|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 4, 2015 18:48:10 GMT -5
Here's the key quote from the snopes article:
But specific evidence that she gained her position at Harvard (at least in part) through her claims to Native American heritage is lacking.
So this statement: There is documented evidence that she claimed to be Native American to get scholarships for college (or to get accepted, one or the other) ...is certainly not true. I remember Scott Brown trying to make a big deal of it. I kinda felt sorry for him. ... it's clear she did something that was intended to attempt to profit (career wise) from being in a group she's not in, but the extent is certainly not clear. Almost three years have passed and the GOP smear machine still hasn't come up with any proof that Warren ever tried to exploit her ethnicity (real or otherwise) so, no, it's not clear she was up to something.
I would also like to point out that no one has ever proved that she doesn't have any Cherokee ancestry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 4, 2015 18:50:41 GMT -5
That reminds me of my wife's favorite line about the modern republicans... I've no idea if someone famous came up with it or it was a meme or whatever: Republicans want to shrink government down so it fits into the bedroom. The GOP wants smaller government. Except when they don't want smaller government. |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on May 4, 2015 19:05:04 GMT -5
The way I see it, we've had an idealist who has had no idea how to oppose a lock-step opposition party. I think Obama's approach to immigration and terrorism has felt conservative, but not the rest. Oh no, Obama has a way to oppose the Republicans. Have you looked up how many executive orders he has signed? Or the EPA basically introducing regulations by executive fiat? He's basically doing everything he can to end-around Congress. I looked up how many executive orders Obama has signed. It's 206. Does that sound like a lot? Well, it's not. A couple of recent Presidents (Ford and Bush, Sr.) have signed fewer executive orders that Obama, but that's because they served fewer years in office. If you calculate executive orders per annum, Obama has actually signed the fewest executive orders of any president since Grover Cleveland. That's "there were only 38 states when I was first elected President" Grover Cleveland. (Source: www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php)And regulations by their nature are executive branch functions. Legislation leaves it to the executive branch to promulgate regulations on the certain matters. Of course, depending who's President, different people dispute how power to regulate was delegated to executive branch agencies in a particular situations. Basically, the playbook was set up before Obama was even inaugurated. The goal posts would be moved to portray whatever position Obama espouses as radical, extreme left. Positions that were considered mainstream Republican in 2006 or 2007 suddenly became far left when Obama, in an effort at compromise, adopted them. Both an insurance marketplace with individual mandate (RomneyCare to ObamaCare) and cap-and-trade were considered the Republican market-based alternatives to Democratic policies. In the pre-Obama era arch-conservative Senator Jim DeMint described RomneyCare as a template that should be followed nationally. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 4, 2015 19:07:21 GMT -5
I take back what I said about feeling kinda sorry for Scott Brown. I forgot about this:
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on May 4, 2015 19:14:32 GMT -5
And a couple of other things, one from fivethirtyeight and one from the Boston Globe:  I had no idea that Christie was playing that poorly with the average American (assuming the data is reliable). Don't get me wrong -- as a public educator, I'm relieved. I'm just also surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 20:36:39 GMT -5
I think a better question is, who else is there? Most prominent Democrats out there are just not viable. I've already opined on Elizabeth Warren... maybe Sanders will come towards the center enough to gain traction, but I'm not sure I see that. It would be pretty fun to have a super polar opposite campaign... say, Sanders Vs. Cruz... that would be very fun to watch  I think a relatively unknown will win the nomination. It's what happened in 2008. I mean, people in Illinois and Hawaii probably already knew who Obama was, but I can't say I had ever heard of the guy until about 2007. I definitely didn't see him getting the nomination early on in the primaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 20:38:05 GMT -5
Do you have a source for the claim that Warren actually got a scholarship by claiming to be Native American? The way I remember it is that the GOP made a big deal out of a past incident where she claimed to be part Cherokee (because she's the only person in America who ever repeated some less-than-reliable family history ... or something) but it was pretty quickly forgotten because it was very trivial and there was absolutely no evidence that she ever tried to use it for advancement. I don't, but I remember hearing it on NPR, which I consider a reliable source. A quick google search shows claims that she reported it as such on her College and Law School application... but it's a right-wing news site, so that's not exactly proof. She also re-iterates it in her book (according to that same site)... that would be easy enough to check if you were so inclined. Here's a highly critical article of her from US News and World Report... It's been years since I noticed anything from them, so I'm not sure what their political leaning are (though my vague recollection would be their right-center). They have links to a whole lot of other stuff... it's a long, conprehensive article.... you can judge for yourself its accuracy. Snopes confirms that she called herself a 'minority law teacher' when she was at UPenn, and received an award as such, but they couldn't find any evidence she actually used that to get a job. I think the fact she has refused to make her law school application to Harvard public, so that certainly implies there's something on it she doesn't want the public to know, though what, obviously, one can only speculate. Seems like if she admits to it in a book then there's no reason to hide it. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 4, 2015 20:46:19 GMT -5
Almost three years have passed and the GOP smear machine still hasn't come up with any proof that Warren ever tried to exploit her ethnicity (real or otherwise) so, no, it's not clear she was up to something.
I would also like to point out that no one has ever proved that she doesn't have any Cherokee ancestry.
There's not reason for them to try until she runs for something else, really. If they did have something, wouldn't they save it until she became a national figure? |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 4, 2015 20:48:38 GMT -5
I think a relatively unknown will win the nomination. It's what happened in 2008. I mean, people in Illinois and Hawaii probably already knew who Obama was, but I can't say I had ever heard of the guy until about 2007. I definitely didn't see him getting the nomination early on in the primaries. Obama made that crazy popular speech at the convetntion to GET known...what was that... '06? I hope you're right (because whoever that is is probably better than Hillary), but I'm not sure that'll work again.. I think whoever does get the nomination is going to have to try to avoid comparisions as much as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 4, 2015 21:37:51 GMT -5
Almost three years have passed and the GOP smear machine still hasn't come up with any proof that Warren ever tried to exploit her ethnicity (real or otherwise) so, no, it's not clear she was up to something.
I would also like to point out that no one has ever proved that she doesn't have any Cherokee ancestry.
There's not reason for them to try until she runs for something else, really. If they did have something, wouldn't they save it until she became a national figure? They were trying to smear her in 2012. Why wouldn't they have used it then? The way they went about didn't have any traction because it was so trivial, and Scott Brown lost.
I'm pretty sure that if anybody had anything concrete aside from innuendo and rumor-mongering, they would have used it then. After all, Brown thought it was important enough to create a Web site about Warren claiming she was an Indian. He ran attack ads saying she couldn't be trusted over this issue. He thought it was important.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 4, 2015 21:54:55 GMT -5
It was a pretty dark day in Mass politics, that's for sure
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 1:38:07 GMT -5
I think a relatively unknown will win the nomination. It's what happened in 2008. I mean, people in Illinois and Hawaii probably already knew who Obama was, but I can't say I had ever heard of the guy until about 2007. I definitely didn't see him getting the nomination early on in the primaries. Obama made that crazy popular speech at the convetntion to GET known...what was that... '06? I hope you're right (because whoever that is is probably better than Hillary), but I'm not sure that'll work again.. I think whoever does get the nomination is going to have to try to avoid comparisions as much as possible. Was that his announcement? I knew who he was since that day. It was BIG news that a black guy with a middle eastern name was running for president, and had a decent shot in the primaries. So I followed early. And I did root for him early on, but without optimism, same as I root for Sanders now. I just hope Sanders can prove me wrong like Obama did. But long term, I am definitely more optimistic, and I say if the Democrats lose the election, 2024 will have a left wing supermajority and a true Socialist president. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on May 5, 2015 8:05:57 GMT -5
I would just like to point out that three decades ago was smack in the middle of the Reagan years. While Republicans have deified him over the years, I personally thought then, and think moreso now, that he was a lousy president. Yup.
I'm reading now about the Reagan campaign's dealing with the Iran government so they would hang on to the hostages for a while during the 1980 election.
Reagan: We do not negotiate with terrorists!
Reagan insiders: *snicker*
And the Reagan worshippers would like to point out that it was a complete coincidence that the hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981, the day that Reagan was sworn into office. No connection there at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 5, 2015 12:08:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 5, 2015 12:59:29 GMT -5
Ben Carson has officially announced his candidacy.Expect many more comparisons of Obamacare and slavery. And intellectual discussions of how the U.S. is just like Nazi Germany. And things like that. |
|
