Boston Globe Retracts Claim That Marriage License Shows Warren’s Great Great Great Grandmother Was Listed As Cherokee

Buried in its correction section, The Boston Globe has issued a retraction of its claim that a marriage license supporting the claim of U.S. Senate Candidate and Law Professor Elizabeth Warren that she is part Cherokee.  The correction says that no such marriage license has ever been found and that the reference comes from a “family newsletter” and refers to an application for a marriage license. Moreover, no one has been able to find the paper, let alone study it.  In the meantime, the Warren campaign is addressing new disclosures that Warren claimed to be a minority not just at Harvard but also at the University of Pennsylvania. Today another news story reported that Warren (who denied knowledge of being listed as a minority) was cited as “Harvard’s first woman of color” in a Fordham Law Review piece — quoting a Harvard official.

The Boston Globe earlier published an account that became the primary defense for Warren supporters:

A record unearthed Monday shows that US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has a great-great-great grandmother listed in an 1894 document as a Cherokee, said a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogy Society.

The shred of evidence could validate her assertion that she has Native American ancestry, making her 1/32 American Indian, but may not put an end to the questions swirling around the subject….

Chris Child, a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogy Society, said he began digging into Warren’s family history on Thursday, when media interest emerged.

At first, he found no link between Warren’s family and Native Americans in her native Oklahoma.

But Monday afternoon, he said, he discovered a few links. Warren’s great-great-great grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, is listed on her son’s 1894 application for a marriage license as a Cherokee.

Now however the newspaper has said that that was not true:

Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story in the May 1 Metro section and the accompanying headline incorrectly described the 1894 document that was purported to list Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee. The document, alluded to in a family newsletter found by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, was an application for a marriage license, not the license itself. Neither the society nor the Globe has seen the primary document, whose existence has not been proven.

That seems like a pretty important disclosure to be simply pushed into the correction section of the newspaper.

In the meantime, the New York Times is reporting that Warren was not just listed as a minority faculty member at Harvard but also at University of Pennsylvania. At the very most, Warren is no more than 1/32 Cherokee, even if the account of the great great great grandmother is proven to be true.

As I have mentioned before, I do not believe that Warren was given her positions due to the claim of minority status. She is an extremely intelligent and talented academic. The claim as a minority however has caused a stir among academics who have been discussing the lack of any criteria for such claims. Minority status is an obvious advantage for a law professor as school strive to diversify their faculty ranks. Claiming minority status has an important impact on reporting academic data for schools as it does for governmental reporting.a

What is intriguing is the claim by Warren that she was not aware that she was listed as a minority when that status was asserted by both Penn and Harvard. I do not believe that she would be considered a minority by any conceivable definition without making most Americans minorities. Presumably, these schools did not arbitrarily claim such status for a faculty member, but had to be given an affirmative claim of being a minority by the faculty member. Yet, this process is remarkably fluid and ill-defined at schools. Schools are eager to list every possible minority members in annual reporting.

I am more interested in the general issue of how to define minority status than the campaign. But, putting aside the raw partisanship over the Senate race, how important should this issue in your view be in judging a candidate?

147 thoughts on “Boston Globe Retracts Claim That Marriage License Shows Warren’s Great Great Great Grandmother Was Listed As Cherokee

  1. I thought I had read recently that her application paper work showed she had not claimed any minority status herself. I admit I have not paid any attention to the controversy because I just don’t care about it but if how she was listed by the University was not due to her claim how did it come to be?

  2. Hell Ward Churchill claimed to be Native American when there was NO proof whatsoever of that. He later acknowledged that he was not, but was hired as a minority despite not having a PhD which is the normal requirement for a professor at CU. The university stated that they accept any claim as to being a minority since the proof is self identification.

    I sure wish I had known that when I was applying to various airlines for employment since it would have helped me out a lot. I could have claimed Hispanic and/or Native American status and gotten hired at United rather quickly.

  3. That’s the big deal–that the information about her Cherokee heritage was found on the application for a marriage license and not the license itself? Talk about a tempest in a teapot!

    I don’t have to wonder what Brown and the Karl Rove machine will make of this tidbit of information.



    I live in Massachusetts. I’ve kept close tabs on the attempts by the Karl Rove machine, Brown’s campaign, and the GOP to smear Warren. They–and the wizards of Wall Street–would like to do her in before the primaries so pretty boy Brown doesn’t have to face her in the November elections.

    P.S. There is no proof she used minority status to get any of her jobs.

  4. I figure the femanazi will let this pass without question. I think because she is from Willard’s home State it is better that he be beaten upon because it is his fault after all.

  5. Rachel Maddow did a bit on this pointing out that newly elected head of the Cherokees is a man who is 1/32 Cherokee. Now if he can claim status why not Elizabeth Warren? If I were 1/32 Cherokee or any other Native American tribe, I’d be proud of it and claim it.

  6. This is nonsense put forth for want of any substantive issues. Bettykaths comment puts this nonsense into sharp perspective.

  7. I think the all of these questions are coming from the Brown campaign and Karl Rove. There are typical Rovian tactics, and I have no doubt this was put out there by a desperate campaign.

    It makes me sick.

  8. It seems to me that there are several interesting and maybe important subjects in this. Individuals who what to know what is going on will try to separate and consider each. Those with an agenda try to get them all mixed up.

    (1) Are political operative trying to make political hay out of Warren’s real or supposed affiliations? Definitely.

    (2) Has Warren likely contributed to her own discomfort by not getting out in front and by making some really unfortunate (and funny) remarks. Definitely.

    (3) Has Warren, even if she made every claim, done anything worse than many, many others. Probably not.

    (4) But, can anyone be satisfied with the current methods of allocating and tracking ethnic affiliation? In particular, tribal affiliation seems really disturbing. Even if you are comfortable with the way tribal membership is granted, how can anyone be comfortable with ability to withdraw tribal membership on the basis of a vote? Ethnic affiliation is complicated. The way we deal with it now ought to trouble everyone.

    (5) Finally, what implications does this have for Warren the candidate? Maybe not very much.

    (6) BTW Last night 051412, on Maddow, Warren did a pretty credible job of explaining why JP Morgan financial fiasco is important to all of US (not just shareholders and depositors), and why financial regulation is a reasonable alternative to protect the rest of us, and why financial regulation of ‘too big to fail banks’ is probably not going to happen. Of course, Warren only had about 5 minutes and this is a subject that requires many reams to document and days, not hours, to discuss.

  9. As an academic myself, I think the answer to Dr. Turley’s question is: Zero.

    I believe assistance should be given to students that have had more hardships than other students while growing up, but once somebody holds a doctorate, I think the playing field has been leveled enough, and considerations of race (and gender) should not be a consideration at all, either in government grants or faculty employment. Such decisions should be merit based, and based on whether the research the candidate is interested in is a good fit for the department’s overall goals, e.g. makes use of equipment we have, advances a specialty we want to be known for, offers collaborative opportunities with other professors, expands the offerings we have for our students, etc. (Being a good fit does not mean doing the same thing as everybody else; it is more like a jig-saw puzzle piece adding something to a bigger picture).

    I do believe in letting candidates self-identify as a minority by race, gender, religion, etc, and I believe in auditing departments to determine if the acceptance or exclusion of some self-identified group seems well beyond statistical chance, but that is to help ensure the hiring committee is NOT using minority status or group-identity in their decisions to hire.

  10. I delight in the fact that whether or not she ticked a minority box on paperwork she submitted…… all they have. Gives new meaning to “grasping”.

  11. “the danger of letting others determine someone’s ethnicity”

    It seems to me that the assessment of risk with letting others determine ethnicity has to be considered in relation to use we make of information regarding ethnic identity.

    The range, to my mind, seems enormous. Some make or renounce ethnic identity in their personal live and make no further use of it . The census asks for ethnic identity (some anyway) and we may presume that the data is used at least occasionally for score keeping. Academic and occasionally police department sometimes collect ethnic data and make both reasonable and unreasonable uses of it. As the WAPO article make clear, tribes make decisions regarding ethnic affiliation. Occasionally these decisions have big bucks or political power riding on the outcome.

    I am sure others could come up with more applications of ethnic affiliation. How one answer could possibly account for all those different uses is a mystery to me.

    Howard Boorman, one of the old China hands, once posed the question: how do you know when someone is Chinese. My recollection, he suggested: ask the person in question are you Chinese? Then ask a known Chinese do you consider him Chinese? If both answer yes then the person in question is Chinese. If either answers no then, no, the person is not Chinese.

    Questions of ethnic background have some complexity. It would seem that the tests we use to determine ethnic background ought to give some consideration to the person, the group, and the intended purpose for collecting the information. That is the easy answer. After that it gets harder.

  12. This is perpetuation of a non-story. I’ll leave excerpts from and links to articles that I posted on the other Elizabeth Warren thread.

    The Smearing of Elizabeth Warren
    By Ed Kilgore

    Until today, I was only vaguely aware that Scott Brown’s campaign and its allies were trying to make a big deal out of Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s past self-identification (and once, her identification by Harvard Law School) as a “Native American.” It mainly caught my attention because, like Warren (and for that matter, like many white people I’ve known from North Georgia or Oklahoma), I have a Cherokee ancestor, a great-great-grandmother as it happpens, though I’ve never self-identified myself that way.

    Then I ran across a Boston Herald (the original source of the whole story) column by a certain Howie Carr that shows exactly how ugly and overtly racial this attack-line has become. It’s not, in fact, really about Elizabeth Warren, but about an increasingly aggressive effort on the Right to invent a nightmare-world where incompetent women and minorities are lording it over the poor afflicted white male.

    Keep in mind that there is not a shred of evidence that Warren ever benefitted in any way from her self-identification; indeed, every university who’s hired her in the course of her very distinguished academic career has indicated they weren’t even aware of it, and certainly didn’t make it a factor in employing her.

    That doesn’t deter Carr from asserting that “Pocohantas” Warren “parlayed the racial-spoils racket all the way to a tenured position at Harvard Law,” or that her case “shows just how morally and intellectually bankrupt ‘affirmative action’ is.” For good measure, he lurches into an equally unsubstantiated claim that President Obama got a “free pass to Columbia and Harvard Law” because of his race.

    Elizabeth Warren’s Birther Moment

    If you are 1/32 Cherokee and your grandfather has high cheekbones, does that make you Native American? It depends. Last Friday, Republicans in Massachusetts questioned the racial ancestry of Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Senate candidate. Her opponent, Senator Scott Brown, has accused her of using minority status as an American Indian to advance her career as a law professor at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Texas. The Brown campaign calls her ties to the Cherokee and Delaware nations a “hypocritical sham.”

    In a press conference on Wednesday, Warren defended herself, saying, “Native American has been a part of my story, I guess since the day I was born, I don’t know any other way to describe it.” Despite her personal belief in her origins, her opponents have seized this moment in an unnecessary fire drill that guarantees media attention and forestalls real debate.

    This tactic is straight from the Republican cookbook of fake controversy. First, you need a rarefied elected office typically occupied by a certain breed of privileged men. Both the Presidency and the Senate fit this bill. Second, add a bit of interracial intrigue. It could be Kenyan economists eloping with Midwestern anthropologists, or white frontiersmen pairing with indigenous women. Third, throw in some suspicion about their qualifications and ambitions. Last but not least, demand documentation of ancestry and be dissatisfied upon its receipt. Voila! You have a genuine birther movement.

    The Republican approach to race is to feign that it is irrelevant — until it becomes politically advantageous to bring it up. Birthers question Obama’s state of origin (and implicitly his multiracial heritage) in efforts to disqualify him from the presidency. They characterize him as “other.” For Warren, Massachusetts Republicans place doubts on her racial claims to portray her as an opportunistic academic seeking special treatment. In both birther camps, opponents look to ancestral origins as the smoking gun, and ride the ambiguity for the duration.

    Proving Native American ancestry is a complex, bureaucratic process. It’s more than showing up at the tribal enrollment office with a family bible and some black and white pictures. Many people are rejected, even when family lore tells them otherwise. Tribal citizenship depends on descent from an enrolled ancestor, and every tribe has its own requirements.

  13. Elizabeth Warren Did Not Claim Minority Status, Records Show
    By STEVE LeBLANC 05/10/12

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

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

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


    The Racist Assault on Elizabeth Warren
    by Paul Canning
    May 7, 2012

    Many Native Americans are angry at the GOP assault on Elizabeth Warren for, Republicans claim, misusing her ancestry to advance her career.

    Last month, the Boston Herald reported that Harvard Law School had listed Warren, the presumed Democratic candidate for Senator in Massachusetts, as a minority professor to deflect criticism that it lacked diverse faculty. Sitting Senator Scott Brown’s campaign and right-wing media have not let up, even though it has since been reported that Warren definitely is one 32nd Cherokee.

    Warren told reporters on May 2 that she listed herself as a minority in Harvard’s directory in order to connect with others like her, “people for whom ‘Native American’ is part of their heritage and part of their hearts. There aren’t a lot of people like me in law teaching. And so I just thought I might find some others. That’s evidently not a particularly good use for the directory because it never happened.” That’s why, she says, that she stopped calling herself a minority in the directories after having done so for almost a decade.

    Warren says she was qualified for her position, and the Native aspect didn’t play a role in her hiring, which has been backed up by the Harvard officials who hired her.

    But people like conservative blogger and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin have not let up, calling Warren names like “Pinocchio-hontas,” “Chief Full-of-Lies,” “Running Joke” and “Sacaja-whiner.”

    Donna Akers, a professor with the Department of History and Native American Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, told Indian Country Today that she is skeptical of the conservative outrage:

    “I think this is simply a cynical ploy by right-wing propagandists trying to find a piece of mud that sticks against Warren,” she says. Akers believes Republican politicians sometimes use racial issues to divide voters and to play on their insecurities. In this case, she says that the Brown campaign is trying to make it seem like a white person may have lost out on a position due to Warren’s situation.

    “Smearing Warren by the suggestion that she benefited unfairly by claiming Native ancestry panders to the racism extant in many sectors of the right wing—especially the working class,” Akers says. “The Republican Party today solidly embraces a thinly veiled racist agenda that privileges white Americans at the expense of Native Americans and other peoples of color in the United States.”

    “The mainstream media definitely has added to this controversy due to their well-known ignorance about tribal citizenship and other tribal issues,” says Julia Good Fox, a professor at Haskell Indian Nations University. Good Fox notes that the media has largely failed to explain tribal citizenry and blood quantum issues to give context to the situation because these aren’t easy stories to tell. It’s easier to label the case ‘convoluted,’ blame Warren, and move on to the next political gotcha story.

    “Unfortunately, for the most part, their coverage is just adding to the confusion and threatens to feed racism or anti-Indianism,” Good Fox says. To do better, she says the media should start by noting that tribal nations have a right to determine who their citizens are, rather than focusing on the misunderstood notion that tribal citizens can only be determined by U.S.-imposed mathematical fractions.

    Writing for Politico, Sarah Burris, an Oklahoman like Warren, points out that the current chief of the Cherokee Tribe also is 1/32 Cherokee.

    “Conservative commentators scoffed all last week at what they assert is Warren’s low percentage of native ancestry. Their problem — like most people who didn’t grow up in a place like Oklahoma — is they have no real frame of reference for how much blood is removed with each generation,” writes Burris.

    “These commentators ignore a history tracing back to a mixed heritage, like Warren’s, that is the epitome of the American story. Seems like a double standard.”

  14. Harvard: Warren Got Job Only On Merits As Teacher
    By The Associated Press
    May 7, 2012

    BOSTON — A Harvard Law School professor and former Reagan administration official is calling “false” and “complete nonsense” any suggestion that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed an affirmative action advantage in her hiring as a full professor.

    Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President Reagan, said the Democratic Senate candidate was recruited to be a tenured professor because she was preeminent in the fields of bankruptcy and commercial law.

    Fried, a member of the appointments committee that reviewed Warren, said the subject of her Native American ancestry was never mentioned.

    Fried said the notion that Warren “attained her position and maintains her reputation on anything other than her evident merit is complete nonsense.”

    State Republican Party Chairman Bob Maginn had asked Harvard to review Warren’s hiring.

  15. MA Senate Race Battle Between Wall Street’s Favorite Senator and Wall Street’s Toughest Critic

    Rachel Maddow took a look at Scott Brown’s record since entering the Senate where he has been called one of Wall Street’s favorite Congressmen and for good reason. As she reminded us, Brown’s contribution to the Wall Street regulatory overhaul was to make sure that the $19 billion it cost to pay for additional oversight was going to be dumped on the tax payers instead of the financial institutions footing the bill. And now he’s got donations flooding in from New York even though he’s running for office in Massachusetts.

    And of course the other reason Wall Street is opening their wallets for Brown is because he’s the only thing standing between Elizabeth Warren and the United States Senate.

    Elizabeth Warren called for Jamie Dimon to resign from the New York Fed this week:

    Elizabeth Warren called on JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to resign from his post on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s board, citing the need for “responsibility and accountability” in the financial industry.

    Dimon, who disclosed a $2 billion loss by the banking giant last week, should “send a signal to the American people that Wall Street bankers get it and to show that they understand the need for responsibility and accountability,” Warren said in a statement following Dimon’s Sunday appearance on “Meet the Press.”

    During that interview, Dimon said he “absolutely” believed that the enormous loss would give regulators more ammunition against the banks. Warren latched onto that comment, stating that Dimon’s place on the board of directors gave him the power to advise the New York Fed on “management oversight and policy,” creating what the Massachusetts Democrat feels is a clear conflict of interest.

    “We need to stop the cycle of bankers taking on risky activities, getting bailed out by the taxpayers, then using their army of lobbyists to water down regulations,” Warren said. “We need a tough cop on the beat so that no one steals your purse on Main Street or your pension on Wall Street.”

  16. TPMDC
    Politicians And Regulators Tread Lightly Around JP Morgan Debacle
    By Brian Beutler
    May 15, 2012

    Elizabeth Warren — a career Wall Street reformer, architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Democratic Senate candidate challenging Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) — has called for Dimon to resign from the board of the New York Federal Reserve; for Brown to disclose his fundraising ties to Wall Street; and for the reinstitution of so-called Glass-Steagall protections which for decades prevented federally backstopped commercial banks from owning hedge funds or other risky investment firms. Those restrictions were weakened over the years, and repealed entirely in 1999.

    Brown played a key role in weakening Dodd-Frank — and the Volcker Rule in particular — as the 60th vote for breaking the GOP filibuster of the bill. His campaign has so far not commented on Warren’s call for Dimon’s Fed board resignation, and has declined to disclose the members of his New York Finance Committee.

  17. Femanazis all stick it to the men, if she lied she should be called out. If Mitt farts it makes the news.

  18. Holy smokes, the press can find all kinds of credentials and quite quickly, when it matters to them.

    I wonder if Howie Carr did this on purpose?

  19. bettykath,

    She’s extremely competent and she’s not afraid of the banksters on Wall Street or their tools in Washington. They do not want to see Warren elected Senator. Brown is a Wall Street favorite. He’s their boy. He has declined to disclose his connections to JP Morgan.


    Howie Carr is Limbaugh lite. He writes for The Boston Herald, right-wing rag that can’t really be called a “news”paper.

  20. Elizabeth Warren: ‘That’s the strongest argument for a modern Glass-Steagall’
    Posted by Ezra Klein at 03:19 PM ET, 05/14/2012

    Elizabeth Warren, who is running for Senate in Massachusetts, thinks JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon should resign his seat on the New York Federal Reserve. Beating up on Dimon is, of course, a popular position among politicians right now, but Warren has special credibility on this point: She chaired the congressional oversight panel on TARP from 2008 to 2010, and led the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 2010 to 2011. We spoke by phone Monday afternoon. A lightly edited transcript follows.

    Ezra Klein: So JP Morgan lost $2 billion. They’re not asking for a bailout. They’re not threatening to capsize either themselves or anyone else in the system. And so they say, and it’s not an entirely unfair question, why is this Elizabeth Warren’s business, or the U.S. Congress’s business? Isn’t making bad investment decisions legal?

    Elizabeth Warren: That is what Jamie Dimon has said. He says it’s stupid and sloppy but we’ll fix it. So stay away. But what if the next loss is $20 billion or $200 billion? Is he saying JP Morgan should be entitled to continue to take these bets right up until the day it lands in the taxpayers lap again?

    Banks are different than other kinds of companies. We learned that in 2008. They run the risk of bringing down our jobs, our pensions, our economy. The basic deal we made with them is they get to operate banks — the things that take savings and investments and checking accounts and get a federal guarantee — in return for submitting to substantial oversight to make sure their activities are safe.

    EK: That gets us to the Volcker rule, which is what would keep banks that get that guarantee from gambling with customer money and a federal backstop. But at this point, I don’t think very many people — even people who follow this stuff quite closely — have a very specific sense of what the difference between a good and bad Volcker rule is. So how do you think about that?

    EW: I’m going to reframe it slightly: Who profits from the complexity of the Volcker rule? It’s the largest financial institutions. No financial institutions want a simple Volcker rule. They want layers and layers of complexity because it’s in complexity that there are loopholes. That’s where it’s possible to back up regulators who are not quite certain about the ground they stand on. And it’s a larger problem with our regulatory structure: Complexity favors those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers. The big push I made at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was simple rules. Simple mortgage documents. Simple credit card agreements. Because complexity creates too many opportunities for an army of lawyers to turn the rules upside down.

  21. Elizabeth Warren is just another progressive professor who thinks she knows what is good for everyone else. She is probably a very competent busy body and would fit right in with the other competent busy bodies in the senate.

  22. I bet she is a card carrying member of the People’s Republic of the United Socialist movement.

  23. I often wonder why right-wing men are so fearful of intelligent, competent women who can’t be intimidated by people with a “Y” chromosome.

  24. Now we need to know what her gene pool is composed. She may actually be a make shift female. Whooooooo haaaaaa, I’m gonna get my tomahawk and be right back.

  25. On Karl Rove & his GPS Crossroads going after Warren late last year:

    Crossroads: Elizabeth Warren responsible for bank bailouts
    By Lucy Madison

    Just last month, Crossroads GPS released an ad targeting Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren as a champion of the “extreme left” and friend of the Occupy Wall Street movement – which, according to the ad, supports the “radical redistribution of wealth, and violence.”

    Now, the Karl Rove-linked organization is taking a different tack: In a new ad, which aired in Massachusetts starting Thursday, Crossroads GPS targets Warren for allegedly being beholden to Wall Street.

    The 30-second spot, which was part of a $1.1 million dollar ad buy for four ads (concerning various candidates) that will be featured in Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana and Nebraska, features a brief clip of Warren pledging to “be a voice in the room on behalf of middle-class families.”

    “Really?” asks a narrator following the clip of Warren’s remarks. “Congress had Warren oversee how your tax dollars were spent bailing out the same banks that helped cause the financial meltdown. Bailouts that helped pay big bonuses to bank executives while middle-class Americans lost out.”

    The ad goes on to accuse Warren of going on a “charm offensive” with some of the banks that got bailed out.

    The Oklahoma native, who is running against incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown in what is expected to be a tight and costly race, has become a hero of liberals for her advocacy on behalf of consumers against the big banks.

    But just as a new Boston Herald poll shows Warren leading Brown by a seven point margin, her detractors are accusing her of being on the other side of the issue.

    “Tell Professor Warren: We need more jobs, not more bailouts and bigger government,” the narrator intones in the spot.

    In 2008, Warren was indeed asked to head the congressional panel overseeing the billion $700 billion Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP), which bailed out hundreds of banks and as well as insurers and automakers. But her appointment to that role was largely a product of her reputation as a tough critic of banks – and the conception that she would hold banks, as well as Treasury officials, accountable for the money that TARP had allocated.

    In a 2009 interview with the Daily Beast, Warren emphasized her opposition to allowing banks to get “too big to fail.”

    “There are a lot of ways to regulate ‘too big to fail’ financial institutions: break them up, regulate them more closely, tax them more aggressively, insure them, and so on. And I’m totally in favor of increased regulatory scrutiny of these banks,” she began. “But those are all regulatory tools. Regulations, over time, fail. I want to see Congress focus more on a credible system for liquidating the banks that are considered too big to fail.”

    Of the “charm offensive,” the Crossroads GPS ad points to a March 2011 Politico article describing Warren’s efforts to find “common ground” with the Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a consumer watchdog agency created with the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Warren, who conceived of the CFPB and had at one point hoped to head it, reached out to a number of CFPB critics in an attempt to win over the opposition.

    Still, she did not apologize for her pro-regulatory stance.

    “Let’s not pretend that a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme is attributable to too much regulation,” Warren said in remarks at the Chamber of Commerce event referenced in the Politico story.

    In a statement to Hotsheet, Warren spokesperson Kyle Sullivan called the Crossroads ad “ridiculous” and “desperate.”

    “Elizabeth was an outspoken critic of the bank bailout and its blank check to Wall Street. And that’s just one fact that makes these ads ridiculous,” Sullivan said. “The Wall Street bankers financing these attacks are desperate to stop Elizabeth Warren because she’s worked so hard to stop Wall Street from ripping off middle class families.”

    He added: “Elizabeth’s worked to keep both the banks and the government accountable. Those are the facts. The people of Massachusetts don’t need more fast talk from Wall Street, they need a fighter like Elizabeth taking on Wall Street.”

  26. Karl Rove vs. Elizabeth Warren
    Ari Berman on November 10, 2011

    The Karl Rove–backed super PAC, Crossroads GPS, has made the first major ad buy in the Massachusetts Senate contest between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren, attacking Warren for her support of Occupy Wall Street.

    It’s no surprise that Rove and his ilk are attacking Warren. She’s a major threat to the Republican Party and its allied corporate backers for two reasons.

    Number one: she’s running even with Brown in a race that may very well decide control of the Senate.

    Number two: her reformist background and brand of progressive populism is deeply resonant right now. Unlike so many in Washington, she’s taken on the banks and their allies, is not beholden to them, and is not afraid of them. That makes her dangerous to the political establishment in both parties. No wonder Tim Geithner didn’t want her running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Karl Rove doesn’t want her in the Senate.

    Republicans are particularly afraid of her—she’s the best spokesperson the Democratic Party has on economic policy and has the potential to become one of the most popular politicians in America precisely because of her tenacity in confronting the very corporate interests who caused the economic crisis. That’s why Republicans have tried so hard to demonize her—both when she was setting up the CFPB and now that she’s running for Senate.

    It’s particularly noteworthy that Crossroads is invoking Occupy Wall Street as a means to taint both the Warren campaign and the broader Occupy movement, as part of a concerted GOP backlash strategy. The ad claims that protesters at Occupy Wall Street “attack police, do drugs and trash public parks. They support radical redistribution of wealth and violence.” It distorts a quote from Warren where she said that, “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” making it seem as if Warren was responsible for lawlessness, violence and socialist-inspired chaos.

  27. Pathetic Wall Street men afraid of strong, assertive women
    July 31, 2011

    WHY IS it no surprise that the Elizabeth Warren and Sheila Bair departures raise suspicions of sexism (“The ‘pushy broad syndrome’; Did gender bias push out two of the sheriffs of Wall Street?’’, Op-ed, July 24)?

    Cheering on the women’s World Cup team was a matter of national pride. Their aggressive play was appropriate and appreciated. Besides, the women weren’t playing against men.

    Congress isn’t a soccer pitch. There, smart capable women such as Warren and Bair are not admired for their knowledge and their confidence in their ability to do their jobs. No. If they’re not diffident, they’re difficult. If they’re outspoken, they’re pushy.

    That the boys’ network harbors gender bias and is resistant to a woman in charge is not news. Having two tough women regulating the Wall Street boys is like having their mother tell them to clean up their room. They can’t defy Mom, but they can get rid of the annoying watchdogs.

  28. Bron,

    Karl Rove, Howie Carr, and their right-wing ilk can’t find anything of substance to criticize Warren about… so they trump up a story. So typical. They enjoy swiftboating their opponents.They are determined to destroy the reputation of this woman because they–like you–fear her. So sad.

  29. @Elaine M.

    If right wing men are so confident of their positions why can’t they use facts and logic to support their positions instead of call names or make accusations.

    If they have the argument then let them make it. Name calling speaks for it self. I am waiting for them to claim she has cooties – or did they already do that.

    It would actually be interesting to hear them make the argument against regulation. A decade ago it was that the only people buying derivatives were so sophisticated they did not need anyone to watch out for them, and besides mere government regulators who obviously did not make the cut at the big financial firms could not possibly be expected to understand the complexities of such sophisticated financial instruments.

    Well we all now how that worked out. The masters of the financial universe would be selling pencils on the corner if the regulators and our representatives didn’t bail them out.

    One has to wonder what the argument against regulation is today. If there are good arguments against regulation lets hear it.

    Oh I nearly forgot. The first argument against regulation is fruitloop and the second is she is a socialist. Very convincing. Did you all catch that. I realize the argument against regulation is a bit subtle, but you do catch the drift don’t you?

  30. bigfatmike,

    “If right wing men are so confident of their positions why can’t they use facts and logic to support their positions instead of call names or make accusations.”

    Facts and logic? Surely you jest!

  31. Elaine:

    The story the Professor linked to seems to indicate that she did indeed use her supposed heritage to enhance her hiring opportunities. Read the story yourself.

    “But a 1997 Fordham Law Review piece described her as Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color,” based, according to the notes at the bottom of the story, on a “telephone interview with Michael Chmura, News Director, Harvard Law (Aug. 6, 1996).””

    Did he pull that out of his nether regions? Why would he even think a blond haired blue-eyed woman would be a woman of “color” in the first place?

    I dont like her ideas/philosophy because she thinks people owe other people for their success.

    Typical liberal/progressive view. It is just tribalism which is a very primitive existence not to mention way of thinking. But then she is a member of a tribe so hey, primitive does as primitive is.

  32. Bron,

    Here are some more excerpts from that same article:

    “Elizabeth Warren has pushed back hard on questions about a Harvard Crimson piece in 1996 that described her as Native American, saying she had no idea the school where she taught law was billing her that way and saying it never came up during her hiring a year earlier, which others have backed up.”

    “She has pushed back hard on suggestions she got her job based on her heritage, and her backers have noted a 1995 Crimson piece, from the year she was hired, makes no mention of her background.”


    Does anyone have proof that Warren used minority status to get any of her jobs–or is it just right-wing speculation–speculation made with the purpose of calling her character into question?

  33. Elaine M. says, “I often wonder why right-wing men are so fearful of intelligent, competent women who can’t be intimidated by people with a “Y” chromosome.”

    As a male guy, I wonder the same thing. There are plenty of reasons to be intimidated. Basing it on gender implies a deficient upbringing and/or history with terrific women.

  34. Elaine:

    No, I am assuming that Politico did their homework.

    But in any event where would that guy come up with a statement like that?

    If Politico is lying then they are schmucks. I would like to see the article as well.

  35. Thanks, Bron. There’s not much there that proves anything.


    “In 1996, Harvard Law School spokesman Michael Chmura told the Harvard Crimson that Warren was Native American. Neither the law school nor Chmura, now the director of communications at Babson College, has responded to requests for an explanation of how they made the determination that Warren was Native American.”


    It would be good to know how that determination was made.

  36. I had Faux Spews on earlier today. I was scrolling past it and the controller button stuck for one traumatic moment. There were a couple of talking heads on, and the general thrust of what they were saying seemed to be breathless pearl-clutching regarding Dr. Warren and her “claim” to be NA. Fortunately for my sanity, I jiggled the controller and got the button to work and moved on to something else before I had to get out the brain bleach.

  37. The Politico did its homework and accurately reports the information.

    The question is why did Chmura say what he said. What Warren supporters are implying is that he made it up. But how could he make that up? She has blond hair and blue eyes.

    For Chmura or the author of the paper to have made that up is very hard to believe. The only place that information could have come from is Warren herself.

    The question now is did it help her get hired? My guess is she did otherwise Chmura would not have made a big deal about it. Harvard had bragging rights.

    Ersatzagawea is busted. And she looks foolish. But that doesnt prohibit here from running in the state of MA, in fact the more outrageous the better for the people of the Bay State.

    The fact that Romney was an elected governor of MA is a serious black mark against him in my opinion.

  38. Otteray,

    I believe the original story about Warren came from the hateful little Howie Carr. They should hire him at Faux News. He’d fit right in.

  39. Demashitz:

    I may not agree with Warren but if she didnt do it then she didnt do it. The truth never hurt anyone.

  40. Bron,

    “But how could he make that up? She has blond hair and blue eyes.”

    Oh, my achin’ head!

    My husband has baby blue eyes–and had a red beard before it went gray–and he has Native American ancestry too. He has no papers to prove it, though. He must be lying about his ancestry, huh?

  41. Elaine:

    that isnt the point, unless your husband told me he had native American ancestors I would not have known.

    So you prove my point.

    Chmura did not pull that statement out of thin air, there was some impetus behind that statement.

    My achin head.

  42. Bron, I don’t care for CNN either. I get very little news from the TV since Walter Cronkite retired. There is a heck of a lot more news on the internet, and I read a lot faster than I can watch the latest iteration of Ted Baxter read it to me. My TV is pretty much limited to documentaries where I can actually….you know….learn something.

  43. Bron,

    “that isnt the point, unless your husband told me he had native American ancestors I would not have known.”

    Please explain what you mean. You’re the one who brought up blond hair and blue eyes–implying Warren was lying about her Native American ancestry.


    I’ll ask you again: Do you have proof that Warren used minority status to get a job? Otherwise, what’s the big deal?

  44. [… But, putting aside the raw partisanship over the Senate race, how important should this issue in your view be in judging a candidate?

    About 1/32 of an inch. No, make that a Pica.

    As a sometime admirer of Warren, I am more interested in and concerned by her very hawkish position on Iran and her seeming acceptance of anything Israeli as being some sacred pact we are eternally bound to regardless of how loathsome or unfair it might be.

    Perhaps I’m also just a little be more cautious than I used to be about people who promise to clean up Washington and Wall Street.

  45. (Forgot to close a formatting directive. I wish there was a delete facitily). This is how the above comment should look:

    [… But, putting aside the raw partisanship over the Senate race, how important should this issue in your view be in judging a candidate?

    About 1/32 of an inch. No, make that a Pica.

    As a sometime admirer of Warren, I am more interested in and concerned by her very hawkish position on Iran and her seeming acceptance of anything Israeli as being some sacred pact we are eternally bound to regardless of how loathsome or unfair it might be.

    Perhaps I’m also just a little be more cautious than I used to be about people who promise to clean up Washington and Wall Street.

  46. Brooklin Bridge,

    I am concerned about Warren’s position on Iran too. I am also concerned about a number of Scott Brown’s positions. He helped to water down the Volcker rule. He supported the Blunt Amendment. He’s against Obamacare–yet insures his daughter Ayla under one of its provisions. He is one of Wall Street’s favorite senators.

  47. Off Topic:

    Campaign Finance Disclosure Decision Means Rove, Others Could Suddenly Have To Disclose Donors
    Posted: 05/15/2012

    WASHINGTON — One of the most consequential campaign finance loopholes affecting the 2012 race — the one allowing big-money donors to secretly funnel millions into campaign ads — is now closed, after an appellate court ruling on Monday.

    In April, a district court judge struck down a Federal Election Commission regulation that allowed donors to certain nonprofit groups — including those created by Karl Rove and the Koch brothers — to evade normal disclosure requirements.

    And on Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit turned down a request to stay that ruling on a 2 to 1 vote.

    “This case represents the first major breakthrough in the effort to restore for the public the disclosure of contributors who are secretly providing massive amounts to influence federal elections,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, one of the lawyers who filed the original lawsuit that led to the April decision, in a statement.

    The office of House Administration Committee ranking Democrat Robert A. Brady issued a statement Tuesday saying, “As of today, any entity creating electioneering communications will have to disclose the identity of their top donors.”

    “As far as we see, the groups now have an obligation, pursuant to the district court ruling, to disclose all their donors of over $1,000,” said Tara Malloy, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, a group that aims to reduce the influence of money in politics.

  48. ANY MAN who uses the term “feminazi” is lousy in bed, knows it and blames it on the woman anyway for not pretending.

  49. Mike, I have my own theories. One theory has it that he cannot get it up, and the other that he is too quick on the trigger. But you are right. All that is because it is the woman’s fault. And anyway, he knows she is smarter than he is, which causes all kinds of cognitive dissonance, since his bloated ego is only slightly smaller than his bloated belly and head.

    I wonder if Rush ever got any that he did not have to pay for in one way or another? He has been married four times but no children. I imagine he has a divorce lawyer on retainer.

  50. Elaine, I wasn’t going to go there, but now that you mention it, you may have a point. Well……maybe not a point, just a nub.

  51. Elaine, don’t think there is a danger of that. After all, the Big Guy himself invented humor and jokes among His creations. Rush and the Tea Party are living proof of the fact He likes a big fat joke from time to time.

  52. raff,

    I thought the guest bloggers and regulars already had a table reserved on the terrace by the Lake of Fire with our own minibar and hookah. My understanding was that Mephistopheles wanted to keep us apart from the other guests. A bad influence and all that with our talk of human and civil rights. Little does he suspect that this plays right into our hands, muahahahah, er, ah, um, perhaps I’ve said too much already . . .

  53. AY,

    Why all the hype? Because the dirty tricks people are trying to silence Warren and to keep her from beating their boy Brown. They don’t want her talking about financial reform and regulating the banksters. They trump up a story and divert people’s attention from discussions of substance to trivia like this.

  54. Elaine:

    They ought to be debating her cockeyed thinking.

    But to me it looks like she used her 1/32nd to make some bones at Harvard. So that would go to character. No way, apparently, to prove it but Chmura didnt pull that first woman of color at Harvard out of his ear.

    But while regulating the banksters how about regulating the spendsters too.

  55. The problem is that we are NOT regulating the spendsters since the bankers are that. How do you think that they lost $2 billion+? Think they sort of misplaced the money? The problem is that when Glass-Steagal was abolished, we gave the banks permission to gamble with taxpayer insured money. I would love to go to Vegas and gamble as long as it wasn’t my money being lost, and if I won I could keep all the money. That is what banks are doing.

  56. Asstar,

    Warren didn’t cause the financial meltdown. It was lack of regulation and transparency and the “cockeyed” practices and greed of the banksters/Wall Street wizards that did that.

    “They” are afraid to debate her common sense thinking. “They” don’t want to call attention to the fact that nothing has changed on Wall Street. What happened at MF Global and JP Morgan are perfect examples that nothing has changed.

  57. Speaking of Wall Street…

    JPMorgan Chase Chief Investment Office Played By Different Rules
    By Matt Scuffham and Edward Taylor
    Reuters | Posted: 05/16/2012

    LONDON/FRANKFURT, May 16 (Reuters) – The JPMorgan Chase & Co. unit that lost more than $2 billion through a failed hedging strategy had looser risk controls than the rest of the bank, according to people familiar with the situation.

    The risk of losses is tallied by the bank using a so-called value at risk (VaR) calculation. However, the Chief Investment Office, the unit responsible for the high-profile loss that JPMorgan disclosed last Thursday, had a separate VaR system. It used a less stringent calculation that gave a lower risk assessment of its trades, according to people who previously worked at the bank.

    The unit also reported directly to CEO Jamie Dimon, a factor which allowed it to maintain a separate risk monitoring set-up to other parts of the investment bank, these people said.

    Despite repeated warnings from executives inside the firm as long ago as 2005, the CIO unit remained notably free from oversight.

    A source with knowledge of the situation said that these warnings included the size of the CIO, the fact that its risk reporting was not transparent and the scope for the unit to get “bigger and bigger” because it had a lower cost of funding than the rest of the investment bank.

    Until April, the CIO unit’s unusual autonomy allowed it to build up risky positions without triggering alarms.

    Indeed, the unit was encouraged to be a profit center, as well as hedging against risk, a source with direct knowledge of the unit said. Ina Drew, who headed the unit, earned more than $15 million in each of the past two years, making her among the highest-paid executives at the bank and one of the most compensated women on Wall Street.

  58. I think it is instructive that apologist for JP Morgan and the industry are claiming that this is (1) just one instances of bad behavior and that (2) the loses hardly come anywhere near to the profits of Morgan.

    The fact is that this kind of financial trading is planed like a military operation and the execution of trades can be more like driving in the middle of a NAScar race.

    Any one who has read uncontested news reports knows that this ‘one instance’ went on not for a few hours, not for a day, not for days, not for weeks but literally for months.

    Can you imagine driving car 97 at speeds reaching over 200 mph for months at a time? If you did, do you think maybe your crew chief might ask how are things going? tires ok? fuel getting low?

    This bad behavior went on with policies known to and encouraged by the most senior officers of the firm. This bad behavior went on with senior management casting a blind eye not once to bad results, but day after day for months.

    The problems occurred not when an economic bubble burst, not under adverse economic circumstances, not when there was a run on the bank, and not under unusual competitive conditions. This 2 billion or maybe 4 billion dollar problem occurred under favorable economic circumstances.

    The activities of senior management may have been legal (though there are reports of DOJ and FBI investigations). But the dereliction of senior management occurred with the clear understanding of congress, lobbyist, and senior management that management and the financial institutions have clear obligations beyond just the interests of stockholder and depositors.

    If it makes any difference, I too think it would be very useful to investigate all the ‘cockeyed thinking’ in this unfortunate and dangerous ‘single instance’ that went on for months.

  59. Blouise,

    Right you are! The slime mold people are doing their utmost to destroy this woman–because she can’t be bought by the banksters…nor intimidated by their men in Congress.

  60. Blouise, I was thinking the same thing. A win by her would help the dems hang onto the senate, and hers is a much needed voice.

  61. Elaine, just must be totally in the tank for these communists members that call themselves “democrat party”; the financial meltdown was cause by lack of regulation?? really? or rather becasue your communists friends leaded by Barney Frank decided the goverment has to OWN a bank give a shoot to those McDonnald workers to buy 300 thousand dollard suburband houses WITHOUT downpayment? You think any bank would had done that? actually…did ANY bank do that after Glass-Steagal was turn down? i will answer for you NO HELL NO….the banks just started to do it AFTER Fanny May did it, because they were losing customers, and thats how the free market works…..but is always the goverment who starts the wrong trend(and dont say internet, cause that was the military toguether with a republican congress and a non-communist democrat president…Obama would have never gone for it…he actually wanted to be able to shoot it down if)
    But lets talk science and minorities for a second, since obvioulsly you are part of the communist parlot club….anyone that says he is a minority or have any relation AT ALL with minorities because you are 1/32 of anything is a liar…follwing that, for all know, we all must be minorities, because humans originated in Africa..the way i see it, you can claim minority ONLY if your parents were/are minority…other than that you are trying to pull something dark… can ask for prove of when your “heroine” Warren used her “minority card” all you want but the 1/32 attempt of cover it up didnt come from the republicans…, i sujest you look at your own side for answers like….why, if Warren never used that status, the “boston communist globe” came up with the quick 1/32 LIE so fast(lie, cause they backtracked yesterday)?
    Now, more on politics….Warren is for Obamacare, you are too, but funny thing is MOST PEOPLE DONT and on top of that, if it is so great, why your own governor is attempting to go “Chavez”(as the venezuelan communist dictator…..”Oh but he was elected” says you…so was Hittler…) on health care prices?? regulating prices…always a beautiful trend of communists who know nothing of how the economy works
    And now about myself….just in case you want to start with your “you are just another right-wing red-neck racist” I am cuban…I AM A MINORITY in this country called latin; i beleive IT IS A MISTAKE, cause we do no speak latin in our countries of origin, we speak spanish and portuguese which derived from the latin for so is the french….but what i am, is really good at smelling communists(including those who will die denying it…25 years living under a communist regime do that to you) and your Warren is just one of them sheeps in a Wolf pelt.
    Now, about you, i dont know, Churchill talk about the “useful idiots”; maybe you are just one of them…but at least, i see you defend yours with claws and teeth…i have to give you that…..
    Have a great morning…outdoor….

  62. @Adrian “rather becasue your communists friends leaded by Barney Frank decided the goverment has to OWN a bank give a shoot to those McDonnald workers to buy 300 thousand dollard suburband houses WITHOUT downpayment? ”

    Suzy Khimm writing 032912 in the WAPO reports

    “It’s one of the biggest misconceptions about the housing crisis: the belief that the government’s policies to promote affordable housing — particularly through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — fanned the flames of the subprime mortgage market, ultimately bringing down the entire economy.
    In fact, a growing body of independent research confirms that it wasn’t the affordable housing mandate that led to the proliferation of risky mortgages. And the most recent evidence comes from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank. ”

    You can accept the summary statements that it wasn’t Barney Frank that single handedly caused the financial meltdown or you can wade through the FED and academic studies that demonstrate this fact.

    If you want reference to some of the studies it will take me a bit longer to dig them out.

  63. SwM and Elaine,

    “Elaine, The far right fringe plus the far left fringe is on the blog…………”

    Thank God I’m stuck somewhere in the middle with you two. :)

  64. I guess it is a good spot. The communists call us capitalists and sell-outs, and the capitalists call us communists. lol

  65. really…WAPO? a “growing number”? St Luis federal reserve bank? OMG..thats all the facts everyone needs for this topic!!!!…follow your guts….not WAPO….
    Elaine…if the pelt suits you…. i wonder whats your definition of communism…
    im sure you can answer YES to this

    –pro redistribution of wealth
    –pro govement over free markets

    maybe you just dont know…but i beleive now, you simply are a fake, just another of the wolfs….

    @Sarthmore dont even know what far right is…Hitler? hmm…he was teh leader of the NAZI party(nacional-socialism)

    as i said…we all came from Africa….

  66. Elizabeth “Big Foot” Warner. This is a case for Louis Gates. We need her to be researched on television on the Finding Your Roots show or whatever its called. If she is a Cherokee then maybe Louis can find out if great grandma dropped off the trail of tears. If she is lying about the Cherokee Tribe then maybe she belongs in the D.A.R. That might get her some of the other guy’s voters. Maybe her grandad worked for Mayflower Trucking. She dont have the cheekbones to cut the moutard for being a Cherokee.

  67. i dont care if Warren is a communist, what i care is for the pathological need to lie about it and hide in words like “center” or “left” or “liberal” or “democrat” and instead of answering simple questions like
    why if Warren never used her “minority card” the boston “communist” globe was soo fast to find a 1/32 relation with a cherokee tribe?

    you then accuse everyone of being a 1/32 part hitler relative(since hitler is what you have in your minds of what a far right wing person is)…

    Africa is still ringing on my ears….

  68. Actually, I wasn’t think of Hitler at all. Thinking more of right wing radio host…….. Mark Levin.

  69. Apparently you cannot call yourself a Native American unless you look like one of the Italian-American actors who played Native Americans in 1950s Western movies, wear Plains Indian feathered headgear, and carry a spear. Or you look like Dustin Hoffman did in Little Big Man. Sheesh, take off your blinders people! It’s the 21st Century. Get off the race-baiting merry-go-round.

  70. oh soooo funny…im a cow AND a dunkey..a cowkey?
    so, ad hominem all over….instead of answering why you and your heroin Warren and your hero Obama hide behind the “liberal” facade or even the simpler question i posted about Warren use of her “minority” card you start calling me names…..

    well, after the 100s copy and paste comments you posted, which just supports OTHER people opinions and not any of yours except that you blindly will vote for Warren even if you find pictures of her molesting children, i should figure who were you….but i already called you a fake(again after you failed to answer my question), so we are even….

    just keep up the copy and paste

  71. @dagmar
    Dustin Hoffman is not trying to call himself a minority so minoritties falls for the “she is one of us” trick
    plus, Dustin Hoffman is an actor…are you sugesting Warren is an actor?… understand that the actor profession actually means “liar” make beleive you are one thing for the simple porpouse of entertaiment….

    if thats what you mean, i agree…Warren is a liar….

  72. Adrian,

    The cow and the donkey are supposed to be Rocky calling Adrian. I guess you missed that.

    Figure out how to use spell check and to write a coherent comment that isn’t off the wall.

    BTW, heroin is a drug–not a person to be admired and looked up to.

  73. NEHGS Statement on Elizabeth Warren Ancestry
    Boston, MA – May 15, 2012 – With reference to the recent media coverage regarding Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry, New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS) wishes to make the following statement:

    Following several requests from the media, NEHGS conducted some initial genealogical research on Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry.

    NEHGS has not expressed a position on whether Mrs. Warren has Native American ancestry, nor do we possess any primary sources to prove that she is. We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent. Our initial research indicated that various members of Ms. Warren’s extended family made references to being Cherokee, citing secondary sources, but we advised that additional research on the subject was needed. NEHGS is currently not conducting that research, though RECORDS AND RESOURCES FOR THIS RESEARCH ARE PUBLICLY AND WIDELY AVAILABLE. The nature of genealogical research is such that it can take many months or years, and conclusions can change based on evidence that emerges over time. [empasis added]

  74. Documents show Warren did not rely on ‘minority status’ to advance
    By Stephen C. Webster
    Friday, May 11, 2012

    Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D) did not rely upon affirmative action to get teaching work at universities around the country, documents obtained by several media outlets revealed on Thursday.

    In separate reports, The Associated Press and The Boston Globe both noted that Warren did not claim minority status at the University of Texas, where she taught law before moving to Harvard, writing on a personnel form that she identified as “White.” She also declined to apply to Rutgers Law School under a minority student program.

    Questions over whether Warren relied upon her 1/32 heritage as a native American to help her get teaching jobs have swirled in the media ever since Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) campaign manager began to criticize her for appearing in a Harvard publication that touted her as a minority professor. The University of Pennsylvania, as well, had previously identified her as a minority

    That’s led the Brown campaign to demand that Warren explain her academic history, and Brown himself to ask that she release all relevant records. The Republican Party chairman for Massachusetts also said in a letter to Harvard on Monday that Warren should be investigated for “academic fraud.”

    The Warren campaign has not disputed the listings, issuing a statement explaining “Elizabeth is proud of her heritage,” but that she never used it to improperly advance her career. In a segment broadcast Thursday night, MSNBC’s liberal host Rachel Maddow explained that Warren, who is Cherokee, “appears to be exactly as Cherokee as the principle chief of the Cherokee nation, Bill John Baker.” (Baker, like Warren, is 1/32 Cherokee.)

    “And actually, because she may also have ancestry from the Delaware tribe as well, it is conceivable that she has even more native ancestry than he does,” Maddow added, calling the Brown campaign’s latest line the “weirdest political attack of 2012… so far.”

  75. “SwM and Elaine,
    “Elaine, The far right fringe plus the far left fringe is on the blog…………”
    Thank God I’m stuck somewhere in the middle with you two.:)


    Can I join in?

  76. “I am cuban…I AM A MINORITY in this country called latin; i beleive IT IS A MISTAKE, cause we do no speak latin in our countries of origin, we speak spanish and portuguese which derived from the latin for so is the french….but what i am, is really good at smelling communists(including those who will die denying it…25 years living under a communist regime do that to you) and your Warren is just one of them sheeps in a Wolf pelt.”


    You are a minority as a Cuban and yes you did live under a communist regime. However, was Batista, the Mafia backed fascist any better than Castro? I doubt it. Now having lived in Cuba for twenty-five years are you really serious in telling me that the Democrats are communists? You may have lived under communism and felt the oppression, but if you compare Democrats to communists then you don’t understand what communism is, even having felt its’ terror.

    The Democratic Party has never been communist historically and they are farther to the Right Wing now than they ever were. I’ve lived here for 67 years and I’ve actually known American Communists. They hated liberals, progressives and the Democratic Party. They hated them more than they hated the Republicans and I’ll tell you why.

    Batista was a Fascist in action and practice. He treated Cubans so badly that they revolted with a popular front, of which the Castro’s were a part. Unfortunately, there were two problems with the revolution. The first was that the people who run foreign policy in the U.S. have always been supportive of American Industry ripping off the peoples of the America’s, south of the borders. Batista allowed them to in Cuba. He also allowed the Mafia to run the
    Hotels, Gambling and Prostitution. Those business interests and the Mafia put pressure on the Eisenhower Administration to put pressure on Cuba and try to destabilize the revolution. Castro, feeling threatened, went to the USSR for aid.

    The second thing though was that Castro, while a Communist was also an egotist who wanted power. He betrayed the Democratic ideals of the Revolution and wiped out his enemies (who had been his allies), or let them flee to America. Then he imposed his version of communism on Cuba.

    Now with that background let me tell you why the “real” communists hate liberals, progressives and the Democratic Party. That part of the Left actually tries, not very successfully so far, to make the condition of the average people better. Communists want the lives of average people to get so bad that they will revolt as in Cuba, Russia and China. The communists believe that they can
    seize power during a popular revolution, just as they did in Cuba, Russia and China, so they want most people to be suffering miserably. Curiously, in America, the Republican Party, fundamentalists and right wing conservatives want the same thing as communists, but for different reasons.

  77. Mike,

    Pull up a chair and have an herbal or mango martini.

    I think a great deal of the fuss on the right over Warren is her leadership potential. They aren’t just afraid of what she’ll do in the Senate … the woman is future presidential material.

  78. Elaine,

    Those pirates have been raiding the American people for decades.

    Warren sees them for what they are … modern day slavers.

  79. By the way and OT … I’ve heard a really hilarious rumor that George W. Bush, who ended his term with the collapse of the global financial system, is preparing to publish a book “outlining strategies for economic growth”. It’s got to be a hoax.

  80. Why Elizabeth Warren is right — and why Romney won’t change
    Bankers and bullies
    By EDITORIAL | May 16, 2012

    Like an alcoholic downing nips on the drive home from court-ordered rehabilitation, JPMorgan Chase and its CEO, Jamie Dimon, could hardly wait to once again start wildly tossing depositors’ money into derivative hedge bets — the very type of irresponsible behavior that nearly brought down all of Wall Street less than four years ago.

    This time, the crash at the end of JP Morgan’s drunken spree did far less damage — $2 billion in trading losses, a sum the insanely profitable money-changers can apparently absorb without affecting Dimon’s $23 million annual compensation package, which was approved at Tuesday’s shareholder meeting. (Dimon conveniently waited to disclose the fiasco until after many of JPMorgan’s shareholders had put their votes in the mail.)

    The JPMorgan story provides stark evidence — not that any was needed — that the federal government must continue strengthening its regulation and oversight of the banking industry.

    Far from having solved the “too big to fail” dilemma, which required massive governmental intervention to prop up the nation’s largest banks in 2008 and 2009, those financial institutions have only grown larger. If they were too big to fail a few years ago, then the banks today are even more capable of destroying the nation’s economy. Had JPMorgan’s losses multiplied we, the public, would have been on the hook again — and at this point we don’t know how close the company’s “errors, sloppiness, and bad judgment” took it toward that brink.

    As Elizabeth Warren put it to Washington Post writer Ezra Klein: “What if the next loss is $20 billion or $200 billion? Is [Dimon] saying JPMorgan should be entitled to continue to take these bets right up until the day it lands in the taxpayer’s lap again?”

    Yes, he is — which is precisely why we need more US senators with Warren’s sense of outrage in Washington.

    Warren is calling for a strengthening of the Dodd-Frank Act, to ensure that government regulators have the flexibility and authority to keep up with the new high-wire schemes that Wall Street wizards invent to enrich themselves. That is crucially important.

    She has also endorsed the idea of a new version of the Glass-Steagall Act, passed after the 1929 stock-market crash (and repealed in 1999) to separate banking institutions from high-risk investment houses. Although the specifics of how this would work are debatable, it is an idea whose time has come — yet again.

    These are not measures we can expect to see from our current senator, Republican Scott Brown, who has been drumming up big-money contributions from Wall Street executives, including those at JPMorgan, by explicitly contrasting himself against a Wall Street regulator like Warren.

    Although Brown has been conspicuously silent on the JPMorgan disaster, it’s safe to assume that he is on the same page with his party’s new leader, Mitt Romney, who derides any criticism of JPMorgan, or talk of regulation, as an attack on capitalism.

    And those two represent the relatively moderate wing of today’s every-raider-for-himself Republican Party. Let’s not put them behind the wheel again.

  81. Bush’s Economic Growth Strategies — The Cliff Notes Version

    1. Invade Mexico and take over their oil production.

    2. Invade Venezuela and take over their oil production.

    3. Give the military and oil contracts to your best friends.

    4. Buy some land in Paraguay after they rescind their extradition treaty with the US.

    5. Move to Paraquay and write a book about how the Postal Service proves that government workers are just shiftless, lazy, socialists while invasions distribute wealth in the most efficient manner.

  82. Elaine,

    So it’s not a hoax. *^@$%*!!

    How much you wanna bet the publisher is a front for the Royal House of Saud?

  83. Blouise,

    The publisher is probably the remaining pulp of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which of course the Saudis were a large part of.

    After some research it seems the name of the publisher is Opusculus Corrigenda (things to be corrected in a small book).

  84. inflation has been stealing the peoples money, fiat money put into circulation by the Federal Reserve has been stealing the peoples money.

    Go back to the gold standard and dismantle the FED. Break up the larger banks into many smaller ones and reduce the number of agencies performing regulatory oversight. Consolidate the functions which are duplicative and find some top notch people to perform regulatory oversight.

  85. Bron,

    “Go back to the gold standard and dismantle the FED. Break up the larger banks into many smaller ones and reduce the number of agencies performing regulatory oversight. Consolidate the functions which are duplicative and find some top notch people to perform regulatory oversight.”

    Hey, we almost agree! The Federal Reserve should be seriously considered for breaking up, along with the twelve districts and member banks that comprise the Federal Reserve system. I suggest though that you read the writings of Ellen Brown, who suggests the same, before you hark back to the gold standard.

    As to your, “find some top notch people to perform regulatory oversight,” Elizabeth Warren fits that bill. So what are you exactly saying?

  86. gbk:

    top notch financial minds who dont think freedom is an ugly idea.

    using gold as money would seriously limit the ability of government to inflate the money supply. It should stop it but knowing government they will find some way to get around the finite quantity of gold.

  87. “Go back to the gold standard” (Bron)

    Nixon took us off the gold standard over 40 years ago on Aug. 15, 1971. He did so to rescue the dollar from foreign-caused price-gouging and the exchange crisis that followed. I believe it was called the “Nixon Shock” and was viewed at the time as a necessary move to combat the actions of Germany, France, and Switzerland. He also imposed a 90-day wage and price freeze. At the time we were running an inflation rate of 5.84%, a balance-of-payments deficit, and a trade deficit.

  88. @Mike
    Oh Mike…soooo 1960 communist way of doing things….
    Yes, i agree communists and liberals in the 1960 will not see eye to eye; at that time(hell, 50 years ago) the soviets never allowed communism to flourish in any country unless it came from a revolution; thats the reason they didnt supported Allende in Chile, because allende won using the democratic tools offered in Chile at that time…
    Now, calling every goverment facists just because they kill people just plays into the communist game of rebranding things around…communists govements KILL people, and they are not facists; a goverment move from communism to facism only when on top of all the communist stuff they target a race or races as the enemy(eg. Jews)….
    Now, obviously, your history of Cuba is kinda fuzzy….
    First, Batist was not a facist(goes perfectly with the communist propaganda); in fact, Batista was already a cuban president duting 1940-1945 period, Batista was black; which tells you how much more advanced was cuban society than even this country; but mind me now…Batista was a member of the communist party leadered by Blas Roca on those years….The ONLY(almost, cause im sure some racism played a card too…hell, there was only one black commander in the castro guerrilla) reason people hated batista was becasue the coup he made in 1952 disrupting the incipient democratic advances in the country, thinking that way his masters in the USSR will come to him, but at those times, WWII devastation was still a problem for Europe and the USSR, they had just tested their first nuke 3 years ago and the cold war was simply starting…so they had no power yet to support anybody…
    Now, you said Castro ran to the soviets for support because the big bad wolf US was on his back…well, true, but not BEFORE castro decided to steal every single property from EVERYBODY..banks, manufacturing, sugar industry(cubans and foreings alike) mines…EVERYTHING….of course businesses here will be mad, what do you expect??
    Now, again, your way of thinking is very 1960s…you obviously beleive communists do not evolve; well, let me break it to you…they do….they do not need a revolution anymore; what they do is inflitrate established institutions to advanced their ideology, they have been doing this for 30 years now, since the fall of the soviets and the word “communist” became a bad word…maybe you want to look around at Chavez, Correa, the salvadorian goverment(used to be the communist guerrila there) and lately the Peruvian president(a leader of the Maoist sendero luminoso) all got to power using democratic tools, not revolutions….
    Yes, communists hated liberals; but not anymore….in 2008, when Barack Obama won the presidency, a soviet flag was raise in front of the white house(there is a picture of it)…the head of the communist party actually said that the new goverment was the closest its being to their ideals….Van Jones was part of the communist gang(he says he is not anymore..really???) and appointed by Obama to lead non the less than the “green” efforts of his goverment(green is the new red)…Warren, Obama, AND the communist party AND the nazi party ALL supports the “occupy movement”
    Now….brain wash part…
    You think the republican party wants people in this country to live miserably? wow….
    well, they must be doing a crazy bad job, i came here on 2001, with the “hated” bush and the republicans as the president, i came here with NOTHING, a 1951 half silver dolar that belonged to my father and i still keep as a “lucky” token…..i moved my way up, just following the republican ideal that its all on you to become someone; 10 years later, i work in a software company and i even have time to lecture you about cuban history….all this without asking the goverment for ANYTHING…..well yes, there is (or was) a cuban community that will take care of you…80 usd a month and free mass transit tickets for 6 months….
    I would have never being able to get where i am with Obama right there…i would be sucking form the goverment tits all the time(because somehow they tell you i deserve it) and hence become dependent…and hell, i will get mad if they stop the flow of money my way….
    man, i am a meber of the republican party, i can pass mostly everything you said, cause i understand your history is crooked…but aligning the communist party with the republicans…wow!!!! that was really laughable….
    foot note:
    by the way Van Jones is a communist, why didnt he aling with the republicans instead of the democrats? arent they the most similar to the communists??

  89. blouise:

    Actually Nixon’s policies are to blame for the terrible economic mess of the 70’s. I actually believe that Carter was unfairly blamed for the mess Nixon caused. Carter was trying to clean it up, as far as I can tell, and was not successful. Reagan was able to blame Carter for the mess that Nixon caused.

    Which is why I only partially blame Obama for the mess we are in now. W had a big hand to play, he was a coward to yield to Paulson and the bailout of Paulson’s Wall Street buddies. Protecting main street my great aunt Sally. Talk about the big lie.

  90. Bron,

    Much of the crisis was brought on by the Nam War which was Johnson.

    (I’m a closet Jimmy Carter fan.)

  91. Elaine:

    “We all know what the present-day GOP thinks about freedom…and the rights of women, gays, minorities.”

    Some are but those seem to be the evangelical Christians. You really need to separate the factions. There is a libertarian wing of the GOP which I call conservatives, then there are the RINOS and the evangelicals. I am pretty sure the RINOS and the evangelicals have the most say in the party. The RINOS are socially liberal and somewhat less liberal than democrats on fiscal policy. The evangelicals are socially totalitarian and not to good on economics either.

    Conservatives really ought to form their own party, they are very far apart from RINOS and evangelicals. Conservatives are more like 19th century liberals.

  92. Blouise:

    Kennedy and Johnson had a big hand in that war but Nixon didnt do much to change the course. His economic policies stifled the economy through the 70’s.

    Carter caught the brunt, not that I am a fan of his. But he did get a raw deal and hopefully as we get farther away from his presidency and more comes out he will rise a few levels in public opinion.

  93. Bron, The RINOS are a dying breed. Look what happen to Lugar, and he isn’t even liberal enough to be considered a RHINO. A sensible republican like Lugar appears to have no chance in today’s republican party.

  94. The Woman Who Knew Too Much

    Millions of Americans hoped President Obama would nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the consumer financial watchdog agency she had created. Instead, she was pushed aside. As Warren kicks off her run for Scott Brown’s Senate seat in Massachusetts, Suzanna Andrews charts the Harvard professor’s emergence as a champion of the beleaguered middle class, and her fight against a powerful alliance of bankers, lobbyists, and politicians.
    By Suzanna Andrews
    Vanity Fair
    Novemer 2011

    On the afternoon of July 18, in remarks from the Rose Garden amid the bruising showdown with congressional Republicans over the debt ceiling, President Obama made what the White House billed as a simple “personnel announcement.” In a brief speech, the president announced that he was nominating Richard Cordray, the former attorney general of Ohio, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the new government agency set up to protect consumers from abusive lending practices. In his remarks he described the agency, part of the massive 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as creating “the strongest consumer protections in history,” set up “so ordinary people were dealt with fairly.” After which he turned to thank the woman standing to his right, Elizabeth Warren.

    A Harvard law professor, one of the nation’s leading bankruptcy experts and consumer advocates, the 62-year-old Warren had come up with the idea for the agency in 2007. She had advised the Obama administration on its creation in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse and helped to push it through Congress. Warren had also spent the last 10 months working tirelessly to build the agency from scratch—hiring its staff of 500, including Richard Cordray, organizing its management structure, and getting the C.F.P.B. up and running for its opening on July 21.

    As she crisscrossed the country, spreading the word about the C.F.P.B., Warren became a familiar face to many, especially to those who had seen her on television—on CNBC, Real Time with Bill Maher, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. She had gained millions of supporters. With her passionate defense of America’s beleaguered middle class, under assault today from seemingly every direction, she had become like a modern-day Mr. Smith, giving voice to regular citizens astonished at the failure of Washington to protect Main Street—and what increasingly appeared to be its abandonment of middle-class America. By July, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.—speaking for its 12 million members—had called on Obama to name Warren to head the agency. So had scores of consumer groups. Eighty-nine Democrats in the House of Representatives had signed a letter, publicly urging him to choose Warren. Newspapers around the country editorialized on her behalf, as did hundreds of bloggers. By July 18, when Obama announced that he was passing Warren over, he did so after receiving petitions signed by several hundred thousand people and organizations urging him to appoint Warren as the country’s top consumer watchdog.

    At the end of his remarks, Obama turned to Warren and kissed her on the cheek. She smiled gamely, though if there are kisses a woman can do without, this was one of them. A Judas kiss, some would say. But if so, the betrayal was not just of Elizabeth Warren. In his remarks, Obama would hint at what had happened to Warren, commenting that she had faced “very tough opposition” and had taken “a fair amount of heat.” He also alluded to the powerful forces arrayed against her, and against the C.F.P.B.—“the army of lobbyists and lawyers right now working to water down the protections and reforms that we’ve passed,” the corporations that pumped “tens of millions of dollars” into the fight, and “[their] allies in Congress.” But he was mincing his words. The fight against Warren and the C.F.P.B. was one of the most brutal Washington battles this year, up there with the debt-ceiling showdown and now the looming battle over the jobs bill—but part of the same war. Arrayed against Warren, and today against the very existence of the C.F.P.B., was the full force of what many, most notably Simon Johnson, the M.I.T. professor and former International Monetary Fund chief economist, have called the American financial oligarchy: Wall Street firms and banks supported mainly by Republican members of Congress, but also politicians on the other side of the aisle, along with members of Obama’s own inner circle.

    At a time of record corporate profits, a time when 14 million Americans are out of work, when millions have lost their homes and, according to the Census Bureau, the ranks of those living in poverty has grown to one in six—that Elizabeth Warren could be publicly kneecapped and an agency devoted to protecting American consumers could come under such intense attack is, ultimately, the story about who holds power in America today.

  95. Elizabeth Warren Expresses No Confidence in Current Bank Accountability Measures
    By: David Dayen Thursday May 17, 2012

    This has been the week where we got a taste of how Elizabeth Warren would comport herself as a US Senator. Since JPMorgan Chase’s Fail Whale trade, which has reportedly already grown to a $3 billion loss, nobody in the political arena has been more vocal – or more knowledgeable – about the trade and what it means for reforming the financial system than Warren.

    She has criticized big banks for their lobbying efforts to weaken Wall Street reform, but she has also gone beyond that. She has explained why a bad trade like this isn’t just “the normal course of business,” as Mitt Romney suggested yesterday, but a scary reminder of the significant risks being taken by banks with federally insured deposits, access to cheap credit and an implicit subsidy from being too big to fail. She advocated for a reinstitution of the Glass-Steagall Act, to explicitly separate commercial and investment banking activity. She demanded that JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon step down from the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. And she has taken the lead among a growing number of Democratic candidates, reinvigorating a debate about financial reform and accountability for Wall Street. One thing we know; Warren knows how to use the bully pulpit, especially on an issue where she has credibility.

    I’m going to post a transcript, edited somewhat for clarity, of an interview I did with Professor Warren yesterday afternoon. But I want to highlight the very last thing we talked about. After Warren discussed how, without meaningful civil and criminal investigations of the financial sector, it will not be possible to “clean out the system and rebuild it,” I asked her if she was confident that the current set of investigations, in particular the task force co-chaired by Eric Schneiderman, looking into criminal actions in the securitization process, would yield this level of accountability. She had a simple answer:

    “I am not confident. No. And that’s the answer to your question. The American people are pushing for more accountability. They need to keep on pushing until it happens.”

    This is a significant statement. The RMBS working group, as it was known, was announced to much fanfare in the State of the Union address, but it has not received anything approaching adequate resources, and it has been eerily silent for the past few months, without offices, without phone numbers and (still) without an executive director. Schneiderman in particular, and the Justice Department, have pushed back on criticisms, claiming that the task force remains committed to pursuing the investigation wherever it leads. But here is Elizabeth Warren, as credible a voice as there is on these issues, flat-out saying she lacks confidence in the investigation (or more broadly, any investigation happening at this time). That is extremely damaging to the attempt to pass off the RMBS working group as something legitimate.

  96. Elaine:

    who exactly is the middle class? Elizabeth Warren is no champion of the private sector middle class. The poor living by government aid and the middle class employed by government maybe but the working poor and the private sector middle class? Only in Wonder Land.

  97. Warren is one of the smartest candidates running for office this season and she knows how to communicate, with simplicity, many of the complicated issue facing the electorate. Class has nothing to do with it. All classes benefit from that kind of intelligence at work in the Senate.

  98. Elizabeth Warren’s voice against Wall Street gets tuned out
    By Joan Vennochi | Globe Columnist
    May 17, 2012

    One woman took the fall for Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase. Another woman — Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat running for US Senate in Massachusetts — is calling for him to resign from the New York Fed.

    So far, the power guys are sticking with Dimon. Appearing on “The View,” President Obama called JPMorgan Chase “one of the best-managed banks there is” and said Dimon “is one of the smartest bankers we’ve got.”

    While the FBI investigates potential criminal wrongdoing at JPMorgan Chase in the wake of a complex $2 billion trade loss, the so-sorry Dimon remains at the helm. For now, the buck stops with Ina Drew, the company’s chief investment officer who tearfully offered to resign.

    Weep not for Drew and her $23 million retirement compensation package. But it’s still noteworthy that the girl is gone, even though the boys knew exactly what she was doing, according to The New York Times.

    As for Warren, it’s déjà vu all over again. She’s the voice of reason and clarity, standing up to Wall Street power brokers. She’s also the voice that Wall Street and Washington insiders like to tune out.

    After the 2008 financial meltdown, Warren set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Its mission is to stop unfair lending practices and to make basic financial transactions more transparent. The bureau was established by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and Warren was supposed to head it. But financial institutions strongly opposed her, because she called them out for running banks like casinos.

    The Obama administration didn’t back her either. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn’t want her in the job, and Obama selected someone else to head the bureau she created.

    Warren is, instead, running against Republican Senator Scott Brown. As she again demands Wall Street accountability, her message is being undercut on two fronts.

    She still faces questions about her identification as a minority law professor. With the media focused on Warren’s undocumented Cherokee roots, Brown has been able to dodge questions about the role he played in weakening Wall Street regulations.

    Brown voted for Dodd-Frank, but he also worked to water down the so-called “Volcker Rule,” the part of the financial reform law that is supposed to stop banks from making risky bets. After it passed, Brown continued to push federal agencies to weaken regulations needed to put an effective Volcker Rule into place. Since then, he has collected more than $2 million from the financial industry, including more than $50,000 from JPMorgan. This week, he refused to reveal who is on his secret New York City fundraising committee, and whether JPMorgan is represented.

    But Warren’s message is also undermined by a Democratic president with a JPMorgan Chase account that’s worth between $500,000 and $1 million. Politico calls Dimon one of Obama’s “most prominent Wall Street friends, a rare high-profile Democrat in an industry dominated by low-tax, free-market Republicans,” who has given “hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to Democrats.”

    The bottom line: Wall Street, in general, and JPMorgan, in particular, curry favor with both parties and it pays off. As Kevin Drum writes in Mother Jones, after all the talk of post-crash reform, “mutual funds and hedge funds got away with only modest new limits, credit ratings agencies were left largely untouched, the most dangerous varieties of derivatives were left alone, almost nothing was done to reduce the size of the biggest banks, and additional powers were given to the Fed, which has shown repeatedly that it’s too close to Wall Street to ever regulate it effectively.”

    Dimon is a cozy case in point. His seat on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York gives him a voice in deciding which financial institutions get bailouts for bad trades. As Eliot Spitzer — the ex-governor of New York and ex-AG, who once prosecuted Wall Street — put it, “This conflict of interest is so obvious that it defies all rationalization or explanation.”

    Like Warren, Spitzer believes Dimon should exit the New York Fed. So does Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont.

    That’s the power of Wall Street.

    People who are out of power or trying to get it are the ones most willing to take it on.

  99. Adrian.

    Was that you defending Batista? That in itself shows where you are coming from. Cuba was a “real” paradise for the Cuban people wasn’t it before Castro? As far as what you define as a communist you don’t know what you are talking about. Now I’m voting for Obama, does that make me a communist? By your way of thinking it does. The reality is you define a communist as anyone who doesn’t agree with you, which means you really don’t know anything about communists, but you are rigidly gullible.

    “when Barack Obama won the presidency, a soviet flag was raise in front of the white house(there is a picture of it)…the head of the communist party actually said that the new goverment was the closest its being to their ideals….”

    If you mean this literally then please provide a link to the picture of the soviet flag in front of the White House. Also please provide me a link to the quote from the head of the communist party. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you’ve been deceived, but if you can’t back up either of these claims then I would appreciate an apology to the readers. Absent providing the facts and/or an apology, the the record will simply show you to be a liar. Which is it?

  100. We have this via Mark Thoma of Economist’s View:

    “Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard said Thursday that banks deemed “too big to fail” should be split up. “We do not need these companies to be as big as they are,” Bullard said. His remarks come a week after J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. disclosed a $2 billion trading loss. “We should say we want smaller institutions so that they can safely fail if they need to fail,” he said…”

    It seems to me that if one really believed in free market principles one would demand that banks be of a size that would allow them to fail without placing the entire rest of the country in jeopardy.

    To those who claim that free market principles require that banks be allowed to grow to any size, and then allowed to fail without regard to the consequences, I ask this: since when do free market principles require a suicide pact? Exactly how do free market principles lead to the conclusion that we let anyone make decisions that can destroy the life savings, the livelihood, the homes, the safety and security of all the rest of us?

  101. Mike,

    I’ll even help Adrian with his English skills.

    hoise \ˈhȯiz\, v., v.t.,
    transitive verb
    — hoist with one’s own petard or hoist by one’s own petard
    : victimized or hurt by one’s own scheme

  102. The Indian Wars and Elizabeth Warren’s Problem
    By Charles P. Pierce
    May 21, 2012

    This really does seem to be one of those cases in which romantic family myth overtook cold genealogical fact, even though I have yet to meet anyone from Oklahoma who didn’t claim some sort of Native American ancestry. It is not all that dissimilar to what happened to Marco Rubio when it was revealed that his parents hadn’t fled Cuba to escape Castro, the more romantic alternative, but were merely perfectly acceptable economic refugees. I have no doubt that Rubio heard the folks talking about fleeing Castro. I have no doubt that Warren heard her folks talking about their Native American ancestors. I have no doubt that both of them believed every word of what they’ve heard.

    There are differences, of course. The first is that Rubio made the fact that his parents were political exiles an important part of his campaign biography while, as near as anyone can tell, the only thing Warren did herself as regarding her alleged Native American background was to mention it from time to time, and contribute a recipe to a Cherokee cookbook. The other difference is that Rubio’s barbered background never became a “scandal” because the infrastructure is not there to make it one. That is not the case with Warren, and there’s more than a little evidence that her campaign is just now coming to realize what’s going on.

    She has not handled it well. She doesn’t seem to recognize the power that trivial nonsense can have in our politics. Last Thursday, in an interview with Chris Matthews, who was persistent, but not in any way hostile, she kept trying to pivot back to the “real issues” in such an ungainly way that she looked not only like a rookie, but also like someone trying to kill mosquitoes with a baseball bat. The other thing she and her campaign doesn’t seem to understand is that this is not a story about a fudged resume. This is a story about affirmative action. Red Like Me. Or Squaw Lady.

    The Herald — and the people on whose behalf the newspaper is pursuing its “scandal” — has been very clever in implying that Warren somehow benefitted personally from her having been listed as a minority at the various places at which she has worked. (Douthat does a good job in illustrating that, whatever advantages those institutions may have gained by listing Warren as a minority hire, she never referred to herself that way and, therefore, gained no advantages thereby.) To the readership that the Herald has carefully cultivated in the nearly 30 years since it was sold to an Australian tits-and-bum merchant who later developed a lucrative second career as a phone-hacker, “affirmative action” is a big red flashing light meaning that the brown people — or, in this case, the red people — are coming to steal all your money and take all your jobs, for which they are obviously not qualified:

    “No kidding, my uncle was on a road crew in Middlesex County, and he got laid off ’cause they had to hire one of them.”

    In making affirmative action a barely buried subtext in this story, the people pushing it have found a way to devalue Warren’s impeccable academic record while, at the same time, sowing doubts about both her “character” and her abilities as a political candidate. Everybody who reads the Herald knows what an “affirmative action hire” means, nudge-nudge, wink-wink. It does no good for Warren to reply that she just wants to get back to “the real issues,” just as it does no good for her to point out that she is as much a Cherokee as Scott ($840K a year) Brown is a suburban Daddy with a truck and a barn coat. There is something grim and nasty at work here that she cannot be too nice to see. And there is something grim and nasty at work here that local Democrats ought to recognize before they start sniping at her, and something national Democrats ought to recognize as a force to be defeated. Yeah, right.

    And, just for the record, my own family myth has us tied to Padraic Pearse, the decent poet who made such a terrible general during the Easter Rising in 1916. (Let’s take over a huge building in the center of a major city with no lines of communication, no supply lines, and no possible path of retreat! Victory is ours!) I have absolutely no proof of this except what my grandmother, the former shepherd from north Kerry, once said to me about it. “Wisha,” she said, “and didn’t we all sleep in the same town hall?” I still don’t know entirely what that meant, but it’s why I never ran for office. There’s a scandal in there somewhere, for sure.

  103. The Numbers in Massachusetts Don’t Lie
    By Charles P. Pierce
    May 24, 2012

    The problem with serving people a big nothingburger day after day is that, sooner or later, they get hungry and wonder why there’s only a blob of ketchup there on the plate in front of them.

    Coverage of the Senate race here in the Commonwealth (God save it!) between prospective Democratic nominee Elizabeth Warren and Republican incumbent Scott Brown has been dominated in recent weeks by an absurd “controversy” regarding whether or not Warren is 1/32nd Cherokee, as her family legend apparently had it, and as the various institutions at which she has been employed have touted. This thing was primarily kept aloft by the Boston Herald, my plucky little alma mater which last week actually ran a story pondering the terrible fix the Democrats were in because of this “scandal.” Bang on that tin drum, kids. Blow that bugle ’til you drop.

    Thanks to the good folks at Suffolk University, we learn now that the whole silly business is, at best, a sideshow and, at worst, a distraction from what’s really going on. In a poll released late Wednesday, we learn what we all knew — that the race is virtually a tie, as it always has been, and that this is going to be a whopper of an election right down to November. Brown leads Warren by a point, 48-47. Incumbents do not like to be under 50 percent and, while the election has closed since a February poll that showed Warren leading by nine, which contained a significant bounce because she was still fairly new, there were 11 percent undecided in that poll, and Warren has picked up enough of them to hold Brown under 50, a barrier he’s yet to crack in a head-to-head poll against her, and guarantee a super-PAC armageddon throughout the summer.

    Now, as to the Last Indian War, 72 percent of the people polled had heard something about the “controversy,” which is hardly a surprise. (The people unaware of it are primarily people in the far western part of the state who are outside the Boston media markets.) There’s good news for Warren in that 49 percent of the people aware of the story think she’s telling the truth about it, even though her public response has been a little incoherent. Better for her is the fact that 69 percent of the people polled think it’s not a “significant” story. This means that better than two-thirds of the people polled have the analytical skills of a handball. You laugh, but this is not always the case.

  104. Seems her response is to lie, dodge the question, and pander….just another politician who thinks you are stupid.

Comments are closed.