No one expresses feigned outrage quite as well as Elizabeth Warren.
Warren, who assumed a false Native American identity for employment purposes while climbing the law professor ladder and explained it away by playing on ethnic stereotypes of Indians having high cheekbones, is upset.
Scott Brown said he suspected that some of the people in Warren’s ads justifying her representation of big insurance in asbestos litigation may be paid actors.
Brown has apologized for the speculation, but that does not satisfy the fake Indian, who is OUTRAGED and UPSET:
Republican Sen. Scott Brown is apologizing for suggesting Democratic rival Elizabeth Warren used paid actors in political ads defending her legal work in an asbestos lawsuit.
The Taunton Daily Gazette reported that Brown was asked how Warren got family members of asbestos victims to appear in her ads.
“A lot of them are paid,” Brown said during the event. “We hear that maybe they pay actors. Listen, you can get surrogates and go out and say your thing. We have regular people in our commercials. No one is paid. They are regular folks that reach out to us and say she is full of it.”
Warren immediately condemned the remarks.
“Scott Brown calling asbestos victims who have lost loved ones paid actors is a new low. Shameful,” Warren tweeted.
New low?
I’ll tell you what a”new low” looks like:
Someone who grossly exaggerated or made up supposed Cherokee family lore when caught during a Senate campaign having misrepresented herself to the law school community and the federal government as a minority and woman of color in order to give herself a hiring advantage knowing full well she was not entitled to that status, and who played upon negative stereotypes of Indians as having high cheekbones and Pow Wow Chows when confronted, all the while refusing to meet with or apologize to real Indians who wanted to meet with her to explain why her ethnic fraud was offensive.
Add in a history of representing big corporations for megabucks while preaching otherwise while practicing law without a license in the state in which she maintained her office, while living a lavish lifestyle she concealed from the electorate all the while demonizing people for what she did herself, and you have the real new low.
There’s a term for such a person, assuming the current polling is accurate and holds up: “The new Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Sort of like Voltaire, I support the right of the people of any state to choose the most representative person to reflect their values.
And my right to have nothing to do with that state…and let them twist in the wind when they get what they asked for…long and hard.
Three thoughts, Rags, partly political and partly personal:
1. First, she’s running for senator, not governor. If she wins—which is not a sure thing—, you’re gonna get her whether you like it or not. Your pain, my (relative) gain.
Moreover, she’s being touted for President.
2. Unfortunately my finances are way too fragile for me to clear out of MA and head to a more conservative part of the country.
3. Even if things work out and I leave, it will be with mixed feelings. I live in an oasis of the traditional sturdy New England spirit. I value the people I live among in Central MA; it’s the ones to the east and west that I can’t stand.
For what it’s worth, I’ve lived in Ontario, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and North Carolina, and in every place I found good people filled that edifying ‘esprit de paramètres régionaux’. Well, except for Ohio.
1. Yes. I know. And I will do what I can to defeat her. At the end of the day, the voters of Mass. will decide the issue, however.
2. Sorry.
3. There are good people everywhere. Even a lot of what I would consider really crappy voters are capable of learning, and I DO believe they should be allowed to do that. I constantly say here our prime job (after making ourselves good, informed voters) is one of educating those around us. New England used to be renowned for good, hard-headed thinking. Scotland used to generate great ideas and wonderful craftsman. “Used to” is the operative term.
With the wealth of known material Brown has on Warren to base an attack, for him to choose an area of speculation seems pretty stupid. That he’s apologizing at this point in the race is a bad sign. What’s going on? She’s a liar and an ethnic fraud, all of which is substantiated, but he’s speculating about paid actors in an ad? I thought this guy was a pro.
Scott Brown is not a pro, he’s a guy with a pick-up truck. Apparently the Republican Party thought this would be good enough to hold a Senate seat in uber-liberal Massachusetts.
And, the Republican Party also thought it would be a good idea to nominate a former governor of uber-liberal Massachusetts to pretend to be a conservative and be their nominee for President.
What a mess!!
““Scott Brown calling asbestos victims who have lost loved ones paid actors is a new low. Shameful,” Warren tweeted.”
That’s not exactly a denial, is it?
BTW, where exactly HAS she been admitted to the bar? And when? I actually am an attorney in Mass., and bar creds are NOT hard to get hold of, they’re nothing like official copies of birth certificates.
So are they paid actors or not? Has she denied it? Perhaps it all depends on the meaning of “actor”.
From the Boston Globe:
Three of the people in the ads said in statements provided by the Warren campaign that they were neither paid nor actors. They said they had lost loved ones to asbestos-related illness and that Brown’s accusations were offensive.
John F. English said in a statement that he moved in with his father during the final stages of his life, before he died of mesothelioma. “Let Scott Brown tell me to my face that I am nothing but a ‘paid actor,’ and I’ll set him straight on what it was like to watch my father suffocate to death,” English said.
Penitence! Penitence! This situation calls for penitence! So, over the next week, each day Scott Brown is to amend his ways by:
1) upon awakening, listen to a recording of “Hiawatha’s Melody Of Love”
2) listen to three (3) hours of Warren’s campaign speeches, lectures, or interviews
3) be interviewed by an impartial person, e.g. Whoopi Goldberg, Rachel Maddow, etc. to explain himself
4) listen to three (3) hours of Warren’s campaign speeches, lectures, or interviews
5) before retiring for the day, listen to a recording of “Hiawatha’s Melody Of Love”
If after a week, he doesn’t have his mind “right”, repeat the above until he does.
Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo, Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo
When I’m calling you
Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo, Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo
Will you answer too?
Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo, Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo
That means I offer my life to you to be my own
If you refuse me I will be blue, waiting all alone
But if when you hear my love call ringing clear
Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo, Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo
And I hear your answering echo so dear
Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo, Oo-Oo-Oo-Oo
Then I will know our love will become true
You’ll belong to me and I’ll belong to you
Then I will know our love will become true
You’ll belong to me and I’ll belong to you
Non-lawyer here. When Warren self-identified as Native American, she had no tribal recognition nor could she document NA heritage. Can’t she be prosecuted for this? No one is talking about this possibility -is the silence a reflection of Massachusetts politics or is this supposed fraud simply not actionable?
Prosecuted? On what grounds? Since when is it against the law to lie?
When you check off a certain box on employment or government forms, and make attestation as to the veracity thereof. Then “lying” becomes “perjury.” Note to laymen — you do NOT have to be in a courtroom in the witness box under oath to be liable for perjury.
Also, lying in order to procure material gain can be a felony called “larceny by trick,” commonly known as “swindling” or “conning.”
Checking off EEOC boxes to get better jobs and preferential treatment is plausibly both, and I sincerely hope Dances-With-Truth gives us a good test case.
we know who the actor is.
Well, at least she hasn’t driven an intern home drunk and run her car off a bridge and gone back to her hotel to concoct a story of why she left the intern to die.
So, for Massachusetts, that’s an improvement.
Damn, that’s cold Jakee308, but then MARY JO’s body has been cold for decades. Too true.
I also like the thought of “why do business with MASS” if the people keep electing frauds and crooks? Why indeed?
In the end , can anyone say they are suprised at all this?
surprise. Kno spelchek.
Don’t forget the polls in the Special Election, seems like a replay to me. The Globe had Cloakly up 14% in the weeks before the vote. My guess is the race will tighten because polling organizations don’t want to look like the tools they are in the end.
The thing is, Mitt Romney’s gain could be Scott Brown’s loss. MA Democrats may vote for one Republican, just maybe – but they won’t vote for two.
Then again, perhaps the pollsters are getting the numbers wrong the way they did in 2010. Who knows? I am not in Massachusetts right now, so I can’t really say. I can’t pick up on the zeitgeist.
The question many liberal and middle-of-the-road MA voters are asking themselves right now is: do I want a Republican president and a Democratic senate, or a Democratic president and a Republican senate?
Well, which is it?
Romney has gained about six points in MA since the first debate. I believe he will do better than that.
I don’t know what else Scott Brown can do at this point.
ANOTHER VISIT TO THE MIND OF AN MA VOTER
This time I talked with a guy I know. highly educated and very successful. “wicked” scmah-t. liberal, but really not overly so.
Me: why don’t you like Brown.
Guy: He seemed really eager to go to war.
Me: Really? He did?
Guy: Yeah when he first got there [to US Sen] he was all eager to go to war.
Me: Well Obama kept us at War too
Guy: yeah, but Obama really made an effort to end the war and fight it the right way with drones [Me: wtf?]
Me: what about Warren and the Indian stuff
Guy: I heard all about that. BIG deal
Me: What? [and I explain the be-an-Indian-for-a day-get-into-Harvard thing]
Guy: No one every said she did that on purpose. I think Harvard claimed her as a minority without telling her. [Me: wtf?]
Me: (sigh)
The Blue State mind is immovable and as illogical as it is passionate for the status quo
Go Scott.
Well, I don’t blame her for being mad. It makes getting elected really hard if your opponent is allowed to point out your negatives. It’s all in Warren’s book, “Hate Speech And The Theory Of Relativity”, which demonstrates how anything Brown says that makes her feel bad is hate speech, with the right of judgment borne by Warren as the subject and receiver of said speech. It was real scholarly, all sciency and stuff, like her work on economics.
1. It makes getting elected really hard if your opponent is allowed to point out your negatives.
True. It’s also hard to fight for The People if you’re held back by that construct of slave-owning white males, i.e. checks and balances. That’s why, when Warren created the “consumer protection” organization she expected to head, she embedded it as an independent agency within an independent agency.
2. After Bill’s post appeared, I composed an extended comment—and deleted it. I want to stay on the proper side of the boundary between realism and defeatism. (Besides, that deleted comment is seared, seared into my memory for use if Brown blows it.)
3. This thing isn’t over yet.
Pooooooooooooooor Elizabeth…So much time after her election loss to whine, weep, rend her pricey clothing. I just LOVE the sound of self-pitying Libs in the morning.
Why is it acceptable for Warren to cry foul when Senator Scott Brown suggests people were paid to speak for her, yet Obama and his minions accuse the coal miners in Belmont County of being paid to be in Romney’s ad, and there is no outrage from Warren nor the Democrat party?
Yet another whiney double standard.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/18/wv-coal-miners-blast-obama-over-digs-at-romney/
As a former moonbat, I still receive e-mails from an environmental magazine. The latest included remarks about several political races around the country, including the Mass Senate race. Elizabeth Warren, they say, will eliminate tax subsidies for big oil and will uphold the Clean Air and Water Acts. On the other hand, according to them, Scott Brown has voted “repeatedly” to subsidize big oil, gut laws protecting the environment and to cut renewable energy funding.
I wish he would run an ad showing the biggest, most polluting smokestack that SWEPCO has and label it “This Was Lizzie Warren’s client when she was practicing law without a license.”