Althouse: "Elizabeth Warren is catching fire."

December 14, 2014

"Elizabeth Warren is catching fire."

Headline at Politico.

140 comments:

traditionalguy said...: Warren has that hard to find cross regional appeal a President must have to get elected. Hillary has never had that without selling Bill's personality in a siamese twin deal. So Hillary shows no personality and just grins an entitled grin at people

Warren will be nominated.; 12/14/14, 8:13 AM
Fernandinande said...: Fake fire for a fake Indian.; 12/14/14, 8:13 AM
alan markus said...: Well, she is a consumer crusader, was a Harvard law professor, so I predict this Harvard business professor has a future in the Warren administration:

I Call On You to Honor My Three Osushi Groupon Vouchers; 12/14/14, 8:17 AM
traditionalguy said...: I predict Warren v. Perry in a Red River rivalry. And Perry wins.; 12/14/14, 8:18 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Based on her research into medical bankruptcies I would have to guess that the fire started on her pants.; 12/14/14, 8:18 AM
Bobber Fleck said...: Minimal real world experience... Check

Zero executive experience... Check

Law school professor... Check

Strong socialist positions... Check

Claims racial minority status... Check

Short stint in the US Senate... Check

Gave a speech that went viral... Check

Represents a deep blue state... Check

I'm beginning to see a pattern here.; 12/14/14, 8:31 AM
pm317 said...: That Elizabeth Warren Obama would not make the permanent head of the little agency that was created just for her.

But Warren could be swept off her feet to become the Obama of 2016. Obots want a redo of 2008 because they know they made a mistake then.; 12/14/14, 8:37 AM
Uncle Pavian said...: Madame Nhu, call your office.; 12/14/14, 8:43 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Please Run Warren; 12/14/14, 8:44 AM
PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...: Isn't that headline inflammatory? It brings an image to mind of Chief Warren spontaneously combusting and dying a horrible burning death.

Sexist too?

Think of all those women in Pakistan being burned to death by their husbands.

Think of the Triangle Shirtwaist factor fire.

Shame on you Politico for that imagery. Shame on you Ann for reposting it. Or at least for reposting with a groveling apology.

No, I am not a robot and don't need to prove I am. Rebel against Blogger captchas. Type in something imaginative or type in nothing at all.

The only purpose of these captchas is to annoy us since they do not do anything, regardless of what you type in.

John Henry; 12/14/14, 8:47 AM
Bob Boyd said...: She has the Hunger, but does she have Game?; 12/14/14, 8:49 AM
lemondog said...: Scrape..scrape

What's that scraping noise.....

Oh yay.....

Another lawyer type.

2016 Democratic Presidential Primary Polls; 12/14/14, 8:52 AM
Valentine Smith said...: She can't go up fast enough for me.; 12/14/14, 8:52 AM
Jaq said...: You mean Hillary "Bob Dole" Clinton isn't inevitable? I remember being sure Bob Dole was gonna be POTUS.; 12/14/14, 8:57 AM
pm317 said...: Warren is Obots’ second chance wet dream because they know they made a mistake with Obama. She may very well get swept up in a frenzy just like Obama. She will have the benefit of the ‘magic’, the same magic that got Obama into the WH. Obots don’t want Hillary because it reminds them of how stupid they were to hoist Obama. How stupid were they? It was Gruber stupid.; 12/14/14, 9:07 AM
pm317 said...: but does she have Game?

Oh, she will have the game. You think Obama had the game in 2008? That teleprompter reading nincompoop? The improvement with Warren is that she does not need no stinking teleprompter.; 12/14/14, 9:10 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: No more senators!; 12/14/14, 9:12 AM
pm317 said...: Please Run Warren

Poor righties.. be careful what you wish for.; 12/14/14, 9:13 AM
Curious George said...: I think America is ready for it's first fake Indian female socialist President.; 12/14/14, 9:24 AM
dreams said...: For her, I would welcome spontaneous combustion, if only.; 12/14/14, 9:25 AM
David said...: "Catching fire" = "Getting cranked up by her PR effort and the lazy media"

It all depends on events. If the economy crashes again, she's a force.

She would also make a really nice third party candidate.; 12/14/14, 9:27 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: "Elizabeth Warren is catching fire."

And it's her pants, right?; 12/14/14, 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Most combustible candidate since Dukakis and Kerry.; 12/14/14, 9:33 AM
Unknown said...: In 2012 Claire McCaskill bought ads in the Republican primary in favor of Todd Aiken. It was money well spent, as she was able to coast through the general election after Aiken was nominated.

Warren might present Republicans with a similar opportunity.; 12/14/14, 9:45 AM
mezzrow said...: "The Winnipeg Arena's gonna be on fire..." - Ric Flair

I'd go for Nature Boy before I'd vote for Fauxcahontas.; 12/14/14, 9:46 AM
Bob Boyd said...: SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

"And it's her pants, right?"

That's good.; 12/14/14, 9:47 AM
bleh said...: Have we ever had a President with high cheekbones before?; 12/14/14, 9:50 AM
RecChief said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/14/14, 9:53 AM
RecChief said...: Boy, do I hope she runs. Hillary too. I don't think I can stock enough popcorn for the Clinton/Warren primaries. I don't think Lizzie is ready for the Clintons' style of politics.; 12/14/14, 9:56 AM
great Unknown said...: I didn't know they still burned witches.; 12/14/14, 9:58 AM
JSD said...: [Agarn has given Wild Eagle a parasol]
Chief Wild Eagle: Thanks Agarn, every summer me tired of being redskin.

I predict a rediscovery of F-Troop; 12/14/14, 10:00 AM
Beldar said...: Re whether Sen. Warren has any "game" to bring:

Warren only beat Scott Brown in 2012 by 54/46. So that's how the Dems dream candidate does while riding Obama's presidential reelection coattails in Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the United States, the one state carried by George McGovern in 1972. Some polls had Brown considerably closer right up until election day (as they also had said about Mitt Romney). I personally thought she ran an exceptionally flat-footed campaign, not for lack of experienced Dem handlers and flacks and writers — again, we're talking Massachusetts, and the Dems had the first team in because Brown was a thorn in their side — but rather because the candidate seemed wooden, predictable, and one-dimensional.

And that's the sum total of her electoral experience, ever. Even Obama had run for Congress (unsuccessfully) and repeatedly for the Illinois legislature before he ran for POTUS.

She would have her pair of X chromosomes going for her. I can't see much else. I'd be quite content to see her become the nominee, but in any event I'm very happy to see her bumping into Hillary.; 12/14/14, 10:01 AM
rehajm said...: During her senate run she demonstrated she's wooden and incapable of answering questions posed to her. She will need all the protection the media can and will give her.; 12/14/14, 10:06 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I think that this is further evidence how weak the Dem bench is at a national level right now. You have another law prof with no relevant real world experience as their shining hope. The difference here is that Obama got where he got by the color of his skin - the sort of legal affirmative action hires who are legal, but not what AA was supposed to promote (since he is descended from slavers and slave owners, and not slaves). Lily white Warren had to apparently lie to get ahead as an AA hire/promote. Couldn't they find another woman, or even a Hispanic, who had done something in life to qualify them for this very difficult job? Apparently not.

I do find the whole thing humorous. Hillary! Is inevitable, since it is her turn, and there is no one else. But Republicans are the ones who nominate the person next in line, and not Democrats (who tend to lose when they do). Warren,like Obama, has no relevant experience for the job, and thus no baggage to drag her down. And that, I think,is the allure - someone the left can use an a vehicle for all their hopes and dreams, no matter how infeasible or ridiculous.; 12/14/14, 10:08 AM
phantommut said...: Potential Warren-supporter catch-phrase: "The Hole Isn't Deep Enough!"; 12/14/14, 10:10 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Warren will be nominated."

I hope not. She's one of the very few in Washington I can admire, though I have my reservations about her, and if she were to be nominated for President, she would be fatally compromised, as is everyone in that position. The surest way to neuter an effective legislator is to put him or her in the White House. Even Dennis Kucinich, when running, had to sell out some of his previous positions.; 12/14/14, 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/14/14, 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: I love it. Clinton Machine against the Democrat Party Warren and Lefties! Wow.

This just got interesting. It is beginning to look like Christmas.

My feeling is that Jeb Bush will run and be the nominee. He will run against the right and just be the center. This strategy will get him to the front of the pack.

Who will be his VP? I think it will be the New Mexico gov. or New Hampshire Senator. There will be a woman as VP in the GOP.

So, Clinton and Warren will go after each other. Clinton will release damaging info. about Warren's past. Warren's friends, such as MoveOn, will do the same for Clintons.

What fun. What fireworks.

What will NYT do? What will NPR do? What will Hollywood do?

Bush will get to WH finally.

Yes!; 12/14/14, 10:16 AM
FleetUSA said...: I think Bush/Walker can be a winning ticket.

Cuomo might try to take advantage of the Hitlary/Warren dispute to seize the top slot and put Warren in as VP.; 12/14/14, 10:30 AM
Skeptical Voter said...: Bad choice of words there Robert Cook "I have my reservations about her". She (and her ancestors) never saw a reservation. In that sense she's as authentic an Indian, as Obama is an "African American". I'll spot Obama the African father, but Obama is not an "African American" in the same sense that say Queen Moochelle is.

But let's get to the real Warren "improvement" over Obama. She actually was a full time practicing law professor. No more hyped up BS about an adjunct law professor that taught one course on voting rights becoming a full blown Constitutional law scholar.

I don't happen to agree with Ms. Warren. But she is in fact an acoomplished legal scholar. That may or may not be enough to make her an improvement over Good King Obozo.; 12/14/14, 10:35 AM
James Pawlak said...: Her claim to be of American India decent reminds me of General William T. Sherman's comments about "Good Indians"---Except for that fact that no tribe/band has claimed her or endorsed her claim.

Perhaps, we should assert that "We saw some false Indianss, and...."; 12/14/14, 10:36 AM
cubanbob said...: Considering that the progressives are succeeding in bankrupting the country might as well elect a bankruptcy lawyer as president. It will be the first time in several generations that a Democrat in the White House will actually have the relevant skill sets for the job.; 12/14/14, 10:39 AM
madAsHell said...: Yeah....like we need another academic twit with an empty CV.; 12/14/14, 10:43 AM
Big Mike said...: The Democrats will choose her, because "anybody except Hillary" worked out so well for them last time.

Well sort of. Not so much if you were a Democrat senator, or member of the House of Representatives, or a Democrat governor or candidate for governor, or member of a state legislature.

But other than that ...; 12/14/14, 10:47 AM
wildswan said...: It's a relativity problem - if the Repubs run X then Democrat Y would be best but if the Democrats run A then Republican B would be best.

The solution:
The Republicans should have discussions and events and primaries featuring their deep bench, i. e., more than one contender - till quite late. And watch the Democrats' political calculator explode. Maybe they'll run Al Sharpton - nice clothes, no experience, hates America, perfect.; 12/14/14, 10:53 AM
wildswan said...: Al Sharpton for President
Thin, well dressed, inexperienced, already responsible for several deaths so would love the drone program hence attractive to conservatives, loves to party, he's the obvious replacement for the Playboy of the Western World.; 12/14/14, 11:02 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Clintonistas are surely doing extensive oppo research on Warren, who is a turd of an American.

Warren will quietly drop out of the race when she sees her college SAT scores and grades and misleading job applications are about to be exposed.; 12/14/14, 11:10 AM
B said...: When the other side loses, they need to move toward the center. When my side loses, we need to move toward the base.

The folks calling for Warren after the trouncing Dems got in the 2014 midterms are fools.; 12/14/14, 11:24 AM
wendybar said...: Because she is a LIAR!!! LIAR!!!!; 12/14/14, 11:34 AM
traditionalguy said...: A fire is a signal fire in a dark place. The Dems are done for as. ChiTown mafia that brings along the NYC and Madison Libs for a racial stance.

Warren has the demeanor of the South and Southwest with liberal credentials too. She can create a coalition that most New England liberals cannot. They have no one else to turn to.; 12/14/14, 11:50 AM
traditionalguy said...: Fantasizing that Warren is a Palin with bad skills and a bad record is not going to work. Conservatives will have to convince Americans that she is a Mondale or a what's his name from Massachusetts that Bush I beat.

If Warren goes on the attack and will not stop she can become a 1948 Truman. That would rejuvenate the Dems.; 12/14/14, 11:58 AM
sunsong said...: She is in the news because she voiced what so many of us our really concerned about - that Congress is bought and paid for and run by their Wall Street overlords.

This guy thinks citigroup will be broken up; 12/14/14, 12:06 PM
sunsong said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/14/14, 12:11 PM
Skipper said...: Don't fires quickly burn out?; 12/14/14, 12:15 PM
Wince said...: Thus putting the burn before the crash?; 12/14/14, 12:21 PM
Brando said...: The media desperately wants Warren to run, because a Clinton coronation won't make for good copy, and who else could challenge Hillary? But Warren made it clear she's backing Hillary (which should tell you all you need to know about how genuine her populism is) and is likely smart enough to stay in the Senate where she can make speeches and have no responsibility for her awful opinions.

Media ought to find a new candidate.; 12/14/14, 12:26 PM
Jupiter said...: James Pawlak said...
Her claim to be of American India decent reminds me of General William T. Sherman's comments about "Good Indians"

Phil Sheridan, not William Sherman. Sherman's genocidal impulses were directed toward white Southerners.; 12/14/14, 12:44 PM
traditionalguy said...: General Sherman was a red headed boy named for an heroic Indian leader that had made a big impression on the frontier folks of the mid-west. He was named Tecumseh Sherman by his father. No middle name. He was called Cumph by his family.

The family added on William to his paperwork later on to make him seem normal for on a West Point appointment application. He was not normal but was superior in realistic intelligence and will power to win.; 12/14/14, 1:05 PM
Hagar said...: We wish.; 12/14/14, 1:16 PM
Michael K said...: "Warren will quietly drop out of the race when she sees her college SAT scores and grades and misleading job applications are about to be exposed."

I'll raise you a Travel Office and two Rose Law Firm records.; 12/14/14, 1:35 PM
Achilles said...: Robert Cook said...
"Warren will be nominated."

"I hope not. She's one of the very few in Washington I can admire, though I have my reservations about her, ..."

Imagine that. You can admire a rich white person who abused racial preferences that we are told are supposed to help the poor. She has lived off the government tit and built herself a position of privilege through government work and cronyism. And all while claiming to be helping the poor.

She sure got rich helping the poor. I can see why a socialist admires her.; 12/14/14, 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: I have this feeling that we'd never see a headline at Politico that says, "Ted Cruz catching fire."; 12/14/14, 1:39 PM
RecChief said...: Beldar said...
Re whether Sen. Warren has any "game" to bring:

Warren only beat Scott Brown in 2012 by 54/46. So that's how the Dems dream candidate does while riding Obama's presidential reelection coattails in Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the United States, the one state carried by George McGovern in 1972.

I just want to point out that the people pushing for a Warren candidacy are the same people who thought Wendy Davis should run for Governor of Texas.; 12/14/14, 1:40 PM
Witness said...: Talk about incendiary rhetoric.; 12/14/14, 1:42 PM
Achilles said...: Michael K said...
"Warren will quietly drop out of the race when she sees her college SAT scores and grades and misleading job applications are about to be exposed."

"I'll raise you a Travel Office and two Rose Law Firm records."

I agree. There wont be a lot of mudslinging. They will both however have a primary that seems very spirited to generate interest. They need some interest after the debacles the left has had the last 6 years. It will be like a WWE match. They will pre-determine the winner.; 12/14/14, 1:45 PM
cold pizza said...: The worst part of Warren catching fire is no one can get past all those flying monkeys in the media to throw a bucket of water on her. -CP; 12/14/14, 1:49 PM
retired said...: Hoping Fauxahontas bloodies up HRC as a husk of a dynasty candidate that she is, as the Clinton attack machine exposes her past. It will be woman on woman this time, no pussy footing around in fear of attacking the magic negro. Schadenfreude is a guilty pleasure.; 12/14/14, 2:01 PM
eddie willers said...: Warren has the demeanor of the South and Southwest with liberal credentials too. She can create a coalition that most New England liberals cannot.

LOL.

The South would vote for a ticket of Lincoln/Sherman before they would Warren; 12/14/14, 2:03 PM
cold pizza said...: Schadenfreude? If only we could pun Deutsche like we do English! I'd choose either schadenfrau (Hillary!(tm)) or schadenfraud (Warren). -CP; 12/14/14, 2:11 PM
Louis said...: Maybe the strongest item of evidence about her potency as a figurehead for populist change is that the big knock against her in a place like this is that she's white.; 12/14/14, 2:14 PM
Louis said...: Limited electoral experience? So not being a professional politician is a bad thing now?; 12/14/14, 2:15 PM
Darrell said...: Because 100% fake is the new Leftie narrative. For example, Saint Trayvon, hands up don't shoot, UVA rape, Lena Dunham rape, etc., etc.; 12/14/14, 2:22 PM
gadfly said...: Squaw Warren is certainly catty but she lacks Katness.; 12/14/14, 2:26 PM
eddie willers said...: Maybe the strongest item of evidence about her potency as a figurehead for populist change is that the big knock against her in a place like this is that she's white.

Nah...she's an Injun.
We hates Injuns.; 12/14/14, 2:31 PM
Rumpletweezer said...: What ignites at room temperature?; 12/14/14, 2:40 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: RecChief wrote:
"I just want to point out that the people pushing for a Warren candidacy are the same people who thought Wendy Davis should run for Governor of Texas."
And Obama for prez in 2008.
Mainstream broadcast and print media will do everything imaginable to lift Warren and destroy whoever the GOP candidate is.; 12/14/14, 3:00 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Louis wrote:
"Limited electoral experience? So not being a professional politician is a bad thing now?"
For president, yes.
What president has had less experience than Warren?; 12/14/14, 3:02 PM
traditionalguy said...: Warren has something the MSM hasn't seen in their lifetimes...integrity. That is why she is fighting the Dem billionaires that have owned Obama.

What if a big government operator actually demanded that the government work for the American middle class that is living nearer and nearer to poverty as we speak?

The a World Wealth aristocrats who ignore borders and despise middle class workers would have to stop her, bribe her, buy her, intimidate her, ... but what if she had the integrity and strength to stand up to them...conservatives could re-name her Harriette Truman and hate her for it.; 12/14/14, 3:18 PM
pm317 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/14/14, 3:26 PM
Louis said...: Louis wrote:
"Limited electoral experience? So not being a professional politician is a bad thing now?"
For president, yes.
What president has had less experience than Warren?

She is not historically unprecedented. She is also a Senator in the leadership of her party. I am not convinced that experience in DC or even just any state Capitol is necessarily good experience for being leader of the free world (for better or worse). I think more important is life experience and or experience (successfully) navigating power and more important still demonstrating character.

Except not in her personal life.. what was all that Indian thing about...
I don't think there is any reason to deny her the benefit of the doubt. It's racial so it's always going to be sticky to try to talk about if only because what three of us really agree on what all the terms mean. And insofar as it touches on the substance of "affirmative action" as an issue it provides an opening for Democrats to run up the vote in communities of color. And people are of course always going to look mean attacking her for looking pretty white.; 12/14/14, 3:54 PM
Beldar said...: @ Louis: Limited electoral experience means, as it always has, a greater propensity to make the mistakes of inexperience.

The idea that a non-politician, a newcomer, an outsider, can both conduct a winning presidential campaign and govern effectively is a Hollywood fiction. Wide-eyed, naive, and idealistic political virgins tend to lose and lose big.

They're also the candidates who've been least well vetted, which means that they're relatively more vulnerable to sudden crashes brought upon by skeletons tumbling out of closets. Do you really think Scott Brown's oppo researchers actually found, and used, everything that's available out there about Warren?

Warren's sixty-five. That's younger than Hillary. It's past an age at which most people are capable of mastering entirely new skills.

I think Warren's "game" is, like Wendy Davis', a figment of leftie imaginations who are desperate for better, more worthier vessels in which to put their hopes and dreams, but who find the Democratic Party's alternatives to be very limited indeed.; 12/14/14, 4:03 PM
Beldar said...: The idea that Warren is part of the Democratic Senate Caucus' leadership is very sweet and unrealistic.

She's the flavor of the month, maybe the flavor of 2016, and that means the cool kids who actually run the caucus want her out in front of the cameras with a make-believe specially-created never-before-needed "leadership position" — but don't confuse that for thinking that she has, or will have by 2016, anything remotely approaching power or experience in the U.S. Senate.; 12/14/14, 4:07 PM
Beldar said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/14/14, 4:12 PM
Beldar said...: Louis, re leaders and leadership, I pose to you an open-ended question in utter good faith and sincerity:

What, other than her 2012 U.S. senatorial campaign, has Elizabeth Warren ever led which might persuade a rational observer that she's capable of leading the free world?; 12/14/14, 4:13 PM
Big Mike said...: Warren's sixty-five. ... It's past an age at which most people are capable of mastering entirely new skills.

@Beldar, I beg your pardon!; 12/14/14, 4:27 PM
jr565 said...: It's not bad enough that Obama's policies did nothing for the economy. What the left is mad about is that he didn't go lefty enough! All the things wrong with Obama are inherent in Warren, only she is even more strident and cold than Obama.
But you nominate her, lefties. Please. Pretty please.; 12/14/14, 4:34 PM
William said...: She doesn't have much cross over appeal. She's utterly charmless. Even more so than Hillary who has a vestigial sense of humor......Still no one has made a reference to burning the witch at the stake. So perhaps her bland, innocuous qualities give her an edge.; 12/14/14, 4:38 PM
Robert Cook said...: "She doesn't have much cross over appeal. She's utterly charmless."

???!!!

I strongly disagree, but I can't dispute your own reaction to her. I will ask, however: if you find Warren "charmless," who, among the many toads in Washington do you find to be charming? She's one of the few in Congress in whom I can actually discern actual humanity.; 12/14/14, 4:46 PM
traditionalguy said...: The issue of executive skills is a great question to thumbs down Warren...and Obama...and JFK..and Truman.

But what if the question was attractive candidates available. Then Warren has a key electability shape. She will appeal to three of the four regional preferences as if she is one of them. Her Harvard liberalness locks up the seaboards and the upper Midwest. Her birth origins makes her OK to the midland and lower southwest.

Quick lesson for Libs on vast fly over country: You can draw an equilateral triangle 350 miles on a side that will touches three cities: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma of Warren, independence/Kansas City, Missouri of Truman, and Little Rock, Arkansas of Clinton.; 12/14/14, 4:49 PM
Robert Cook said...: As to those who wish to flog the story of Warren's having lied about being of Indian heritage in order to obtain special advantages in her employment history, this appears to be false--as is so much else the lunatic fringe holds as gospel truth. It was a lie spread by her political opponent Scott Walker. Big Surprise! Not.; 12/14/14, 4:54 PM
The Godfather said...: The first Presidential election I remember was 1952. My parents, what we would now call moderate Republicans if such an animal existed, were pleased when Stevenson defeated Kefauver for the Democratic nomination, and Eisenhower defeated Taft for the Republican nomination. They said, Now, no matter who wins, the country can't lose.

Nowadays, any good Republican hopes that the Democrats will nominate the weakest possible candidate (which I guess would be either Warren or Biden), and any good Democrat hopes that the Republicans will nominate the weakest possible candidate (who that would be, I leave as an exercise for the reader).; 12/14/14, 4:58 PM
richard mcenroe said...: If anyone thinks the Democrats have any bench at all anymore, quote them that statement.; 12/14/14, 5:08 PM
Louis said...: @Beldar, well if she leads a successful presidential campaign then she will have persuaded the world just fine. As for her being naive, I think a male with her issue profile and age wouldn't be called that. He would be savvy for being a rising star after only one election. I don't think she has great "game," but I don't think she needs it. Democrats have a workable Presidential majority and just giving them a real reason to turn out will deliver 2016. She excites people who listen to her, her passion is genuine and she has the poise to sit behind any desk.; 12/14/14, 6:12 PM
Paul said...: She looked so fair in the night.. when the wind blew up her nightie...

But Warren will be a flash in the pan. Won't take long for all the flaws to show.

Nope, the left will have to look much harder.; 12/14/14, 6:12 PM
Unknown said...: --- It was a lie spread by her political opponent Scott Walker. Big Surprise! Not.

Oh what an immense Freudian Slip. D’oh, her opponent was Brown, not Walker.

But her falsification of her indian heritage is the lie. It has been covered in vast depth by Legal Insurrection.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/04/cherokee-women-want-to-meet-elizabeth-warren-on-book-tour/

also debunked much of the “family lore” used by Warren to justify claiming Native American status. One of my favorites was Barnes’ discovery that Warren’s maternal great grandfather, on the supposedly Cherokee bloodline, was featured in the local newspaper in 1906 as being white and having shot an Indian. And also Barnes’ discovery that Warren’s parents’ wedding was joyously announced in the local newspaper, which would contradict Warren’s claim that her parents had to elope because her father’s family would not tolerate their son marrying an Indian.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warrens-white-great-grandfather-shot-an-indian/

Democratic Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren has been all over the newspapers the past several days after a revelation that Harvard Law School identified her as a Native American faculty member in the mid-1990s.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/04/confirmed-elizabeth-warren-knowingly-self-identified-as-native-american-on-law-association-forms/

Many more lies from Warren have been documented.; 12/14/14, 6:13 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Robert, your link didn't work. I am interested to read it because I do think this issue hurts Warren.

I have no problem with set asides for genuine victims of our history, descendants of native Americans and African slaves. Despite what many fools claim, the depravities inflicted on these people don't wash out in a generation or two but take many many generations for their effects to fade. The legitimacy of any reparations is, however, undermined by fraud or indiscriminate application.; 12/14/14, 6:35 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: AReasonableMan unreasonably wrote:
"I have no problem with set asides for genuine victims of our history, descendants of native Americans and African slaves"

By his own admission, Obama benefited from affirmative action. Obama is not descended from African slaves. He was the son of two academics, and was raised by a business owner and a banker in Hawaii. I, however, am descended from native Americans. About 1/32. In Georgia, in the early 19th century, if you owned land, you were considered White. I had a Cherokee ancestor who owned an acre or two of swamp land. The grandson of this ancestor fought on the side of the confederacy in the Civil War.
What kind of set aside should I get?; 12/14/14, 6:53 PM
traditionalguy said...: More geography: Lying east of 30 miles from Oklahoma City where Warren (nee Herring) was born and raised lies the City of Shawnee which was the tribe of the great leader Tecumseh. It is surrounded by towns and counties named Chickasaw, Cherokee, Muskogee, Sequoyah, Pontotoc, Choctaw, Pottawatomie, Seminole, Pawnee, Atoka and Creek.

Arguing whether Warren is related to a native American sounds like good PR to me.; 12/14/14, 6:54 PM
Unknown said...: ---I have no problem with set asides for genuine victims of our history, descendants of native Americans and African slaves.

Nor do I, but lets be quite sure that we give those set asides to the truly affiliated and not lying grifters and pretenders like Warren who’s ancestors shot Indians.

Your sweeping history of lasting effects somehow flits over my kids (1/64th American Indian). Nor is it supported by recent arrivals (Vietnamese, Jamaicans) who in one generation join the middle class. My Celtic people were starved and kept from knowledge as much as American slaves, it only took freedom from big government programs to allow us to flourish.

It should be noted that American Indians and their government reservations have been an early example of the failure of government programs. Too bad the blacks have followed into government dependency.; 12/14/14, 7:18 PM
Unknown said...: It is surrounded by towns and counties named Chickasaw, Cherokee, Muskogee, Sequoyah, Pontotoc, Choctaw, Pottawatomie, Seminole, Pawnee, Atoka and Creek.

“Facebook site I’m a proud Cherokee and Elizabeth Warren does not represent me”

https://www.facebook.com/groups/334629879939179/; 12/14/14, 7:22 PM
Unknown said...: To recap, all the genealogical evidence, including Warren’s mother’s census records which reported her as White both before and after marriage, points to Elizabeth Warren having no Native American ancestry.

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

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/elizabeth-warren-elopement-story-falls-apart/; 12/14/14, 7:29 PM
Gahrie said...: I will ask, however: if you find Warren "charmless," who, among the many toads in Washington do you find to be charming?

Warren is a classic Do-Gooder scold who thinks she's smarter than everyone else. in other words the Liberal/Progressive archetype.

I understand why Bolshie Bob and the nutcases on the far Left like her. If I was a Lefty, I'd prefer her to Hillary also.; 12/14/14, 8:00 PM
dwick said...: Robert Cook: "The surest way to neuter an effective legislator is to put him or her in the White House."

And what major legislation, pray tell, has Elizabeth Warren sponsored and gotten passed in her 2 years in the Senate that makes her so 'effective'?

The only bill I found is the 'Smart Savings Act' which made the default investment in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) an age-appropriate target date asset allocation portfolio (L Fund), instead of the Government Securities Investment Fund (G Fund), if no election has been made for the investment of available funds.

Wow... Revolutionary and mind-blowingly earth-shattering! A new rule for the Federal employee Thrift Savings Plan similar to those already in effect for many private sector 401(k) plans across the country.

Otherwise Warren has just authored a few innocuous ceremonial resolutions and some bills referred to committee.

Loud? Yes...
Effective? Not judging by by the back of her baseball card.

Noise and activity are not necessarily accomplishments.; 12/14/14, 8:06 PM
Original Mike said...: "@Beldar, well if she leads a successful presidential campaign then she will have persuaded the world just fine."

Exactly the argument that was used to dismiss Obama's lack of experience. Turned out, it was a warning to be heeded.; 12/14/14, 8:06 PM
Louis said...: Isn't the experience argument always arbitrary? I would reckon a majority of us would acknowledge (a) there is no practical experience for that particular job (b) historical forces matter at least as much if not more than personality as to outcome. The left argument against Obama isn't concerned about his experience. The right will make any argument against Obama, but why should they sincerely wish he had had more experience? So that he would be "even" more cunning in dealing with Congress? So that the few faux scandals that have taken up media space might have been cleaned up more nearly? I am asking what is the intrinsic benefit of a wheeler-dealer veteran in that job.; 12/14/14, 8:46 PM
jr565 said...: Robert cook wrote:
I strongly disagree, but I can't dispute your own reaction to her. I will ask, however: if you find Warren "charmless," who, among the many toads in Washington do you find to be charming? She's one of the few in Congress in whom I can actually discern actual humanity.

she comes across like a humorless shrew and scold. Where are you finding "charm". Clinton had charm. His wife not so much. She however is charming compared to warren.; 12/14/14, 9:04 PM
CWJ said...: Louis wrote -

"And people are of course always going to look mean attacking her for looking pretty white."

LOL. That's because she is white.

Even taken at face value, her claims of Native blood were miniscule, much less that she suffered anything worthy of redress.; 12/14/14, 9:10 PM
CWJ said...: So. The political calculus comes down to which is worse, looking mean or being ridiculous. Sadly, I think Louis, and too often our hostess who prefers the term ugly over mean, are correct. Looking mean probably does lose to being ridiculous.; 12/14/14, 9:15 PM
Original Mike said...: "Isn't the experience argument always arbitrary? I would reckon a majority of us would acknowledge (a) there is no practical experience for that particular job (b) historical forces matter at least as much if not more than personality as to outcome."

If you were right, we might as well draw straws. Fortunately, you could not be more wrong. Executive experience is what is needed. Where might we find politicians who have experience running things? (I'll let you puzzle that one out for yourself). As to historical forces, all Presidents are handed crises. It's what they do with them that matters.

"The right will make any argument against Obama, but why should they sincerely wish he had had more experience? So that he would be "even" more cunning in dealing with Congress? So that the few faux scandals that have taken up media space might have been cleaned up more nearly? I am asking what is the intrinsic benefit of a wheeler-dealer veteran in that job."

Honest players on both sides of the political divide (as opposed to partisan hacks) benefit from a skilled negotiator at the top. No experience-Obama couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag, and the country is the worse for it.

You talk like it's a game, Louis,. It's not.

And as to faux scandals, I'll just pick one. Using the IRS as a political weapon strikes at the heart of our democracy.; 12/14/14, 9:30 PM
Dude1394 said...: If this country elects warren we are seriously in trouble. I still am flabergasted,that we elected such an incompetent as obama. Warren, wow.; 12/14/14, 9:35 PM
mccullough said...: The Republican National Committee should fund her primary campaign.

It would be like 1972 or 1984.; 12/14/14, 9:49 PM
Louis said...: Executive experience is what is needed.
How do we know that? 43 was a two term governor with an MBA and a superlatively experienced VP. Carter was a governor who ran a business and a church.
As to historical forces, all Presidents are handed crises. It's what they do with them that matters.
My point is that they all must do more or less the same.
Honest players on both sides of the political divide (as opposed to partisan hacks) benefit from a skilled negotiator at the top. No experience-Obama couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag, and the country is the worse for it.
How can we measure or know that? Our vague intuitions that he should have gotten us better deals? Who are we [that we should trust our testimony that better deals were available], what is us [that the President should be negotiating on behalf of]?
And as to faux scandals, I'll just pick one. Using the IRS as a political weapon strikes at the heart of our democracy.
It has been reported news for some time that it turns out the IRS actually did have left-organizing words flagged as well, contrary to initial reporting. In addition there has never been any evidence connecting the troublesome behavior particularly high up. And anyway the behavior happened during the tenure of a commissioner appointed by 43.; 12/14/14, 10:03 PM
Annie said...: Wrong, Louis. There were no lefty groups targeted and recent emails have pointed to DoJ involvement.

They - the IRS - admitted to targeting conservative groups. Lerner had choice words for them.; 12/14/14, 10:11 PM
Original Mike said...: Louis, the answer to my tease ("Where might we find politicians who have experience running things? (I'll let you puzzle that one out for yourself).") is governors.

"My point is that they all must do more or less the same.". Absurd! You think Mitt Romney or John McCain or George Bush would have done the same thing Obama has done with respect to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine (to pick one example)? Ridiculous!

"Our vague intuitions that he should have gotten us better deals?". He got NO deals. Nothing gets done and he has degenerated to ruling by decree. BOTH sides have been aghast at his complete inability to negotiate, which in turn derives from his utter lack of executive experience.

"It has been reported news for some time that it turns out the IRS actually did have left-organizing words flagged as well, contrary to initial reporting.". No. A few left organizations were flagged. EVERY organization with right wing code words (such as Tea Party, Constitution, etc were deep sixed). You really need to dig deeper than lefty news sites if you want to understand this scandal.; 12/14/14, 10:24 PM
Louis said...: Counterfactuals about Ukraine are tempting but empty. We can't know. Maybe a Republican would talk more loudly about the same security guarantees he would reaffirm as Obama and maybe he would talk more frequently about the same military assets he is moving into place to deter and prepare. Or maybe he wouldn't because he would know he wouldn't have to, and just as Nixon can go to China, McCain can can contain Russia so congratulations.

Re: IRS, I am just reading about this now on Wikipedia. Is that a lefty site? Is the IRS scandal article a lefty article?; 12/14/14, 10:33 PM
Original Mike said...: "In addition there has never been any evidence connecting the troublesome behavior particularly high up."

What do you think all those computer crashes (6? 8? More? I've lost track) were all about? You are one naive puppy.; 12/14/14, 10:34 PM
Original Mike said...: You can't go to Wikipedia for a political issue.; 12/14/14, 10:37 PM
Louis said...: They are old bureaucrats. They probably broke the computers by turning them off and on again to check email.; 12/14/14, 10:38 PM
Gary Rosen said...: "Warren has something the MSM hasn't seen in their lifetimes...integrity."

And nothing screams "integrity" like claiming a racial preference because you are 1/32 Native American.; 12/14/14, 10:39 PM
Louis said...: I like that Wikipedia tells me what news sources are reporting what facts in chronological order.

I still see that it's not controversial that some left groups were frozen.

I don't have to concede that it's highly troublesome behavior but there is no indication of criminality; it looks like incompetence and smells like it too.; 12/14/14, 10:41 PM
eddie willers said...: I am just reading about this now on Wikipedia. Is that a lefty site?

It is a unreliable site.

It is troublesome that you do not know that.; 12/14/14, 10:52 PM
Original Mike said...: "I still see that it's not controversial that some left groups were frozen."

SOME. Which is not surprising, since it's the IRS's job to look at the actions of these groups. The key point Is that ALL right wing organizations were frozen.

Brazile said the IRS was "looking at everybody" including liberal groups and progressive groups. Yes, some progressive groups did have their tax-exempt status applications flagged as the IRS reviewed whether nonprofit groups were engaging in political activities.

But it wasn’t to the same degree as tea party and other conservative groups, nor did it result in the same actions. The list targeting tea party groups resulted in delayed processing that in some cases lasted almost three years and inquiries into their donors. Further, the inspector general found tea party groups were systematically singled out as part of an office-wide effort, while progressive groups were not.

Louis, the argument you're using was debunked some time ago.; 12/14/14, 10:54 PM
Louis said...: Original Mike, I don't know that I have an argument. It does seem to me that federal officials exercised their discretion in a manner that was bad, at best. But it's not anything like a slam dunk that they were using their authority as a political weapon. Can you establish that groups that should have been granted status were denied it? If they were, what's the endgame for that? The IRS isn't empowered to be arbitrary in its judgments and is constrained by the threat of lawsuits in addition to criminal prosecution and congressional oversight. There is no there there because there is no conspiracy because the alleged crime - as best as I can make out - yields no benefit for anyone.

Eddie, yeah but where isn't unreliable in some fashion? Wikipedia is flatly unreliable with hyperlinks that can prove it.; 12/14/14, 11:38 PM
Original Mike said...: "Can you establish that groups that should have been granted status were denied it? "

The Treasury's Inspector General did

The endgame was the suppression of conservative groups in the run up to 2012 election. And it worked. The IRS kept approval of the groups on hold until after the election.

And now the IRS and the DOJ are covering it up. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. It is not a "faux scandal".; 12/15/14, 12:05 AM
Louis said...: That link doesn't answer my question. It says that inappropriate criteria were used. It doesn't say inappropriate criteria were used and some groups were deliberately denied their rights because of it. Neither does it say, as I happen to expect is the case, that inappropriate criteria were used because the management was not creative enough or insightful enough to effectively do their jobs. There is no indication of DoJ involvement.

It seems a bit overwrought to imply that the IRS won the 2012 election by slow walking the applications of various groups, never mind that it is outrageous to claim that such was part of an arsenal of unprecedented tyranny.

It is a nothing nothing.; 12/15/14, 12:36 AM
furious_a said...: They are old bureaucrats. They probably broke the computers by turning them off and on again to check email.

This Louis is not a serious person.; 12/15/14, 12:50 AM
Clyde said...: Ugh. Don't believum smoke signals from Lieawatha. Her speakum with forked tongue.; 12/15/14, 5:24 AM
Beldar said...: Louis, I asked what experience Warren has that could qualify her to be leader of the free world.

Your answer is that experience doesn't really much matter.

Stick with that, please, and work hard to nominate Sen. Warren. Get all your progressive friends to help you, too.

I swear that the "Captcha" I'm typing in order to prove I'm not a robot is actually, incredibly appropriately, "2008."; 12/15/14, 6:55 AM
Jaq said...: I think we have to drop the "Fauxcahantis" rhetoric and emphasize that she abused affirmative action as a white person and took the place of somebody else.

Fake Injun and Squaw Warren is just going to get the hackles up of the persuadable, and a white person abusing affirmative action is a much better sell to the fair minded.; 12/15/14, 7:17 AM
Jaq said...: Wow Louis. Well, guess what, the R's own the Senate now and there will be hearings and you will be educated, despite your desire to remain ignorant of what the IRS actually did.

Those IRS records that went to the White House? Stonewalling is not going to work there either.

First the emails were "lost" when hard drive after hard drive "crashed" and were not inspected by a third party, and then were destroyed, and that was the end of it, now they are "found" but it just turns out that they are privileged? Even you must see how that smells.; 12/15/14, 7:21 AM
MadisonMan said...: I am not convinced that Warren would lose to a Republican Candidate until I know who the Republicans have nominated to run.

The ability of either Party to screw things up is quite well-documented.; 12/15/14, 7:50 AM
Larry J said...: If Elizabeth Warren literally caught fire, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on her. I'd let the fire take its natural course.; 12/15/14, 8:35 AM
damikesc said...: Warren has the demeanor of the South and Southwest with liberal credentials too.

I'll bite. Tell me, as a Southerner, how she has the "demeanor" of the South.

Remember, I was born here and lived here the vast majority of my life and I am definitely not seeing it (and Harvard law prof who falsely claimed to be Native American isn't going to wow Southerners).; 12/15/14, 8:37 AM
damikesc said...: Warren has something the MSM hasn't seen in their lifetimes...integrity.

Umm....what?

Lied about being Native American until she got tenure then stopped mentioning it is now integrity?; 12/15/14, 8:39 AM
Original Mike said...: Wow, Louis, if you care about this topic (the IRS scandal), you need to educate yourself. And I don't mean reading lefty sites.; 12/15/14, 10:10 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I find Louis's IRS comments interesting, and enlightening. Senate and House Dems have been in shrill coverup mode since the first IRS scandal erupted. What are the odds that 7-8 hard drives of the closest IRS employees to the center of the first scandal crashed w/I a week or so of each other? Maybe if it had been happening with an almost uniformity around the agency. But no, the crashes were centered closely around Lerner. But, apparently the Obama admin being able to stonewall this is sufficient for Louis to claim vindication.

But, it isn't over yet. Judge has ordered that the IRS release 2,500 documents involving illegal release of taxpayer information to the White House. And the White House is claiming that they can't, because they involve taxpayer information - that they aren't legally entitled to have in the first place. Very much like the guy who killed his parents asking for leniency because he is an orphan.

Can the Administration run out the clock on this scandal, as well as the others it is involved in? Less likely, I think, with the Senate flipping to the Republicans, with the real possibility now of special joint investigations in Congress.; 12/15/14, 10:11 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: As for Louis' contention that you don't need experience or training to run our govt - Obama is most likely the worst prepared President of at least the last century, and it shows. He has done abysmally in running the govt. Prima facie evidence is that he has to find out about what is going on in his govt through the (heavily biased) nighttime news. He appointed a bunch of ideologues to run the agencies in his govt, and they have gone berserk with the power given them, as well as the almost total lack of oversight.

So, Louis is claiming that Warren, possibly more ideological than Obama, and probably even less prepared, would make a good President, based on her skills - which apparently consist of lying about Indian ancestry in order to get hired at a series of ever more prestigious law schools.; 12/15/14, 10:25 AM
Sydney said...: Heard an interview with her this morning on NPR. You would have thought the reporter was her boyfriend. They're going to push her anti-banking, anti-corporate, woman-of-the-people meme. If she pry the party out of Hillary's hands, she'll win.; 12/15/14, 12:05 PM
damikesc said...: She is also a Senator in the leadership of her party.

She's a whip? I ask because she clearly isn't Minority Leader. What "leadership" position does she hold?

I think more important is life experience and or experience (successfully) navigating power and more important still demonstrating character.

Can you point to her doing so? I mean, she said Cruz doing the EXACT thing she tried to do last week was "anarchy" but it was a "principled" stand by her.

I don't think there is any reason to deny her the benefit of the doubt.

There's ample reason to do so. She provided no proof that she deserved the benefits she received.

And insofar as it touches on the substance of "affirmative action" as an issue it provides an opening for Democrats to run up the vote in communities of color.

Because "pale white woman using AA to her advantage" is going to certainly drive actual minorities to vote for her.

It has been reported news for some time that it turns out the IRS actually did have left-organizing words flagged as well, contrary to initial reporting.

That was also debunked within a week of that being mentioned. But good for you in terms of keeping up.

In addition there has never been any evidence connecting the troublesome behavior particularly high up.

DoJ is tied up in it. And the WH got info from the IRS. How much higher do you want?

And anyway the behavior happened during the tenure of a commissioner appointed by 43.

So, conservative groups are mistreated by the IRS several years after he leaves office and it is STILL Bush's fault?; 12/15/14, 12:49 PM
traditionalguy said...: If you believed your family's tales when they were passed down through grandmothers that there is some Cherokee ancestry, why not add that in when Harvard covets such for their statistics.

The passing down of family history tales is a very Scots-Irish borderer trait among those who had little education. Warren has done the work to make up for the lack of education now.

The question is how can we destroy her as an unattractive person. It is not going to be easy; 12/15/14, 11:00 PM