This morning three different law professors sent me this video of U.S. Senate Candidate and Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren claiming to be the first nursing mother to ever take the bar exam. One of the professors, who is a liberal academic, noted that she knows that claim to be untrue from personal experience. However, as noted by Winnie Comfort of the New Jersey Judiciary (which administers state’s bar exam), the bar does not track nursing habits and women have been taking the New Jersey bar exam since 1895. This was not a claim to be a nursing Cherokee mother, but the question remains why Warren is making such controversial boasts when she has a great financial expertise record to run on. Worse still, Warren today admitted that she did in fact claim minority status at Penn and Harvard — after insisting that she was unaware of the claims.
Obviously, the running of a law professor has made the Warren race a focus of law professors around the country. With these issues becoming part of the campaign, that fascination has grown to unprecedented levels. Warren has enjoyed overwhelming support in the academy from what I have seen. That support remains strong, though law professors are still chattering about these controversies.
These distractions however cannot be simply blamed on conservative publications, which are running the stories. Warren does not need such claims to distinguish herself. It could not come at a worse time when she has been unable to support her claim to be Cherokee In one of the most bizarre twists on the story, there are now accounts that great-great-great grandfather may have been a member of the Tennessee Militia who rounded up Cherokees and pushed them into the horrific Trail of Tears. Of course, even if true, that would not alter the fact that his wife was a Cherokee. However, the Boston Globe has confirmed that there is no documentation to support the claim.
With today’s admission that she did in fact repeatedly claim minority status at both law schools, I am again left perplexed why she would take so long to admit her claim. As I noted earlier, I could not imagine any way that such a claim, let alone repeated claims, unless it was made by the law professor.
On the merits, there is significant doubt about the claim. Warren’s bio lists her as becoming pregnant in 1976 before graduating from law school. By that point, the chances that she was the first woman to be a nursing mother during the bar seems doubtful, but more importantly it is not clear how she would know.
Once again, this is not an issue of importance, but it is one that Warren raised. While the claim of being a minority does have significant aspects for law schools and academics, nursing is not a matter that seems particularly relevant. However, what is fascinating is that I would have been impressed with Warren noting that she nursed during the bar exam – reflecting the challenges of female lawyers. No need to be first. I was trying not to hyperventilate at the time. I would be impressed even if she was the latest in a long line of nursing mothers during bar exams.
Nevertheless, she still looks good in comparison to 13 Senatorial candidates who are now accused of having backgrounds that include criminal convictions or tax violations.
I wonder if any of our attorneys have accounts to share of challenges that they faced during the bar examination. I know of one professor who was caught in a broken elevator in a hotel during his break from the bar. I know of another lawyer who was under cancer treatment and had to leave to throw up from the medication (he passed).
Beginning to think she really doesn;t want to win.
Please do not show any photos to prove this allegation. What I want to know is why does she get knocked up before she was ready to handle the duties? Was she still that ignorant? I dont know nuthin bout birthin babies Miz Scarlett, but why is this on the blog other than to discredit her?
I told you she has a real genius for satire… truly one of the finest comedic minds in years.
But, exactly, how are we to… lets see… ummmm… examine this claim.?
Is it possible Warren has introduced a distraction from the real issues of the campaign? She has certainly proven that she is a fascinating candidate in more ways than one.
If we are to take this seriously as an important capability then I fear Scott Brown just cannot compete.
I passed the CPA exam in Idaho. But I wasn’t nursing at the time. Poor me.
I know one gentleman who got diarrhea when he was taking the bar exam. It was unpleasant for him–just as it was for those who were taking the exam with him.
I’m not sure why Warren felt it important to tell people that she was the first nursing mother to take the bar in New Jersey. Was she nursing while taking the exam????
Elaine M.
Because she had to lactate. Maybe she needed a breast pump. But you’re not supposed to tell anybody about that.
Hi,
I am the person who found this video and sent it to the Boston Herald last weekend. As the Herald reported that women have been taking the New Jersey Bar since 1895, I feel quite sure that there were other nursing mothers before Warren who took the Bar.
Completely agree, Professor…Ms. Warren has fine credentials to run on, but for reasons only she knows she continually makes these silly and outlandish claims. Why? I don’t care if she was the first nursing mother to take the bar exam. I also don’t care if she is 1/100th Native American. I care that she appears committed to serious financial reform and consumer protection. That being said, these types of boasts are now becoming the rule rather than the exception.
She probably remembered this as the bar exam lasts all day, and she was very uncomfortable. There were no special accommodations back then. .Women in law had it very tough, and there were very few of them. They all have horror stories. Although Sandra Day O’Connor is older, the only job she was offered was a legal secretary. I once heard Kay Bailey Hutchinson tell the story about not being able to be hired as a lawyer after graduation in the seventies and having to go to work as reporter.
I suppose, Barney Fife is her campaign manager…….. Where’s sheriff Taylor when you need him…..
Barney Fife is only allowed one bullet. So why is he the deputy?
FYI: I also sent the video of Warren talking about nursing and the Bar exam to the Boston Globe on the same day I sent it to the Herald- but the Globe didn’t do anything on it.
The first nursing mom in NJ? Maybe, maybe not. I can’t believe that nursing moms are the norm at bar exams. Another triviality to try to marginalize a competent woman.
Reminder to self … another contribution to Warren campaign.
SwM,
I pledged a contribution every time a stupid story about Warren appears on this blog. This is starting to get expensive.
Women have been taking the Bar exam in New Jersey since 1895. Warren took her bar exam in 1976. There is no way she was the “first nursing mother to take the exam.”
Blouise, Ha!Ha!, I was waiting for you. I have my credit card on the desk.
Blouise
1, May 31, 2012 at 11:48 am
————————–
woo hoo!
Why is she trying to lose the election. If she did not say it, then why is it in a video? Who is this fraud that is immitating Ms. Warren? Certainly she is “smarter than a 5th Grader” apparently not.
Barney, She said it in 2011. Was she a candidate when she said it? The right wing websites are going crazy over this just like they did over Holder yesterday.
SwM,
The statute of limitations is three years.
Matt,
You misunderstood my comment. I meant I don’t know why Warren felt it important to tell her audience–not the test proctors–that she was the first nursing mother in New Jersey to take the bar.
I know all about lactation–from experience.
Swarthmore mom & Blouise,
Scott Brown claims he’s a moderate. That’s a lie! How come the news media doesn’t call him out on his claim?
“Warren concedes she told Harvard and Penn about Native American ancestry
Elaine, Because he is a good looking caucasian male that gets lots of contributions from JP Morgan. In other words, he is a member of the good old boys club. I have never seen a negative article on this blog about him.
Puzzling,
Warren needs to learn from the Cheney-Bush Files, that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the indisputable truth. It seems to be working for Obama. While claiming to be reducing the troops, he is actually switching them from diffetent bases and actually increasing the numbers. I am very much surprised that Obama expanded the use of drones at the same time.
I’m convinced she has good intentions. But she needs to be careful how she phrases it. She gets something of a pass because she’s female, but that has its limits.
Jesus, I certainly hope for the kid’s sake that basal lawyer fucktardery (BLF) is not passed through the milk.
Elaine, Kind of like Romney and Bain Capital. They get a pass here too.
anon,
Is that a joke. Do you know where the BLF came from?
Warren’s primary opponent is Marisa DeFranco, a pro-single-payer candidate who has been suppressed by party leaders. I think it’s possible that Warren could still lose the primary if the complications with her credibility continue.
In Massachusetts Senate Race, Top Democrat Has Rival
Governor Throws Weight Behind Senate Candidate
It’s no joke, I sincerely hope that whatever it is that causes lawyers to be such colossal assholes can be passed from mother to child.
“It’s no joke, I sincerely hope that whatever it is that causes lawyers to be such colossal assholes canNOT be passed from mother to child.”
Good thing I’m an accountant. I’m not surprised that lawyers are assholes.
Easy now Matt. Lawyers may get all the press, but some claim that accountants are not that far behind.
bfm,
You’re right. But lawyers get first place.
Anon,
You don’t understand. What is being requested is equal opportunity for Willard, Brown and Bain Capital. They should share in the abuse, but for some reason they are not, they are getting a free ride. They are only using Liz’s words against her.
Can you think of anytime the press took words of Willard and actually distorted them?
@bettykath
I think there is some truth to what you say. To me it makes a difference whether Warren introduced this as part of her campaign or whether the opposition dredged this from the past.
But Warren is actually doing a pretty good job of marginalizing herself. This from the WAPO: “Senate candidate turned molehill into a mountain by mishandling questions on matter” The story is about Warren’s acknowledgement that she told university employers about her ethnic background.
I think many would agree that Warren would be far ahead if she had just talked openly about what she did and why. Now it looks like she was guilty of something, lied about it, and now has been brought to account by those who dug out the facts.
It really is too bad. There are some real issues in the campaign, economic policy, financial regulation, consumer protection. And there are real choices to be made.
Unfortunately, I think Warren had contributed to the confusion and given her adversaries an opening.
Swarthmore mom,
I also think members of the press/news media have handled Scott Brown with kid gloves because his wife Gail Huff is one of them. She was a broadcast journalist in Boston. She now works down in Washington.
bfm,
I don’t think she lied about anything. And what are the facts? speak with specificity.
Who knows what a proctor/the proctors may have said to Warren when she took the bar exam in New Jersey?
Since we’ve had a number of discussions about Elizabeth Warren’s claims and truthfulness–maybe it’s time to take a closer look at her Republican opponent’s veracity.
MA-Sen: Video exposes Brown’s false tea party claim
1/14/2010
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/14/824925/-MA-Sen-Video-exposes-Brown-s-false-tea-party-claim
Excerpt;
In the Massuchusetts special election for U.S. Senate, GOP nominee Scott Brown is trying to appeal to moderate voters by claiming that he doesn’t know anything about the right-wing tea party movement.
But as this video shows, Brown not only knows about the tea party movement, but he’s actually spoken at one of their rallies, the Worcester Tea Party event held on April 15, 2009.
According to TPM, Brown’s own campaign has posted photos of him speaking at the Worcester Tea Party rally as well one of him at another tea party event. Salon’s Mike Madden also discovered that Brown’s campaign website featured a fundraiser thrown for him by tea partiers.
Who cares who was breastfeeding or not at the time of the Bar exam? This is a non-issue dredged up to make her look back. Why can’t the media stick to the real issues of the campaign?
@Matt
I didn’t say she lied. Although my recollection is that in the past she has said that she did not know how she came to be listed as Native American.
In fact the WAPO reports:
“when the Boston Herald first reported on the fact that Warren was listed as a Native American in a faculty directory, she said that she had no previous knowledge of that fact and had not authorized Harvard to list her as a minority. Warren’s campaign has said she forgot some details of her past employment as a way to explain the discrepancy in her statements.”
Apparently Warren is now admitting that she gave her employers the information.
My point was not to accuse her of lying. The point was that by not being totally forthright she gave her adversaries an opening. I think that is accurate – it looks terrible.
What she did is not so terrible. The way she handled it could be a disaster for her.
It is really too bad. There are some real issues in the campaign, economic policy, financial regulation, consumer protection.
Now we will hear nothing for a while but accusations and explanations.
In one sense, the worst of it is that much, not all, but much is self inflicted by Warren herself.
Sometimes it is just best to make cruel jokes and move on:
bfm,
Where is the documentation? Where is the proof? Who are the witnesses?
You are making allegations with no substantiation.
rafflaw,
“Who cares who was breastfeeding or not at the time of the Bar exam? This is a non-issue dredged up to make her look back. Why can’t the media stick to the real issues of the campaign?”
*****
Scott Brown doesn’t want to talk about the issues.
The media follow the lead on stories dredged up by the Karl Rove smear machine and company. It would take too much time and effort for members of the press/media to actually do some investigative work on issues of the greatest import, to write about Warren’s and Brown’s positions on those issues, to find out about Brown’s voting record in the US Senate and Massachusetts legislature, to write about what Warren accomplished when she served in the Obama Administration. Too many members of the press/media are feckless.
@Matt
Once again, I have not made any allegations about Warren. What I said is that Warren has created problems for herself by the way she handled specific questions.
The WAPO reports that Warrens previously stated: “she had no previous knowledge of that fact [...that she was listed in the directory as a minority] and had not authorized Harvard to list her as a minority”.
Now, in the same story the WAPO reports that Warren has stated: “At some point after I was hired by them, I … provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, Warren said in a statement to the Boston Globe. ”
My point is not that Warren is a liar. My point is that her two statements give her opponents an opening to claim that she is changing her story.
Again, I believe if she had just been forthright and clear from the beginning this would not be an issue.
I think some, not all, but some of her problems are self inflicted because she did not give full answers and attempted to avoid certain issues. That is too bad because controversy over incomplete statements now seems to detract attention from the real issues of the campaign – such as economic policy, financial reform and regulation, consumer protection.
Before you accuse me of saying things about Warren, perhaps you should read the Washington Post story that in places quotes Warren herself.
I think is pretty easy to document direct quotes from Warren.
If the WAPO has mis-quoted Warren I am sure the campaign will quickly challenge the news reports by the Washington Post and other news sources.
Here’s an article from yesterday’s edition of The Boston Globe. Brian McGrory, the author of the piece, is critical of both Warren and Brown.
A miserable start to Mass. Senate race
http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-30/metro/31889092_1_senate-race-political-race-tom-menino
@Matt
Here Matt. This is a part of the story that I found particularly relevant.
You can read the entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/what-elizabeth-warren-did-wrong/2012/05/31/gJQAou8S4U_blog.html
“At some point after I was hired by them, I … provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,” Warren said in a statement to the Boston Globe.
But, when the Boston Herald first reported on the fact that Warren was listed as a Native American in a faculty directory, she said that she had no previous knowledge of that fact and had not authorized Harvard to list her as a minority. Warren’s campaign has said she forgot some details of her past employment as a way to explain the discrepancy in her statements.
And, it’s clear from the Globe story that Warren’s hand was forced by the fact that the newspaper had found proof that, in their words, “the university’s law school began reporting a Native American female professor in federal statistics for the 1992-93 school year, the first year Warren worked at Harvard, as a visiting professor.”
While the Warren campaign will insist that is being consistent — that she has always said that she never told Harvard or Penn about her heritage before being hired or that it benefited her in any way — the optics of this back and forth are just terrible for her.
This could — and should — have been a minor nuisance for the campaign. No one is alleging that Warren used her minority status to get her jobs and it’s hard to imagine that in a campaign where the economy, jobs and debt are the overriding issues that whether Warren is Native American or not matters at all to voters.
But, Warren has turned a minor nuisance into a major storyline by not simply coming out with everything she knew — up to and including that she had formally told Harvard and Penn of her Native American heritage — about the whole episode right from the start.
“In Politics 101 you learn to get it all out and apologize on day one,” said one senior Democratic consultant who marveled at how the Warren campaign dealt with this episode. “‘Yep, I did it and I’m sorry.’ This has been handled amateurishly.”
By dragging out the story — the first Herald piece on it ran April 27! — Warren has turned it into, at the least, a distraction and, at the most, an issue to be used against her this fall.
Republicans — including Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R) — have been agitating for Warren to come clean on the story and now can say that they were right all along. They can can also use Warren’s obfuscation — whether purposeful or accidental — to cast her as exactly what she doesn’t want to be: a politician. Whether or not Warren meant to keep key tidbits of information away from public view, it can certainly be portrayed as though she did — and that she did so for political reasons. And that’s not good.
The last month speaks to the perils of being a first-time candidate in what is, without question, the marquee Senate race of the 2012 election. Warren has spent considerable time in the national spotlight — she headed up the Congressional hearings surrounding the spending of the funds in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and then helped found the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — but never as a candidate for elected office. It’s different — and harder.
bfm,
Once again, I have not made any allegations about Warren. What I said is that Warren has created problems for herself by the way she handled specific questions.
===========================================================
By saying she created problems for herself, you are making allegations. Prove it.
===========================================================
The WAPO reports that Warrens previously stated: “she had no previous knowledge of that fact [...that she was listed in the directory as a minority] and had not authorized Harvard to list her as a minority”.
===========================================================
Provide the WAPO reports.
===========================================================
Now, in the same story the WAPO reports that Warren has stated: “At some point after I was hired by them, I … provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, Warren said in a statement to the Boston Globe. ”
===========================================================
Provide the WAPO reports and the Boston Globe report.
===========================================================
My point is not that Warren is a liar. My point is that her two statements give her opponents an opening to claim that she is changing her story.
===========================================================
If you want to claim she’s changing her story, the burden of proof is on you. Or are you too much of a pansy to leave it to what you refer to as her opponents?
===========================================================
Again, I believe if she had just been forthright and clear from the beginning this would not be an issue.
===========================================================
Prove that she wasn’t being forthright from the beginning. Again, that burden of proof is on you.
===========================================================
I think some, not all, but some of her problems are self inflicted because she did not give full answers and attempted to avoid certain issues. That is too bad because controversy over incomplete statements now seems to detract attention from the real issues of the campaign – such as economic policy, financial reform and regulation, consumer protection.
===========================================================
How do you know that she didn’t give full answers and attempted to avoid certain issues? Prove it.
==========================================================
Before you accuse me of saying things about Warren, perhaps you should read the Washington Post story that in places quotes Warren herself.
==========================================================
If you want to quote the Washington Post, do it yourself.
==========================================================
I think is pretty easy to document direct quotes from Warren.
==========================================================
Then do the documentation.
==========================================================
If the WAPO has mis-quoted Warren I am sure the campaign will quickly challenge the news reports by the Washington Post and other news
sources.
==========================================================
You’re full of shit.
I don’t think Elizabeth Warren lied. I think she just forgot what she filled in on the form, or even that there was a form to be filled in. It can happen. I signed a form that cost me $3000 or $5000 (I can’t even remember how much) two years later because I forgot that I signed the form!
Swarthmore mom
Elaine, Because he is a good looking caucasian male that gets lots of contributions from JP Morgan. In other words, he is a member of the good old boys club. I have never seen a negative article on this blog about him.
—————————————————————————
Which is strange given Brown’s remarks about the favorite son, Ron Paul.
As bettykath wisely pointed out … “Another triviality to try to marginalize a competent woman.”
Since her competency can not be denied, especially juxtaposed with Brown’s … lactating-Native-American-Birther trivialities are all they have to work with.
Boo! There goes a truly powerful woman. Be afraid, be deeply afraid!
Blouise , “the favorite son, Ron Paul”………..you made my blog day.
“I have never seen a negative article on this blog about him.”
What has Brown done, or had done to him, that fits the typical pattern of issues that Professor Turley addresses?
More clay feet from persons we would otherwise respect. It smelled from the outset and now the reckoning is coming.
JT:
“With today’s admission that she did in fact repeatedly claim minority status at both law schools, I am again left perplexed why she would take so long to admit her claim.”
*****************************
Perplexed? Really? It looks like the “Cookie Jar” corollary to me.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20100105/NEWS/1050378 How about Brown’s defense of water boarding to start with? anon.
“During the campaign, Brown repeatedly railed against criminal trials for terrorism suspects, took out a television ad opposing giving “rights to terrorists who want to harm us” and declared that he did not view water-boarding as torture. And in his nationally televised victory speech Tuesday night, the senator-elect seized on the issue again.” Politico
Brown to co-sponsor terrorism bill
By Matt Viser, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON – Senator Scott Brown tomorrow is signing on to legislation that would strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship if they are found to have aided a foreign terrorist organization.
Brown is joining three other lawmakers in filing the legislation, which comes after Faisal Shehzad was accused of a plot to detonate a car bomb in Times Square on Saturday. Because the Pakistani-born Shehzad is a naturalized American citizen, he was read his Miranda rights and will be tried in a civilian court, rather than before a military tribunal.
SwM,
Yeah but Brown’s opponent during that race was also a woman who did not support torture and was often in favor of civilian over military trials … sticky going if one is attempting to trivialize female candidates.
Blouise, Yep. Look’s like Brown is an advocate of torture and many other unconstitutional measures.
SwM,
Ah, but Morgan/Chase loves ‘im and he doesn’t have lactating or Native-American-Birther issues … come on … get with the program!
@Matt
You can read the entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/what-elizabeth-warren-did-wrong/2012/05/31/gJQAou8S4U_blog.html
At this point, I don’t think it is even controversial that at one point she stated she did not know how Harvard list her with minority status. And now she is admitting she gave Harvard the information.
I think most people would consider that changing her story. Maybe you do not agree. But I think most people would consider that a big change. And I think it will also cause her some real problems with some people – let me guess – maybe Scott Brown supporters and maybe some who are undecided. Maybe not. But I am guessing she will be busy explaining how she could claim a few months ago that she did not know how she got minority status, and now she she remembers she gave Harvard the information.
Matt you are not the first one to tell me I am full of shit.
But I usually at least try to read the daily news paper before I take a verbal swing at some one.
It’s not like you have to be a Harvard professor to read widely distributed news reports and make yourself aware of what the candidates themselves are saying – that is what is coming out of the candidates own mouth.
So at the risk of being accused of making accusations against Elizabeth Warren let me summarize.
(1) There does not seem to be any controversy on the contrary it seems to be a widely acknowledged fact: Elizabeth Warren claimed not to know how Harvard received information to list her as minority.
(2) There does not seem to be any controversy. It seem that Elizabeth Warren, herself, admitted that she is the one who gave Harvard the information to list her as minority.
(3) It may not be fair. It may be a distraction. But I am going to guess that there are some who will try to make political capital out of this situation. I might be wrong.
(4) It is my personal belief that Elizabeth Warren could have handled the situation from a public relations point of view. I think this situation would have been a dead story months ago if Elizabeth Warren had only said something to the effect ‘I claimed minority status because I belief my family history warrants that status’.
(5) It remains to be seen how serious this situation will be for Elizabeth Warren.
(6) I have provided on reference to new reports regarding these events. I am sure those that are capable of reading these words can look further for news reports if they wish.
(7) if anyone really wants to delve further into this story and is having problems using Google please leave a note for me here and I will try to help.
bfm,
Do you remember Jayson Blair? Don’t believe everything you read in the newspaper.
@SwM
“http://www.telegram.com/article/20100105/NEWS/1050378 How about Brown’s defense of water boarding to start with? anon.”
Okay thank you, so that’s a start.
How did Brown’s defense compare to other Republicans? Was it merely representative of the genre or did he take the lead in some notable manner?
@Blouise
“… sticky going if one is attempting to trivialize female candidates.”
See, this is the kind of noxious shit that I think of when I think of feminist idiocy.
Is there any real evidence that Professor Turley trivializes female candidates? If so, why don’t you present it.
If not, do you have any idea of the harm you do to Turley and to feminists and to all humans when you spout such bullshit?
Stop being part of the problem.
Holder up there folks, when Obama learns how to follow the constitution then let those insults fly. He may have taught constitutional law, but he does a durn good job of finishing off what was left of it after it was pissed on by Bush.
SwM,
Edwards found not guilty on one count and judge declares mistrial on 5 others because jury could not reach a decision. They were out 9 days! What a bloomin’ fiasco for the prosecutors.
Hey, v-boy … long time no talk to.
Blouise, Abbe Lowell is among the best defense attorneys money can buy.
anon, I know all I need to know about Brown. If you want more information do your own research or just give him a pass.
Looks like John gets off again, this time no pregnancy.
@SwM, I accept your concession of the point. Next time, you may try a little more grace with your concession posts, (but I wouldn’t ask Blouise for an example.)
Looks like another trick in the trade.
Flunked the NY bar. Hadn’t taken a review course. Came down with flu the day after that hat had me in bed for a week — the infamous 1968 swine flu epidemic.
Living in DC. Took legendary Nacrelli review course. Passed DC, but declined to walk across the street, literally, from District Court induction ceremony, to sign up for Supreme Court Bar at, I think, the bargain rate of $25 or thereabouts.
anon, That was no concession. Brown ran his campaign in 2010 on a pro-torture and anti-civil liberties platform and is doing the same in 2012.
v-boy,
Roll another one … you’re getting cranky.
Elaine,
I was asking a rhetorical question. I know the media is following the corporate lead and the lead of the Rove’s of the world. It is just amazing how crap issues like this lead the news.
Swarthmore,
don’t you know it is mandatory for Republicans to be pro-torture and against free speech, unless it is for corporations?
rafflaw,
I knew yours was a rhetorical question. I decided to answer it anyway.
Swarthmore mom & Blouise,
Scott “Centerfold” Brown also signed Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge
Elaine,
All American boy!
Liz Warren Sets Herself Up for a Summer of Crazy
By Charles P. Pierce
May 31, 2012
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/elizabeth-warren-cherokee-9312870
This morning, because it was slow to realize the real political damage that nonsense can do to a person, Elizabeth Warren’s senatorial campaign got itself in real trouble.
Let us be clear from the outset: There was no answer that she ever could have given on the subject of her alleged Cherokee ancestry that would have “put the issue to bed.” Reporters who make that argument do so because they have to justify their pursuit of the nothingburger in the first place. We all recall the many words wasted on behalf of the fanciful notion that if Bill Clinton had just “come clean” on Monica Lewinsky from the start, the story would have “gone away,” as though the Republicans and their media enablers weren’t in the game of getting rid of Clinton for keeps since, roughly, 1989, when the late ratfker Lee Atwater first went to Little Rock to troll for Clinton’s former lovers. Had Warren responded from the start that, Hey, that’s what my mom always told me, which seems to be the default option of which the people pursuing this story seem to believe she should have availed herself, the following day’s story would have been Liz Throws Mom Under Bus, which would have led to the third-day story, A Question Of Character, and on and on we go.
(For a longer analysis of the precise Warren-Clinton media parallels, see friend of the blog Mountaineer Mike Tomasky.)
The problem for Warren is that her campaign apparently was either unaware of this dynamic, or believed out of a profound sense of naivete that the “scandal” would sink of its own weight, that the Boston Globe, which has been running scared of offending Scott Brown ever since McDreamy got elected, never would dream of following the lead of the Boston Herald, which now, in a hilarious exercise in sheer public mendacity, has taken up the cause of Warren’s opponent in the Democratic primary, Marisa DeFranco, as though she’d actually be anything but a “moonbat” in that paper if she wasn’t running against Warren and if the Herald weren’t so thoroughly in the tank for McDreamy that they might not dry off until 2019. But the two newspapers are joined in a kind of symmetry that gives this story its legs — the Herald’s shamelessly in the tank for Brown while the Globe is utterly terrified of being accused of being in the tank for Warren. And today, in the latter, Warren’s story changed a little, which is never a good thing:
Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren acknowledged for the first time late Wednesday night that she told Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania that she was Native American, but she continued to insist that race played no role in her recruitment. “At some point after I was hired by them, I… provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,” she said in a statement issued by her campaign. “My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I’m proud of it and I have been open about it.”
You don’t have to have been following American politics too closely over the past 20 years to start dreaming up the attack ads scattered like land mines throughout that paragraph. What Else Don’t We Know? What Else Has She Changed Her Mind About? It’s not like the sub rosa poison about Warren’s being an “affirmative action hire” is going to go away now, either. The polls still say nobody cares about this foolishness, and the election is still going to be a razorish thing all the way to the fall. But, now that Warren’s explanation has moved from Point A to Point A.005, expect things to get both rougher and more loony through the summer.
UPDATE — Here’s the text of an e-mail the Warren campaign sent out this afternoon.
When I was a little girl, I learned about my family’s heritage the same way everyone else does — from my parents and grandparents. My mother, grandmother, and aunts were open about my family’s Native American heritage, and I never had any reason to doubt them. What kid asks their grandparents for legal documentation to go along with their family stories? What kid asks their mother for proof in how she describes herself? My heritage is a part of who I am — and I am proud of it.
But that’s not good enough for Scott Brown and the Republican Party. For several weeks now, they have orchestrated an attack against my family, my job qualifications, and my character. Earlier today, Scott Brown even questioned the honesty of my parents — even though they are not fair game and are not here to defend themselves.
Scott Brown wants me to give up my family and forget where I came from. I’m not doing that — not for politics and not for anything else. I’ll hold on to every memory I can. My family is part of who I am, and they will be part of who I am until I die.
Despite evidence to the contrary, Scott Brown also claims I got special breaks because of my background. That’s not true, and I need your help to fight back:
* The people involved in recruiting and hiring me for my teaching jobs, including Harvard professor Charles Fried — the solicitor-general under Ronald Reagan and a Scott Brown voter in 2010 — have said unequivocally they were not aware of my heritage and that it played no role in my hiring.
* I did not benefit from my heritage when applying to college or law school, and documents reporters have examined prove it.
* I let people know about my Native American heritage in a national directory of law school personnel. At some point after they hired me, I also provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard.
I decided to run for the U.S. Senate because the middle class in this country has been hacked at and hammered at and because Washington doesn’t get it. Scott Brown has a very different vision about who we are as a people, and he votes to make sure the levers of power in Washington continue to work for the big, the powerful and the wealthy. If everyone in Massachusetts knew where Scott Brown stands on the important issues, voters wouldn’t give him a second term in the U.S. Senate. You know that, I know that, and he knows that, too. That’s why he has worked so hard to make this campaign about anything else — even my heritage. It’s why his campaign spends so little time on what Massachusetts voters are really concerned about. On Election Day, we will prevail because our vision is clearer and our ideas are stronger. We are focused on the issues important to middle class families, and our grassroots team will make sure everyone knows about those issues. I need your help to keep fighting the smears, spread the truth, and help us organize to win.
Better, but would’ve been more effective two weeks ago.
What does “is” mean? She’s telling the truth.
Non-issue and the original issue is just plain racist. The basis from which that anti-Warren argument proceeds is that being 1/16th or 1/32 Native American allows you to jump the line of more qualified candidates. In the real world and it doesn’t. That minorities get a free ride over better qualified ASP’s. The only thing it get is that it allows the employer to check off a box on a government form that demonstrates they are an equal opportunity employer or are moving toward their voluntarily set hiring goals.
I’m 1/16th Cherokee and sometimes I’d check the appropriate box on the yearly EO form my employer (the govt.) handed out and sometime I wouldn’t, it depended on how I felt that day. The forms were a farce and employees played with filing them out to the point that the data base was in some part unreliable and had to be visually corroborated by personnel folks, LOL.
To think that someone has to deal with a basically racist controversy over such a minuscule thing decades later is just reason #261 civilized people in the rest of the world are (I’m sure) laughing at the U.S.
I spent four years active duty in the Navy, but I don’t get any preference points. Not complaining.
Rachel Maddow Calls Scott Brown A Liar
VIDEO
by Colby Hall
3/30/2010
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rachel-maddow-calls-sen-scott-brown-a-liar/
The rhetorical back and forth between MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and newly elected Senator Scott Brown is equal parts painfully absurd and delightfully entertaining. To recap quickly: Brown’s campaign has been raising funds over a farcical threat of the television host entering a Senatorial campaign against him. Maddow has laughed off the allegations, in hopes that they would abate, which they haven’t. So, long story short – tonight she took the next logical step. She called a sitting US Senator a liar. And as long as she doesn’t run for office, she’s right.
For Brown, a perplexing connection
In light of his sexual abuse revelation, why did he back Jeff Perry?
2/20/11
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/02/20/for_brown_a_perplexing_connection/
Excerpt:
SENATOR SCOTT Brown’s revelations about a childhood that included sexual assault by a summer camp counselor are genuinely sympathy-inducing.
But, they also make you wonder: in light of this searing experience when he was 10, how could Brown endorse Jeff Perry, the Republican congressional candidate, who, in 1991, allegedly stood by as a 14-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by a fellow police officer?
The victim, Lisa Allen, came forward during the race that Perry ultimately lost and said that Perry “had to hear my screaming and crying. Instead of helping me, Jeff Perry denied anything happened.’’
It’s an eerie echo of the personal trauma Brown reveals in his book, “Against All Odds.’’ As he tells “60 Minutes’’ correspondent Lesley Stahl, he never went to police or any authority — and told no one, not even his mother — because his abuser told him: “If you tell anybody, you know, I’ll kill you. I will make sure that no one believes you.’’
Adds Brown in the interview that will be aired tonight: “When people find people like me at that young vulnerable age, who are basically lost, the thing that they have over you is, they make you believe that no one will believe you.’’
Despite his own horrific experience, Brown still chose to believe Perry over Allen; or, if he didn’t believe him, he still backed him for an important political position. Given that Brown is the father of two daughters, his loyalty to Perry was always curious. The revelations in his book make it even odder. In response, Brown said there is “no correlation’’ between his story and Allen’s and it is “really inappropriate’’ to link them.
I watched that. Too bad Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews tell the truth, among a few others.
BTW – Tell Congressman Joe to piss off. Boise State Rules. What does he think he’s talking about, anyway? Tell the asshole to eat some potatoes.
Scott Brown Will Now Gouge Your Kids’ Tuition
By Charles P. Pierce
5/9/12
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/scott-brown-student-loans-8694981
Oh, McDreamy, you stepped in it this time.
Things were going pretty well. The locals were keeping that nothingburger about Elizabeth Warren’s professed Cherokee ancestry — something she shares with approximately 192.7 percent of everyone born in Oklahoma after about 1881 — heating up. The Warren campaign seemed unclear how to respond to aggressively promoted nonsense, a real rookie mistake in American politics in 2012. But then you had to go back to Washington and be a senator again, and things went badly wrong.
You see, Senator Brown, in Massachusetts, especially here in Boston, college is sort of like what cars used to be in Detroit and country music in Nashville. It’s kind of what we do. College students — those double-parking, jaywalking, projectile-vomiting little parcels of disposable income — are our most important product, to borrow the old GE slogan. At last count, there were something just short of 350,000 of them living in the greater Boston area alone. And, yesterday, you voted to make sure the interest rates on all their student loans will double in July. The Republican party, because it is insane at its base and its congressional caucus is made up of nihilists and vandals, filibustered to death a Democratic attempt to keep the increase from happening. And you voted against a cloture motion that would have opened the floor to a vote in the bill, which would have passed with relative ease. So, come July, most of those 350,000-odd at-the-very-least partial constituents, many of whom already look at your opponent like she’s the headliner at a Fillmore East show in 1969, will be paying almost seven percent on their loans. Their parents, many of whom live in Massachusetts, are unlikely to be pleased, either. The colleges aren’t going to be too wild about this, either. And, as I said, those colleges produce our main product, who, in turn, keep the local coffee joints and laptop repair shops in business.
And the explanation is not going to fly, either, not with anyone who’s been paying attention, and that would certainly include your opponent, those 350,000 wandering scholars, their families, and the president of the United States.
“The job market is dismal and the cost of getting a college education is out of control,” Brown said. “We should be working together on a solution that prevents these rates from skyrocketing.”
Nope. Sorry. I realize this is one of only two or three actual policy answers that you have on file, but what you voted for was a Republican strategy not to work with anyone. That leaves you, this morning, no different from Jim DeMint, and Ron Johnson, and the rest of the Tea Party hardbars. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren’s strange collision with diversity politics is going to keep a lot of other people from, well, going on the warpath here. Barn coat alert, I’m thinking.
I keep trying to like Ms. Warren and she keeps pushing me away.
Why does a woman this accomplished feel the need to revel in insignifica?
Elizabeth Warren Avoids American Indian Media
It is a further reflection on Warren that she refuses to meet with Native American media.
Heaven and earth,
Must I remember? Why, she would hang on Etsy
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on, and yet, within a month—
Let me not think on’t—Insignifica, thy name is woman!—
Do you know that potatoes provide all the calories and nutritional elements needed to survive? Maybe Congressman Joe can find some turnips.
Patric,
Is Warren “reveling” in insignifica? It seems to me that the people who don’t want to see her elected to the US Senate and the press/media are the ones reveling in insignifica.
Insignifica lies.
Tell it as it is grrrl.
Elaine,
I forgot about Brown’s vote on the student Loan interest. Warren should hammer him on that issue.
Elaine,
This is just a note. If you want big water melons, go to Arkansas.
Rafflaw – Warren hasn’t won her party’s nomination just yet. She needs to beat a strong immigration attorney who is pro-single-payer first. Despite the party establishment attempting to silence her, I believe rival Marisa DeFranco has a real chance in MA as Warren continues to stumble:
rafflaw,
Brwon also supported the Blunt Amendment too–and helped water down the financial reform bill…before he voted for it.
Sen. Scott Brown Touts Vote For Wall Street Reform In Ad, Neglects To Mention How He Watered It Down
By Pat Garofalo on May 29, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/tag/scott-brown/
Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R), in the face of a challenge from Wall Street reformer Elizabeth Warren, has been going out of his way to claim that he has been tough on the nation’s banks. Case in point, a recent ad released by his campaign prominently claims that he was “the tie-breaking vote on Wall Street reform“:
The problem with Washington is that people down there are always battling. That’s not how I operate. We’re Americans first, and I’ll work with anyone to get things done. I was the tie-breaking vote on Wall Street reform.
Brown did cross the aisle to vote with Democrats to approve the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. However, what the ad neglects to mention is the role Brown played in significantly watering the down the law, which has landed him heaps of Wall Street cash.
Brown was instrumental in weakening the Volcker Rule, which was meant to rein in risky trading with federally backed dollars by the nation’s biggest banks. He also forced Democrats to strip from the law a $19 billion bank tax. Without that provision, the Congressional Budget Office is now bizarrely claiming that the law has a “cost” of about $20 billion, a score which Republicans have seized upon as justification for their efforts to repeal the law entirely.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, employees from the securities and investment industries have given more money to Brown than those of any other industry. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, which just lost billions of dollars on the sort of trading that the Volcker Rule was originally meant to curtail, are amongst his top ten donors.
puzzling,
I am aware he has a primary to win first, but I think Warren will,pull out the victory.
Great link and article.
Okay, why is it disabled by request. I’m not going to watch it on YouTube.
Swarthmore mom
1, May 31, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Brown to co-sponsor terrorism bill
By Matt Viser, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON – Senator Scott Brown tomorrow is signing on to legislation that would strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship if they are found to have aided a foreign terrorist organization.
*****
I wrote a post on the subject earlier this year:
The Enemy Expatriation Act: Learn How Your Government Could Strip You of Your Citizenship If This Legislation Becomes Law
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/29/the-enemy-expatriation-act-learn-how-your-government-could-strip-you-of-your-citizenship-if-this-legislation-becomes-law/
Excerpt;
Even people who believe that NDAA does not allow for the indefinite detention of citizens should be concerned about a proposed amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that would give our government “the authority to strip a person of their American citizenship if that person is accused or suspected of supporting ‘hostilities’ against the U.S. The amendment, known as the Enemy Expatriation Act (EEA), was introduced, in October, by Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa., and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Scott Brown, R-Mass.
According to ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’ Could Compound NDAA Threat to Citizen Rights, an article written by Ashley Portero that was published in the International Business Times, EEA “would allow the government to revoke Americans of their U.S. citizenship if they are accused or suspected of ‘engaging in, or purposefully or materially supporting, hostilities.’ The sparse amendment, which defines ‘hostilities’ as ‘any conflict subject to the laws of war,’ does not say which government body — say a military tribunal or a congressional panel — has the power to brand suspected persons as hostiles.” If EEA becomes law, our government “could potentially revoke the citizenship of anyone deemed to be supporting hostilities against the U.S., thereby subjecting him or her to the indefinite military detention provision of the NDAA.”
Washington Post:
Who had the worst week in Washington? Elizabeth Warren. Again.
The Enemy Expatriation Act: Learn How Your Government Could Strip You of Your Citizenship If This Legislation Becomes Law
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/29/the-enemy-expatriation-act-learn-how-your-government-could-strip-you-of-your-citizenship-if-this-legislation-becomes-law/
===========================================================
Do you know what’s going to happen if that happens? There won’t be any law.
Matt:
When do you predict the sky will fall?
If the government starts taking citizenship away from people who were born here, that’s when the sky falls.
Matt,
Down in Florida, Governor Rick Scott and his henchmen are doing their best to see that thousands of Democrats and minorities won’t have an opportunity to vote in federal elections this year.
How many rednecks with guns are there in Florida?
Matt,
I’m not in the habit of visiting Florida. I couldn’t say. I’d hazard a guess that there are many more than you’d find up here in my neck of the woods. They have lots of hanging chads down there too.
Governor Rick Scott and his henchmen better be careful.
Matt:
“If the government starts taking citizenship away from people who were born here, that’s when the sky falls.”
********************
Do you really care if they strip citizenship from those convicted of “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States”? Haven’t they already given up their citizenship by their conduct? Treason has always been deemed a relinquishment of citizenship. Is this really different?
You can’t strip them of their citizenship if they were born here. Where are they going to go? And what you’re talking about is a very miniscule percentage.
Matt & mespo,
Government could strip citizenship from Americans under Enemy Expatriation Act
13 January, 2012
http://rt.com/usa/news/expatriation-act-citizenship-ndaa-737/
When Barack Obama inked the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, the president insisted that he wouldn’t use the terrifying legislation against American citizens. Another new law, however, could easily change all of that.
If the Enemy Expatriation Act passes in its current form, the legislation will let the government strike away citizenship for anyone engaged in hostilities, or supporting hostilities, against the United States. The law itself is rather brief, but in just a few words it warrants the US government to strip nationality status from anyone they identify as a threat.
What’s more, the government can decide to do so without bringing the suspected troublemaker before a court of law.
Under the legislation, “hostilities” are defined as “any conflict subject to the laws of war” and does not explicitly state that charges against suspects go to court.
When Obama signed NDAA on December 31, the president said that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Added the president, “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.” But by breaking off ties between citizens — American-born or otherwise — the harsh realities of NDAA can be forced on anyone in the US if Washington decides that it is in the country’s best interest.
The National Defense Authorization Act drew widespread opposition despite a lack of media cover due to the capabilities in bestows in the administration. Under NDAA, the government can indefinitely imprison anyone deemed dangerous by Washington and hold them without trial. After criticism led to massive online campaigns and protests, President Obama addressed the issue and said specifically that his administration would not understand the law as such. Instead, said Obama, “My administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”
Some are now saying that Obama’s attempt at discrediting the NDAA by insisting that he would not use it against American citizens came only as a precursor to the latest Act. By adding his signing statement to the NDAA, the president insured that legislation such as the Enemy Expatriation Act would surface to strike any limitations that would have kept Americans free from military detainment. “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans,” Stephen . Foster, Jr. writes on the AddictionInfo.org website. “Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”
Matt:
“You can’t strip them of their citizenship if they were born here. Where are they going to go?”
*********************
Don’t know where you got the idea you can’t strip a traitor of citizenship just because they were born here. That’s not the law. See Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1169.
To answer your question: Like most other federal criminals to the most suitable Federal Correctional Institution to serve out their sentence and then to be deported.
Elaine:
You can’t strip anyone of citizenship by administrative process. it violates the Due Process Clause. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963). Justice Goldberg held that penal expatriation effectuated solely by administrative determination violated due process because of the absence of procedural safeguards.
Be deported where? American traitors are kept in American prison for life.
Scary legislation Elaine.
mespo,
Post @ 11:36pm … good info, thanks. Wish I’d had it two hours ago when I was discussing, okay … arguing, with my T-Party neighbor.
There’s always tomorrow.
mespo,
Obama’s Kill Policy
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/07/obamas-kill-policy/
Excerpt:
Holder’s new definition of “due process” was perfectly Orwellian. While the Framers wanted an objective basis for due process, Holder was offering little more than “we will give the process that we consider due to a target.” And even the vaguely described “due process” claimed by Holder was not stated as required, but rather granted, by the president. Three citizens have been given their due during the Obama administration and vaporized by presidential order. Frankly, few of us mourn their passing. However, due process appears to have been vaporized in the same moment — something many U.S. citizens may come to miss.
What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. If the president can kill a citizen, there are a host of other powers that fall short of killing that the president might claim, including indefinite detention of citizens — another recent controversy. Thus, by asserting the right to kill citizens without charge or judicial review, Holder has effectively made all of the Constitution’s individual protections of accused persons matters of presidential discretion. These rights will be faithfully observed up to the point that the president concludes that they interfere with his view of how best to protect the country — or his willingness to wait for “justice” to be done. And if Awlaki’s fate is any indication, there will be no opportunity for much objection.
Already, the administration has successfully blocked efforts of citizens to gain review of such national security powers or orders. Not only is the list of citizens targeted with death kept secret, but the administration has insisted that courts do not play a role in the creation of or basis for such a list. Even when Awlaki’s family tried to challenge Obama’s kill order, the federal court declared that the cleric would have to file for himself — a difficult task when you are on a presidential hit list. Moreover, any attorney working with Awlaki would have risked being charged with aiding a terrorist.
When the applause died down after Holder’s speech, we were left with a bizarre notion of government. We have this elaborate system of courts and rights governing the prosecution and punishment of citizens. However, that entire system can be circumvented at the whim or will of the president. The president then becomes effectively the lawgiver or lifetaker for all citizens. The rest becomes a mere pretense of the rule of law.
Holder was describing the very model of government the Framers denounced in crafting both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. James Madison in particular warned that citizens should not rely on the good graces and good intentions of their leaders. He noted, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” The administration appears to have taken the quote literally as an invitation for unlimited authority for angels.
Of course, even those who hold an angelic view of Obama today may come to find the next president less divine. In the end, those guardian angels will continue to claim to be acting in the best interests of every citizen — with the exception, of course, of those citizens killed by them.
10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/
Elaine M.: 1, May 31, 2012 at 11:00 pm
Matt, Down in Florida, Governor Rick Scott and his henchmen are doing their best to see that thousands of Democrats and minorities won’t have an opportunity to vote in federal elections this year
———-
Some good news Ms. Elaine:
Maddow had an exclusive tonight- the Justice Department sent Florida a letter this evening stating that Florida did not request pre-clearance on it’s plans to purge voter rolls and that Florid is likely in violation of Federal law. The JD requests that Florida stop its purge and seek pre-clearance.
WOOOOHOOOOOOOO! ‘Bout damn time. There’s what, about 14 states playing fast and loose with the right of citizens to vote? The JD needs to step up in all of them IMO.
lottakatz,
I just read the good news on ThinkProgress.
Elaine, thanks, I shall visit them and read the details.
lotta,
ThinkProgress provided a link to an article at TPM. Here it is:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/justice_department_demands_florida_stop_purging_voter_rolls.php
Elaine M., The TPM site casts the letter in a much more stern light than Maddow’s spot on the matter. Good, as it should be. One of the remedial acts that should be performed (assuming Florida doesn’t just bullheadedly forge on) is to send follow up notices to all of the people told that they may be/are ineligible to vote that they are eligible to vote and the first notice was an error and it should do that in plain language that anyone can understand. I hope Florida/Scott folds with all due haste.
@mespo727272
I think it is always a matter of concern when the government takes a power that it did not have before.
And there seems to be some concern that overzealous prosecutors might try to construe material support to include speech.
So yes, I do have some problems with this.
In the past we have always seemed to be able to prosecute the enemies of the state, especially during time of war, with out this.
So I have to wonder (1) is it necessary (2) does it over reach and infringe on important rights.
I am not offering a conclusion. I wish I could. But I believe some of the questions are obvious and important.
@mesp727272 “Due Process Clause. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963). Justice Goldberg held that penal expatriation effectuated solely by administrative determination violated due process because of the absence of procedural safeguards.”
I think what you claim is exactly Elaine’s concern. Besides I think the concern is broader than citizenship, but goes to constitutional rights and access to the courts.
I think her remarks are that the legislation seems to circumvent or contradict what you cite as protection.
If there is a contradiction then doesn’t it fall the to courts to decide which legislation or decisions actually control?
And haven’t the courts spent much of the past decade flat on their collective backs for the administration?
So what ever the law was in the past, doesn’t it stand to reason that citizens might have concerns regarding legislation like this and about the administrations stated understanding of the meaning of the legislation as expressed in the form of a signing statement?
To be a bit glib about it, I think there is much truth to the characterization that we are rapidly building a system where citizens have constitutional rights and the protection of the courts unless and until someone in the administration signs a paper that claims the citizen is some kind of enemy of the state.
That ought to trouble everyone.
Could laws like these be applied to foreign policy experts who council peace with Iran? What about activist who champion the cause of Palestinians? Could a mayor like Bloomberg designate the leaders of a protest group like OWS and have them held with out access to the courts? I don’t think anyone can give definitive answers to questions like these. That ought to be troubling to everyone.
Before you sneer that we are talking about federal laws and a mayor is well a mayor, you ought to consider that police departments already have the ability to enter individual names on federal list in federal databases based on nothing more than an accusation. These lists have real consequences in the lives of individuals. And there does not seem to be any systematic way for a citizen to challenge the legitimacy of the listing or to demand removal for inappropriate listing.
One might consider how these laws would have played out in the last century during the civil rights movement. During that time there were claims that the civil rights movement was infiltrated by communists. It was a given that communists and the communist party were enemies of the state. And in the ’60′s there was real civil unrest with riots, property damage, parts of NW DC and other cities actually burned.
I don’t think one has to be an alarmist to wonder if the availability of legislation like this in the past century would have put thousands behind bars without recourse to the courts.
As bad as the social situation was during the past century, I do not believe that legislation like this would have made anything better. On the contrary, I think history proves conclusively that the federal government had all the legal tools it needed to handle the situation.
So in conclusion, I have to wonder if this legislation is necessary or does it overreach. Does this legislation solve a real problem. Or does this legislation run the very real risk of creating much more serious problems.
I am definitely concerned with any legislation which seems to limit constitutional rights or access to the courts. I am very concerned with any legislation that would seem to be easily abused by federal prosecutors.
bfm,
“To be a bit glib about it, I think there is much truth to the characterization that we are rapidly building a system where citizens have constitutional rights and the protection of the courts unless and until someone in the administration signs a paper that claims the citizen is some kind of enemy of the state.
That ought to trouble everyone.”
If it is any consolation bfm, I’m not being glib at all (having put quite a bit of thought to the matter) when I say that not only is the much truth in it and everyone should be troubled by this encroaching tyranny, we are setting the stage for Peru under Pinochet style state where people can and will be “disappeared” on a regular basis. People should be troubled, concerned and outraged at the steady and growing stream of civil rights abuses the government is giving itself the power to commit under the guise of “national security” and with the weak promise of “but the President would never use that on a citizen . . . unless they’re a ‘terrorist’ (read: undesirable)”. Were Jefferson and Madison alive today, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say they’d probably be at or near the top of the DHS list of undesirables. In our pursuit of security theater, pols and corporations with bad intentions have slowly been subverting our system of government into the very kind of tyrannical despotic organ of state that Jefferson addressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Matt:
“Be deported where? American traitors are kept in American prison for life.”
******************
18 USC § 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
It’s a legal blog, Matt. Thus it’s good to check your facts before just blurting them out.
mespo,
Doesn’t one have to find a country that will accept an American citizen who has been stripped of his/her citizenship? Wouldn’t such a person be a man/woman without a country?
bfm,
Submitted for your . . . I’d say approval but really abject revulsion is probably the more appropriate reaction. It is more than just bad law that is creating tyranny. It’s the attitude that the enforcement system is currently encouraging. See this story (with video) at MSNBC:
‘First Amendment rights can be terminated’: When cops, cameras don’t mix
“‘Your First Amendment rights can be terminated,’ yells the Chicago police officer, caught on video right before arresting two journalists outside a Chicago hospital. One, an NBC News photographer, was led away in handcuffs essentially for taking pictures in a public place. He was released only minutes later, but the damage was done. Chicago cops suffered an embarrassing “caught on tape” moment, and civil rights experts who say cops are unfairly cracking down on citizens with cameras had their iconic moment.
Tales of reporters, protestors and citizen journalists being threatened or arrested for filming law enforcement officials during disputes are on the rise, critics say, with Occupy Wall Street protests a lightning rod for these incidents. The National Press Photographers Association claims it has documented 70 such arrests since September and, in May, called on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to focus attention on the issue.
‘The First Amendment has come under assault on the streets of America,” the photography association said in a letter to Holder that was also signed by several other interest groups. “Police have arrested dozens of journalists and activists simply for attempting to document political protests in public spaces.”
Such allegations are ironic, given the sharp rise in police surveillance technology, which gives cops vast capabilities to film citizens, said Catherine Crump, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney.”
[emphasis added]
Off Topic:
White Supremacist With Ties To Neo-Nazi Groups Elected To Pennsylvania County GOP Committee
By Adam Peck
ThinkProgress Justice
May 31, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/31/492796/white-supremacist-with-ties-to-neo-nazi-groups-elected-to-pennsylvania-county-gop-committee/
Excerpt:
Republicans in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania have elected Steve Smith, a lifelong white supremacist with close ties to neo-Nazi groups and groups like Aryan Nations, to the county’s GOP Committee.
The elections, which took place in late April, were certified by the committee two weeks ago, and Smith notified supporters of his victory last week by posting a message to the online forum White News Now.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has documented Smith’s participation with known skinhead organizations like Keystone State Skinheads, (now Keystone United) which he co-founded in 2001. And his racist activism extends far beyond violent rhetoric as well, into actual violence:
In March 2003, he and two other KSS members were arrested in Scranton for beating up Antoni Williams, a black man, using stones and chunks of pavement. Smith pleaded guilty to terrorist threats and ethnic intimidation and received a 60-day sentence and probation.
Smith is also an active member of local Tea Party groups, a network that he used to gain support for his bid for the committee seat. According to the SPLC, Smith referred to the Tea Party as “fertile grounds for our activists.”
mespo,
Matt:
“Be deported where? American traitors are kept in American prison for life.”
******************
18 USC § 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
It’s a legal blog, Matt. Thus it’s good to check your facts before just blurting them out.
===========================================================
Deported where? Do you think a traitor is going to be turned loose? Where did you get your law degree if you have one? A Cracker Jack box.
Matt:
“Deported where? Do you think a traitor is going to be turned loose? Where did you get your law degree if you have one? A Cracker Jack box.”
*************************
Well Matt, in 1963 Tomoya Kawakita, was deported to Japan by President Kennedy following a conviction for treason in 1948. TOMOYA KAWAKITA v. UNITED STATES, 190 F.2d 506; 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2453 (1951)
I suggest you just let your little mind run wild uncluttered by any facts or easily ascertainable law. By the way, you get a lot of history in a Cracker Jack box. I’ll send you a pallet.
Mespo,
Was Tomoya Kawakita born in the United States?
Born in 1921 in Calexico, California,
bfm,
“Could laws like these be applied to foreign policy experts who council peace with Iran? What about activist who champion the cause of Palestinians? Could a mayor like Bloomberg designate the leaders of a protest group like OWS and have them held with out access to the courts? I don’t think anyone can give definitive answers to questions like these. That ought to be troubling to everyone. ”
You might want to check with Susan Lindauer. Susan worked as a CIA asset. She had information re: Iraq that refuted the administrations story. She had legal representation that worked hand in glove with the government such that she was held without charge for months. Fortunately she never signed a non-disclosure agreement. She told her story in Extreme Prejudice, the Terrifying Story of the PATRIOT Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.
mespo,
Born in 1921 in Calexico, California,
==========================================
Must have been an act of mercy. Try to make nice with Japan in 1963? Diplomacy, perhaps. Can you find another example?
@mespo727272
I think the question that is puzzling some of us is this: if the traitor were a US citizen and had their citizenship revoked then to where could they be deported. At the very least wouldn’t the receiving country have to give their permission.
And didn’t a problem similar to this arise with some of the git’mo inmates being held instead of released specifically because no country wanted to admit them?
BTW, I like Cracker Jacks very much but I do not have a law degree. One of the reasons I read here is that I sometimes pick up interesting bits that I don’t see else where.
bfm:
Deportation to another country would require permission of the host country. Since we have very few cases of treason where death wasn’t the result — such as the Lincoln assassination conspiracy — we don’t know whether other countries might take traitors in on humanitarian grounds. Tokyo Rose fought deportation and was eventually allowed to remain in the US until her death in 2006.
I like Cracker Jacks, too.
mespo,
“Well Matt, in 1963 Tomoya Kawakita, was deported to Japan by President Kennedy following a conviction for treason in 1948. TOMOYA KAWAKITA v. UNITED STATES, 190 F.2d 506; 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2453 (1951)”
*****
Where was Kawakita kept from the time of his conviction in 1948 until his deportation in 1963?
I’ll repeat a question I posed to you earlier on this thread:
“Doesn’t one have to find a country that will accept an American citizen who has been stripped of his/her citizenship? Wouldn’t such a person be a man/woman without a country?”
mespo,
You already answered my question while I was writing my comment to you. Thanks!
Elaine M:
Karma.
mespo,
Didn’t Tomoya Kawakita have dual citizenship?
Who Cares About Elizabeth Warren’s Heritage Controversy? No One.
JAMELLE BOUIE JUNE 1, 2012
Voters in Massachusetts correctly understand that this controversy is meaningless.
http://prospect.org/article/who-cares-about-elizabeth-warrens-heritage-controversy-no-one
For the last month, Elizabeth Warren has been stuck in controversy over her Native American heritage, specifically the fact that she received benefits for it while at Harvard. Republican Scott Brown has made this a major campaign issue, using it to assail Warren’s integrity and ability to honestly serve the people of Massachusetts. At The Washington Post, David Fahrenthold and Chris Cillizza adopt this frame, and present the controversy as a real problem for Warren’s Senate bid:
The episode could have been a minor nuisance for the campaign. In a race in which the economy, jobs and debt are the overriding issues, it’s unlikely that whether Warren is Native American would matter all that much to voters.
But Warren has turned what could have been a small problem into a major story line by not coming out with everything she knew about the episode from the start.
There’s a big problem with this. A huge problem, in fact.
According to all available polling, voters simply don’t care about this controversy. At all. 72 percent of likely voters are aware of the flap over Warren’s heritage, and 69 percent of those say that it isn’t a significant story. That is, it won’t have any affect on their choice in November. For further proof, look no further than the most recent polling out of the Bay State; Brown and Warren are basically tied, and have been for the past month.
Voters correctly understand that none of this significance; I’d love to see a similar sense of perspective from political reporters.
Elizabeth Warren is telling the truth. I really did get into at a bar in South San Francisco. Me and a Sioux Indian from South Dakota.
Breakfast With Elizabeth Warren, a Teacher
Adam Kirk Edgerton Public high school English teacher
6/1/12
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-kirk-edgerton/breakfast-with-elizabeth-_b_1562100.html
http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/06/02/elizabeth-warren-scott-brown-heels-globe-poll/mbpZ1zjEhE1oWf1nXrN5SJ/story.html She is only down by two points.
Swarthmore mom,
The Rove machine operatives and pro-banksters are just gearing up….testing the political waters. They saw how much traction they got with the news media with the “scandalous” Warren stories. Look how long they were able to keep the media focused on Warren and not on the issues of import and where the candidates stand on them. They don’t want the media and voters in Massachusetts focusing on the “real” Scott Brown–a man who claims to be a moderate but who really isn’t. He’s a man who totes water for the Wall Streeters while wearing a barn jacket and driving around in a pickup truck. We are fiddling while Rome burns!
Elizabeth Warren needed an A-game speech — and she gave one
By Joan Vennochi
Posted by Alan Wirzbicki
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2012/06/warren_needed_a.html
Excerpt:
SPRINGFIELD — Elizabeth Warren is right. Republican Senator Scott Brown would rather talk about her family than his votes.
She did a great job reminding people what Brown voted for and against during his two years in Washington. But a great speech to the party faithful is no guarantee the questions about her family heritage will finally go up in smoke.
Warren needed an A-game speech and she delivered one to Democratic convention delegates. She started off with the tiniest quaver in her voice, but quickly got past the jitters and seized command of the stage.
An audience that has watched an inexperienced candidate duck and stumble for several weeks over questions about her Native American heritage instead heard a confident and eloquent candidate draw the outlines of a fight that resonates in Massachusetts and beyond.
She made the typical Democratic case for which party stands with the people — Democrats — and who does not — Brown and his “Republican buddies.”
Beyond showing that she could speak with partisan passion, Warren also needed to show she is ready to take what Brown and the media are already dishing out. She has been hammered with questions about how Harvard University came to list her as a minority, and only recently acknowledged that she gave that information to Harvard, and to the University of Pennslyvania, where she also worked as a law school professor. A key part of her message to delegates was to reinforce the alleged irrelevance of those queries.
“If that’s all you got, Scott Brown, I’m ready,” she declared. “And let me be clear: I am not backing down. I didn’t get into this race to fold up the first time I got punched.”
The image she projected was that of a strong, tough woman eager to take on Brown. In that hall, before that crowd, she seemed up to the challenge. That’s what true believers needed to see — especially from a female candidate, given the recent showdown between Brown and Martha Coakley, the Democratic woman he defeated — and true believers saw it.
Warren Avoids Senate Primary in Massachusetts
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-seeks-to-revive-senate-campaign.html
Excerpt:
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. — After a month of floundering, Elizabeth Warren, the embattled Senate candidate in Massachusetts, gained the endorsement of the state Democratic Party on Saturday and avoided a party runoff in her race against Senator Scott P. Brown in November.
“It’s a long way from Ted Kennedy to Scott Brown,” Ms. Warren said in a feisty speech here on Saturday to the roughly 3,500 delegates to the state convention, invoking the name of the lionized Democrat. Mr. Kennedy’s death in 2009 led to the special election in which Mr. Brown won the seat.
She also dismissed the controversy in which her campaign has been mired for more than a month — whether she unfairly claimed American Indian ancestry to advance her academic career.
“If that’s all you’ve got, Scott Brown, I’m ready,” she declared to cheers. “And let me be clear. I am not backing down. I didn’t get in this race to fold up the first time I got punched.”
It was a foregone conclusion that Ms. Warren, who has been widely perceived as the presumptive nominee, would win the endorsement. The question was how many votes her rival, Marisa DeFranco, would receive. Ms. DeFranco, an immigration lawyer, needed 15 percent of the vote to earn a spot on the ballot.
Party officials said that in the last 30 years, no candidate had achieved the 86 percent of the vote that Ms. Warren would need to keep Ms. DeFranco off the ballot, all but guaranteeing Ms. Warren a primary fight that could divert some of her time, money and attention from the race against Mr. Brown.
But the pro-Warren forces, including those of Gov. Deval Patrick, lobbied the delegates intensively, arguing that they needed all their firepower focused on Mr. Brown. And in the end, the delegates agreed, denying Ms. DeFranco a spot on the ballot by giving her less than 5 percent of the vote and sending Ms. Warren into the general election unencumbered.
“I’m ready,” Ms. Warren told the conventioneers after the vote was announced. She asked the delegates if they were ready to take on Wall Street, big oil and to “stop the Republicans from taking over the United States Senate.” A huge cheer went up in the cavernous hall.
Ms. Warren began the day with some good news with two new polls — from The Boston Globe and from Western New England University — showing her running essentially even with Mr. Brown.
Senator Brown sought to loosen bank rules
OK’d overhaul, then called for leeway, e-mails show
By Noah Bierman and Michael Levenson
Globe Staff / June 4, 2012
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/06/04/senator_brown_sought_to_loosen_bank_rules/
Excerpt:
Senator Scott Brown has trumpeted his role in casting the deciding vote in favor of the 2010 Wall Street overhaul, but records show that after he voted for the law, he worked to shield banks and other financial institutions from some of its tough provisions.
E-mails between Brown’s legislative director and US Treasury Department officials show that Brown advocated for a loose interpretation of the law so that banks could more easily engage in high-risk investments.
While the law, known as Dodd-Frank, sets broad parameters for how the financial industry must behave, the interpretation of the law, and the rules that follow, will govern Wall Street’s daily business.
At issue in Brown’s e-mails is the Volcker rule, a particularly contentious provision of Dodd-Frank. The rule, championed by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, prevents commercial banks from speculating heavily in higher risk investments. Banks are federally insured, which means that if they fail, taxpayers must reimburse many depositors.
Brown’s role in helping to loosen the Volcker rule in advance of casting his vote on Dodd-Frank has been well-documented. Notably, he helped create a provision that allows banks to invest up to 3 percent of their money in riskier investments such as hedge funds and private equity funds, and to own up to 3 percent of an individual fund – additions that won him Wall Street support.
But e-mails obtained by the Globe show that Brown’s work on behalf of the financial sector did not stop when the law was passed. In the second stage, as regulators began the less publicly scrutinized task of writing rules amid heavy pressure from the banking sector, Brown urged the regulators to interpret the 3 percent rule broadly and to offer banks some leeway to invest in hedge funds and private equity funds.
@Elaine M.
My guess is that Brown would claim to be a free market person. (I may be putting words in his mouth, here). But it is hard for me to imagine that Brown would come out against letting an unfettered market work its way through.
But the fact is, his actions give reality to letting banks take the winnings and leaving it to the rest of us to pay for their folly when they loose. This is the well named ‘privatize the winnings, socialize the loses.’
The alternative to ‘socializing the loses’ when banks fail is to accept financial chaos, and economic destruction in the form of a recession at best or quite possible a depression.
Why would any reasonable person accept a system where the economic well being of millions can be placed in jeopardy by a few, powerful people who’s actions only benefit themselves?
Why would any reasonable person accept a system where our only choices are to pay for the losses generated by a few or face economic disaster ourselves.
The fact is that banks occupy a special place in the economy. They play a special role. Speculation, or hedging, is not necessary for that role. Speculation may add to their profits when they guess right. But there is no economic or social benefit for the rest of us. And there is great risk and possible great cost for the rest of us – as was so clearly demonstrated a few year ago.
Some would argue that the housing market is what started the recent problems. Maybe so. But it was the poorly understood risk of speculation and hedging that allowed the contagion to spread and grow. Society stood to gain nothing from the upside of speculation but we paid dearly when the situation went bad. Our choice was to (1) pay for the damage in the form of a bailout or (2) let the markets clear without assistance and accept even greater cost in the form of an economic depression.
bfm,
Sen. Scott Brown Touts Vote For Wall Street Reform In Ad, Neglects To Mention How He Watered It Down
By Pat Garofalo on May 29, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/29/491496/scott-brown-ad-wall-street/
Excerpt:
Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R), in the face of a challenge from Wall Street reformer Elizabeth Warren, has been going out of his way to claim that he has been tough on the nation’s banks. Case in point, a recent ad released by his campaign prominently claims that he was “the tie-breaking vote on Wall Street reform“:
The problem with Washington is that people down there are always battling. That’s not how I operate. We’re Americans first, and I’ll work with anyone to get things done. I was the tie-breaking vote on Wall Street reform.
Brown did cross the aisle to vote with Democrats to approve the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. However, what the ad neglects to mention is the role Brown played in significantly watering the down the law, which has landed him heaps of Wall Street cash.
Brown was instrumental in weakening the Volcker Rule, which was meant to rein in risky trading with federally backed dollars by the nation’s biggest banks. He also forced Democrats to strip from the law a $19 billion bank tax. Without that provision, the Congressional Budget Office is now bizarrely claiming that the law has a “cost” of about $20 billion, a score which Republicans have seized upon as justification for their efforts to repeal the law entirely.
@Elaine M.
Thanks. Have to admit I am not as knowledgeable of Brown’s position as I should be.
But at the risk of being superficial, it seem to me that a case could be made that he pays lip service to reform and regulation and then works to undercut the position and unleash the banks to speculate as they please.
He would not be the first politician to say one thing and then support a different position.
But if that is true he is certainly being reckless with the money and economic future of all of us.
Banks occupy a special position in the economy. That is why, in the past we have expected bankers to conduct themselves and their business in a prudent and thoughtful way.
There was a time when banking was a relatively low risk, low return business. Who a banker knew was probably more important that what he knew.
Then the boys with finance degrees got into the business and realized they could make a fortune charging consumers exorbitant fees and, especially, by speculating with other peoples money. The risk remained relatively low because the government was there to step in when bets (and yes bet is the proper word) failed to pay off.
When things worked out the bankers leveraged others peoples money and made a fortune. When a black swan appeared and their bets failed the bankers were not the ones to get hurt.
You and I are paying for their folly. You and I are paying because their math geniuses could not figure out that financial investments are not independent events. On the contrary, financial investments are frequently highly related, highly correlated – if one fails others may be placed in jeopardy.
But now they and their cronies want us to trust our money with their amazing powers of perception yet again. The only reasonable response to that proposition is ‘Never Again’.
Letting the banks speculate is a suckers bet and it deserves all the contempt we can muster to the banks, to the Scott Browns of congress, to Jamie Dimon’s business, and to their hired lobbyist.
bfm,
Forbes called Brown one of Wall Street’s favorite Congressmen.
In Pictures: Top Ten Takers of Wall Street cash in Congress
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/28/schumer-gillibrand-scott-brown-business-washington-wall-street-contribution_slide.html
It’s Personal: Why Scott Brown Is Skating But Elizabeth Warren Is Tripping On Character Questions
By Wendy Kaminer
Jun 5 2012
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/its-personal-why-scott-brown-is-skating-but-elizabeth-warren-is-tripping-on-character-questions/258103/
How do and how should voters evaluate a candidate’s character? Often we mistakenly infer character from personality. Or, in these hyper-partisan times, we may be increasingly inclined to locate bad character in advocacy of policies we oppose, while giving the benefit of any character doubts to candidates who share our political or cultural predilections. But character is complicated and imperfectly reflected by ideology or decisions based on political expediency. Put very simply, essentially decent people sometimes help advance essentially indecent policies, and vice versa. How should we weigh a candidate’s perceived character flaws against his or her political agenda and how much should character matter?
These are now central question in the Massachusetts Senate race. Scott Brown supporters insist that Elizabeth Warren’s self-identification as a Native American is a window into her character. Warren supporters regard Brown’s intense focus on her ancestral claims as a covert appeal to resentment of affirmative action among the union households that Warren needs to win. They condemn it as a distraction from economic issues, and they’re angry at the media for questioning Warren’s identity instead of Brown’s record.
They can take solace from a front page story in the June 4th Boston Globe examining Brown’s record on banking regulations. “Senator Brown Sought to Loosen Banking Rules” the headline announces.
“Senator Scott Brown has trumpeted his role in casting the deciding vote in favor of the 2010 Wall Street overhaul,” the Globe reports, “but records show that after he voted for the (Dodd-Frank) law, he worked to shield banks and other financial institutions from some of its tough provisions. E-mails between Brown’s legislative director and US Treasury Department officials show that Brown advocated for a loose interpretation of the law so that banks could more easily engage in high-risk investments.”
“He’s for us,” Brown for Senate bumper stickers proclaim. “He’s for them,” this review of his record suggests.
Does this apparent inconsistency reflect on Brown’s character? Put aside questions about the wisdom of loosening banking regulations. You might still ask why Brown didn’t advertise his work on behalf of the banks. Why cast yourself as a supporter of the “Wall Street overhaul” while quietly working against it? Assume that Brown sincerely believes that enabling “high-risk” investments by banks will help the economy and the “ordinary people” he represents. Why doesn’t he say so?
Or consider Brown’s confused and misleading account of the failed Blunt Amendment, which he supported. It explicitly provided employers and insurers with the right to opt out of covering any medical care that was contrary to their religious or moral beliefs. In other words, it could have allowed an atheist who disapproved of extra-marital sex to deny coverage for sexually transmitted diseases to his un-married employees.
Brown addressed concerns about the broad scope of this amendment by denying they existed. Ignoring language allowing health care opt outs based on moral as well as religious convictions, he insisted, counter-factually, that the amendment was simply a conscience clause, restoring religious freedom to Catholics and other people of faith.
“You acknowledge that Senator Blunt’s amendment that you’re supporting goes far further than religious objections, no?” Jim Braude of New England Cable News asked Brown in an interview last February. “No, I don’t,” Brown replied. Braude pressed on, citing references in the bill to the “moral convictions” of an employer or insurer. “That’s the language,” he said. “I’m repeating it verbatim.” Brown was undeterred: “I disagree with your interpretation,” he answered nonsensically and hotly accused Elizabeth Warren, who opposed the Blunt Amendment, of trying to divide Catholic women from their faith and their church. (Divide women from their church? Isn’t that the Vatican’s job?)
I can imagine three explanations for Brown’s response to questions about the Blunt Amendment.
1) He was intentionally disingenuous: He voted for the amendment in order to cast himself as a defender of the faiths, especially Catholicism, and denied facts about the amendment’s scope in order to preserve his image as a pro-choice, Massachusetts moderate. (As a state senator, Brown voted for a contraceptive coverage mandate that he now opposes.)
2) He didn’t read the amendment before voting for it and was unfamiliar with its exact language; or
3) He didn’t understand the amendment and thought the language referencing “moral convictions” didn’t matter. In other words, Brown is either a dishonest politician of questionable character or a negligent or dim-witted one of questionable competence. Personally, I don’t imagine that he’s stupid.
Should voters who support Brown’s policy agenda, assuming they can accurately discern it, care if he’s a flawed character? (Isn’t stonewalling all in the game?) Should Warren’s political allies care if she too has less integrity than they imagined? For the sake of argument, assume the worst about both candidates. Assume that she claimed her fabled Native American heritage to gain an advantage in the Ivy League hiring process. Assume that he misrepresented his vote on the Blunt Amendment for show, in order to cast himself as a moderate, pro-choice defender of religious liberty and that he poses as a champion of working and middle class consumers while quietly advancing the interests of Wall Street and too big to fail banks.
But if Brown’s posturing on religious liberty, choice, and financial reform is fair game in a race focused on character, it seems unlikely to affect his high favorability ratings or assessments of his integrity among target voters. His fumbles on the Blunt Amendment provided fodder for liberal blogs, but undecided and swing voters may have found his rhetoric about religious liberty persuasive. Even relatively simple legislation like this is relatively complicated in the context of a campaign, and readily spun.
Financial reform is particularly complex. Facts about Brown’s public role in passing Dodd Frank and his private role in helping to gut it can be easily obscured in the fog of political war. He can successfully dispute the Globe story with a general denial of its accuracy and a claim that he’s focused on job creation. Voters who like Brown and have already credited him with good character are likely believe him.
How do less partisan voters evaluate character? I suspect they rely on personal stories, not policy debates, regardless of what the framing of those debates — and a candidates’ forthrightness in explaining his positions — reveal about character. In Massachusetts, the appeal of the personal over the political remains a formidable challenge for Elizabeth Warren. Facts about financial reform are a lot less engaging, a lot harder to dramatize, personalize, and mock than Warren’s claim of Native American ancestry.
The morning after the front page Boston Globe story on Brown’s “loosening” of banking regulations, a local NPR affiliate (WBUR) ran yet another review of the fracas over Warren’s heritage and its effect on the Senate race. The report of Brown’s record on financial reform wasn’t even mentioned.
Those Fingerprints All Over the Elizabeth Warren “Controversy” Belong to Karl Rove
By Roger Wolfson, Attorney
Posted: 06/06/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-wolfson/elizabeth-warren-scott-brown_b_1560082.html
Excerpt:
I was a student of Elizabeth Warren at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. I didn’t know that Warren had or might have Native American heritage. I’m sure that few of my fellow students knew, and that those who might have known found the information interesting at best. Whatever Warren’s heritage was, it didn’t define her. What defined her was that she was a spectacular professor, literally the star of our school, and a master of the arcane financial laws that have a horrific impact on low-income families.
I hope that you, dear reader, have also wondered why anyone is talking about Warren’s heritage. Given that it’s been clearly demonstrated that she never got a job, or a benefit, or a bonus based on whatever her heritage might have been. Given that her heritage was never an issue or a matter of discussion ever before.
Well, the answer is painfully obvious: Scott Brown’s campaign manager is a student, disciple, and virtual clone of Karl Rove. His name is Jim Barnett, and according to every report on him I’ve read, the more comparisons we can make between him and Rove, the happier Jim Barnett is.
Rove taught Barnett how to create a scandal where none exists. How to make an issue feel important that is not important. Rove taught Barnett to do anything to get people to vote against their best interests. That is how many Republicans, includes Rove’s Bush, have won office — by using underhanded tactics to force people to vote for politicians who do them great harm.
The low-income white South Carolinian men who voted Bush into the presidency because, for example, Karl Rove convinced them that John McCain had an African-American child, and that Al Gore supposedly claimed he had invented the Internet (both entire falsehoods), were among the first to lose their jobs during the Bush-created recession.
The low-income Ohioans who voted Bush into a second term because Karl Rove’s surrogates convinced them that the decorated and thrice-wounded John Kerry had trumped up his actual acts of heroism, suffered worse than anyone through the subsequent four years.
And now, Rove’s protégé, Jim Burnett, is trying to convince Massachusetts voters that a non-controversy is so important that they should vote against their better interests and re-elect a man to the Senate who voted against Elena Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court, who voted to extend to the Bush tax cuts, who voted against the Buffett Rule, who voted against freezing student loans, who voted against ending oil subsidies — and the list goes on.
Fighting dirty against women
By BARBARA LEE | 6/17/12
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77503.html
The debate swirling around Elizabeth Warren’s heritage is maddening. Not because it is a sideshow to pull focus from real issues in the Massachusetts Senate race and not because negative attacks are just politics as usual. It is maddening because Sen. Scott Brown’s campaign attack on Warren’s “honesty” is not about integrity at all. It’s about strategy.
We’ve researched voters’ attitudes toward female candidates and studied women in politics, so we know this is a well-worn campaign strategy to discredit and knock women off their political pedestals. It’s upsetting not only because it is a cheap shot, but also because it is a tactic that disguises political games as a genuine push for transparency.
The ridiculous attention given to the question of Warren’s bloodline is reminiscent of Alex Sink, Florida’s former chief financial officer, who ran a close race against now-Gov. Rick Scott in 2010. Sink looked at her cellphone during a TV debate, launching a frenzy of negative attention. It far outweighed her opponent’s entire record. Yet Scott had previous experience running a health care company that was charged with the largest Medicare fraud settlement in U.S. history.
It was Sink’s integrity, however, that was called into question over a text message. Is checking your BlackBerry a more egregious offense than ripping off the very taxpayers you are trying to court? Though, perhaps voters experienced buyers’ remorse after that Florida election: A November 2011 poll showed 41 percent of voters viewed Scott’s gubernatorial performance negatively.
These types of attacks are part of politics. But they damage a long-held advantage that voters give women over their male counterparts: Female candidates generally have an advantage on honesty and ethics, according to research by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation. Women candidates demonstrated this advantage in gubernatorial research over the past decade.
In 2010, Democratic women running against Republican men for the corner office had this advantage — and it holds true today. In fact, the strongest predictor of voting for a woman is the perception that women govern differently than men, according to our April research. Voters also believe women are more in touch, another indication they are not typically detached politicians, and can connect on real issues that matter — like knowing the price of food and understanding how tough it is to make ends meet.
Knowing women have an advantage in this, opponents try to knock them off their political pedestals by launching negative attacks early in their campaigns. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley faced allegations of infidelity when she ran in 2010, and Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) combated accusations of attending a “secret fundraiser” with a political action committee called the Godless Americans. Cheap shots, indeed.
Brown’s campaign has taken a page from this playbook. He questioned Warren’s integrity even as he engaged in objectionable behavior of his own: plagiarizing his biography by pulling text verbatim from former Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s website and accepting campaign contributions from big banks to the tune of more than $1 million, all while pitching himself as representing the everyman.
This distraction from the important real issues that voters face is nothing new. It isn’t exclusively relegated to women candidates. They, however, often pay a steep price with voters when they fall off their perch. Because voters, especially women voters, expect a woman candidate to be different from typical politicians.
Female candidates maintain their advantage over men on honesty and ethics, our latest research shows, and it ties into their likeability. But when those qualities are questioned, voters punish women for violating ethics and being dishonest.
Luckily, voters are seeing through Brown’s tactics. Warren continues to hold her own in the polls. People see her for the leader she is.
Instead of manufacturing phony drama about Warren’s ethnicity, Brown should stick to the facts and make his case about why voters should rehire him. Let’s break this pattern of hyperscrutiny of female candidates and focus on what matters — who the voters believe can best lead.
I think you have the Wrong number.Keep it up!Don’t cry over spilt milk.We’ve got to do something about the neighbor’s dog!What should I do? God helps those who he1p themselves.God helps those who he1p themselves.You’re welcome.He grasped both my hands.The constitution guards the liberty of the people.