Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Elizabeth Warren: “I’m not backing off from my family” on Cherokee claim

    Elizabeth Warren: “I’m not backing off from my family” on Cherokee claim

    Elizabeth Warren is standing by her claim of Cherokee heritage even though there is no evidence to back up that claim, and plenty of evidence that it is not true.

    On Morning Joe this morning she refused to back down even an inch.  She also mocked the Boston Herald, which has discovered many of the facts showing that Warren has not been truthful in her story.

    Scarborough dumbed down and mischaracterized Warren’s Cherokee scandal as being about “applications to law schools.”

    Here are some of Warren’s statements:

    “I think that people, actually most people were never very interested in it.  We got the fact out there very early on it.   This is how I grew up Joe, this is my family, I’m not backing off from my family…. The Boston Herald is The Boston Herald, what can I say … It has its own point of view and it’s going to drive its own point of view…

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    1. Palin’s and Warren’s manners of speaking are similar (though Palin’s voice is higher). Both drop g’s and stress vowels. Not surprising since they were both born in the West.

    But the MSM derides Palin and worships Warren. I guess the incandescence of Warren’s intellect blinds the MSM to her accent. What else could the reason be? 😉

    2. I applaud how Bill, Anne, and others are exposing Warren’s character. Bravo. Keep it up.

    But I caution, again, that character is a secondary issue to MA voters. So what if I’m a warped dishonest creep? I’ll be a warped dishonest creep on your behalf. During modern times the electorate of “enlightened” Massachusetts has repeatedly and routinely bought this line.

    3. In a squeaker MA election, Warren should get the benefit of the doubt, for reasons both legitimate and illegitimate. And it’s supposedly a rule of thumb that voters who haven’t decided by Election Day usually break against the incumbent.

    4. My point is not to deprecate the exposure of Warren’s character. On the contrary, I hope that a lot more evidence comes out. However, I’ve used the term necessary but insufficient. For the race to tilt decisively against Warren, MA independent voters must be persuaded that Warren will make them worse off if she gets into the Senate. The point, I suppose, is to discredit Warren’s professed noble intentions by exposing what the actual effects of her policies will be.


       
       0 
       
       0
      deadrody in reply to gs. | June 14, 2012 at 8:47 pm

      3. In a squeaker MA election, Warren should get the benefit of the doubt, for reasons both legitimate and illegitimate. And it’s supposedly a rule of thumb that voters who haven’t decided by Election Day usually break against the incumbent.

      Not true at all. The exact OPPOSITE is usually true. On election day, about 2/3 of undecideds break FOR the incumbent.


         
         0 
         
         0
        gs in reply to deadrody. | June 14, 2012 at 9:49 pm

        1. I used the term “supposedly a rule of thumb” to indicate that the result is not ironclad.

        2. I googled before posting my recollection of conventional wisdom, and found hyperlinks consistent with my impression. Here is one.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Henry Hawkins | June 14, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    I blame Warren for her lies, but do not blame her for sticking by them. Once she was outed for falsifying her heritage she had two choices, (1)cop to the lie, try to explain it, and suffer the consequences, or (b) quadruple down on her lies and damn the torpedoes. I’d say the latter is minutely more survivable than the latter, but either option was likely to cost her the election.

    -Warren is from Oklahoma
    -Oklahoma was settled to a large degree by northern
    Europeans
    -Northern Europeans are known for high cheekbones (too)
    -Warren’s physical features are textbook northern European
    -Hence, Warren is… Cherokee?


       
       0 
       
       0
      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 14, 2012 at 11:26 pm

      I’m not sure where you get your demographics, but Oklahoma was settled by a lot of folks that had missed out on the cheap or free land elsewhere. This included a former sharecroppers from down south, poor people, especially from Missouri and Tennessee, freed slaves, mixed-blooded people called ‘half-breed’ elsewhere and a lot of people generally down on their luck.

      My own grandfather crossed the Red River with his dirt-poor family in the winter of 1895-96 at the age of 4 to become one of the real Sooners, eventually settling in a dug-out house on unclaimed ground near what became Healdon.

      During all my time in Oklahoma, I’ve never noticed a significant number of Swedes, Finns, ‘Weegies or Danes. The Germans, mostly in south Oklahoma, migrated up from Texas. I’d suggest that Oklahoma is probably much more of a melting pot than any other state in the west.

      I’d also suggest that Ms. Warren’s high cheekbones could be Irish, Nordic or maybe even Indian. It’s irrelevant. Cheekbones don’t mean diddly-squat to Indian ancestry. If they did, I’d at least be gettin’ me some ‘a that Casino money somewhere! 😉

      “Elizabeth Warren! I’ve known Indians all my life and you madam, are no Indian!”


     
     0 
     
     0
    Icepilot | June 15, 2012 at 12:19 am

    Political slogan for Elizabeth Warren:

    “Feelings, not facts”


     
     0 
     
     0
    Cassie | June 15, 2012 at 7:30 am

    This might annoy Massachusetts voters:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/elizabeth-warren-once-a-republican/

    “It turns out that Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Senate candidate who has a special knack for agitating Republicans, used to be one of them.

    “I was a Republican, because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore,” said Elizabeth Warren in an interview with The Daily Beast.”

    Apparently Warren was a registered Republican well into her 40s. Funny how that doesn’t get mentioned…that she was a Republican for almost 30 years.

    She is 62 now, so does that mean that she was a Republican until she moved to Massachusetts for the Harvard job?


       
       0 
       
       0
      s_dog in reply to Cassie. | June 15, 2012 at 7:50 am

      Funny how that doesn’t get mentioned…that she was a Republican for almost 30 years

      Unless someone can confirm that via voter rolls, I’m notsomuch inclined to believe it. She’s lied about so much else, why not this too?

      Maybe she’s trying her hand at being a ‘concern troll’.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend