XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

Elizabeth Warren's Native American Problem Just Got Even Worse

(CNN) - For months, Elizabeth Warren has struggled to get from under the muddled - and occasionally contradictory - story she has told about her own belief in her Native American heritage, and whether she ever either claimed that background on documents or received any sort of advantage from it.

THE POINT NOW ON YOUTUBE! In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe!

On Tuesday, Warren's claims took a major hit: The Washington Post reported on a Texas bar registration card from 1986 in which, clearly and apparently in her own hand, the Massachusetts Democrat had written "American Indian" when asked to identify her race.

Neither Warren nor her office denied either the authenticity of the document nor that it was the senator's signature on it. "I can't go back," Warren told the Post in an interview Tuesday. "But I am sorry for furthering confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and harm that resulted."

Here's why this all matters so much: Prior to the Post's report of this bar registration card, Warren had maintained some level of plausible deniability about claiming herself as a Native American. As the Post wrote:

"The Texas bar registration card is significant, among other reasons, because it removes any doubt that Warren directly claimed the identity. In other instances Warren has declined to say whether she or an assistant filled out forms."

When the story initially broke WAY back during Warren's 2012 Senate campaign, it was reported that Warren had been listed as a minority in a faculty directory at Harvard Law School - and had been part of the school's touting of its diversity. At the time, Warren and her campaign insisted that she was unaware that her background was being touted by Harvard - and had never asked them to do so.

When subsequent stories emerged about Warren being listed as a Native American in a similar faculty directory at the University of Pennsylvania, the Warren team gave the same answer. She wasn't aware of the listing - and certainly never gained any benefit from it.

A richly reported Boston Globe investigation concluded that Warren was correct in her claim that she had never gained professionally from being listed as a Native American. But the larger question over her heritage lingered.

The answer to that is still fuzzy. Last October, Warren released a five-minute video designed to settle the controversy once and for all - and before she announced for president.

But it did no such thing. First of all, it rehashed much of what Warren had previously said about her claims of having Native American ancestry - that she had been told by her family that her ancestors were American Indians. Second, it tried to hang the verification of her claims on a DNA test that suggested she might have had Native American ancestors six to 10 generations ago.

Not only was that something short of foolproof evidence, but it also angered the Cherokee Nation, which argued that defining ethnicity via DNA and bloodlines was a dicey proposition.

Last week, seemingly out of the blue, Warren apologized to the tribe for using the DNA test as an attempt to prove her heritage. That apology makes much more sense in light of the Post reporting on Tuesday.

What we now know is that Warren actively identified as a Native American as far back as 1986. This was not some mix-up or misunderstanding or someone who worked for Warren making a mistake. This was Warren's doing.

That still doesn't mean that she gained anything from her decision to call herself a Native American on some documents. The bar registration card is a simple formality, not the sort of thing that would somehow benefit Warren in some material way.

But what it does mean is that Warren's efforts to clear all of this up before she officially becomes a presidential candidate - she's in the exploratory committee phase now - have failed and failed miserably.

A big part of presidential campaigns is introducing yourself to voters who don't know you. And the best way to do that is to tell them the story of your life - how you came to a place where you believe you are best equipped to represent a nation of more than 300 million people.

That back story is hopelessly compromised for Warren now. Every time she talks about growing up or her life before this presidential race, it will dredge up the (ongoing) controversy over why she claimed to be Native American despite very iffy evidence of that claim. She won't be able to escape it. It will be in every story about her past - and in most voters" minds when they think about which candidate to support.

Given that Donald Trump is President of the United States, nothing is impossible in politics. So Warren could somehow put all of this behind her, somehow, and be the nominee. But there's no question that her path to the Democratic presidential nomination has grown significantly steeper since last October. And the incline got even more pitched on Tuesday.

========================================================================

The Liberal Argument Outline

1. Use spun facts:

These can be found on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and many other liberal sources. What they do is take facts, polls or arguments and add a liberal spin in a weak attempt to make bad news for liberals look good. These are easily debunked and exposed as lies by going to the original source and posting the hard, cold facts with NO spin.

Note: At this point, you have won. It should never take more than one
post to win an argument with a liberal. It is recommended that you claim victory and disengage at this point. If you continue, for fun or
experimental purposes, no further logic will be forthcoming from the
liberals.

2. The Next Step For The Liberal Will Be To Attempt To Discredit Your
Source

If it is Fox or any perceived "right wing" source, they will refuse to
believe it. If it is a non-partisan source, they will claim it is right
wing, if it is a left of center source, they will find another lefty
source to "prove" you are wrong. They will not discuss the facts
themselves, as they know they have lost. If you must go down this road
(there is a high entertainment value), don't allow this diversion. Go
back to the facts.

3. The Limbaugh Defense:

This is one that comes out early and often. Although you know they never listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea what he says, they will drag him out and claim you are a Ditto head. This is another diversionary tactic. It has no relevance and is an attempt to change the subject. The more desperate they are, the more childish and ridiculous the reference to Limbaugh becomes: Flush, LimpBag, etc. Ignore this and re-post the facts. DO NOT BE DIVERTED.

4. The Personal Attack:

Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even something as innocuous as "I am a chef".

They will attempt to engage you and call you a liar to divert attention
from the original lost argument. Ignore this and re-post the facts yet
to be refuted.

5. Name Calling:

Still another diversion. If you fail to give them any personal information, they will attempt to draw you out to gain more insight into your personal side. Then they will return to step 4. Ignore this.

6. The Liberal Bat Signal:

When they find out they are unable to engage
you, divert you or goad you into a completely irrelevant topic, they
will send out the Bat Signal. This is where a bunch of Liberals (or
often, the same one using several names, i.e., Rudy) post a number of
rapid fire posts congratulating the Liberal on handing you your head on
a platter. This tactic often works on even the most logical and
disciplined of us. The urge to rant must be resisted. Your rant will
supply them with all the personal insight they need to spew hatred and
personal attacks. The best tactic here is to use the same tactic back at
them.

Keep in mind, a Liberal will never admit you have a valid point (Dutch
did, once), much less that you won a debate. So, the only reasons to
continue a dialog with a liberal after the initial statement of facts
that established your victory are for entertainment and educational
purposes. If you refuse to take the bait and demand the topic remain on
the original premise, they will eventually just go away and try to find
someone else that will engage them on their terms.

Now, go away, Snowflake.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)