Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Elizabeth Warren
America's Debate > In the News > Election 2012
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Google
akaCG
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/resear...yth_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-mi..._b_1394092.html

Google
nighttimer
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 one vote came from.

Not much of a prognosticator, are ya, Ted? laugh.gif
Ted
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 one vote 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". .......
Raptavio
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/resear...yth_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.
akaCG
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.
Raptavio
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.
AuthorMusician
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.
akaCG
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).

akaCG
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 two recipes published by New York Times syndicated culinary columnist Pierre Franey in 1979. 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 Yvonne Young Tarr's 1972 New York Times Bread and Soup Cookbook.

Another recipe ("Herbed Tomatoes") bears a striking resemblance to one published by Better Homes & Gardens magazine in 1959.

My oh my. The more one peels the Warren "onion", the more tears. (in my case, of laughter; historical reference to the "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 ... duck.

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

laugh.gif
Mrs. Pigpen
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.
Google
akaCG
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 Indian Hills Chambourcin, perhaps. smile.gif
AuthorMusician
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.
akaCG
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 from none other than Ms. Warren herself (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?

AuthorMusician
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 from none other than Ms. Warren herself (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.
akaCG
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 post #13, 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).

akaCG
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/ms...w-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...try-part-1.html

Paladin Elspeth
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?
AuthorMusician
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 post #13, 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.
akaCG
Ms. Warren's latest (paraphrasing, but not by much) ... "explanation":

"Scott Brown is attacking my mother, my grandmother, my family!"

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

It hasn't translated into a drying up of support 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
akaCG
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 drying up of support 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/articl...ican/?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.

nighttimer
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 drying up of support 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.
akaCG
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 drying up of support 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.

nighttimer
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 drying up of support 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
akaCG
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:"Warren’s Native American story continues ... This story has more legs ..."

nighttimer
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
akaCG
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/hundr...izabeth-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/...mvBK/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] I was the first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey?"

Nemo
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/directo...ndex.html?id=82
AuthorMusician
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/directo...ndex.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.
Nemo
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.
akaCG
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 "weekly U.S. newsmagazine that is the primary national news source for Natives, American Indians, and Tribes in the U.S. and Alaska.":
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/...an-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."

AuthorMusician
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 . . .
trumpetplayer
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.
Nemo
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...&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.
Ted
this dope has finally admitted it:

Elizabeth Warren Admits She Told Employers Of Her Native American Heritage

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/...rican-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/201..._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/eliza...ournal-in-1993/
akaCG
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/columnist...leid=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/2012/05/3...OpbK/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/20...igious-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...ITE-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/..._stay_on_track/

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

"Cherokees To Protest Warren at State Convention".


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%.
akaCG
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 Rutgers Law School News.
...
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/20...re-harvard-hire

Oh my.

Paladin Elspeth
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 Rutgers Law School News.
...
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/20...re-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.
akaCG
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...warren-campaign

Paladin Elspeth
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...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)
akaCG
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...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 Wall Street lawyers' 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...leid=1061136010

Paladin Elspeth
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...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 Wall Street lawyers' 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...leid=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?
akaCG
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:

"Elizabeth Warren overstates Scott Brown’s title as Wall Street’s favorite"


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.

akaCG
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 ("a weekly U.S. newsmagazine that is the primary national news source for Natives, American Indians, and Tribes in the U.S. and Alaska."):
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/...lizabeth-warren

Eloquently put.

akaCG
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/20...a-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 back in late May.

BoF
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/20...a-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 back in late May.

It looks like Elizabeth Warren is getting a bump.
akaCG
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...leid=1061161664

AuthorMusician
Thought I smelled something.

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

Warren pulling ahead, some still undecided
BoF
QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 20 2012, 05:45 AM) *

In a frantic attempt to will the elections of 2012 as you want them, you have given us outlier poll. in the Real Clear Politics Averages.

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

Ted
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 20 2012, 02:57 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 20 2012, 05:45 AM) *

In a frantic attempt to will the elections of 2012 as you want them, you have given us outlier poll. 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
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.