“The best way to satisfy these questions is for Elizabeth Warren to authorize the release of her law school applications and all personnel files from the various universities where she has taught. I have released hundreds of pages of confidential employment records relating to my 32-year career in the National Guard, and I would encourage Professor Warren to do the same with respect to her personnel records and previous applications. As candidates for high public office, we have a duty to be transparent and open and not hide behind a wall of silence in the midst of public controversy.”The response from a Warren spokesperson is that "Brown is shamelessly attempting to divert attention from his record on the issues that really matter" and that the "questions that have already been answered.”
May 8, 2012
Scott Brown: "Serious questions have been raised about the legitimacy of Elizabeth Warren’s claims to Native American ancestry..."
"... and whether it was appropriate for her to assume minority status as a college professor. Her changing stories, contradictions and refusal to answer legitimate questions have cast doubt on her credibility and called into question the diversity practices at Harvard."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
95 comments:
She ought to prove -- or at least try to prove -- that she didn't game the system. Because right now there's no other explanation for her odd Indian claim.
And she and Harvard ought to explain why the mere suggestion she benefited from claiming minority status is now so insulting, absurd, and stupid.
affirmative action principles and what her great great grandfather did to the Cherokee people demands that she be stripped of her rank and kicked out of Harvard.
Ace of Spades is pointing out that her Great-great-grandmother's husband was most likely a soldier involved with the 'Trail of Tears' march...
It's looking grim...
Chief Warren in heap big trouble. She should powwow with O and ask how he handled the release of his tribal scriptures/ educational records. Oh -- never mind.
To me, this is good entertainment. However, never underestimate the ability of the voting public, to say, "Well, this is how Scott Brown lost me."
America's Politico will know what to do...he flew up there to help her. Let's wait until he reports back.
Oh...I think I missed a couple of great's in there... (great-great-great-great-grandmother)
Paul Kersey, that's real nice.
But anyway, the above-quoted response from the Warren spokesperson is already on the verge of being the response from everyone else. For many, it already is.
Doesn't hurt, of course, that the response is totally true. I mean, read it. It states exactly what is happening.
It's asking a lot of voters to STAY off of the issues of the day, all the way through November, and remain instead latched to this bullshit.
I'm with Allen
Pass the Popcorn :)
Bwaaaa-ha-ha-ha!
Now we're talking! As I said in my podcast, head-on is how you deal with issues, and this is a perfect example of Scott Brown doing just that:
Not only does Warren have no wiggle room (she either has to put up or shut up) but, as Paul Kersey says, it locks Obama's college transcripts into the controversy, too - brilliant.
Simply politics at it's best,...
harrogate, the Book of Alinsky says this is a good tactic. Isn't it?
Warren has answered these questions in the same way that Anthony Weiner answered questions in the immediate aftermath of his unfortunate tweet.
Harrowgate - are you a Garage clone
Paul, I will defer to you on that question, as you're so well read in Alinksy I am sure. You know all about his books, based not on what pundits screech, but on your own careful reading.
I myself have never read Alinsky and had never heard of him until pundits started screeching about him.
I can think of 4 people that I know who say that they're Indian (Native Am.) not one of them has any proof. Nothing. What is the worst of this? 3 of them are public school teachers. The other tried to get a job with a tribe that put a premium on hiring natives, and was told to take a hike.
What's funny is that she can't tell the truth, which is pretty simple.
"People know that claiming some minority status, if you can, will give you some advantages in academia. I did what a lot of people do -- pretty much everyone who figures they can -- and if I erred, I chose to err on the side that offered me some advantage."
I had a girlfriend in college, a blue-eyed "Hispanic" (on her application form), whose "Hispanic" side, her father's family, could likely trace their ancestry back to the Conquistadors, and owned a sizeable chunk of the state of California.
Now she was actually from a disadvantaged background: her mother was a poor rural girl, from a family of of real-live Grapes of Wrath style "Okies", who got pregnant with her at 15. But that counted for naught. Her wealthy Spanish ancestors, though she got little real support from them, did confer upon her "minority" status on the ol' UC application.
While I'm no fan of Warren's politics, this is one thing she did that I really DON'T care about. She did what she had to do, in her world, to give her an edge. Welcome to grownup land. When the rules are stacked against you, break them.
What I find delicious about this is something else. If she just SAID THIS, voters would probably forgive her. But she'd have to admit that the whole "affirmative action" regime is BS. As a Democrat, she's not going to do that.
She's hanging in a metaphorical noose of her own making.
Harro, dude, honestly. Think. How is it, do you suppose, that this information about Chief Warren entered the public domain? Who got it out there? Do you think it was just happenstance? Or was it crack opposition research?
Now, if you agree that is was oppo, you gotta ask yourself: why did the people who put it out there put it out there now? Why not in the summer or the fall? They obviously knew what they were doing enough to find this juicy stuff out. Do you think they are idiots about timing?
You probably do think they are idiots, as your whole worldview is predicated on Republicans being dumb. Which is some hilarious shit, there, dude, given the facts I have presented to you in the questions above.
You are dismissed.
Paul Kersey said...
harrogate, the Book of Alinsky says this is a good tactic. Isn't it?
The Book of Saul sounds better to my ear.
It's asking a lot of voters to STAY off of the issues of the day, all the way through November, and remain instead latched to this bullshit.
If you consider issues surrounding a person's character to be "bullshit", I guess. But it's not like she has any real qualifications for the job, so what else is there to talk about?
I can't be the first person to mention Paul Revere and the Raiders in connection with this story. Can I? Specifically: http://tinyurl.com/23w63zx ?
So proud to live! So proud to lie!
But maybe someday when we learn,
Cherokee nation will return.
Will return. WILL RETURN!
Warren forgot to re-assert the Gender Card in her latest response.
Slipping!
Welcome to grownup land. When the rules are stacked against you, break them.
And when you get caught, you pay the price for breaking them.
So if Warren is eligible for all of those sweet, sweet diversity bennies for having a putative, 5th generation removed potential Indian in her lineage, is it all cancelled out now that it seems she is also five generations removed from a man who participated in rounding up the Cherokees?
Why would one count any more than the other?
If leftist academics were half as bright as they think they are they would have known you can't assign collective guilt. But being leftists they think you can collectivize everything I guess.
If there's one person who will put an end to this affirmative action bullshit, Elizabeth Warren is it. However, blacks will never give in. Never. There is too much money in it for them to give it up.
johanna, it's never inappropriate to mention PR&TR especially when trying to judge someone's fitness for office.
I think it's a mistake for Brown to get so directly involved in this issue. Warren was doing a fine job of digging her own hole without his help.
I can see the problem for Warren. As someone above pointed out, this is out from Breitbart: Elizabeth Warren Ancestor Rounded Up Cherokees For Trail of Tears.
It appears, right now, that that GGG grandmother of Warren's (O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford) whom she believed to be Cherokee, was married to a member of the militia (Jonathan Crawford - Warren's GGG grandfather) who was involved in the roundup of the Cherokee before they were marched off to Oklahoma. And, then, who went on to go fight the Seminole. So, not only is she apparently descended from one of those who helped expedite the Trail of Tears, but he also hunted Indians. And, meanwhile GGG Grandmother OC turns out to have been listed as "white" on the census rolls.
It's kinda funny that Senator Stripper uses words like "shameless." He's got balls. Dude, seriously, you were a stripper. I'd be like, "my opponent is a stripper. He strips for money. He's a sex fiend." What's he going to do, say it was art? He;'s a stripper! And he's throwing dirt. I can't believe it.
You're so lucky that you're running against Ivy League Princess. She's too high and mighty to call you names. I'd be like, "I'm an Indian, damn it. Why is that stripper saying things about my noble heritage?"
And, meanwhile GGG Grandmother OC turns out to have been listed as "white" on the census rolls.
Not to be cheeky but what about the bones?
BarryD - "While I'm no fan of Warren's politics, this is one thing she did that I really DON'T care about. She did what she had to do, in her world, to give her an edge. Welcome to grownup land. When the rules are stacked against you, break them."
=======================
First, many Americans are in no position to "game the system" as Warren did. How does a Vietnamese kid with a 3.91 GPA and 1550 SATs "game the system" when he is cursed with a penis and Asian blood with his Boat People parents unable to claim they tenuously had black, hispanic, NA ancestors? Or whites whose geneology goes back 3 generations in America and whose attempts to lie and advantage themselves over others would be readily detected by any who looked.
Second, if the AA system Americans never voted on is so critical and pervasive - why not destroy the system rather than say the best response is to let the 10% of whites in a position to game the system, try it?
Saint Croix is one of those democrat party faux prudes
Saint Croix:
But Warren did try to make hay out of Brown's centerfold days. How can you say she's above name calling?
She did cry like a pussy, though, when Brown returned cheap shot for cheap shot.
And she tried also to score points against Scott Brown, the wealthy landlord.
But took great offense when attention was called to her own 1% salary and accumulated wealth.
Live by the tomahawk, die by the tomahawk.
Cedarford, you sound like you didn't actually read my whole post.
I AGREE WITH YOU
...not to mention, I grew up down Brookhurst Street from Little Saigon in the 1970s, and I knew some real live "boat people". Believe me, my compassion lies with them, as well as my old girlfriend's white "Okie" family, none of whom get any hand up from the BS system of Affirmative Action.
I still think that Warren's only chance of being forgiven would be to come clean and say what a lot of people are already thinking in MA (where I don't think they have so many "boat people"). I don't think she should be in office, nor do I support her in any way. But, IF she has a chance of being forgiven, the only way this could possibly happen would be for her to tell the truth about this. And she won't, because she's a Democrat.
That's what's beautiful. There's nothing more fun to watch than a loathsome politician, hoisted on her own petard.
And maybe NOW we can actually do something to give a hand up to the disadvantaged of all backgrounds, instead of giving handouts to upper middle class people who had every advantage growing up but can check the right boxes. I hope we can.
We're how many days into this story? And the damaging revelations seem to be accelerating.
David said...
I think it's a mistake for Brown to get so directly involved in this issue. Warren was doing a fine job of digging her own hole without his help.
The Boston Globe is trying to make Warren's Indian heritage claims a "Brown" issue.
But here it was useful for Brown to contrast his previous disclosure of 32 years of private military service data.
But, yes, this thing has legs all it's own.
And she and Harvard ought to explain why the mere suggestion she benefited from claiming minority status is now so insulting, absurd, and stupid.
That's the crazy shit about AA, right? In front of Congress and the courts the AA proponents will scream loudly about how AA is so essential to helping historically disadvantages minorities. But on an actual college campus you would shunned like a Klansman if you were to ask if any of the students received racial preferences for admission.
I grew up down Brookhurst Street from Little Saigon in the 1970s
Holy crap. You and I might have gone to the same grade school.
If nude Scott Brown pictures aren't a distraction from the election, this sure isn't either.
BarryD - I reread your post. I think with the reminder - I get a better sense of what you were saying.
That while you don't care if peoplem like Warren game the system, you do like that they have stepped into a noose by doing so and getting caught.
And forced to either defend AA or say, to voters laughter "ignore this and my 320,000 paycheck...as it is a distraction from the More Important Issues".
You are not saying "gaming the system" is a wise approach. It comes with big risk of embarassment.
"Doesn't hurt, of course, that the response is totally true. I mean, read it. It states exactly what is happening.
It's asking a lot of voters to STAY off of the issues of the day, all the way through November, and remain instead latched to this bullshit."
Three words.
War. Against. Women.
Except without the lying involved.
"No, no -- 'its'."
'Shameless.' Some of us can go La Bare and some can't. Shall we take off for being pretty?
Saint Croix is one of those democrat party faux prudes
Actually, Republican sex maniac. Brown is to my left.
If I was running against Ted Kennedy, I would jump up and down about how the drunk bastard killed a woman and got away with it because he's rich and white and a Kennedy.
Seems to me some political tactics are fairly obvious.
You don't have to be a prude to mock strippers. Is that a high class occupation? I think that's some reverse PC thing, we have to respect strippers now.
It just amazes me that Brown is attacking her for character flaws. And winning! You were a stripper, man. That should be a disadvantage.
Like killing a woman is bad. Or running a prostitute ring out of your house. It's weird how uptight Massachusetts is about dirt. Throw the damn dirt! This is war!
But Warren did try to make hay out of Brown's centerfold days.
Is she making posters out of his centerfold? What's she doing? Her campaign sucks. She's too high-brow to go dirty.
Look what the libs did to Sarah Palin. Based on nothing! That's what they do when they're desperate. Can you imagine if Sarah Palin was a stripper? Oh my God. It would be the apocalypse.
David said...
I think it's a mistake for Brown to get so directly involved in this issue. Warren was doing a fine job of digging her own hole without his help.
=====================
I agree that Scott Brown runs a risk of stepping too much into it. So he should not dwell on it and let others that love this story and won't let it go, run with it.
I think what he DID do, was smart:
1. The honesty and full disclosure strategem" I released 32 years of my military service records, including job applications that listed my accomplishments and gave background info on my ethnicity. Warren needs to do the same so voters will see what credentials and what ethnicity she listed on her job applications.
2. By the way, did I mention my long and honorable military service - serving the nation ad Mass instead of serving academia and the court system??
The background on this is that Massachusetts is a mostly white state, and whites in even bedwetting liberal New England oppose quotas and race preferences by 68% to 24% with the rest undecided or having no opinion. Lots of those whites are moderate Democrats who will weigh this issue viscerally and not as the media and Democrat machine tells them to believe.
And in the minority of whites, plus hispanics and blacks that believe passionately in minorities getting bonus points for identity in college and job positions..there will be many that are disgusted with Warren's "cheating a bona fide minority out of a job". They may not vote for her simply on that issue...
The ideal thing for Scott Brown is to firmly implant the "Fauxahontas" image of Warren NOW - then back off a bit but keep the issue simmering
Johanna @ 5:07
But maybe someday when they've learned
Cherokee Nation will return
(will return, will return, will return)
When the Cherokee nation returns, as promised, it will be composed entirely of privileged progressive system-cheaters with average scores and grades. And we shall send them on the Trail of Jeers.
7 Machos,
If it works, it won't have anything to do with the "dumbness" of her opponents. It will however wonderfully showcase the electorate's dumbness.I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point.
Your posts, I have noticed, are overwritten. Why don;t you just write "I know everything, I'm right about everything, nothing surprises me, the rest of you have now been taught something."
Ahhh delusions of grandeur. As an anonymous poster. On a blog. You're truly a giant, there.
I think it's the hypocrisy. :)
I mean, on the one hand you'd think that attacking Brown for posing naked would be a good tactic since the "prudes" are on the Republican side, right?
Except that the attack has to come from the supposed not-prudes. So the attack itself is hypocritical.
There may be no more substance to the attack on Warren than there is to fussing over Scott Brown's hairy... chest, but there isn't the intrinsic hypocrisy in pretending to care in order to make the criticism in the first place.
In fact, Warren is sort of the Poster Child for criticisms of AA and racial preference that conservatives have been making all along.
Note:
Shelly Lowe, executive director of Harvard University's Native American Program (HUNAP), told Breitbart News today that U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren had not, to her knowledge, participated in the program's events while Warren was a professor at Harvard.
Such an authentic Indian, that Warren!
I do not understand why experienced PR people ever think saying "Go away! I'm not talking about this!" is ever a successful strategy.
And, sorry harrogate, but you're not merely electing an automatic [D] vote for Harry Reid to control. If that were the case, then you'd have a point. But the Senate is comprised of human beings, and exploring the ethics of the individuals up for election. Sometimes when a person of low character appears, it upends the normal ideological trajectory, which I guess is your point. Liberals are entitled to "The Kennedy Seat," dammit, so stop trying to confuse that fundamental point with "facts" about a particular candidate who, once elected, won't need to demonstrate independence or even character. You want to reduce this to a binary calculation: Alley cat that votes D > saint that votes R.
It sometimes does work that way, I suppose. But don't whine too much if it doesn't. Voters don't like it when you dictate to them.
Eric wrote:
"But it's not like she has any real qualifications for the job, so what else is there to talk about?"
She's plenty qualified and you know it. Or if you're not at zero brain function, you know it. She's also right on the issues she talks about. Which means something to me.
harrogate said...
But anyway, the above-quoted response from the Warren spokesperson is already on the verge of being the response from everyone else. For many, it already is.
Doesn't hurt, of course, that the response is totally true. I mean, read it. It states exactly what is happening.
Really?
It is like totally true!?
So, why don't you tell us which questions has Warren answered?
Your feeble attempt at spin is pathetic.
harrogate said...
She's plenty qualified and you know it. Or if you're not at zero brain function, you know it. She's also right on the issues she talks about. Which means something to me.
In other words, you're hear stamping your feet because it has been revealed the candidate you support is a total fraud.
And since character never matters with the party you vote for, you want to talk about the "real issues"
Loser.
She's also right on the issues she talks about.
Yes!
Because the is nothing like a 1%er pretending to be a commoner!
Loser.
As hard as it is to believe Elizabeth Warren is dumber that Martha Coakly.
This is the sickness of affirmative action: the notion that some moral claim or character trait attaches to you because of your great-great-grandparents. I never met my great-great-grandparents. They lived and died in the 19th century. Maybe they were part Indian, who knows? What possible claim do I have on society because of them? Is is the one-drop-of-blood rule that makes me somehow entitled to something?
Whole nations have gone mad when they start using bloodlines to dole out favors, employment, status. And here we are, proud of our commitment to continuing the worst aspects of the ugliest societies in human history.
"Brown is shamelessly attempting to divert attention from his record on the issues that really matter"
Okay, so maybe not *totally* true, because the statement implies that there is something Brown wants not to talk about, but certainly true to the extent that Brown is making "shameless" use of an opportunity.
Which is exactly what he ought to be doing.
Jay,
I'm not voting for the people I most want to hang out with. Are you?
I mean, give them the same positions but switch their biographies entirely. If you lived in Mass and you discovered that Brown had done the very same thing that Warren has done, you wouldn't vote for him?
Neither of them has done anything so terrible, nor anything so wonderful--at least that I know of--as to eclipse the centrality of how they will vote as Senators.
The whole business about the TN militiaman in her past is the cherry on the cake.
Payback - it's not just for breakfast anymore.
I guess that trumps Liz Warren yelling "I'm a real Cherokee, man".
Somewhere in the infinite number of universes.
Harrogate,
You do realize that last bit is a typo; Warren's spokesperson actually said that the "questions have already been evaded."
Saint Croix wrote:
"Look what the libs did to Sarah Palin. Based on nothing! That's what they do when they're desperate. Can you imagine if Sarah Palin was a stripper? Oh my God. It would be the apocalypse."
That's pretty fucking good right there. Credit where it is due.
Actually, it is Warren who is "shamelessly attempting to divert attention from [her] record on the issues that really matter"
Progressive projection strikes again. It's like their guilty subconscience wants answers too.
I'm sure harrogate would feel exactly the same way if we were talking about a Republican candidate who claimed veteran's benefits he wasn't entitled to.
It wouldn't matter at all, right harrogate?
harrogate said...
Jay,
I'm not voting for the people I most want to hang out with. Are you?
Um, huh?
Nothing I've said, nor this issue, has anything to do with wanting to hang out with any candidate.
To be clear, Elizabeth Warren lied about her ancestry for more than 15 years in order to advance in employment. There is no, that would be zero, evidence she has any Native American heritage.
Which means, she's a fraud and a congenital liar.
In the real world character & credibility matter, and Warren has neither.
But to you, eager proponent of cradle to crave government handouts, it isn't a "real issue"
You're going to be real butt hurt when she loses.
But you'll comfort yourself by calling voters "dumb"
John Stodder,
Thank you for your response to me. I want to reply in kind, in case you're still around.
You are taking my indifference to this particular Warren kerfuffle, to an extreme level. Which I guess is YOUR point. Alley Cats beating Saints and all of that. Obviously we aren't in any danger of seeing too many obvious examples of the former, and we'll see NONE of the latter, in either party, once we get to a certain level of political power.
What I am saying is that this particular thing, this particular kerfuffle, is not enough to "upend the normal ideological trajectory," for me as a voter. Hell, it's not nearly enough. And I am guessing that in the end, Mass voters will weigh ideology more, than this one issue. Maybe I will be proven wrong. If I am, then I will not think well of the Mass electorate. Which I'm quite sure will hurt their feelings very very badly.
p.s. I expect that any candidate for Senator--and triple this for President--has done far, far worse. And I don't think this is a remotely cynical position either.
Jay,
You seem to think you know me quite well if you think I will be "hurt" by any election result.
In all fairness though, your response does make me want to offer one important correction though. I do not think it would make voters themselves dumb, if they agreed with Warren but voted for Brown because of this "issue." I DO think it would be one helluva dumb decision though.
Except that the attack has to come from the supposed not-prudes.
Yeah, liberals are uptight about being uptight. They save their strongest judgments (their only judgments!) for the judgmental.
She made one wry comment about how she paid for college ("I kept my clothes on") and Brown slams her for being ugly ("Thank God").
It was just a few short years ago that men worried about running against women. Scott Brown is smacking them hard. And he's a stripper. I don't know, I think it's hilarious.
Do a lot of women vote for him? How much of his campaign is sex appeal?
I do not believe a woman politician would survive naked photos and a Playboy shoot.
In fact, Levi Johnson was mocked for doing the same thing, right? So not all men get a pass, just some of them.
It's like the media determines what class we are. Sarah Palin is low class, and so anybody in her orbit is low class. They don't want to mock Scott Brown. So they don't.
It would be nice if we could apply the same standards to everybody. And it's particularly appalling when people in power get privileges the rest of us do not have. (See Clinton and the crime of perjury, or Kennedy and the crime of drunk driving and involuntary manslaughter).
I just find it amazing that he's attacking her character and she has no comeback. You can't think of anything?
Warren just doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say, "I am for parochialism. I am for paternalism. I am for telling you what to do, just like my friends, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. I am for faking my racial bonafides to be in the position to tell you what to do, because I know better than you. Scott Brown may be for parochialism and paternalism, but he doesn't have the balls to say so."
I know I circle around to abortion way too much. But I suspect if Scott Brown was pro-life, he would be getting a lot more shit about his naked picture.
What I am saying is that this particular thing, this particular kerfuffle, is not enough to "upend the normal ideological trajectory," for me as a voter.
This stuff rarely upends the normal ideological trajectory. What it does do is turn off voters such that they don't show up on election day. Brown's goal is to make Warren look so despicable that many Democrats don't even bother to vote.
What does the media care about? Emotion. Stories. Buzz. Sex. Race.
The media position on sex is pro-choice and feminist.
The media position on race is affirmative action and racialist.
Scott Brown is pro-choice. Check.
Elizabeth Warren is destroying affirmative action. She's white, pretending to be a minority. Ouchie.
The media is going to focus on her, and give Brown a pass.
You would think the media would like Warren, since the media is liberal on economics. The media is liberal on everything. But economics is boring. Unless they can yell at rich people and do stories about the homeless.
The media hates the deficit, the budget, health care, tax policy, medicare, all that wonky shit.
The media's eyes roll up into its head.
And Scott Brown is a working class guy. He's populist. So that's how he's going to keep his seat. The media is okay with it.
@St. Croix: When did you become a lying weasel?
I find no online reference to Scott Brown having been a stripper.
I do find a record of you being a giant dirtbag, however. It pervades this thread.
Is there a checkbox for being related to Quinn the Eskimo?
I would hope that there isn't a standard where one never gets to outlive their youthful folly or no one dare call it folly.
At what point does, "Sure, Brown did something stupid when he was young," become "what Levi did wasn't stupid?"
@St. Croix: When did you become a lying weasel?
dude, that's name-calling!
I find no online reference to Scott Brown having been a stripper.
dude, work the google. You might try "naked" and "cosmo"
I do find a record of you being a giant dirtbag, however.
A giant bag of dirt? Man! Your insults are so G-rated. I could take my kids to see your insults.
I googled "giant bag of dirt" just for funsies. I got this.
Now I totally want to be a giant bag of dirt!
St. Croix--Everyone in the world knows about the Cosmo thing. Nobody but you seems to think of that as pursuing the "occupation" of stripper.
It's Brown's wife that you're supposed to call a stripper, dude. Try to keep your sliming on target.
I would hope that there isn't a standard where one never gets to outlive their youthful folly or no one dare call it folly.
I agree! You got to love the sinner and hate the sin. Honestly, I had almost zero reaction to his Cosmo thing in 2010. I was so unbelievably happy that we might take the Kennedy seat. And then we took it! Amazing.
I still don't actually care about his naked picture. But it is funny. And it's really funny that he's pointing fingers at Warren and accusing her of ethics violations.
What really cracks me up is when Brown calls for "transparency" and "openness." Dude, put some underwear on when you say that.
What a great political name:
Fakahontas.
Her ancestor was a "Kapo."
http://times247.com/articles/warren-s-ancestor-rounded-up-cherokees-before-trail-of-tears
St. Croix--Everyone in the world knows about the Cosmo thing. Nobody but you seems to think of that as pursuing the "occupation" of stripper.
Yeah, okay. Sorry naked picture poser. Shouldn't have called you a stripper.
I know I circle around to abortion way too much. But I suspect if Scott Brown was pro-life, he would be getting a lot more shit about his naked picture.
Well, that's probably true because pro-life people tend to be social conservatives, so an attack from that direction might have more influence.
Brown is hardly conservative by any measure, so any attack that doesn't influence the fluffy middle isn't going to do much. The conservatives already don't like him, but they'll vote for him because he's not a nut like Warren.
Saint Croix,
What really cracks me up is when Brown calls for "transparency" and "openness." Dude, put some underwear on when you say that.
Why? When transparency rules we'll just see right through it!
If you LIE about little things.. you will LIE about big things.
Yes she needs to put up proof she didn't lie.
The issue is character.
Seems like there's plenty of shamelessness to go around. It is an election year. Loads of fun to be had with accusations of hypocrisy.
I say subject it to the WWHISBHDTST test.
WWHISBHDTST= What Would've Happened If Scott Brown Had Done The Same Thing.
Can you imagine the caterwauling from the left if Brown had a history of claiming to be 1/32 minority and therefore entitled to affirmative action?
It's kinda like Bill Clinton's impeachment in a way. His defenders said things like, "All men do these kinds of things, especially powerful men, like Bill Clinton." Or, "DC is a horny place." I heard that one. Another one, "Everbody lies." Remember that one? Then fast-forward to Bush's presidency. Does anyone doubt for a nanosecond that the Dems would've had Bush stretched out on the impeachment rack lickity split if he had been caught diddling a 22-year old intern in the Oval Office with cigars and such, and then caught lying about it under oath before a federal judge?
Same-same double standard.
"This stuff rarely upends the normal ideological trajectory. What it does do is turn off voters such that they don't show up on election day. Brown's goal is to make Warren look so despicable that many Democrats don't even bother to vote."
Bingo. And given how very different these candidates are ideologically, it will most likely take something a lot more than this--like a real scandal, or something--for Brown to succeed on the "don't vote" front.
Ted Kennedy's long career was a scandalathon. He peaked early what with the dead girl, but he was reliable tabloid fodder for most of his professional life. It never cost him a vote....I hope Warren loses, but I wouldn't give long odds. Blumenthal in the neighboring state of Conn had worse identity problems, and he won. When it comes to tolerance and forgiveness and inclusion, Deomocrats practice what they preach although only on fellow Democrats......I would take a quick $25g from Cosmo if they offered it. I'm not sure if they would have the editorial vision to make that offer, but I would definitely take the offer. I don't see any harm in what Brown did, but the Warren thing looks fifty kinds of sleazy.
Drip...
....Drip....
.......Drip.....
They should also look into whether Warren or Harvard got and Federal grant money or other Federal monies based on a representation that she was Native American.
Warren is a descendant of a guard who escorted prisoners in the Trail of Tears. And while she claimed to be a minority so she would meet those of similar background, she avoided gatherings of Native Americans, even this.
She can't meet her own moral standards. What a lying hypocrite.
I would take a quick $25g from Cosmo if they offered it. I'm not sure if they would have the editorial vision to make that offer, but I would definitely take the offer. I don't see any harm in what Brown did, but the Warren thing looks fifty kinds of sleazy.
Seriously? Checking the Indian box is sleazy, but you're cool with nudie pictures? So if your daughter checks the Indian box on a job application, and your son takes his clothes off for money, she gets the lecture?
You're killing me, free love.
If you're engaged to a woman, and she checks the Indian box, "Our wedding is off! How could you? I'm so ashamed."
And I would forgive a woman for nudie pictures. But she would still hear some shit about it. "Intimacy is fragile and needs to be protected." That's what I would say. And sex in public would be Off the List of Stuff We Can Do.
As long as Brown doesn't resort to mockery or cheap jokes about Warren's (alleged) heritage, I don't fault him for mentioning this issue in light of a possible fraud taking place at Harvard. There are legitimate issues regarding AA here- Was Warren wrong for clicking the "Native American" box based solely on her family lore, or was Harvard wrong for not checking the accuracy of her claim to minority status? What determines someone's minority status? If it is to be self-identification, how does that not lend itself to fraudulent claims? How would fraudlent claims be proven?
That a blond woman with dreams of being descended from a Cherokee princess, can claim minority status and be rewarded for it, reveals more of a problem with AA than with the woman (IMO).
RE: his "Cosmo " pose: Warren, and the liberals in the the MA media, don't go after Brown for it because it's old news. It didn't matter to voters two yrs. ago so why would it matter now? It probably didn't matter because he never tried to hide it. He said he did it 'cause he needed the money. Unlike Warren, who says she didn't check the "Native American" box for AA bennies but so that she could get a lunch invitation from others "like her". It didn't ring true and it hurt her.
There are legitimate issues regarding AA here
If you think AA is legitimate, then there are issues. I mean, she took the professor job from a poor, starving Indian boy.
If you think AA is a joke, this is a joke. It's a joke upon a joke.
As far as tactics are concerned, Scott Brown should have taken a page out of the Romney playbook. Romney is a master of the no comment, no opinion, not going to say anything.
Your opponent is on fire. You pour gas on the fire. I think that's dangerous and kinda dumb.
I liked Scott Brown in 2010. Yay, Scott Brown! Now he's annoying me.
Look at what he's saying. He's not criticizing affirmative action. He's got no criticism at all. Can't think of anything. He says this "calls into question the diversity practices at Harvard."
Meaning she's not Indian enough for Scott Brown. She should be 1/16th, at least, or 1/8th. We're all waiting on Scott Brown to tell us what percentage of Indian blood the Harvard Indian Professor should have.
This is horseshit. Granted I like purple over blue, but I'm still going to mock the purple bastard.
You say what you think is right. Is affirmative action right? He skips the partisan battle and sticks to personal attack.
Blah blah blah, she cheated.
Shut up, stripper.
I do not believe a woman politician would survive naked photos and a Playboy shoot.
Depends. Is she attractive? If the answer is yes: Merely survive? No. Win in a landslide? YES.
Post a Comment