« prev   random   next »

0
0

The 2012 Senate Race in Mass


3,696 views  8 comments             share      

by mdovell     💰tip   follow   2012 May 30, 10:23pm  

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/?p1=News_links

This comes from the Boston Globe. Not exactly a right wing paper in Mass..if you want that read the Herald. The NY Times owns this paper and that isn't to the right either.

Warren is either lying or she's being very forgettable about what she is saying.

“At some point after I was hired by them, I . . . provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,’’ she said in a statement issued by her campaign. “My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I’m proud of it and I have been open about it.’’

Warren’s statement is her first acknowledgment that she identified herself as Native American to the Ivy League schools. While she has said she identified herself as a minority in a legal directory, she has carefully avoided any suggestion during the last month that she took further actions to promote her purported heritage."

OK so she said it but didn't press it

"When the issue first surfaced last month, Warren said she only learned Harvard was claiming her as a minority when she read it in the Boston Herald."

Um..so which is it. Did she list it or not?

"The official further said that Warren had been unable to answer questions about the issue before now because she had forgotten many of the details and had asked her campaign to thoroughly review the evidence. T"

If you work for a Ivy League school shouldn't you remember how you were hired?

"In a May 2 interview with the Globe, Warren suggested that she did not list her ethnicity on applications because she was personally recruited by the universities where she taught."

Again so which is it. Ok alright well she couldn't have possible listed herself as white to prior employers...right? If she is consistant about her background then this really shouldn't be an issue.

"Before Warren’s time in the Ivy League - in the early 1980s - she indicated on an official University of Texas form that she was white. She also had the option to indicate Native American heritage at that point, but did not check that box."

O sweet Lord. So she sudden decides she's part Native American when she works at a Ivy League school..how odd.

Well what does the school say about this?

"Professor Charles Fried, who sat on the committee that recruited Warren, reiterated to the Globe on Wednesday that he was unaware of Warren’s minority status when she was hired. He said that the committee never discussed it and that he does not consult the legal directory in which Warren had listed herself as a minority.

However, Fried acknowledged Wednesday to the Globe, it seemed strange that the issue of her heritage would not come up during the hiring process since she was recruited in the early 1990s, when the school was under intense pressure to diversify its faculty."

Could she have been pressured to change her background by Harvard? That isn't totally clear and besides there would be other professors by now with stories of such.

If this was the Boston Herald or the local Fox station it could be construed as a right wing attack. Once the Boston Globe picks up a story here it makes it non partisan.

It should be noted that this race unlike others in the country has a general agreement about negative ads.
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/20407-why-hasnt-the-brown-warren-pac-pact-caught-on.html

The convention in this weekend. If she doesn't identify as to why she changed how she identified herself then this just looks worse. Meanwhile she neglected that she hasn't actually won the primary yet. If these questions dog her over the summer and she loses the primary then mounting a independent campaign with only two months left will be next to impossible. She has been illustrating a pattern of behavior of not paying attention.

Brown has generally been airing ads about how he has been bipartisan and faces no real challenge in the primary. Warren hasn't sold her self specifically on what she has done to service the state. Browns record goes back decades. Once again the left puts someone up because they think she/he is "cool" instead of looking at a record with accomplishments.

1   mdovell   2012 May 31, 7:26am  

Perhaps but the Globe is tied to quite a bit of the Boston metro area. We don't have a whole ton of newspapers here. Boston now is gone, banner nearly died and phoenix is dying etc.

Although politically democrats outnumber republicans a majority of people are independent. Coupled with the decline in newspaper circulation and they were probably looking for something to get people to read...they did.

2   CL   2012 May 31, 8:04am  

I'm a white Latino. When I went to college there were few boxes to check, and the ones that I could check were often clearly marked, "WHITE, (non-Latino only).". When I asked what I should check, I either got an incredulous "you're not Brown" look or was told to check the "Latino" box.

Some were more clear, some were less. Point is, I never benefited a single iota by being a minority, but I have been discriminated against (both by Latinos and Caucasians).

And though I answered honestly under the confines of the questionnaires, my answers would have been deemed inconsistent.

Did I lie? Did I prosper?

I haven't seen you prove that she even benefited by her status?

You imply she did, with "If you work for a Ivy League school shouldn't you remember how you were hired? ". Do you have any reason to think she was given the job on anything but the merits?

3   rootvg   2012 May 31, 9:18am  

Cloud says

What is most amazing here is that the Globe is covering the story, not that a liberal is trading off tribalism and then lying about it.

Warren has been in trouble there almost since the beginning.

If a Democrat can't win back Teddy and Jack's old Senate seat in Massachusetts, something is seriously wrong. You KNOW it's gonna be a bad year.

4   mdovell   2012 Jun 2, 5:03am  

CL says

I haven't seen you prove that she even benefited by her status?

You imply she did, with "If you work for a Ivy League school shouldn't you remember how you were hired? ". Do you have any reason to think she was given the job on anything but the merits?

When someone is listed as the ONLY minority professor that certainly created a significant amount of attention. We're also talking about a great, great, great grandparent dating back over 100 years if not 130. How is that statistically relevant today? If every person that had something in the form of a minority going back that far brought it up we'd have tons of claims complicating the employment market dramatically.

Even native american groups are protesting her actions.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2012/0602/Cherokees-hammer-Elizabeth-Warren-on-ancestry-claim-ahead-of-Mass.-party-convention

"This week, Indian reporters say they were snubbed by Warren’s campaign as they sought clarification on why Ms. Warren was listed as a minority Native faculty by Harvard in the 1990s, even though she has no evidence to back that claim and apparently never sought out other Native Americans on campus."

So how can anyone call themselves a minority with no basis?

"Warren was listed in the early 1990s as a minority professor at Harvard University, but the only proof Warren has of her claim of 1/32nd Cherokee blood is family stories about high cheek bones that came from an ancestor. In order for Warren to be 1/32nd Indian, it means that the ancestor had to be a full-blooded Cherokee. But on May 15, the New England Historic Genealogical Society said the group “has no proof that Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent.”"

ok so if there is no evidence...

"But while Massachusetts voters are still mulling the smoldering controversy, it has frustrated, even angered, some Cherokees nationally. While familial associations and claims of Native ancestry are common, actual tribal membership entails making legitimate family links to government “rolls” that date back to the 19th century and taking part in tribal life. By all accounts, Warren didn’t participate in Native American activities in Cambridge, although she did contribute several recipes to a cookbook called “Pow Wow Chow.”

“Many Indians have asked why, if she wanted to meet people like her, didn’t she continue to list herself in these directories … attend Native functions at Harvard [or] … reach out to hundreds of Native faculty around the country,” writes Indian Country reporter Rob Capriccioso. “Warren has now also failed to connect with American Indians through the Native media – which is sounding alarm bells for Native journalists.”

So she didn't identify herself as native american but wrote a cook book based on it...then changed her mind a decade later. But this back and forth of that she didn't know or knew and then changed her mind shows that she cannot make up her mind.

All of the "um's" and "aaahs" every time she is on tv makes me think Reagan is back in office! Is it possible she might have Alzheimers? If she has trouble remembering things that happened even 15 years ago that is not a good sign.

Even other academics have stated this doesn't add up. Why list yourself as minority to a few schools and then take it back once you are at Harvard?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/elizabeth-warren-claims-listed-herself-as-minority-to-meet-people-but-story-doesnt-hold-up

It's not like there's no other good democrats out there. If Steven Lynch ran it would be a much more interesting race.

5   mdovell   2012 Jun 2, 8:52am  

Well this might be the straw that breaks the campaign here.

Even though Warren argued that she was for the middle class and worked for them apparently that didn't attach well to homes
http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061136010

She was a house flipper during the early to mid 1990's.

Now there's nothing wrong with flipping houses but there IS something wrong when you slam banks for usury when you do it yourself! It isn't normal to increase a price 56% in under two years let alone over 300% Heck why doesn't she run a show on the DiY network or HGTV if she was this good?

"Purchasing a foreclosed home at 2725 West Wilshire Boulevard from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for $61,000 in June 1993, then selling it in December 1994 for $95,000 — a 56 percent mark-up in just 18 months.

• Buying a house at 200 NW 16th St. for $30,000 in August 1993, then flipping it for $145,000 — a 383 percent gain after just five months.

• Lending one of her brothers money at 9.5 percent interest to buy a home at 1425 Classen Drive for $35,000 in August 2000. He sold the place three months later for $38,500 — a 10 percent gain in 75 days.

• Providing her brother with financing to buy a $25,000 house at 4301 NW 16th St. in 1994. He sold the property four years later for $42,000, a 68 percent increase.

• Giving her sister-in-law a mortgage in 1996 to buy a $31,000 home at 2621 NW 13th St. Three years later, the sister-in-law sold the place for $45,000 — a 45 percent boost in three years.

• Providing her brother with a loan in 1997 to buy 901 NW 22nd St. for $90,000. He sold it some two years later for $106,000 — an 18 percent increase.

• Giving her brother a mortgage to buy 3836 NW 12th St. in 1997 for $26,000. Nine years later, he unloaded the home for $45,000 — a 73 percent jump."

6   rdm   2012 Jun 3, 4:13am  

mdovell says

Now there's nothing wrong with flipping houses but there IS something wrong when you slam banks for usury when you do it yourself!

You might want to look up the meaning of the word usury it involves charging high, unconscionable interest rates i.e credit cards, payday loans etc. something she has opposed, it does not involve high profits on speculative investments by individuals.

7   bob2356   2012 Jun 3, 6:26am  

mdovell says

Now there's nothing wrong with flipping houses but there IS something wrong when you slam banks for usury when you do it yourself! It isn't normal to increase a price 56% in under two years let alone over 300% Heck why doesn't she run a show on the DiY network or HGTV if she was this good?

Why is the numbers for the NET increase in value is missing? How much was put into a house to increase it 300% in value? For all we know she could have lost money on the deal, although I doubt it.

How the heck is loaning at 9.5% usury. That was pretty close to the going rate in the 80's. You don't have a clue what usury means.

8   thomas.wong1986   2012 Jun 3, 6:49am  

mdovell says

Now there's nothing wrong with flipping houses but there IS something wrong when you slam banks for usury when you do it yourself! It isn't normal to increase a price 56% in under two years let alone over 300% Heck why doesn't she run a show on the DiY network or HGTV if she was this good?

Ironic isnt it! Yea.. slamming the banks, but it still feels many believe that 20-50% appreciation is the norm.

Please register to comment:

about   best comments   contact   latest images   one year ago   suggestions