uncommonsenseblog writes that he thinks Scott Brown is polling neck and neck with Elizabeth Warren …
… mainly due to her being a terrible candidate (I always say she’s like Coakley minus the charisma, credentials, and credibility) overall, her off putting personality (as demonstrated in her shrill and angry delivery of her anti-capitalist remarks in this video), and the controversy over her ancestry …
It seems you’ve outlined three reasons for opposition to Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy.
- You think she doesn’t have charisma, credentials, or credibility
- Her voice is “shrill”
- Her ancestry is “controversial”
I’m a bit concerned about each of these. First, if a one of Harvard’s better-known law professors, the chairman of the TARP oversight panel, one of the more influential women in the world, and the Special Assistant to the President on the CFPB doesn’t have “credentials or credibility,” it’s not clear who would.
Second, “shrill”? So … Warren’s voice really isn’t high-pitched and whistle-like. So I assume you mean “shrill” in the way that the word is traditionally used to attack female politicians. As in “characteristic of those noises women make when I’m trying to ignore them.” Not cool.
Third, “controversial ancestry.” The concern is that Elizabeth Warren has been listed, in some cases, as having Cherokee ancestry. Upon investigation, it appears she would need to go back about five generations—and things get pretty murky there. To a lot of conservatives, this seems to suggest that Warren was a “diversity hire.” Or, to put it slightly differently, “not a white man and therefore presumptively unqualified, despite the mountain of obvious qualifications.” Not cool.1
Of course, that’s only half the concern with the “ancestry.” The other half is that it gives guys like Austin talk about “Fauxcahontas” because to them any mention of Native American people invokes a Disney Princess and is really just a laugh line. This too is not cool.
So what else have you got? I’d love to debate Warren and Brown’s relative qualifications. But could you start out with something reasonably relevant and not rooted in sexist or racist stereotypes? Bring it.
If your genuinely concerned that Harvard might be padding its diversity statistics to make itself look more diverse than it actually is, that’s an issue worth discussing. But the people harping on this story aren’t really concerned about whether Harvard is gaming its diversity numbers. ↩