""Various critics of Brown first enjoyed the opportunity to wax moralistic when the Senator broached the subject of his opponent’s decades-long history of ethnic self-identification during the first debate of the campaign season on September 20. Condensing the extensive and unwieldy topic into time-limited opening remarks, Brown correctly noted that the Cambridge professor had advertised herself as an American Indian in a professional context, “and, as you can see, clearly she’s not.” The Senator since clarified that he was invoking a common idiom to emphasize the substantial evidence that suggests Warren is neither culturally or genealogically Native: as documented realities show, her dishonesty is easily discernible." Your nasty little smear campaign is clearly in support of Scott Brown, unless you have some other way to profit from it. Scott Brown was talking about appearance. Only someone who had access to genealogical records could possibly know from such records, and that certainly is not the audience he was speaking to. He meant physical appearance. Yet you give his excuse as if he was so holy his word could not be doubted. "comments made by Warren in early May, when she defended the claims to Cherokee and Delaware heritage that remain unsubstantiated to this day by declaring that she has, “high cheekbones…like all the Indians do." When did she claim that as proof of anything? She said that was something one of her relatives pointed out, and that led her to believe it, but that's not claiming it as proof. She could have been Asian or even Hungarian and had high cheekbones, but her Aunt never mentioned that. As to the overtures from Indian's at the convention, you have not shown any evidence that any such have occurred of that she received them. When I look in Indian Country Today Media Network what I find is nasty commentaries like yours, with very little truly balanced and fair material showing up on google. With that history, I don't see why she would bother with you.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - 12:26