As the saying goes ...

If you tell a "fib", but you don't benefit from it, does it matter?

If you step across the line to expose another's "fib", should your own actions be excused?

I am of course talking about the Brown/Warren Senate race and the Indian ancestry matter.

Some will say Warren's claims of Indian ancestry at worst amount to a little white lie, a harmless fib if you will.  The same being innocently based on relying on family folklore.  

Others will say Brown's continuing attacks are blown out of proportion, racists, and a smoke screen.

Below is the concluding comments from The Washington Post - The Fact Checker:

The outstanding questions about Warren’s directory listing — and her relying on family lore rather than official documentation to make an ethnic claim — certainly raise serious concerns about Warren’s judgement. But in the debate, the Republican incumbent conflated conjecture and sketchy information to make a claim not supported by the available evidence.

I would encourage you all to read the entire piece.

Brown rightly has been given two Pinocchios for his position (a rating that means: Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.)

It is time for him to put up or shut up.  He has made his point, and at times very poorly.

Warren's defense and excuses do in fact raise serious concerns about her judgment.  While it would be seemingly easy enough for her to disprove the on going concerns and allegations about "what else", she is correct in her position that she does have to.  She has the right not to be open and transparent on the matter.

A convenient position when you argue about what other's should be revealing, but nonetheless one that is valid.  One does not have to do many things.  I would think, however, she could bury Scott Brown by releasing the documents, if in fact she never attempted to use her "status" otherwise than for what she claims.

Why she doesn't is a valid question. We can argue forever over whether one should have to disprove an allegation.  The fact that one can, but doesn't will always leave open the question though.

Be that as it may, I again state it is time for Brown to put up or shut up.  Pounding this point over and over again does nothing.  Especially given the direction it is taking.  

He made his point, and there was in fact a valid point to make.  She is a highly educated individual, with a law degree who should have known better, and who certainly should have not checked any box in the first instance, and should have not allowed other's to use her "status" for any reason, because by any stretch of the imagination, Warren, like any other lawyer, should have known full well she didn't meet the legal qualifications to that "status", and my family told me so doesn't fly at the altitudes she has been ascending to.

But enough is enough.  Move on.  Unless you have something else by way of solid proof, you are just beating a dead horse.  A smart politician would realize that, and would also know how to make the point, use it to his advantage, and not use it to the point of distraction.

Brown deserves the two Pinocchios and Warren deserves the statement about her position raising serious concerns about her judgment.

Once again, we find a basis for an old saying, "Two wrongs, don't make a right".

Here is another two falling into that category, as far as I am concerned.  Let's call them the tit for tat complaints filed by the campaigns against each other.

Warren's campaign is alleging illegal coordination with the Carl Rove PAC by Brown.  The "evidence", according to the Mass. Democratic Party Chair John Walsh, was reported in an AP piece on the Worcester telegram.com site: "Walsh pointed to a report in The Boston Globe that Brown met with Rove at a Tampa hotel restaurant during the Republican National Convention in Florida."

Wow.  Now there is a smoking gun for you.

Brown's campaign stated it was a chance meeting between Rove and Brown when the two ran into each other at the Republican National Convention.  According to the article, Walsh article said the campaign’s explanation “ doesn't pass the smell test.”  

Walsh must be right.  Why else would they possibly meet but to collude to set up illegal campaign tactics?

Of course it doesn't pass the smell test! I mean what are the odds that a sitting Republican Senator would run into a GOP bigwig at a National Convention, and when that happened they would actually talk with each other about some legitimate things.  How believable is that I ask you?

Actually a bit more believable than the explanation, or lack thereof from Warren's camp for the Republican Party complaints allegations against Warren.  She received an endorsement from the AFL-CIO, with the union president pledging support for Warren.  Imagine that after doing so, within four days a mailer was out from the union.  They had to have planned it in advance.

I said a bit more believable, not to the extent that this complaint beats the "get a life" tag.  The union pledges support.  Sends out a mailer.  Seems like a "support" move to me.  

Unless you got something better than that, really, get a life.  You look just about, not quite but just about, as pathetic as the Dem. Party Chair.

Tit for tat and dumb at that.