GOP Smear Machine Targets Elizabeth Warren

The progressive favorite hasn’t even officially launched her Senate campaign, but the mud is already flying.

Elizabeth Warren<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfpbphotos/5619826085/">Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Elizabeth Warren has yet to officially declare whether she’ll challenge Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) in 2012—but already Massachusetts Republicans are flinging mud in her direction and previewing their attack plan if she does jump into the race.

Since Warren formed an exploratory committee on August 18, Brown’s staff and the Massachusetts Republican Party have branded Warren a carpetbagger, an elitist, and a candidate too liberal to represent the Bay State. Using press releases, public statements, and even an anonymous Twitter account, GOPers have depicted Warren, a Harvard professor and middle-class champion who launched the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as a political nonentity and “another Martha Coakley.” The latter refers to the state’s Democratic attorney general who, despite greater name recognition and the advantage of running for a seat controlled by Democrats for more than 50 years, was upset by Brown in a 2010 special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy. “If the first few days of professor Warren’s campaign are any indicator, Massachusetts Democrats will soon be yearning for the golden days of Martha Coakley,” sniped Jennifer Nassour, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts GOP in August.

Kevin Franck, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Democratic Party, says Republicans are attacking Warren to shift the debate away from Brown’s Senate record. Franck points to Brown’s votes to undercut the Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill, limit the power of the Environmental Protection Agency, and cut millions of dollars in funding for summer youth jobs programs in Massachusetts. “The reason that Scott Brown, his allies, and the Massachusetts Republican party is throwing mud all over the place is because they don’t want to talk about how Scott Brown’s been voting since he’s been in the US Senate,” Franck says.

To date, the most underhanded attacks on Warren have come from the @CrazyKhazei Twitter account, named after Massachusetts Democrat Alan Khazei, another 2012 Senate candidate. The phony account drew plenty of attention for mocking Khazei, but little mentioned was its barrage of criticism leveled at Warren. The user behind @CrazyKhazei would’ve remained anonymous had Eric Fehrnstrom, an aide to both Scott Brown and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, not outed himself by accidentally tweeting a @CrazyKhazei-style tweet from his personal Twitter account. He later admitted to creating the account. (Fehrnstrom did not respond to a request for comment for this story.)

On @CrazyKhazei, Fehrnstrom parroted the Warren-as-Coakley talking point:

“Elizabeth Warren ‘another Martha Coakley?’ http://tinyurl.com/3dm7934” (19 August 2011)

“Echoes of Martha Coakley? Eliz Warren’s supporters forget which ‘Scott’ she’s running against http://tinyurl.com/3uo6elr #mapoli” (19 August 2011)

Fehrnstrom ripped Warren for being an out-of-towner—and also for being a “Cambridge-centric” elitist:

“Elizabeth Warren? C’mon, this is Massachusetts, not Oklahoma #mapoli” (31 July 2011)

“Honestly, so far the only people I know who are excited about Elizabeth Warren live outside Massachusetts #mapoli #masen” (20 August 2011)

“Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Cambridge centric’ view http://tinyurl.com/3rny3me” (19 August 2011)

“@elizabethforma is not following anyone on twitter. Typical Harvard elitist. #mapoli #masen” (19 August 2011)

Now, some facts. Warren is no carpetbagger—she’s lived in Massachusetts for 17 years, and the Boston Globe named her “Bostonian of the Year” in 2009. Nor is she an elitist—she grew up in a family hit hard by the Oklahoma dust bowl and the Depression, and her work focuses on protecting consumers and improving the lot of middle-class families. Warren’s no Ivy League snob either—she taught at big public universities, including the University of Texas and the University of Michigan, before later landing at Harvard.

The Massachusetts Republican Party has attacked Warren early and often. Four days after Warren formed her exploratory committee, the state GOP blasted out a press release with the cheeky title “E.W. = M.C.2″—again comparing Warren to Coakley. The GOP bashed her for using “violent rhetoric,” citing a time when she said she either wanted a strong and independent consumer protection agency or “no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.”

The GOP has slammed Warren for the supposedly “humiliating errors” of retaining Perkins Coie, a respected DC law firm that lobbies on a range of issues and often represents national Democratic candidates, to work on her exploratory committee, and also for hiring Gov. Deval Patrick’s former chief of staff, Doug Rubin, who previously lobbied for an influential gambling corporation. Two of the supposed errors, however, didn’t even involve Warren’s own actions.

Not that Warren isn’t used to partisan attacks. As the Obama administration adviser tasked with launching the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Warren often squared off against hostile congressional Republicans and, on one occasion, was even accused of lying to Congress by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.). Warren’s time in Washington no doubt thickened her skin to the kind of attacks headed her way in Massachusetts.

Consider the GOP’s jabs at Warren a taste of what’s to come in what could be the most high-profile Senate race of 2012. What you won’t see is more mud from @CrazyKhazei. Fehrnstrom appears to have shut down the account after his role went public and Brown voiced his disapproval. Fehrnstrom, who has criticized others for their “in-the-gutter” tactics, was unapologetic: “As they say in politics, if you can’t stand the tweet, get out of the kitchen.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate