Elizabeth Warren must crash the Clinton coronation party and run for the Presidency

[RiverLover]

jschauerblog

Elizabeth Warren must crash the Clinton coronation party and run for the Presidency
1/19/2015

The media has a new obsession these days. Elizabeth Warren.

Or more precisely, the effect of Elizabeth Warren on Hillary Clinton, the presumptive nominee from the Democratic Party. The emerging conventional wisdom is that the mere presence of Elizabeth Warren in the Senate is far more serious or influential than the Massachusetts lawmaker would be in a presidential primary or in the Oval Office. The emerging conventional wisdom—which might have been written in wherever Hillary Clinton’s non-campaign headquarters are—is that Warren is forcing Clinton to change her rhetoric and move to the left during the primary that establishment Democrats desperately hope will be no kind of primary at all. This is a chain of events Clintons backers and hangers-on are willing to countenance because they know that precious little their candidate says during a primary will matter when the neoliberal, neoconservative Clinton gets down to governing.

Serious journalists might pick up on this and ask, given the expertise with which both Clinton’s triangulate and contort to fit a given audience, why it matters what Clinton says during a presidential primary when everything we’ve seen of her in and out of government suggests that she is firmly committed to the neoconservative, neoliberal consensus which keeps our country mired in imperial wars and our citizens stripped of the protections which succor the lives of citizens in most other democracies in the world today.

But the hacks who populate the pages of too many papers and news sites in the United States treat politics as a parlour game instead of an earnest moral endeavor that has the capacity to transform for better or worse the fortunes of hundreds of millions of people. Certainly, changes in Clinton’s rhetoric show the influence of people like Elizabeth Warren. But what matters at the end of the day is whom Clinton would owe when she entered the White House, and the kinds of interests that have shaped her thinking and political actions—not words—down the decades.

Imagine the spectacle of Hillary Clinton facing off against Mitt Romney in a presidential race. Two of the fattest felines in politics, both with a history of support for trickle-down economics, purring about who cares about inequality and poverty the most while taking checks from people committed to enshrining corporate power and the plutocracy that goes along with it....

http://jschauer.blogs.redding.com/2015/01/elizabeth-warren-must-crash-the-clinton-coronation-party-and-run-for-the-presidency/

The entire blog post makes some very good points, worth your time to check it out. Very well-written.

[LawDeeDah]

1. Very well written, indeed.

[brooklynite]

2. Why would he want a Third Way sellout like Warren?

I mean, anyone who thinks Clinton is "terrific", you can't trust a person like that, right?

[BrainDrain]

3. Absolutely correct....

[RiverLover]

4. It's Third Way that criticizes Warren...and she just says "oh please"

Warren On Third Way Criticisms: 'Oh Please'

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said Thursday that think tank Third Way is "flatly wrong" about the solvency of Social Security.

"We could make modest adjustments and make the system financially stable for a century, and we could make somewhat larger adjustments and make the system pay more for seniors who rely on it," she told the Huffington Post. "The conversation for too long has been about whether to cut Social Security benefits a little bit or a lot. And that is flatly the wrong debate to have in mind."

An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday by Third Way leaders that criticized Warren's beliefs about programs like Social Security caused liberals to issue condemning responses to the progressive Wall Street-backed group. Warren wrote to major banks challenging them to disclose their donations to think tanks. And the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has urged multiple Democrats to cut ties to Third Way.

Third Way responded by agreeing that banks should disclose their donations, but co-founder of the group, Matt Bennett, said that the group still considers Warren's stance on Social Security "magical thinking." He added that JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon's Social Security benefits would increase under a Warren-backed plan.

Warren scoffed at this in the interview with the Huffington Post.

"Oh please. I'm out there working for Jamie Dimon the same way Dick Cheney is out there trying to save the environment," Warren said.

[RiverLover]

5. You obviously also missed this~

...Third Way, backed by Wall Street titans, corporate money, and congressional allies, is publicly warning against divisive “soak-the-rich” politics voiced by populist Democrats. Its target: Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator whose rise to power two years ago helped galvanize Democratic grass roots against Wall Street and pushed the issue of income inequality to the forefront...

Third Way in struggle for the Democratic Party’s soul

[nxylas]

6. Not so much a "struggle for the Democratic Party's soul"...

...as a struggle over whether it should have one or not.

[RiverLover]

11. true that.

[stillwaiting]

7. Yes, the Third Way would rather give more to the rich and "soak the poor/working/middle classes". nt

[tooeyeten]

14. That's their goal

A Warren candidacy would be seen as David v Goliath while the Goliath backers would pump everything they have into many anti-David PACs. Would I like a Warren win, sure but don't see her viable as the victor to WH imo.

[maddiemom]

32. Not at the top of the ticket in 2016, at least.

I LOVE Warren, but she's doing great where she is, for now. We need her there. If (Bill) Clinton and President Obama have taken major obstruction and hits from the Republicans, would it be any different for a woman? It might be worse---and now the Repugs are carrying on about age: as if late-sixties to early seventies is OLD in the present day. Reagan was not the best example of an "older" president. Every individual is not going to suffer from Alzheimers.

[maddiemom]

35. Oh, and you can bet---

the Republicans would never be as polite about a Democratic POTUS showing age as the Democrats were about St. Ronnie.

[WillyT]

8. K & R !!!

[hrmjustin]

9. And what if she doesn't want to run?

[JackRiddler]

10. What if Clinton doesn't want to run?

[hrmjustin]

13. Then she doesn't run.

Then I look at other candidates.

What if Warren doesn't want to run?

[okasha]

41. Warren has said repeatedly

that she's not going to run. That's wise of her, because I can't be the only liberal/socialist in this country who does not want a third OJT presidency in a row.

[oberliner]

12. She does not want to run

Why can't people respect her wishes?

[JackRiddler]

15. Make sure you avoid the issues on this.

This is definitely the best strategy for defending the Clinton and/or Bush redux.

[oberliner]

16. What issues?

She has said repeatedly that she doesn't want to run. People ask her again and she gives the same answer. I can imagine she is very frustrated with the question. Why not find someone who is interested in running for president and encourage that person to support these important causes? Or find someone who is ideologically similar to Elizabeth Warren but who does want to run for president and encourage that person to do so?

[RiverLover]

17. Read the article, & you'll see the issues.

Its unreal how people block out what is happening right in front of them.

[JackRiddler]

19. Yes, unreal.

I'm old but still can't believe the constant push to lower all discourse to some personalized drama. People act like this is a reality show (which American "politics" is, but it shouldn't be). As individuals, screw'em all. What do they offer politically? There is no earth where another eight years of arrested development under the Third Way fraud can be justified.

[RiverLover]

24. Nicely stated. Very frustrating though! nt

[oberliner]

22. I've done so

The question was meant rhetorically.

She doesn't want to run. That should be the end of the discussion. Respect her wishes.

[JackRiddler]

18. The issues, not your personalized bull.

But the hacks who populate the pages of too many papers and news sites in the United States treat politics as a parlour game instead of an earnest moral endeavor that has the capacity to transform for better or worse the fortunes of hundreds of millions of people. Certainly, changes in Clinton’s rhetoric show the influence of people like Elizabeth Warren. But what matters at the end of the day is whom Clinton would owe when she entered the White House, and the kinds of interests that have shaped her thinking and political actions—not words—down the decades.

Imagine the spectacle of Hillary Clinton facing off against Mitt Romney in a presidential race. Two of the fattest felines in politics, both with a history of support for trickle-down economics, purring about who cares about inequality and poverty the most while taking checks from people committed to enshrining corporate power and the plutocracy that goes along with it....

[oberliner]

20. Personalized bull? I am quoting Elizabeth Warren directly. She has said she doesn't want to run.

You are the one bringing some kind of personalization to the situation.

You are saying that you personally don't care what this woman wants, that she has to do what you want her to do.

That is personalized bull.

[JackRiddler]

25. Poor politicians.

They're just minding their own business, engaging in dialogues to influence millions of constituents and, in fact, the people of a very large nation. And some of those people think it's about politics, rather than the very important soap opera you have constructed. They expect to express their own wishes! Horrors!

[RiverLover]

26. She's never said she doesn't want to run. Just that she isn't going to. How many pols have said

that?

5 reasons the left doesn’t believe Warren
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/229840-five-reasons-the-left-doesnt-believe-elizabeth-warren

[oberliner]

29. Good point

She's just said "I am not running for president" repeatedly. I think people should stop badgering her. If she changes her mind and says she wants to run, I'd be happy to give her my support. Until then, let's focus on the people who actually want the job.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Elizabeth Warren was a loyal Republican who says she supported trickle-down economics so

strongly that her support for trickle-down was the main reason she voted for Republicans. When asked why she was in such a racist, sexist, homophobic Party she very clearly says she thought Republican economic policies were superior. Ask her how she could have voted for Reagan the second time, with over 5,000 Americans dead from AIDS and no action or words from the President, she says it was her devotion to Reaganomics that caused her to be unconcerned with choice, with public health issues, with the fate of the middle class....
And no wonder she supported such policy, she made many, many millions of dollars 'consulting' and carrying on. People almost always support that which enriches them beyond measure.

It's just cloying to see that double standard. Liz was a trickle-down devotee, a dyed in the wool Reaganomics Republican. And Hillary has a 'history of support' for such policies? Is that only negative in one, while in the other it is a thing of great majesty and wonder? How does that work, rejecting one person for doing what the other does to a far greater degree?
That's how bigotry is built, you pull out a rule book and say 'these rules are for thee and thine, never for me and mine'.

[RiverLover]

34. Elizabeth warren has never said she supports trickle-down. Only Third Way Dems do that.

“The trickle-down experiment that began in the Reagan years failed America’s middle class,” Warren said in her fiery keynote address to an AFL-CIO conference on raising wages.

“Pretty much the whole Republican Party, and if we’re going to be honest, too many Democrats, are overly cozy with the financial industry and make decisions that benefit the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans while leaving others to struggle, she said...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/elizabeth-warren-criticism-trickle-down-economics-114032.html

[Bluenorthwest]

21. It never fails. Double standards of Waren Boosterism. Hillary has a history of support for 'trickle

down'? How terrible! But Warren was in fact an active advocate for Reaganomics, 'trickle down' Supply Side Economics for many years. She was an actual Reagan Republican voter. When asked why and how she could be in a racist, anti gay, anti choice Party for decades, Warren very specifically says she thought Republican economic policies were better policies. Those were Reagan policies, even Nixon policies, she was a Republican for 25, 30 years.
If Warren was nominee, no matter who the Republican nominee is, both Parties nominee would be a Reaganomics proponent who voted for Reagan and for Bush. 'We both voted Poppy, now you get to vote for us!'.

Yes, advocating 'trickle down' is bad. But Warren has much more of that in her background than Clinton does. Warren was a Reagan voter who says she voted for him for Reaganomics. That's what she says.
I know. 'But, but, but....Clinton'. Warren boosters say 'if Hillary does it, that's bad, if Liz does it twice that's great!'
Hillary is the devil because her folks were Republicans and she was a 'Goldwater Girl' when she was too young to vote. Liz is a goddess because she was an active Republican voter for 30 years.
Double standards streaming from social conservatives make me very nervous. A double standard is the basic building material for bigotry and discrimination.

[RiverLover]

28. "Elizabeth Warren slams ‘trickle-down’ tax policy in labor speech"

Elizabeth Warren slams ‘trickle-down’ tax policy in labor speech


Citing years of her own research, Warren said that while 90 percent of workers enjoyed 70 percent of income growth between the 1930s and 1970s, the 10 percent of wealthiest Americans claimed 100 percent of income growth since 1980.

“This country has grown an economy that works for some Americans. For tens of millions of working families who are the backbone of this country, this economy isn’t working,” declared Warren, appearing at the AFL-CIO’s first National Summit for Raising Wages.

Warren has consistently disavowed any interest in running for president in 2016, but she has become the de facto leader of the Democratic Party’s left wing and her speech had all the hallmarks of a campaign stump speech.

Warren blamed the drastic shift toward the upper class on a baseless faith in “trickle-down” economics — deregulating and cutting taxes for business with that expectation that they’ll funnel the extra cash into workers’ paychecks and benefits. She also cited a series of ills that she said have harmed American workers: the post-recession bank bailout, education cuts, student loan interest hikes, a lack of infrastructure improvements, and free trade agreements....

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/01/07/massachusetts-senator-elizabeth-warren-slams-trickle-down-tax-policy-labor-speech/skA7GOFdOFDt7pFJhlR7uJ/story.html

I've never seen a quote of hers advocating trickle down.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Nice recent rhetoric. The point is that she advocated Reaganomics for many years as a Republican

So painting Hillary as being tied to policies that Warren actively advanced, profited from, advocated and voted in support of is hypocrisy unless the flaw in both is called a flaw.
When Warren is asked why and how she could have been a loyal member of a racist, misogynistic and stridently homophobic Party she very directly says she was a Republican because of their economic policies. She says she did not think of anything but money and that she felt Reaganomics was better than Democratic policy.
So sure, she could change. But even if she has, it remains duplicitous to criticize one person for supporting that which your own candidate supported to a much, much greater degree, which she helped to advance and to keep in place.

These criticisms of mine are as much about the way you and others promote her as they are about her.

[RiverLover]

36. I'm a registered Democrat & I don't support Democrats' drone killings, as one example.

I'll repeat, she's never said she favors trickle-down.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Yes, she has. She says she was a Republican from Nixon through Bush because she felt they had

superior economic policies to Democrats. 'Republicans best supported the markets' she says when asked why she endorsed so much terrible right wing policy. Of course, Republican economic policy and lack of regulation of her precious markets was also terrible policy, so support for one set of shitty policy is a bad excuse for supporting homophobia, sexism and racism served on the half shell.

It amuses me that her most ardent supporters don't even know what she says or what her background is.
This piece tries to hang crappy policy positions largely held by Warren around the neck of Clinton. I find that to be the same sort of function that allows some people to be treated under one set of laws while others are treated differently. I like equal treatment, equal standards. If a thing is bad for me, it is also bad for you. If John is bad for having Republican parents, Jack is worse for being an actual 25 year Republican.
This sort of double dealing is the foundation for 'you are not allowed to marry' and for 'that bus is not for your kind'. Rules are for thee, never for me. That which is a sin for you is mine to enjoy with impunity.
Fuck any hint of that thinking. Any hint of that thinking from a former Republican, fuck it twice.

[RiverLover]

40. I thought NAFTA was good when Bill Clinton was pushing for it. Now I know better.

"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore," Warren said.

I know exactly what she said, and I know exactly what she is now. A real Democrat. Unlike some other high profile posers.

[Cryptoad]

23. It easy to see how Papa Paul

wants you to vote,,, or even more important , how he wants you not to vote! He is actively stoking the fires to separate some Progressives away from the rest of the Democrat Party! Whose Tool are you?

[treestar]

27. Convince her

Most of the country thinks Hillary is a raving liberal.

[RiverLover]

37. Right? Its mind-blowing. nt

[wavesofeuphoria]

31. "treat politics as a parlour game instead of an earnest moral endeavor

that has the capacity to transform for better or worse the fortunes of hundreds of millions of people. "

Exactly.

Different worldviews of what politics, governing are all about. "reality-based" and "pragmatic" politics says its okay to screw over folks as long as we gain some political advantage which we will use some other time, maybe, or not, ... so just get over it.

It should be about an "earnest moral endeavor" but it won't be as long as profits trump people, religious beliefs and doctrine trump science, and power is defined as the purpose of life.

[pampango]

38. I hope she runs though I don't think she will. The debate would be good for the party and country.

The same applies to Bernie Sanders.

I hope some our younger candidates run as well both to add to the debate and to get the exposure that will help them win national elections in the future.