Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on November 11, 2013, 12:01:18 PM
-
I hope Democrats aren't dumb to nominate this woman, but that is the same party that legitimized Al Shaprton, so anything can happen.
Elizabeth Warren Could Threaten Hillary from Left in 2016
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=e1f66b3f-695a-475c-9a00-a714cf44aa3c&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Sunday, 10 Nov 2013
By Greg Richter
It isn't Republicans such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should fear if she chooses to run for president in 2016, writes Noam Scheiber of The New Republic.
Instead, she should keep a wary eye on fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
Warren, currently serving as U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, represents the more socialist wing of the party, which is growing in popularity among Democrats under 30, Scheiber writes, citing a recent Pew poll.
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
Clinton represents the "Democratic elites" associated with her husband's presidency, who moved left in support of the economic stimulus and larger unemployment benefits of President Barack Obama, though they still think the economy needs a "large, powerful, highly complex financial sector."
But socialists have held the upper hand recently, Scheiber says. He cites New York City Public Advocate and former Sandinista activist Bill de Blasio's capturing of the New York City mayor's race, Larry Summers' forced withdrawal from consideration as chairman of the Fed, and former Obama chief of staff and JP Morgan executive Bill Daley's dropping out of the Illinois governor's race over bad polls.
These are bad omens for Clinton, Scheiber argues.
He describes Clinton's likely Democratic challenger as someone from the socialist wing of the party who likely would be a woman, since Democrats would want to follow up the historic election of the nation's first black president with another historic first. She would also need to be able to raise vast sums of money.
"As it happens, there is precisely such a person," Scheiber says. "Her name is Elizabeth Warren."
But Warren also strikes fear into the hearts of her fellow Democrats, he says. Clinton is a team player, and is therefore predictable. For that matter, Cruz, on the Republican side is also predictable as he bucks his party's leadership. With Warren, they never know what they'll get.
She entered the Senate seeming to defer to party leaders, but at her very first hearing as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, she pounced on bank regulators, saying, “Tell me a little bit about the last few times you’ve taken the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street all the way to a trial."
"The question, though eminently reasonable, violated an unstated rule of committee protocol, in which members of Congress are allowed to rant and rave at length but generally abstain from humiliating appointees, especially from their own party," Scheiber writes.
Schieber notes that most presidential race watchers don't expect Warren to run, as it would most likely be a suicide mission. But her past has shown that, like Cruz, she cares less about her own political ambition than she does about her mission. In her case, she wants to advance her economic agenda for what she believes will ease the burden on the middle class.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-hillary-2016-new/2013/11/10/id/535866#ixzz2kMwKPF5O
-
fine by me.
-
Maybe some billionaire repub can get her to run as a 3rd party spoiler for hillary
-
I do agree she could threaten Hilary in a big way. (Although I think she would wait til 2020 if HIlary only running for 1 term).
HOWEVER - As an uberliberal, she could win nationally. Why? Well, we all know medium-flavor politicians don't win elections cause they don't energize their base. By voting record, Obama was labeled most liberal senator in 2007, then won by a strong margin in 2008. Mitt/mccain were RINOs and their base didn't bother. The left-lib base, those who vote female gender no matter what, and anyone that hates the banks would love Warren. That could be enough to win.
Repubs would have a better time against a soft spine moderate like Evan Buyh than someone who actually vows to shakes things up.
-
oh great - another delusional communist a-hole Marxist
-
oh great - another delusional communist a-hole Marxist
I expect we'll have 5-6 liberal marxists, to go with 3-4 batshit nutty tea partiers.
See, they win elections. moderates who promise more of the same, a little of this and that... they don't win elections, at least not lately.
Bush was HIGHLY conservative s governor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_George_W._Bush
Clinton delivered a welfare state for Ark as gov:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/22/us/clinton-record-in-leading-arkansas-successes-but-not-without-criticism.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
-
Maybe some billionaire repub can get her to run as a 3rd party spoiler for hillary
Hillary would be a better candidate than this "Native American" woman.
-
I like her. I've come away impressed almost every time I've heard her speak.
If people were to get to know her as well as they know Hillary, I think she'd do better in the general election than Hillary would.
-
I like her. I've come away impressed almost every time I've heard her speak.
If people were to get to know her as well as they know Hillary, I think she'd do better in the general election than Hillary would.
She is another lying fraud and limousine liberal scam artists
-
I like her. I've come away impressed almost every time I've heard her speak.
If people were to get to know her as well as they know Hillary, I think she'd do better in the general election than Hillary would.
Were you impressed with her claim to be Native American?
-
She is an economic and social liberal, which is not where the majority of the country is. We have twice elected an unqualified economic and social liberal, with disastrous results. I hope the voters are smart enough not to make that mistake again in 2016.
Cannot imagine this "Native American" as commander in chief.
Here is where she stands on some of the issues.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm
-
She is an economic and social liberal, which is not where the majority of the country is. We have twice elected an unqualified economic and social liberal, with disastrous results. I hope the voters are smart enough not to make that mistake again in 2016.
Cannot imagine this "Native American" as commander in chief.
Here is where she stands on some of the issues.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm
In what way is Warren unqualified? She's sure qualified when it comes to economic policy. Which potential presidential candidate is more qualified than her when speaking about economic issues?
-
In what way is Warren unqualified? She's sure qualified when it comes to economic policy. Which potential presidential candidate is more qualified than her when speaking about economic issues?
these are the people who will tell you how qualified Ted Cruz is and Rand Paul
-
these are the people who will tell you how qualified Ted Cruz is and Rand Paul
You voted or Obama 2x over remember? LMFAO!!!! about qualifications
-
She is another lying fraud and limousine liberal scam artists
Limousine liberal? Yeah, I can see how being one of them edumacated Harvard Law Professors specializing in bankruptcy law (hmm, relevant for these times, ya think?) might lead one to assume she's one of the dreaded "elite". You might want to re-think that assumption, though. Sounds more like a self-made woman who has not sold out:
Per Wikipedia:
Warren was born on June 22, 1949,[2] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline (née Reed) and Donald Jones Herring.[3][4][5] She was their fourth child, with three older brothers.[6] When she was twelve, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack, which led to many medical bills, as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work. Eventually this led to the loss of their car from failure to make loan repayments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog-order department at Sears and Elizabeth began working as a waitress at her aunt's restaurant.[6][7]
She became a star member of the debate team at Northwest Classen High School and won the title of "Oklahoma's top high-school debater" while competing with debate teams from high schools throughout the state. She also won a debate scholarship to George Washington University at the age of 16. Initially aspiring to be a teacher, she left GWU after two years to marry her high-school boyfriend, Jim Warren.[6][8]
She moved to Houston with her husband, who was a NASA engineer. There she enrolled in the University of Houston and was graduated in 1970 with a degree in speech pathology and audiology.[9] For a year, she taught children with disabilities in a public school, based on an "emergency certificate," as she had not taken the education courses required for a regular teaching certificate.[10][11]
Warren and her husband moved to New Jersey for his work where, after becoming pregnant with their first child, she decided to become a stay-at-home mom .[12][13] After her daughter turned two, Warren enrolled at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark.[12] She worked as a summer associate at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Shortly before her graduation in 1976, Warren became pregnant with her second child, and began to work as a lawyer from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings.[8][12]
Warren attended The George Washington University and the University of Houston. She received a Juris Doctor from Rutgers School of Law–Newark in 1976, and went on to teach law at several universities before joining Harvard in the early 1990s.
After having two children, Amelia and Alexander, she and Jim Warren divorced in 1978.[14] In 1980, Warren married Bruce Mann, a Harvard law professor, but retained the surname, Warren.[14]
-
In what way is Warren unqualified? She's sure qualified when it comes to economic policy. Which potential presidential candidate is more qualified than her when speaking about economic issues?
1. She's dishonest.
2. She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.
3. She has very little experience in the private sector. Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company. Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?
4. She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office.
5. She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare. She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country. She supported TARP. She supports socialized medicine. She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.
Geeze Louise. This sounds like Obama in a skirt. :-\
I could go on, but she's not qualified to president IMO. I would hate to see her on the ticket. I want both parties to put up better candidates, so I have better options.
-
LOL - read up on her real estate dealings. She is a fraud and liar
Limousine liberal? Yeah, I can see how being one of them edumacated Harvard Law Professors specializing in bankruptcy law (hmm, relevant for these times, ya think?) might lead one to assume she's one of the dreaded "elite". You might want to re-think that assumption, though. Sounds more like a self-made woman who has not sold out:
Per Wikipedia:
Warren was born on June 22, 1949,[2] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline (née Reed) and Donald Jones Herring.[3][4][5] She was their fourth child, with three older brothers.[6] When she was twelve, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack, which led to many medical bills, as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work. Eventually this led to the loss of their car from failure to make loan repayments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog-order department at Sears and Elizabeth began working as a waitress at her aunt's restaurant.[6][7]
She became a star member of the debate team at Northwest Classen High School and won the title of "Oklahoma's top high-school debater" while competing with debate teams from high schools throughout the state. She also won a debate scholarship to George Washington University at the age of 16. Initially aspiring to be a teacher, she left GWU after two years to marry her high-school boyfriend, Jim Warren.[6][8]
She moved to Houston with her husband, who was a NASA engineer. There she enrolled in the University of Houston and was graduated in 1970 with a degree in speech pathology and audiology.[9] For a year, she taught children with disabilities in a public school, based on an "emergency certificate," as she had not taken the education courses required for a regular teaching certificate.[10][11]
Warren and her husband moved to New Jersey for his work where, after becoming pregnant with their first child, she decided to become a stay-at-home mom .[12][13] After her daughter turned two, Warren enrolled at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark.[12] She worked as a summer associate at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Shortly before her graduation in 1976, Warren became pregnant with her second child, and began to work as a lawyer from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings.[8][12]
Warren attended The George Washington University and the University of Houston. She received a Juris Doctor from Rutgers School of Law–Newark in 1976, and went on to teach law at several universities before joining Harvard in the early 1990s.
After having two children, Amelia and Alexander, she and Jim Warren divorced in 1978.[14] In 1980, Warren married Bruce Mann, a Harvard law professor, but retained the surname, Warren.[14]
-
You voted or Obama 2x over remember? LMFAO!!!! about qualifications
yep, and if you think he wasn't qualified the first time then you must also believe that being POTUS for 4 years does not count as "qualification" either
-
yep, and if you think he wasn't qualified the first time then you must also believe that being POTUS for 4 years does not count as "qualification" either
He is not qualified now or ever. The stupid fuck cant even deliver a functional website after blowing 500 million dollars.
-
Were you impressed with her claim to be Native American?
I was impressed....by how how a weak-ass effort like this is the best the right has to discredit Warren. They NEED some sort of evidence that she lies because when she speaks, she seems sincere like very few other politicians do. She's possesses wonk-level knowledge about economic issues, so she seems to be just what the doctor ordered for the challenges of our times. If I was competing with her, I'd feel threatened, too.
She's also gifted when it comes to explaining her positions. Better than Hillary. She's also seems much more even-keeled than Hillary. (Which ain't hard - Hillary, like Kyle's mom from Southpark, is known to be a bitch.) (Not that being a bitch is all bad -- Like Tina Fey said, "Bitches get things done.")
Re: The American Indian thing, there doesn't seem to be much to it. From what I've read, she and her 3 older brothers were brought up thinking they had some American Indian heritage. So, she publically claimed that heritage. Many years later it was found that there was no evidence or proof that she had any American Indian blood, so she and her siblings don't claim it anymore.
Per the Boston Globe and the Washington post: Colleagues and supervisors, including Charles Fried a Harvard Law professor involved in Warren's hiring, say she received no preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry.
If all this is true, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. And why couldn't it be true? I'm in my 40's and self-identify as 1/2 Portuguese and 1/2 "just plain white" but I found out last year that the "just plain white" half actually includes a little bit (1/16?) of Mexican heritage.
-
1. She's dishonest.
2. She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.
3. She has very little experience in the private sector. Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company. Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?
4. She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office.
5. She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare. She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country. She supported TARP. She supports socialized medicine. She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.
Geeze Louise. This sounds like Obama in a skirt. :-\
I could go on, but she's not qualified to president IMO. I would hate to see her on the ticket. I want both parties to put up better candidates, so I have better options.
Yeah, I have no doubt that the right is trying to paint her as "Obama in a skirt". I think you'll find, though, that there are big differences between the relationship Obama has with big business and the one Warren has.
As to your list of 5 "disqualifications":
1. She's dishonest.
Yeah, good luck selling that one. (Ask yourself, how honest will she seemed compared to any of her political opponents?)
2. She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.
Who thinks military experience is very important these days? Has this EVER been considered a necessary qualification? (Even the right won't bring this up, is my guess.)
3. She has very little experience in the private sector. Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company. Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?
She does have a little bit of experience in the private sector but this is a silly objection in her case, I think. She's a Harvard law professor specializing in bankruptcy law. I'm guessing that she knows plenty about the challenges businesses face.
4. She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office.
How is that bad? 'Fess up: If she'd been in the Senate for 20 years, that would have made this list, too, right? Sounds to me like she's well-acquainted with the BS it takes to get elected to congress these days but hasn't been doing it so long that she has a bunch of people she's beholden to. Sounds like an ideal person to lead the charge for election reform.
5. She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare. She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country. She supported TARP. She supports socialized medicine. She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.
This doesn't make much sense, since you must know that she'd be running as a Democrat, right? What you've listed would only be problems if she was running on the right.
-
Yeah, I have no doubt that the right is trying to paint her as "Obama in a skirt". I think you'll find, though, that there are big differences between the relationship Obama has with big business and the one Warren has.
As to your list of 5 "disqualifications":
1. She's dishonest.
Yeah, good luck selling that one. (Ask yourself, how honest will she seemed compared to any of her political opponents?)
2. She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.
Who thinks military experience is very important these days? Has this EVER been considered a necessary qualification? (Even the right won't bring this up, is my guess.)
3. She has very little experience in the private sector. Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company. Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?
She does have a little bit of experience in the private sector but this is a silly objection in her case, I think. She's a Harvard law professor specializing in bankruptcy law. I'm guessing that she knows plenty about the challenges businesses face.
4. She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office.
How is that bad? 'Fess up: If she'd been in the Senate for 20 years, that would have made this list, too, right? Sounds to me like she's well-acquainted with the BS it takes to get elected to congress these days but hasn't been doing it so long that she has a bunch of people she's beholden to. Sounds like an ideal person to lead the charge for election reform.
5. She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare. She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country. She supported TARP. She supports socialized medicine. She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.
This doesn't make much sense, since you must know that she'd be running as a Democrat, right? What you've listed would only be problems if she was running on the right.
1. Yeah, good luck selling that one. (Ask yourself, how honest will she seemed compared to any of her political opponents?)
I don't need to sell it to anyone. Just giving my opinion. And I don't really care if she is less dishonest than the next dishonest politician. She either has integrity or she doesn't.
2. Who thinks military experience is very important these days? Has this EVER been considered a necessary qualification? (Even the right won't bring this up, is my guess.)
I do. I didn't say, and don't think, it's a "necessary qualification." It's an ideal qualification. The fact she doesn't have it, particularly when her other professional experience is so thin, makes it more important. I don't want someone like her being charge of the military. She has no clue.
3. She does have a little bit of experience in the private sector but this is a silly objection in her case, I think. She's a Harvard law professor specializing in bankruptcy law. I'm guessing that she knows plenty about the challenges businesses face.
There is a huge difference between the classroom and real world. She knows very little about how to run a successful business. You may not like Romney, but that is someone who knows how to run a business. That's the kind of person you want making economic decisions that affect the entire country. You want someone who has been there, done that, successfully, not some academic who never had to hire or fire anyone, balance a budget, etc. (And surprise surprise, she opposes a balanced budget amendment.)
4. How is that bad? 'Fess up: If she'd been in the Senate for 20 years, that would have made this list, too, right? Sounds to me like she's well-acquainted with the BS it takes to get elected to congress these days but hasn't been doing it so long that she has a bunch of people she's beholden to. Sounds like an ideal person to lead the charge for election reform.
I don't think it's always a bad thing to not have government experience, but if the woman has Obama-like experience in the private sector, Obama-like experience with the military and being a chief executive, maybe she could compensate somewhat for that lack of experience by working at the highest levels of government?
5. This doesn't make much sense, since you must know that she'd be running as a Democrat, right? What you've listed would only be problems if she was running on the right.
Makes sense to me. You asked what made her unqualified, not what makes her more or less palatable to Democrats or Republicans. Yes she will appeal to liberals who believe in class warfare, bigger government, increased government spending, etc., etc., but as the current condition of our country shows, those policies are a failure. She's the kind of person who will turn Obama's $17 trillion debt into $24 trillion.
And I didn't even mention social issues (because those don't drive my vote), but she's out-of-step with the majority of the country those issues too.
-
1. She's dishonest. - Rand Pauls going to have trouble then given his serial plagiarism
2. She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard. - Are Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie veterans
3. She has very little experience in the private sector. Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company. Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector? - why does anyone bring this up when very few POTUS have this. Reagan didn't have it, neither did Clinton. On the other hand George Bush had it and the global economy was crashing at the end of his term. News Flash - the government is not the private sector and governing is not an experience you get in the private sector
4. She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office - you mean just like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul
5. She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare. She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country. She supported TARP. She supports socialized medicine. She supports increased government regulation over the private sector. - you have no problem with class warfare as long as it's the upper economic class waging it on the lower classes
Geeze Louise. This sounds like Obama in a skirt. :-\
I could go on, but she's not qualified to president IMO. I would hate to see her on the ticket. I want both parties to put up better candidates, so I have better options.
Most of your reasons why she is not qualified apply to you favorite Repubs
Get ready for Chris Christie as your candidate
-
And I didn't even mention social issues (because those don't drive my vote), but she's out-of-step with the majority of the country those issues too.
Ok, good of you to point out that your list of qualifications was a personal one. That makes sense, then.
If you care about being accurate, though, I'd be careful about making unsupported statements about how the "majority of the country" feels about anything. I say this mostly because "Out of step" is how I'd describe your feelings about corporal punishment.
Anyway, it's 2013 and judging from recent years' election results, I think how the majority feels about social and economic issues would seem to be different than how you're characterizing it.
-
Ok, good of you to point out that your list of qualifications was a personal one. That makes sense, then.
If you care about being accurate, though, I'd be careful about making unsupported statements about how the "majority of the country" feels about anything. I say this mostly because "Out of step" is how I'd describe your feelings about corporal punishment.
Anyway, it's 2013 and judging from recent years' election results, I think how the majority feels about social and economic issues would seem to be different than how you're characterizing it.
I'm pretty careful, but it's my opinion. My opinion is based on interacting with people all over the country, looking at laws that get passed (or don't get passed), opinion polls, etc. For example, the majority of the country does not believe in unrestricted abortion on demand until birth, which is what Obama believes and what I think Warren probably believes. I could show you poll numbers that support this, point to the numerous state laws around the country placing restrictions on late term abortions, etc., but you get the picture.
Regarding child discipline, I've been around enough parents for a long to time to have a pretty informed opinion. What I said is accurate: depends on the sample. If you ask parents "in the hood" about discipline you'll probably get a much different answer than if you were asking parents whose kids attend a $40k a year high school.
-
1. She's dishonest.
2. She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.
3. She has very little experience in the private sector. Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company. Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?
4. She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office.
5. She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare. She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country. She supported TARP. She supports socialized medicine. She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.
Geeze Louise. This sounds like Obama in a skirt. :-\
Agreed - which is EXACTLY why she could win. Recent history tells us that voters don't want a person with 20 years military experience, 20 years lawmaking experience, that's honest about their heritage.
just like obama... she's a "firebrand", a "fresh face rallying against the establishment", wholly underqualified, shady as shit about her past... Repubs should probably hope Hilary wins the nomination lol... Warren *could* be Obama II, when you make all those comparisons haha.
-
Hey Straw,
Thanks for writing this about the way-to-often-cited "qualification" that a presidential candidate should be some kind of businessman:
- why does anyone bring this up when very few POTUS have this. Reagan didn't have it, neither did Clinton. On the other hand George Bush had it and the global economy was crashing at the end of his term. News Flash - the government is not the private sector and governing is not an experience you get in the private sector
I feel exactly the same way but didn't want to get into that whole argument. (And you said it way more concisely than I could have.)
That BB used Romney as an example of a good candidate was irksome, too. Fuck the business experience and it's arguable usefulness as a qualification for being a decent president. How about experience being human with empathy for others? Seems to me like that's a much more important quality (and the voting public seems to have agreed). That episode where he stuck the family dog in the rooftop carrier on top of the car while he drove cross country by itself showed he lacked the empathy qualification, if you ask me.
-
I'm pretty careful, but it's my opinion. My opinion is based on interacting with people all over the country, looking at laws that get passed (or don't get passed), opinion polls, etc. For example, the majority of the country does not believe in unrestricted abortion on demand until birth, which is what Obama believes and what I think Warren probably believes. I could show you poll numbers that support this, point to the numerous state laws around the country placing restrictions on late term abortions, etc., but you get the picture.
Regarding child discipline, I've been around enough parents for a long to time to have a pretty informed opinion. What I said is accurate: depends on the sample. If you ask parents "in the hood" about discipline you'll probably get a much different answer than if you were asking parents whose kids attend a $40k a year high school.
It sounds reasonable to me that if Obama and Warren favor legalizing "unrestricted abortion until birth", they are in the minority. I know Warren (like most women) is in favor of Roe vs Wade, but couldn't easily find out if she thinks any restrictions are ok.
Re: corporal punishment as an accepted way of child discipline, what if you asked ALL parents in the country? And then you tallied the results to see how many were in favor vs not in favor? Would there be more in favor or not? Actually, screw that unnecessary argument. Though yours is the minority view, it doesn't matter what's popular: Unless it's to stop violence, it's not right to use violence against others against their will.
Hitting your kids is lazy parenting and is a good way to ensure behavior problems later. (Now agree with me or, as my great grandma used to say, I'll go outside and get a switch, lol.) (BTW, she would go get a switch - a thin tree branch to whip us with -- but after that first time, we'd never let her old ass catch us.)
-
It sounds reasonable to me that if Obama and Warren favor legalizing "unrestricted abortion until birth", they are in the minority. I know Warren (like most women) is in favor of Roe vs Wade, but couldn't easily find out if she thinks any restrictions are ok.
Re: corporal punishment as an accepted way of child discipline, what if you asked ALL parents in the country? And then you tallied the results to see how many were in favor vs not in favor? Would there be more in favor or not? Actually, screw that unnecessary argument. Though yours is the minority view, it doesn't matter what's popular: Unless it's to stop violence, it's not right to use violence against others against their will.
Hitting your kids is lazy parenting and is a good way to ensure behavior problems later. (Now agree with me or, as my great grandma used to say, I'll go outside and get a switch, lol.) (BTW, she would go get a switch - a thin tree branch to whip us with -- but after that first time, we'd never let her old ass catch us.)
When running in 2008, Obama said his first act as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (I think that's the name?), which would have eliminated all restrictions on abortion, including things like parental notification, which is the law in numerous states. He's way outside the mainstream.
I don't have a problem at all with corporal punishment. I started off parenting many years ago with your mindset: was not going to use it all. That didn't last long. lol
I used the method advocated by Dr. John Rosemond: only with your hand, only on the butt, no more than three swats. Made all the lesser forms of punishment much easier to enforce, and keeps you from crossing the line from discipline to abuse. I love that man. (no homo) I learned a lot from his books. He's terrific.
I never gave my kids "beatings" with switches, belts, etc. It would have been excessive for me. But that was my right as a parent. If other parents believe in the belt, etc. (as many of them do), that is their right too.
-
Agreed - which is EXACTLY why she could win. Recent history tells us that voters don't want a person with 20 years military experience, 20 years lawmaking experience, that's honest about their heritage.
just like obama... she's a "firebrand", a "fresh face rallying against the establishment", wholly underqualified, shady as shit about her past... Repubs should probably hope Hilary wins the nomination lol... Warren *could* be Obama II, when you make all those comparisons haha.
As much as I disagree with her ideology I have thought for some time that her, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz stand out as the new class who have really been able to put themselves over.
I hate to use the word "rock star" freshman senator but something along those lines. I got to give them all 3 props in regards of having that intangible "something" that makes them stick out.
-
As much as I disagree with her ideology I have thought for some time that her, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz stand out as the new class who have really been able to put themselves over.
I hate to use the word "rock star" freshman senator but something along those lines. I got to give them all 3 props in regards of having that intangible "something" that makes them stick out.
You know, I pretty much agree about Cruz and Warren. Rand Paul, though? Media creation, imo. To me, he's always looked like a not-exceptionally-bright guy (in the mold of the George Bush) who grew up privileged while facing no hardships whatsoever and so he doesn't really give a fuck about much. Probably a cool guy to party with, but not to be responsible for anything really important.
Plus, it's hard to stomach that cheesy permed toupee - Reminds of the gay dad from The Brady Bunch. I don't know much about Cruz but at least he's supposed to be really intelligent.
-
I've been reading that Warren says she will NOT run for president.
-
Good, although they say that a lot. They're not running, until they run. Remember this? We should have listened to him. He knew what he was talking about.
-
I've been reading that Warren says she will NOT run for president.
the MINUTE Hilary shows some cracks or a has a scandal or setback, watch the dem party elders call her up. Who else would it be? What other Dem has any kind of "change we can believe in!" credibility? I mean, Hilary can't promise change, but she CAN promise a return to the 92-00 Bubba years/policy, which will likely win her the presidency.
BUT if she doesn't run, (maybe she just decides she's 70 and would rather be on the beach relaxing), there's no doubt that Warren is seriously the "change" candidate. She shits all over the banks, I mean, she's real about it. Financial reform in the USA? Love her or hate her, you cannot deny she owns that realm.
Of course she'll say he won't run, but she will. Warren against Cruz or Rand would be GREAT for america... Hilary vs Christie is pretty much the same policy... and actuallly - - - - Warren and Cruz would probably both tear up banks in a simliar way haha!
-
Elizabeth Warren Isn’t Running For President, Top Financial Backer Tells Democrats
Paul Egerman, a Warren gatekeeper, waves donors off the hype over the senator’s possible presidential run. “It’s not gonna happen,” one funder says.
posted on November 18, 2013
Ruby Cramer
BuzzFeed Staff
Elizabeth Warren’s former national finance chair, Paul Egerman, has told several inquiring donors this month that, despite runaway speculation and a burning desire from the party’s left wing, the freshman senator will not run for president in 2016.
Egerman, close to both Warren and to the heavy-hitting liberal base of funders who helped her raise $42 million last year, has been approached by donors in the last two weeks and told them that, no, Warren is not planning to run, according to two major players in Democratic financial circles who spoke with Egerman directly.
One Democratic fundraiser said he spoke with Egerman roughly two weeks ago, after articles by Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast and Noam Scheiber in the New Republic heightened fervor amongst the progressives over whether Warren would challenge Hillary Clinton, already the presumed frontrunner, from the left.
Egerman, the fundraiser said, quickly threw cold water on the theory.
“It’s not gonna happen,” the source said.
More recently, at meetings last week in Washington for Democracy Alliance, a tightly guarded coalition of some of the country’s biggest liberal donors, the question of Warren’s candidacy was still fresh. Warren herself spoke at the conference on Thursday, introducing a panel on the judiciary with Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU.
At the meetings for the group, which funds a portfolio of progressive organizations, Warren and Egerman spoke about her intentions in 2016, according to a Democratic political strategist with close ties to the Democracy Alliance who had a private conversation about the interaction with Egerman later. Warren told Egerman, according to the strategist, that she has no plans to run against Clinton in a primary.
Another donor, based in New York City, asked Warren directly at the conference about her intentions and received the same answer, according to the strategist who spoke later that week with the donor.
The sources described Egerman, a retired software entrepreneur who calls himself an “enthusiastic supporter of Senator Elizabeth Warren” in his biography on Twitter, as the gatekeeper between the senator and the world of her financial backers.
“He’s the guy to ask,” said the fundraiser, citing Egerman’s longtime ties to the Democratic fundraising world. “The geese talk to the geese. The bears talk to the bears. And the hippos talk to the hippos.”
In an email, Egerman said he had no comment for this article.
Another donor with ties to the Clintons reached out about two weeks ago to another member of Warren’s circle, former finance director Michael Pratt, and was given the same answer regarding 2016, the donor said.
As speculation over Warren’s possible run continues, the message to the donor class is clear, and happens to be consistent with what staffers in Warren’s own Senate office have told reporters in the last week.
Lacey Rose, Warren’s press secretary, gave BuzzFeed the following statement: “As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president.”
Three attendees at last week’s Democracy Alliance meetings cautioned that there is already an understanding inside fundraising circles that Warren would not consider running unless the former secretary of state bows out of the race — a possibility that looks increasingly unlikely as Clinton allies build an expansive infrastructure for her campaign a full three years in advance of Election Day.
But the excitement over a Warren candidacy — even if that candidacy never comes to fruition — may still make waves in the 2016 race.
The clamors have given oxygen to demand on the left for an anti-Wall Street, Warren-like candidate, and have caused angst inside a pro-Clinton camp already concerned that the hype alone could expose one of Clinton’s biggest potential weaknesses: that she may not be progressive enough.
One attendee at the Democracy Alliance conference, though, said the focus there was less on 2016 and more on next year’s races, particularly Wendy Davis’ bid for governor of Texas and Michelle Nunn’s for U.S. Senate in Georgia.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-financial-backer-tells-donors-no-chance-on?bftw=
-
Good article, BB. I really don't think she can be coaxed into running.
Besides the fact that she thinks Wall Street reform and general consumer protection from big business is her true calling, I think she's a little too smart to want to be president. (After all, look how happy ol' Barry Soetero seems, haha.)
-
Perhaps she's choosing to run for veep, instead? :)
Also, perhaps in 2013, we shouldn't listen too much to politicians that deny they're running in 2016.
-
Good article, BB. I really don't think she can be coaxed into running.
Besides the fact that she thinks Wall Street reform and general consumer protection from big business is her true calling, I think she's a little too smart to want to be president. (After all, look how happy ol' Barry Soetero seems, haha.)
Meh. Just like Obama said he wasn't running and wasn't prepared, then turned around and ran? The field is going to be so weak, as it always is, that she might run. I hope she doesn't.
-
Meh. Just like Obama said he wasn't running and wasn't prepared, then turned around and ran? The field is going to be so weak, as it always is, that she might run. I hope she doesn't.
Warren woudl be the dennis kuscinich of 2016. Every teased him because he saw a UFO and looked like an elf, but when it came to the economic crash of 2008, ron paul and kuscinich warned about it. every other dem and repub told us how awesome everything was.
I dare say... Dennis Kuscinish as president, and the economy is in WAY better shape right now
-
Warren, Liberal Faction Gaining Control Among Democrats
Monday, 02 Dec 2013
By Elliot Jager
A more liberal and populist movement is emerging within the Democratic Party that views President Barack Obama and the party's presumptive presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton as excessively centrist, according to the Washington Post.
This group is looking to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., as its 2016 presidential standard-bearer.
In contrast to Obama, Warren favors increasing Social Security payments. In a recent Senate floor speech she said, "The absolute last thing we should do in 2013 – at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors – is to allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch."
In addition to opposing any budget deal that would involve Social Security reductions, the more liberal faction favors stronger regulation of Wall Street; a $10.10-an-hour minimum wage, higher than the $9 favored by Obama; student loan debt relief; steps aimed at reducing economic inequality, and measures to protect workers from the aftershocks of globalization.
Clinton is seen by many on the left as being too close to Wall Street and to the devotees of Robert Rubin, her husband's Treasury secretary. Some also complain that Rubin's people have been running economic policy under Obama, according to the Post.
Warren, a former Harvard law professor, has also called for big banks to be broken up.
"Wall Street will fight us, but the American people are on our side," she told a union audience.
The Post reported that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist, said that though he is not keen to run for president he is willing to do so if a sufficiently liberal Democrat does not enter the raise.
Democrats need to be cautious not to pull too far to the left, the Post said, lest they be charged with being irresponsible over the national debt and not caring about economic growth. Moreover, policies that would further redistribute income would make many Americans uneasy. Also, running a candidate who is too far to the left could also hamper the party's electoral prospects.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-liberals-push-democrats/2013/12/02/id/539380#ixzz2mL3Q1YXR
-
I hope she keeps her word. She'll do much less damage in the Senate.
Democratic Sen. Warren vows not to run for president in 2016
Published December 04, 2013
FoxNews.com
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged Wednesday that she will not seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, presumably squashing speculation about her challenging front-runner Hillary Clinton.
"I'm not running for president and I plan to serve out my term," the first-term senator said at a Boston press conference, according to The Boston Herald.
The announcement follows weeks of speculation about a possible Warren run in light of the political winds that recently swept fellow populist-styled Democrat Bill de Blasio into the New York City mayor’s office.
Whether Warren’s statement will definitively end speculation remains to be seen, since her spokeswoman noted as recently as last month that Warren had previously said she would not enter the race.
"I pledge to serve out my term,” Warren, a consumer advocate, said Wednesday. "I am not running for president. I am working as hard as I can to be the best possible senator I can be."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/04/democratic-sen-warren-vows-not-to-run-for-president-in-2016/?intcmp=latestnews
-
I suspect because the rest of the country are not idiots like my fellow countrymen in Mass. This retard pretended to be an Indian...and nobody cared. Yet the Redskins have to change their name?
-
I suspect because the rest of the country are not idiots like my fellow countrymen in Mass. This retard pretended to be an Indian...and nobody cared. Yet the Redskins have to change their name?
I said the same thing before the 2012 election. :-\
-
Yo go Momma Grizzly. :)
Sarah Palin Gives Conservative Response to Elizabeth Warren's Progressive Commandments
Aug 8, 2014
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gave a “commonsense conservative” response to Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) progressive commandments on her SarahPalinChannel. Long before Warren and Republican Dave Brat, Palin was attacking the bipartisan permanent political class and their embrace of crony capitalism. That is why Palin has always appealed to Reagan Democrats and independents fed up with both parties.
After Palin’s landmark 2011 speech in Indianola, Iowa, Republicans who enabled the cronyism associated with George W. Bush and the GOP-controlled Senate were forced to slowly combat it.
So it is only fitting that after Warren introduced her 11 progressive commandments at last month’s left-wing Netroots conference, Palin, on her SarahPalinChannel, responded to each of Warren’s progressive commandments in her trademark manner.
Below are Warren’s 11 commandments, as reported by National Journal, and Palin’s conservative response to each of them on her SarahPalinChannel. Palin asks Warren to call out crony capitalism and Obama’s hypocrisy on equal pay. She reminds her that Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration that harmed American workers. And, in her trademark way, mocks Warren and the left on fast-food restaurants.
While Warren “commandments” are more in line with an Occupy Wall Street movement that is rapidly anti-capitalistic, Palin’s brand of populism has always embraced free markets and capitalism as the best way to lift all boats and help the “forgotten man” or “the little guy.” Palin has consistently emphasized that being pro-big business is not the same as being for free markets.
1. Elizabeth Warren: “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”
Sarah Palin’s response: “We believe that Washington, D.C. needs to take less of our money. It needs more scrutiny, fewer bureaucrats, and it needs a reminder of the principles laid down in the Constitution that our leaders swear to defend. Furthermore, we believe crony capitalism is infecting both sides of the aisle in D.C. We’re working really hard to root it out of our party. Senator Warren, what are you doing to root it out of yours?”
2. Warren: “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”
Palin’s response: “We believe in science and God’s magnificent creation overflowing with natural resources. That means we have a responsibility to honor Him by protecting the earth as we develop our resources in an environmentally sound way for mankind’s use.”
3. Warren: “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”
Palin’s response: “We believe the Internet shouldn’t be censored by the world’s tyrants. That means President Obama should reverse his disastrous decision to hand over control of Internet domain names to the U.N., where it will come under the thumb of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China.”
4. Warren: “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”
Palin’s response: “We believe in lifting Americans out of poverty and into sustainable jobs. That means government needs to butt out–butt out of employer-employee pay issues. And quit over-regulating business and increasing taxes. It drives up operating costs–that’s what affects wages.”
5. Warren: “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”
Palin’s response: “We believe… wait, I thought fast food joints… don’t you guys think that they are of the devil or something? Liberals, you want to send those evil employees who would dare work at a fast food joint that you just don’t believe in. Thought you wanted to… send them to purgatory or something… so they all go vegan! Wages and picket lines, I dunno, they’re not often discussed in purgatory, are they? I dunno… why are even you worried about fast food wages?
“We believe in America where minimum wages jobs are not lifetime gigs–they are stepping stones to a good job with sustainable wages. It teaches work ethic. We believe in helping Americans climb the economic ladder–not get stuck on the first rung. A strong economy with good-paying jobs–it comes from free enterprise. Not from a top-down, bloated, big-government, command-and-control economy.”
6. Warren: “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”
Palin’s response: “We believe that students learn to not make decisions that result in a lot of debt. And we believe that schools need to be more accountable for the insane increase in tuition… and their insane curriculum–many of ‘em. It’s no accident, Elizabeth, that the rise in tuition corresponds with the rise in government intervention. More government isn’t the answer.”
7. Warren: “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”
Palin’s response: “We believe a pension is a promise. It must be honored. We do that by using common sense and prioritizing budgets that once and for all will end waste and fraud and the crony capitalism and the stupid political decisions that are bankrupting our nation. We believe that in order to keep faith with future generations and fulfill our current commitments to our seniors, well, we must enact sensible entitlement reform.”
8. Warren: “We believe—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.”
Palin’s response: “We believe–I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014–we believe in equal pay for equal work. And President Barack Obama should abandon his hypocritical practice of paying women less than men in his campaigns, in his administration, and in the White House. Uhh, the leader of your party, Elizabeth, can set an example for the rest of the country.”
9. Warren: “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”
Palin’s response: “We believe that all men and women are created equal. They claim that we are not tolerant? Well, we believe that tolerance goes both ways. That means respecting people’s right to disagree with you. Instead of trying to intimidate or silence us, we believe the answer to free speech that you find offensive is more free speech, not less.”
10. Warren: “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”
Palin’s response: “We believe that legal immigration helped make this country strong and vibrant. And that means welcoming law-abiding, hard-working immigrants who wish to come here legally and pledge their allegiance to the United States of America. Furthermore, we believe, as none other than Cesar Chavez believed, that illegal immigration hurts the country. It unfairly hurts working-class Americans of all races, all backgrounds who are seeking good-paying jobs, security for their families.”
11. Warren: “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”
Palin’s response: “We believe women have a right to their bodies, just as babies have a right to their living, breathing bodies nestled in a mother’s womb. Hey, and anyone who wants contraception? More power to you. Continue to freely buy any kind you want, no one’s stopping you. We’ll fight for the right of private businesses, including Hobby Lobby, to work with you, figure out health-care coverage themselves… any way the owners of the businesses… want to, knowing that government intervention… just always screws everything up.
“Furthermore, we believe that religious liberty is enshrined in our Constitution, remember? The government has no right to coerce people to violate their religious beliefs. And if they try to take any of our Constitutional rights away, we will fight for them.”
Palin had “one final thought for Sen. Warren and her would-be progressive populists.”
“We conservatives believe, as Ronald Reagan said, that you can’t be for big taxes, big government, big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy,” she concluded. “We stand with the little guy. The little guy today who is being bullied and beaten down by the progressive left’s failed policies–of yours Elizabeth Warren.
“We stand for free men and free markets–the twin ideals that made this nation strong, peaceful, and prosperous. We say, God Bless America. We hope you say the same, Senator Warren.”
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/08/08/sarah-palin-gives-conservative-response-to-elizabeth-warrens-progressive-commandments/
-
I hope she keeps her word. She'll do much less damage in the Senate.
she's a douchebag, but she could really cut spending. I'd vote CRUZ any day over her. But i'd choose warren over clinton, and anyone would be a fool not to.
-
she's a douchebag, but she could really cut spending. I'd vote CRUZ any day over her. But i'd choose warren over clinton, and anyone would be a fool not to.
A liberal president who will cut spending? Please. And anyone talking about raising taxes is not going to cut spending.
-
A liberal president who will cut spending? Please. And anyone talking about raising taxes is not going to cut spending.
hey look here champ, I didn't say she is the top choice. I said she's better than Hilary.
Warren is one of those "piss your pants before asking to use the potty" kind of idealists, and her particular ideology is that she's tired of banks beating down on americans.
So while she's a plagiarist, bleeding heart whiner, she will do more good than Hilary in that area.
Seriously, I am not defending the idiot, but I'm saying she's only 95% the idiot that Hilary is. Hope this clarifies it for you.
-
hey look here champ, I didn't say she is the top choice. I said she's better than Hilary.
Warren is one of those "piss your pants before asking to use the potty" kind of idealists, and her particular ideology is that she's tired of banks beating down on americans.
So while she's a plagiarist, bleeding heart whiner, she will do more good than Hilary in that area.
Seriously, I am not defending the idiot, but I'm saying she's only 95% the idiot that Hilary is. Hope this clarifies it for you.
No, it doesn't clarify your comment that Warren would cut spending.
-
No, it doesn't clarify your comment that Warren would cut spending.
i'm sorry you feel that way. Tonight I will wish upon a star that you wake up and realize warren sucks a little less than clinton.
-
i'm sorry you feel that way. Tonight I will wish upon a star that you wake up and realize warren sucks a little less than clinton.
Good for you. I know you will have a tough choice deciding between Warren and Hillary in the Democrat primary, but I'm sure you will love voting the winner during the general election.
-
Good for you. I know you will have a tough choice deciding between Warren and Hillary in the Democrat primary, but I'm sure you will love voting the winner during the general election.
I'm pretty sure the winner of that douchebattle will have no problem throttling the RINO that you kneepad on getbig for the next two years.
Seriously man, just say it now - You'd vote Ted Cruz over Perry or Christie, right? Just say it, man.
-
I'm pretty sure the winner of that douchebattle will have no problem throttling the RINO that you kneepad on getbig for the next two years.
Seriously man, just say it now - You'd vote Ted Cruz over Perry or Christie, right? Just say it, man.
You Obama voters are really funny.
-
You Obama voters are really funny.
why, thank you. ;)
-
why, thank you. ;)
You're welcome. And I wasn't trying to make a gay joke or anything. :)
-
You're welcome. And I wasn't trying to make a gay joke or anything. :)
i knew that; you are one of the polite people around here.
-
i knew that; you are one of the polite people around here.
:)
-
Harry Reid taps Elizabeth Warren as envoy to liberal groups
By MANU RAJU and JOHN BRESNAHAN
Updated 11/13/14
Senate Democrats are enlisting progressive firebrand Elizabeth Warren to be a member of their leadership team, likely to serve as a liaison to liberal groups.
Harry Reid, the incoming Senate minority leader, is engaged in private talks with the Massachusetts freshman to create a special leadership post for the former Harvard professor, according to several people familiar with the matter.
Story Continued Below
The expected title will be strategic policy adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, according to a source familiar with the talks.
In the new position, Warren is expected to serve as a go-between to liberal groups to ensure their voice is part of the leadership’s private deliberations, a source said. She would be part of the messaging and policy team.
Adding Warren, Democrats say, would bring in a nationally known name who could help sharpen the Democratic message as it goes toe-to-toe with the new Senate Republican majority. The move would likely be viewed favorably by an increasingly liberal caucus.
But elevating Warren could also be seen as an indication that the new Senate Democratic minority is less interested in bipartisan compromises,even as the White House and Senate Republicans are signaling they want to cut deals in the new Congress.
The position was discussed at a closed-door Senate Democratic Caucus meeting on Thursday. At that meeting, Reid — along with his chief deputies, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Chuck Schumer of New York and Patty Murray of Washington state — are all expected to be elected, respectively, to the top four posts in the new Democratic minority. Montana Sen. Jon Tester, a second-term Democrat, is expected to be named chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, sources say.
Reid, however, could face some ‘no’ votes. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said Thursday she won’t support him. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, won’t say whether she will. They both have been critical of his hard-nosed leadership style. Other Democrats, including West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, both declined to endorse Reid in separate interviews on Wednesday.
“I’m open to change,” Manchin said.
But Reid, who has been Democratic leader since 2005, still has overwhelming support within his caucus, which will likely have 46 members in the next Congress. Many of them benefited from his aggressive fundraising during their campaigns in recent years, and he has awarded a number of Democrats with key committee positions over the years. No Democrat is expected to challenge him for the post.
Opening up the lame-duck session of Congress Wednesday, Reid said his goal was not to obstruct the new majority.
Citing his time as minority leader under President George W. Bush, Reid said, “I have been able to strike compromise with my Republican colleagues, and I’m ready to do it again.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/elizabeth-warren-harry-reid-senate-leadership-112847.html#ixzz3IyCJBzam
-
The #1 most liberal senator from 2004/6 ended up winning two presidential terms. EXTREME WINS!
This bodes well for Warren. Bad for hilary (RINO, DemLite in the middle)
This bodes well for Cruz/Rand. BAD for Christie (Rino)
Being extreme means the BASE will crawl thru glass to vote for you. And that usually means a win.
-
Elizabeth Warren gets rock-star reception at liberal donors confab
By KENNETH P. VOGEL
11/14/14
Elizabeth Warren insists she has no interest in running for president in 2016, but the rich liberals to whom she spoke Thursday afternoon seemed unwilling to take ‘no’ for an answer.
The Massachusetts senator got a rock stars’ welcome during a closed-door speech to major donors, one of whom interrupted her by yelling “Run, Liz, Run!”
Warren drew multiple standing ovations during her talk, held in a banquet room at Washington’s Mandarin Oriental hotel during the annual winter meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a club of major liberal donors.
Throughout the day, donors repeatedly broached the question of whether Warren would run to Paul Egerman, a Democracy Alliance board member who was the national finance chairman of her Senate race and introduced Warren for her speech Thursday. He patiently but firmly told each that she would not seek the Democratic presidential nomination.
That didn’t stop a donor from asking Warren herself with the first question during a question-and-answer session following her speech, according to a Democracy Alliance source who was in the room. She also answered definitively in the negative, said the source.
Yet the continued interest in a Warren 2016 campaign from the ranks of the Democracy Alliance could, at the least, hint at trouble for Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic front-runner, when it comes to winning over liberal donors and activists.
The Democracy Alliance has had an outsized influence in Democratic politics. It works to leverage its donors’ massive bank accounts to steer the party to the left on causes dear to liberals — including fighting to reduce economic inequality and the role of money in politics. Warren has emerged as a standard-bearer for those fights, and her address on Thursday dealt with economic inequality.
Another attendee asked Warren after the speech why Senate Democrats didn’t aggressively push the liberal economic policies she champions.
“The fight is to frame the issues for the next few elections,” she said, according to the source in the room. “We have moved the Democrats over the last four years.”
Earlier Thursday, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid tapped Warren for a leadership position that will utilize her appeal by making her an official liaison to the liberal base. Reid is set to talk to donors Friday morning on the sidelines of the Mandarin Oriental conference at a session hosted by a group called iVote, which raises cash to try to elect Democratic secretaries of state. Reid’s office did not respond to a request for comment on his participation in the event.
The Democracy Alliance has suggested it is considering opening up some of its activities and funding recommendations to the media, but all of the sessions on Thursday were closed to the press.
Democracy Alliance staff and private security retained by the club stood sentry outside the basement banquet room where Warren spoke, preventing reporters from getting too close. And she avoided the media gathered for the conference by utilizing a side door to enter and exit the room.
POLITICO caught up with her as she made her way to a car waiting outside. But she ignored a question about whether her appearance — a closed-door speech to major donors who write huge checks, sometimes anonymously, to influence the political process — conflicted with her public denunciations of the role of conservative big money in politics.
“Excuse me,” an aide said, blocking access to Warren as she slid into the front passenger seat.
Democracy Alliance partners, as the group calls its members, pay annual dues of $30,000 and are required to contribute a total of at least $200,000 a year to recommended groups. Since its inception in 2005, the club’s partners have combined to give more than $500 million to recommended groups, and they played a pivotal early role in boosting Barack Obama during his 2008 Democratic presidential primary bid against Clinton.
In addition to Warren, Vice President Joe Biden, who is considering challenging Clinton in the 2016 presidential primary, is set to appear Friday night at a Democracy Alliance gala at the Newseum with donors.
Clinton was not invited to any part of the Mandarin meeting, which some of her supporters interpreted as a snub. Democracy Alliance staff and board members rejected that characterization, asserting the meeting was about the future of the progressive movement generally, and not the 2016 presidential race specifically.
“I don’t think who speaks here and who does not speak here is illustrative of anything,” said David desJardins, an engineer who was one of the first 20 people hired by Google, and also was an early Obama backer. He said Clinton would be welcome to speak to the group anytime and called a POLITICO article highlighting the fact that she wasn’t invited this time “dumb.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/elizabeth-warren-liberal-donors-112888.html#ixzz3J4FRvhbr
-
A far left one term Senator from a solid blue state with no real experience in government? Sure..try selling that package for a third time...
-
A far left one term Senator from a solid blue state with no real experience in government? Sure..try selling that package for a third time...
The sad part is she might actually still win the nomination and would probably be the favorite if Hillary doesn't run.
-
A far left one term Senator from a solid blue state with no real experience in government? Sure..try selling that package for a third time...
It was sold twice. I think she would be horrible based on what I know about her so far, but she will have the media and the money if she is the nominee.
-
The sad part is she might actually still win the nomination and would probably be the favorite if Hillary doesn't run.
Lots of variables, but this is definitely possible.
-
The sad part is she might actually still win the nomination and would probably be the favorite if Hillary doesn't run.
THIS. We can't forget how well an extreme lib does in the national races when running against a RINO.
Chilary *can* win if she's up against a RINO, they'll be hard to tell apart. But Hilary against an extreme Repub, and she can really lose badly.
-
This can't be. I've been assured by a lot of Democrats that we conservatives are batshit crazy for calling people in their party socialists. This story seems to suggest that not only are there socialists in the Democratic party, but socialism is also "growing in popularity among Democrats under 30". So which is it? Is there a large contingent or socialists and quasi-communists in the Democrat party or isn't there?
Notice that Socialism is growing in popularity in Democrats under 30. Most people under 30 are full of shit, think they are smarter than they actually are and have very little real world experience. That is why we have to keep fighting the same ideological battles over and over again. Moronic young Democrats that get shot out of University all full of idealism. Eventually realism kicks them in the balls but by then it's usually too late to un-fuck what the commies that they elected have done to the country. It's funny, when these radicals have kids, a home, basically anything that they care about and want to protect, all of a sudden they start getting conservative.
Over and over and over. The same bullshit cycle. But Conservatives are the supposed dummys.
-
Former Obama Aides Urging Warren Run for President
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=2939b2cc-48c2-479e-abee-2197ce47b26f&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Former Obama Aides Urging Warren Run for President (Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Landov)
Friday, 12 Dec 2014
More than 300 former campaign staffers and organizers for President Barack Obama have signed on to a letter urging Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016. It's the latest effort to nudge Warren into the race.
The ex-Obama staffers say they want someone who will "stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests."
Special: The Emergency Radio Every Family Must Have — Special Offer
Hillary Rodham Clinton has yet to announce a presidential campaign but has drawn support from a number of top former Obama aides. But the letter from field organizers and others show the interest in a Warren campaign even though she says she's not running.
MoveOn.org announced this week that it was starting a draft Warren campaign and promoting Warren in early presidential states Iowa and New Hampshire.
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Warren-2016/2014/12/12/id/612692/#ixzz3LiA5nl4W
-
She's running. Can you imagine her as Commander in Chief? :-\
Warren's present-tense denial adds to speculation she will run in 2016
Published December 16, 2014
FoxNews.com
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a rising Democratic star, fueled speculation Monday that she might run for president in 2016.
While the freshman senator said “I am not running for president” four times during an interview with NPR’s “Morning Edition,” political insiders argue that Warren’s use of the present tense leaves open the possibility she might launch a 2016 campaign.
Speculation about a White House run by Warren, whose populist, anti-Wall Street rhetoric has captured the interest of many disaffected Democrats, has been circulating for months in Washington and across the country.
“I am not running for president.”
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
Her opposition to the $1.1 trillion spending bill that Congress passed last week -- over a provision that weakens the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill -- appears to have attracted even more support.
And her remarks Monday likely will do little to stop or slow those who see her as a better candidate or at least a strong challenger to Hillary Clinton, the clear front-runner in her likely bid for the party’s 2016 nomination.
More than 300 former campaign staffers and organizers for President Obama have signed a letter urging Warren to run.
They say in a letter released last week that they want someone who will "stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests."
The letter was released by Ready for Warren, a grassroots group promoting a potential campaign.
And MoveOn.org has recently announced that it was starting a draft Warren campaign and promoting her in early presidential states Iowa and New Hampshire.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/16/warren-present-tense-denial-just-adds-speculation-will-run-in-2016/
-
I prefer her bullshit to "Jeb" - Warren is a clown and opportunist - but nowhere near "Jeb"
-
I'll be awfully disappointed if those are my options in 2016, but I'm used to picking the evil of two lessers.
-
"jeb" is as bad as it gets. No FNG way.
-
"jeb" is as bad as it gets. No FNG way.
I just read through his bio. Actually sounds pretty good. Still, I don't want another Bush (or Clinton) in the White House.
-
I just read through his bio. Actually sounds pretty good. Still, I don't want another Bush (or Clinton) in the White House.
Bush is about as RINO as they get. He will open up the borders permanently, but so will many of the top voices now - Romney, Graham, etc.
I would LOVE to see Warren vs. Cruz... Let americans choose between two very different ideologies. Because Jeb vs. Hilary? LOL or Romney vs. hilary? They're close on so many issues, it's almost silly. Both of them will give us everything we've had for the past 14 years, no doubt about it.
-
Bush is about as RINO as they get. He will open up the borders permanently, but so will many of the top voices now - Romney, Graham, etc.
I would LOVE to see Warren vs. Cruz... Let americans choose between two very different ideologies. Because Jeb vs. Hilary? LOL or Romney vs. hilary? They're close on so many issues, it's almost silly. Both of them will give us everything we've had for the past 14 years, no doubt about it.
I agree w you. "Jeb"? Of GMAFB!!! NO!!! NO!!! NO!!!!! Same w Hillary! WTF is wrong w people!
-
Bush is about as RINO as they get. He will open up the borders permanently, but so will many of the top voices now - Romney, Graham, etc.
I would LOVE to see Warren vs. Cruz... Let americans choose between two very different ideologies. Because Jeb vs. Hilary? LOL or Romney vs. hilary? They're close on so many issues, it's almost silly. Both of them will give us everything we've had for the past 14 years, no doubt about it.
Yeah. Ok. Whatever.
-
I'll write in Rand or Cruz - or the easter bunny
-
lol. I'll wait and see who comes out of the primary. I hope it's not either one of them.
-
Yeah. Ok. Whatever.
I see your point. Subtle but definitely well-thought out.
Are we already at the point where you deny Bush (who I think would be a solid president, leadershipwise, despite his crap positions... Are we already at the point where you tell the class Jeb Isn't a RINO? LOL
-
I see your point. Subtle but definitely well-thought out.
Are we already at the point where you deny Bush (who I think would be a solid president, leadershipwise, despite his crap positions... Are we already at the point where you tell the class Jeb Isn't a RINO? LOL
We are at the point where me (the teacher) keeps you (the dunce) sitting in the corner of the classroom. :)
(http://www.doconomics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/dunce1.jpg)
-
We are at the point where me (the teacher) keeps you (the dunce) sitting in the corner of the classroom. :)
are you really a grown man? LOL
you refuse to call Bush a RINO. That's beyond silly, dude. Well, I think you're the only person on getbig that won't admit Jeb Bush is a RINO.
-
are you really a grown man? LOL
you refuse to call Bush a RINO. That's beyond silly, dude. Well, I think you're the only person on getbig that won't admit Jeb Bush is a RINO.
Nah. I'm an overgrown kid. Loving life. :)
You don't know what a "RINO" is. You don't care about RINOs. You're not a Republican. Do I need to quote you?
I don't what Jeb Bush is. I haven't followed his career. I'll evaluate his candidacy if he decides to run and will make a decision on whether to vote for him if he is the nominee.
-
What is the point between hillary and Jeb? Not a ounce of difference between the two. None.
-
What is the point between hillary and Jeb? Not a ounce of difference between the two. None.
On paper, there are some big differences. He has a pretty diverse private sector background. Two terms as governor. Cut taxes as governor.
I think governors are better qualified to be president than senators.
I would say her time as secretary of state is a big difference, but she pretty much sucked at that job.
-
I hope Democrats aren't dumb to nominate this woman, but that is the same party that legitimized Al Shaprton, so anything can happen.
Elizabeth Warren Could Threaten Hillary from Left in 2016
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=e1f66b3f-695a-475c-9a00-a714cf44aa3c&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Sunday, 10 Nov 2013
By Greg Richter
It isn't Republicans such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should fear if she chooses to run for president in 2016, writes Noam Scheiber of The New Republic.
Instead, she should keep a wary eye on fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
Warren, currently serving as U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, represents the more socialist wing of the party, which is growing in popularity among Democrats under 30, Scheiber writes, citing a recent Pew poll.
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
Clinton represents the "Democratic elites" associated with her husband's presidency, who moved left in support of the economic stimulus and larger unemployment benefits of President Barack Obama, though they still think the economy needs a "large, powerful, highly complex financial sector."
But socialists have held the upper hand recently, Scheiber says. He cites New York City Public Advocate and former Sandinista activist Bill de Blasio's capturing of the New York City mayor's race, Larry Summers' forced withdrawal from consideration as chairman of the Fed, and former Obama chief of staff and JP Morgan executive Bill Daley's dropping out of the Illinois governor's race over bad polls.
These are bad omens for Clinton, Scheiber argues.
He describes Clinton's likely Democratic challenger as someone from the socialist wing of the party who likely would be a woman, since Democrats would want to follow up the historic election of the nation's first black president with another historic first. She would also need to be able to raise vast sums of money.
"As it happens, there is precisely such a person," Scheiber says. "Her name is Elizabeth Warren."
But Warren also strikes fear into the hearts of her fellow Democrats, he says. Clinton is a team player, and is therefore predictable. For that matter, Cruz, on the Republican side is also predictable as he bucks his party's leadership. With Warren, they never know what they'll get.
She entered the Senate seeming to defer to party leaders, but at her very first hearing as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, she pounced on bank regulators, saying, “Tell me a little bit about the last few times you’ve taken the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street all the way to a trial."
"The question, though eminently reasonable, violated an unstated rule of committee protocol, in which members of Congress are allowed to rant and rave at length but generally abstain from humiliating appointees, especially from their own party," Scheiber writes.
Schieber notes that most presidential race watchers don't expect Warren to run, as it would most likely be a suicide mission. But her past has shown that, like Cruz, she cares less about her own political ambition than she does about her mission. In her case, she wants to advance her economic agenda for what she believes will ease the burden on the middle class.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-hillary-2016-new/2013/11/10/id/535866#ixzz2kMwKPF5O
Brilliant comparison between Elizabeth Warren and Al Sharpton. You've outdone yourself this time. You are dangerously close to treading into Soulcrusher waters.
-
Brilliant comparison between Elizabeth Warren and Al Sharpton. You've outdone yourself this time. You are dangerously close to treading into Soulcrusher waters.
Thank you.
-
I don't what Jeb Bush is. I haven't followed his career. I'll evaluate his candidacy if he decides to run and will make a decision on whether to vote for him if he is the nominee.
Do you watch the news? Have you not noticed Jeb taking some seriously liberal positions on issues?
Jeb supports bank bailouts. Jeb loves Common Core. Won't commit on global warming. Anti-drilling. Wants to use federal funds for "fatherhood initiatives". Loves NAFTA/CAFTA. Won't reverse obamacare, would rather let it "fail on its own". Former neoconsevative that now shits all over them. Immigration is 'not a felony' but 'an act of love'. Compromise on taxes ok, refuses to agree to pledge not to raise taxes. Opposed vietnam but supports both Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Lots of liberal positions there - read about them yourself.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Jeb_Bush.htm
-
Do you watch the news? Have you not noticed Jeb taking some seriously liberal positions on issues?
Jeb supports bank bailouts. Jeb loves Common Core. Won't commit on global warming. Anti-drilling. Wants to use federal funds for "fatherhood initiatives". Loves NAFTA/CAFTA. Won't reverse obamacare, would rather let it "fail on its own". Former neoconsevative that now shits all over them. Immigration is 'not a felony' but 'an act of love'. Compromise on taxes ok, refuses to agree to pledge not to raise taxes. Opposed vietnam but supports both Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Lots of liberal positions there - read about them yourself.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Jeb_Bush.htm
Unlike you, I watch and read the news and don't get my information from Democratic Underground, the Daily Kos, and whatever wacky conspiracy theory website you read these days.
-
Unlike you, I watch and read the news and don't get my information from Democratic Underground, the Daily Kos, and whatever wacky conspiracy theory website you read these days.
LOL! I just showed jeb bush to be a liberal. And you insult me.
Yep, no sense wasting another 2 years arguing with you, dude. You will support another shit-ass RINO, and libs will win the White house again. history all over again... until repub voters ADMIT when a dude is a RINO, well...
Unless you are a rino... which, well, you pretty much are lol... then maybe you love Jeb and he's just like you, a conservative that has a lot of lib positions, which I can respect.
Either way, support who you want, but don't deny the truth that Jeb isn't a conservative, sorry, but he's not.
-
LOL! I just showed jeb bush to be a liberal. And you insult me.
Yep, no sense wasting another 2 years arguing with you, dude. You will support another shit-ass RINO, and libs will win the White house again. history all over again... until repub voters ADMIT when a dude is a RINO, well...
Unless you are a rino... which, well, you pretty much are lol... then maybe you love Jeb and he's just like you, a conservative that has a lot of lib positions, which I can respect.
Either way, support who you want, but don't deny the truth that Jeb isn't a conservative, sorry, but he's not.
You didn't show squat.
Listen you lying liar (yes that's an insult, but it's true), to be a "RINO," which means "Republican in name only," you first have to call yourself a Republican. Given that you have had a little boy crush on me since I first started posting here years ago and have likely read every single one of my posts, you know I have never once called myself a Republican. But anyone posting here regularly knows you are a pathological liar.
Now, someone who calls themselves a Republican, as you have, then votes for Obama, kneepads for Obama, supports higher taxes, etc. is a classic "Republican in name only." That would be you.
-
You didn't show squat.
Listen you lying liar (yes that's an insult, but it's true), to be a "RINO," which means "Republican in name only," you first have to call yourself a Republican. Given that you have had a little boy crush on me since I first started posting here years ago and have likely read every single one of my posts, you know I have never once called myself a Republican. But anyone posting here regularly knows you are a pathological liar.
Now, someone who calls themselves a Republican, as you have, then votes for Obama, kneepads for Obama, supports higher taxes, etc. is a classic "Republican in name only." That would be you.
See, you're attacking me again. In the past, I would have dived right into it, but today, I won't.
Today I'm asking you if Jeb is a Rino.
Today I'm asking you if Jeb has a lot of liberal positions.
We all see it, bro. You want to resort to "but but but you you you".
I just want to talk about the 2016 potentials. You want to talk shit and call names, etc.
Just tell us, is Jeb a RINO? Yes or no? DO it without resorting to personal attacks, please.
-
See, you're attacking me again. In the past, I would have dived right into it, but today, I won't.
Today I'm asking you if Jeb is a Rino.
Today I'm asking you if Jeb has a lot of liberal positions.
We all see it, bro. You want to resort to "but but but you you you".
I just want to talk about the 2016 potentials. You want to talk shit and call names, etc.
Just tell us, is Jeb a RINO? Yes or no? DO it without resorting to personal attacks, please.
You didn't show squat.
Listen you lying liar (yes that's an insult, but it's true), to be a "RINO," which means "Republican in name only," you first have to call yourself a Republican. Given that you have had a little boy crush on me since I first started posting here years ago and have likely read every single one of my posts, you know I have never once called myself a Republican. But anyone posting here regularly knows you are a pathological liar.
Now, someone who calls themselves a Republican, as you have, then votes for Obama, kneepads for Obama, supports higher taxes, etc. is a classic "Republican in name only." That would be you.
-
Krauthammer makes a good point about Warren, but I'd rather see Democrats put up a much better, more qualified candidate.
-
Why Sen. Elizabeth Warren intrigues 2016 voters
ByJOHN DICKERSONCBS NEWS
January 10, 2015
When 12 voters gathered in Aurora, Colorado, for a political focus group on Thursday night, it wasn't surprising to hear them compete to see who could bash politicians more. "If we got rid of every member of Congress and elected new people tomorrow who had no experience, I don't think we could do any worse," said Charlie Loan, who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. When the group was asked to come up with phrases members of Congress should wear on wrist bracelets, they suggested "Don't trust me, I lie," "Looking out for me," and "Two Faced."
But one politician escaped the voters' ire: Elizabeth Warren. Six of the 12 said they would like to have Warren over to their house to talk, more than any other possible 2016 presidential contender they were asked about. They said she was "down to earth" and "knowledgeable." When asked a separate question about which politician they would like to have live next door, they picked Warren over every other contender as well. Jenny Howard, an accountant with student-loan debt who voted for Romney in 2012 and Sen. John McCain in 2008, also liked Warren: "If she ran, she could be the next president because she is personable and knowledgeable and has a good handle on what's going on in the country."
Peter Hart organized this Colorado focus group. Hart, a Democratic pollster for more than 40 years, helps conduct the Wall Street Journal/ NBC poll and has been holding these kinds of sessions for the past four presidential elections. The focus group was the first of a series of such two-hour interviews of swing voters that Hart will do leading up to the 2016 presidential election, for the Annenberg Public Policy Center to track how voter sentiment changes.
These people do not represent metaphysical certitude about the country's political opinion--it's only 12 people after all--and we are still far from the next election so much can change, but they offer glimpses of the current stirring in the public. Their desire for change, concerns about the economy (despite news that things are better), and interest in a candidate who cares about the middle class have appeared consistently in polls and other voter forums.
The affection for Warren among the group of five self-described independents, three Republicans, and four Democrats may not tell us anything about the Massachusetts senator herself. It's possible that she is a vehicle through which they are signaling their desire for change, for something authentic and maybe new. Charlie Loan, an IT manager, says he voted the straight conservative line most recent election but he'd listen to what Warren had to say. "The little I have seen and heard from her, she seems genuine--people from [Oklahoma] usually are. Since she was formerly devoted to the Republican Party, maybe she fits in the middle somewhere, which is where I would like to see most of them be. She is clearly well-educated and seems level-headed."
If Warren is a possible vessel for change, so too is Sen. Rand Paul, who several of the conservatives found intriguing. (Sen. Ted Cruz wasn't mentioned, even though he, like Paul and Warren, is also trying to position himself as an outsider on the inside.) Paul had a bit of the crossover appeal that Warren had. "He's a reasonable choice," said Andrew Regan, who described himself as a strong Democrat. "I would consider him, but I don't know who the Democratic nominee is going to be." Regan was emblematic of the strong desire for something new. Despite his ideological affiliations, he was happy to see Republicans in control of Congress. "I'm happy to see that Republicans took Congress. Instead of a 'Do Nothing' congress we have a 'Do Something' Congress."
Once a Democratic nominee is chosen, it's almost certain that Regan, a self-employed beekeeper, will vote as he always has. That's what voters usually do. The same is true with conservatives who express an openness for Warren. But Warren's authenticity, anti-corporate message, and outsider status all reflect the desire for change that came across so clearly from most of the participants.
The 2016 contenders who didn't fare well are also two of its marquee names: Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Six of the 12 said they would back a law to bar all Bushes and Clintons from running. "He's running off the Bush name and thinks that's something," said Howard. In a free-association exercise, the words people used to describe Bush included: "joke," "no thank you," "clown," "interesting," "don't need him," "intriguing," "greedy," and "bad scene." (By contrast, Paul was described as "entertaining," "interesting," "very intriguing," "honest," and "freedom.") Mention of Hillary Clinton conjured "hopeful," "crazy," "strong," "spitfire," "don't like her," "untrustworthy," "more of the same," and "next candidate, please." Although the antipathy toward Bush and Clinton was often specific, it also could be read as a broad dislike of American politics today.
Not surprisingly, the economy was the issue everyone was most concerned about. Jobs numbers were solid again on Friday and the unemployment rate is at 5.6 percent (lower than Mitt Romney said it would be under his administration by the year 2017), but the good numbers didn't do anything to assuage the participants' worries. Though they said lower gas prices have helped, most were skeptical things were genuinely getting better.
"It's nice to have the extra money," said Susan Brink, a 56-year-old independent who voted for Barack Obama. "But I do kind of feel like they give us a little bit to make us happy, and then they take it away." Rick Lamutt, a right-leaning independent who works as "a cable guy," said that despite the good numbers, he sees the truth of the real economy in all the houses he visits where family members are moving in together and struggling to make do. "The simple fact is, regardless of what the numbers say, there's a lot of hurting people out there," he said. "You've seen on the news, 'Everything's fine, the economy's great, there's jobs everywhere!' Well, if you want to make $9 an hour, you can go get a job, but if you want to make a wage that can support your family, good luck."
This pervasive feeling of economic insecurity drove what these voters are looking for in candidates, too. Kimberly Tyler, a 61-year-old veterinarian, wanted a candidate who understood the pinch of the middle-class lifestyle. "Most in politics have money and it's a money game for them and they don't relate to the middle class, and everyone in the middle class is hanging on by their fingernails."
There's a long road before the election and while these views give us some idea of the mood, it's important to keep in mind that even these voters are a long way off from drawing any real conclusions about specific candidates. Hart asked everyone to place themselves at a racetrack that showed how far along they were in their thinking about the next presidential contest. Most said they were in the parking lot. One woman said she was in her car taking allergy medicine--she said she was allergic to both horses and politicians. When asked whom she'd like to see in the race, she replied, "Superman." But he hasn't even formed a leadership PAC yet.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-sen-elizabeth-warren-intrigues-2016-voters/
-
Elizabeth Warren: I'm not running for president
by Sheila Bair
JANUARY 13, 2015
. . .
So are you going to run for President?
No.
What does the Democratic nominee need to do to win in 2016?
They need to speak to America’s families about the economic crisis in this country. It starts with the recognition that Washington works for the rich and powerful and not for America’s families. From there, it has to go into what changes we need to make, and that gets back to education, infrastructure, and research.
Do you think anyone on the Republican side will sound that theme as well?
I think they might. But for both sides, the proof will be in the pudding. Who is willing to stand up for Wall Street accountability? Who is willing to take on the powerful by closing tax loopholes so that we have the money to invest in education, infrastructure, and research. Who’s willing to make the hard choices? The candidates need to say something concrete. This can’t be a silent game, with a lot of nice platitudes. There needs to be something real.
Obama’s core constituency has lost ground during his Administration. That’s not all on him. This has been a longstanding trend. But things have gotten worse.
The middle class has been under assault for 35 years — the combination of stagnant wages and rising core expenses have squeezed families beyond endurance.
But he hasn’t been able to reverse that trend. What advice do you have for him for his last two years?
Get out and fight for America’s families and be clear what you are fighting for. Don’t just say it once. Give one speech, and then another, and then another. Talk to the Democrats on the Hill to propose the legislation that you want and invite the Republicans in. And ask if there is a way to do it together. But get out there and fight for our families, they need it.
http://fortune.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-sheila-bair/
-
She is not running. Move on. Bah!
-
Krauthammer makes a good point about Warren, but I'd rather see Democrats put up a much better, more qualified candidate.
Heard this guy has some mad diving skills.
-
Heard this guy has some mad diving skills.
Yes, he has been confined to a wheelchair since his diving accident in 1971. Typical classless comment from a liberal. Not surprised.
In 1970, he graduated from McGill University with First Class Honors in political science and economics.[5] The following year, he was a Commonwealth Scholar in politics at Balliol College, Oxford, before returning to the United States and entering Harvard Medical School. During Krauthammer's first year of medical school, he was paralyzed in a diving-board accident[2][6] and was hospitalized for 14 months. He has been confined to a wheelchair ever since the accident. He continued his medical studies at Harvard, however, and graduated with his class, earning his M.D. in 1975.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer
-
Yes, he has been confined to a wheelchair since his diving accident in 1971. Typical classless comment from a liberal. Not surprised.
In 1970, he graduated from McGill University with First Class Honors in political science and economics.[5] The following year, he was a Commonwealth Scholar in politics at Balliol College, Oxford, before returning to the United States and entering Harvard Medical School. During Krauthammer's first year of medical school, he was paralyzed in a diving-board accident[2][6] and was hospitalized for 14 months. He has been confined to a wheelchair ever since the accident. He continued his medical studies at Harvard, however, and graduated with his class, earning his M.D. in 1975.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer
LOFL
-
::)
-
Yes, he has been confined to a wheelchair since his diving accident in 1971. Typical classless comment from a liberal. Not surprised.
In 1970, he graduated from McGill University with First Class Honors in political science and economics.[5] The following year, he was a Commonwealth Scholar in politics at Balliol College, Oxford, before returning to the United States and entering Harvard Medical School. During Krauthammer's first year of medical school, he was paralyzed in a diving-board accident[2][6] and was hospitalized for 14 months. He has been confined to a wheelchair ever since the accident. He continued his medical studies at Harvard, however, and graduated with his class, earning his M.D. in 1975.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer
So he is as incompetent as a political commentator as he was a surfer?
-
So he is as incompetent as a political commentator as he was a surfer?
Apparently so.
-
So he is as incompetent as a political commentator as he was a surfer?
Outstanding political commentator.
-
Outstanding political commentator.
Outstanding means always wrong in your vocabulary.
But we knew that.
-
Outstanding means always wrong in your vocabulary.
But we knew that.
He is almost always spot on. Great commentator.
-
He is almost always spot on. Great commentator.
Not really:
-
Not really:
^^^ Did not watch.
-
^^^ Did not watch.
youre probably the biggest troll on getbig poli board now
- Formerly the biggest troll on getbig politics board.
-
youre probably the biggest troll on getbig poli board now
- Formerly the biggest troll on getbig politics board.
::)
-
^^^ Did not watch.
Why not?
-
Why not?
Because I have no idea what it is about and didn't want to waste my time?
-
Because I have no idea what it is about
Thats why you should watchit. The headline is a hint.
and didn't want to waste my time?
A little late for that.
-
They really have a hard on for this woman.
Elizabeth Warren's Loved By Progressives. But They're Torn On Convincing Her To Run For President.
Posted: 02/23/2015
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2640554/thumbs/n-ELIZABETH-WARREN-large570.jpg)
WASHINGTON -- Four years ago, eyeing a defeat of Scott Brown, the liberal activist group Progressive Change Campaign Committee loudly encouraged Elizabeth Warren to return to Massachusetts and make a run for the Senate. The group raised $100,000 to draft the consumer advocate, which it gave to her the week after she announced her candidacy. From there, it raised more than $1.17 million and made nearly 575,000 get-out-the-vote calls on her behalf.
When she won, the PCCC praised the moment as the dawn of an era of unapologetic progressivism in the Senate.
With the progressive community now trying to convince Warren to run for higher office once more -- this time the White House in 2016 -- one would expect to find PCCC at the vanguard. Instead, it's stayed on the sidelines as two other groups, MoveOn and Democracy for America, have taken the lead of the Run Warren Run campaign.
"We have different strategies," explained Adam Green, PCCC's co-founder. "We do not oppose the Draft Warren campaign. But what we are doing is organizing in early states like New Hampshire and Iowa to incentive all presidential candidates on the Democratic side to endorse and campaign on Elizabeth Warren's agenda."
The prospect of Elizabeth Warren running for the White House has been a quixotic, sometimes confusing element of the pre-primary campaign. The school of thought that holds that such a run would be good for the Democratic Party -- if only to help presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton rid herself of rust -- is overwhelmed by Warren's dutiful insistence that she has no interest.
And yet, the talk persists.
Within the progressive universe, that persistent chatter has begun causing strain. All sides may share the objective of shaping a Democratic Party in Warren's populist, pugnacious image. But as PCCC's distance from the Draft Warren movement suggests, not everyone agrees on the means to get there.
For DFA and MoveOn -- and, more recently, New York’s Working Families Party -- the steps are clear. The groups have raised money, conducted polls, hosted launch events, opened offices, showed up at open house events, and hired staffers in key states with the express purpose of showing Warren that an infrastructure exists should she discover her presidential aspirations.
"We think the stakes are so high that we want to push to get her in this race," said T. Neil Sroka, communications director for Democracy for America.
"The top objective of our campaign that we have been explicit about from the beginning is that this is an earnest effort to get her into the race," said Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, on a recent conference call.
This is a simple, direct goal. And were Warren showing signs of wavering about her next steps, it wouldn't be so controversial. But she's not. And because of that, other progressives look at the moves meant to lift her stature and wonder if they might end up sullying her image.
"What elevates her brand is that she is not a politician but a complete honest broker," said Ari Rabin-Havt, a prominent progressive strategist and Sirius XM host. "They are absolutely, 100 percent conflicting her core message. They are saying she is just a normal politician who will obfuscate when asked whether she would run for president. What makes Elizabeth Warren so great is she will not obfuscate."
At the heart of the dispute over Warren-for-president is a larger worry over the progressive movement's lot in politics in a post-Barack Obama era. Many progressive activists see a Hillary Clinton candidacy left unchallenged as a gateway to their own marginalization, similar to what they felt during her husband's presidency.
But there is also a less overtly stated concern that putting so much hope in Warren could backfire. The struggles to influence Obama during critical moments of his presidency showed the dangers in putting one's proverbial eggs in single basket.
"We have learned that while we can like politicians and support them wholeheartedly, we can not sublimate our brands to them," said Rabin-Havt. "We risk doing that again in this case."
Warren has spoken mostly in generalities about efforts to get her into the 2016 race. A progressive operative with knowledge of the relationship between her and the groups running the Draft Warren effort -- who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern of hurting professional relationships -- said they have had no communication since those efforts began out of an abundance of legal and political caution.
Among the Senator's allies, however, there are mixed emotions. Few doubt that talk of her running has raised her clout and, in turn, affected everything from budget negotiations, to executive branch nominations, to Clinton's own rhetoric and broader strategic messaging.
"I think our party needs a strong progressive wing," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) recently told The Huffington Post. "And in general, not on every issue, the focus on middle-class incomes, people trying to be middle class, and the fact that the system is rigged against the average middle-class person by narrow special interests, emanates from the progressive wing of the party but is something I think the whole party accepts."
"You know," Schumer added, almost as an aside, "Elizabeth Warren and I get along really well."
But Warren allies also share concern about the end game, whenever it may come. Eventually the activists buying, literally, into the proposition that she might run will be told, convincingly, that the run won't happen. No one is entirely sure how that message will be delivered and received.
One progressive operative, who works with Democratic candidates, compared it to the Bush administration's vision for Iraq -- "liberators who don't have an exit strategy" -- while predicting only disheartenment for all involved: "The draft's existence almost assures that Warren will have to endorse Clinton immediately after she launches, squandering much of her ability to pressure Clinton from the left. The basic fundamentals of leverage are being ignored."
For those actually running the Run Warren Run campaign, these aren't just matters of differing strategic visions, they are personal broadsides. Their members, who were polled in advance to see if they supported the effort, aren't fragile flowers. "They are smart enough and savvy enough to know how to deal with the outcome regardless of what it is," said Sroka.
"Either she gets in and we have done exactly what our members wanted to do or she doesn’t and we have built a grassroots movement across the country among people who are committed to the issues that she stands for being front and center of the debate," he said. "It is frustrating some times, that 100 folks who work at progressive organizations and consulting firms don’t seem to get that."
As the sniping over the merits of Draft Warren continues, bits of news about the senator have begun taking on larger, deeper meaning. A private gathering that she had with Hillary Clinton deflates those cheering a presidential campaign. A question she recently took about a White House run rekindles hopes. The methodology of a recent poll about her hypothetical candidacy sparks sharp dispute.
Beyond the progressive activist community, however, many Democrats are moving on. One major donor who fundraised for Warren outside of Massachusetts in 2012 told The Huffington Post that he's lined up with Clinton. And why not? Warren has told everyone she isn't interested. Operatives, meanwhile, marvel that the party's base is more invested in propping up someone with no expressed interest in running than shuffling resources behind a progressive alternative who likely will.
"I don’t think the groups involved in the Draft Warren movement are necessarily thinking out all the consequences of everything they are doing today," said Tad Devine, a longtime strategist for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is poised to run for the White House but not necessarily as a Democrat.
"I’m not trying to be too harsh on them," he added. "I’m trying to be honest about it. They have their agenda. We probably share a lot of the agenda. But you have to recognize that they have their own imperatives as an organization. And organizing around a candidate who happens to be enormously popular brings more people to your cause."
Devine's comments are a more diplomatic version of a criticism that often bubbles below the surface of talk of the Draft Warren effort; mainly that DFA and MoveOn are doing it out of organizational self-interest -- a win-win ploy to promote progressive politics while fattening their email lists.
Were the groups not investing tangible resources into the effort, these charges would stick further. But MoveOn is spending real money ($1 million) and the DFA has pledged $250,000 in addition to hiring three organizers and a state director in New Hampshire. And though they scratch their heads about the methods, even critics don't question the motives.
"I legitimately believe that they are trying to convince Elizabeth Warren to enter the presidential race," said Rabin-Havt. "That said, I can take something at face value and believe it is strategically incoherent and wrong."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/23/elizabeth-warren-progress_n_6731572.html
-
I guess they don't want to see a Native American president.
Draft Warren groups to suspend efforts to lure her into 2016 race
Published June 02, 2015
Associated Press
An effort to draft Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 presidential race plans to close up shop next week, acknowledging that the Massachusetts senator will not -- as she has repeatedly said -- seek the Democratic nomination.
MoveOn.org and Democracy for America said Tuesday they plan to suspend their Run Warren Run campaign on June 8. In their last act, they'll deliver a petition to Warren with more than 365,000 signatures urging her to run for president.
The groups said they had already influenced the economic debate in 2016 and want to focus their efforts on working with Warren on issues such as trade, including defeating the effort to give President Obama so-called "fast track" authority to complete the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
"Even without her in the race, Elizabeth Warren and the Run Warren Run campaign she inspired have already transformed the 2016 presidential election by focusing every single Democratic candidate on combating our country's income inequality crisis," said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.
Some of Warren's followers may back Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who is seeking the Democratic nomination and has offered an economic agenda in line with Warren's views.
Sanders, who formally launched his campaign last week, has called for a "political revolution" to elevate issues like income inequality, overhauling the campaign finance system and addressing climate change.
Ilya Sheyman, MoveOn's executive director, said the campaign had helped elevate Warren's platform, "an agenda that rejects the rigged status quo in Washington and puts working and middle-class Americans over corporate interests."
The groups said they had held more than 400 events and recruited more than 60 state lawmakers and local party leaders from the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to join their movement.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/02/draft-warren-groups-to-suspend-efforts-to-lure-her-into-2016/
-
LA Times: Warren Could Help Heal Wounded Dems
By Jason Devaney | Thursday, 19 May 2016
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren could serve as a crucial link between Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose supporters are butting heads as the pair clashes in the race for president.
Warren, according to a Los Angeles Times report, has some pull in the far-left side of the Democratic party, which may suit the Sanders crowd. And her overall popularity within the party can help with Clinton's supporters as the party tries to unite ahead of this summer's convention.
The senator, whose name was briefly thrown around in presidential candidate talk last year, has only served in the Senate since 2013. But she's developed a solid base of support and some Democrats see her as future presidential material.
Now, her role could be split between her duties on Capitol Hill and helping Clinton bring Democrats together as the former first lady nears the presidential nomination. And, assuming Clinton wins the nod, Warren might be able to work together with Sanders on key issues as the party tries to repair a rift caused by the contentious primary season.
"Elizabeth is more focused on the day-to-day policy battles than Bernie is, but yet she will inherit, I think, the political power that Bernie woke up out in the country," an anonymous Warren confidant told the Times.
"Bernie himself will be a much more significant figure on his return to the Senate than he was this term. Assuming they're able to work together at some level, that creates greater power."
Warren has been outspoken about presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, airing her thoughts about the real estate mogul on Twitter.
Clinton has a strong lead in the primary vote despite Sanders' recent gains.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said last week the "entire Democratic party" is rooting for Clinton.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-democrats-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/2016/05/19/id/729751/#ixzz499BpHwbS
-
Pocahantas is good for the Republican Party, but bad for America. I hope they send her home.
As Warren eyes White House run, Senate race could pose hurdle
By Fred Lucas
Published February 06, 2017
FoxNews.com
Liberal icon Elizabeth Warren has emerged as the scourge of the Trump administration, grilling the president’s Cabinet nominees at every chance and coming out against Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch within minutes of his nomination.
The moves are what one might expect from a presidential aspirant. But Warren, who is placed in the top tier of likely Democratic 2020 candidates in very-early polls, first has to keep her Massachusetts Senate seat. It’s not a sure thing.
According to a WBUR poll, just 44 percent of state voters think she deserves re-election, while a plurality – 46 percent – believes she doesn’t deserve a second term. Overall, Warren has a 51 percent favorability rating in the deep blue state.
Republicans are ready to pounce – looking not only to reclaim the seat held, briefly, by GOP Sen. Scott Brown, but potentially sideline a future White House contestant.
“She is absolutely vulnerable. When she should be working for the people of the state, she is spending her time antagonizing the president,” Massachusetts Republican state Rep. Geoff Diehl, who is considering a 2018 Senate run, told Fox News. “She might as well be running for chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.”
Diehl was co-chairman of President Trump’s Bay State campaign last year and gained statewide notoriety in 2014 leading a successful referendum to halt gas tax hikes.
Former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, a conservative talk radio host, also is considering running – though how serious, or viable, he is remains unclear. A Suffolk University poll last October found Warren leading Schilling by 58-24 percent.
A UMass Amherst poll last September found Warren would be in a statistical dead heat with either Republican Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito or former Republican Gov. Bill Weld – though it’s unlikely either Polito or Weld would run.
Presuming challengers emerge, an off-year election could be more difficult for Warren, said Donald Brand, a political science professor at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester.
“Off-year elections are more of a challenge for Democrats nationwide,” Brand said.
He said he’s not betting against the incumbent, and expects out-of-state money to come to her aid. “Schilling is an iconic sports hero, comparable to Tom Brady, but he would have to be a lot more disciplined to run a viable campaign,” Brand said. “I would anticipate that the Democratic elite nationally would rally to her if it’s a tight race.”
The consequences of a bruising, even losing, Senate race, though, could be profound for her political future. “It would be a national embarrassment if she were defeated. Even if she wins and it’s a close election, she’s much weaker going into 2020,” Brand said.
A December Public Policy Polling survey of potential Democratic candidates for 2020 found Warren in third place behind former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who ran unsuccessfully against Hillary Clinton for the 2016 nomination. But when Democrats picked a 2020 candidate in a pre-2016 election poll conducted by Politico/Morning Consult, Warren led, beating her closest opponent -- Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine -- by 12 points.
Brand noted that Trump is likely to be unpopular in a state like Massachusetts during the first midterm, which could help Warren, who first won the seat in 2012 by defeating Brown.
Warren continued to frame herself as a fighter in her January re-election announcement. “The people of Massachusetts didn’t send me to Washington to roll over and play dead while Donald Trump and his team of billionaires, bigots and Wall Street bankers crush the working people of our Commonwealth and this country,” Warren’s statement said.
Reached for comment, Warren’s Senate office referred Fox News to the state Democratic Party – which maintained confidence about her chances.
“There are plenty of powerful, corporate interests, rolling in dough, eager to attack Elizabeth Warren, but that’s never stopped her before and it’s not going to stop her now,” party spokeswoman Emily Fitzmaurice said. “More than ever, we need Elizabeth working to level the playing field for the people of Massachusetts and working families all across our country.”
Massachusetts GOP Chairwoman Kirsten Hughes sent a fundraising email highlighting the WBUR poll to assert, “voters are sick of Elizabeth Warren and they want fresh, new leadership. …Voters clearly see that Warren's hyper-partisan, extremist rhetoric does nothing for our state, and serves only to isolate her in D.C.”
Popular Republican Gov. Charlie Baker also is up for re-election next year. So, could a flood of Democratic money in the state for the Warren race actually hurt what could otherwise be an easy race for Baker? Diehl doesn’t think so.
“The people of Massachusetts are very politically attuned and are able to split state and national races,” Diehl said. “At the same time, I think it would benefit the governor to have a strong opponent taking on Elizabeth Warren.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/06/elizabeth-warren-in-political-trouble-in-massachusetts.html
-
She is a raving lunatic
-
She is a raving lunatic
I cannot imagine a more satisfying feeling than to see Curt Schilling knock out Elizabeth Warren in liberal Mass.
-
Her chance of being POTUS is far less than Hillary's. Already 67 years old and being marginalized in the Senate. Time for the Dems to come up with something other than decrepit old ultra-leftist ex-hippies.