Via The Boston Globe, Scott Brown has launched his first ad regarding Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be Native American:
The 30-second spot, called “Who knows?” features television reporters talking about Warren “identifying herself as Native American to employers. …Something genealogists said they have zero evidence of.”
At the conclusion, a reporter asks Warren: “Is there anything else that’s going to come out about you that we don’t already know?”
The Democrat laughs in response. “You know, I don’t think so, but who knows.”
The ad comes after Brown, the Republican incumbent, has criticized Warren for taking a negative tone in the campaign. The ad bears some risk because Brown has built his popularity as a politician who is above destructive politics.
Although polls do not appear to show the controversy has had a defining effect on the race, the Brown campaign believes there are signs within surveys that show voters will be turned off to Warren if they learn more about the issue.
What do you think? It’s hard to get it all out in 30 seconds, there is so much wrong with her defenses.
But at least the issue is out there and not going away.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Perhaps he ought to make another one. It would be about the law license situation and conclude with the same question (“Is there anything else that’s going to come out about you that we don’t already know?”), though there ought to be a particular emphasis on “else”.
They are starting to panic over at Democratic Underground!
Some lawyer at DU is speculating she was admitted pro hac vice (by permission of the court), but I think courts are reluctant to grant that if you seek it in a state you are living. While they might have given Warren a pass on a public pro bono case, raking in over $200K for Travelers against some asbestos victims does not seem like the sort of case the court would have done that on.
Great work PJ!
Any motion for pro hac vice, and any grant by a court, would be part of the public record of the case in question.
Wow. That little clip of Warren at the end was really, really unfortunate.
There is something very angry about her demeanor there, and really quite pathological, the way she goes from that fake laugh to that anger.
It boggles the mind [if the polls on this are correct] that most voters think this is a non-issue. When mini-Napoleonic Governor Urkel stated “we don’t care” about this issue, he may have been accurately describing public sentiment.
Such is the current state of political affairs in the US.
Professor Jacobson has just given us the answer to Warren’s “Who knows?”
She was practicing law in Massachusetts without a law license.
It would certainly persuade me not to vote for her. But I would not vote for her anyway.
Who knows indeed.
If it is true, why, then, is it a negative ad?
Who knows? Maybe her daughter’s pediatrician will come forward and assert that Elizabeth did NOT in fact nurse her future Brown/Wharton child during the New Jersey Bar Exam or otherwise. Maybe he’d be willing to put in Affidavit form how much he tried to convince Elizabeth that nursing could make her child “smarter” but that she responded that she wasn’t worried about any academic edge since checking off (1/64?) Native American was all the edge her family and she needed.
MA is one of the few places I know where people will still get together after work and talk politics over beers. It’s also, IMHO, more sophisticated politically than most states.
So my guess is that everyone there is perfectly aware of the Cherokee issue. That insulates Brown from the charge of ‘going negative.’
Brown might be trying to sway the few undecideds left, as these will traditionally break for the challenger. If he can lock down enough of the squishy middle then he should be fine on election day.
What this speaks to is CHARACTER.
All too often the liberal mindset is, Do as I say, not as I do. Phrased in Leone-speak, Laws are for the little people, not me.
What does it say about our would-be leaders when they see the laws, made by the people themselves via their reps, as objects to be avoided, not obeyed.
Gaming the AA system of spoils, claiming fake Indian status, shoddy scholarship in her so-declared areas of “expertise,” preaching to us from on high while being well-ensconced in the !% in income and net worth, flaunting the law as this story demonstrates.
AND THIS PERSON BELIEVES HERSELF DESERVING OF A SEAT IN THE SENATE !!!
Go at it indirectly. I have always been put off most by her hypocrasy in claiming another peoples heritage. There is the iconic poster of an Indian looking at you with a tear in his eye while the landscape behind is full of garbage. Have an appropriate similar image with the Cherokee Lady’s with the heading “She wont even meet with us about our Stolen Heritage.” . . Hlt the Mass. Libs where it hurts.
I remember that commercial! And I found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ozVMxzNAA
I think this would appeal to the baby boomers.
Yes, that “Crying Indian” ad would be perfect —- because the “Indian” in it, purportedly named Iron Eyes Cody, was actually an American of Sicilian descent, with not a drop of Indian blood in him.
“Cody was born as Espera Oscar de Corti in Kaplan, Louisiana, a second son of Antonio de Corti and his wife, Francesca Salpietra, immigrants from Sicily.”
—Wikipedia
I do not think it is a negative campaign ad, it is simply a calling-to-attention a major discrepancy in Warren’s story.
Needs to be followed up with another advert discussing LI/Bill Jacobson’s most excellent work on Warren and her lack-of-law license.
Then the two adverts need to be conflated into a third advert which legitimately goes to the question of her ethics and morals.
Again, none of this is negative, it just “is” –and I think we can all agree what the definition of “is” is in Warren’s case.
She’s not really a Cherokee, she’s not really a Massachusetts lawyer… what are we going to find out next, she’s not really a woman?