On the offensive: Republicans mock Elizabeth Warren with war whoops and tomahawk chops

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may know, there is a bit of a controversy in Massachusetts over Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's claim to Native American (Cherokee) ancestry (and whether she ever benefitted from such minority status), with Republican incumbent Scott Brown, falling back in the polls, turning it into a major campaign issue (because he doesn't have much else to say, and because this is the sort of thing Republicans do when they're desperate, or that they just do generally):

Brown, a Republican, has attacked Warren, a Democrat, over her purported ancestry in their first debate and in a tough new commercial he released Monday. Brown has argued Warren is not in fact Indian -- "as you can see, she's not," he said during the debate -- and has suggested she claimed minority status to advance her career. Warren, who has no documentation of her roots, has argued she did not benefit from her ethnic background, and has pointed to family stories to substantiate her heritage.

Personally, I see no reason to disbelieve Warren -- she's obviously not counting on the small Native American vote to put her over the top, and it's not like being a small part Cherokee is the sort of thing to swing the independent vote.

Of much greater concern is how Brown has responded, and gone on the attack. The "she doesn't look Indian" attack is deeply ignorant and remarkably stupid. As Josh Marshall points out: "Now that sounds like a great gotcha line. Unless, you know really anything about the modern Cherokee Nation. In colloquial terms at least, most Cherokees, certainly many, 'look white.'" And so "this 'she don't look Indian" line Brown is now basing his campaign on is ignorant to the point of offensive."

And over the weekend it got even uglier:

At least two Republican staffers, including a member of Scott Brown's US Senate office, apparently mocked Elizabeth Warren's claims to Native American ancestry by making tomahawk chops and war whoops outside one of Brown's campaign events in Dorchester, according to a video filmed by the state Democratic Party.

In the video, filmed by a Democratic tracker on Saturday outside a Brown event at the Eire Pub, the staffers can be heard whooping and seen making the tomahawk motions amid a crowd of boisterous supporters of both candidates.

Now, okay, this wasn't Brown himself, and apparently one one of his staffers was doing it, and yesterday he said that "that's not something I condone," but he remained on the attack nonetheless.

This may not be his "macaca" moment, but it was deeply offensive, as is his line of attack generally, and it's just the sort of disgraceful act of insensitivity that has come to characterize his campaign.


**********

Update:

Check out Charlie Pierce's characteristically astute take (via BBWW):

There's only one reason to pound the issue about Elizabeth Warren's ancestry and that is to race-bait, to gin up the lizard-brained anger at "quotas" and "affirmative action." Brown already tippy-toed down that line last week in the debate, when he explained that he can tell an Injun jes' by lookin' at one. You talk about her like she gamed the system and you're not merely casting aspersions on her career, but you're giving a nudge-nudge, wink-wink to all the usual suspects out there who know somebody who knew somebody who was related to somebody who knew somebody who didn't get the job they should have had. This is also what they do. This is also what they've always done. This is also why you hired people because this is what they do.

Race-baiting by Republicans? For them, it's called getting out the vote.

Behind the Ad: Virginia Democratic Senate candidate Tim Kaine is out with his first ad

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Democrat Tim Kaine's Senate campaign.

Where: Virginia.

What's going on: I'm so tired of reading and writing about Rep. Todd Akin that I have to think about something else. What about the very close Senate race in Virginia, with Democrat Tim Kaine going up against Republican George Allen? Kaine is out with his first ad and it's a pretty gentle and positive spot, though others have been hard at work on the nasty stuff. As The Washington Post writes:

One day alone last week, conservative groups launched three ads blasting Kaine. The next day, two liberal groups hit the airwaves with new ads attacking Allen.

The Post describes the Kaine ad like this:

With soft music playing in the background, Kaine touts his record as Virginia governor, describing an era of bipartisanship and fiscal responsibility, friendliness to business and commitment to education. He never mentions Allen.

It's going to be interesting. Some campaigns are going to be happy letting outside money do a lot of the dirty work. I just wonder if voters will make those kinds of distinctions. Does anyone really believe candidates bear no responsibility for the content and tone of non-campaign (e.g., Super PAC) ads, or that there is absolutely no coordination, or that they couldn't shut them down if they wanted to? I doubt it.

Here's Mr. Kaine, all warm and fuzzy:

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Behind the Ad: Attacks against Tim Kaine and Obama in Virginia

By Richard K. Barry

Who: Crossroads GPS (a.k.a. Karl Rove) on behalf of Republican Senate candidate George Allen.

Where: Virginia.

What's going on: Karl Rove's super PAC, Crossroads GPS, has produced ads to tie Democratic Senate candidate Tim Kaine to President Obama. The ad says they are both all about "reckless spending, red ink, and higher taxes." Allen, the Republican, in a race with no incumbent, even has billboards up calling Kaine "Obama's Senator, Not Virginia's."

Kaine doesn't seem all that concerned, saying:

It's time we reject this type of divisive politics. If you want a Senator who'll partner with the President to do what's best for the nation, I'm your guy.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this race is that everyone knows it will be very close. Most polls are within the margin of error. Both candidates are very well known in the state. There's not a lot of room to move votes between the two of them. Importantly, it will be a very hotly contested swing state for the presidential election with 13 electoral votes at stake, which means that the fate of these two Senate candidates may be tied to the presidential campaigns in a way even more pronounced than elsewhere. In other words, the margin of victory is almost certainly going to driven by the presidential candidate's coattails. As one observer put it:

"By election day, the Obama campaign will dwarf the Virginia Democratic Party itself and its infrastructure," says Quentin Kidd, a professor at Christopher Newport University and a Virginia political pollster. "Your ability as Tim Kaine, US Senate candidate, no matter how well positioned you are, you aren't well positioned enough to dominate the agenda that the Obama campaign is going to impose on Virginia. And I assume the Romney campaign is going to try to do the same thing."

Obama won the state by a 52.7-46.4% margin over John McCain. Bush won it convincingly over Kerry in 2004 (53.8%-45.6%). Current polling is close as well.

So, I suppose Karl Rove and his super PAC is cutting right to the chase by making no distinction between Kaine and Obama. Two for the price of one, that sort of thing. He may rue that decision.

Here's the ad:

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Virginia Senate race in 2012 looking to be very close (again)

By Richard K. Barry

A Washington Post poll came out a few days ago, which would make the 2012 race for the Virginia senate seat about as tight as possible. The presumptive front runners for their parties, George Allen (R) and Tim Kaine (D), find themselves with 46% support each if the election were held today. You will recall that Allen was a senator as well as governor of the state, while Kaine also served as governor and was on President Obama's veep shortlist.

In one of the more interesting races of 2006, Democrat Jim Webb beat Allen, who was at that time the incumbent. Despite Allen's early lead in the polls, Webb closed the gap and won by a mere 49.59% to 49.20% margin (or just 9,329 votes). Most observers have attributed Allen's use of an ethnic slur in reference to a Webb campaign worker as contributing to his loss.

Now Webb has decided that he won't seek reelection, which has thrown things wide open likely making Virginia, once again, one of the most interesting races of 2012.

While Allen's behaviour in the 2006 race may continue to be a problem for him, it has been pointed out that Tim Kaine's close relationship to the Obama White House could be an issue for him especially among independents. Look for the Republicans to be airing ads using the cheerleader motif to describe that relationship. I can almost see the pom poms now.

As The Washington Post points out, Virginia has changed dramatically in recent years, noting that:

Kaine draws support in portions of northern Virginia, which has rapidly gained in population, wealth and clout. Allen, the ex-governor and senator, remains strong in the remainder of the state.

Other details of poll as reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch are that:

• 58 percent of voters approve of the way Kaine handled his job as governor; 55 percent approve of Allen's performance as a U.S. Senator.
• 57 percent of voters have a favourable impression of Kaine; 52 percent of Allen.
• Kaine leads in northern Virginia but trails among independents in the outer suburbs; Allen struggles with female and minority voters.
• Allen is far outpacing his GOP rivals. He had the support of 57 percent of Republicans. Tea Party Candidate Jamie Radke has just 2 percent.
• Kaine would, at this point, also make short work of other Democratic challengers.

As we've commented, it is going to be tough slogging for the Democrats to hold onto the Senate in 2012 as they must defend 23 seats to the Republicans' 10. Virginia would clearly be an essential "keep" if they were to have a chance of doing that.

In the 2008 presidential election, Obama beat McCain in Virginia by a margin of 53% to 47%, but Bush beat Kerry by roughly 54% to 45% in 2004.

Virginia has 11 members of the House. In the 2010 mid-term elections, the Republican picked up 3 seats now holding an 8 to 3 margin over the Dems. In 2008, as a part of the Obama surge, the Democrats took 6 seats to the Republican 5 and prior to that in 2006 the Republican were ahead with an 8 to 3 seat margin.

This one certainly seems to be shaping up to be as close as the polls suggest. Perhaps as much as any place in the country, we'll see what kind of coattails President Obama has.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)