Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Frum: If Warren’s Sincere, She Simply Must Run

Frum: If Warren’s Sincere, She Simply Must Run

And if she’s not?

David Frum’s naive delight in what he seems certain is Elizabeth Warren’s completely pure and altruistic populism leads him to insist that she’ll run for president, despite her repeated statements that she will notHe writes,

By now Warren knows (assuming she didn’t know before she arrived there) that the only thing the Senate can offer somebody like her is the velvety asphyxiation of every idealistic hope. If what you like best is the sound of your own voice and the deference of those around you, then a senatorship is a wonderful job. If you’re in politics to accomplish things, the institution must be almost unbearable. Can Warren bear it? The endless talk, talk, talk? The scoldings from White House aides whenever she says or does something they deem unhelpful? The merciless editing of her speech at the next Democratic National Convention —and the surgical exclusion from the innermost council of the party leadership? That’s the “unique role in the national conversation” in which a Hillary Clinton led Democratic party will cast Elizabeth Warren. Warren’s got nothing to gain from staying put in the Senate except drudgery, ineffectuality, and humiliation.

She’s simply too good for the Senate, and her beautiful soul can only be quashed and trampled in the Senate quagmire.  The only way to save herself–and America!–is to run against and beat Hillary for the Democrat nomination, and if she is as sincere as Frum believes her to be, she has no other choice but to run.  Frum explains:

If a politician expresses ideas that are shared by literally tens of millions of people—and that are being expressed by no other first-tier political figure—she owes it to her supporters to take their cause to the open hearing and fair trial of the nation. It would be negligent and irresponsible not to do so. Elizabeth Warren belongs to that unusual group who stick by their principles even when it might cost them something, including an election. But if you’re willing to lose for your principles, surely you should be willing to try to win for them?

However, what if Warren is not sincere but is, instead, inauthentic?

After all, she claimed to be a Native American to attain favored status, to, in essence, rig the system she claims should not be rigged, and we all remember her “spectacular hypocrisy” over the Cromnibus spending bill.

Noah Rothman at Hot Air makes a further interesting point:

Frum makes a good case, but the only factor he did not appear to consider is the possibility that Warren is as career-minded and ambitious as the next politician. If she is a truly selfless ideologue, she might take Frum’s advice and take a stab at the queen. If she misses, her supporters will find her sacrifice admirable and will respect her for enduring the subsequent consequences. And there will be consequences.

As anyone who didn’t back Clinton in 2008 and found themselves on her “enemies list” will attest, the former first family has a long memory. An attempt to unseat Clinton from her present perch as the Democratic heir apparent to Barack Obama will not be forgotten. If Warren lunges at Clinton and misses, she can expect the remaining three years of her term to be especially frustrating. What’s more, as Frum suggests, Warren is unlikely to be able to retain her present status as progressive icon until 2020. Is that risk worth a presidential bid? Maybe not.

In 2020, Warren will be 71 years old, not exactly a fresh-faced icon of all that is young and hopeful in progressive land, and one’s status as potential POTUS does have a shelf life (just ask Chris Christie).  This may be her only, best, and last chance to run for president.

Will she or won’t she?  And can we use her decision as a measure of her dedication to her principles as Frum seems to imply?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

When President Warren opens the William A. Jacobson Attitude Adjustment And Political Re-Education Center in North Dakota, lets all get together, after work details, and talk about the “good old times” under President Obama.

Bush 43 had a knack fir hiring losers. Frum was just one of many.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to bw222. | April 25, 2015 at 10:47 pm

    Actually Frum,the son of the Canadain version of Baba Wawa, didn’t last very long in the Bush White House. If you read Frum’s book, the problem is pretty obvious. In the first few stump speeches Frum drafted, Bush edited all the insincere B.S. padding out of Frum’s copy. But Frum kept sending Bush more speeches padded with insincere B.S. Frum was so sure of his own superior talent, he couldn’t see what the big boss was trying to tell him. His immediate supervisor had to tell him he needed to write to the President’s style instead of teying to force his won style onto the President.

Strictly Frum hunger.

Warren needs to summon a pow wow to discuss this. To not go forward is to be just another Indian giver.

I’m thinking the Clintons have something on her and that’s why she’s not running. Otherwise she’d be in with both feet.

It’s not up to journalists! And, the problems for the dems is that they’re strictly blue states! They’re big in the border states that rims all the others. (Once called “fly over country.”)

My guess is that Scott Walker will get nominated. Or the splits in both parties will be so big that an independent runs! Jeb Bush is also a loser.

You’ve got to take into consideration that back in 1992, when the elder Bush was both president and disliked by many; found Ross Perot (with enough money) … and one TV show appearance on Larry King Live … to motivate people in all 50 states which got his name on all the ballots.

Sure, Ross Perot was paranoid. And, not up to really running. But even so he got 19% of the vote. (Where it could have been 25%, but he got paranoid over his daughter’s wedding being breached.)

My guess is that “faux-ka-hontis” grabs the media spotlight … but it’s not working any more. That journalists are concerned enough that Hillary appears to be reptilian? Well, she NEVER had the people celebrating her. As a matter of fact, almost any other wife would have receive sympathy at finding out a young female was involved sexually with her husband. And, for Hillary, the reality included the CIA (and the republicans, led by Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich), thinking they could “kill” the president.

Did they wound him? Sure. But you know the rule. If you’re gonna attack the king you’ve got to kill him. And, kill Bill they didn’t.

Would we even be talking about Bill Clinton if it wasn’t for Monica?

The faux indian doesn’t have a chance! She hasn’t got Ross Perot’s money.

She should run. If she does, she may draw other, more mainstream candidates into the race. Leon Panetta perhaps? He could be formidable.

She says “I am not running for president.” That’s present tense. She doesn’t ever say “I will not run for president.” See the difference? Her statement is a non-denial denial.

it’s really hilarious to me how small factions of the right and the left both want Warren to run. But we all know it won’t happen.. I’m puzzled but enjoy marvelling at the whole spectacle.

I do think she should run, but not take on Hillary in primaries, Let Hillary slam the Republicans during the primaries. Warren should announce her candidacy later rather than earlier. Announce it when people are saying:

“Great. Yet another election where I’m obliged to vote for the less bad candidate from the two parties”

Then Warren appears as an Independent Populist and gives voters a choice.

    Ragspierre in reply to Terry Ott. | April 26, 2015 at 11:59 am

    Ewww, yah…!

    Then the people can say, “Let me vote for the MOST bad candidate”.

    That’ll work. Shear genius. You really need to apply to the DNC.

If Elizabeth Warren does not run, we have Professor Jacobson in part, to thank:

http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/

The most likely scenario for Warren is she continues to stay out. But when the weight of the accusations against Hillary mounts and her defenses begin to fail, Democrats will jump off the bandwagon like rats from a burning ship. That would be the sequence of events necessary for Warren to enter the race with a chance of success.

Of course it is still quite likely another candidate will appear as if from nowhere, like McGovern in ’72 or Carter in ’76 or Obama in ’08, and grab the nod.

– –

But a decent regard for history requires that before we speculate on the new candidate, we should take a moment of serious contemplation over the passing of the old: https://youtu.be/PHQLQ1Rc_Js

Ok, so he is trying out the unicorn effect that worked so well for Barak Obama, when the unknown genius was so heavily endorsed by people who did not know him, that he was given the Nobel Prize. This might not wok with a known quantity.

Henry Hawkins | April 26, 2015 at 11:01 am

Clinton: Shrill harpy, pretend populist, with big time baggage.
Warren: Shrill harpy, pretend populist, with medium time baggage.

I don’t see the gain for the Democrats.

Evan Bayh to the lobby, please! Al Gore, pick up the red phione, please! Is Dick Gephart still alive? How about Gary Hart?

The oldest president to assume office:
1) Ronald Reagan was 69.95 years of age, Jan 20, 1981
Hillary Clinton would be 69.3 years of age, Jan 20, 2017
2) William Henry Harrison was 68.06 years of age, March 4, 1841
Elizabeth Warren would be 67.6 years of age, Jan 20, 2017
3) James Buchanan was 65.86 yeas of age, March 4, 1857

    NeoConScum in reply to Neo. | April 26, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Hhhmmmmmm….Marco Rubio would be 45-years of age and his Vice President, Condi Rice, would be 62-years of age.

    I Like It.
    _____________________________________________________
    **Me No Like-um Squaw Warren, but will say “How” to her anyway. Just saying..**

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend