Tomasky writes: "So now Elizabeth Warren has to prove that she's 1/32nd Cherokee? The temperature on the story is rising."
Democratic candidate for the US Senate Elizabeth Warren speaks to reporters during a news conference, 05/02/12. (photo: Steven Senne/AP)
The Elizabeth Warren Witch Hunt
29 May 12
The press is obsessed with Elizabeth Warren's Cherokee heritage. Too bad it's the biggest media-manufactured story since the Lewinsky scandal nearly brought down a president.
o now Elizabeth Warren has to prove that she's 1/32nd Cherokee? The temperature on the story is rising. There was a huge article in the Boston Globe on Friday written to raise a number of questions and suggest that Warren used the minority designation to get her job, or get ahead - exactly at the same time that a poll was released (PDF) showing that 69 percent of Bay State voters don't consider her heritage to be a "significant" story. It reminds me of nothing so much as Monica Lewinsky, and of the media's need sometimes to get a grip.
Why Lewinsky? The situations are in fact almost precisely the same. You had then a press pack that had decided that whether Bill Clinton was telling the truth about Monica was a question on which the fate of the republic hinged. The press became self-righteously consumed with its search for The Truth. Meanwhile, outside the Beltway, and outside of Wingnuttia (it existed then, just at about half of its current GDP), nobody cared what the truth was. The media kept producing revelations; surely, now, swore Maureen Dowd and Michael Kelly, America will see this man for the reprobate he is! America looked, yawned, told the press to start acting like grownups, and continued to approve of the job Clinton was doing as president at rates near 70 percent and to oppose impeachment at similar levels.
The appearance Thursday morning of this Suffolk University poll (linked to above) made me think: Well, this story line is about to wrap up. If more than two-thirds of voters don't care, then that's that. But no - still going strong! And now it's not the loopy, right-wing, and pro-Brown Herald, which pushed the story first, but the Globe trying to play catch up. Yes, yes, it's all in the public interest. What, you say, the public says it isn't interested? Well, we'll teach them what's in their interest!
This is close to embarrassing. True, Warren's story is a little cheesy. No let's back up even further. It's hard to see why someone who is 1/32nd anything can be called that thing. But those are the Cherokees' rules, and the United States of America for all moral and legal purposes accepts them as the rules. As you may have read when this story broke, the current head of the Cherokee nation, Bill John Baker, is also just 1/32nd Cherokee. He is also, by appearance, completely white. You could mistake him for a Tea-Party Congressman.
So if Warren's mother told her there was Cherokee blood, and if one little rivulet of Cherokee blood going back generations makes one a Cherokee, which legally it does, then she's Cherokee, at least as far she knows. Now she has to prove this? You have to go back five generations to get to 1/32nd. It's entirely possible that such a thing can't even be proven.
As it happens, I just recently underwent a slightly jarring heritage-related experience myself. I grew up being told I was Serbian on my father's side. Croatians, naturally, were the fiendish enemy, second only to the Turks. But lo and behold, said my uncle at a dinner last year, it seems that my father's father, who died before my bouncing arrival on the orb, might have been Croatian. Historically speaking, I'd guess I'd rather be a Serb, although Milosevic's service to mankind has rendered that a far closer call than it would have been before he hit the scene. At the end of the day, I don't care much one way or the other. But my point is: Proving it? I wouldn't have the slightest idea where to start.
What does this matter anyway? It's a "character" issue? Oh please. Elizabeth Warren's character is pretty well established. She was the daughter of an Oklahoma janitor, for God's sakes, who started working as a pre-teenager when her father had a heart attack. She has children and grandchildren and has taught Sunday school. She's served on a number of prestigious boards. She got her law degree from Rutgers - a very good school, but the outpost of someone scratching her way up the mountain on her own, without legacy or connections.
She became a professor at Harvard Law. No one doubts that she earned that, whether as a Cherokee or a whitey or anything else. She is one of America's leading experts in her field. She chaired congressional oversight of TARP. She came up with the idea for a new agency, the most important consumer-protection agency created in this country in decades (note: she first espoused this idea in the journal I edit, but she did so before I worked there, so I don't really know her; I interviewed her once, last year). She has simultaneously fended off Tim Geithner, who hated her diligence on the TARP question, and Republicans, who went banshee about her precisely because she was effective and unassailable. They never laid a glove on her (and boy, they tried). If doing all that after growing up poor in the Dust Bowl doesn't convey character about someone, then nothing does.
The people of Massachusetts have perspective on this. (As does Boston Mayor Tom Menino, who hasn't endorsed Warren but who stated on Friday that the issue is "not relevant at all" to the campaign. Right.) She may or may not win. The poll had her and Scott Brown tied. It's hard to beat an incumbent, and Brown has positioned himself pretty shrewdly. She'll have to swim through this muck largely under her own steam. She will have to, as they say, "put this behind her." I'll grant that this is a character issue to the extent that she has to have the character to put this in its proper context and change the story in the crucible of a hard-fought race. That's within the rules of politics, and they certainly apply to her no less than to anyone, and she hasn't managed to do that at all so far.
But this is a media story as much as it's a Warren story. We're sticklers about getting the little things right in our business. But the big things - how important Lewinsky was, whether George Bush's case for war in Iraq was honest - we (well, not me) almost always get wrong. Count it among the many lessons in life that will never be learned.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
GO ELIZABETH!!!
I don't know whether or not (warning: irony alert) the good folks in the genealogy archives in Salt Lake City would be of any help in researching this or if they would be completely objective in reporting their findings.
When they think they might EVEN have something, they run it to the ground.
ONLY that they should be as diligent about cutting Defense Spending and No Taxes On Freeloading Rich People!
No matter what they try to make of this, it's not going to change the fact that Elizabeth Warren is a winner and We the People LOVE HER!!!
I'm hoping she will be our first female president and this is scaring the sox off the Right-wing misogynists. Good!
It's their turn to be afraid, be very afraid, because she is a woman who stands up for We the People instead of the Koch brothers and creepy Scott Walker. (And they have the nerve to accuse the Left of turning a blind eye...)
Go Elizabeth Go!!!
They can't run on facts and good ideas so they toss manure against the wall hoping some silly issue sticks.
Move on people and ignore the idiots!
Apparently, according to a headline I read in the Herald, Brown is whining that she should just drop the claim. So, ask yourself; what is your heritage? Irish, Italian, Catholic, Native American, Eskimo, Jewish, Polish, German, Arab, Semite, Indian, Asian, Chinese. See how they cross? See how most of us can claim multiple heritages? Now, look in your wallet, or your safe deposit box. Can you document each and every group that an ancestor may have belonged to?
Most of us cannot. The only concern here would be if she used her claim to Native American heritage in a fraudulent manner. Does every job applicant that checks off a minority box have to produce documentation?
Then why the heck does Elizabeth Warren?
The only fraud in this race that is likely to be between Warren and Scott Brown is Scott Brown. Elizabeth Warren is a special candidate, the type that rarely comes along, and to see a fake like Scott Brown get good ole boy pats on the back from the MA political establishment ezxplains all I need to know about why the Globe is feeding this story.
It is like Monty Python's dead parrot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
Republican mantra: When you can't win - Wag the Dog.
R E M E M B E R T H I S A more important point: Warren is NOT supporting your wishes regarding health care. Look carefully at what your wishes are ...
http://www.mforall.org/p/Massachusetts
A quarter of a million of you (two-thirds of those voting) documented by your answers to the health care ballot question in 2008 and 2010.
REMEMBER THIS: Vote for Marisa DeFranco if you want support for the people on health care.
- Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate
I am an alternate to the Dem convention and if I go I would vote for DeFranco just to get her on the ballot. She represents new blood, Progressive blood and as a Progressive I believe it is critical to make sure the Democrats in MA know that she is the direction we want to go in.
If you follow the politics here in MA, the establishment Dems in the state are buddying up to Brown, it is disgusting. These are the same idiots that thought that Martha Coakley was Senatorial material because she is a woman. The MA political establishment in MA are actually Republican Lite. These are the same fools that believed that Shannon O'Brien would beat Mitt Romney and ignored to the point of derision the candidacy of Robert Reich. How has picking establishment women worked out?
So, now we have women 2 candidates for Senator that represent the Progressive wing, and DeFranco is probably more Progressive. Look to the future, she could run against Kerry or for Governor. Elect Warren, but don't discard the change in candidates we need.
Another reason to support DeFranco getting on the Primary Ballot, is the misdirection that the Rightie radio talkers are blabbing about Warren being hand-picked. A decent showing by DeFranco will be ammunition to quiet that lie.
I was not trying to convince you to change your vote.
Much of the legislative leadership, which in MA is overwhelmingly Democratic are not speaking out in support of either woman. In the meantime they manage to cultivate every photo op they can to be seen with the Hollow Man. Listen to the talkers on RKO denigrate Warren. They have ridden this Cherokee non-issue tirelessly, speak of Warren as a hand picked candidate, an out of touch college pinhead, and whatever other misrepresentati ons pops into their hedz (sic).
It is a good thing to have a dynamic election process, it is a very good thing to have more than one excellent candidate. Why do we have to decide on the candidate so far in advance?
Understand I am not opposed to Elizabeth Warren, I just don't believe that uncontested elections are good for the electorate, the candidates, and in the case of primaries the party.
If I go I will be with the Salem delegation, drop by and say hi.
Warren is more or less a single issue candidate. I have full confidence that once in office she will grow into more Progressive positions in areas other than financial Regulation. I do plan to vote for for DeFranco at the convention, if I am able to vote and unless the race is tight will vote for her in September. But that is a deposit on the future, the opportunity to elect a person such as Elizabeth Warren is rare, and I cannot let it pass by.
"...the current head of the Cherokee nation, Bill John Baker, is also just 1/32nd Cherokee. He is also, by appearance, completely white. You could mistake him for a Tea-Party Congressman."
If the head of the Cherokee Nation is 1/32 Cherokee, just like Prof. Warren, then she could be the head of the Cherokee Nation as well as a Senator. That would be real kool!
The Swift Boat gang is next going to demand that the Pope prove that he is Catholic. This would be an interesting exercise, and might prove that the Pope, if we go back enough generations, like maybe to the year 1 BC, is really Jewish. Now wouldn't that be a kick in the head, and ultra kool as well.
Also, a long form copy of documentation of a bear having defecated in a wooded area.
Hey Boston Globe, Elizabeth Warren deserves better than this! Are you a professional newspaper or a rag magazine?
The Republicans just don't quit, because so many Americans obviously remain gullible and eager to accept any ounce of negative charges involving ethnicity and race and to jump on any bandwagon that they think allows them to disqualify a candidate based on racial leanings.
She blew the whistle on Alan Greenspan and on the gangster banksters and their subprime, derivatives, hedge fund capers. She was roundly attacked by culpable Members of Congress, and by other sleaze balls.
If you want a champion of the people in office vote for Warren. If you believe you deserve more battering vote for someone else.
Prof. Warren, do you still beat your husband?
Question from Sen. S. Brown:
Prof. Warren, did you use your 1/32 Cherokee heritage to advance your career?
Answer: Those are rhetorical questions. They do not warrant an answer.
Dictionary Definition: Rhetorical Question:a question asked only for the rhetorical effect, no answer being expected.
Or is this just part of her family's mythology?
Go Elizabeth!!
Well?
(1)-The term "mainstream media" is a Big Lie. The honest (and therefore proper) term is "Ruling Class Media" -- which acknowledges both the reality of class warfare and how the RCM functions as the One Percent's propaganda machine, part of the apparatus that ensures We the Slaves remain in total subjugation here in the United States.
(2)-The fact the overtly fascist "Herald" and the far more subtly fascist "Globe" have united against Ms. Warren is as vivid a demonstration of Ruling Class solidarity as I have seen since...well, the effectively unanimous votes by which Congress abolished the Bill of Rights. In either case the lesson is the same: when the One Percent senses a threat to its authority, it always speaks and acts with one voice.
Whether Ms. Warren wins or loses -- and given the forces arrayed against her, she'll almost certainly lose -- the pivotal question remains: when are we in the 99 Percent going to evolve our own solidarity?
Were that to happen, Ms. Warren would triumph.
At least her loss will be another teachable moment, again proving the worthlessness of traditional liberalism as resistance to fascist tyranny. But how many more such lessons must we endure?
Sadly you speak truth.
Kind thoughts.
RSS feed for comments to this post