Image 01 Image 03

Warren Buffett Stereotypes Alleged Indian as “Violent” and “Angry”

Warren Buffett Stereotypes Alleged Indian as “Violent” and “Angry”

Nervous Democrats rush to silence their party’s ‘Warren Wing’

Leaders in the Democratic Party have begun to figure out that if their far left base gets too excited about a candidate like Elizabeth Warren, it could create problems for the presumed nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Weasel Zippers points to a column by Think Progress:

Sexist Warren Buffett Goes On The War Path Against Liz Warren (Socialist – MA) – She Is Too ‘Angry’ And ‘Violent’ With Rich People

Liz sure as heck isn’t friendly with the middle class either.

Via Think Progress:

In an interview Monday morning with CNBC, Berkshire Hathaway CEO and billionaire Warren Buffett was asked what he thinks of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and her views of Wall Street.

“I think that she would do better if she was less angry and demonized less,” he responded. “I believe in hate the sin, love the sinner, and I also believe in praising by name and criticizing by category.”

He continued that while there are “plenty of other candidates” whose political style he doesn’t agree with, “I do think it’s — I think it’s a mistake to get angry with your, with people that disagree with you,” he said of her. “In the end we do have to work together… And it does not help when you demonize or get too violent with the people you’re talking to.”[…]

But Buffett’s use of the emotional word “angry” may be a sign of some subtle sexism.

The effort to squash the ‘Warren wing’ is on. Big time.

Kevin Cirilli of The Hill:

Centrist Dems ready strike against Warren wing

Centrist Democrats are gathering their forces to fight back against the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of their party, fearing a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections.

For months, moderate Democrats have kept silent, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) barbed attacks against Wall Street, income inequality and the “rigged economy” thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach.

But with the race for the White House set to begin, centrists are moving to seize back the agenda.

The New Democrat Coalition (NDC), a caucus of moderate Democrats in the House, plans to unveil an economic policy platform as soon as this week in an attempt to chart a different course.

“I have great respect for Sen. Warren — she’s a tremendous leader,” said Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), one of the members working on the policy proposal. “My own preference is to create a message without bashing businesses or workers, [the latter of which] happens on the other side.”

Peters said that, if Democrats are going to win back the House and Senate, “it’s going to be through the work of the New Democrat Coalition.”

Everything you need to know about Elizabeth Warren can be found at

I’ll leave you with this thought from Ed Morrissey of Hot Air:

Obama cobbled together a unique coalition of voters in part by going to the entertainment media and finding low-information voters and charming them into getting involved. That may have been something Bill Clinton could have done 20 years ago — or more accurately, did. Remember where “boxers or briefs” was asked? In an MTV forum.

But Clinton’s well past his charmer stage with younger voters, and Hillary’s probably never had that ability at any time of her life. A Hillary nomination gives Democrats a pre-Obama Democratic coalition, and the Obama agenda limits the electorate to the Left even further. Small wonder the dwindling number of Democrats in Congress, and in state legislators, have formed for an attack on the progressive wing of the party.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


pass the popcorn!

    Estragon in reply to redc1c4. | March 3, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    It’s beautiful thing to see the wealthy backers of socialism being drawn so close to the edge that they can see the precipice upon which they’ve danced for decades.

    The Krupps were sure they could control Hitler, too.

    Sun_Zeneise in reply to redc1c4. | March 3, 2015 at 8:11 pm

    “Fauxcahontas” = a McGovern redux

      chuckR in reply to Sun_Zeneise. | March 3, 2015 at 9:16 pm

      While I disagreed with just about everything McGovern espoused and voted for Nixon in 1972, comparing The Cherokee to McGovern is grossly unfair to him. Bomber pilot in the Army Air Force in WWII (35 missions over Europe), instrumental in the Food for Peace program, he had more accomplishments and more to be proud of than Warren ever, ever, will.

“… a pre-Obama Democratic coalition…” – the AARP.

The New Democrat Coalition (NDC)…

Tantamount to “The NEW Athlete’s Foot”. Same fungus. Different branding.

That’ll work…

The “Centrist” Democrat Party absolutely HAS to squash this “draft Warren” movement right now, or they will be fighting a schism in the party well into the primaries, REGARDLESS if Warren decided to run for President or not.

The “hard” leftists are not the “hold their nose and vote for the Democrat” individuals. They will happily vote for a Green Party or Socialist Party candidate if they don’t get a candidate willing to discuss their issues.

If the Populist / Leftist movement gets legs, every Democrat left of Clinton WILL be fighting over it, and that WILL drag the debate leftward into things that Clinton CANNOT talk about and still win a national election (income redistribution, raising taxes, “single-payer” healthcare reform, abortion and social spending).

Just imagine, for a moment, Clinton on stage with Bernie Sanders, Andrew Cuomo, Jerry Brown, Rahm Emanuel and Martin O’Malley. Even in the absence of Warren, that WILL push the conversation to places where Clinton will have to make statements that will come back to haunt her.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Chuck Skinner. | March 3, 2015 at 3:38 pm

    Don’t forget James Webb in your mix.

      James Webb isn’t going to make it out of the starting gate for a Presidential run. Period.

      His opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege” in 2010 calling for an end to Affirmative Action programs is the kind of heresy that the NAACP simply won’t tolerate in a candidate, and too many of the “Progressives” worship at the altar “White Privilege” being all the world’s ills for it to be written off that a potential candidate doesn’t believe in it.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Chuck Skinner. | March 3, 2015 at 10:32 pm

    There is a “Centrist Democrat wing?”

    Who knew!

    Next they’ll find life on Uranus.

      Now, now.

      I am told that there is such a thing as the “centrist” or “moderate” wing of the Democrat party. Usually by one or more of my socialist/Marxist colleagues at the Courthouse who is railing against the existence of such a thing because “it dilutes the power of the worker to effect change in the system, because the moderate / centrist members are beholden to corporate interests, and those corporations and their owners are the ones with power because they have disposable resources to allocate to effectuate change.”

      Usually about that point I stop listening until those people change to a different topic.

      That being said, El Paso is probably the most “Conservative” Democrat stronghold I’ve ever seen (and when I mentioned this to a Judge who is big in the Democrat Party locally, she was actually offended).

Quick! Cram that Jinni back in its bottle, we’re done with it!


They fell in with Obama, the son, grandson, stepson, student, and boy toy of Marxists, and now wish to insert a limiting clause into their Grand Experiment? Sorry, Warren – in for a penny, in for a pound (of your own flesh, sucka).

But Buffett’s use of the emotional word “angry” may be a sign of some subtle sexism.

Of course it is.

Using “emotional words” to describe women is a worse microaggression even than manspreading.

In fact, don’t say anything negative about any of us, ever. Because equality.


    kevino in reply to Amy in FL. | March 4, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    Right on target, Amy in FL. (“Buffett’s use of the emotional word “angry” may be a sign of some subtle sexism.” Of course it is.)

    Get used to it, ladies and gentlemen. In the 2016 election, if you criticize a female Democrat, whether it is for their policy decisions, their record, or even their tone, you are being sexist. You will not be allowed to disagree with a woman who is a Democrat. Even if you are correct, any criticism of a female Democrat means that you are supporting the oppressive male chauvinist culture.


    That is the world we live in. And it’s the only way that the Democrats will be able to ram Sec. Clinton or Sen. Warren down our collective throats — to finish establishing the Collective.

“Walkers with Tennis Ball rollers at 15 paces. No feathers on yours, Warren”

Don’t forget that Warren also was one of the few US Senators who opted to boycott the Netanyahu address.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to sultanp. | March 5, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Lizzie will probably claim it was breast-feeding time again for her 57 year old child.

So they’re worried about Warren?

Whoever would run against that old bag of crap Clinton would win by an historic landslide.

Warren would probably do better.