Lemmie see if I get this straight. Warren proposes a debate at the Kennedy Center, a venue with a history of putting on fair debates without a documented history of complaints. Brown replies by proposing restrictions on who Viki Kennedy can endorse. Conservative stalwarts don’t see a problem with that: they don’t perceive that as a lame excuse. I find that response more interesting than that of the Brown campaign: gullibility fascinates me.
Later Warren offers to work with a Boston media consortium. Brown appears to accept: whether he will add more ridiculous conditions is something we will have to see. Then he proposes a debate hosted by a right wing radio hack. That sounds about as appropriate as having Michael Moore organize it. Again though, conservatives can’t seem to get a grip on the problem there. -----------------------
I can’t whether you are saying that Brown fears Warrens superior knowledge on the issues or whether you are saying an intelligent political operative chooses the most favorable debate environments that he can. It seemed to me that Brown was trying to dodge debates all together, but did so in a patently ridiculous manner and is now forced to make some tentative concessions.
At any rate, choosing a favorable debate environment is par for the course (as is attempting to do so without creating the appearance of clownishness). Dodging debates altogether would be pure cowardice though I trust it has been known to happen on both sides of the aisle.
Squalling over who is willing to debate who, where, when and how would be a lot more meaningful if debates themselves carried meaning.
Instead, they’re just sound-bite opportunities that candidates agree to if they’re the challenger and/or behind in the polls, in hopes that their opponent will make a “gaffe” that can be used to create an issue. If the moderators were able to insist on a real debate and cut off the candidates when they wandered into stock speeches, then debates would mean something.
Elizabeth Warren is new to campaigning, though, so I’ll bet she’d keep it interesting just because she doesn’t have a lifetime of experience at truth-evasion.
Of course one could try to assume a broad definition for “campaigning” in my earlier post - it’s clear that Warren has long “campaigned” for various causes important to her - but it wasn’t the manner in which I was using the word.
And something that didn’t immediately occur to me - furt may be implying Warren has a career of “truth-evasion”, which I reject pending proof of such. Ferreting out the meaning of snide single-sentence comments can be tricky.
Didn’t you hear? She claimed to be the direct decendant of both Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, and that she is the de facto leader of all Native Americans.
Well, I’m sure it was something like that, anyway.
Nothing in Shodan’s cite demonstrates Warren is lying. It more plausibly demonstrates that Shodan (and by extension, the Washington Post) is desperate to grasp and report even stupidities as relevant.
A lot of Americans have some Cherokee ancestry. In my native Texas, Scotch-Irish/Cherokee lies thick upon the ground, as well as in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Where anyone might have some trouble is defining precisely how much. Actually, thats almost impossible.
This is rooted in the historical fact that the Cherokee were very accepting of intermarriage with “whites”. By the time of the Trail of Tears, the leadership of the Cherokee tribe was made up of men who were at least partly, of even mostly, white, like Sam Houston. It was not unheard of for a “white” person to simply join the tribe, and be accepted.
Our country’s relationship with, and attitude towards, Native Americans is mostly a blend of madness and stupidity. Especially when it comes to programs that offer benefits to people of Native American blood,and then tries to define what that means. One quarter? A thirty second? What? And how would you prove it?
I gather the issue isn’t if Warren actually has Cherokee ancestry or not (and I can’t imagine it mattering if she does), but whether or not she used the claim to her advantage, and/or her academic employers used it to their advantage, and who knew what when.
Anyone who’d let this ridiculous issue sway their vote is a moron. More likely, people who wouldn’t vote for Warren anyway will try to make the issue sound important and indicative of flaws in Warren’s character, in an effort to gain advantage. That Shodan used it is not surprising at all. I’m happy to give Warren the benefit of the doubt (and it’s hardly a “doubt” at all - she strikes me as forthcoming on an issue of no importance). Shodan, as a repeatedly demonstrated willfully-blindly-partisan piece of shit, deserves no such benefit at all.
Heh. Yes, the Washington Post, that gang of rightwingers, ever eager to tear down a Democrat.
You can say it’s irrelevant all you want; for a voter, it probably is. But it’s exactly the sort of craven “well, technically it wasn’t an lie” bullshit that people associate with politicians. The idea that a career in academia makes her some model of probity is laughable.
No, they’re eager to report what’ll get them attention, as virtually all news outlets do. I have to admit, I’d normally have expected to see something like this from the Washington Times, but no big whoop. The tone of the article isn’t even all that “tearing-down”, rather it suggests Warren made a mistake by not dealing with a trivial issue earlier. Hindsight is not insight, though, and the article is as unimpressive as the alleged controversy it reports.
The people who would do so for such a pissant issue as this are people I have no qualms calling stupid.
Yeah, that would be dumb. Good thing I didn’t say anything like that and only a moron could believe I did. Or possibly an intelligent person just made a mistake.
I’m quite tickled by the fact that many on the left, those who usually agree that minorities are deserving of a little extra assistance, they they deserve a leg up, are so un bothered when someone who not only doesn’t need that help, but was undeserving of it, taps into it. Or are they of the opinion that she did, in fact, need that bit of affirmative action? Not quite clear on their take ion that. Seems to me that those who hold that giving minorities a leg up is the right and and an important thing to do, would be those most bothered by Warren’s actions. so, like I said…tickled!