Image 01 Image 03

Hello-Hello Scott Brown, a/k/a The Elizabeth Warren Accountability Project

Hello-Hello Scott Brown, a/k/a The Elizabeth Warren Accountability Project

Will Elizabeth Warren escape accountability for telling what at best were tall tales and at worst lies about her Cherokee heritage?

Will Warren get away with using her mystical heritage strategically to advance her career in a crafty way which provided her with (im)plausible deniability?

Will the use and abuse of the Cherokee tragedy go rewarded?

The big headline is that a new poll shows a virtual dead heat in the Massachusetts Senate race, which the Boston Globe is portraying as the end of Warren’s Cherokee problem, Elizabeth Warren pulls even with Scott Brown in new poll:

Elizabeth Warren, emerging from what many consider the roughest patch yet in her Senate campaign, has pulled into a virtual tie with US Senator Scott Brown, according to a new Suffolk University/7News poll.

Warren, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has the support of 47 percent of likely voters in Massachusetts, compared to 48 percent for Brown, a dead heat in a poll with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

That is a significant shift from the last Suffolk poll in February when Warren, a consumer advocate and Harvard Law School professor, trailed Brown, a Wrentham Republican, 49 percent to 40 percent.

Just 5 percent of voters were undecided in the current poll, down from 9 percent in February, leaving both campaigns to fight over a sliver of the electorate….

The poll indicated that although 73 percent of likely voters were aware of the controversy surrounding Warren’s heritage, 69 percent said it was not a significant story.

Forty-nine percent said they believe Warren is telling the truth about being part Native American, compared to 28 percent who said they believe she is not being honest and 23 percent who said they were not sure.

Meanwhile, 45 percent said they believe Warren did not benefit by listing herself as ­Native American in a law school directory, while 41 percent said she had benefited.

The controversy could flare again in the fall but, for now, voters do not appear to be punishing Warren for it, said Suffolk’s pollster, David Paleologos.

The New York Times spins the headline in a similar manner:  Voters Shrug at Revelations of Ethnic Claim in Senate Race.

Is she going to get away with it, refusing to talk in public about her gaming of the system while building her campaign around holding others accountable for gaming the system?

Will she be able to keep complaining about factory owners who supposedly take advantage of others while she built her career and persona on taking advantage of the Cherokee?

I said Bye-Bye Brown a year ago yesterday because of frustration with his voting record and public statements.  None of those substantive points has changed.

Yet there’s something about Massachusetts Senate races which keeps drawing me back in.

I wasn’t going to make this race part of Operation Counterweight.  But I can’t help it.  We need to keep this seat to take the Senate, and we need to keep an unrepentant system gamer out of the Senate.

I’m back in until Scott Brown wins, or Elizabeth Warren fesses up, whichever comes sooner.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


LukeHandCool | May 24, 2012 at 12:53 pm

If you can’t beat the Indians, join ’em.

I think that as a peaceful statement of mass protest, every teenager from a GOP family applying to college should check the Native American minority box and list him/herself as 1/32 Native American. How would the schools cope if all the kids did it?

Can’t we all just be Indians, and get along?

    persecutor in reply to LukeHandCool. | May 24, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    Well, if you’re born here in the 57 States, you are native American, so I’d check the box with pride!

    When asked from what tribe, I’d say “American” and leave it at that.

    Anchovy in reply to LukeHandCool. | May 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Actually they should check “Hispanic” if they are from any of the areas with a high Hispanic population. Hispanic is not based on race or language (many “Hispanics” can’t speak Spanish). It is an ethnicity. People of any race can be Hispanic (see former President Fujimori of Peru). So if you were raised or live in a place like Corpus Christi, Sacramento, LA or any of the other areas with a significant Latino influence, claim that ethnicity.

Cassandra Lite | May 24, 2012 at 1:02 pm

What do you expect from the people who saw fit to re-elect Teddy K a zillion times? Barely a year after Chappaquiddick, more than 60 percent of them didn’t care a whit about MJ Kopechne. Compared to a dead girl, a Harvard elitist’s phony heritage amounts to nada.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Cassandra Lite. | May 24, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    You ol’ moralizing fuddy duddy.

    Even Ted Kennedy’s friends are on record saying that Ted loved to joke about Chappaquiddick.

    Ted could see the humor in the whole episode. Can’t you?

    Oh, forget it. Maybe you had to be there to get it … next to a desperately gasping Ms. Kopechne as her lungs filled with muddy water. Ha ha.

    persecutor in reply to Cassandra Lite. | May 24, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    If it happened in a Red State, someone would say it’s in the water and the EPA would declare the entire State a Superfund site.

“The poll indicated that although 73 percent of likely voters were aware of the controversy surrounding Warren’s heritage, 69 percent said it was not a significant story.”

Sick. A sick culture, a sick media.

However my guess is that most people haven’t tracked the story in all its wormy involutions, but rather have only read the laundered versions in the MSM, which couch Warren’s lies as innocent good-faith claims based on childhood stories. And the media’s corrections of its own gross misrepresentations have been muted and misrepresentative in themselves.

To provide cover and damage control for leftists is why the media exists. They know this, and take pride in it.

    Ragspierre in reply to raven. | May 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    “Who do you trust to tell the truth?”

    Brown 37%
    Warren 40%

    (Face palm…)

    I consign these people to their fate.

I’d be REAL interested in the internals of that poll, Prof.

I couldn’t find them linked in either of your citations.

Also, there is this…

“Is she going to get away with it, refusing to talk in public about her gaming of the system while building her campaign around holding others accountable for gaming the system?”

Exactly! I think this is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for a majority of our society. It seems to me that an attitude persists which is along the lines of “don’t hold me accountable and I won’t hold you accountable.” So, it’s not surprising that 69% of those polled said Warren’s Cherokee problem “was not a significant story.”

It’s good to have you back, professor. I am reminded of the famous line, “Every time I try to get out, they keep pullin’ me back in!”

We do need to pull this one out too. And don’t forget, “Leave the gun, take the cannoli…”

stevewhitemd | May 24, 2012 at 1:20 pm

The real concern from a tactical, political standpoint is that this came out in April and May, and not September and October.

By October this is old news. Fatigue sets in. “Yeah, yeah, we heard that six months ago.” And so on.

Which is why if I were a Brown campaign operative, my question today would be a simple one: “she lied about her heritage. What else did she lie about?”

THAT would be my October surprise. If I were a campaign operative.

    Ragspierre in reply to stevewhitemd. | May 24, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    The Prof. promised us further shoes dropping.

    Hope springs eternal…

      PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | May 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm

      Rags, it’s Massachusetts. They would elect a ham sandwich if it were liberal enough. Made by a Cherokee, of course.

    ManekiNeko in reply to stevewhitemd. | May 24, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    “What else did she lie about?” This was why I previously suggested having someone with the appropriate credentials and experience vet her academic work for accuracy and authenticity.

I don’t know about everyone else, but the poll seems pretty good to me for Brown. Here is the poll and results:

One thing that stands out is that 58% have a favorable opinion of Scott Brown (43% for Warren) while the vote question is the close 48% Brown vs. 47% Warren. That seems weird but then we get to another question about whether the vote is for or against. 92% of the Brown votes are a “for” vote for Brown while only 77% of the Warren votes are a “for” vote. Remember this is a HUGE Democrat state.

While this is a poll of likely voters, there is definitely a bigger enthusiasm for votes “for” Brown and since Democrats will likely be less enthusiastic because of Obama, the poll actually looks good for Brown.

The left continually uses a technique known as ‘the big lie,’ a propaganda technique created by Adolph Hitler, when he wrote his book Mein Kampf. Hitler mused about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Being most old news outlets are completely corrupt, they will not challenge the lie. But enough of our citizens are waking up to it. Sadly, there remain many who willfully allow themselves to be spoon fed ‘news,’ and they will continue to robotically believe what the left wants them to.

For a satirical take on this:

The best technique is to keep laughing at her — it’s the words worst thing that can happen to a politician. She set herself up for a good mocking, and there sure is a lot of material going ’round.

I cautioned some of you about this. It’s really not a good issue. Republicans salivate over this kind of stuff but residents of the state routinely elect liars.

If I’m Scott Brown’s campaign, I would refocus back on the issues. I would, however, use it in a funny way as a contrast to how Brown does things.

    casualobserver in reply to PhillyGuy. | May 24, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    It isn’t that MA elects liars as much as many of the independents or “unenrolled”, registered voters are really Dems who don’t want to go full progressive. So, they are willing (desperate?) to pass over all but the most incriminating and damning items. Since Warren has come out and sheepishly announced it was family lore, in so many words, the hopeful believers consider it a resolved matter. The tide (polls) shifted as a result. Any more aggressive action by Brown’s camp runs a big risk by allowing the national media as well as the local Dems to leverage it as bullying. After all, many of those hopeful independents want to believe the anti-woman mantras.

Nobody gamed the system more than Teddy Kennedy of the Chappaquiddick Tribe, somehow with evolving Catholic faith died with media driven legacy of doing God’s work in the Senate.. err , architect of socialist healthcare and unapologetic abortion advocate.

Midwest Rhino | May 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm

Too bad we can’t float a similar story about a conservative, and see how fast it gets picked up by mass media. Then reveal it was a hoax after major media made it headlines.

Of course if there was a real story like that, it would be given hours of headline news coverage. Only Democrats get to lay false claim to minority rights. Bill Clinton laid claim to being the first black president, but most people knew he was joking. heh

I don’t think this issue is going to sway this election one iota.

I don’t fault the Professor staying on it like a Browndog on the scent of pheasant, but I cannot muster any interest personally-which is why I haven’t commented lately, and probably shouldn’t have now.

I am of the opinion that this election is similar to that of the Walker recall:

#Occupy/unionist/democrat machine VS everyone else.

I am also of the opinion that Warren’s forked tongue cannot be silenced, though her campaign and MSM will do their level best-

..and her campaign will implode, handing Brown the seat (Martha Coakley II).

    OcTEApi in reply to Browndog. | May 24, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    Its hard to muster interest because millions of Americans have felt and deal with on a daily basis the negative (point-shy) effects of decades old government instituted/supported affirmative action plans…

    …its like watching the government debt bomb, gov’t spending/credit limit debate etc. play out on the national stage.
    -no-biggy, what can ya do?

“The silver lining is that this might not yet be over. William Jacobson, who’s been in the lead on this story for weeks, hinted a few days ago that “There are other shoes to drop. I wish I could tell you more, but I can’t. It’s just a matter of when.” Stay tuned.”

Tip of the spear

The worst thing about the affair, particularly on Harvard and Penn’s part, is how it tarnishes what needed to be done. For why it needed to be done and how it was in the 50’s and 60’s at those institutions (and Princeton as well) see

    Milhouse in reply to luysii. | May 24, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    No, it did not “need” to be done. I don’t care how it was in the ’50s and ’60s; on the contrary, if they regretted their earlier racist policy, that was all the more reason not to have one any more. In the Bad Old Days they had a quota on Jewish students; did they later “atone” for that by unfairly advancing students who also happened to be Jewish? No, they didn’t, and nobody asked them to, nor should they have. If someone beat up some black people, should he “atone” for that by going out and beating up some white people to “balance” things?!

After having voted for Romney and Brown, I said I’d never support either again.

I changed my attitude toward Romney because defeating Obama is the priority. I haven’t changed my attitude toward Brown, at least not yet.

Tea Party enthusiasm was essential to Brown’s election, but he has completely ignored them once in office. It’s not surprising they’re ignoring him. Lotsa luck in November, RINO Genius.

NB: I’m expressing my attitude, not making a prediction. This race has a long way to go.

    casualobserver in reply to gs. | May 24, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Brown has cooled off to the Tea Party because it is nearly nonexistent in the state. There is a reasonable NH faction, but almost no local activity. Assuming you don’t live in the state, would you want any of your Senators to be reactive to a group who was active in MA but not your state?

The key is that most people – even in Massachusetts, apparently – don’t understand what institutional academia is like, or how people in that environment get hired.

People need to understand what she did.

Warren as a white woman: U. of Houston, Rutgers. Warren as a fake Cherokee princess: UPenn, and in short order, Harvard. (How many other Rugers Law graduates have been tenured at Harvard law School?).

Warren lied and sleazed her way into a tenured position at Harvard Law, and now she’s promoting herself as some finger-wagging do-gooder?!?!?!?

Give me a break.

    OcTEApi in reply to Cassie. | May 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    and whomever’s legitimate minority slot she took is just a bump in the socialist road to her success

    Ragspierre in reply to Cassie. | May 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    She’s also the self-proclaimed “thought mommy” of the OWS abomination.

    That…all by itself…SHOULD preclude her from serious consideration by anybody who thinks of themselves as “American”.

    But it is Massive-Two-Spits…

The poll numbers about Warren are interesting, but not surprising; party affiliations are extremely strong. It would be more interesting to know if Democrat voters would be willing to throw Warren overboard in favor of an apparently, similarly down-the-line Democrat such as Marisa DeFranco in their primary on September 6. None of the Democratic mouthpieces – not the Globe, not the NYT, not PBS, nor any others in the pack – will say anything to upset the chances of the anointed Warren from being upset in the primary, for fear of retaliation. That Massachusetts Democrats might have a viable, honest (as much as is known) alternative to the conniving Warren is information they’ll have to learn somewhere else, if at all, on their own. DeFranco’s biggest obstacle may well be her party’s apparatchiks, operatives, and sycophants.

That Scott Brown, Republican, must appeal to Massachusetts voters isn’t nearly as troubling as Bob “The-Carpetbagger” Kerry being able to run for the senate from Nebraska. The problem is that the system has become so corrupt that insiders can, and will, deprive voters access to viable alternatives to themselves. That Warren’s probably a two-bit liar and Kerry’s had nothing to do with Nebraska, 1,500 miles and as different as the dark side of the moon from where he’s lived for the past decade, are obstacles easily overcome by manipulation and strong arming.

Did Warren benefit at Harvard as a result of her minority status claim? Possibly, but if so it was quid pro quo for the benefit to the posturing institution’s being able to claim more diversity than was readily apparent, e.g., barely discernable high cheek bones on a blue eyed blonde and a cook(ed) book.

What did you expect? It’s Massachusetts, for crying out loud.

casualobserver | May 24, 2012 at 4:18 pm

What we all need to remember about this election is that MA is inseparably in the Obama reelection camp. So, any Dem, even Coakley perhaps if she ran again, has the upper hand by a good margin. In MA Brown will have to do more than simply discredit Warren’s ancestry claims. He MUST run on the issues. The Boston Herald and Internet outlets can carry the faux-Cherokee matter to its full ending. Brown needs to stay on the edges at best, lacking some serious smoking gun.

    casualobserver in reply to casualobserver. | May 24, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    As a follow up, Warren today just flipped it around by accusing Brown of attacking her family! After all, she believes she is part Cherokee because her mother and grandmother told her so. (Notice no reference to father or grandfather). Wait for the attack on women canard to travel through the liberal media complex with this new approach from her campaign. You are attacking every woman who was ever a part of her life!!!!!!!

I would not put too much faith in a poll done by an organization that leans strongly to the Left.
But, if Scott Brown does lose could it possibly be that he doesn’t offer voters much of a choice. You have a Liberal Democrat running against a Liberal Republican. This fails to excite conservatives and libertarians and even if you manage to split the true Independants you still lose. I would rather lose while fighting for Conservative principles, (You Might convert a few people that think), than to lose as a Moderate or Liberal Republican Squish trying to please everyone.
Has the Republican Party just given up on these strongly Blue States?

Bitterlyclinging | May 24, 2012 at 5:01 pm

Dick Morris is adamant that the undecided voters always go for the challenger rather than the incumbent so Scotty just better wrap it up, it was good while it lasted. The Massachussetts voters invariably prefer a liar, cheat, and a scammer versus one who would be opposed to anal fornication.
Maybe its something in the water up there, or in those funny irregularly shaped, non cylindrical cigarettes they occassionally smoke, or that funny white powder they put up their noses and act all wierd afterwards.

If you look at their voting history it seems abundantly clear that MA voters LIKE being lied to. They value the ability to tell the biggest and most unbelievable lie above all other traits in their politicians.

Warren’s problem is that she chose something small to lie about making her look like a small timer.

JackRussellTerrierist | May 25, 2012 at 6:15 am

MA is a deep blue state. Those people couldn’t care less about truth, integrity or ethics. I’ve said all along this is much ado about nothing, politically speaking. It isn’t going to matter. The MA voters don’t care.

[…] Suffolk poll gave rise to headlines that the false claim of Native American heritage was not hurting Warren.  […]