On so many issues, she's "got a plan for that" -- and like so many of her plans, it features impracticality with a distinct whiff of authoritarianism. And a dash of hypocrisy. It's sort of her brand. So now, the woman who deleted her DNA stunt video after it failed to prove her false heritage claims, appears to have repeatedly lied about getting fired for being pregnant, deeply mischaracterized her kids' educational history during a discussion with a school choice advocate, and fabricated an insanely dishonest healthcare "plan" would like the government to crack down on false information on the internet with criminal sanctions:
Elizabeth Warren proposes criminal penalties for spreading disinformation online https://t.co/7tUD3dvDxq— CNBC (@CNBC) January 29, 2020
Re-read that my paragraph, then decide: Lock her up? What about for this egregious, race-baiting lie?
5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 9, 2019
It is quite remarkable to see one of the least honest figures on the political scene today taking up the torch of 'truth-or-else' enforcement. Of course, setting aside the free speech issues at play, there are the fundamental questions of what would constitute "disinformation," and who would adjudicate such distinctions for censorship and/or punishment. I wonder how Warren might feel about her little totalitarian proposal if the final arbiter of legally-actionable online "lying" were, say, Attorney General Bill Barr. This somewhat reminds me of incensed lefties screaming at Mark Zuckerberg because Facebook won't censor political content they don't like. Astoundingly, they're demanding that a big corporation led by a billionaire make unilateral decisions about what political content the masses are permitted to see. What could go wrong? The not-so-subtle secret is that they're willing to stifle speech because they feel confident that their ideological allies would be the ones doing the stifling. Per usual, the table-pounders haven't stopped to contemplate how their preferred regime would work if people with "bad" ideas were making the decisions.
Also, let's be frank: Like much of her nonsense, this isn't a serious plan from Warren. It's her latest desperate, kitchen sink-style gambit to generate attention and revitalize a flagging campaign. She's steadily dropped in the polls in recent months, with the target of her most transparent CNN-laundered attack (arguably disinformation!) gaining steam. The media -- often eager to boost Warren -- declared her the winner of the misogyny row with Bernie Sanders. It would appear that voters reached a rather different conclusion:
A few weeks ago, the Warren campaign planted a story obviously designed to make Bernie look like a sexist, then a liar. As the resulting tempest played out, much of the media declared her the winner of the exchange. Meanwhile, here's what primary voters have done (Jan RCP avg): pic.twitter.com/qxkw43qmjw— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) January 30, 2020
Parting thought via Allahpundit: Could Warren finish fourth or fifth in Iowa, where she was long viewed as a frontrunner with an exceptional ground game? That would be a devastating outcome for her. On the other hand, maybe her on-the-ground work will pay off, and Joe Biden's seemingly-strong standing will be exposed as a mirage in the Hawkeye State:
Multiple polls show Biden IA supporters less likely to be confident they will caucus:https://t.co/HQ1MqoA4nghttps://t.co/clm9vsf5ZH— Matt Grossmann (@MattGrossmann) January 30, 2020
& he may have a weaker mobilization effort on the ground:https://t.co/EerLMA7ka6
That’s a potential recipe for underperforming polls
Tune in Monday to find out.