As trivial as the Obama-eats-dogs and composite-girlfriend memes might seem, they actually speak to a deeper issue. At the Telegraph, Tim Stanley argues:
What stands out from the composite story isn’t that Obama amalgamated characters, it’s that the press hadn’t noticed until now. As with the dog story, this confirms the suspicion that the mainstream media gave Obama a free pass in 2008 and declined to check too deeply into his background. Even The Atlantic’s [David] Graham admits that he’s never read Dreams From My Father, and neither, it would seem, has anyone else in the press corps. They have the excuse that the book is incredibly narcissistic and boring, but otherwise isn’t this exactly the sort of character assessment/assassination that should have happened four years ago? …
Elizabeth Warren and the Tragedy of Modern Liberalism.
Cold Fury has some choice words for Ogabe.
Off to work now, a bit late, beautiful spring day here and I have outdoor work today, am I not a lucky feller?
As I said before, the official Government data doesn’t add up.
The Dems will hype “everything” dealing with the economy to ensure an Obama reelection.
Well, there is no magical solution to turn a depression into revival.
Not with the hacks we have in government right now.
Zero chance the dems can sell an improving economy. The best hope they have is that the GOP super PACs forget about the true jobs picture (ref. underemployed, the huge number of people giving up on the jobs market.) It’ll get ugly there if Obama agrees to a debate.
Their best shot is to marginalize the tea party, and incite classism/racism (trying to attribute them to the GOP.)
The “tragedy” of modern liberalism? It is to weep.
“Warren’s alleged use of affirmative action, if true, ”
Not true, but the writer builds his case on it anyway. Spare me.
So what is the difference between his ‘if true’ and your ‘not true’? Can you think of any other plausible explanation? With such a bizarre thing people are going to speculate.
Harvard won’t identify the lone Native American on their faculty:
What sense does it make to have a diverse faculty if you can’t tell who the diversity hires are? It boggles the mind. Harvard could have a lily-white faculty and claim they were more diverse than the American population.
The other side of this spectrum is how utterly miserable humanity, enlightened humanity, is that needs a “diversity” hiring clause in the first place. Bah. We haven’t learned a thing.
The difference? She never used affirmative action, nor did any university that hired her.
You like well-educated and bootstrap people, right? If she were a Republican, you’d be singing her praises. She’s self-made, damned smart and aggressive.
This Native American flap distracts from a couple of important pieces of Scott Brown’s current bio: he’s a wealthy man pretending to be a regular Joe wearing a farmer’s jacket and driving a pick-up. Also, he voted against the health care act, but he’s using its coverage for his twentyish daughter.
Both candidates promised to lay off personal attacks. Brown, running scared, has encouraged looking into her past. Well, it ain’t beanbag. She’s tough and should prevail.
Prof William Jacobson.
Scott Johnson and more Prof William Jacobson.
“…suggestions she tried to game the system…”
What system was she gaming? I can’t figure out what she gained by the claim.
I can fathom why Harvard listed her (anything to appear other than all-white male), but what did she gain? She hasn’t played the Native American card in her campaign. She’s not done any Cherokee dances. This is just a breeze in the teepee.
The real issue in this campaign is whether Massachusetts voters want a tough Democratic senator dedicated to cleaning up the financial industry or a Republican senator who votes party line in D.C. and hedges his bets in Massachusetts. Brown’s on a tightwire here, too often required to please a Democratic or independent constituency.
As usual, Bob’s doctrinaire leaps are amusing, but nowhere near as funny as Fauxcahontas.
What system was she gaming? I can’t figure out what she gained by the claim.
She got hired, Bob. Highly competitive position at a time when Harvard was being criticized for its lack of minorities.
You figure it out.
She got hired on her merits, Lig, you know that.
If she were a Republican, you’d be singing her praises.
Please don’t me whose praises I will sing, Bob. It’s childish. “Why didn’t you like Bush? He was born into power and privilege just like those democrats you like!”
Warren was born into power and privilege. Her father was a janitor.
Was Obama born into power and privilege? Joe Biden?
Nancy Pelosi? Come on, Terry.
Obama, Biden, Pelosi, if they weren’t born with the proverbial silver spoon it makes a good case for power and privilege, no?
Meantime Mark Steyn puts all this stupidity where it belongs, in a comedy routine.
“…if they weren’t born with the proverbial silver spoon it makes a good case for power and privilege, no?”
Well, yeah, I guess, if you work in a pretzel bakery.
Pelosi’s family, incidentally, acquired a mite of power: mayor of Baltimore and a Maryland congressman. Speaker is the highest office a woman has held in the U.S., so she’s accomplished a good deal more than many of us.
Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Reid, ghastly people all.
The voice of experience in academia, Victor Davis Hanson, writes about the “Cherokee” con use to advantage a student’s progress.
It makes the Harvard/Warren use all too normal.
Oh, hell, let’s just apply the one-drop rule to Elizabeth and call her a squaw.
If you think she got hired by Texas, Penn, and Harvard because of her ancestry,
I’ll sell you a wired genealogy guaranteed to get you into any of the above universities: only $10K if you act now.
Scott Brown is stoking this distraction because she’s not yet won the Democratic primary, but is already a formidable candidate.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/brown-calls-on-warren-to-release-law-school-records/?nl=afternoonupdate&emc=edit_au_20120508
Next thing you know, Brown will be calling for her birth certificate.
In the interests of setting the record straight, see Cherokee Liz’s Shoddy Scholarship.
Formidable candidate indeed.
it’s interesting how mostly, only somewhat oddball or shady folks seem to be going into politics. too bad. we all suffer when that happens.
From the article: “First the research. Claiming to be an “authority” on bankruptcy law, Warren has written papers and books wildly inflating the role medical bills play in personal bankruptcies.”
I read about this a few years ago, on Megan McCardle’s economic blog at the Atlantic:
Now, it is possible that this is true. The fact that it seems to disagree with every other study I’ve ever read that is not authored by Elizabeth Warren, and also, the self-reports of the people in her study (only about a third of whom attribute their bankruptcy to a health problem) could just be a fluke. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18826/
When I ran across McCardle’s article I searched the web for a bit, looking for liberal responses to the criticism of the Warren study. I couldn’t find any.
Recall that the Warren-designed CPFB now has control of virtually all consumer lending the United States.
The chief of the Cherokee Nation is 1/32 Cherokee, same as Warren.
http://www.cherokee.org/OurGovernment/Executive/PrincipalChiefsOffice/24811/Information.aspx