Scott Brown's Cherokee Obsession

     Last night's Brown-Warren debate was a barn burner-and we owe it all to Harry Reid for making it possible.

      I have to say though that what struck me most in the debate was Brown's decision to go after Warren so hard over the Cherokee flap. There has developed something of an urban legend in Massachusetts driven by Brown and company, that Warren deliberately lied about being a Cherokee Indian in order to advance her career.

      While there's nothing to the whole flap it was striking for Brown to lead the debate with a full-throated invoking of this wedge issue. The way he went about it seemed borderline racist. I mean it was surreal watching him point his finger at her and repeatedly say, "As we can see she's not a Cherokee."

       Since when has it become possible to recognize who's a Native American purely on sight? Brown clearly seemed to be assuming that because Warren appears to look white we can rule out categorically that she could be part Cherokee Indian.

      “As you know, I think what you’re referring to is the fact that professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of color — And as you can see, she’s not,” said Brown. “That being said, she checked the box, and she had an opportunity actually to make a decision throughout her career when she applied to Penn and Harvard. She checked the box claiming she was a Native American. And you know, clearly she’s not.”

      “That being said, I don’t know and neither do the viewers know whether she got ahead as a result of that checking of the box. But the only way that we’ll be able to find that out is to have her release her personnel records, have Harvard release their personnel records to make sure that she did not have an advantage that others were entitled to. So when you are a United States senator, you have to pass a test. And that’s one of character and honesty and truthfulness. And I believe and others believe that she’s failed that test.”

     http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/warren-and-brown-hammer-each-other-non-stop-in-first-debate.php?ref=fpb

     I haven't lived in Massachusetts since early 2009-now back in the old country, NY, naturally. I don't know how the Cherokee story is playing. I know Howie Carr loves it but then he's kind of an outlier in terms of taste, not to mention just normal human decency.

     However, I wonder if this will hurt him with Bay Staters, particularly women. Brown has gotten decent poll numbers with women but might this turn many off? I've noticed that he's tended to speak of her very scornfully lately. I found his comments after the Akin scandal, when she called him for voting for antiabortion legislation that he also supports striking as well.

     He didn't merely dispute what she said or call them false; instead he tried to brush her away like she's an annoying fly: Why is she talking about my record? Could it be, because she's your election opponent, Senator?

     Maybe he should be careful about attacking her so personally-it might turn off women particularly but Bay Staters more generally-this is a state that's now supporting the President by a 28 point margin. While Romney was never going to win the state that is an astonishing spread.

     This is probably why Brown went here last night. He got testy after she brought up the Akin vote because he gets that he's much more vulnerable he is tied to Romney, Ryan, and Mitch McConnell. Brown had actually been trailing by as much as 5 points when the Akin story broke. Now four different polls have her leading, a number by 4 or 5 points.

      Only Howie Carr's Boston Herald still shows Brown leading. Barney Frank had a great interview on Rachel Maddow last night. He made the point that it's not about Brown alone, but his place as a cog in the Republican machine.

       As Warren pointed out last night, a vote for Brown might just be the vote to give McConnell a promotion. Brown is very vulnerable because as Chuck Schumer points out: you can't think of many votes that he swung for the Democrats in the Senate. His votes with them are almost always where it isn't needed to pass anything. Then you have the fact that a prolife group says he's voted the prolife position 80% of the time, regardless of him calling himself prochoice.

        So I wonder two things overall. First was this out of desperation to change the subject? Second, will it actually backfire and turnoff Massachusetts voters?

        It is very notable that while he never mentioned Romney's name, Warren did bring up the President.