood that wouldn't be laughed out of any self-respecting genealogy "court":
QUOTE
...
No reputable genealogist or genealogical organization would ever use a family newsletter by an amateur genealogist as the basis for an opinion. They require direct documentation from a certified copy of a birth or marriage certificate or some other objective evidence. While family newsletters, or family web postings may provide a useful tip as to where the real documentation may be, they are just as likely to be dead wrong encrustations of family myth that may or may not be true, but can’t be proven.
While family members may find these myths of interest, professionals like the New England Historic Genealogical Society and Christopher Child, or the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, where I have served on the Heraldry Committee, will not accept them as documentation for any kind of genealogical claim. And they certainly won’t take a chance of embarrassing themselves professionally by making a public statement on the basis of flimsy evidence they regard as little more than rumor.
...
... what in the world did the more than 160 year old New England Historic Genealogical Society and its genealogist Christopher Child think they were doing taking what they knew was only a family rumor, putting their own reputation behind it, and plastering it all over the press?
...
... now that the actual document has surfaced, attested to by the local state officer in charge of these vital records, they have refused to comment or revise their much-ballyhooed statements to the press on Warren’s Cherokee heritage. If they continue to do so, they will have gone well beyond making a professional error.
...
... barring a recantation, it appears the venerable New England Historic Genealogical Society and Christopher Child have colluded in an election fraud upon the people of Massachusetts to publicly and repeatedly advantage a candidate from the Harvard Law School for political office at the expense of their own professional standards and the evidence now staring them in the face. It is time for the press to call them to account.
...

Link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/tom-lipscomb-mrs-warrens-profession-contd.php

Well, fat chance of that last bit happening.

2.
Whether Warren (and Penn and Harvard) gamed the affirmative action system is a side issue in this thread, one which has been foisted onto it by your side (beginning with post #5), as a way to avoid addressing in any substantive way the two issues brought up in the opening post (Warren's claim of Native American blood and the quality of her academic work).

Do I think that Warren (and Penn and Harvard) did indeed game the affirmative action system? Yup. Do I have "beyond a reasonable doubt" type evidence thereof? Nope. No more than you have "beyond a reasonable doubt" type evidence to support the following:
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 14 2012, 07:04 AM) *
...
... The directory listing had nothing to do with her being hired, ...
...

But there IS at least "preponderance of evidence"-level support for the claim that Warren is no more Native American than the average lily white blue eyed Oklahoman whose family history goes back to the late 1800s. And there IS at least "preponderance of evidence"-level support for the claim that Warren's scholarship (the medical bankruptcy research that put her on the academic "map" and made her a hero of the Left, anyway) is woefully shoddy at best and perhaps even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles#Emory_investigation_and_resignation-level fraudulent at worst.

And I have provided it.

And what has been the response? A smorgasbord of (paraphrasing) "Doesn't matter. Her intentions are good.", "Eh. Big dealio. Academics criticize each other's work all the time.", "Foxrightwingblogspropagandawitchhuntyellowjournalismechochamberwaronwomenli
es, so there."

Mighty "impressive", gotta say.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 14 2012, 07:04 AM) *
...
... and it can be argued that she indeed is considered a minority -- a woman -- for such things as SBA loans, had she ever applied for such. Within the context of her job, she probably was in the minority.
...

Yes, that can indeed be argued. Risibly. Not least, of course, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with her claim of Native American blood.


Posted by: AuthorMusician May 14 2012, 06:27 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 14 2012, 12:21 PM) *
Yes, that can indeed be argued. Risibly. Not least, of course, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with her claim of Native American blood.


Just for grins, when did she claim this and in what context? Are you only going by a directory entry? And was she actually listed as a Native American or merely as a minority faculty member? I'm wondering how much of this hand-to-mouth disease is self-inflicted.

Posted by: Raptavio May 14 2012, 08:03 PM

On the 2010 "The Atlantic" report by Megan McArdle attacking Warren's scholarship, cited by the hit piece in Investors.com at the top of this article:

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/megan-mcardle-s-hack-post-elizabeth-warren-s-scholarship

Submitted for your consideration.

Was McArdle's critique valid peer review, or just a shoddy hit job of its own?

Posted by: Paladin Elspeth May 14 2012, 08:13 PM

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 14 2012, 04:03 PM) *
On the 2010 "The Atlantic" report by Megan McArdle attacking Warren's scholarship, cited by the hit piece in Investors.com at the top of this article:

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/megan-mcardle-s-hack-post-elizabeth-warren-s-scholarship

Submitted for your consideration.

Was McArdle's critique valid peer review, or just a shoddy hit job of its own?

Looks like McArdle needs to reconsider calling other people hacks. Thank you for the link.

And while we're at it, just what were Scott Brown's credentials for recommending him to the U.S. Senate in the first place? After all, he is the one whom Ms. Warren hopes to replace.

Has Scott Brown laid claim to any sort of gravitas?

Posted by: Raptavio May 14 2012, 08:16 PM

On Dranove's rebuke of the 2005 report of which Warren was a co-author:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/03/medical-bankrup/

QUOTE
Dranove took $5,000 from the nation’s health insurance industry for his report, which he says he now regrets for the criticism of his impartiality it’s engendered.


Also, Himmelstein, Warren, et. al., tore apart Dranove's rebuke as well: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w84.abstract

From the above ABCnews link:
QUOTE
Himmelstein’s referred me to a 2006 paper in which he replied to Dranove, whom he accuses of “several out and out errors.” Says Himmelstein: “They were paid by the insurance industry to make this critique… They were hired guns out to try and make a point, and used a variety of illegitimate techniques to make that point.”


Posted by: Amlord May 14 2012, 09:09 PM

1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

Her heritage is irrelevant. I'll take her at her word that she has Cherokee in her blood.

Her scholarship is debatable but being a great scholar does not lead to being an effective politician. I do think it is the more relevant issue, however, because it shows her mindset: that the medical system in this country is broken. Some voters in Massachusetts may prefer this type of politician while I do not.

2. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) should cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

The heritage piece is likely to have more traction. Ordinary voters aren't focused on whether Elizabeth Warren is a good lawyer or a good researcher.

Like it or not, this is the type of hit piece journalism that might cause a close election to go against her. Who knows what Massachusetts voters place emphasis on? Probably the sensationalism of claiming to be a minority is my guess.

Posted by: BoF May 14 2012, 09:19 PM

QUOTE(Amlord @ May 14 2012, 04:09 PM) *
Like it or not, this is the type of hit piece journalism that might cause a close election to go against her. Who knows what Massachusetts voters place emphasis on? Probably the sensationalism of claiming to be a minority is my guess.


There is also a possibility that the negativity may backfire.

Right now it looks too close to call.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html

One of the things political scientist will try to answer in the next decade or so, is whether all the negativity and money unleashed by Citizens United has diminishing returns.


(edited to remove unconstructive profanity reference)

Posted by: Raptavio May 14 2012, 10:03 PM

QUOTE(Amlord @ May 14 2012, 04:09 PM) *
1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

Her heritage is irrelevant. I'll take her at her word that she has Cherokee in her blood.

Her scholarship is debatable but being a great scholar does not lead to being an effective politician. I do think it is the more relevant issue, however, because it shows her mindset: that the medical system in this country is broken. Some voters in Massachusetts may prefer this type of politician while I do not.

2. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) should cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

The heritage piece is likely to have more traction. Ordinary voters aren't focused on whether Elizabeth Warren is a good lawyer or a good researcher.

Like it or not, this is the type of hit piece journalism that might cause a close election to go against her. Who knows what Massachusetts voters place emphasis on? Probably the sensationalism of claiming to be a minority is my guess.



It's a rare moment when Amlord posts something where I largely agree with him. This is one of those times. The only place we differ is that I agree with Dr. Warren that the medical system in this country is broken.

Posted by: AuthorMusician May 15 2012, 01:10 PM

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 14 2012, 06:03 PM) *
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 14 2012, 04:09 PM) *
1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

Her heritage is irrelevant. I'll take her at her word that she has Cherokee in her blood.

Her scholarship is debatable but being a great scholar does not lead to being an effective politician. I do think it is the more relevant issue, however, because it shows her mindset: that the medical system in this country is broken. Some voters in Massachusetts may prefer this type of politician while I do not.

2. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) should cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

The heritage piece is likely to have more traction. Ordinary voters aren't focused on whether Elizabeth Warren is a good lawyer or a good researcher.

Like it or not, this is the type of hit piece journalism that might cause a close election to go against her. Who knows what Massachusetts voters place emphasis on? Probably the sensationalism of claiming to be a minority is my guess.



It's a rare moment when Amlord posts something where I largely agree with him. This is one of those times. The only place we differ is that I agree with Dr. Warren that the medical system in this country is broken.


Yes, and now Maddow is showing the clear difference between Brown and Warren: Brown is a Wall Street one-percenter surrogate who wants the taxpayer to pay for financial screw ups by the big shots, which he pulled off after the Meltdown of 2008. Warren wants to protect the rest of us from the breathtaking stupidity of the big shots, the cons who believe their own cons. It's in Maddow's opening clip from last night, which I just saw, so 5/14/12. Today is 5/15, and it's a nice sunny morning in Paradise (really, that's the name of this area).

This explains why these non-issues about Warren are so desperately promoted. The facts are against Brown's election, and his supporters know it. Ergo, they must attack Warren however they can, and this pathetic showing says volumes about how meager the pickings are. What's rather surprising is that the contest is so close right now, but let's just say that there is still plenty of time to publicly air Brown's record versus Warren's. I don't think the electorate of Massachusetts will be impressed with Brown. Rather the opposite. He did replace Ted Kennedy you know, one of the most reviled liberals of all time just about everywhere but the state in which he was reelected so many times, the state that forced Romney to go liberal in order to become governor.

I think the brown floater is about to be flushed.

Posted by: BoF May 15 2012, 03:55 PM

QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ May 13 2012, 07:23 PM) *
Warren has MUCH to explain.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/upenn-also-called-elizabeth-warren-a-minority-in-diversity-report/

Oh, I suppose both Warren and Brown have much to explain to the people of Massachusetts.

They don’t have a damned thing to explain to the sleazy Tucker Carlson or his equally sleazy electronic rag, The Daily Caller, or for that matter Investors.com.

The information - or propaganda spewing, emotion riling - sewers some people swim in never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: Ted May 16 2012, 02:19 PM

QUOTE(BoF @ May 15 2012, 11:55 AM) *
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ May 13 2012, 07:23 PM) *
Warren has MUCH to explain.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/upenn-also-called-elizabeth-warren-a-minority-in-diversity-report/

Oh, I suppose both Warren and Brown have much to explain to the people of Massachusetts.

They don’t have a damned thing to explain to the sleazy Tucker Carlson or his equally sleazy electronic rag, The Daily Caller, or for that matter Investors.com.

The information - or propaganda spewing, emotion riling - sewers some people swim in never ceases to amaze me.

so Bof - its ok to chase down Romney high school classmates and publish the little dirt they could dig up but its "sleazy" to question statements and actions by Warren? this goes well beyond "high school".

Its fair game and it will have an impact here in my state. She will lose to Brown. and imo it will not even be close

Posted by: BoF May 16 2012, 08:54 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 09:19 AM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ May 15 2012, 11:55 AM) *
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ May 13 2012, 07:23 PM) *
Warren has MUCH to explain.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/upenn-also-called-elizabeth-warren-a-minority-in-diversity-report/

Oh, I suppose both Warren and Brown have much to explain to the people of Massachusetts.

They don’t have a damned thing to explain to the sleazy Tucker Carlson or his equally sleazy electronic rag, The Daily Caller, or for that matter Investors.com.

The information - or propaganda spewing, emotion riling - sewers some people swim in never ceases to amaze me.

so Bof - its ok to chase down Romney high school classmates and publish the little dirt they could dig up but its "sleazy" to question statements and actions by Warren? this goes well beyond "high school".

Its fair game and it will have an impact here in my state. She will lose to Brown. and imo it will not even be close

Unlike many of us, you do have a vote to use against Elizabeth Warren.

You may be right about the outcome, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html

Meanwhile, welcome back and enjoy your swim.

Posted by: Ted May 16 2012, 08:55 PM

QUOTE(BoF @ May 16 2012, 04:54 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 09:19 AM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ May 15 2012, 11:55 AM) *
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ May 13 2012, 07:23 PM) *
Warren has MUCH to explain.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/upenn-also-called-elizabeth-warren-a-minority-in-diversity-report/

Oh, I suppose both Warren and Brown have much to explain to the people of Massachusetts.

They don’t have a damned thing to explain to the sleazy Tucker Carlson or his equally sleazy electronic rag, The Daily Caller, or for that matter Investors.com.

The information - or propaganda spewing, emotion riling - sewers some people swim in never ceases to amaze me.

so Bof - its ok to chase down Romney high school classmates and publish the little dirt they could dig up but its "sleazy" to question statements and actions by Warren? this goes well beyond "high school".

Its fair game and it will have an impact here in my state. She will lose to Brown. and imo it will not even be close

Unlike many of us, you do have a vote to use against Elizabeth Warren.

You may be right about the outcome, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html

Meanwhile, welcome back and enjoy your swim.

It will be close but imo Brown is doing a great job and will be re elected.

Posted by: nighttimer May 16 2012, 09:19 PM

Wanna see a new land speed record for flip-flopping? unsure.gif

Here's Ted at 10:19:

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 10:19 AM) *
She will lose to Brown. and imo it will not even be close.


And here's Ted at 04:55 following a reality check by BoF:

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 04:55 PM) *
It will be close but imo Brown is doing a great job and will be re elected.


Check back in a few hours when Ted next looks in his cracked crystal ball and proclaims, "Elizabeth Warren will be a great senator. Or she may not. In my opinion." wacko.gif

Posted by: Ted May 16 2012, 09:22 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 16 2012, 05:19 PM) *
Wanna see a new land speed record for flip-flopping? unsure.gif

Here's Ted at 10:19:

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 10:19 AM) *
She will lose to Brown. and imo it will not even be close.


And here's Ted at 04:55 following a reality check by BoF:

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 04:55 PM) *
It will be close but imo Brown is doing a great job and will be re elected.


Check back in a few hours when Ted next looks in his cracked crystal ball and proclaims, "Elizabeth Warren will be a great senator. Or she may not. In my opinion." wacko.gif

I said it MAY not even be close.

Nice try though. You have anything constructive to add?

Posted by: akaCG May 16 2012, 09:30 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 05:22 PM) *
...
I said it MAY not even be close.
...

C'mon, man. You did no such thing. Be a mensch, wouldja please?


Posted by: BoF May 16 2012, 09:33 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 04:22 PM) *
I said it MAY not even be close.

Nice try though. You have anything constructive to add?

Try tellling the truth, Ted.

NT did not edit your statement.

Here it is verbatim including the fact that you didn’t end the sentence with a period.
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 09:19 AM) *
Its fair game and it will have an impact here in my state. She will lose to Brown. and imo it will not even be close

Maybe you intended to edit the statement to include the word "may" but never got around to it.

You are stuck with what you wrote. Love it or leave it. laugh.gif

Posted by: nighttimer May 16 2012, 09:53 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 05:22 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 16 2012, 05:19 PM) *
Wanna see a new land speed record for flip-flopping? unsure.gif

Here's Ted at 10:19:

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 10:19 AM) *
She will lose to Brown. and imo it will not even be close.


And here's Ted at 04:55 following a reality check by BoF:

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 04:55 PM) *
It will be close but imo Brown is doing a great job and will be re elected.


Check back in a few hours when Ted next looks in his cracked crystal ball and proclaims, "Elizabeth Warren will be a great senator. Or she may not. In my opinion." wacko.gif

I said it MAY not even be close.

Nice try though. You have anything constructive to add?


Oh, sure. Lots. Scads. Tons. All kinds of constructive things to add.

But I'm not doing that right now. Right now I'm watching you try---and not at all successfully---to weasel out of your words. You never said "may". You never even used the word. C'mon, Ted. Don't you think anyone on this board can read? Wassup with that?

You were predicting the race between Warren and Brownt wouldn't be close before you were predicting it would be. Now if that's not a flip-flop so big even Mitt Romney might have to say, "damn, son", then what is?

Own your words, bub. mrsparkle.gif

Meanwhile, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0509-page-20120509,0,7947042.column weighs in on Warren's Cherokee controversy:

QUOTE
So what if Elizabeth Warren claims to be part Native American? She's entitled, according to historical documents. Besides, Americans never have been all that clear or consistent about what distinguishes one race from another.

Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts is calling on his Democratic challenger Warren to clear the air over questions raised by the Boston Herald as to whether she used her ancient and diluted Indian heritage to give herself an unfair employment advantage.

At least she's not lying about her background. Historical records appear to confirm that she has Cherokee ancestors. But is her background Indian enough?

The Herald reported that Warren used to list herself as Native American in law school directories while teaching at several law schools across the country in the 1980s and '90s.

She dropped the reference from her biography after she was hired at Harvard Law School in the 1990s at a time when protesting students and faculty had been pressuring the school to hire more minority female faculty. The law school says it has one faculty member of Native American heritage, according to reports, but won't say which one.

If Warren was claiming Indian ancestry when it worked to her benefit, she was following another American tradition, writes David Treur, an Ojibwe Indian from northern Minnesota and author of "Rez Life: An Indian's Journey Through Reservation Life."

"An Indian identity has become a commodity," he recently wrote in The Washington Post, "though not one that is openly traded. It has real value in only a few places; the academy is one of them. And like most commodities, it is largely controlled by the elite."

Posted by: Raptavio May 16 2012, 10:26 PM

I see why Ted is so enamored with people like Scott Brown and Mitt Romney.

Posted by: akaCG May 17 2012, 12:10 AM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 16 2012, 05:53 PM) *
...
Meanwhile, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0509-page-20120509,0,7947042.column weighs in on Warren's Cherokee controversy:
QUOTE
So what if Elizabeth Warren claims to be part Native American? She's entitled, according to historical documents. ...
...
At least she's not lying about her background. Historical records appear to confirm that she has Cherokee ancestors. ...
...

...

Page's article is a week old. Lots has happened since then. As it turns out, there are no historical documents that confirm that Ms. Warren has any Cherokee ancestors and would therefore entitle her to claim to be part Native American. Other than falsely, that is.

Perhaps you could put your journalistic communication channels to good use and forward the following, written by a http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/p/about-me.html, to Mr. Page:
QUOTE
...
Dear Ms. Warren,

I am writing this letter in the hope it will help end the current situation you have found yourself in. It seems you are being ripped apart in the media because of your claim of Cherokee ancestry and you don't like it. According to a recent article in the Boston Globe, you believe your opponent is "creating a distraction" by "ridiculously" attacking you "with questions that have already been answered." It seems you would like the "attacks" against your claims of Cherokee ancestry to stop so I thought I would offer some advice on how to make it stop.

Tell the truth.
...
You have claimed something you had no right to claim -- our history and our heritage and our identity. Those things belong to us, and us alone. These are not things we choose to embrace when they benefit us and then cast aside when we no longer need them, but that is what you seem to have done by "checking a box" for several years and then no longer "checking" it more recently, when apparently you no longer needed it.

Of course, you say you only "checked the box" in an attempt to meet others like you, but that doesn't make sense. If one is claiming to be Cherokee and wants to meet other Cherokees, they don't "check a box" on a job application or in a directory for their profession! They go to where Cherokees are.
...

Link: http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/2012/05/letter-to-elizaeth-warren.html

That way, Mr. Page could contact Ms. Twila Barnes (the author of the above-quoted letter) and perhaps be inspired to write a fresh article on the matter.

EDITED TO ADD:

Speaking of "checking" and un-"checking" minority "boxes", as well as the timing thereof, ...

Even a senior editor at the New Yorker magazine (widely known as a rightwingyellowjournalismpropaganda publication1) is, ever so gingerly, finding reason to raise her eyebrows, as it were:
QUOTE
...
What makes her identification with the tribe feel scattershot, if not outright opportunistic, is that she reportedly only listed herself publicly that way from about 1986 until the mid-nineties, in her first academic posts, and then stopped doing so after getting the appointment at Harvard. ...
...
She put herself down as Native American for the lunch invitations, and stopped when none were forthcoming? Hearing that from a woman who knows how to be straightforward—and who would now surely be able to issue some invitations on her own—one can’t help but wince. ... The problem is that even if you accept Warren’s explanation entirely at face value—that this was all about a Native American woman looking for other Native Americans to talk to—it doesn’t sound good. She doesn’t appear to have looked very hard, for one thing. ... what Warren is saying is that when she was a junior faculty member, and relatively powerless, she opened herself up, waiting to be asked; as a senior professor, and in a position to be the asker, or at least a resource, she took her name off the list.
...

Link: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/05/elizabeth-warrens-native-american-question.html

1Sarcasm.

Posted by: Ted May 17 2012, 12:58 AM

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 16 2012, 06:26 PM) *
I see why Ted is so enamored with people like Scott Brown and Mitt Romney.

ya lets stick with Obama who hasn't kept a promise since they jammed the HC Bill through. I am sure it works for you Rap

As for flipping - Obama own the title there. liberals are still waiting for that cap n trade bill ..............

nice list here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html

Posted by: BoF May 17 2012, 02:32 AM

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 07:58 PM) *
ya lets stick with Obama who hasn't kept a promise since they jammed the HC Bill through. I am sure it works for you Rap

This thread is about a state race. It's taken you a morning and evening shift to get it off track. Congratulations. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: akaCG May 17 2012, 02:40 AM

QUOTE(BoF @ May 16 2012, 10:32 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 07:58 PM) *
ya lets stick with Obama who hasn't kept a promise since they jammed the HC Bill through. I am sure it works for you Rap

This thread is about a state race. It's taken you a morning and evening shift to get it off track. Congratulations. thumbsup.gif

Relax, "BoF".

"Ted" (or any other single ad.gif-er, for that matter) is no more capable of single-handedly getting a thread off track than you, no matter how hard you might try, are.


Posted by: AuthorMusician May 17 2012, 12:16 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 16 2012, 10:40 PM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ May 16 2012, 10:32 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 07:58 PM) *
ya lets stick with Obama who hasn't kept a promise since they jammed the HC Bill through. I am sure it works for you Rap

This thread is about a state race. It's taken you a morning and evening shift to get it off track. Congratulations. thumbsup.gif

Relax, "BoF".

"Ted" (or any other single ad.gif-er, for that matter) is no more capable of single-handedly getting a thread off track than you, no matter how hard you might try, are.


Heh, but you have to admit that the "criticism" of Warren is a lot like the birther thing about Obama, except "fibbing" about having Native American blood carries none of the constitutional implications that being born on foreign soil does. It actually carries no "implication" whatsoever, so this train can't be derailed. It isn't a train at all, more like a little red wagon. That can lose a wheel.

Meanwhile, Brown has a dubious record while taking up "space" in the Senate. There's where the train is, and it's heading toward a wreck. All Warren has to do is point to that record and keep reminding the electorate of Massachusetts where his loyalties lie.

I've noticed that the academic papers thing has fizzled out. Guess nobody cares what the opinions are from some academecians (genus pedagogic slimiferous mustpublishit *).

* Pulled from the arse.

Posted by: Raptavio May 17 2012, 01:09 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 17 2012, 07:16 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 16 2012, 10:40 PM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ May 16 2012, 10:32 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 07:58 PM) *
ya lets stick with Obama who hasn't kept a promise since they jammed the HC Bill through. I am sure it works for you Rap

This thread is about a state race. It's taken you a morning and evening shift to get it off track. Congratulations. thumbsup.gif

Relax, "BoF".

"Ted" (or any other single ad.gif-er, for that matter) is no more capable of single-handedly getting a thread off track than you, no matter how hard you might try, are.


Heh, but you have to admit that the "criticism" of Warren is a lot like the birther thing about Obama, except "fibbing" about having Native American blood carries none of the constitutional implications that being born on foreign soil does. It actually carries no "implication" whatsoever, so this train can't be derailed. It isn't a train at all, more like a little red wagon. That can lose a wheel.

Meanwhile, Brown has a dubious record while taking up "space" in the Senate. There's where the train is, and it's heading toward a wreck. All Warren has to do is point to that record and keep reminding the electorate of Massachusetts where his loyalties lie.

I've noticed that the academic papers thing has fizzled out. Guess nobody cares what the opinions are from some academecians (genus pedagogic slimiferous mustpublishit *).

* Pulled from the arse.


Oh, I wouldn't let Ted pull me off course with his howlers of lies. But I did find it amusing that he lies in his support of serial liars. When even akaCG refuses to back him up you know his pants are on fire.

I like your comparison of this Warren non-issue with the birther non-issue. I also agree the academic issue has no legs, given the two easily rebuttable criticisms of her papers came from A) a rank partisan and cool.gif someone paid off to write his criticism, which even he admits reflects poorly on his own credibility.

Part of what makes this interesting to me is that I have little doubt Warren never lied about her heritage. It's entirely possible she was mistaken -- I was mistaken about my own Native heritage for many years until we did the genealogical research. (I thought I was part Ojibwe/Chippewa; I'm actually part Mohawk, through a different line of my father's ancestry). So many of us in America have deeply mixed lineage; my own non-Native line arrived here as recently as the turn of the 20th century and as long ago as colonial times, so I can trace my lineage to half the countries in Western Europe. Most of us don't know our entire lineage and many of us have some confusion about that lineage. Something so ordinary as a potential mistaken belief about one's own history is becoming a political issue because Brown's supporters have to make big elections over small things.

The GOP has a real chance to recapture the Senate, and one thing they need to do to win is hold onto as many of their existing seats as possible. Massachusetts is one of the Democrats' best chances for a pickup and so the GOP is going to pour money into this race to hold it by any means necessary. And making this race about who Warren's great-great-grandpa is fares much better for Brown than making it about Brown's record as a Senator.

Posted by: Ted May 17 2012, 02:53 PM

QUOTE
Oh, I wouldn't let Ted pull me off course with his howlers of lies. But I did find it amusing that he lies in his support of serial liars. When even akaCG refuses to back him up you know his pants are on fire
.


Rich coming from the likes of you Rap. If there is anyone who goes the extra mile to stretch reality for a (leftist) viewpoint its YOU. and akaCG eats your lunch in debate.

as for Warren i cant wait to vote against her and see her lose to Brown.

Posted by: akaCG May 17 2012, 03:48 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 17 2012, 08:16 AM) *
...
Heh, but you have to admit that the "criticism" of Warren is a lot like the birther thing about Obama, ...
...

Only to someone who can't tell the difference between a case involving documents that actually exist (i.e. in Obama's case) and one involving documents that actually don't (i.e. in Warren's case).

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 17 2012, 08:16 AM) *
...
I've noticed that the academic papers thing has fizzled out. ...
...

Nah. I've just been busy with the "Fauxcahontas" side of the topic, seeing as how it's the one where developments have advanced at a fast and furious pace over the last few days. See my response to "Raptavio" below, where I revisit the "academic papers thing".

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
... I did find it amusing that ["Ted"] lies in his support of serial liars. When even akaCG refuses to back him up you know his pants are on fire.
...

What I refused to back "Ted" up about is his obviously false contention that he said "maybe". He should have been a mensch and eaten his crow, regardless of the fact that it was served to him by "nighttimer". That's all.

Otherwise, I fully support "Ted" in his support of Scott Brown and opposition to Brown's serially lying opponent, Elizabeth "Dances with Hogwash" Warren.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
...
I like your comparison of this Warren non-issue with the birther non-issue. ...
...

See my response to "AM" on this above.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
...
... I also agree the academic issue has no legs, given the two easily rebuttable criticisms of her papers came from A) a rank partisan ...
...

Rebuttable? Sure. Rebutted, however? Nah.

And, as long as you're impugning McCardle's credibility on the basis of her "rank partisan[ship]", ... let's take a looksee at the source of the first "rebuttal" you cited - The Roosevelt Institute - which describes itself as follows (bolding mine):
QUOTE
...
The Roosevelt Institute is a nonprofit organization devoted to carrying forward the legacy and values of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt by developing progressive ideas ... The Roosevelt Institute is crafting a New Deal for the 21st century. Three pillars underpin this mission: developing and promoting compelling new ideas and bold long-term visions, developing the next generation of progressive leaders, ... Our goals are to promote economic growth now and in the future; push for more equitable distribution of wealth; ... The Four Freedoms Center think tank, launched in 2009, incubates and promotes rigorous, progressive policy ideas and value narratives, ... The Campus Network and Pipeline are developing the next generation of progressive leaders ...

Link: http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/about

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
...
... and someone paid off to write his criticism, which even he admits reflects poorly on his own credibility.
...

What he admits (and regrets) is that the source of his funding left him open to argumentum ad hominem attacks (e.g. "paid off") from people who "mysteriously" fail to apply such terms to those on their own ideological/partisan side (e.g. Roosevelt Institute).

ps1:
Here's the "easily rebuttable" Dranove & Millenson critique of the Warren et al. 2005 paper, btw, for anyone interested:

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/chime/papers/myth_vs_fact.pdf

ps2:
I've already debunked the notion that Dranove is a "rank partisan" earlier in the thread. Here, just in case anyone might tempted to advance it, is a preemptive debunking of the notion that Millenson is a "rank partisan" amenable to being "paid off" by Big Evil Insurance:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-millenson/health-care-reform_b_1394092.html


Posted by: nighttimer May 17 2012, 03:59 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ May 17 2012, 10:53 AM) *
Rich coming from the likes of you Rap. If there is anyone who goes the extra mile to stretch reality for a (leftist) viewpoint its YOU. and akaCG eats your lunch in debate.

as for Warren i cant wait to vote against her and see her lose to Brown.


Oh, so that's how you get to 10,000 posts. Limit your thoughts to lame one-liners and claim you said things you clearly did not and would know if you only read your own postings.

Something about your "eats your lunch" crack seemed familiar. Then I remembered who your choice was for Best Overall Debater.

QUOTE(Ted @ Aug 9 2011, 04:38 PM) *
akaCG is my choice


Well, at least we know where that http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=21104 came from.

Not much of a prognosticator, are ya, Ted? laugh.gif

Posted by: Ted May 17 2012, 04:01 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 17 2012, 11:59 AM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ May 17 2012, 10:53 AM) *
Rich coming from the likes of you Rap. If there is anyone who goes the extra mile to stretch reality for a (leftist) viewpoint its YOU. and akaCG eats your lunch in debate.

as for Warren i cant wait to vote against her and see her lose to Brown.


Oh, so that's how you get to 10,000 posts. Limit your thoughts to lame one-liners and claim you said things you clearly did not and would know if you only read your own postings.

Something about your "eats your lunch" crack seemed familiar. Then I remembered who your choice was for Best Overall Debater.

QUOTE(Ted @ Aug 9 2011, 04:38 PM) *
akaCG is my choice


Well, at least we know where that http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=21104 came from.

Not much of a prognosticator, are ya, Ted? laugh.gif

hey - each to his own NT.

and you know damn well most of my posts are not "one liners". .......

Posted by: Raptavio May 17 2012, 04:31 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 17 2012, 10:48 AM) *
What I refused to back "Ted" up about is his obviously false contention that he said "maybe". He should have been a mensch and eaten his crow, regardless of the fact that it was served to him by "nighttimer". That's all.


I didn't suggest otherwise.

QUOTE
Otherwise, I fully support "Ted" in his support of Scott Brown and opposition to Brown's serially lying opponent, Elizabeth "Dances with Hogwash" Warren.


Might as well protect the fanboy who keeps hiding behind your skirts, sure.
And you've certainly done your level best to paint her as such, based on very thin gruel indeed. Let us discuss that below.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
...
I like your comparison of this Warren non-issue with the birther non-issue. ...
...

See my response to "AM" on this above.


Actually it's all about documents that don't exist in both cases -- in Obama's, documents that show he's anything other than a native born American, and in Warren's, documents that show Warren received any preference in hiring due to claimed or actual minority status.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
...
... I also agree the academic issue has no legs, given the two easily rebuttable criticisms of her papers came from A) a rank partisan ...
...

Rebuttable? Sure. Rebutted, however? Nah.


No, both McCardle's and Dranove's criticisms were, in fact, rebutted, as I cited in both cases, and linked to the rebuttals of each. Which you concede below, so it baffles me why you say it wasn't done.

QUOTE
And, as long as you're impugning McCardle's credibility on the basis of her "rank partisan[ship]", ... let's take a looksee at the source of the first "rebuttal" you cited - The Roosevelt Institute -


I'm impugning her credibility on the basis of her complete misrepresentation of the facts, as detailed by the article published on the Roosevelt Institute's site. I'm impugning her motives based on her partisanship.

Feel free to find the flaws in the rebuttal though. You have the paper by Warren et. al., you have McCardle's article, you have the rebuttal -- have at it. I find that on the facts, that liberal partisan group you chose to dismiss without looking at the merits wins hands-down and makes McCardle look like a fact-free hit piece.

QUOTE
What he admits (and regrets) is that the source of his funding left him open to argumentum ad hominem attacks (e.g. "paid off") from people who "mysteriously" fail to apply such terms to those on their own ideological/partisan side (e.g. Roosevelt Institute).


An academic receiving money for a scholarly work when that money is for the express purpose of finding a predetermined conclusion is a violation of both academic and scientific rigor, particularly when that funding source is not fully and openly disclosed as a disclaimer in the paper. Dranove, at least, mentioned the funding source in a single line at the end of his paper.

QUOTE
ps1:
Here's the "easily rebuttable" Dranove & Millenson critique of the Warren et al. 2005 paper, btw, for anyone interested:

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/chime/papers/myth_vs_fact.pdf


And its rebuttal has already been linked as well. Odd you have nothing to say about it. You do like to bluster when you have nothing of substance to add....


QUOTE(Ted @ May 17 2012, 11:01 AM) *
hey - each to his own NT.

and you know damn well most of my posts are not "one liners". .......


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif Good thing you put a line break in there, sparky.

Note to akaCG: Feel free to assign a value to "sparky" on the "Dude" scale of offensiveness of terms of address.

Posted by: akaCG May 17 2012, 07:13 PM

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 12:31 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 17 2012, 10:48 AM) *

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *

...
I like your comparison of this Warren non-issue with the birther non-issue. ...
...

See my response to "AM" on this above.

Actually it's all about documents that don't exist in both cases -- in Obama's, documents that show he's anything other than a native born American, and in Warren's, documents that show Warren received any preference in hiring due to claimed or actual minority status.
...

Heh. "Nice" try at sleight-of-hand substitution, there. Still trying desperately to shift attention away from what the "Fauxcahontas" aspect of all this is about (i.e. the non-existence of documents backing up Warren's claims of Cherokee lineage) and pretending that it's about the non-existence of documents proving that she (and Penn and Harvard) gamed the affirmative action system, I see.

Tsk, tsk.

Your having to resort to the "documents that show he's anything other than a native born American" syntactical convolution for purposes of trying to make your "Actually, it's all about documents that don't exist in both cases" square peg appear round made me chuckle as well.

The problem, my dear "Raptavio", is that ...

... the "birther" argument involves denying the validity of Obama's claim to U.S. citizenship despite the fact that documents proving the validity of said claim DO exist, whereas ...

... the "Fauxcahontas" argument involves denying the validity of Warren's claim to Cherokee lineage because of the fact that documents proving the validity of her claim DO NOT exist.

Big difference.

Posted by: Raptavio May 17 2012, 08:40 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 17 2012, 02:13 PM) *
Heh. "Nice" try at sleight-of-hand substitution, there. Still trying desperately to shift attention away from what the "Fauxcahontas" aspect of all this is about (i.e. the non-existence of documents backing up Warren's claims of Cherokee lineage) and pretending that it's about the non-existence of documents proving that she (and Penn and Harvard) gamed the affirmative action system, I see.


Still trying desperately to shift attention away from any actual evidence of deception or use of minority status as employment leverage, I see.

Tsk, tsk.

Because -- guess what -- none of it matters, at all, without that.

And while you can make hay as much as you want over a question of Ms. Warren's claimed, believed, or actual heritage, it won't distract the voters from considering Scott Brown's record as Senator.

Scream it from the rooftops, akaCG, but like the tale told by an idiot, it will simply be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Posted by: AuthorMusician May 17 2012, 10:29 PM

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 04:40 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 17 2012, 02:13 PM) *
Heh. "Nice" try at sleight-of-hand substitution, there. Still trying desperately to shift attention away from what the "Fauxcahontas" aspect of all this is about (i.e. the non-existence of documents backing up Warren's claims of Cherokee lineage) and pretending that it's about the non-existence of documents proving that she (and Penn and Harvard) gamed the affirmative action system, I see.


Still trying desperately to shift attention away from any actual evidence of deception or use of minority status as employment leverage, I see.

Tsk, tsk.

Because -- guess what -- none of it matters, at all, without that.

And while you can make hay as much as you want over a question of Ms. Warren's claimed, believed, or actual heritage, it won't distract the voters from considering Scott Brown's record as Senator.

Scream it from the rooftops, akaCG, but like the tale told by an idiot, it will simply be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


Therein lies the rub, the question from the subtitle of this thread: Too fraudulent to be elected?

If no fraud had been committed, then there's no reason to even bring this up. Warren may have knowingly or unknowingly claimed Native American blood without the proper documentation that acaCG requires, but as with the academician argument, it's not up to him. It's up to the media and electorate to make this any sort of issue. Doesn't seem to be happening. Meanwhile, Warren has plenty of public performances from which to draw upon when she gets the campaign going full swing. She also can claim the initiative to get a consumer support branch of the government started so that people won't be fooled by various sneaky tricks, something that the Republicans fought fangs and claws against, with a few jabs of the trident thrown in there.

Well, however Warren decides to approach the campaign, she has lots to choose from. Brown? Not so much. Maybe enough for his base, but certainly not for the general electorate of Massachusetts.

You know, all those Ted Kennedy fans. Warren comes off as such a scrapper, and this could very well be her winning quality. Now with the endorsement of Ted as the loser, she's bound to win. You see, he figured that the Republicans were going to take all of Congress in 2010, but they only got the House. So that left them with just the filibuster angle to block legislation and no power to push their own agenda.

My prognostication is that a Demo super majority will happen in the Senate, and that the House will go back to the Demos because stuff really has to get done, and people know it now. The only party that has a chance of getting this stuff done, such as Wall Street reform to avoid a repeat of the Meltdown of 2008, is the Democratic Party with Warren in there pushing her seemingly favorite thing: consumer protection.

Meanwhile, Brown likes to shift the monetary burden of Wall Street failure onto the taxpayers. He's a fair-weather capitalist and a foul-weather socialist, which seems to be the way Wall Street works in the 21st Century. And now everybody knows it, whether they want to admit to it or not. It's what happened right before our eyes, and of course a whole big bunch of cameras.

It's very tough to rewrite history when so much of it is recorded and owned by so many different organizations and individuals, plus with the beat-all-end-all repository of the Internet. So, if documentation actually exists that proves Warren committed fraud, I'm sure that akaCG will dig it up, or maybe one of his blogger buds. He has speculated on how things might have gone down, which is worth almost exactly nothing. I think maybe a green stamp.

Posted by: akaCG May 18 2012, 12:50 AM

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 04:40 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 17 2012, 02:13 PM) *

Heh. "Nice" try at sleight-of-hand substitution, there. Still trying desperately to shift attention away from what the "Fauxcahontas" aspect of all this is about (i.e. the non-existence of documents backing up Warren's claims of Cherokee lineage) and pretending that it's about the non-existence of documents proving that she (and Penn and Harvard) gamed the affirmative action system, I see.

Still trying desperately to shift attention away from any actual evidence of deception or use of minority status as employment leverage, I see.

Tsk, tsk.

Because -- guess what -- none of it matters, at all, without that.
...

Oh, but it does, "Raptavio". It does.

People aren't that stupid. They're perfectly capable of realizing why Warren made sure to describe herself as an ethnic minority while climbing up the last couple of rungs on the academic ladder, as well as why Penn Law and then Harvard Law (especially at that particular time in Harvard Law's history) made sure to tout her status as such. Especially since, once she did get to the top rung of said academic ladder ("Hold on there! Harvard isn't #1! We are!", I can hear the Yale Law crowd strenuously protesting), she stopped doing so. Again, people aren't that stupid. Even Bay Staters who vote Dem. wink.gif

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 04:40 PM) *
...
And while you can make hay as much as you want over a question of Ms. Warren's claimed, believed, or actual heritage, it won't distract the voters from considering Scott Brown's record as Senator.
...

It may indeed turn out that enough Massachusetts voters will choose to ignore Warren's "Dancing with Hogwash" and vote along ideological/partisan lines (this is still a deep "blue" state, after all). I doubt it, but it could indeed happen.

We'll see.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 04:40 PM) *
...
Scream it from the rooftops, akaCG, but like the tale told by an idiot, it will simply be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Oh, it might not result in Ms. Warren's losing the election. But Warren's "Now I'm a Cherokee. Now I'm not." act will always signify plenty not only in regards to her character, but also in regards to the authenticity of her interest in "[People of Native American heritage] like me" to have lunch and stuff with (something that even the afore-quoted senior editor at the New Yorker magazine cottoned onto).


Posted by: akaCG May 19 2012, 02:46 AM

The "Fauxcahontas" saga continues ...

A couple of weeks ago, the Warren campaign offered two items in support of Ms. Warren's claims to Cherokee lineage: a statement from the chief genealogist of the Boston-based New England Historic Genealogical Society averring that Warren was indeed 1/32 Cherokee and an undated newspaper clipping from a Muskegee Sunday Phoenix article that mentioned a 1984 cook book titled Pow Wow Chow:A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes : Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole to which Ms. Warren contributed 5 recipes.

The first item was quickly debunked and, after a couple of attempts at equivocation/backtracking, the genealogist ended up retracting his statement while essentially blaming the media for misunderstanding what he meant.

And today, the other shoe dropped.

It appears that Ms. Warren's recipes are, not to put too fine a point on it, ... plagiarized.

Two of them ("Cold Omelets with Crab Meat" and "Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing") are word-for-word identical to http://howiecarr.us/2012/05/18/bill-fitzgerald-finds-two-granny-recipes-same-paper/. Monsieur Franey begins his article thusly:

QUOTE
...
When I was a chef at Le Pavillon [Cold Omelets With Crab Meat] enjoyed a considerable esteem in America, and the owner, Henri Soule, had one particular specialty that he would ask to have prepared for his pet customers. The dish was a great favorite of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Cole Porter. ...
...

Now, my French is pretty rusty, but I'm quite sure that "pavillon" is not French for "pow wow".

Another recipe ("Mexican Oatmeal Soup") seems to have been copied almost word for word (Warren's version says "brown" instead of "browned") from http://howiecarr.us/2012/05/17/wait-could-the-oatmeal-soup-be-lifted-too/.

Another recipe ("Herbed Tomatoes") bears a striking resemblance to one published by http://howiecarr.us/2012/05/17/heirloom-recipe-or-better-homes-gardens-lift/.

My oh my. The more one peels the Warren "onion", the more tears. (in my case, of laughter; historical reference to the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears" fully intended)

Will this particular latest development in the "Fauxcahontas" saga leave a bad enough taste (pun intended) in Bay State voters' minds? There's no way to really know, of course.

I did find it hilarious, however, that a recipe in the aforementioned Pow Wow Chow cookbook on the page facing Ms. Warren's (that is to say, Monsieur Franey's) "Cold Omelets with Crab Meat" recipe is one for cooking ... http://imgur.com/caEoK.

Could a cooked duck claim 1/32 cooked goose heritage?

laugh.gif

Posted by: Mrs. Pigpen May 19 2012, 01:11 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 18 2012, 10:46 PM) *
And today, the other shoe dropped.

It appears that Ms. Warren's recipes are, not to put too fine a point on it, ... plagiarized.
*snip*
Could a cooked duck claim 1/32 cooked goose heritage?

laugh.gif


A truly original recipe is incredibly rare. The odds of a duck being 1/32 goose are probably higher (maybe there's a guck or two in this world) than the odds of anyone today directly plagarizing from a magazine written in 1959. Who has that lying around? It's unsurprising because recipes go around the world, passed down from generations and sometimes bits are picked up and jotted down to form a printed recipe (or the other way around, the family takes a recipe from somewhere and calls it their own, and its passed on and no one knows the better). I have found a few identical or nearly identical 'family recipes' passed on to me from squadron to squadron (an old tradition, spouses often made recipe books and printed them passing them out as a gift at a farewell function or christmas, or fundraiser or whatever....After about ten-fifteen different squadrons this became very evident, and everyone thinks their family was "the one" that created it.

I really know very little about this topic beyond the above observation. Not familiar with Ms Warren at all, I would only have one question....has she used her Cherokee pseudo-status for personal gain? If so, she is a fraud, UNLESS she was unaware of her true lineage and believed herself to be 1/32 Cherokee (which is really an infintesimally small portion, really I'm Swiss/Italian but if you go far enough back who knows I probably have some part of Viking or Irish, since I think nearly every Irish person is part Viking). No one should have any advantage based on so small a bloodline.

Posted by: akaCG May 19 2012, 02:41 PM

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 19 2012, 09:11 AM) *
...
Not familiar with Ms Warren at all, I would only have one question....has she used her Cherokee pseudo-status for personal gain? If so, she is a fraud, UNLESS she was unaware of her true lineage and believed herself to be 1/32 Cherokee (which is really an infintesimally small portion, ...
...

Warren, who had been checking the "White" box all along, began for the first time in her academic career to list herself as "Native American" in law school directories in 1986. A year later, she made it into the Ivy League: Penn Law. First as a visiting professor, then a chaired one in 1990. Two years later, she was recruited by the top of the academic heap: Harvard Law (which, it bears mentioning, had been experiencing a great deal of turmoil and criticism revolving around the issue of minority underrepresentation on their faculty at the time)1. First as a visiting professor, then a chaired one in 1995. At which point, ... she stopped listing herself as "Native American" in law school directories.

That looks, swims, and quacks like a duck gaming the affirmative action system to me. How about to you?

1Barack Obama became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review during said tumultuous period.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 19 2012, 09:11 AM) *
...
... really I'm Swiss/Italian but if you go far enough back who knows I probably have some part of Viking or Irish, since I think nearly every Irish person is part Viking).
...

None of which, of course, no matter the proportion thereof, would be of any help whatsoever in your climb up the academic ladder. You'd need to declare yourself a lesbian or something, I'm afraid. And not just a 1/32nd of one. Nothing less than 17/32nds would do. wink.gif

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 19 2012, 09:11 AM) *
...
... No one should have any advantage based on so small a bloodline.

Agreed. 100%. And then some.

ps:
Mmmm ... I think I'm gonna head to Whole Foods and get a half a duck for dinner today. Should go nicely with some wild rice and mango chutney alongside. To drink: a lovely http://indianhillswinery.com/wine-list/, perhaps. smile.gif

Posted by: AuthorMusician May 19 2012, 03:49 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 19 2012, 10:41 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 19 2012, 09:11 AM) *
...
Not familiar with Ms Warren at all, I would only have one question....has she used her Cherokee pseudo-status for personal gain? If so, she is a fraud, UNLESS she was unaware of her true lineage and believed herself to be 1/32 Cherokee (which is really an infintesimally small portion, ...
...

Warren, who had been checking the "White" box all along, began for the first time in her academic career to list herself as "Native American" in law school directories in 1986. A year later, she made it into the Ivy League: Penn Law. First as a visiting professor, then a chaired one in 1990. Two years later, she was recruited by the top of the academic heap: Harvard Law (which, it bears mentioning, had been experiencing a great deal of turmoil and criticism revolving around the issue of minority underrepresentation on their faculty at the time)1. First as a visiting professor, then a chaired one in 1995. At which point, ... she stopped listing herself as "Native American" in law school directories.

That looks, swims, and quacks like a duck gaming the affirmative action system to me. How about to you?

1Barack Obama became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review during said tumultuous period.


Or it could be a duck-billed platypus. You're taking a very small amount of evidence and trying to build a case upon it. I'm afraid you will need more than this to build a convincing argument, otherwise it just comes off as wacko conspiracy theory that only right-wingers believe. That's because they want to believe, and that makes the case for them.

You know in 1986 I was working as a short-order cook and music coordinator for a little lodge in the Rockies. Then I got a tech gig with FedEx in Memphis. Must have been because of my unbroken egg yolks and booking all those great local musicians, eh? Or was it from my work with StorageTek and others in the technical sphere? Who can tell, so let's just go with the eggs and music.

You're also making a huge assumption that Warren was actually responsible for the category in which she was listed. Unless you can bring in evidence that she actually claimed a Native American classification in the directory and not some academician flunky following the order of some superior flunky, the doubt is worthy.

And of course Warren has documentation that Native American blood is in her family. It's not the kind of documentation you would want, but it nevertheless exists and is enough evidence that she at least believed she has the blood.

So your duck isn't really a duck after all. I would say textured vegetable protein, to-ucky.

Heh, I liked the bit about plagiarizing a recipe. That came up in 2010 for a female Republican candidate, so is that you plagiarizing a stupid criticism? It played about as well back then as it does now, clunky and way out of tune, reaching not for a straw but a thread of spider web. That Republican candidate lost the election, but not because of a stolen recipe. She had way worse problems than that, some of them similar to Brown's.

Posted by: akaCG May 19 2012, 04:26 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 19 2012, 11:49 AM) *
...
You're also making a huge assumption that Warren was actually responsible for the category in which she was listed. Unless you can bring in evidence that she actually claimed a Native American classification in the directory and not some academician flunky following the order of some superior flunky, the doubt is worthy.
...

Ask and ye shall (again) receive, and http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061128808 (bolding mine):
QUOTE
...
“I listed myself in the directory ..."
...

How now, brown chow?

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 19 2012, 11:49 AM) *
...
And of course Warren has documentation that Native American blood is in her family. ...
...

You keep regurgitating that, in "lather, rinse, repeat" fashion, but have yet to point to any. High time for you to stop ducking and produce it.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 19 2012, 11:49 AM) *
...
... It's not the kind of documentation you would want, but it nevertheless exists and is enough evidence that she at least believed she has the blood.
...

Again, what is this evidence of which you speak, chief? High cheekbones? French recipes?


Posted by: AuthorMusician May 19 2012, 07:52 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 19 2012, 12:26 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 19 2012, 11:49 AM) *
...
You're also making a huge assumption that Warren was actually responsible for the category in which she was listed. Unless you can bring in evidence that she actually claimed a Native American classification in the directory and not some academician flunky following the order of some superior flunky, the doubt is worthy.
...

Ask and ye shall (again) receive, and http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061128808 (bolding mine):
QUOTE
...
“I listed myself in the directory ..."
...

How now, brown chow?

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 19 2012, 11:49 AM) *
...
And of course Warren has documentation that Native American blood is in her family. ...
...

You keep regurgitating that, in "lather, rinse, repeat" fashion, but have yet to point to any. High time for you to stop ducking and produce it.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 19 2012, 11:49 AM) *
...
... It's not the kind of documentation you would want, but it nevertheless exists and is enough evidence that she at least believed she has the blood.
...

Again, what is this evidence of which you speak, chief? High cheekbones? French recipes?


I linked to it earlier. You didn't like that link, so to you Warren is too fraudulent to run for office. I'll concede that Warren claimed responsibility for the directory listing, but that doesn't demonstrate that she was using her Native American ancestry to get ahead. Even if that were possible, it wasn't fraudulent. It would be if you could show that she lied, which you have not.

Oh well, nobody really cares about this or her academic papers. Too fraudulent? Nope. I suspect too threatening to those who want to steal from the poor and give to the rich, the Browns of the world.

Posted by: akaCG May 19 2012, 08:22 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 19 2012, 03:52 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 19 2012, 12:26 PM) *

...
Again, what is this evidence of which you speak, chief? High cheekbones? French recipes?

I linked to it earlier. You didn't like that link, ...
...

You mean, in http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=21736&view=findpost&p=100007094, on May 13?

Dude, even the originator of that piece of ... "evidence" himself, Mr. Child of the New England Historic and Genealogy Society, would no longer "like" your link, given that he was, after a bit of equivocatin' and hemmin' and hawin', forced to finally back down from his claim (via a NEHGS spokesperson, of course) a few days ago (which I noted earlier).


Posted by: akaCG May 22 2012, 05:41 PM

Thought I'd share the latest developments in the "Fauxcahontas" saga, by way of a comparison between ...

Reality according to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow:

QUOTE
...
Not quite a year ago, the voters of the Cherokee Nation based on the U.S. state of Oklahoma, they elected a new principal chief, the highest elected office in the Cherokee government. The new chief, Bill John Baker, defeated a three-term incumbent by just 11 votes out of more than 15,000 votes cast. It was a really, really close race.
...
At the time of the election that made him principal chief, one of the issues that got raised was that Mr. Baker was of mixed ancestry. Chief
Baker is, in fact, 1/32 Cherokee. That makes him Cherokee, the same as other Cherokee leaders who also have a mixed ancestry.
...
In another election happening 1,600 miles away from Oklahoma, in Massachusetts, Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts is locked in
a virtual tie to hold on to his seat against his Democratic challenger, Elizabeth Warren. Last month, Boston`s conservative tabloid, the "Boston
Herald," published this headline, "Harvard Flaw." school once touted Liz's Native American routes as proof of faculty diversity.
...
It turns out Elizabeth Warren is Native American. She's from Oklahoma. She is 1/32 Cherokee. She appears to be exactly as Cherokee as the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, Bill John Baker. Elizabeth Warren is exactly as Cherokee as the guy who heads the Cherokee nation.
...

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47356493/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/t/rachel-maddow-show-thursday-may/

... and ...

Actual reality:
QUOTE
...
For a few weeks, it has been pretty big news that US Senate hopeful from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, has claimed to be Native American, Cherokee to be specific, in the past and she is still clinging to that story now. Several times, I have either read or heard her compared to the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, Bill John Baker, because some give her the benefit of the doubt and say Warren might have the same blood quantum as Baker. IF, and I capitalized that on purpose, because we are talking "big if" here, she actually had a Cherokee ancestor, and IF it was the ancestor she claims through, that might be true, but it isn't.
...
Because she has been compared to Chief Baker so much, I thought I would compare their genealogies and show how we can clearly see a difference between a real Cherokee and a fake one.
...
Ms. Warren's family was recorded as white in recent records and Chief Baker's family was recorded as Indian.
...
Four times we see Ms. Warren's grandmother listed as white. We never see her listed as Indian. And, on the flip side, we only see Chief Baker's grandmother listed as Indian, three times, and never as white. But, that isn't enough. We need to get far enough back into the history to reach the old Cherokee Nation records to see what we can find on these two families in them.
...
Now we are starting to see a very big difference in the two families. Ms. Warren's is showing a very distinct pattern of living as whites while Chief Baker's is showing a very distinct pattern of living as Indians. We find Ms. Warren's great grandfather listed as white on five different documents. We find Chief Baker's great grandmother listed as Indian and/or Cherokee numerous times on many different documents. The pieces of the genealogical puzzles of these two very different families are starting to come together, but we aren't finished yet.

Stay tuned for the next post where we trace these families back to before the Trail of Tears. We still have a lot more to look at! And you thought Cherokee genealogy was hard........ smile.gif
...

Link: http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/2012/05/elizabeth-warrens-ancestry-part-1.html


Posted by: Paladin Elspeth May 22 2012, 08:40 PM

1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

I think these "revelations" will not cause her to lose the election, unless desperate measures are what is called for in order for Scott Brown to gain the upper hand. I think that the funds that have been committed to Scott Brown's campaign to smear Elizabeth Warren stand to jeopardize her chances to win. Money talks, loudly.

And, pray tell, what papers, if any, has one Senator Scott Brown produced and published on any public policy? Of course, if there hasn't been any, then nothing can be criticized, right? It also means that no credit goes to him, either, for scholarly work.

Ms. Warren has not committed a crime. There is controversy over whether she is 1/32 Cherokee and whether she used it to her advantage. How this would impact her conduct in the U.S. Senate is negligible. How her efforts to help create a Consumer Protection Agency I find to be far more relevant.

2. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) should cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

Not at all. I think it is a diversion to keep people from realizing just how much one Scott Brown is in the pocket of Wall Street, when he is supposed to be representing the people of Massachusetts. It's a smokescreen and a wonderful little piece of propaganda purveyed by one of AD's members. With any luck, voters will realize the real lack of substance behind the GOP's attempts to hide just what "Centerfold Boy" Scott Brown hasn't been doing and who he really has represented during his tenure in the U.S. Senate.

Isn't it curious that the Brown campaign is avoiding the issues that would actually affect voters?

Posted by: AuthorMusician May 23 2012, 05:37 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 19 2012, 04:22 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 19 2012, 03:52 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 19 2012, 12:26 PM) *

...
Again, what is this evidence of which you speak, chief? High cheekbones? French recipes?

I linked to it earlier. You didn't like that link, ...
...

You mean, in http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=21736&view=findpost&p=100007094, on May 13?

Dude, even the originator of that piece of ... "evidence" himself, Mr. Child of the New England Historic and Genealogy Society, would no longer "like" your link, given that he was, after a bit of equivocatin' and hemmin' and hawin', forced to finally back down from his claim (via a NEHGS spokesperson, of course) a few days ago (which I noted earlier).


Well, if you read the AP story, the caveat that more study was needed was included. The point is that there is some evidence that indicates Warren probably believed she had the Native American blood at the time she did the relatively meaningless directory entry. She didn't just pull it out of her butt because it'd make her look good to somebody somewhere, unnamed and of course who may not exist at all except by your strong desire to believe so, which is quite ironic if you think about it.

Any luck coming up with evidence that Warren used her minuscule amount of Native American blood to get ahead in her academic career? You know, something that the electorate in Massachusetts might possibly give a spit about? Perhaps she used her academic career to get a sweet taxpayer-funded deal for Wall Street?

Oh wait, that was Scott Brown and his place in the Senate.

Heh, Warren has the aces and Brown's got the jokers in a game of five-card stud, nothing wild and no draw. Now if he can keep his jokers dancing for the electorate until Election Day, eh? That's really expecting a lot from those two little cards (crooked academician and bad at it too), especially when the huge mass of the argument is taken straight from Colon Town.

I suppose with enough bucks and breathy ads about her sordid background, a few weak-minded individuals will vote for Brown instead. I doubt it's going to be enough to win the election. After all, multiplying a couple of turds into a huge pile of poo just makes the whole thing stinkier.

Posted by: akaCG May 25 2012, 01:56 AM

Ms. Warren's latest (paraphrasing, but not by much) ... "explanation":

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/elizabeth_warren_knows_she_is.html

laugh.gif

Can't wait for Ms. Warren's "explanation" for why she suddenly started to believe her mother/grandmother/family enough to start checking the "Native American" box in the mid-80s, as well as her "explanation" for why she suddenly stopped believing her mother/grandmother/family enough to stop checking the "Native American" box in the mid-90s.

Developing ...

Posted by: nighttimer May 25 2012, 05:40 AM

There's one very important detail to point out about this "controversy.'

It hasn't translated into a http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/the_warren_meltdown_that_isn%E2%80%99t/ for Elizabeth Warren.

QUOTE
Reports of Elizabeth Warren’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. A new Suffolk University poll puts the consumer advocate in a virtual tie with Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who holds a statistically insignificant 48 to 47 percent lead.

This comes after weeks of intense controversy over whether Warren had advanced her academic career by claiming Native American ancestry based on being 1/32 Cherokee. As the story dragged on, members of her own party groaned at her handling of it, critics charged that she was being evasive, and the press speculated whether Democrats were about to endure a repeat of the Martha Coakley debacle.

The Cherokee story, according to the survey, has definitely dented the public's consciousness; 72 percent of voters say they're aware of it. But by a 49 to 28 percent margin, they also say that Warren is telling the truth about it, and by a 45 to 41 percent margin they say she didn't benefit professionally from listing herself as Native American back in the 1990s.

"I'm not saying there was no damage from the Native American thing, but if you zoom out to see what the net effect was, it was minimal," David Paleologos, who conducted the poll, told the Boston Globe. "It's considered a nonstory."

There are hints of the story taking a toll on Warren’s image. Her unfavorable score is up 5 points from the last Suffolk poll in February, from 28 to 33 percent, while her favorable score sits at 43. Brown, by contrast, has a more robust 56 to 28 percent favorable rating. In that February poll, Brown enjoyed a 9-point lead over Warren, 49 to 40 percent, but that result was dismissed by both sides as an outlier – not that it's stopping Democrats now from crowing that Warren is surging.

Really, though, the poll just shows that the race is back to being the nail-biter everyone's long assumed it would be. If the outcome was based strictly on personal popularity, Brown would win easily. But the Republican label is a profound liability in Massachusetts, especially for candidates for federal office.


The right-wing has had a good giggle and enjoyed tut-tutting a Democrat for being culturally exploitative, but it hasn't hurt Warren all that badly or helped Brown all that much.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled giggling and tut-tutting. dry.gif

Posted by: akaCG May 25 2012, 04:40 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 25 2012, 01:40 AM) *
There's one very important detail to point out about this "controversy.'

It hasn't translated into a http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/the_warren_meltdown_that_isn%E2%80%99t/ for Elizabeth Warren.

It looks like that's about to change.

After weeks of trying, the Boston Globe (which had touted the now debunked claims by the New England genealogist that Warren's claims to Cherokee heritage were legitimate, and then buried said genealogist's retraction on page 14 or something a week later) has apparently decided that it could no longer slow-pedal this story in the hopes that it would just go away. Today's issue, on the front page, features an article titled "Filings raise more questions on Warren’s ethnic claims":
QUOTE
...
US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard Law School had been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago.

But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.
...
The documents suggest for the first time that either Warren or a Harvard administrator classified her repeatedly as Native American in papers prepared for the government in a way that apparently did not adhere to federal diversity guidelines. They raise further questions about Warren’s statements that she was unaware Harvard was promoting her as Native American.
...

Link: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/05/25/federal_documents_indicate_harvard_repeatedly_reported_elizabeth_warren_as_nativ
e_american/?page=full

The investigative focus has now shifted in earnest to the question of whether Warren and Harvard had gamed the affirmative action system. And the fact that the Boston Globe has apparently decided that it no longer wishes to play second fiddle to the Boston Herald on this story is significant.

It was easy for Warren to stonewall and try to dismiss the Herald as doing Scott Brown's bidding. That, for obvious reasons, is not going to work in the case of the Globe.

ps:
The following two items in the Suffolk poll caught my eye:

Q22. Elizabeth Warren frequently calls Scott Brown one of Wall Street's favorite Senators. Do you believe a vote for Scott Brown is a vote for Wall Street?

Yes: 33%
No: 55%

Q36. Currently Massachusetts has one Democratic Senator (John Kerry) and one Republican Senator (Scott Brown). Do you think that there is a benefit by having one Democratic and one Republican U.S. Senator representing Massachusetts in Washington?

Yes: 56%
No: 38%

Interesting.


Posted by: nighttimer May 25 2012, 05:32 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 25 2012, 12:40 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 25 2012, 01:40 AM) *
There's one very important detail to point out about this "controversy.'

It hasn't translated into a http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/the_warren_meltdown_that_isn%E2%80%99t/ for Elizabeth Warren.

It looks like that's about to change.


Guess you missed the part where the poll's author said it's a "nonstory."
QUOTE
“I'm not saying there was no damage from the Native American thing, but if you zoom out to see what the net effect was, it was minimal," he said. "It's considered a nonstory."


You say it is. A majority of 600 likely voters say it's not. Advantage: voters.

QUOTE(akaCG)
Interesting.


QUOTE
She beats Brown 49 to 36 percent on the question of who will better represent middle-class families and 40-37 percent on who is more honest. And she's not far behind him (47-42) on who's more independent – a trait Brown has tried to make his calling card.


Indeed.

Posted by: akaCG May 25 2012, 05:51 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 25 2012, 01:32 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 25 2012, 12:40 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 25 2012, 01:40 AM) *
There's one very important detail to point out about this "controversy.'

It hasn't translated into a http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/the_warren_meltdown_that_isn%E2%80%99t/ for Elizabeth Warren.

It looks like that's about to change.

Guess you missed the part where the poll's author said it's a "nonstory."
...

Guess you missed the part, right above, where I said "It looks like that's about to change." Meaning, it may have been a "non-story" until yesterday, but now that the Globe (which has roughly 3 times as many subscribers as, and about 4 times the online "footprint" of the Herald) has decided to train its investigative "guns" on the matter, and do so on its front page, Warren's (and her supporters') hopes for its remaining a "non-story" are quite likely to be dashed.

We'll see. The next Suffolk poll is due in August.


Posted by: nighttimer May 25 2012, 06:27 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 25 2012, 01:51 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 25 2012, 01:32 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 25 2012, 12:40 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 25 2012, 01:40 AM) *
There's one very important detail to point out about this "controversy.'

It hasn't translated into a http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/the_warren_meltdown_that_isn%E2%80%99t/ for Elizabeth Warren.

It looks like that's about to change.

Guess you missed the part where the poll's author said it's a "nonstory."
...

Guess you missed the part, right above, where I said "It looks like that's about to change." Meaning, it may have been a "non-story" until yesterday, but now that the Globe (which has roughly 3 times as many subscribers as, and about 4 times the online "footprint" of the Herald) has decided to train its investigative "guns" on the matter, and do so on its front page, Warren's (and her supporters') hopes for its remaining a "non-story" are quite likely to be dashed.


Right. And you're pinning your hopes on the Boston Globe, a newspaper owned by the New York Times, to train it's investigative "guns" on a liberal Democrat and turn what is effectively a non-story into something that will scuttle Warren's campaign.

Possible media bias aside, you do realize investigative reporting can vindicate a candidate as much as it scandalizes one, right?

Let's see whose hopes are quite likely to be dashed.

QUOTE(akaCG)
We'll see. The next Suffolk poll is due in August.


You really think anybody but you will still be paying attention in August?

We will see. You cock-eyed optimist, you. laugh.gif

Posted by: akaCG May 25 2012, 07:03 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 25 2012, 02:27 PM) *
...
Right. And you're pinning your hopes on the Boston Globe, a newspaper owned by the New York Times, to train it's investigative "guns" on a liberal Democrat and turn what is effectively a non-story into something that will scuttle Warren's campaign.
...

If this story leads in a direction that even begins to threaten to shed too much negative light on the affirmative action system - one of Liberalism's "sacred cows" - and how it can be and has been gamed, the liberal Globe and its even more liberal parent will throw Elizabeth Warren under the bus faster than she can whip up some of her authentic Cherokee French "Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing".

Even Lefty MSNBC, noting the Globe's front page story today, is starting to get a bit antsy:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/25/11877697-more-2012-warrens-native-american-story-continues


Posted by: nighttimer May 25 2012, 07:05 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ May 25 2012, 03:03 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 25 2012, 02:27 PM) *
...
Right. And you're pinning your hopes on the Boston Globe, a newspaper owned by the New York Times, to train it's investigative "guns" on a liberal Democrat and turn what is effectively a non-story into something that will scuttle Warren's campaign.
...

If this story leads in a direction that even begins to threaten to shed too much negative light on the affirmative action system - one of Liberalism's "sacred cows" - and how it can be and has been gamed, the liberal Globe and its even more liberal parent will throw Elizabeth Warren under the bus faster than she can whip up some of her authentic Cherokee French "Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing".


Well, you keep a happy thought. mrsparkle.gif

Posted by: akaCG May 31 2012, 03:42 PM

Latest developments in the "Fauxcohantas" saga, ...

Yesterday:

QUOTE
...
A new group of over 150 Cherokees and growing has formed with the purpose of forcing Elizabeth Warren to give up her false claim to Cherokee heritage.

The group has a new blog, Cherokees Demand Truth from Elizabeth Warren, and corresponding Facebook page:
...
Mission Statement

Cherokees Demand Truth from Elizabeth Warren is a group of authentic Cherokees and descendants devoted to sharing the truth about our history. Our mission is to help people understand what a real Cherokee is and to show why Elizabeth Warren claiming to be Cherokee without proof is harmful and offensive to us.
...
We have researched Ms. Warren’s ancestry in the line she claims to be Cherokee through, as well as researched the collateral lines connected to that family. There is absolutely no indication of her having anything other than Caucasian ancestors…. Ms. Warren’s ancestors were not Cherokees and neither is she. We, as Cherokees, cannot allow Ms. Warren to continue on with her false claims…..

It is time for Ms. Warren to come clean and tell the truth. Until she does, we will not be silenced.
...

Link: http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/hundreds-of-cherokees-form-new-group-to-challenge-elizabeth-warren/

Today, the Boston Globe editorial board penned this:
QUOTE
...
On Saturday, Elizabeth Warren will formally introduce herself to thousands of delegates and onlookers at the state Democratic convention in Springfield. ... the speech should also address the issue that’s been so prevalent in the recent news coverage of the campaign, and is a source of some consternation even among Warren’s supporters: how she came to be identified as Native American in a national legal directory, Harvard press releases, and federal diversity reports.
...
One unanswered question that emerged last week was whether she told Harvard she had Native American roots, and she acknowledged Wednesday night that she did. ...
...
Warren has answered questions in a piecemeal fashion, as bits of information emerged, but voters seem more concerned about the underlying issues. Why does this family lore matter to her? In the diversity-conscious ’90s, did she view it as a professional advantage? Does she understand why people might be offended by the notion of a white professor asserting a minority identity? And, given that she doesn’t consider herself a full Native American, how would having even a little bit of such ancestry change her world view?
...
Being true to one’s own background, and being honest about it, is a familiar issue in Massachusetts politics, from the Irish-Yankee wars of the early and mid-20th century to today’s more complicated mosaic. If having a small amount of native blood is important enough for Warren to declare it in a legal directory, it must mean something to her.

Explaining just what it does mean to her is part of the Elizabeth Warren story — the same one she’s basing her candidacy on. Warren needs to tell that story in full detail, and be willing to talk about it confidently, whether with voters or the media, before she can truly put this episode behind her.
...

Link: http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/05/31/elizabeth-warren-should-use-convention-address-native-american-flap/sUMt5rdcvEhF1CYZsCmvBK/story.html

In two days, we'll find out if Ms. Warren decides to follow the Boston Globe's advice, or whether she'll continue to stonewall and offer up distractions such as "[Hey, didja know] http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/30/warrens-pattern-of-dubious-claims-nursing-bar-exam/?"


Posted by: Nemo May 31 2012, 05:37 PM

I don't know about Elizabeth Warren's ancestry, but she is certainly a noted scholar on bankruptcy law. See http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=82

Posted by: AuthorMusician May 31 2012, 06:40 PM

QUOTE(Nemo @ May 31 2012, 01:37 PM) *
I don't know about Elizabeth Warren's ancestry, but she is certainly a noted scholar on bankruptcy law. See http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=82


Yep, a real policy wonk that the right wing hates to smithereens. Every so often that itch needs scratching, and so you get a debate like this, one that reaches for threads finer than the human hair.

I doubt that the actual Cherokee Nation gives a flying flash about who claims Native American blood or not until it comes to distributing tribal assets. It's certainly not against the law to falsely claim such heritage without definitive proof, although akaCG is trying to make it into a Federal offense. For his evidence, he has provided us a link to a blog that links another blog, and there you go. He heard that someone else heard that someone else claims to be such-and-so on the Internet, so it has to be true.

You know, not an Onion bit or anything like that, certainly not a site funded by Super PAC money or a completely bogus project put up by that bratty kid who conquered ACORN, old what's-his-pimp-name.

Be that as it may, this debate stands as a perfect example of a non-issue desperately trying to grow legs. She lied! She cheated! She never did any of that academic stuff! No, wait, did it badly. Sorry.

I did notice that the first published papers in the list, counting from the top down, were co-developed and written with others. I suppose that's going to become a criticism too, along with nursing a baby while doing something else. Oh well, those threads are so dang thin as to be invisible. Meanwhile, the electorate in Massachusetts may just want to give Wall Street the spanking that the spoiled little brat deserves. Warren beats Brown hands down if that becomes the sentiment on Election Day.

And so we get this diversion into the land of irrelevancy. It's a common Republican tactic, but this time I don't think it's going to work. Too many people felt it during the Meltdown of 2008 and the attacks on the middle class before and after that event. Warren has something else that will be important: battle scars from fighting with Republicans along with a demonstrated sympathy for regular folks having to go through bankruptcy.

I doubt that Republicans have noticed this, but the fear of bankruptcy has risen to levels unknown in my lifetime, which is soon to become sixty years long. That will likely be an important consideration come Election Day.

Posted by: Nemo May 31 2012, 06:46 PM

Well, she’s not Kenneth Klee, but she has authored a number of articles on bankruptcy law; which subject looms large in today’s economy. On this subject, it might interest you to know that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 is very likely the worst piece of legislation ever enacted by Congress; and if there is anyone who might be able to do something about it, it’s Elizabeth Warren.

Posted by: akaCG May 31 2012, 08:03 PM

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 31 2012, 02:40 PM) *
...
I doubt that the actual Cherokee Nation gives a flying flash about who claims Native American blood or not until it comes to distributing tribal assets. ...
...

I have no doubt that you dearly wish for that to be true.

However, not only are Cherokees mighty ticked off at Ms. "Fauxcahontas", but so are non-Cherokee Native Americans. From today's Indian Country Today, the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Country_Today":
QUOTE
...
A spokesman for the Warren campaign, Alethea Harney, said by telephone on May 15 that Warren would not do an interview with Indian Country Today Media Network at that time, but “want[ed] to keep the lines of communication open.”

ICTMN had by that point requested multiple interviews with Warren in order for her to clarify her statements on her ancestry, to explain how she highlighted that self-reported ancestry while working in academia, as well as to examine the fall-out that has occurred in Indian country regarding identity issues as her campaign fiasco has stayed in the news.
...
On May 25, after several more requests from ICTMN, Harney responded by e-mail, “Thanks for your request(s)! I will keep you posted. Thanks for understanding. Have a wonderful weekend.”
...
LeValdo, an Acoma Pueblo citizen, has been taking note of complaints that Warren has not done interviews with the Native press to date.

“Like others before her and probably after her, she uses Native status for her own benefit,” added Ronnie Washines, past president of [Native American Journalists Association].
...
Lori Edmo-Suppah, a Shoshone-Bannock tribal citizen and reporter, said that if Warren is Native, as she claims, “it seems the Native press would be the first she would want to do interviews with.”
...
Native educators have raised concerns about Harvard’s role in promoting Warren as Native without any supporting documentation, asking whether this action took a position away from any Native citizens who may have applied during the time of Warren’s tenure.
...

Link: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/31/elizabeth-warren-avoids-american-indian-media-115802

Ms. Warren on May 2:
"I listed myself in the directory [as a Native American] in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am."

Ms. Warren today, in not so many words:
"Don't call me, Native Americans. I'll call you."


Posted by: AuthorMusician Jun 1 2012, 09:06 AM

QUOTE(Nemo @ May 31 2012, 02:46 PM) *
Well, she’s not Kenneth Klee, but she has authored a number of articles on bankruptcy law; which subject looms large in today’s economy. On this subject, it might interest you to know that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 is very likely the worst piece of legislation ever enacted by Congress; and if there is anyone who might be able to do something about it, it’s Elizabeth Warren.


Yeah, there's the meat and spuds of the Massachusetts election, the issue that scares Republicans to death. Who pushed for that piece of legislation making the already shameful experience of personal bankruptcy that much worse for people who had bought into the whole Republican shtick but got dinked?

Republicans.

And who benefits from tighter bankruptcy laws that aim to squeeze blood out of turnips?

Banks, big ones on Wall Street.

And what failed in 2008 despite all the hype about being too big to fail?

You know it.

And who wants to do something about that so it does not happen again?

Not Scott Brown. It's the other one.

But don't vote for her: She's a liar and a cheat, pimping the system all the way and entirely unfit for public service.

Unlike Scott Brown who is a Republican, and that should say it all.

Indeed it does, loud and clear: darling of Wall Street, plus a lot of other associated negatives. Let's see what this looks like over the next few months. Meanwhile, Warren is still standing regardless of the wet noodles slung her way.

Heh, it's like the Republicans across the board have expended all their ammunition before the battle has begun. The Democrats seem to be waiting until they can see the whites of their eyes. With nothing left, the Republicans stoke the furnace with thousand dollar bills, as if a hotter fire will make a burst boiler run the train faster.

Off there in the distance, I hear a tiny voice pleading: But she isn't a Cherokee . . . crappy scholar . . . somebody please listen to me . . .

Posted by: trumpetplayer Jun 1 2012, 11:45 AM

QUOTE
But don't vote for her: She's a liar and a cheat, pimping the system all the way and entirely unfit for public service.


This is very true I would ALSO add that she is a faux intellect. It IS rather amazing what one tolerates as a Liberal in this country to push forward an agenda. We can only hope that the people voting in this race will see her for what she is rather than what they want her to be.

Posted by: Nemo Jun 1 2012, 12:42 PM

I wrote about the problems of BAPCPA prior to its enactment in 2005. Here is a link to my Posts Nos. 65, 66 and 67: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?act=findpost&hl=&pid=146847

In these troubled economic times, bankruptcy has become an important focal point. Elizabeth Warren has written about the need to address the deficiencies of the existing law; which needs to be done, and the sooner the better.

Posted by: Ted Jun 1 2012, 10:28 PM

this dope has finally admitted it:

Elizabeth Warren Admits She Told Employers Of Her Native American Heritage

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/elizabeth-warren-admits-she-told-employers-of-her-native-american-heritage/

QUOTE
US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard Law School had been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago. But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.

In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet. The documents suggest for the first time that either Warren or a Harvard administrator classified her repeatedly as Native American in papers prepared for the government in a way that apparently did not adhere to federal diversity guidelines. They raise further questions about Warren’s statements that she was unaware Harvard was promoting her as Native American.


So Warren had no idea Harvard was classifying her -- and, indeed, publicly touting her on multiple occasions -- as a Native American, even though "those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves"? Uh huh. Another key sentence in the excerpt above is the bit about Warren's genealogy meeting neither Harvard's nor the government's definition of 'Native American.' I suppose it's reasonable that "zero percent" might fall just shy of the legal threshold. This is an important point because some Warren apologists have argued that if she reasonably believed she is Native American because her mother told her so, or because her grandpa had high cheekbones "like all the Indians do," she's in the clear. (A third piece of circumstantial "evidence" she offered to reinforce her claim was a series of contributions to a cook book called Pow Wow Chow, a revelation that has raised plagiarism questions). Legally, family lore, facial structure and recipes don't cut it. There are actual guidelines that govern these things, and Elizabeth Warren fails those tests. In other words, it's one thing to drunkenly brag at a frat party that you come from Native American lineage; it's another thing to officially classify yourself (or allow someone to classify you) as an ethnic minority in a professional or academic setting.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/05/25/wow_boston_globe_takes_tomahawk_to_warrens_claims


QUOTE
ad been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago.

But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.

In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.

The documents suggest for the first time that either Warren or a Harvard administrator classified her repeatedly as Native American in papers prepared for the government in a way that apparently did not adhere to federal diversity guidelines. They raise further questions about Warren’s statements that she was unaware Harvard was promoting her as Native American.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/elizabeth-warren-listed-as-woman-of-color-in-harvard-student-journal-in-1993/

Posted by: akaCG Jun 2 2012, 07:24 PM

Another day, another twist in the Elizabeth Warren Saga.

To be more accurate, ... make that three twists.

Twist #1:

QUOTE
...
If there’s anything Granny Warren hates more than a fake Indian or a plagiarist, it’s one of these damn real-estate speculators buying up the hammered middle class’ homes and flipping them for big bucks.
...
Granny wrote in 2000 that foreclosure sales “are notorious for fetching low prices.” And boy, would she know.

Here’s a foreclosed property she picked up in Oklahoma City at 2123 NW 14th St. for $4,000 in 1993. She transferred it to her brother and his wife in March 2004 and they sold it for $30,000 in February 2006.
...
Let’s move on to another foreclosure, this one on 500 NW 18th St. in her hometown. She’s listed as the mortgagee on a $55,000 mortgage taken out by her brother John in 1992.

In 1998, John Herring sold the foreclosed house for $140,000.
...
Late last night the campaign issued this statement: “Elizabeth and her husband have worked hard and are fortunate to be in a position where they could help their family members.”
...

Link: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1061135738


Twist #2:

QUOTE
...
“My father’s family so objected to my mother’s Native American heritage that my mother told me they had to elope."
...

Link: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/05/31/elizabeth-warren-says-ancestry-won-deny-who/EAmq34oLv18nu0P8xKOpbK/story.html

Slight problem:
QUOTE
...
The marriage took place in Holdenville, Oklahoma, the county seat, located approximately 14 miles from Wetumka, Oklahoma, which both the 21-year-old groom, Donald J. Herring, and 19-year-old bride, Pauline Reed, declared as their residence.
...
... the marriage was performed by Sidney H. Babcock, pastor of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Holdensville, Oklahoma. ...
...

Link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/01/Exclusive-Eloped-Elizabeth-Warren-Parents-Married-in-Religious-Ceremony


And, finally, Twist #3:

QUOTE
...
The day after she announced her candidacy for U.S. Senate, Democrat Elizabeth Warren told the convocation at UMass-Boston: "My grandmother drove a wagon in the land rush to settle territory out west. It was 1889, she was 15 years old ... She lived to be 94, to see her youngest grandchild, that's me, graduate from college. ...".

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/01/EXCLUSIVE-ELIZABETH-WARRENS-COMPOSITE-GRANDMOTHER

Slight problem with that is:

The grandmother who was indeed 15 years old in 1889 didn't live long enough, despite her indeed being 94 years old when she passed, to see Ms. Warren graduate from college. And the grandmother who did live long enough to have been able to see Ms. Warren graduate from college was only 2 years old (not an age one usually associates with the ability to drive a wagon) in 1889, and she passed when she was not 94, but 88 years old.

All of which, on top of the other stuff that has bedeviled Ms. Elizabeth "“I was the first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey" Warren's campaign, might just explain the following:
QUOTE
...
Panicked Democrats are circulating a scathing email saying that backing fiery Democratic underdog Marisa DeFranco will only help Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in the latest push to thwart a primary challenge to establishment favorite Elizabeth Warren.

Belchertown Democratic Town Committee Chairman Ken Elstein fired off the last-minute missive to dozens of fellow delegates who will determine Saturday whether DeFranco will appear on the September primary ballot with Warren.
...
DeFranco decried the push to keep her off the ballot, saying, “They think that in order to beat Scott Brown, we have to shut down democracy and just go with one candidate. When you operate from a base of fear, that’s when you’re the weakest.”

DeFranco needs 15 percent of the just more than 4,000 delegates expected to arrive in Springfield tomorrow. She said she’s contacted approximately 2,000 delegates, but wouldn’t predict victory.
...
Other Bay State Democrats also bristled at the email.

“It’s obvious that Warren is trying to scare delegates into denying DeFranco the 15 percent she needs, and I think it’s a very dangerous tactic that could potentially backfire on her,” said one Massachusetts Democratic operative.

Elstein denied the Warren campaign had anything to do with his email. The Warren campaign said in a statement: “We are working hard for the support of the convention delegates and we look forward to Saturday.”
...

Link: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220601jittery_democrats_warn_delegates_stay_on_track/

And, as if all of the above (on top of the previous stuff) weren't problematic enough, ...

"http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_native_american_heritage_claimed_at_harvard_penn.html".


Fasten your seatbelts, Bay State Dems, just in case tomorrow's convention turns out to be bumpier than you thought. Just sayin'.

ps:
Oh, heck. Why not. I'll make a prediction (despite the fact that this involves the behavior of the Massachusetts electorate AND political machine):

Marisa DeFranco will indeed manage to get the 15% of delegates that she needs in order to become Elizabeth Warren's Democratic challenger for the U.S. Senate seat that is currently held by Scott Brown.

EDITED TO ADD:

My prediction was wrong: DeFranco didn't get the necessary 15% of delegates' votes to make it onto the Democratic ballot. Not even close. Warren got 96%.

Posted by: akaCG Jun 5 2012, 02:24 AM

Another day, another twist in the Warren Saga.

This one, for a change of pace, relates not to the "quality" of her Cherokeeship, but the quality of her scholarship.

Without further ado (italics mine; bolding in the original):

QUOTE
...
In 1990, Rutgers University Law School Professor Philip Shuchman wrote a review of As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America, the 1989 book Ms. Warren co-authored with Teresa Sullivan and Jay Westbrook. In his review, “Social Science Research on Bankruptcy,” published in the 43rd volume of the Rutgers Law Review (pages 185-244), Professor Shuchman assailed Ms. Warren’s academic credibility in a lengthy article that culminated in this hard-hitting charge (see page 187):

Most of their study replicates several earlier research publications. These are hardly mentioned. The writers make extravagant and false claims to originality and priority of research. There appear to be serious errors in their use of statistical bases which result in grossly mistaken functions and comparisons. Some of their conclusions cannot be obtained even from their flawed findings. The authors have made their raw data unavailable so that its accuracy cannot be independently checked. In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct. [emphasis added]
...
Professor Shuchman, who died in 2004, was a professor at Rutgers University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey -- Elizabeth Warren’s alma mater -- from 1981 to 2000. Ms. Warren graduated in 1976 and taught there until 1979, prior to Professor Shuchman’s arrival.
...
Professor Shuchman’s obituary in the Star-Ledger describes his numerous academic accomplishments:

Earlier, he had taught at the University of Connecticut Law School and Benjamin Cardoza School of Law in New York City. He also maintained a private practice in Philadelphia for many years…[in addition he was] a board of director member of the Consumers League of New Jersey, as well as co-chairman of the Coalition to Save Bankruptcy for Consumers…[and] deputy director to the U.S. Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States and testified before the U.S. Congress during the 1980s.
...
Professor Shuchman’s passing was also noted in the http://law-library.rutgers.edu/news/newsletters/fall2004.pdf.
...
A contemporary tribute to him on his death in 2004 written by Neil Fogarty and available online at the Consumer League of New Jersey website was equally glowing:

Professor Shuchman was a champion of the underdog-- the average debtor in bankruptcy. In the early 1980s, creditors attacked the 1978 Bankruptcy Code, and claimed that bankrupts could afford payment plans, hence bankruptcy should be made more onerous. Professor Shuchman set out scientifically to see what the facts were. He decided to do a statistical study of bankrupts. He enlisted law students to go the Court and get the data right out of the bankruptcy petitions. In an era when computers were still too hard to understand, he enlisted one of his law students with a computer background to write custom database programs to keep track of the information…

Professor Shuchman spent a lifetime teaching and writing and testifying for decent bankruptcy and consumer credit laws. He will be missed by all who strive for justice for consumers.

...

Link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/04/warren-accused-repeated-instances-of-scientific-misconduct-before-harvard-hire

Oh my.


Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Jun 5 2012, 06:52 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ Jun 4 2012, 10:24 PM) *
Another day, another twist in the Warren Saga.

This one, for a change of pace, relates not to the "quality" of her Cherokeeship, but the quality of her scholarship.

Without further ado (italics mine; bolding in the original):
QUOTE
...
In 1990, Rutgers University Law School Professor Philip Shuchman wrote a review of As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America, the 1989 book Ms. Warren co-authored with Teresa Sullivan and Jay Westbrook. In his review, “Social Science Research on Bankruptcy,” published in the 43rd volume of the Rutgers Law Review (pages 185-244), Professor Shuchman assailed Ms. Warren’s academic credibility in a lengthy article that culminated in this hard-hitting charge (see page 187):

Most of their study replicates several earlier research publications. These are hardly mentioned. The writers make extravagant and false claims to originality and priority of research. There appear to be serious errors in their use of statistical bases which result in grossly mistaken functions and comparisons. Some of their conclusions cannot be obtained even from their flawed findings. The authors have made their raw data unavailable so that its accuracy cannot be independently checked. In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct. [emphasis added]
...
Professor Shuchman, who died in 2004, was a professor at Rutgers University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey -- Elizabeth Warren’s alma mater -- from 1981 to 2000. Ms. Warren graduated in 1976 and taught there until 1979, prior to Professor Shuchman’s arrival.
...
Professor Shuchman’s obituary in the Star-Ledger describes his numerous academic accomplishments:

Earlier, he had taught at the University of Connecticut Law School and Benjamin Cardoza School of Law in New York City. He also maintained a private practice in Philadelphia for many years…[in addition he was] a board of director member of the Consumers League of New Jersey, as well as co-chairman of the Coalition to Save Bankruptcy for Consumers…[and] deputy director to the U.S. Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States and testified before the U.S. Congress during the 1980s.
...
Professor Shuchman’s passing was also noted in the http://law-library.rutgers.edu/news/newsletters/fall2004.pdf.
...
A contemporary tribute to him on his death in 2004 written by Neil Fogarty and available online at the Consumer League of New Jersey website was equally glowing:

Professor Shuchman was a champion of the underdog-- the average debtor in bankruptcy. In the early 1980s, creditors attacked the 1978 Bankruptcy Code, and claimed that bankrupts could afford payment plans, hence bankruptcy should be made more onerous. Professor Shuchman set out scientifically to see what the facts were. He decided to do a statistical study of bankrupts. He enlisted law students to go the Court and get the data right out of the bankruptcy petitions. In an era when computers were still too hard to understand, he enlisted one of his law students with a computer background to write custom database programs to keep track of the information…

Professor Shuchman spent a lifetime teaching and writing and testifying for decent bankruptcy and consumer credit laws. He will be missed by all who strive for justice for consumers.

...

Link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/04/warren-accused-repeated-instances-of-scientific-misconduct-before-harvard-hire

Oh my.
(highlighting mine)

So what? "Hardly mentioned" means "mentioned" doesn't it? So he didn't like the book. What bearing would that have on Elizabeth Warren's candidacy for the U.S. Senate? Perhaps a "so-so" scholar will still make a good leader. Didn't Franklin D. Roosevelt earn a "gentleman's C" in college?

And what about Scott Brown, the man against whom Warren is running? Has he done ANYTHING scholarly? What did he do, besides ooze charisma, wear a farmer's coat and drive a truck, that made him eminently suitable for the Senatorial position? All I can see is that he ran a better campaign than his former opponent, Martha Coakley.

Posted by: akaCG Jun 5 2012, 07:06 PM

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 5 2012, 02:52 PM) *
...
So what? ... What bearing would that have on Elizabeth Warren's candidacy for the U.S. Senate? ...
...

In the eyes of someone who puts party and ideology above all else, it would have no bearing whatsoever. Fortunately, however, ...
QUOTE
...
... 31 percent of self-described independents - a critical voting bloc - said the issue makes them less likely to support Warren in November.
...

Link: http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-02/news/31987873_1_poll-democratic-senate-warren-campaign


Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Jun 5 2012, 07:23 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ Jun 5 2012, 03:06 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 5 2012, 02:52 PM) *
...
So what? ... What bearing would that have on Elizabeth Warren's candidacy for the U.S. Senate? ...
...

In the eyes of someone who puts party and ideology above all else, it would have no bearing whatsoever. Fortunately, however, ...
QUOTE
...
... 31 percent of self-described independents - a critical voting bloc - said the issue makes them less likely to support Warren in November.
...

Link: http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-02/news/31987873_1_poll-democratic-senate-warren-campaign

Likely with a little help from you, right?

My ideology is that I do not want this country run by plutocrats, and it looks like this is where we are going, thanks to the Citizens United decision and several billionaires contributing to SuperPACs. With each effort by ALEC and their ilk, the probability increases that the majority of American people--who don't make hundreds of thousands, let alone millions or billions of dollars--will not be able to determine who their leaders will be.

Elizabeth Warren has indicated that she wants more fairness for all Americans. She doesn't like policy being made that favors the folks with the deepest pockets and the most lobbyists. It is this sense of fairness that I like about Elizabeth Warren, and even if she did fair to mediocre graphic novels instead of scholarly works I would still be in favor of her over a man who is firmly tucked into Wall Street's pocket.

(edited for spelling)

Posted by: akaCG Jun 5 2012, 09:00 PM

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 5 2012, 03:23 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jun 5 2012, 03:06 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 5 2012, 02:52 PM) *
...
So what? ... What bearing would that have on Elizabeth Warren's candidacy for the U.S. Senate? ...
...

In the eyes of someone who puts party and ideology above all else, it would have no bearing whatsoever. Fortunately, however, ...
QUOTE
...
... 31 percent of self-described independents - a critical voting bloc - said the issue makes them less likely to support Warren in November.
...

Link: http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-02/news/31987873_1_poll-democratic-senate-warren-campaign

Likely with a little help from you, right?
...

I'm not a Bay Stater. I'm a Sunshine Stater.

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 5 2012, 03:23 PM) *
...
... I would still be in favor of her over a man who is firmly tucked into Wall Street's pocket.
...

OK. Just as long as you realize that you favor a woman who is firmly tucked into http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/296227 pockets. And a woman who, while ...
QUOTE
...
... rail[ing] against predatory banks and heartless foreclosures, took part in about a dozen Oklahoma real estate deals that netted her and her family hefty profits through maneuvers such as “flipping” properties, records show.

A Herald review has found that the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate rapidly bought and sold homes herself, loaned money at high interest rates to relatives and purchased foreclosed properties at bargain prices.
...
Herald columnist Howie Carr reported yesterday that Warren and her relatives also profited from two additional Oklahoma City foreclosures — in both cases showing triple-digit percentage gains.
...
... Warren and her family’s private investments don’t seem to square with her public statements about the latest real estate boom and bust.

“We are in the midst of one of the greatest economic crises in our country’s history — a crisis that began one lousy mortgage at a time,” the Democrat wrote on her campaign website, which also decries “a deregulated credit industry (that) squeezed families harder, hawking dangerous mortgages.”
...

Link: http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061136010


Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Jun 5 2012, 09:36 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ Jun 5 2012, 05:00 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 5 2012, 03:23 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jun 5 2012, 03:06 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 5 2012, 02:52 PM) *
...
So what? ... What bearing would that have on Elizabeth Warren's candidacy for the U.S. Senate? ...
...

In the eyes of someone who puts party and ideology above all else, it would have no bearing whatsoever. Fortunately, however, ...
QUOTE
...
... 31 percent of self-described independents - a critical voting bloc - said the issue makes them less likely to support Warren in November.
...

Link: http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-02/news/31987873_1_poll-democratic-senate-warren-campaign

Likely with a little help from you, right?
...

I'm not a Bay Stater. I'm a Sunshine Stater.

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 5 2012, 03:23 PM) *
...
... I would still be in favor of her over a man who is firmly tucked into Wall Street's pocket.
...

OK. Just as long as you realize that you favor a woman who is firmly tucked into http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/296227 pockets. And a woman who, while ...
QUOTE
...
... rail[ing] against predatory banks and heartless foreclosures, took part in about a dozen Oklahoma real estate deals that netted her and her family hefty profits through maneuvers such as “flipping” properties, records show.

A Herald review has found that the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate rapidly bought and sold homes herself, loaned money at high interest rates to relatives and purchased foreclosed properties at bargain prices.
...
Herald columnist Howie Carr reported yesterday that Warren and her relatives also profited from two additional Oklahoma City foreclosures — in both cases showing triple-digit percentage gains.
...
... Warren and her family’s private investments don’t seem to square with her public statements about the latest real estate boom and bust.

“We are in the midst of one of the greatest economic crises in our country’s history — a crisis that began one lousy mortgage at a time,” the Democrat wrote on her campaign website, which also decries “a deregulated credit industry (that) squeezed families harder, hawking dangerous mortgages.”
...

Link: http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061136010

So Warren flipped properties for money. Have YOU ever flipped properties for money? Just sayin'.

Since you're so fond of looking for links, perhaps you could post a link that compares the money flowing from Wall Street into Scott Brown's campaign versus the money Elizabeth Warren's getting from Wall Street lawyers... whistling.gif


It's interesting that you offer no defense whatsoever of the Republican incumbent, only attacks on the Democratic challenger. Why? Because the parameters of the topic are too narrow to do so, or is it because there isn't a heckuva lot that is good that can be attributed to Scott Brown's term in the Senate?

Posted by: akaCG Jun 5 2012, 11:45 PM

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 5 2012, 05:36 PM) *
...
So Warren flipped properties for money. Have YOU ever flipped properties for money? ...
...

Nope. I've neither flipped foreclosed properties for money nor flipped foreclosed properties for money while decrying the heartlessness of foreclosures.

Too busy flipping derivatives for money while not decrying the heartlessness of derivatives, I'm afraid.

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 5 2012, 05:36 PM) *
...
Since you're so fond of looking for links, perhaps you could post a link that compares the money flowing from Wall Street into Scott Brown's campaign versus the money Elizabeth Warren's getting from Wall Street lawyers ...
...

Let me respond to the above by hyperlinking the following article from that well known source of right-wing propaganda, the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/elizabeth-warren-overstates-brown-title-wall-street-favorite/QHPY5M2slorZtQyqoWbERN/index.html


QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jun 5 2012, 05:36 PM) *
...
It's interesting that you offer no defense whatsoever of the Republican incumbent, only attacks on the Democratic challenger. Why? Because the parameters of the topic are too narrow to do so ...?
...

That.


Posted by: akaCG Jun 11 2012, 06:25 PM

2. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) should cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

The latest answer to the above question (as well as to the oft-invoked in this thread "So what?" question) comes to us courtesy of a piece (excerpts below) in today's issue of Indian Country Today ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Country_Today."):

QUOTE
...
As an enrolled member of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, 1981 alumna of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, veteran scholastic administrator, and lifelong Democrat, I am profoundly disturbed by the emergence of recent details concerning Harvard and one of its law school’s senior faculty members, Massachusetts senate candidate Elizabeth Warren. ...
...
Warren has predicated her bid for elected office on an advocacy for the disenfranchised, the proverbial “99 percent.” Consequently, her conduct vis-à-vis a historically marginalized Native community is fundamentally pertinent to the ideological consistency of her campaign platform.
...
What’s so confounding about the efforts of the Warren camp to deflect attention from these realities is that a consideration of the mainstream progressive ethos she publicly embraces fails to support her actions. Rather, the central question here is one of intent: why did Professor Warren list herself as a minority in the AALS directories and in federal compliance statistics when the implicit purpose of the opportunity to ethnically self-identify in a professional context is a function of equal opportunity aspirations? ...
...
If one proceeds from the premise that the objective of affirmative action is to promote mosaics of perspective as didactic apparatuses in and of themselves, then Warren is not an individual who can refer to a personal history defined by either Native culture or Native genetics. It is wonderful that her “family lore” aspires to inclusiveness with its nods to “high cheekbones” but to argue that such vaguely defined allusions are of similar value in shaping a unique world view as regular exposure to and celebration of specific custom, doctrine, and ideology, would be patently false. And if white privilege exists, as numerous proponents of liberalism contend, then it has to be aesthetic as well as cultural. Warren’s experience has, by and large, been that of a Caucasian female American. And so Warren’s motivation in emphasizing a claim to Native lineage becomes a central issue in regard to her credibility.

A not-insignificant number of her defenders have attempted to double down by maintaining that most Oklahomans likely have at least a minute amount of Indian DNA. What a poetic illustration of the legacy of colonialism: first, the European entitlement to Native territories, and, now, white entitlement to Native cultural identity sans the conditions that confer meaning on that identity. In this respect, Warren has arguably benefited from pervasive misconceptions about Indians and a propensity of mainstream America to romanticize them. Perhaps as a result of white guilt, it is an acceptable, even trendy, practice among stalwart Warren supporters in Internet forum dialogues to sympathetically recall their own ambiguous tales of indigenous ancestors and then to admit that they themselves have no proof but muddied familial oral narratives. After all, anyone who has listened to their aunt wax envious about cheekbones can’t be ignorant about the nuances informing tribal politics, ceremonies, and traditions, or about the unique obstacles with which many Natives grapple each day: third-world living standards on reservations; endemic alcoholism and poverty; a situational dearth of legal recourse due to jurisdictional complexities; an absence of opportunity for educational or economic betterment.
...
We ask the fellow Native alumni of Harvard, as well as the University’s current Native students and staffers, to join in supporting Senator Brown. Because when Warren directly facilitates a corruption of equal opportunity philosophy and then disingenuously dismisses valid concerns about her behavior as attacks against her family, she demeans the bravery of our Native forebears who fought so valiantly to resist assimilation and to preserve our various ways of life.
...

Link: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ict_sbc/we-should-denounce-the-conduct-of-harvard-and-elizabeth-warren

Eloquently put.


Posted by: akaCG Aug 21 2012, 07:35 PM

PPP released their latest poll today. Result:

QUOTE
...
PPP's newest poll on the Massachusetts Senate race finds Scott Brown opening up a 5 point lead, 49-44. This is the first time Brown has led in one of our polls since June of 2011. Our last poll, in June of this year, found a tie and the two before that had modest leads for Elizabeth Warren.
...
Brown's approval has improved a net 14 points from March when he was at +3 (45/42). Warren's numbers are headed in the other direction. On that poll her favorability was 46/33 and now it's 46/43 - her negatives have risen 10 points over the last five months while her positives have remained unchanged.
...

Link: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/08/brown-leads-by-5-in-ma-sen-race.html

It will be interesting to see if the Suffolk University poll (due out any day now, 'far as I'm able to determine) will confirm the above developments since their last one, which they conducted http://www.suffolk.edu/offices/52625.html.


Posted by: BoF Sep 18 2012, 10:28 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ Aug 21 2012, 02:35 PM) *
PPP released their latest poll today. Result:
QUOTE
...
PPP's newest poll on the Massachusetts Senate race finds Scott Brown opening up a 5 point lead, 49-44. This is the first time Brown has led in one of our polls since June of 2011. Our last poll, in June of this year, found a tie and the two before that had modest leads for Elizabeth Warren.
...
Brown's approval has improved a net 14 points from March when he was at +3 (45/42). Warren's numbers are headed in the other direction. On that poll her favorability was 46/33 and now it's 46/43 - her negatives have risen 10 points over the last five months while her positives have remained unchanged.
...

Link: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/08/brown-leads-by-5-in-ma-sen-race.html

It will be interesting to see if the Suffolk University poll (due out any day now, 'far as I'm able to determine) will confirm the above developments since their last one, which they conducted http://www.suffolk.edu/offices/52625.html.

It looks like Elizabeth Warren is getting a http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html

Posted by: akaCG Sep 20 2012, 10:45 AM

Bolding mine:

QUOTE
...
U.S. Sen. Scott Brown has moved into a narrow lead over rival Elizabeth Warren while his standing among Massachusetts voters has improved despite a year-long Democratic assault, a new UMass Lowell/Boston Herald poll shows.

The GOP incumbent is beating Warren by a 50-44 percent margin among registered Bay State voters, a turnaround from the last University of Massachusetts Lowell/Herald poll nine months ago that had the Democratic challenger leading by seven points. Among likely voters, Brown is leading the Harvard Law professor by a 49-45 percent margin, just within the poll’s 5.5 percent margin of error.
...
Stanta said she has a “trust” problem with Warren because of her differing explanations for why she listed herself as an American Indian minority in law school directories. “When they avoid explaining exactly what is going on, I don’t feel comfortable,” Stanta said.
...
The poll also shows Brown continuing to hold a huge lead among self-described independent voters, 58 to 35 percent. He has also pulled even on an issue Warren has sought to make her own — fighting for the middle class. Asked which candidate would look out for the interests of the middle class, 46 percent of registered voters said Warren and 44 percent said Brown.
...

Link: http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061161664


Posted by: AuthorMusician Sep 20 2012, 11:19 AM

Thought I smelled something.

It's a dead horse being beaten in the polls:

http://andover.patch.com/articles/new-polls-show-warren-edging-ahead-of-brown-in-us-senate-race-e88cb1aa

Posted by: BoF Sep 20 2012, 06:57 PM

QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 20 2012, 05:45 AM) *
Link: http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061161664

In a frantic attempt to will the elections of 2012 as you want them, you have given us http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html in the Real Clear Politics Averages.

If your depression deepens because of the election results, please see a doctor before doing anything rash.


Posted by: Ted Sep 20 2012, 09:16 PM

QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 20 2012, 02:57 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 20 2012, 05:45 AM) *
Link: http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061161664

In a frantic attempt to will the elections of 2012 as you want them, you have given us http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html in the Real Clear Politics Averages.

If your depression deepens because of the election results, please see a doctor before doing anything rash.

I cannot imagine this far left lying hack can win here but this is a liberal state....

I still believe she will lose by 4% or more

Posted by: BoF Sep 20 2012, 09:38 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 20 2012, 04:16 PM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 20 2012, 02:57 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 20 2012, 05:45 AM) *
Link: http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061161664

In a frantic attempt to will the elections of 2012 as you want them, you have given us http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html in the Real Clear Politics Averages.

If your depression deepens because of the election results, please see a doctor before doing anything rash.

I cannot imagine this far left lying hack can win here but this is a liberal state....

I still believe she will lose by 4% or more

What do you base that on - gossip you hear at the barber shop?

Posted by: Ted Sep 20 2012, 09:46 PM

QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 20 2012, 05:38 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 20 2012, 04:16 PM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 20 2012, 02:57 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 20 2012, 05:45 AM) *
Link: http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061161664

In a frantic attempt to will the elections of 2012 as you want them, you have given us http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html in the Real Clear Politics Averages.

If your depression deepens because of the election results, please see a doctor before doing anything rash.

I cannot imagine this far left lying hack can win here but this is a liberal state....

I still believe she will lose by 4% or more

What do you base that on - gossip you hear at the barber shop?

all of the above thumbsup.gif

Posted by: akaCG Sep 20 2012, 10:22 PM

Just FYI:

Those of you who are not in the CBS Boston coverage area, but would like to watch the Brown/Warren debate tonight at 7 PM Eastern, can do so on the CSPAN 3 cable channel or on the CSPAN 3 website:

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/


Posted by: akaCG Sep 25 2012, 04:58 PM

Uh oh. Prof. Warren seems to have been practicing law in Massachussets without even so much as 1/32nd of a law license in the state.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/

Hmmm ... developing ...


Posted by: nighttimer Sep 25 2012, 10:21 PM

Is this Scott Brown's "macaca" moment?

QUOTE

Staffers for Sen. Scott Brown chanted Indian "war whoops" and made "tomahawk chops" during a rally for the Republican senator this week in Boston.

In a video posted on YouTube, Brown's staffers are seen holding campaign signs near the Erie Pub, chanting and making tomahawk chops, presumably in reference to Elizabeth Warren's claims of Cherokee heritage.

Brown's Deputy Chief of Staff Greg Casey and Constituent Service Counsel Jack Richard, State Director Jerry McDermott, special assistant Jennifer Franks and GOP operative Brad Garnett are pictured in the video, NewsCenter 5's Janet Wu confirmed.

"It is certainly something that I don't condone," said Brown when asked about the video. "The real offense is that (Warren) said she was white and then checked the box saying she is Native American, and then she changed her profile in the law directory once she made her tenure."

Read more: http://www.wcvb.com/news/politics/Sen-Scott-Brown-staffers-caught-on-video-chanting-Indian-war-whoops-making-tomahawk-chops/-/9848766/16727976/-/tj3yi5z/-/index.html#ixzz27WSAmAt1


"Don't condone," but doesn't directly criticize or reprimand his staffers for engaging in racially insensitive behavior. Let's ask a Native American which is more offensive? It might be a push.

Keepin' it classy, Scotty. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: akaCG Sep 25 2012, 11:24 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Sep 25 2012, 06:21 PM) *
Is this Scott Brown's "macaca" moment?
...

No:
QUOTE
...
Which is worse: Elizabeth Warren pretending to be Native American for professional gain, or Scott Brown’s staffers mocking her for it?
...
New rule: Pretending to be Native American is bad, unless Elizabeth Warren does it. Ain’t that right, http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ted_turner_tomahawk_chop.jpeg?
...
No more jokes, you wingnuts. No “Faucahontas,” no “Chief $#!++ing Bull,” etc. If Elizabeth Warren wants to lie about her heritage to gain an edge over the competition, that’s her business. Don’t Tonto her. I mean taunt. Don’t taunt her.
...

Link: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/25/stop-hurting-elizabeth-warrens-feelings-you-guys/

laugh.gif


Posted by: AuthorMusician Sep 26 2012, 02:17 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Sep 25 2012, 06:21 PM) *
Is this Scott Brown's "macaca" moment?
QUOTE

Staffers for Sen. Scott Brown chanted Indian "war whoops" and made "tomahawk chops" during a rally for the Republican senator this week in Boston.

In a video posted on YouTube, Brown's staffers are seen holding campaign signs near the Erie Pub, chanting and making tomahawk chops, presumably in reference to Elizabeth Warren's claims of Cherokee heritage.

Brown's Deputy Chief of Staff Greg Casey and Constituent Service Counsel Jack Richard, State Director Jerry McDermott, special assistant Jennifer Franks and GOP operative Brad Garnett are pictured in the video, NewsCenter 5's Janet Wu confirmed.

"It is certainly something that I don't condone," said Brown when asked about the video. "The real offense is that (Warren) said she was white and then checked the box saying she is Native American, and then she changed her profile in the law directory once she made her tenure."

Read more: http://www.wcvb.com/news/politics/Sen-Scott-Brown-staffers-caught-on-video-chanting-Indian-war-whoops-making-tomahawk-chops/-/9848766/16727976/-/tj3yi5z/-/index.html#ixzz27WSAmAt1


"Don't condone," but doesn't directly criticize or reprimand his staffers for engaging in racially insensitive behavior. Let's ask a Native American which is more offensive? It might be a push.

Keepin' it classy, Scotty. rolleyes.gif


Pretty damning stuff. It's also very bad that Brown went for the essence of this thread during the debate, as if anyone cares any longer.

The stupid behavior of his team does reflect on him personally and up close. He should have actually done something about this rather than simply talking about it. I certainly would not have used those words.

The words I would have used are in the lexicon of comedians like George Carlin. Really makes my Ojibwa blood boil, all three or four drops of it. Family mythology differs on what actually happened way back during the Voyager days of beaver felt top hats. I do assume it involved a lot of boinking with the natives.

Posted by: akaCG Sep 27 2012, 06:59 PM

QUOTE
...
Today, it was http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warren-represented-massachusetts-client-in-massachusetts/ that in 2001 Elizabeth Warren represented a Massachusetts client in a Massachusetts Federal Courtroom in a case that involved Massachusetts law without a license to practice law in Massachusetts. ...
...
Blogger Mark Thompson at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, who had been Ms. Warren's most ardent defender until this new revelation, http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/09/new-facts-on-the-elizabeth-warren-upl-issue/ about Professor William Jacobson's argument that Ms. Warren has engaged in the unlicensed practice of law in Massachusetts:
...
Professor Jacobson:

I couldn’t figure out how to leave this as a comment at your site, but I wanted to let you know ASAP that I concede that your discovery this morning answers all of my arguments and is a gamechanger. Your diligence in investigating this matter is commendable.
...

Link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/27/Bombshell-Revelation-About-Elizabeth-Warren-Law-License-Shocks-Defender

Sen. Brown and Prof. Warren will be debating each other this coming http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220927warren-brown_showdown_set/srvc=home&position=5. It will be interesting to see who brings these latest revelations up first: Sen. Brown or the moderator, NBC's David Gregory.


Posted by: nighttimer Nov 7 2012, 03:16 AM

Is Elizabeth Warren too fraudulent to be elected?

Massachusetts says,"Nope." mrsparkle.gif

Lock thread.

Posted by: Ted Nov 7 2012, 06:35 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 6 2012, 10:16 PM) *
Is Elizabeth Warren too fraudulent to be elected?

Massachusetts says,"Nope." mrsparkle.gif

Lock thread.

Yup

Big money bought her the seat........

http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/News-and-Features/Online-exclusives/2012/Fall/004-Warren-takes-lead-in-TV-spending.aspx

Posted by: nighttimer Nov 7 2012, 06:52 PM

QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 7 2012, 01:35 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 6 2012, 10:16 PM) *
Is Elizabeth Warren too fraudulent to be elected?

Massachusetts says,"Nope." mrsparkle.gif

Lock thread.

Yup

Big money bought her the seat........

http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/News-and-Features/Online-exclusives/2012/Fall/004-Warren-takes-lead-in-TV-spending.aspx


Big money didn't buy Elizabeth Warren the seat. Massachusetts voters PUT her in the seat.

It's not like Scott Brown didn't have http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-13/scott-brown-wall-streets-hope-to-stop-elizabeth-warren trying to keep him in the seat.
QUOTE
For the Wall Street bankers, hedge fund managers, and private equity executives from New York, Connecticut, and elsewhere who are pouring money into Brown's campaign, it's also about something much closer to their hearts: stopping Elizabeth Warren. The Harvard Law professor, former head of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and driving force behind the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Washington, has become the populist champion of government restraint of Wall Street. When asked why he thought Wall Street had become so active on behalf of Brown, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank says: "Two words: Elizabeth Warren."


Stop swallowing those sour grapes, Ted. Warren won. Brown lost. Deal with it. giveup.gif

Posted by: Dingo Nov 7 2012, 07:29 PM

1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

My main thought was Brown needed to get his eyes checked. Ms Warren does not look like a pure white woman. The Indian contribution to her face appears quite obvious. Apparently enough voters agreed with me. flowers.gif

2. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) should cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

Medical health costs contribute to bankruptcies in many cases. Compared with the level of lying that is common place with republicans I can live with the fact that she may have inflated the frequency.


Posted by: nighttimer Nov 7 2012, 08:39 PM

QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 02:29 PM) *
1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

My main thought was Brown needed to get his eyes checked. Ms Warren does not look like a pure white woman. The Indian contribution to her face appears quite obvious. Apparently enough voters agreed with me.


What is a "pure" White woman? ermm.gif

Posted by: AuthorMusician Nov 7 2012, 08:54 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 7 2012, 04:39 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 02:29 PM) *
1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

My main thought was Brown needed to get his eyes checked. Ms Warren does not look like a pure white woman. The Indian contribution to her face appears quite obvious. Apparently enough voters agreed with me.


What is a "pure" White woman? ermm.gif


I think that would be waspish. Think Ann Romney. The grandkid has enough Ponca Tribe blood to claim heritage and benefits, but she is very fair complected. There's Navajo in there and one other I don't remember. Some flavor of Sioux?

Anyway, her heritage and her academic career didn't do anything but maybe make her more popular among voting women.

Posted by: amf Nov 7 2012, 08:56 PM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 7 2012, 03:39 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 02:29 PM) *
1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

My main thought was Brown needed to get his eyes checked. Ms Warren does not look like a pure white woman. The Indian contribution to her face appears quite obvious. Apparently enough voters agreed with me.


What is a "pure" White woman? ermm.gif

I'm thinking "a virgin", although for the life of me, I can't figure out how -- like having Indian heritage -- you can tell by her looks. laugh.gif

Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Nov 7 2012, 09:19 PM

QUOTE(amf @ Nov 7 2012, 03:56 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 7 2012, 03:39 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 02:29 PM) *
1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

My main thought was Brown needed to get his eyes checked. Ms Warren does not look like a pure white woman. The Indian contribution to her face appears quite obvious. Apparently enough voters agreed with me.


What is a "pure" White woman? ermm.gif

I'm thinking "a virgin", although for the life of me, I can't figure out how -- like having Indian heritage -- you can tell by her looks. laugh.gif

I think her cheekbones look sort of Native American. I also think that it's almost a reverse-racism to call someone a liar because they don't look black enough, Indian enough, etc.

It shouldn't have been an issue, and it's not as if Scott Brown had to use it as an argument to keep his position in the US Senate.

Posted by: Dingo Nov 8 2012, 12:17 AM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 7 2012, 12:39 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 02:29 PM) *
1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

My main thought was Brown needed to get his eyes checked. Ms Warren does not look like a pure white woman. The Indian contribution to her face appears quite obvious. Apparently enough voters agreed with me.


What is a "pure" White woman? ermm.gif

As distinguished from being part noncaucasian, Indian in this case, but go ahead and explore the offensive possibilities. sleeping.gif

Posted by: nighttimer Nov 9 2012, 04:43 AM

QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 07:17 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 7 2012, 12:39 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 02:29 PM) *
1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

My main thought was Brown needed to get his eyes checked. Ms Warren does not look like a pure white woman. The Indian contribution to her face appears quite obvious. Apparently enough voters agreed with me.


What is a "pure" White woman? ermm.gif

As distinguished from being part noncaucasian, Indian in this case, but go ahead and explore the offensive possibilities. sleeping.gif


My, but aren't we touchy?

I have never heard of human beings described as if they were comparable to bodies of water. From your loaded descriptor it isn't preposterous to assume if Elizabeth Warren isn't a "pure" White woman because of her mixed racial heritage, that must then mean she is unpure? unsure.gif

Posted by: Paladin Elspeth Nov 9 2012, 05:46 AM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 8 2012, 11:43 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 07:17 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 7 2012, 12:39 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 02:29 PM) *
1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

My main thought was Brown needed to get his eyes checked. Ms Warren does not look like a pure white woman. The Indian contribution to her face appears quite obvious. Apparently enough voters agreed with me.


What is a "pure" White woman? ermm.gif

As distinguished from being part noncaucasian, Indian in this case, but go ahead and explore the offensive possibilities. sleeping.gif


My, but aren't we touchy?

I have never heard of human beings described as if they were comparable to bodies of water. From your loaded descriptor it isn't preposterous to assume if Elizabeth Warren isn't a "pure" White woman because of her mixed racial heritage, that must then mean she is unpure? unsure.gif

I think a "pure" anyone is someone whose genes are racially unadulterated in this context. Maybe somewhere in this world are people who are racially "unadulterated," but the members of the American Nazi Party might be dismayed if they let their DNA be tested for their ancestral "roots." Hitler himself had fairly close relatives who were Jewish, or so I recall hearing, after whom the fictional character Lord Voldemort (aka Tom Riddle) was patterned, who, while he wanted to purge the magic world of Muggle blood, was himself a "mud blood."

Racial heritage, mixed or not, should not even be a consideration. Elizabeth Warren said that her mother had told her of her Cherokee heritage, and that she was looked down upon by her prospective husband's family for having Indian blood. That shouldn't have happened, but it did, and it was a relatively long time ago.

Why should Scott Brown have cared about whether she claimed to be 1/32 Cherokee or not? Didn't he have eminently more important issues to discuss? For him to allege that Warren used this to get ahead in school or at a job is ironic, considering that he probably got pretty far in some areas because of his good looks and his magazine centerfold, like a Kim Kardashian male counterpart. His good looks didn't qualify him for Senate, either. But a big deal was not made in Democratic commercials about him capitalizing on his good looks for advantages, that he was actually "just another pretty face."

Neither racial heritage nor looks should make much if any difference when a person campaigns for leadership in government. What the candidates have by way of gray matter between their ears should assume a much higher priority, that and a genuine desire to serve the people.

So the election is over, and Brown's attempt to discredit Professor Warren because of her claim to Cherokee heritage fell flat on its face, as it should.

Posted by: Curmudgeon Nov 9 2012, 06:11 AM

http://Questions:

1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

The questions at this point are moot: She won.

2. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) should cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

Re: Her heritage:

QUOTE
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml

Ergo: The question of her heritage should be moot.

I have read the Constitution several times in my life.

QUOTE
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. ( http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html )

The wording is a bit ambiguous, but it seems to come from a period of time when no one saw a need for an MBA or an LLD from a prestigous university as a prerequisite to elected office.

Ergo, The question of her scholarship is moot.

I would suggest that rather than continue with pointless racism, we close this thread!

Posted by: Dingo Nov 9 2012, 06:19 AM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 8 2012, 08:43 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 07:17 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 7 2012, 12:39 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 02:29 PM) *
1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

My main thought was Brown needed to get his eyes checked. Ms Warren does not look like a pure white woman. The Indian contribution to her face appears quite obvious. Apparently enough voters agreed with me.


What is a "pure" White woman? ermm.gif

As distinguished from being part noncaucasian, Indian in this case, but go ahead and explore the offensive possibilities. sleeping.gif


My, but aren't we touchy?

I have never heard of human beings described as if they were comparable to bodies of water. From your loaded descriptor it isn't preposterous to assume if Elizabeth Warren isn't a "pure" White woman because of her mixed racial heritage, that must then mean she is unpure? unsure.gif

One of us is weird and I don't think it's me. ph34r.gif

Posted by: nighttimer Nov 9 2012, 06:53 AM

QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Nov 9 2012, 01:11 AM) *
I would suggest that rather than continue with pointless racism, we close this thread!


Oh, I agree because the question as originally posed has been totally and thoroughly answered by the voters, so this is a settled issue. dry.gif

But if the Mods and Admins see a reason for this thread to stay open, that's their call.


QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 9 2012, 01:19 AM) *
One of us is weird and I don't think it's me. ph34r.gif


If you were weird how would you know it? blink.gif

Posted by: Dingo Nov 9 2012, 07:02 AM

QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 8 2012, 10:53 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 9 2012, 01:19 AM) *
One of us is weird and I don't think it's me. ph34r.gif


If you were weird how would you know it? blink.gif

I wouldn't but I would be confident that at least one was. cool.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)