fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
And Warren said she favors these things?ETA: Apparently she does. Googling now to on the export-import bank to try to understand what it is and what Warren's position is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I really like Elizabeth Warren (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/18/elizabeth-warren-champion-of-the-people
You know, you could google this stuff pretty easily as well.
But yeah, liberals in general favor all kinds of tax breaks/subsidies/bailouts. I can't think of one Democrat that opposes this stuff on principle. And very, very, very, very few Republicans.
Green energy subsidies, Obamacare subsidies to Big Pharma and Big Insurance, company and industry specific tax breaks; this stuff is pretty much supported across the board by liberals like Wilma.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I'm still reading about the Import-Export bank thing. I had never even heard of its existence until you mentioned it a few minutes ago.
Liberals support stuff like green energy and Obamacare for reasons other than "crony capitalism." Those aren't especially persuasive examples to me.
They could support green energy in non crony capital ways, but they usually don't.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
If you wanted to support green energy, what do you think would be the best means by which to do so? This is just a hypo, I realize you might not have any interest in supporting green energy.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Can you explain why you think Warren is a hypocrite for supporting the existence of the Ex-Im bank?
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Warren's support of Ex-Im is a favorite talking point of those opposing Warren since the Ex-Im has been criticized by some prominent liberals in the past. Warren has stated that she would prefer some reforms to Ex-Im, but does not want it eliminated as an agency.
This isn't the hypocrisy that Warren detractors try to make it out to be.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Thanks, but I'm still reading to decide on my own what I think of the bank and whether I think Warren is hypocritical for her position. It seems like her only statement about it that I can find is the one-paragraph one you allude to. Can anybody summarize the pro-Ex-Im bank position in a persuasive way? Is it an anti-free trade thing?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
BFS, I didn't call Warren a conspiratorial nut. Soonerman did but I have no reason to agree with him. I do agree with him that the article Slapdash posted was conspiratorial in feel, but Warren didn't write that. And yes I admit that when big companies, big banks or big government gets attacked it gets my populist radar going. As a general rule I don't like it.
That being said, Warren may be right about this issue. It may be ctitical enough that it was worth stopping the budget. I doubt that, but I'm not sure. I'm still trying to get a grasp on it. In truth, I'm still torn over who was at fault for 2008 and whether or not Dodds/Frank was a good idea in the first place.
That being said, Warren may be right about this issue. It may be ctitical enough that it was worth stopping the budget. I doubt that, but I'm not sure. I'm still trying to get a grasp on it. In truth, I'm still torn over who was at fault for 2008 and whether or not Dodds/Frank was a good idea in the first place.
timschochet
Footballguy
The hypocrisy issue, while relevant to some (not to me) should have no bearing on whether or not Warren is right on this issue.
It is somewhat. It is not consistent to be against subsidies for Wall Street but not for Boeing. It is similar to how some liberals decry subsidizing fossil fuels yet want to fund green energy companies. You can make the argument that supporting Boeing is better than Wall Street, or that green energy than fossil fuels. However, you will still be in favor of crony capitalism.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Maybe we have a different definition of "crony capitalism." If I think there are good reasons (environmental, conservation, national security, etc.) to promote green energy, then I wouldn't describe subsidizing that activity as crony capitalism. If I subsidize somebody because they're big campaign contributors are are my personal friends or whatever, that's what I'd call crony capitalism.
jonessed
Footballguy
They are big campaign contributors because they get regulatory and financial support. You seem to want to have it both ways.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
For what it's worth, after devoting a few minutes to reading some stuff, I think I'd probably be in favor of eliminating the Ex-Im bank. I'm not ready to say that Warren is a hypocrite for supporting it, because it seems to me to be pretty different from the Wall Street stuff that she's famous for.
I thought he was directing that at Warren's comments in there. However, if the former Chief Economist of the IMF thinks there is too much influence of big banks on policy, I'm inclined to believe him.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don't think I'm trying to have it both ways but I recognize that distinguishing principled positions from cronyism can often be difficult.
Except that the green energy companies the Obama administration has propped up just happened to be run by campaign contributors and personal friends. Funny how it always works that way.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Have there been any reports of green energy companies that failed to get subsidies because of political or personal leanings?Except that the green energy companies the Obama administration has propped up just happened to be run by campaign contributors and personal friends. Funny how it always works that way.
Hard to see why that would matter. When governments pick winners and losers it is inevitably done largely on the basis of cronyism. That is the principle that people are applying to call Warren a hypocrite.Have there been any reports of green energy companies that failed to get subsidies because of political or personal leanings?Except that the green energy companies the Obama administration has propped up just happened to be run by campaign contributors and personal friends. Funny how it always works that way.
Now, I agree with you and Warren that subsidizing green energy or Boeing is more desirable than doing so for Wall Street or big fossil fuel companies. However, that is not a principled position. It is a practical position that, since cronyism exists, I would rather it flow towards items I prefer. This is pretty much the raison d'être for the modern democratic party. Warren is causing waves because Wall Street is typically one of the industries that benefits from both parties. Like the security/defense industries.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Hard to see why that would matter. When governments pick winners and losers it is inevitably done largely on the basis of cronyism. That is the principle that people are applying to call Warren a hypocrite.Have there been any reports of green energy companies that failed to get subsidies because of political or personal leanings?Except that the green energy companies the Obama administration has propped up just happened to be run by campaign contributors and personal friends. Funny how it always works that way.
Now, I agree with you and Warren that subsidizing green energy or Boeing is more desirable than doing so for Wall Street or big fossil fuel companies. However, that is not a principled position. It is a practical position that, since cronyism exists, I would rather it flow towards items I prefer. This is pretty much the raison d'être for the modern democratic party. Warren is causing waves because Wall Street is typically one of the industries that benefits from both parties. Like the security/defense industries.
Although I would add that it's not really "since cronyism exists..", but more like "It's NOT cronyism if it goes towards things that I prefer". Regardless, it's a hypocritical position to take - and that's Warren's position.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Prizes. Set goals such as being first to fly an airplane across the Atlantic and reward large enough prize to whoever accomplishes the goal to make it worth the trouble of many to try. We benefit from the stated goal, and we benefit from the lessons learned by the failures, and we only pay for success. Make the debate just about what should be the goals and what should be the prizes versus also picking who to fund.
Wall Street prepares Dodd-Frank assault
By Peter Schroeder - 12/17/14 06:00 AM EST
Banks and financial institutions are planning an aggressive push to dismantle parts of the Wall Street reform law when Republicans take control of Congress in January.
Fresh off a victory in the government funding debate that liberals decried as a giveaway to Wall Street, advocates for the financial sector aim to pursue additional changes to Dodd-Frank that they say would lighten burdens created by the 2010 law. Among the top items on the wish list: easing new requirements on mortgages, loosening restrictions on financial derivatives and overhauling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“Every major piece of legislation has changes. Even our Constitution has significant changes,” said Richard Hunt, president and CEO of the Consumer Bankers Association. “People have an opportunity to be part of the ‘results caucus’ or the ‘rhetoric caucus.’ ”
Industry advocates say they need to strike while the iron is hot, given the likelihood that the race for the White House could soon plunge Congress into partisan warfare.
“The window gets narrow very quickly, but I also look at that optimistically,” said James Ballentine, a lobbyist for the American Bankers Association. “At the outset of the Congress, I anticipate them being very busy.”
The lobbying blitz is likely to draw a counterattack from liberal groups, which last week rallied behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in denouncing the $1.1 trillion funding package as a sweetheart deal for Citigroup.
“Let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi: I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect. It should have broken you into pieces,” Warren said in a speech from the Senate floor.
The backlash was strong enough that passage of the funding bill was in doubt, with House Democrats voting in droves against it despite President Obama’s endorsement.
While the White House butted heads with liberals over the funding bill, arguing it contained good elements despite the financial provision, a spokesman signaled Obama might draw the line at future changes to Dodd-Frank.
“I do anticipate that we’re going to expend some time and energy next year and the year after trying to counter the efforts of Wall Street firms and their lobbyists,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
Advocates for tougher rules on Wall Street said they were encouraged by the liberal uprising, viewing it as a sign that Democrats will not stand idly by while Dodd-Frank is torn apart.
“This past week’s drama suggests in some ways that we are, more likely than people once thought, going to win some of those fights,” said Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform. “This debate, and how much people engaged in it, really does put members of Congress on notice that the public cares.”
One senior financial industry executive said the dust-up over the funding bill has forced the industry to recalibrate its lobbying priorities for the coming year. Given Warren’s megaphone, the executive said, getting through the next Congress without new restrictions on large banks would constitute a win.
Still, the GOP majority is expected to be more receptive to changes to the Dodd-Frank law, having fought it from its inception as a misguided response to the 2008 crash.
There has also been bipartisan support for revising Dodd-Frank, with dozens of Democrats previously backing the controversial language in the funding bill that allows banks to mix derivatives trading with traditional banking activity.
Passage of that provision, as well as the inclusion of another derivatives change in a terrorism insurance bill, represents a long-overdue thawing in the debate over the law, industry advocates say.
“Probably 45 to 50 percent of the House and Senate has changed" since Dodd-Frank passed, Ballentine said. “There are members that are there now that are not wed to every single sentence.”
With the GOP set to control both chambers, groups with a stake in the Dodd-Frank debate are tallying up how many Democratic votes they might have for various proposals.
For any bill to stand a chance of enactment, it will need Democratic support to avoid or overcome a potential veto from Obama.
“It helps make the case with the administration … that these are not just Republican efforts,” Ballentine said.
One of the likely flashpoints in the coming Dodd-Frank battle is the consumer bureau.
Republicans and industry groups are demanding an overhaul of the agency, calling for a new structure that allows Congress to set its budget. They also want the bureau led by a bipartisan commission rather than a single director that they say has too much power.
Democrats have universally opposed those efforts, none more fervently than Warren, who came up with the idea for the bureau and was the guiding hand during its inception.
Hunt predicted Warren would resist any and all tweaks to Dodd-Frank, even something as small as “a change in the number of pages.”
“That’s going to be her choice,” he said.
Another fight on the horizon is the push for “regulatory relief,” as financial institutions and Republicans seek to require agencies to pursue more cost-benefit analysis when writing rules.
Reform advocates argue that would simply bind the hands of regulators while giving businesses more ammunition for court battles against Dodd-Frank.
In the face of loud opposition, financial lobbyists say they have a compelling case for revisiting the law. While the economy is improving, they argue the new rules have made it exceedingly difficult to obtain loans, including mortgages.
“Whenever we do something, we have to explain to members of Congress how it will impact their constituents and the economy. If we can make that case, then we have a chance,” said Francis Creighton of the Financial Services Roundtable.
They hope to find at least a few Democrats ready to listen.
“I don’t think Democrats are opposed to amending Dodd-Frank,” Ballentine said. “They don’t want Dodd-Frank to disappear. That’s not what the industry is asking for.”
By Peter Schroeder - 12/17/14 06:00 AM EST
Banks and financial institutions are planning an aggressive push to dismantle parts of the Wall Street reform law when Republicans take control of Congress in January.
Fresh off a victory in the government funding debate that liberals decried as a giveaway to Wall Street, advocates for the financial sector aim to pursue additional changes to Dodd-Frank that they say would lighten burdens created by the 2010 law. Among the top items on the wish list: easing new requirements on mortgages, loosening restrictions on financial derivatives and overhauling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“Every major piece of legislation has changes. Even our Constitution has significant changes,” said Richard Hunt, president and CEO of the Consumer Bankers Association. “People have an opportunity to be part of the ‘results caucus’ or the ‘rhetoric caucus.’ ”
Industry advocates say they need to strike while the iron is hot, given the likelihood that the race for the White House could soon plunge Congress into partisan warfare.
“The window gets narrow very quickly, but I also look at that optimistically,” said James Ballentine, a lobbyist for the American Bankers Association. “At the outset of the Congress, I anticipate them being very busy.”
The lobbying blitz is likely to draw a counterattack from liberal groups, which last week rallied behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in denouncing the $1.1 trillion funding package as a sweetheart deal for Citigroup.
“Let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi: I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect. It should have broken you into pieces,” Warren said in a speech from the Senate floor.
The backlash was strong enough that passage of the funding bill was in doubt, with House Democrats voting in droves against it despite President Obama’s endorsement.
While the White House butted heads with liberals over the funding bill, arguing it contained good elements despite the financial provision, a spokesman signaled Obama might draw the line at future changes to Dodd-Frank.
“I do anticipate that we’re going to expend some time and energy next year and the year after trying to counter the efforts of Wall Street firms and their lobbyists,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
Advocates for tougher rules on Wall Street said they were encouraged by the liberal uprising, viewing it as a sign that Democrats will not stand idly by while Dodd-Frank is torn apart.
“This past week’s drama suggests in some ways that we are, more likely than people once thought, going to win some of those fights,” said Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform. “This debate, and how much people engaged in it, really does put members of Congress on notice that the public cares.”
One senior financial industry executive said the dust-up over the funding bill has forced the industry to recalibrate its lobbying priorities for the coming year. Given Warren’s megaphone, the executive said, getting through the next Congress without new restrictions on large banks would constitute a win.
Still, the GOP majority is expected to be more receptive to changes to the Dodd-Frank law, having fought it from its inception as a misguided response to the 2008 crash.
There has also been bipartisan support for revising Dodd-Frank, with dozens of Democrats previously backing the controversial language in the funding bill that allows banks to mix derivatives trading with traditional banking activity.
Passage of that provision, as well as the inclusion of another derivatives change in a terrorism insurance bill, represents a long-overdue thawing in the debate over the law, industry advocates say.
“Probably 45 to 50 percent of the House and Senate has changed" since Dodd-Frank passed, Ballentine said. “There are members that are there now that are not wed to every single sentence.”
With the GOP set to control both chambers, groups with a stake in the Dodd-Frank debate are tallying up how many Democratic votes they might have for various proposals.
For any bill to stand a chance of enactment, it will need Democratic support to avoid or overcome a potential veto from Obama.
“It helps make the case with the administration … that these are not just Republican efforts,” Ballentine said.
One of the likely flashpoints in the coming Dodd-Frank battle is the consumer bureau.
Republicans and industry groups are demanding an overhaul of the agency, calling for a new structure that allows Congress to set its budget. They also want the bureau led by a bipartisan commission rather than a single director that they say has too much power.
Democrats have universally opposed those efforts, none more fervently than Warren, who came up with the idea for the bureau and was the guiding hand during its inception.
Hunt predicted Warren would resist any and all tweaks to Dodd-Frank, even something as small as “a change in the number of pages.”
“That’s going to be her choice,” he said.
Another fight on the horizon is the push for “regulatory relief,” as financial institutions and Republicans seek to require agencies to pursue more cost-benefit analysis when writing rules.
Reform advocates argue that would simply bind the hands of regulators while giving businesses more ammunition for court battles against Dodd-Frank.
In the face of loud opposition, financial lobbyists say they have a compelling case for revisiting the law. While the economy is improving, they argue the new rules have made it exceedingly difficult to obtain loans, including mortgages.
“Whenever we do something, we have to explain to members of Congress how it will impact their constituents and the economy. If we can make that case, then we have a chance,” said Francis Creighton of the Financial Services Roundtable.
They hope to find at least a few Democrats ready to listen.
“I don’t think Democrats are opposed to amending Dodd-Frank,” Ballentine said. “They don’t want Dodd-Frank to disappear. That’s not what the industry is asking for.”
saintfool
Dead sexy
Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man. There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Really? You're US Senator that's going around telling everyone that you're part Indian and you're not going to verify it?Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
The "But my Grandpappy told me so" is a cheap cop-out.
Boston
Footballguy
Did the Great Uncle put this on his job applications?Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
The Controversy:In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, in which she had self-identified as having Native American ancestry. Because of these entries, Harvard Law School had added her to a list of minority professors in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity. Warren said that she was unaware that Harvard had done so until she read about it in a newspaper. According to Warren and her brothers, they grew up "listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our familys Cherokee and Delaware heritage". The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage, but a spokesperson from the Oklahoma Historical Society said "finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult, not only because of intermarriage, but also because some Native Americans opted not to be put on federal rolls, while others who were not Native American did put their names on rolls to get access to land." Her ethnicity claims became the focus of the media's election coverage for a certain time, during which her opponents bought ads asking her for explanations and to "come clean about her motivations" and some members of the Cherokee Nation asked how her claim influenced universities interested in hiring her. Colleagues and supervisors at the schools where she had worked publicly supported her statement that she did not receive preferential treatment."Really? You're US Senator that's going around telling everyone that you're part Indian and you're not going to verify it?Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
The "But my Grandpappy told me so" is a cheap cop-out.
The bottom line:
"In polls, 72% of voters said the issue would not impact their vote in the election."
Scott Brown got kicked to the curb because he focused too much on this issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are so far in the tank, you should be called the Tidy Bowl man. Ex Im lets the mega banks loan billions and offload the risk to taxpayers. It is directly on point as to why she is a hypocrite.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Did he?The Controversy:In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, in which she had self-identified as having Native American ancestry. Because of these entries, Harvard Law School had added her to a list of minority professors in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity. Warren said that she was unaware that Harvard had done so until she read about it in a newspaper. According to Warren and her brothers, they grew up "listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our familys Cherokee and Delaware heritage". The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage, but a spokesperson from the Oklahoma Historical Society said "finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult, not only because of intermarriage, but also because some Native Americans opted not to be put on federal rolls, while others who were not Native American did put their names on rolls to get access to land." Her ethnicity claims became the focus of the media's election coverage for a certain time, during which her opponents bought ads asking her for explanations and to "come clean about her motivations" and some members of the Cherokee Nation asked how her claim influenced universities interested in hiring her. Colleagues and supervisors at the schools where she had worked publicly supported her statement that she did not receive preferential treatment."Really? You're US Senator that's going around telling everyone that you're part Indian and you're not going to verify it?Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
The "But my Grandpappy told me so" is a cheap cop-out.
The bottom line:
"In polls, 72% of voters said the issue would not impact their vote in the election."
Scott Brown got kicked to the curb because he focused too much on this issue.
Seems like a Presidential election is a little more important when you have the entire country weighing in. But then again, Obama got elected twice so maybe you're right.
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
Most people would believe that she did not get preferential treatment. It is Harvard that looked bad to me.Did he?The Controversy:In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, in which she had self-identified as having Native American ancestry. Because of these entries, Harvard Law School had added her to a list of minority professors in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity. Warren said that she was unaware that Harvard had done so until she read about it in a newspaper. According to Warren and her brothers, they grew up "listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our familys Cherokee and Delaware heritage". The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage, but a spokesperson from the Oklahoma Historical Society said "finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult, not only because of intermarriage, but also because some Native Americans opted not to be put on federal rolls, while others who were not Native American did put their names on rolls to get access to land." Her ethnicity claims became the focus of the media's election coverage for a certain time, during which her opponents bought ads asking her for explanations and to "come clean about her motivations" and some members of the Cherokee Nation asked how her claim influenced universities interested in hiring her. Colleagues and supervisors at the schools where she had worked publicly supported her statement that she did not receive preferential treatment."The bottom line:Really? You're US Senator that's going around telling everyone that you're part Indian and you're not going to verify it?Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
The "But my Grandpappy told me so" is a cheap cop-out.
"In polls, 72% of voters said the issue would not impact their vote in the election."
Scott Brown got kicked to the curb because he focused too much on this issue.
Seems like a Presidential election is a little more important when you have the entire country weighing in. But then again, Obama got elected twice so maybe you're right.
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
What I am interested in is how she oversaw the implementation of TARP when she chaired the 5-member Congressional Oversight Panel. Did she make sure the money was well spent?
HellToupee
Footballguy
MassLive"Scott Brown got kicked to the curb because he focused too much on this issue.Really? You're US Senator that's going around telling everyone that you're part Indian and you're not going to verify it?Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
The "But my Grandpappy told me so" is a cheap cop-out.
Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown on Tuesday lost his U.S. Senate seat to Democratic Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren, who became the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts.
Brown shocked the political world on Jan. 19, 2010, when he won a special election to take the Senate seat that had been held by liberal Democratic icon Sen. Edward Kennedy for nearly 47 years, until Kennedy’s death. But after a long and close race, in which the moderate Republican stressed his independent streak and bipartisan record, Brown was unable to win a full term.
Peter Ubertaccio, associate professor of political science and director of the Martin Institute at Stonehill College, said Brown’s loss points to the difficulty Massachusetts Republicans have always faced winning a statewide election in a presidential election year, when Democratic turnout “is just overwhelmingly large.”
Additionally, he said Massachusetts Republicans have not built up their party over the years in the way the state’s Democrats have. “The nature of the Democratic operation is their numbers are so overwhelming, they can put so many more people on the ground and build up their party in a way Republicans cannot,” Ubertaccio said.
Brown supporter Denise Cook, a Republican from Medford, said Tuesday night that she was "disappointed but not surprised." "The Democratic machine in this state worked hard to get her elected," Cook said. "Massachusetts is a tough state to win for a Republican."
In 2010, Brown beat Democrat Martha Coakley, 52 percent to 47 percent. Until early January, Coakley had been leading Brown in the polls by double digit margins and few thought a Republican Senate candidate had a serious chance in a state where no Republican had been elected senator since 1972.
But in a low-turnout election, Brown rode a wave of discontent over Democratic President Barack Obama’s health care reform – which Brown opposed and which his election almost derailed, as he deprived Democrats of the 60 senators they needed to avoid a filibuster. (The reform ultimately passed in the Senate using a process called “reconciliation,” which required only 51 votes.) Brown received strong backing and financial support from the conservative tea party movement. He campaigned in his trademark pickup truck as an “average guy,” and was able to turn out independent votes.
This time around, Brown stressed his moderate reputation and bipartisan work. He touted his ability to work across party lines to get bills passed – the STOCK Act,which prohibited insider trading by members of Congress, and a bill allowing entrepreneurs to raise money through “crowdfunding."
In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one, Brown tried to appeal to independent voters who could be swayed to vote for the candidate, not the party. Brown’s most frequently cited statistic was a Congressional Quarterly study, which found that Brown voted with his party just 54 percent of the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
What is your point? You did not get personal calls from both candidates like I did.MassLiveRepublican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown on Tuesday lost his U.S. Senate seat to Democratic Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren, who became the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts.Brown shocked the political world on Jan. 19, 2010, when he won a special election to take the Senate seat that had been held by liberal Democratic icon Sen. Edward Kennedy for nearly 47 years, until Kennedys death. But after a long and close race, in which the moderate Republican stressed his independent streak and bipartisan record, Brown was unable to win a full term.Peter Ubertaccio, associate professor of political science and director of the Martin Institute at Stonehill College, said Browns loss points to the difficulty Massachusetts Republicans have always faced winning a statewide election in a presidential election year, when Democratic turnout is just overwhelmingly large.Additionally, he said Massachusetts Republicans have not built up their party over the years in the way the states Democrats have. The nature of the Democratic operation is their numbers are so overwhelming, they can put so many more people on the ground and build up their party in a way Republicans cannot, Ubertaccio said.Brown supporter Denise Cook, a Republican from Medford, said Tuesday night that she was "disappointed but not surprised." "The Democratic machine in this state worked hard to get her elected," Cook said. "Massachusetts is a tough state to win for a Republican."In 2010, Brown beat Democrat Martha Coakley, 52 percent to 47 percent. Until early January, Coakley had been leading Brown in the polls by double digit margins and few thought a Republican Senate candidate had a serious chance in a state where no Republican had been elected senator since 1972.But in a low-turnout election, Brown rode a wave of discontent over Democratic President Barack Obamas health care reform which Brown opposed and which his election almost derailed, as he deprived Democrats of the 60 senators they needed to avoid a filibuster. (The reform ultimately passed in the Senate using a process called reconciliation, which required only 51 votes.) Brown received strong backing and financial support from the conservative tea party movement. He campaigned in his trademark pickup truck as an average guy, and was able to turn out independent votes.This time around, Brown stressed his moderate reputation and bipartisan work. He touted his ability to work across party lines to get bills passed the STOCK Act,which prohibited insider trading by members of Congress, and a bill allowing entrepreneurs to raise money through crowdfunding." In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one, Brown tried to appeal to independent voters who could be swayed to vote for the candidate, not the party. Browns most frequently cited statistic was a Congressional Quarterly study, which found that Brown voted with his party just 54 percent of the time."Scott Brown got kicked to the curb because he focused too much on this issue.Really? You're US Senator that's going around telling everyone that you're part Indian and you're not going to verify it? The "But my Grandpappy told me so" is a cheap cop-out.Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston
Footballguy
Scott Brown did not lose because he focused on the fake Indian fib...he lost for two reasons...one, Mass is a liberal State and after he upset Coakley (debatable the worst candidate in American history) the local Democratic machine (as well as national) had him in their cross-hairs and he wasn't able to catch them off-guard like he did in the prior election...the other reason is many who voted for him and helped create the buzz that lead to his upset felt betrayed by his politics and did not support him like they did in the previous election...
Last edited by a moderator:
saintfool
Dead sexy
she was campaigning to be senator of Mass. she wasn't even directly leveraging that into her campaign. it was done by local news media going her professional history. it's a family story (one that her entire family, not just her accepted) that actually has a grain of truth to it - a marriage application from a few generations back when recordkeeping wasn't thorough, diligently maintained suggested there was this connection - but it doesn't matter. here's the thing: it's a thing for "independents", conservatives and other Righties for sure but then you wouldn't vote her anyway. it's just another cheap, meaningless shot for you to take and feel clever in the process. you'll go back to it time and again when you don't know what else to say. you guys talk about how this nonsense speaks to her character and whatnot but your attempts to build an issue around this are just blather.Really? You're US Senator that's going around telling everyone that you're part Indian and you're not going to verify it?Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
The "But my Grandpappy told me so" is a cheap cop-out.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
She was a senator in the 80s and 90s?MaxThreshold said:Really? You're US Senator that's going around telling everyone that you're part Indian and you're not going to verify it?saintfool said:Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
The "But my Grandpappy told me so" is a cheap cop-out.
Also, you realize that 99% of people only know their ethnic background from what they were told?
saintfool
Dead sexy
can't his victory over Coakley really be seen as a rejection of her? it had little to do with him as a candidate and everything for the distaste they had for Martha. one reason he lost to Warren because she's far more likeable than some here would have us believe. he lost to Shaheen likely for the same reasons he did in 2012.Boston said:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
because 99% of people don't give a crap and dont check "german" or "polish" on any applications.She was a senator in the 80s and 90s?MaxThreshold said:Really? You're US Senator that's going around telling everyone that you're part Indian and you're not going to verify it?saintfool said:Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
The "But my Grandpappy told me so" is a cheap cop-out.
Also, you realize that 99% of people only know their ethnic background from what they were told?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
saintfool
Dead sexy
because 99% of applications don't ask if you are german or polish. it's a little more complicated than that. From the Atlantic in 2012:
so she gained nothing professionally when she identified - on a few occasions - herself as having native american ancestry.
http://mercatus.org/publication/export-import-bank-exposure-grows-private-lenders-profitdfwboiler said:
See the second chart at the link.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yeah, I think the difference is that benefits and advantages flow from asserting a certain ethnic background, there are no rules for verifying that someone is black, hispanic, Asian, or Native-American. - Jim Crow used to have such rules, like the One Drop Rule, but those have been eliminated, so we have the racial classifications granting advantages with no means of defining them.because 99% of people don't give a crap and dont check "german" or "polish" on any applications.She was a senator in the 80s and 90s?MaxThreshold said:Really? You're US Senator that's going around telling everyone that you're part Indian and you're not going to verify it?saintfool said:Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
The "But my Grandpappy told me so" is a cheap cop-out.
Also, you realize that 99% of people only know their ethnic background from what they were told?
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I agree with Tim regarding this issue. Her BS about being Native American has no relevance regarding this topic or most other topics.
I really only replied because people either said it wasn't true or it is completely irrelevant to her character. I think it is relevant as nobody that is a tiny tiny fraction Native American identifies with being Native American other than for personal gain. Turns out she isn't even a tiny tiny fraction Native American, but even if we believe her story she still wouldn't identify with it at all.
I really only replied because people either said it wasn't true or it is completely irrelevant to her character. I think it is relevant as nobody that is a tiny tiny fraction Native American identifies with being Native American other than for personal gain. Turns out she isn't even a tiny tiny fraction Native American, but even if we believe her story she still wouldn't identify with it at all.
Most people assume that politicians lie profusely already, so obsessing on one egregious lie is not the best strategy. Coming up with ridiculous cover stories seems to work better as people admire the chutzpah, and don't identify with the frustration this creates in truth seekers.MaxThreshold said:Did he?Rohn Jambo said:The Controversy:In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren's law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, in which she had self-identified as having Native American ancestry. Because of these entries, Harvard Law School had added her to a list of minority professors in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity. Warren said that she was unaware that Harvard had done so until she read about it in a newspaper. According to Warren and her brothers, they grew up "listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our familys Cherokee and Delaware heritage". The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage, but a spokesperson from the Oklahoma Historical Society said "finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult, not only because of intermarriage, but also because some Native Americans opted not to be put on federal rolls, while others who were not Native American did put their names on rolls to get access to land." Her ethnicity claims became the focus of the media's election coverage for a certain time, during which her opponents bought ads asking her for explanations and to "come clean about her motivations" and some members of the Cherokee Nation asked how her claim influenced universities interested in hiring her. Colleagues and supervisors at the schools where she had worked publicly supported her statement that she did not receive preferential treatment."MaxThreshold said:Really? You're US Senator that's going around telling everyone that you're part Indian and you're not going to verify it?saintfool said:Say your great uncle talks about the time Eisenhower came through the county and happened to not only shake hands with the man but have a cup of coffee with the man.There's no photo but it's a story woven into the family history. You might even mention in your high school history class or whenever someone mentions Eisenhower. Do you trust your great uncle? Do you authenticate a family story?
The "But my Grandpappy told me so" is a cheap cop-out.
The bottom line:
"In polls, 72% of voters said the issue would not impact their vote in the election."
Scott Brown got kicked to the curb because he focused too much on this issue.
Seems like a Presidential election is a little more important when you have the entire country weighing in. But then again, Obama got elected twice so maybe you're right.
jonessed
Footballguy
She checked it because she wanted an advantage. There is no other reason to do it. It was dishonest and she knew it was dishonest. 99% of the time nobody finds out, but in this case, she was found it. Falsely claiming to be a minority to get an advantage is not going to sit well with minorities. It's going to be an issue for her if she runs against Hillary.
saintfool
Dead sexy
why is it dishonest on her part if she understood it to be accurate and correct? how did she actively parlay that into an advantage? the university did maybe but she didn't aside from contributing in a half-assed way to a cookbook.
