Elizabeth Warren and the Ancestry Issue: What Do You Think? [Poll]
Democratic contender for U.S. Senate seat reportedly acknowledges she told schools of her heritage, but after she was hired.
After weeks of controversy, Elizabeth Warren tells the Boston Globe that yes, she told Harvard and University of Pennsylvania about her Native American ancestry, but says it came up after she was already hired.
What do you think about her actions, how she handled the controversy — and most of all, if or how much that should figure into your vote this fall for either Warren (or her Democratic colleague in the race, Marisa DeFranco) or Republican Sen. Scott Brown?
Tell us by voting in the poll, or be more specific and articulate in the comments section below.
Warren visited Brookline last week, and spoke about her role in the creation of the Consumer Protection Bureau.
Susan Ormont
8:20 am on Friday, June 1, 2012
We are constantly bombarded by the news media and ads about Elizabeth Warren's Native American ancestry and that she is the daughter of a janitor (more respectfully called "custodial services"). We know less of her as a person and representative. Perhaps she and the media could focus on that! Susan Ormont
Helen Y.
8:29 am on Friday, June 1, 2012
OMG, I am so sick of this story. I, for one agree with the Governor. Let's keep focus on issue that really matters to us! Don't care about family story.
Mark Izeman
9:30 am on Friday, June 1, 2012
She has lost all credibility with this Indian hoax.
ruth-arlene w howe
9:55 am on Friday, June 1, 2012
Yes, one would have hoped that she and her campaign staff might have handled this better. But, good gracious, it's really just a smoke-screen to shield Scott Brown from having to address the really important issues in this race. The media is doing a GREAT disservice to the public by not putting all of this in context. Her hire at Harvard is all about increasing the presence of WOMEN on the faculty. Doesn't anyone remember the late Derrick Bell who launched a fast and protest about the lack of women and left the school.
RAWH
ruth-arlene w howe
10:00 am on Friday, June 1, 2012
For me, it's not Elizabeth, but Scott Brown who has lost all credibility.It's VERY
credible, if one knows ANYTHING about the 19th century history of Oklahoma.
Her family history is that of most folk in the state.
RAWH
Bill Davidson
11:54 am on Friday, June 1, 2012
I can't vote in this poll. None of the choices accurately convey my feelings on this issue. But I will comment on it.
I don't understand why Elizabeth Warren felt the need to reveal her distant Native American ancestry to her employers. It's such a corny, disingenuous thing to do. Frankly, it makes me embarrassed to be a Democrat.
But I will vote for her. I'm a Democrat. There are things that the Republican Party stands for that I'll never agree with. As a Republican, Scott Brown has to tow the party line. So I won't vote for him.
However, Scott Brown might be better for the Senate than Elizabeth Warren. Unlike many of Brown's Republican Senate colleagues, he is willing to compromise with Democrats on legislation. That quality makes him extremely valuable in this Congress. I don't get the impression that Elizabeth Warren is campaigning for the moderate vote. She seems to want to appeal to the liberal base of the Democratic Party. That's great, but it doesn't promise success in the Senate.
Regardless of this ancestry issue, I'm not convinced Elizabeth Warren's campaign has what it takes to unseat an incumbent. Despite the current favorable poll numbers, I still believe that she has a lot of work to do. I hope she has learned from Martha Coakley's mistakes and takes nothing for granted.
Jeffrey Kemp
4:21 pm on Thursday, June 7, 2012
It seems to me you contradicted youself. You'll vote for Warren because you're a democrat. (lousy reason) And, You say Scott Brown will toe the republican line, which shows you aren't paying attention. Then you say he is better in the Senate because he compromises. Ok so you are not voting form him, Why?????
Pam Roberts
8:17 pm on Friday, June 1, 2012
Mary Sanchez of the Kansas City Star wrote a terrific column about this subject a couple of weeks ago (see link below). I think the last couple of paragraphs hit the nail on the head!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/sns-201205172000--tms--msanchezctnms-a20120517-20120517,0,5980218.column
KarlMarx20
10:52 am on Thursday, June 7, 2012
I couldn't care if Elisabeth Warren were descended from cows and mosquitoes or was the daughter of the Sultan of Brunei and never set foot in the United States save for this election. If she gamed the Academy and was corrupt in this regard so who else in their entire life is totally honest. Evidently people are concerned about this which is about as relevant as claiming Brown is the better candidate because his last name begins with B and Warrnens W and people with last names starting late in the alphabet are looser. In fact if these stupid comments don't doom Brown's campaign immediately for lack of intelligence unfortunately says a lot about the people he is talking to in our sorry state.
The fact that she is on the War Path against big finance who have more or less destroyed to U.S. economy and is immensely competent and wise is good enough for me. Scott Brown is a modern but not very bright and incompetent Republican Hack who will and has worked against a more equitable distribution of income. Elisabeth Warren designed the consumer financial protection agency in her "spare" time has a Harvard Law Professor. The choice is like between Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt on one side and Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge on the other. No contest
Jeffrey Kemp
4:32 pm on Thursday, June 7, 2012
Senator Brown has the courage to vote with his convictions. Ms Warren is so far out in left field that she is playing without a glove. I'm sure if she steps up to the plate for a debate with Brown, she will look rather silly dodging questions without any real answers. ps..One thing we don't really need is another government agency say they are here to help! (CFPA)
Pam Roberts
7:23 pm on Thursday, June 7, 2012
Whys is it that Republicans are always said to be voting with their convictions, but not Democrats?