None of the Democrats running for their party’s 2020 presidential nomination are without some serious defect. Kamala Harris has thrown in the towel after never being able to overcome having her corrupt record as a prosecutor exposed by Tulsi Gabbard. Rep. Gabbard has offered the least insane platform positions, and that’s a serious defect for attracting votes from the Democrat base. Mayor Pete’s gayness is intersectionally insufficient with many minority voters. Fauxcahontas comes off as a scold who reminds too many voters of their mothers-in-law. Bernie Sanders’ campaign is based on envy and has nothing positive to offer. And Joe Biden is Joe Biden.
So who will be the next to drop out?
Ed Morrissey has a post over at Hot Air suggesting that Warren is next. He takes note of polling that shows Warren’s appeal declining. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows her at 9 percent.
The nine percent result includes independents likely to vote in a Democratic primary, and that’s where Warren’s biggest trouble lies. Among those independents, Warren only scored 3% — which puts her behind Biden (12%), Buttigieg (6%), Sanders (5%), and even Michael Bloomberg (4%). Warren’s tied with Andrew Yang among Democrat-voting independents. Among only Democrats, Warren comes in third at 13%, but that’s thirteen points below Joe Biden.
Warren also scores third overall as a second choice candidate, but fourth among independents. Who comes in third? Bloomberg. Warren appears to have a major problem with independent voters, and that’s going to be a yuuuuge problem if she ends up winning the nomination.
Behind Bloomberg? The guy who wants to outlaw Big Gulps?
I noted yesterday that Elizabeth Warren appears to be among the people served with document preservation demand letters by a lawyer representing the Sandman Family of Covington, Kentucky. It looks like a defamation lawsuit is in the works.
IANAL, and I’m not familiar with the Kentucky Rules of Evidence, but I can imagine that if Warren were sued and tried to testify in her own defense, the plaintiff’s counsel would try to impeach her credibility by showing the jury that she has a documented history of playing fast and loose with the Truth. For example, he might seek to introduce this—
For the past couple of days, the Interwebz have been echoing with pointage, laughery, and mockification of how Elizabeth Warren’s DNA testing undermined her claim of American Indian ancestry. When the math was done correctly, it turns out that she’s “whiter than Ivory Soap” as one meme put it.
All that laughter aside, John Hinderacker has pointed out how Warren’s continued claim of Indian ancestry in the face of contradictory evidence can benefit society. He writes at PowerLine—
Here’s the point: Warren’s defense of her claim to being Native American is good for America. Because if Warren is an Indian, then so are most of the rest of us. And most of us are also African-American or Hispanic. If everyone is an Indian, then no one is an Indian. This logic is fatal to the whole corrupt affirmative action enterprise.
Why does the edifice of racial categorization and discrimination persist in spite of its obvious irrationality and unfairness? Because many billions of dollars turn on it. And, perhaps equally important, it provides endless opportunities for virtue signaling. After all, if the Democrats didn’t have race, what would they have? That question is, no doubt, frightening to them.
So let’s all appreciate Elizabeth Warren’s contribution to the demolition of America’s corrupt affirmative action regime. It is long past time that we stopped classifying each other by race and bestowing benefits on that basis. Warren’s message is liberating: we are pretty much all Indians, or Hispanics, or African-Americans now. So let’s move on.
It’s interesting how facts keep tripping up the claims made by the alleged “Party of Science.”
While Senator Elizabeth Warren was speaking in opposition to Senator Jeff Sessions’ nomination to be Attorney General, her remarks became sufficiently personal the Majority Leader McConnell interrupted on a point of order and asked that chair to rule on whether she was in violation of Senate Rule XIX which states:
No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
The chair ruled that she was, and she must now be silent in the chamber until the Sessions nomination has been voted on.
The footprint of Trump Derangement Disorder is expanding.
ABC News reports that Senator Elizabeth Warren will refer to Donald Trump as a “loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud” in a speech scheduled for this evening.
No spokesman for the Cherokee Nation was available for comment.
Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection considers the idea floating around the left side of the blogosphere that an Elizabeth Warren / Jim Webb ticket would be a good idea for the Democrats in 2016.
Fauxchahontas for POTUS? Psuedogewea 2016?
Smitty points out that Fauxcahontas could settle the matter of her ancestry with DNA testing.
That would allow settled Science to settle the debate.
Elizabeth Warren has demonstrated her faulty scholarship once again in her speech at the Democratics’ national convention. Apparently, her scholarship as a Sunday School teacher was no better than her legal scholarship. She cited Matthew 25 as teaching about God within us. No, Ms. Warren, that’s not what that text is about.
Matthew 25 is a part of Jesus’ teaching in Jerusalem in the days immediately before the Crucifixion. It deals with what most would call the Second Coming. It begins with the Parables of the 10 Virgins and and the Parable of the Talents. It concludes with the Separation of the Sheep from the Goats. It’s that last section that contains the passage Ms Warren quoted.
Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
Jesus teaches us in this passage to be involved with helping the folks who are in distress. There are those who believe that the government is the best avenue to deliver such help. I don’t in most cases, but it’s a plausible argument.
Still, the text doesn’t say what Ms. Warren tried to read into it.
Yesterday, a video of one of Elizabeth Warren’s supporters assaulting a videographer went viral on the Internet. Her campaign has tried to blow the whole thing off by saying that he was just a “cab driver.”
Of course, that doesn’t pass the smell test. Why would someone with no real connection to the campaign or the candidate rough up a cameraman?
Since you ask, I’ll tell you that Prof. Jacobson has been looking into it and has found a connection between the candidate and the cab driver.
But what is clear is that the Warren campaign deliberately sought to mislead the public about her connection to this cab driver. The Warren campaign made it seem like they called for a cab, this guy just happened to pick her up, and a fight just happened.
Now I know it stinks, just like the obfuscation and misleading statements regarding Warren’s supposed Cherokee ancestry and “family lore.”
Not only did Elizabeth Warren throw the Cherokees aside when she no longer needed them, she just threw her friend the cab driver under the bus.
Is it November yet?
Breitbart has an article reviewing the history of the controversy surrounding the quality of Elizabeth Warren’s scholarship and how that may have affected various hiring decisions during her academic career.
Harvard Law School and Elizabeth Warren have attempted to prop up her scholarship by pointing to “evidence” that it is stellar. But upon close examination, that “evidence” focuses not on the quality of her scholarship, but instead on the politically correct nature of her underlying message.
Elizabeth Warren will be the opening speaker at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night, followed by Bill Clinton. Ms. Warren has said that it’s an honor to share the stage with President Clinton.
The Vodkapundit comments:
Oh, it will be an honor, all right—like Spinal Tap opening for Led Zeppelin.
Now that’s just mean. Accurate, but mean.
UPDATE—David St. Hubbins notes, “It’s such a fine line between stupid and, uh … clever.”
There must be a special sale on liars this morning. Elizabeth Warren has lashed out at the “right wing extremist” who keeps challenging her on her now disproven claim of a Cherokee ancestor. That “extremist” is Prof. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection. Follow the link to find a summary of the latest developments including video of an interview with two of the Cherokee women who Ms. Warren is refusing to talk with.
Sorry Professor Warren, you created the problem and you own it. No one else.
You could have put this issue to rest early on, but you and you alone chose a campaign of deception and hiding, in the hope it would go away. Now you hope to distract from your own failings with yet another diversion. …
The truth will out.
And all the millions you pocket when you go to Hollywood or Wall Street cannot change that.
If I lived in Massachusetts, I would wonder whether why Ms. Warren won’t own up to the truth. None of the explanation that I can imagine reflect favorably on her and her qualification for public office.
Legal Insurrection reports that Fauxcahontas is unwilling to meet with Cherokee women who are offended by her bogus claim of tribal ancestry. However, Elizabeth Warren does have fundraisers scheduled for her birthday this week. It would seem that money is more important to her than mending fences with those she claims as kinfolk who have traveled a long way to meet with her.
Breitbart has a post detailing a review of a book cowritten by Elizabeth Warren that at least on reviewer felt violated academic and scientific research standards (H/T, Legal Insurrection).
In 1990, Philip Shuchman, a law professor at Rutgers, wrote a review of As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America, a book Ms. Warren co-authored with Teresa Sullivan and Jay Westbrook the year before.
Most of their study replicates several earlier research publications. These are hardly mentioned. The writers make extravagant and false claims to originality and priority of research. There appear to be serious errors in their use of statistical bases which result in grossly mistaken functions and comparisons. Some of their conclusions cannot be obtained even from their flawed findings. The authors have made their raw data unavailable so that its accuracy cannot be independently checked. In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.
It’s beginning to look as if Ms. Warren might have a long-term history of shading the truth to fit her own needs. It will be interesting to see how her vetting by bloggers and the new media turns out.
UPDATE–Megan McArdle also questions the quality of Ms. Warren’s academic publications and cites the errors in a recent paper on bankruptcies caused by medical expenses as well as problems with Ms. Warren’s book The Two Income Trap.
The linked post is Part One of Ms. McArdle’s look at Elizabeth Warren. She writes:
The progressives seem to have made Elizabeth Warren their cause-du-jour. I have a long and complicated history with Elizabeth Warren, so allow me a moment to offer my long and complicated thoughts on her. Really long. So long that I had to break it into two parts–scholarship and public life–in order to prevent the nausea, daytime sleepyness, and intracranial bleeding that might otherwise result. Consider yourselves warned.
I look forward to her second post.
Elizabeth Warren says, “I won’t deny who I am.”
Ms. Warren is a person of notable accomplishments who cannot, it seems, resist telling tall tales about her background. Here’s another:
My grandmother drove a wagon in the land rush to settle territory out west. It was 1889, she was 15 years old … She lived to be 94, to see her youngest grandchild—that’s me—graduate from college …
Breitbart reports that isn’t true. One grandmother died the year before Ms. Warren was graduated from college. The other was only 2 years old in 1889. Is the composite grandmother of Ms. Warren’s tale an ancestor of Barack Obama’s composite girl friend, and/or Julia?
Elizabeth Warren says, “I won’t deny who I am.” She seems to assert that she is part Cherokee because of a family myth that has been shown to be false. That falsehood defines her, and her true genealogy does not.
She also asserts that her parents had to elope because of her mother’s being 1/16th Cherokee. Her parents’ marriage certificate has been posted online. They were married in a religious ceremony in their county of residence which is unusual for an eloping couple.
UPDATE–Perhaps someone should explain the Harvard motto to this Harvard Law professor. It’s Veritas. That’s Latin for Truth.
UPDATE 2–William A. Jacobson suggests that Elizabeth Warren needs an intervention.
Elizabeth Warren must specialize in bending the facts. First, she made unsubstantiated claims of a Cherokee ancestor. Next, she has brutalized data to demonstrate a “two income trap” caused by predatory lending (actually, caused by stupid tax laws). And now, this: She claims to have been the first nursing mother to take the bar exam in New Jersey.
The Boston Herald reports (H/T, Legal Insurrection):
Warren, who had no public events yesterday, again refused an interview request from the Herald, responding to questions instead through a spokeswoman by email. Meanwhile, campaign officials scrambled to address another claim Warren’s made about her life’s story.
“I was the first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey,”Warren told an audience at the Chicago Humanities Festival in 2011, in a video posted on the CHF website. When asked how Warren knows that, her campaign said: “Elizabeth was making a point about the very serious challenges she faced as a working mom — from taking an all-day bar exam when she was still breast-feeding, to finding work as a lawyer that would accommodate a mom with two small children.”
Winnie Comfort of the New Jersey Judiciary, which administers that state’s bar exam, said there’s no way to verify Warren’s claim. Comfort said women have been taking the New Jersey bar exam since 1895, but she’s not aware their nursing habits were ever tracked.
What is it about this woman that makes her want to inflate her all ready significant accomplishments?
Legal Insurrection reports that members of the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee Indians are challenging Elizabeth Warren’s claim to tribal ancestry.
They are not amused by her bogus claim.
We have researched Ms. Warren’s ancestry in the line she claims to be Cherokee through, as well as researched the collateral lines connected to that family. There is absolutely no indication of her having anything other than Caucasian ancestors…. Ms. Warren’s ancestors were not Cherokees and neither is she. We, as Cherokees, cannot allow Ms. Warren to continue on with her false claims…..
It is time for Ms. Warren to come clean and tell the truth. Until she does, we will not be silenced.
Read the whole thing. There’s a link to the Cherokee’s research of Ms. Warren’s genealogy.
I will say this once again: Even though my family roots are in East Tennessee and one of my grandmothers was born in Oklahoma, I have no known ancestors from the Cherokee or any other tribe. So far as I can tell, all of my immigrant ancestors other than one German great-grandmother were from the British Isles.
Charles C. W. Cooke has a review at NRO of the Pow Wow Chow cookbook wherein he describes how he prepared some of the dishes credited to Elizabeth Warren. He says some are pretty good but none are particularly connected to the cooking of the Cherokee or any other tribe.
Like Warren, the Pow Wow Chow cookbook does not deserve its exotic title. It is a general-purpose cookbook that is chock-full of standard dishes from all over the world. How credible is the idea that it was written by genuine members of the “Five Civilized Tribes” is up for debate, but just as a collection of commonplace recipes written by Native Americans cannot by virtue of the authors’ bloodlines miraculously become a collection of Native American recipes, nor by indulging in dubious identity politics can Elizabeth Warren and those of her disposition hide what they really are: ordinary people trying to get ahead.
Read the whole thing.
Being a faux Indian may not be hurting Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts. That may make some sense. Political action by fake Indians has been a part of the Bay State’s heritage since 1773.
Of course, that earlier “consumer activism” was to resist government interference in the marketplace which doesn’t really fit with Ms. Warren’s point of view. Does it?
It seems that Elizabeth Warren’s old family recipes that she contributed to the cookbook Pow Wow Chow may have been copied without attribution from other sources.
BTW, Cold Omelets with Crab Meat and Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing don’t seem like the kind of recipes that would be handed down through the generations from a tribe of woodland Indians living in the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee.
UPDATE—Howie Carr comments:
And the jokes — somebody on the Internet yesterday asked whether she had a recipe for a dessert. You know, like, “Occu-pie.”
And “Macaroni and Cochise.”
UPDATE 2—Perhaps Ms. Warren, a professor at Harvard Law, was taking the advice of former Harvard faculty member Tom Leher.
UPDATE 3—Mark Steyn surmises that the House of Windsor must be one of the Five Nations. This explains the crab recipes.
Massachusetts had a law on the books from 1675 until 2005 (when Mitt Romney signed the repeal) prohibiting Native Americans from entering Boston. This explains why Elizabeth Warren dropped any mention of her Cherokee heritage when she joined the Harvard faculty.
At least that makes as much sense as the reason she offered today for including it on her CV in the first place.
UPDATE—Ann Althouse has video of Prof. Warren trying to explain herself. Prof. Althouse notes that Ms. Warren as yet to answer whether or not she used her “minority” status and affirmative action to beat out another otherwise qualified candidate for any of her teaching positions.
By the way, does anyone think it’s acceptable to check the “Native American” box on an job/admissions application based on one distant ancestor? Affirmative action isn’t about genetics!
If some old census records are accurate, Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cheeokee.
My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather William Hoge and his wife Barbara immigrated from Scotland in 1680. That makes me 1/256 Scot. But even with my East Tennessee roots and a grandmother born in Oklahoma, I don’t know of any ancestors from the Cherokee or any other tribe.