Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren for President is the fight everyone has been waiting for

Elizabeth Warren for President is the fight everyone has been waiting for

A national referendum on the nanny state versus the individual, that only Elizabeth Warren can win or lose.

http://youtu.be/htX2usfqMEs

She’s everywhere, and everyone is talking her up.

Even conservatives.

Liberals want her because she is the fight they want.  Conservatives want her because she is the fight they want.

Hillary is second fiddle.  A well-financed, established, contrived second fiddle, but second fiddle she is. A muddled mixed-bag of corporatism, liberalism, corny capitalism, entitlement, and machine politics. No clear lines, she.

Warren, by contrast, is all clear lines. Statism versus individual liberty. The nanny state versus autonomy.

All clear lines, she.

Warren still denies she “is running” for President, and is emphatic that Hillary is “terrific.”  In the same way that Obama said Hillary was likeable enough.

At some point, Warren needs to come to the realization that events and times are bigger than she is.  She needs to run.  She is the fight everyone has been waiting for.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Henry Hawkins | April 27, 2014 at 3:49 pm

I know what you’re up to. Awesome. Just awesome. Operation Chaos, lol.

I’ve come to find that “he didn’t build that” as the favorite response to Progressive when the point to the empty million of ObamaCare signups.
It really pisses them off.

David R. Graham | April 27, 2014 at 4:07 pm

Then fight to get her in the fight. She represents an international criminal organization. Their leadership will decide who best to continue cover for their ransack of the nations. I cannot see the Moslem Brotherhood approving her to represent that organization, which is more than the MB. Wrong color and plumbing, though a swarthy female might be acceptable to them, but not ideal. And I cannot see the 0s relinquishing perks or power, especially perks. I can see the organization going for Jarret or the 0 spouse-so-called, or, more likely, Corey Booker, Jeh Johnson or Eric Holder. Someone inside who would keep Jarrett and 0s inside and perked. Or a basketball player. Warren is pops with the troops but I doubt she is with the command. Of course, ambition has its reasons reason knows not of. In any case, a fight to get her to fight is indicated, IMHO.

David R. Graham | April 27, 2014 at 4:21 pm

In the struggle between which accusation will be most effective frightening or killing off challengers, “racist” or “islamophobe,” I suspect the latter will be settled upon as the most potent. So, just as the ’08/’12 election was made race-based – let’s elect our first actual black president and oh how good we will feel – the ’16 election will be made religion-based: “let’s elect our first actual moslem president and oh how good we will feel.” In that scenario, Warren is not it. Neither is the 0 spouse-so-called. Criminal minds are nervy. They go for broke. They will push the “islamophobe” litmus test this time, at least primarily, rather than the “racist” one.

I think the New Englanders (and I am one of them — now in Switzerland, though), need to realize that Elizabeth Warren will not go over well past the Hudson River. No Republican, and many Democrats, would never, ever vote for her. She is a self-important liar who might be acceptable to urban liberals — but that’s about it.

You are correct about Hillary — she is a frumpy mess of contradictions without any glamor or charisma.

    randian in reply to ZurichMike. | April 27, 2014 at 5:36 pm

    Given the vast scale of Democrat vote fraud, urban liberals may be all they need.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to ZurichMike. | April 27, 2014 at 7:42 pm

    Democrats are going to flock to their first woman nominee like flies on dog poop.

    rinardman in reply to ZurichMike. | April 27, 2014 at 8:28 pm

    She is a self-important liar who might be acceptable to urban liberals — but that’s about it.

    I would’ve said the same thing about a certain Dem candidate, in 2008.

    Look where he is now.

I’d love to see Warren run. I want the progressive agenda up front and exposed.

Hillary is clearly NOT a good candidate at all. She did fine with the decks cleared and the only firing was the salute in New York state, the local Democrats made sure she waltzed to the nomination and Guiliani had his cancer scare and couldn’t run against her.

But she was even more “inevitable” this time in the 2008 cycle than this one. More money, the famous campaign team was more or less intact, having stayed together anticipating their triumphal return to the White House. She had all the money and sucked the oxygen out of the race.

Until an unknown Senator with no track record at all mentioned he might run.

The only things that distinguished Barack Obama were his long list of questionable associates (Frank Marshall Davis, Ayers, Rezko, Wright, etc.) and the worst attendance record in the Senate. He was taken under the wing of the old progressive warrior Axelrod, who had tried to make John Edwards work before, and failed.

There was no way the Obama team could beat the Clinton Machine. But they did. Because the Machine only rolled over opposition with Bill driving. Hillary couldn’t even parallel park.

As I predicted over a year ago. Hillary is slowly being eclipsed. Warren doesn’t have to say she’ll run, and can continue to enjoy the luxury of denial. The demand for her will only grow. She’s the zeitgeist’s child now.

DouglasJBender | April 27, 2014 at 5:10 pm

Warren should say that as a young girl, Hillary Clinton was one of her heroes.

“A well-financed, established, contrived second fiddle, but second fiddle she is. A muddled mixed-bag of corporatism, liberalism, corny capitalism, entitlement, and machine politics.”

But that has been a winner for Pres. ScamWOW.

AND MooooooOOOooochelle can walk into it like one walks through a metal detector.

She can have OFA for a name-change.

She can be the “next” Obama term(s).

She’s Black.

AND she’s a mom, ergo a womyn.

PLUS, you need to watch her work the crowd at the DNC when she gave her speech.

Captain Keogh | April 27, 2014 at 5:29 pm

As I posted on a previous thread, the track record of Massachusettsans who have run for the presidency has not been exactly sterling and if you do not believe me ask Presidents Teddy Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney.

    tom swift in reply to Captain Keogh. | April 27, 2014 at 5:52 pm

    Four MA natives have been President, as have four MA politicians. Quite a load, really, especially for one of the smaller states; beat out or tied only by Ohio, Virginia, and New York.

      Captain Keogh in reply to tom swift. | April 27, 2014 at 6:22 pm

      Yeah that was during the Colonial/Federalist periods when Virginia and Massachusetts dominated the presidency (yes Coolidge and JFK were 20th century).

        Ragspierre in reply to Captain Keogh. | April 27, 2014 at 6:36 pm

        Boy, if someone could gin up a Coolidge…I don’t care WHERE from…I would crawl over broken glass with two broken legs to vote for him.

        tom swift in reply to Captain Keogh. | April 27, 2014 at 8:06 pm

        And Bush 1, a native of Milton, MA, though active mainly in Texas. Coolidge was a Vermont boy, though he reached national prominence while governor of MA.

        I’d certainly welcome an opportunity to Keep Cool with Cal.

Interesting. Liberals don’t want what we all called a liberal forty years ago; today, they want a socialist.

Warren’s fairly close. Sure, she’s a fake, and pretty dim, but nobody’s perfect.

But Hillary’s just a grifter. And, of course, not at all “likable” – that was just another thing Il Duce was wrong about.

I wouldn’t be surprised by a Warren/Clinton ticket.

    No way.
    You never put a VP on the ticket who is more liked by some group out there willing to do crazy things to advance the VP.

    tom swift in reply to Gremlin1974. | April 27, 2014 at 7:41 pm

    I can just see the magic on stage now. Those two would get along about as well as two cats tied up in a sack.

LukeHandCool | April 27, 2014 at 6:07 pm

I must admit, growing up I never thought I’d live to see a black president—let alone one with no accomplishments in life except for an unparalleled record of voting “present” as a state senator, in between his audacious writing of two autobiographies with no real accomplishments in the real world of which to speak.

But NOW …

I’m really blown away at the prospect of electing a blonde, blue-eyed Cherokee president.

Fast Times at American High.

Sputnik was made obsolete by Mercury and Apollo.

Now DNA is made obsolete by cheek bones and family lore.

Progress. The Future. The End.

PersonFromPorlock | April 27, 2014 at 6:29 pm

Warren? Why? How about, say, Donna Brazile? Right age, race, sex, and she’s a party pro with lots of politicking behind her. Warren is just Ward Churchill in drag.

The WWE awaits a Warren-Clinton match.

1. At some point, Warren needs to come to the realization that events and times are bigger than she is. She needs to run. She is the fight everyone has been waiting for.

All that out-of-state money didn’t go into her last race just to flip a Senate seat. She was being run for President all along, and I assume she was not only being run, but running.

2. None of the major GOP factions (e.g. the kleptocrats, the religious kooks, and the chickenhawks) appeals directly to the welfare of the overall middle classes. Those factions have agendas that many voters disagree with.

The danger in something like a Warren candidacy is that the Stupid Party, thinking the outcome is assured, will choose a ticket that will make Betty look like the lesser evil. Such an attitude is already evident in the GOP Establishment’s lust to pass amnesty.

    JerryB in reply to gs. | April 27, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    All that out-of-state money didn’t go into her last race just to flip a Senate seat.

    True, but it might have been spent to end presidential ambitions of Scott Brown. The Dems feared him more than they liked Liz. In fact, that’s why I didn’t vote for Brown in the first race to replace Teddy. Brown has high potential to be groomed as an GOP-E “centrist” candidate for VP and eventually president.

    (Oh, and your “religious kooks” comment will certainly warm the hearts of voters we’ll need — voters like myself.)

      gs in reply to JerryB. | April 27, 2014 at 9:02 pm

      Thanks for your response.

      1. I can see Brown in a lesser Cabinet post, but no higher. I’ll reassess if he upsets Shaheen.

      2. I make a distinction between people of faith and religious kooks; between peace-through-strenght-ers and bellicose draft dodgers; between ethical businesspeople & entrepreneurs and kleptocrats; etc. Unfortunately the latter types are dangerously influential, possibly to a nation-killing degree. I no longer tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities. That may offend some people whom I don’t mean to offend…but where are those people when the latter types run amok? Senators Akin and Mourdock might explain it to me if only I could get a moment of their time…

      3. I have become fatalistic about this country’s future. If something unforeseen takes us off the path we are on…great! Thank heaven! But afaic that unlikely something, if it happens, is more likely to appear out of the blue rather than from politics as usual.

Juba Doobai! | April 27, 2014 at 7:49 pm

We are living in dangerous times,folks. A Communist demagogue on the way out; another Communist demagogue waiting in the wings; students in the universities lacking any sense of American values and ignorant of the Constitution; Americans openly saying other Americans should be imprisoned for having different opinions; Americans being denied admission to university because of their faith. If we wind up with Lieawatha Fauxcahontas, we will be firmly planted in the late 1930’s-early 1940’s.

Look for repetitive patterns.

When the Dems pick a political lightweight for office, they assign him a commissar or handler. Obama has Jarrett; Hillary had Huma. When Huma was reassigned to another up & coming nobody, I figured that at least one of the major puppetmasters behind the Democratic party had decided that Hillary was going nowhere.

So, who is Warren’s handler? If she doesn’t have an official Party alter ego yet, I wouldn’t expect that they’re planning for her to be their next big figurehead.

Bruce Hayden | April 27, 2014 at 8:26 pm

I am one of those who welcomes Fauxhauntis Warren running for President instead of Hillary! She got where she got, all the way to Harvard, as a fake Affirmative Action hire.Gonna go over good with much of America – couldn’t make it on her own, so she lied about being a tiny part American Indian. And, the left will probably love her running, since she can stoke the base far better than Hillary! can.

But, that allure isn’t going to go much further than the MA border. She is an older lady, older than I am, in an era where the youth vote has helped decide the last two Presidential elections. And she is a political novice, with a single election under her belt. Before that she was an Affirmative Action hired law professor, and .1% by her consulting. I suspect that she wouldn’t lose as badly as another MA politician, Gov. Dukakis, but only because she would likely pick up a couple of deep blue states like CA.

MouseTheLuckyDog | April 27, 2014 at 10:44 pm

Did you mean crony capitalism not corny capitalism in the third paragraph?

Actually I like corny capitalism better, except you should probably write it c0rny like porn becomes pr0n on the interwebs.

I think the Left is wanting Warren to be the candidate. Was listening to Bob Edwards on NPR today. Talking about Picketty’s book on capital(ism). And then… wow… suddenly they were talking about Elizabeth Warren and a potential run for president (presumably the segue was Warren sounds like Picketty). And Warren is willing to criticize fellow Democrats!

Where the heck did that come from?!?

Two things about Warren.
1) Demagoguing an issue. In this case it is the myth that Glass-Steagall lead to the housing bubble crash. “GLB didn’t cause the financial crisis—and, when push comes to shove, the regulatory evangelists must admit as much. Stiglitz, in the same Vanity Fair article, concedes that Glass-Steagall did nothing to “directly” cause the crisis. Warren, meanwhile, confessed to New York Times reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin that Glass-Steagall would probably not have stopped the financial crisis, but that she was pushing to reinstate it because, in Sorkin’s words, “it is an easy issue for the public to understand and ‘you can build public attention behind.’”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2012/11/12/why-the-glass-steagall-myth-persists/

2) Voting for fat cat bankers: “What is surprising, however, is that Elizabeth Warren voted for Lew’s nomination, despite staunch opposition from another prominent left wing colleague, Bernie Sanders (the only left-of-center Senator to vote no). Lew seems to be the sort of revolving door passenger that Warren was sent to Washington to oppose.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_02/why_elizabeth_warren_voted_for043264.php

The vote was 71-26 so voting ‘no’ to stick with the progressives wouldn’t have mattered. Yet she did the master’s bidding.

This could be written off as the usual pandering that politicians do but if you want to go by what she does rather than what she says then she looks like tool for the oligarchy in Washington. She is simply telling the progressives what they wanted to hear, much like the current occupant had done.

And we all know how badly that turned out.

I always get a kick out of photos like that, with someone (usually a weakly pol) posing with fists clenched trying to look tough. Except, like Lizzie is here, they’re usually clenching some weak semblance of a fist that would result in broken fingers and writs were they actually to strike anyone or anything. Instead of making them look tough, their inability to make a proper first instead reveals them to be the weakling that they really are.

Henry Hawkins | April 28, 2014 at 1:41 pm

It seems wise to point out that Obama proves that know-nothing, done-nothing wannabes can still get elected nationally, but please recall it was necessary to completely lie about everything he actually was.

Elizabeth Warren is already far better vetted* in 2014 than Obama was in 2006. She cannot be the blank slate Obama was. She has a record to defend. She can’t move to the center without losing her base, plus nobody’d believe it anyway, and the center-right country will find no reason to move to her.

How to screw this up if you’re the GOP? Panic when Jeb decides not to run and put Romney up again.

*And we all know who’s responsible for that, lol.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 28, 2014 at 1:54 pm

    I take all of the above back. Warren would make an excellent candidate for the Dems, whose bench is woefully thin and whose presumptive nominee, Ms. Clinton, has face recognition but few achievements on which to run. Though not exactly young in years, Ms. Warren is young in her ideas, and might just make a wise choice for the young and vibrant Democrat Party.

Too bad the following didn’t cross my mind when the thread was active:

IMO Wendy Davis intended to run for President. She would have been in the mix for 2016 if it looked like Governor Wendy might deliver Texas, and thereby the election, to the Democratic ticket.

The loud media silence wrt Davis indicates that the D’s have written her off.

    gs in reply to gs. | April 29, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    💡

    What the Democrats need on the 2016 ticket is: appeal to woman voters…sturdy Heartland values…ethnic pedigree…appeal to the Catholic vote…proven executive governance…

    There is only one person: Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius!!

    Putting aside my oafish “humor”, I’m guessing that the Democrat farm system is grooming multiple candidates and Betty is the one who a) appeals to the left wing of the Leftist Party, and b) hasn’t imploded (as yet).

Be careful what you wish for.

I remember a Republican interviewed back in 2008. Virginia has open primaries so he had voted “against Hillary.” I have to admit, the schadenfreude makes me chuckle to this day.

I love ms warren a Real champion if poor people here. Met her myself in one of the ruffest places in Boston. I would never vote for her but she will beat any republican. Scott brown refused to meet with certain ppl. That’s not inclusion.

I am very proud of our very successful very intillegent very Indian senator from ma. a very good wish she wasn’t a dem but she is a very nice lady. And ran Scott brown the heck out of Boston. A real strong politician. She fought against a lot of ultra conservative blogs and won. She is unstoppable.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend