Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren would “till the ground, putting grit and the smell of earth in the contest”

Elizabeth Warren would “till the ground, putting grit and the smell of earth in the contest”

It would be good for liberals and conservatives.

http://aol.it/Sp6PLS

John Dickerson at Slate makes the case that Elizabeth Warren Should Run for President:

If Warren joined the race, she would not win [waj – I disagree], but she would till the ground, putting grit and the smell of earth in the contest. She would energize the Democratic Party’s liberal base, which would then stir up other Democrats who seek to moderate or contain that group. Warren would challenge the Democratic Party on issues like corporate power, income inequality, and entitlements. She would be a long shot and she would have nothing to lose—which means she could keep talking about those ideas out loud. Because Clinton is close to Wall Street and finance executives and Warren is gunning for them, she has the potential to put campaign pressure on Clinton that other candidates can’t. Clinton and other candidates would be forced to explain where they stood more than if Warren weren’t in the race.

The concern, according to Dickerson:

The reason a Warren candidacy should have broad ideological appeal is that if you’re a conservative there’s something in her campaign for you, too. It will either expose Democrats for the socialist one-worlders that they are or bruise Clinton for the coming general election fight.

I think Warren should run and challenge Hillary.

But that’s just me.

Meanwhile, if Warren does run, she’s going to have to do a much better job at being responsive to reporters and speaking off the cuff rather than in pre-programmed contexts (like Senate hearings where she gets to ask but not answer the questions), via Capitol City Project:

Reminds me of this:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The Warren buzz is proof that many Democrats’ criticism of Hillary! is that she’s not leftist enough.
After Obama, you’d think these zealots would’ve learned their lesson…

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Matt_SE. | July 18, 2014 at 11:19 am

    No, he’s merely whetted their appetite. Bill Ayers’ vision of America is their end game.

    Olinser in reply to Matt_SE. | July 18, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    I don’t really think that’s an accurate criticism. Hillary is plenty leftist.

    But the reason she will never win anything more than a Senate seat is COMMITMENT.

    Hillary is a leftist, but she is not one of the party faithful. Leftism and the Democrat party are just a means to an end for her. And that end is more power for Hillary Clinton.

    Hillary isn’t devoted to the cause. She will never dive on a grenade to further the leftist cause. She only cares about her own power.

    Which is why she won’t get the nomination this time, either.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Olinser. | July 18, 2014 at 1:48 pm

      You think that any good leftist will dive on the grenade. The good ones just make their comrades think they will.

    danf in reply to Matt_SE. | July 18, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    Double down is the constant refrain. Moremoremoremoremore.

    Zhombre in reply to Matt_SE. | July 19, 2014 at 10:59 am

    If zealots learned their lesson they wouldn’t be zealots. A rational approach will forever elude them. Like those millenial cults that keep pushing back the end of the world or the arrival of the messiah.

“Meanwhile, if Warren does run …”

Why do you keep saying ‘if’?

TrooperJohnSmith | July 18, 2014 at 11:17 am

Dickerson’s grand assumption is based on an even grander assumption: Warren is not a hollow, empty shell, like a movie set city facade.

He assumes that she is congruent in her thinking and does more than spout well-worn, populist bromides and outright lies. He assumes that her positions and ideas have sustainability and make sense outside some dystopian parallel universe populated by people with the depth and complexity of a reflecting pond. He assumes that she has less baggage than Saudi royalty checking into the Beverly Hills Hotel.

He also assumes that the Clinton smear machine ain’t sitting in some dark garage finely tuning its Liawatha shredder. Like I’ve mentioned before, Jimmy Ca’ville is quietly winding his limitless (Clinton Foundation) “hunnit dolla’ bills” into a nice, tight roll, while he compiles his list of prospective “traila’ pawks” across this great nation.

Somewhere, the ghost of ol’ H.L. Mencken is smiling in anticipation.

Why not New York mayor de Blasio? Warren has been a Senator not only for a full year, but six more months too. de Blasio’s fresh and exciting, not the entrenched fossil Warren is!

    Ragspierre in reply to cbenoistd. | July 18, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Plus, d’mayor is married to a Lesbian…!!!

    Of course, there’s still time for Mr./Dr. Warren to do the whole transsexual thing.

The interesting thing here is that the left got the candidate it wanted in Obama and he has discredited their ideas – at least in terms of actually improving the life of the average American.

That isn’t actually what Obama’s goal actually was of course, nor that of his activists.

If we had an opposition party, instead of the Republican go along party, this would be a good point to highlight in 2016.

But instead we’ll see either Warren or Clinton, both leftwing extremists, running as outsiders against Washington.

Humphrey's Executor | July 18, 2014 at 12:17 pm

She was the first main stream politician, that I know of, to publicly announce the “you didn’t build that all by yourself” theme. Obama later restated it. What are they really saying? It seems they are saying that what we each earn and acquire is not really ours. It really belongs to community, and you only get to keep your fair share. Is there a name for that philosophy?

Warren and Hillary Clinton. Two “done-nothings”. Oh wait, they were both born female. There ya go. That’s reason enough for the machine to put them up as qualified to be prez. Get all those female voters who think because they are women they’ll do something for women everywhere. A lot like black people thinking Obama was going to give them more than cell-phones.

Why don’t those who vote for sex or color realize that up at the national level none of the candidates give a rat’s butt about people of the same color or sex. It’s big time politics.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-s-11-commandments-of-progressivism-20140718

Well.

That spells it out pretty clearly. Princess Running Bare is at least an overt Collectivist puke.

“…she would till the ground, putting grit and the smell of earth in the contest.”

Sounds like one of Ma Warren’s homemade pie recipes From the Grapes of Graft.

So far, she’s saying all the “right” things a “non-candidate” has to say at this point in the cycle. Fasten your seat belts, this is going to get bumpy (and fun) when Killary and her flying monkeys can no longer ignore Fauxcahontas’ “non-candidacy”!

DDsModernLife | July 19, 2014 at 11:03 am

Every time I see Elizabeth Warren, I think of Mark Steyn’s commentary on her contribution to the Pow-Wow Chow cookbook:

“The recipes from ‘Elizabeth Warren — Cherokee’ include a crab dish with tomato mayonnaise. Mrs. Warren’s fictional Cherokee ancestors in Oklahoma were renowned for their ability to spear the fast-moving Oklahoma crab. It’s in the state song: “Ooooooklahoma! Where the crabs come sweepin’ down the plain . . . ” But then the white man came and now the Oklahoma crab is extinct,…”

More here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/300512/breaking-house-windsor-one-five-tribes-mark-steyn

That “smell of earth” is the smell of manure. Welcome to the farm.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend