Why did she do it?


For most of the year, pundits pounded their view that the blue wave was so powerful among those in anti-Trump America that the Democrats could win both houses of Congress in the 2018 midterms. Now that we’re just a few days away from Nov. 6, this bright-light prediction has now dimmed. The Democrats, for the first time in a long time, decided to play hardball with the Republicans when they picked the Senate hearing of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court as their venue.

It backfired.

By waiting until the last few days of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, they all but assured themselves that they would not win the Senate. The revelation that the judge might have sexually assaulted young women in high school and college re-energized the Republicans, and it now appears they will be highly motivated to vote.

As an example, in the Texas Senate race, challenger Rep. Beto O’Rourke mounted a serious challenge to the incumbent, Sen. Ted Cruz, but the latest poll shows the senator now leading by a comfortable eight points. The same appears to be true in other Republican-dominated states like Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin, where Democrats once thought they had a chance to win Senate races.

Enter Sen. Elizabeth Warren, now running for re-election.

She has been under constant attack from the president of the United States for over two years after reports emerged that she might have claimed Indian ancestry at the time she was a candidate to join the Harvard Law School faculty. He challenged her to get a DNA test to prove she was a descendent of a Native American, and said if it turned out that she was, he would give $1 million of his own money to the charity of her choice.

She took up his challenge and released the results to the public on Oct.10.

According to a report in the Boston Globe, “the analysis showed ‘strong evidence’ Warren had a Native American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. That generational range suggests Warren is between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American. Those results fit with an 1894 document uncovered by the New England Genealogical Society that suggested her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American.”

She defended her decision to go ahead with the test because of attacks by both President Trump and her Republican opponent, Rep. Geoff Diehl.

But the report ranks at the level of “so what?”

To react to criticism by the president is to waste valuable time, energy, and money to undertake what most Native American organizations say is bunk anyway. According to an executive at the Cherokee Nation, the largest tribe in America, the test is worthless. Requirements for membership in the tribe include written, documented evidence, not blood tests.

As a Harvard Law School professor and the principal designer of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Sen. Warren is one of the president’s favorite targets. He has long called her “Pocahontas,” to the dismay and anger of Native Americans, and now he refers to her DNA test as “bogus.” He chose only the second number noted above (1/1,024th Native American, not the 1/64th, which makes her closer in line as a Native American descendant). And, no, he will not give money to any charity.

The whole affair has made Sen. Warren look ridiculous when she lowers herself and her candidacy to the appalling level of President Trump: when he baits women by calling them “dogs” and “horseface,” or saying they have “a face like a pig,” or attacking them by demeaning bodily functions.

And it’s an unnecessary and unworthy distraction. As of mid-October, according to the Boston Herald, she led Rep. Diehl by 25 points in her re-election bid.

Instead of wallowing in the mud, slinging nonsense after nonsense back and forth with the president, she should stick to what she does best: win re-election on Nov. 6 and do what she can in the Senate to ensure the preservation of American democracy.


Jack Fruchtman, a seasonal resident of Aquinnah, teaches constitutional law and politics at Maryland’s Towson University.


  1. It’s great to see a democrat make a obvious statement in this ultra liberal island. There are only a couple of points to be taken. First, since her winning the election she has done nothing for Massachusetts and it’s taxpayers. Nothing, except scream and holler and complain about the president. Second, if she were to win re-election it would only be a stepping stone to running for president. Again, she would do nothing for the citizens of the state. Isn’t it about time we had someone actually doing what they were elected to do, that is, help the state in any way possible. Moving on to a national stage and quickly forgetting about the people who voted for you is not what it is all about. But I guess being a self serving democrat is more important.

    • You left out some catch-phrases from the Republican “How to Argue” manual but 8 for 8 for pure GOP in your sentences confirms party affiliation.

  2. What isn’t mentioned very often about Warren’s hiring at Harvard are the protests that were happening at the time against Harvard for it’s lack of minorities teaching at the law school. Almost daily the local news outlets were running stories about the issue. Harvard being the liberal bastion that it is couldn’t conceive hiring a real person of color for the position and Warren recognizing a chance to further her fraudulent heritage to her advantage were a marriage made in liberal heaven.

  3. She didnt mention Obama and Hillary in her debate. That alone will probably get her reelected. Im in the 90 per cent that didnt receive anything from the tax cut. I hope the Redsox win the world series.

  4. Unintended consequences – the bane of the Democratic Party under the leadership of Schumer and Pelosi. Leave the DNA stunt, the Trump Derangement Syndrome and antiquated rhetoric behind – now. Find new leadership with ideas on how to help all Americans succeed. Isn’t the the role of our elected officials?

    • Presuming a third party cannot realistically win right now, electing candidates from which major party is more likely to allow it to happen? For those who like neither party, this would be picking the lesser of two evils. But what would picking the worse of two evils get you?

Comments are closed.