Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Run, Elizabeth, Run

Run, Elizabeth, Run

David Frum at The Daily Beast, and Alex Pareene at Salon.com, each write about Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz, and 2016.

Frum sees a Warren run ending in defeat at the hands of the Clinton machine, How Ted Cruz Can Win in 2016:

Democrats liked Hillary personally. But they could see that a Clinton nomination implied a course correction to the right from an administration they already condemned as too conservative. And so, even as the front-runner led the fundraising race through 2015, Iowa and New Hampshire were filling with volunteers canvassing for Elizabeth Warren and her message: “She’s in it to win it. I’m in it for you.”

History didn’t repeat itself, and Elizabeth Warren was no Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton finished off the Warren challenge in April.

I’m not so sure Warren would lose to Hillary.  Remember 2008?

Pareene mockingly finds Frum’s scenario of Warren rising on the ashes of Obama failure implausible, Ted Cruz will be president if Democrats listen to Elizabeth Warren, warns Republican:

In this terrifyingly real scenario, the U.S. tips back into recession, Republicans win huge in 2014 and Democrats respond by getting more aggressively populist on economic and financial issues. These Democrats revolt against Hillary Clinton, and Obama’s moderation, and embrace, instead, Elizabeth Warren. Warren, slightly oddly, decides to run against Clinton, and the bruising primary fight divides and weakens the party.

The support for Warren continues to swell barely below the surface.  Don’t discount her running, despite her current obfuscations.

Elizabeth Warren is precisely what Republicans need in a presidential opponent.  A face off with Ted Cruz, and any of several other Republicans, would be epic.

A collectivist agenda contrasted with a personal freedom agenda.  Cruz is not the only Republican who can draw that contrast, but as of this moment, he is the focal point.

For once, we would have a clear choice.

No move to the middle we usually see.  No silencing of criticism through racial politics.  An ideological fight over the future in which the lines will have been drawn.

Anyone who has been around this blog with more than a passing glance knows my position on Elizabeth Warren.  So it might seem odd for me to say:

Run, Elizabeth, Run.

And get out of the way, Hillary.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It’s an interesting point. Champ won his elections in 08 and 12 in part by running against weak Republicans who divided their party (and I was all for Mitt, as readers here know from my comments back then; I missed how the competent business guy would run such an incompetent campaign). Part of winning is picking, or at least having the good luck to run against, an opponent who can’t pull it together.

Cruz versus Warren? I’d have to think that Warren would be a weak opponent. She might not “divide” the Democrats as the Blue Dogs are gone, but she might cause some to sit on their hands election day.

But don’t discount the passion her supporters would bring. Champ won in 08 and 12 in part by that — progressives were passionate about getting him elected. They volunteered, canvassed, spent and cheated in record numbers. They’ll do it again for Fauxcahontas in a way that they’d never, ever do for Shrillary. So 2016 with Lizzie means another all-out push by the progressives.

Which means, whether it’s Cruz or another authentic, conservative Republican, 2016 is the year we ourselves get passionate. Otherwise we’ll be swept aside — again — by an ideological incompetent.

    I am not so sure Liberals have much of an agenda left with which to guilt-out Moderates and not much of a track record of improving the lives of the middle class.

    Warren is no Barack Obama & anything but a “Rock Star,” rather she is a squawking screeching poster girl for liberalism’s proven lie of “Fighting For The Middle Class.”

    The only hope for Liberals is to give ‘the appearance’ of shifting toward the middle with a William Jefferson Rodham and that they will not do, in my opinion.

High Cheekbones for POTUS 2016??? Are you cereal?

I know you’re serious but keep in mind that it will NOT be Ted Cruz in 2016. It will be Ben Carson, and the landslide that results will end playing the race card forever.

You heard it here first. www dot runbenrun dot com

You comments at the end of a race between Cruz and Fauxahaunis remind me of something Mark Styne said on Limbaugh’s show back in 11 or 12 when the Republicans were looking at who to compromise on to run against B Hussein Obama. “American doesn’t need a compromise, America needs a choice”.

Cruz is great on the issues, is a leader and charismatic. His executive and administrative experience is light years ahead of our current president, looking at him in 2008 or currently. I would pay Superbowl ticket prices to see a debate between Cruz and Warren, or Cruz and Mrs. Bill Clinton.

So I have no doubt the RINO’s will work to stab him in the back from now on.

Ted, please keep going. The stars aligned with the Democrats and in an act of national madness this country elected a street punk to our highest office. Hopefully the stars realign in 2016 and America corrects itself.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to MikeAT. | October 27, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    Rinos may try to stab him in the back,, but they aren’t the ones who dominate caucuses and primaries,, and esp. not this time around. That is where passion matter, and that is what the Rinos will invariably be missing.

Warren’s viability as a candidate relies entirely on her ability to raise cash. But even then, she barely managed to beat Scott Brown in Deep Blue MA. I don’t see her as a viable candidate without huge amounts of cash. So unless she gets Soros backing, forgetaboutit.

I think that a lot of people are pulling for Warren right now. Hillary! without as much baggage. And one of the only new faces that the progressives have had in recent years that they could get behind.

But, while she is new politically, she is old chronologically. Maybe 20 or so years older than Cruz. Without his ability to wow the crowds, nor his ethnicity. Blacks voted in overwhelming percentages for their own these last two elections. Will they do the same for Warren? Or just sit home. Ditto for the Hispanics – except that Cruz in one of them, and Warren is not. How about the youth vote, which was also critical getting Obama over the top. 40 something Hispanic or late 60s woman? Who can they relate to more?

I do find it interesting that no true Baby Boomer has won, or even come close to winning, the Presidency. Clinton(s), HW Bush, Gore, Kerry, and now Warren are all on the line of being Baby Boomers. The unifying thing there that they didn’t have, but the rest of us Boomers had, was opposition to Vietnam in our formative years. They were of the cohort who went to war, almost without thinking. By Tet, they were most of the way through college. Right after WWII, there was a small bulge of births, which also happened throughout Europe. And those politicians fell into that. But, then the birthrate dropped a little bit, and then exploded into the Baby Boom, which most of the rest of the world missed. I have long wondered if the fact that they were in the small post-war bump, instead of the real baby boom, helped them all out politically throughout their career, always being a step ahead of the mass coming up behind them. In any case, their time is over. And, the real Baby Boomers were skipped over, with the next generation taking over, with the likes of Obama and Cruz.

Frum is monumentally wrong. Hillary Clinton is a walking dead woman vs. Warren. The “Clinton machine” only worked against Republicans, defenseless women and assorted lightweight democrats. Not against the Left. Obama proved that. Clinton’s weakness and failure in 2008 when she should, according to the logic of her supremacy, have wiped the floor with the neophyte Obama, will repeat but to an even more humiliating degree against the ruthless Rosa Klebb of the Left, Elizabeth Warren.

[…] Elizabeth Warren for President | Ted Cruz | […]

Midwest Rhino | October 27, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Warren is so awesome … because if I work real hard, am wildly innovative and successful, and turn the capital I put at risk into an income producing, employee hiring enterprise …

then she will be so gracious as to ALLOW me keep a little larger share (of profits that I mistakenly think I earned), than if I had been a basic welfare recipient.
Because she SO understands incentive, SHE would ALLOW me to keep a fraction of my capital gains (that I BUILT), because I drive on HER roads.

WARREN’S collective owns everything, but she will allow a little incentivizing reward, IF we work hard and kiss her ring, and donate to the Democrats. Or one can just move here illegally, work off the books, demand free health care and food stamps, and never file taxes. She’ll deal with that issue later … those are good people, capitalists are bad. That’s just a given.

/sarc

Hillary or Warren = Nightmare Scenario

Cruz is qualified but unlikely to win due to the ever changing political landscape.

We will just slip farther into a socialist state…

Would she really have a prayer or are we talking 50-state sweep?
I would caution people. We thought the passion and intensity would be down for Obama in ’12, but the Dims had such an effective “ground game” that they got out their vote better than the Repubs did.

Warren was an awful candidate who physically ran from reporters’ questions. She is no more of an intellect than she is a Cherokee. And I’m betting the Redskins won’t turn out for her like the blacks have for Obama.

But Cruz has no qualification for President at all, either. Hmmm, first-term Senator with limited prior experience, no executive experience, no record of accomplishments, gives a great speech and interview and has a cult following. SOUND FAMILIAR?

There is a darned good reason we choose our Presidents overwhelmingly from Governors, Generals, and Vice Presidents, and only rarely from Senators: the latter are always disasters.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | October 28, 2013 at 11:55 am

How can Dems vote for Hillary?

It was the Dems condemning Hillary for crying “like a girl” in 2008!

For true sexism, look up a Dem politician! LOL

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend