Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Progressives start push for Elizabeth Warren 2016

Progressives start push for Elizabeth Warren 2016

Can I call ’em or what?

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

As noted at the Wiki, the progressive movement has had a twinkle in its eye for an Elizabeth Warren presidential campaign since before she was elected to the Senate, Elizabeth Warren for President in 2016 movement.

Now it’s gaining steam, via The Boston Herald, Elizabeth Warren winning support for 2016 White House bid:

Just a few months into her first U.S. Senate term, Democrat Elizabeth Warren is generating increasing support among liberals as a White House contender — putting her on a potential collision course with presumed front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Warren’s tough stand against the Obama administration’s proposal to potentially cut Social Security benefits has become a lightning rod for progressive groups looking for a more liberal standard bearer in 2016.

“If Elizabeth Warren ran, millions of people would obviously support her candidacy enthusiastically,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who helped draft Warren to run for U.S. Senate against GOP incumbent Scott Brown….

“If Hillary Clinton or others don’t firmly oppose these cuts, they open up a huge amount of political space for an insurgent to run and win,” Green said.

T. Neil Sroka, communications director for the progressive group Democracy for America, said the group would push for an alternative presidential candidate such as Warren in 2016 if the Democratic candidate supports benefit cuts of any kind.

I still think Hillary has a lock on the nomination if she wants it.

But if Hillary doesn’t run, consider Warren a top contender, bolstered by a compliant and uncritical mainstream media the likes of which has not been seen since Barack Obama.

It’s why we didn’t drop our scrutiny of Warren after the election.  If anything, she has proven to be more adept at creating false narratives than anticipated with her YouTube moments:

Elizabeth Warren has a unique talent for marrying victimhood with demagoguery.  Which is why she should not be discounted as a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate.

That is why we will continue to build upon ElizabethWarrenWiki.org, and to hold Warren accountable for her own lack of transparency and her unwillingness to apologize for her own historical transgressions.

Update: I previously mentioned Warren being caught inventing family lore about her brother, Elizabeth Warren backtracks on story of brother living on just $13,200, now the video is available:

Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This is not even close as to being bad news. It’s horrible news when all that will be offered to the voters is more fraud, waste, abuse, lies and incompetence.

Maybe the character that carries an “The End Is Near” sign in a lot of cartoons might actually mean something…

Given that the rest of the county is not 1/10th as Bat Shit Crazy as Massachusetts, and if they want to put their eggs in that basket, I say God Speed to them.

    GrumpyOne in reply to EBL. | April 15, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    I’d take issue with this considering that the “country” re-elected a Chicago machine politician with no real world experience, severe math deficiency but at the same time a masterful liar.

    The country has reached the tipping point and the odds are not in OUR favor. Just one more Supreme Court appointment will ensure the legality of it all…

I am far more worried about Hillary running than Lizzy.

MoooOOOochelle, I tells ya…!!!

It would be a hat-trick…or coup…that would give us the third Obama term.

You and me both, Wm. Hillary doesn’t stand a chance. She’s old news, plus she’s got a medical condition, never mind what they say. Lieawatha is a bigger Commie than Hillary. Hillary is an Alinskyite. Lieawatha is of the Cloward-Piven variety of Alinskyite, like Obama.

Their vapid and incompetent bench is certainly deep.

Chappaquiddick killed Teddy’s chances of becoming president, and Indian-gate will kill Warren’s chances of becoming president.

Of course, it would be great comedy relief to see her try.

I have been as opposed to Warren as any commenter on this board. Had I known she would come down the pike while Scott Brown alienated MA conservatives (whose influence exceeds their limited numbers), I would have voted for Martha Coakley in 2010.

Whatever. The inability unwillingness of the GOP coalition to get its act together reelected Obama, kept the Senate Democratic (with D gains), and lost House seats. Despite Obama’s record.

I’m not sure much, or enough, has changed. Although Betty should be nationally unelectable, a bad candidate will win if the opponent seems worse to swing voters.

(Iirc post-election interviews showed that Romney bested Obama on leadership traits except ‘Cares about people like me’. That is exactly the tune that Betty is playing with her combination of “victimhood and demagoguery”.)

“That is why we will continue to build upon ElizabethWarrenWiki.org, and to hold Warren accountable for her own lack of transparency and her unwillingness to apologize for her own historical transgressions.”

It would take a great deal more than that to defeat her, if she were to win the nomination. Obama is even worse on these points, but he won re-election easily and without any challenge from the media. These points are trivial in the Progressive world; some might even admire her poor character as it demonstrates moxie, or some such perverse interpretation of moral standards. Documenting the failed policies of lefty leaders like Warren is essential, but I fear that its ultimate value will be for future historians who are researching the origins of America’s decline; it will do little to prevent the election of Warren and others like her.

More substantive reasons to vote against her — ruinous economic legislation, an anti-American philosophy that underlies all policies — will not influence Dem voters either. The voting majority does not care about restoring American greatness, if they think they can reap greater benefits by tearing it down instead. (Tearing it down won’t produce greater benefits, by any measure, but they don’t understand that.)

I am in full-on pessimist mode lately, and I don’t see any conservative standard bearer who will lead us to an American renaissance and reflowering of the principles that made this country the greatest in history. Who on the right will be our Margaret Thatcher, our Calvin Coolidge? Sarah Palin might have been, once upon a time, but she seems to have dropped out of the picture (having been thoroughly discredited in the public mind by the vicious attack methods that now form the left’s chief method of mature debate). And remember that Thatcher’s victories were short-lived. The UK now is in far worse shape than it was before she became Prime Minister, and no vestige of her policies remains in the party that should have been her heir (indeed, her own party couldn’t wait to get rid of her). Great Britain was once the leader of the world, and it has been brought to its knees by the left. We are following in their footsteps, at a breakneck pace, and I don’t think our side can stop the downward slide. (We are doomed, I tells ya.)

Who will lead us? I have but slim hopes that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz could overcome the left’s well-oiled juggernaut, and I never understood the craze for Marco Rubio (who is failing conservatives pretty badly in the immigration concession — I was going to say debate, but it’s more of a surrender, isn’t it?). We continue to “fight” from a position of weakness, with little skill at defending conservative principles, when we need to go on the offense and fight-fight-fight from a position of strength.

The only person who I think might succeed against the left, with a proven record of a hard-fought victory on their own territory, is Gov Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Perhaps we should focus on identifying and supporting a proven leader, rather than pinning our hopes on the weak tea of discrediting Dem candidates who are, quite simply, “undiscreditable” in this Progressive world. But I hear little of Gov Walker these days, and certainly not in terms of his potential as a presidential candidate.

Last, Professor Jacobson’s advice that we focus on state and local government is excellent — Gov Walker is an outstanding example of the effectiveness of this approach. Strong state governors will likely be our chief means of pushing back against Elizabeth Warren or whoever of her progressive ilk will likely win the presidency in 2016.

FreshPondIndians | April 15, 2013 at 12:15 pm

I just want to hear Hillary Clinton say “You’re not even a real Indian!”

If Warren is a prospective presidential candidate*, besides seeing this country disappearing down the drain, we might as well nominate Al Franken to run on the same ticket as the VP candidate.

*Warren and presidential in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Warren would be a lousy candidate for them, so I hope they pick her. Every time she speaks she alienates voters. Her whole life story is a fraud.

I also don’t think this country would vote for a female president. Not yet, anyway.

Hillary is OLD and SICK. She is also TIRED. Plus, Benghazi. Also, just wtf did she accomplish as Secretary of State? Four full years and I, a news junkie, can’t think of a single thing she could point to as an accomplishment. Two years from now, assuming she’s still alive, the odds of her having the energy and willpower to mount a serious run are pretty low. I suspect she won’t even try.

My guesses on the next D nominee: O’Malley (MD Governor), or Cuomo (NY gov), or Tim Kaine (VA Senator, former head of DNC, former governor of VA, former mayor of Richmond). Kaine’s the one that worries me the most. He’s as radical as the rest, but successfully campaigns as if he’s a moderate Republican. He can win independents.

legalizehazing | April 15, 2013 at 3:27 pm

My step-mother is a professor at ASU and has written multiple books on Env/Green nonsense…

Needless to say- she WILL NOT STFU about Elizabeth Warren.

Sen. Warren v. Sec. Clinton!? That will be fun up to a point: Hillary will slice and dice Fauxcahontas. If you’re from Chicago, you know how to go up against the Arkansas Mofia; if you’re from Harvard, you won’t know what hit you. The only bad news is that Warren will return to the Senate, and Hillary will go on to the White House.

Women voters will not wait to have a woman President. If the GOP doesn’t nominate a woman, the GOP — and the country — is toast.

housemom1952 | April 16, 2013 at 8:22 am

How?!?!

[…] Progressives start push for Elizabeth Warren 2016 As noted at the Wiki, the progressive movement has had a twinkle in its eye for an Elizabeth Warren presidential campaign since before she was elected to the Senate, Elizabeth Warren for President in 2016 movement. […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend