Elizabeth Warren

Are you prepared, Bernie Quigley?

Are you prepared for your inevitable coronation as national laughingstock?

Bernie Quigley of The Hill has written himself into the laughstock status by his incredibly laughable excuse for Elizabeth Warren's false claim to be part Indian. According to Quigley, paleface Warren really wasn't lying about her ancestry. Why? I have placed Quigley's bizarre rationale below the fold so you have a chance to put down your drinks to prevent the drenching of your monitors when you read it:

On Monday's CBS This Morning, Charlie Rose and Erica Hill touted Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren's past time as "the government's chief watchdog during the 2008 bank bailout" as she was brought on to discuss JP Morgan Chase's $2 billion loss. Rose and Hill asked all of their questions from the left, and completely ommited any mention of the recent controversy over Warren's claim of Native American ancestry.

The anchor set up the Senate candidate to push for more regulations on banks without rebuttal: "It's appropriate to have some government oversight, and notwithstanding the fact that we're just coming out of this huge crisis." Hill even wondered if the banks themselves "should be broken up into smaller entities."

On Monday’s front page, The Washington Post promoted “liberal hero” Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat looking to retake the “Ted Kennedy seat” in the Senate. “Stakes high as liberal hero tries to unseat GOP senator,” read the headline. On Sunday, the Post’s Chris Cillizza said Warren had the “Worst Week in Washington” for her muddled answers to claiming she was of Native American heritage in professor jobs for a decade.

But it wasn’t the “worst week” in the Post – they ran no news story on the controversy until Monday, but in this Karen Tumulty story, it was completely buried until paragraph twenty:

If you hoped the race card wasn't going to be played by media members this election, think again.

On Fox News's America Live Friday, liberal commentator Jehmu Greene said to the Daily Caller's Tucker Carlson, "To question [Massachusetts Democratic senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren] on her qualifications is going to be something that does appeal to folks like you, voters like you - bow-tying white boys" (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):

On today’s edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski openly professed her love for Democrat Elizabeth Warren, and showed viewers that she hopes the Democrat defeats Republican incumbent Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.). At one point in the segment, Brzezinski said, “And I'm so sorry for Scott Brown, who I think is adorable. But it's just not going to happen.”

This is not the first time Mika has openly cheered for the liberal Harvard professor to win the Bay State's Senate contest, but it is the first time since an embarrassing scandal came to light involving Warren's specious claim to be of Native American heritage. [Audio here. Video below the jump.]

Elizabeth Warren's credibility took another hit today with stories in both major Boston daily newspapers stating that Warren was listed as a minority in a professional directory for nine years before she was hired by Harvard Law School in 1995.

The Boston Herald broke the story on Friday that Harvard Law School described Warren as its sole Native American professor during the mid-1990s when Harvard was under fire for lack of diversity among its faculty.

Yet another example of the fluid, ever-evolving liberal concept of diversity.

Back in 1996, the Coalition for Civil Rights, a student group at Harvard Law School, ran a survey to determine whether law students at the school were happy with "the level of representation of women and minorities" on the faculty, according to the Harvard Crimson.

On the April 10 edition of Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski openly endorsed Democratic candidate for US Senate, Elizabeth Warren. The left-wing Harvard professor "should win," Brzezinski proclaimed counseling Bay State voters that while incumbent Scott Brown was "great," his Democratic opponent was "fantastic." [Audio here, video after the jump]

In the Sunday Washington Post, film critic Ann Hornaday puts on her left-wing political beret to honor a documentary called “Maxed Out” now playing on the Showtime channel -- and its star, Elizabeth Warren, currently running as a Democrat  against Republican Sen. Scott Brown for “Ted Kennedy’s seat” in the Senate.

James Scurlock, the director of “Maxed Out,” is all gush to the Post. “You look at the way people have responded to her, I’m just in awe,” he said. “I live in L.A., which is a celebrity culture, and people get much more excited when you say you know Elizabeth Warren than if I knew Angelina Jolie or George Clooney. She’s like a rock star.”

Most liberal media members and prominent Democrats including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took great offense to Sen. Scott Brown's (D-Mass.) joke concerning rival Elizabeth Warren not posing naked when she was in law school.

Quite surprisingly, when this matter came up on ABC's The View Monday, the ladies sided with Brown (multipart video follows with transcripts and commentary):

At the top of Friday's NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer wondered if a joke by Republican Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown in response to a jab by Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren was a "comeback or insult" and noted that "women's groups are giving him a big dressing down today."

In a later tease of the story, fellow co-host Ann Curry proclaimed: "A senate race in Massachusetts has turned ugly and personal." Lauer summed up the situation this way: "...during a debate, a potential Democratic challenger took a shot at Republican Senator Scott Brown for saying that he had to pose nude in Cosmopolitan magazine way back in 1982 to pay for school. Brown's response is now what's drawing a lot of heat."

New York Times business columnist Joe Nocera, now a regular on the paper’s op-ed page, equated congressional oversight with Anthony Weiner’s sexual peccadillos in Saturday’s “Blocking  Elizabeth Warren.”  Warren, a Harvard law professor, bankruptcy “expert,” and liberal crusader, is special advisor to the White House and a favorite among liberals and the Times for pushing the creation of a federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

It’s official: Elizabeth Warren will return to the torture chamber known as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 14. Earlier this week, Darrell Issa, the California Republican who is chairman of the committee, tweeted the news. Apparently, Democrats aren’t the only ones who use Twitter to harass women.

You begin to get an idea of how poorly served the news-consuming public is by the Associated Press when you compare its "reporting" on Obama czar Elizabeth Warren's appearance tomorrow before the House Financial Services Committee to an information-packed editorial -- yes, an editorial -- in the Wall Street Journal this morning.

You can read all of the over 750 words in the unbylined AP report without learning that Ms. Warren and various state attorneys general are attempting to shake down the banking system for $20 billion. You would think from the wire service's selective content that it's only Republicans who have opposed and continue to oppose the broad, unchecked authority her brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, will have over U.S. banking policy and practices. It ain't so.

Here are key paragraphs from the AP's 5:32 p.m. report (saved here at my host for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes):

    Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . .the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- First Amendment to the Constitution

Remember the MSM brouhaha when some conservatives suggested reconsidering the automatic granting of citizenship to children born in the US to illegal immigrants? Suddenly, the sanctity of the 14th Amendment became the single most precious thing to liberals—even though no amendment of it, let alone its abolition, would have been necessary to revise the policy on birthright citizenship.

So should we expect the liberal media to take up its constitutional cudgel against Elizabeth Warren?  After all, Pres. Obama's newly appointed [not nominated] head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau went on Morning Joe today and in effect proclaimed that the right to petition government for the redress of government "scares" her.  More disturbingly, Warren suggested we need to work on "dialing back" that right.

To be sure, Warren never cited the First Amendment or the right it recognized to "petition government for a redress of grievances."  But read and listen to her words: that's exactly what she was kvetching about—and wanting to "dial back."

Bruce Ackerman argues in today's Wall Street Journal that in President Obama's shady appointment Elizabeth Warren to an advisory role last week in order to bypass the Senate confirmation process "is another milestone down the path toward an imperial presidency."

Here is the deal: The Senate should change its rules to require an up-or-down vote on all executive branch appointments within 60 days. In exchange, the president should sign legislation to require Senate approval of all senior White House appointments. By reaching this agreement, the president regains the powers to govern effectively and the Senate regains its authority to approve all major appointments-regardless of their location in the executive branch.

This grand bargain requires both sides to give up the petty privileges of the existing system. Senators will lose their power to hold up nominations to blackmail the administration into approving their pet projects. Presidents will lose their ability to appoint super-loyalists who can't convince 51 senators that they merit powerful White House positions. But the rest of us will profit greatly from the reinvigoration of the founding principle of checks-and-balances for a new century.

What do you think? Would this system remedy the problem? 

 

At the top of Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: "Angry Americans. A new report declares the recession officially over. But many of us are not feeling it. Even taking on the President himself." Later, he seemed to portray the President as a victim: "...a lot of Americans are still suffering its [the recession's] effects, and are taking it out on President Obama."

In a report that followed, correspondent Bill Plante noted how "numbers may be going in the right direction" but touted "frustrated" Obama supporters speaking out at a Monday CNBC town hall. In between clips of those voters, Plante sympathetically remarked: "On the defensive, the President responded by outlining some of his administration's accomplishments, but admitted that things aren't where they need to be." He concluded the report: "So the reality is that improving statistics aren't very convincing to voters who are worried about jobs, and that is the reality the President and his party face going into the November elections."

Introducing a brief report on the stock market reaction, co-host Maggie Rodriguez looked for a silver lining: "The average American may be skeptical about an economic recovery, but the reaction on Wall Street to the end of the recession shows that investors are optimistic." Business and economics correspondent Rebecca Jarvis declared: "...yesterday, stocks responded positively to the news that it is now behind us. The Dow ended higher by 145 points, putting it on track for the best September in 71 years."

The Federal pay czar announced that executives in companies that took bailout funds from the Troubled Asset Recovery Program should not receive the bonuses that were announced recently. And there are rumblings about extending government reach into the executive compensation at all publicly traded companies. That would be just fine with Harry Smith at CBS's "Early Show."

On Oct. 22, Smith interviewed Elizabeth Warren, the chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel - basically the government-mandated babysitter of companies that were bailed out by TARP funds.

"Guys, you can't party on like it's 2007," said Warren. "If you're going to have to take taxpayer dollars, then it means the game has to change."