Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren says she “is” not running for President, but clearly she’s preparing to run

Elizabeth Warren says she “is” not running for President, but clearly she’s preparing to run

NY Times says Warren is making “the most concerted strides” towards a presidential run among the numerous potential Democrat candidates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAxHa92QmTc

Elizabeth Warren repeatedly has said that she is not running for president.

Warren makes that statement, with the most earnest of faces, because she still has a November 2018 reelection to win, and her opponents are hitting her over the presidential plans. Republican candidate Geoff Diehl has made “Where’s Warren?” one of his main campaign themes.

It is going to be tough to defeat Warren in her Senate match, but she’s not taking any chances considering her favorability has dropped.

So Warren repeatedly says that she “is” not running:

In May 2017, we noted the verbal dodges, Elizabeth Warren again says “I am not running for President,” but no one believes her:

How many times do we have to go through this?

Elizabeth Warren still is the face of #TheResistance and the Democratic Party. She could raise a gazillion dollars if she ran for president.

She would have beaten Hillary so badly Warren’s supporters would have gotten tired of winning.

Yet she keeps saying she is not running for President.

That’s technically true. She is running for Senate in 2018, and while there is little likelihood she would lose, she is taking no chances. She doesn’t want a surprise if voters, whose support has softened, think she’s looking too far ahead.

In an interview with Bloomberg, Warren says “I am not running for President.” And then goes on to detail all the reasons why she should be running for President, the first among them Donald Trump.

In June 2017, we covered Warren’s word games again, Elizabeth Warren says not running for president, but “hold on, hold on, hold on”:

Put this one in your political time capsule. On her MSNBC show this morning, Joy Reid played a clip of her recently asking Elizabeth Warren if she was “going to run” for president in 2020.  Her response is interesting, to say the least.

What makes it significant is that Warren did not resort to the classic dodge of saying “I am not running,” a meaningless non-answer for anyone who has not yet thrown his hat into the ring. The question was whether she was “going” to run, and Warren’s “no” would, as a matter of logic, indicate that she has ruled out a run.

And yet . . . Warren immediately went on to add: “hold on, hold on, hold on. So, I want to be really clear about this. I am running for Senate in 2018. Go Massachusetts! I announced early. I did not want anybody to doubt whether or not I’m in this fight. But I really want to be very clear to everybody in this room: politics cannot be just what happens every four years.”

That additional verbiage wouldn’t seem to negate her “no,” but does anyone doubt that if Warren does decide to run, she’d say something like “what I meant was that I was focused on my Senate race, and wouldn’t consider a presidential run until the Senate race was over?”

We repeatedly have noted that Warren’s non-denial denials about running for president were inconsistent with her actions, which certainly seem to be laying the groundwork for a presidential run:

The New York Times notes that Warren is the most aggressive among likely Democrat candidates in taking steps to set up a presidential run:

During a campaign-style tour of the West late last month, Senator Elizabeth Warren did not announce she was running for president. But in private events and public speeches, her message about 2020 was as clear as it was rousing.

In Salt Lake City, Ms. Warren urged Democrats to turn out in force for the midterm elections to build momentum for the next presidential race, and in Denver, she told a meeting of state legislators and trial lawyers that she wanted to be a tribune for lower-income Americans, according to people who attended the events. And in a speech to the Nevada Democratic Party in Reno, Ms. Warren said Democrats must do more than “drive Donald Trump and his enablers out of power.”

“I want a party strong enough to take on the hard job of cleaning up the mess they’ll leave behind once they are gone,” Ms. Warren declared, all but volunteering for the task.

Before the trip and since, Ms. Warren and her emissaries have been reaching out to key Democratic officeholders in Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina — three states early in the presidential primary calendar — making introductions and offering help in the midterm campaign. Altogether, her moves are among the most assertive steps taken by any Democrat to prepare for 2020….

But for now, it is Ms. Warren making the most concerted strides. She is holding regular buffet dinners in her Senate office with policy experts, recently hosting Kathleen Stephens, the former ambassador to South Korea.

While in Nevada, Ms. Warren made a pilgrimage to the home of Harry Reid, her former Senate colleague who remains the state’s most powerful Democrat. And she has emailed with Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor and agriculture secretary, about an article he wrote about how Democrats can recover in rural America.

Ms. Warren also telephoned [James Smith, the Democratic nominee for governor in the early primary state of South Carolina] after his primary win in South Carolina, offering help to the Biden ally.

Trump says having Warren as the Democrat nominee would be “a dream come true”.

Maybe we’ll get that match up. It would by Yuge.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Warren faked her identity to steal an affirmative action quota for Native Americans. She has zero credibility on any issue. She is a liar.

The Left’s lack of response confirms Fen’s Law: they never miss an opportunity to denounce America as Evil for stealing land from Native Americans. But when Warren robs Native Americans, they re-elect her.

The Left doesn’t really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about.

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | July 16, 2018 at 2:14 am

    She did fake her identity, but not to “steal” any quotas. Which university have you ever heard of that has a quota for Indian professors? Even if Harvard did know about her claim when it decided to hire her (which it denies, and I don’t see how it’s possible to prove it’s lying), it’s not as if had she not lied it would have hired a different Indian. Surely you’re not claiming that.

      bear in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 3:16 am

      milhouse, as a personal favor, would you skip straight to the name-calling and melt down into what my son referred to as, “the milhouse fondue?” We both found the last one to be very entertaining. He also suggested we use rags with the concoction to clean the grease from a spill in the garage. As a good parent, I declined his suggestion, since we didn’t need to add the smell of exhaust to the mess on the floor. BTW, since you know all and see all, please render your opinion as to whether or not this constitutes a mixed metaphor. Your thoughts mean so much to me.

      On the bright side, you’re still as adorable as a puppy or kitten. You simply need to be house-trained.

      Don’t call Fen ‘Shirley.’

      Edward in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 7:17 am

      To suggest that “minority employment goals” are not in play because there isn’t a “quota for Indians” is disingenuous, at best.

        Milhouse in reply to Edward. | July 16, 2018 at 2:30 pm

        We are discussing Fen’s claim that she set out to “steal an affirmative action quota for Native Americans”. You must admit that that is false.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 7:51 am

      Let me try to explain this to you in a reasonable way.

      Ms. Warren was hired at Harvard at a time when the university was under fire from activists for a lack of diversity in its faculty hires. You can read all the details here (scroll down):

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html?utm_term=.756dbd26b3ca

      While the head of the appointing committee says that her heritage played no part of the hiring decision (and he’s supposed to say that), Harvard clearly was under significant pressure. Hiring Warren allowed them check off TWO boxes — woman and minority.

      And it worked. Her hiring calmed the crowd significantly.

      There is no ‘quota’ for American natives in faculty hiring, but American natives (along with blacks, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and Alaskan natives) are listed in the Federal Register as “under-represented minorities”. URMs are counted by the Depts of Justice and Labor in a wide variety of settings, including hiring decisions at any company. Discriminating against any of these groups gets one into trouble.

      So there you go. I expect a civil reply.

        Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 16, 2018 at 2:36 pm

        The head of the committee said not only that her (false) claim played no role in her hiring, but that the committee wasn’t even aware of it. Now we may suspect he’s lying, but how could one ever prove it?

        We are discussing Fen’s ludicrous claim that she stole a job from a real Indian, which can only mean that not only were the committee aware of her claim and hired her because of it, but that the position was reserved for Indians, and had it not hired her it would have hired a real Indian. You must admit that this is obviously false, and that Fen must have known it was false when he wrote that.

          stevewhitemd in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 2:59 pm

          More likely than not Warren was put ahead of some other Ivy Leaguer who would have gotten the position. She’s the first non-Ivy Harvard has hired for its law school in a long, long time. Was there a true Native American with the credentials to teach at Harvard? I don’t know the answer to that.

          I’m not getting in-between you and Fen — it would be like a cop responding to a domestic disturbance call…

          Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 17, 2018 at 4:41 am

          “which can only mean that not only were the committee aware of her claim and hired her because of it”

          No, not necessarily. Neither the victim of theft nor a 3rd party at the scene needs to be aware of the theft for it to be defined as theft. Just because the store manager was looking the other way when you lifted a candy bar doesn’t mean you didn’t shoplift. If you cover your eyes do I disappear?

          This is a good example of what I mean when I critize your intellectual integrity as being situational. You zero in on an objective point of view (rightly so) to the point of being pedantic in some cases, while in others you make unforced errors like this one. Perhaps you are letting Emotion (Get Fen!) trump Reason?

          On the bright side, if you weren’t such a stickler for Truth I wouldn’t be riding your ass about the inconsistencies.

          Do better Milhouse. We know you are capable sound reasoned deliberate analysis. And stop trying to insult me, I was born on Usenet, you can’t rattle me. And you are forgetting the #1 rule of trolling – the target is not your audience.

      Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 12:43 pm

      Tell ya what, let’s compromise.

      We’ll drop the 3 Native Americans and do the campaign advert.with a Native American, a black female and a Latino male. I’ll throw in the handicapped trans ginger gratis.

      Happy?

    mrGAB444 in reply to Fen. | July 16, 2018 at 8:17 am

    Hillary did the same thing if you remember, democrats are liars, Obama was probably the worst of them all.

So are we looking for a (pardon the phrase) catfight for the (D)2020 nomination between Liz, Hillary, and Kamala, the three people who would be the most destructive forces in the White House since… well, Hillary’s husband.

Come on, Oprah.

    Milhouse in reply to georgfelis. | July 16, 2018 at 2:15 am

    Um, 0bama was a lot more destructive than Bill Clinton.

      Bill Clinton lowered the bar so much that obama would have been laughed at and never heard from without him.

        Perhaps an equal argument can be made that the Democrats were empowered as much, or even more, by eight years of W failing to respond to all their attacks. IMNSHO W contributed to Obama even more than Slick Willie. And let’s not let McLame off the hook either. Or the GOP primary voters who actually made him the 2008 nominee in a fit of electoral insanity.

          Tom Servo in reply to Edward. | July 16, 2018 at 8:10 am

          face it, we went through 24 years of idiocy. No wonder there’s such a mess to clean up.

          tom_swift in reply to Edward. | July 16, 2018 at 8:22 am

          eight years of W failing to respond to all their attacks.

          This is not unusual for Presidents. It’s a major component of the complaint that Trump violates “Presidential norms” … and so he does, if one would prefer that the President be a passive punching bag.

    ConradCA in reply to georgfelis. | July 16, 2018 at 1:30 pm

    We should refer to Hillary’s husband as BJ Clinton as he was willing to sacrifice the country for a BJ.

rabid wombat | July 15, 2018 at 9:57 pm

Run, and how

Lies With A Smile

Rides On Our Back

My campaign commercial would be 3 Native Americans who didn’t get admitted to law school because “someone” was pretending to be them.

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | July 16, 2018 at 2:16 am

    She did not pretend to be Indian to get into law school.

      Edward in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 7:40 am

      The appropriate term for that statement on LI is “fact not in evidence”. And evidence is unlikely to ever surface absent some conservative mole in Harvard giving the evidence to a conservative outlet. Simply put, you not only don’t know that, but you can’t know it absent being on the Harvard selection committee (I’m confident in writing that you weren’t) or having access to the committee/HR records (more comfort with that being a negative).

        Milhouse in reply to Edward. | July 16, 2018 at 2:43 pm

        What has Harvard got to do with it? She attended Rutgers, not Harvard. And we know she didn’t pretend to be an Indian to get in because there’s no foundation for supposing she did. The earliest evidence of her making such a claim comes from much later, when she was already a professional academic. Accusing someone of wrongdoing requires some reason to suppose it to be true;

      Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 11:54 am

      Milhouse: “She did not pretend to be Indian to get into law school.”

      ( guys, wanna have a bit of fun?)

      Nobody ever said she pretended to be an Indian to get into law school…

      (and away we go!)

        Milhouse in reply to Fen. | July 16, 2018 at 2:38 pm

        You said exactly that, liar. Right above. You wrote “3 Native Americans who didn’t get admitted to law school because “someone” was pretending to be them.”

          Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 10:09 pm

          Nope. And how dishonest of you to make unsupported accusations instead of quoting me. I clearly said:

          “My campaign commercial would be 3 Native Americans who didn’t get admitted to law school because “someone” was pretending to be them.”

          So I did not claim that Warren stole affirmative action quotas from Native Americans trying to get into law school. What I actually said was that Warren stole affirmative action quotas from Native Americans trying to get into law school. See the difference?

          Gods you’re dense. You’re being mocked Milhouse. Clue: if you run into an asshole this morning, you ran into the asshole
          But if you run into assholes all day, YOU’RE the asshole.

          Hmm. Continue to troll Milhouse over the definition of “is” or continue Round Three of Laser Tag Calvinball with my crazy neighbors.

          Decisions…

          Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 10:28 pm

          Hey Milhouse, post your phone# and prepare a question on thermodynamics for the 3rd caller.

          I just made you 23rd base.

          Oh, and callers cannot use the words “and” or “platypus” in their answers or they are automatically ejected into Tarantulas Dilemma.

          Thanks!

    Tom Servo in reply to Fen. | July 16, 2018 at 8:15 am

    Close – actually the ideal commercial is a remake of the iconic 70’s anti-pollution commercial. Iron Eyes Cody stands on the lawn as he watches Liz Warren walk into Harvard, and as he turns to face the camera a tear falls from his eye.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epCKjaStFu0

And remember, the Establishment Wing of the GOP thought it would be “bad form” to call her out on it.

NRO Cuck: “… his decision to go down that road was unstatesmanlike and, frankly, incomprehensible.”

http://www.nrostatic.com/corner/454112/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-pocahontas-comment-navajo-event-was-lapse-judgement?

    Fen, would YOU turn on you paymasters?

    Neither would the GOPe. They do what the left tells them to do.

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | July 16, 2018 at 2:21 am

    Once again you lie through your lying teeth. No “GOP establishment” person ever had a problem with calling her out on her fraud, and certainly the writer you cite had no such problem. What your golden idol did, however, was gauche, unstatesmanlike, and reprehensible. It was neither the time nor the place. He took an event that was supposed to be about honoring true American heroes and turned it into an opportunity to attack a political rival. He made it about him.

      What’s that Eagles song – Lyin’ Teeth?

      bear in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 2:55 am

      milhouse…..Just like rags, you somehow believe ad hominems will somehow prove your point. Please, use as many as you like, since you seem to enjoy living in your self-created down-vote heaven.

      You keep insisting that Warren, posing as a minority multiple times, has harmed only “Indians,” so not big deal. This is sophistry, based on a specious argument and demeans any single minority. And who made you the arbiter of which minorities could or would be admitted/hired/promoted based on affirmative action standards? As with Rachel Dolezal, “identifying” as a minority doesn’t make Warren one.

        He just wants attention.

        “And who made you the arbiter of which minorities…”

        Come on – didnt you get the memo?

        Milhouse in reply to bear. | July 16, 2018 at 7:25 am

        you somehow believe ad hominems will somehow prove your point. Please, use as many as you like,

        What ad hominems? You seem not to know what the term means.

        You keep insisting that Warren, posing as a minority multiple times, has harmed only “Indians,” so not big deal.

        That sentence has at least three outright lies. But more importantly even than that, it completely ignores the point, which is Fen’s outright, vicious lie that has nothing whatsoever to do with what Warren did or whom she may have harmed. Fen knowingly lied, I called him on it, and you seek somehow to defend him by telling completely different lies on an unrelated topic. This is straight out of some bizarre world where logic and truth were never invented.

      Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 11:46 am

      “You lie through your teeth”

      I thought we already had a talk about this Milhouse. Your opinion may be lying, but they could also simply be wrong, or ignorant of some disqualifying fact.

      So leaping to the conclusion that someone is dishonest is wrong. You should know this already, so I find it odd you keep stumbling over it.

      BTW, I like linked to one example of GOP Establishment unhappy that Trump called her out, that it was unnecessary. What in the world is wrong with you?

      Fen: Beekeepers get stung
      Fen: Here’s a video that proves they get stung
      Milhouse: Liar!
      Everyone else: LOL!

        Milhouse in reply to Fen. | July 16, 2018 at 2:46 pm

        You keep lying. The article you link to makes absolutely no objection to calling her out on her lie. Nobody in the so-called “GOPe” objects to that. Your linking to it is proof of your deliberate dishonesty.

          Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 10:13 pm

          Does too.

          Gee, who knew Argument by Assertion could be so easy? Thanks for the tip Milhouse, I might have wasted time quoting the Establishment Cuck who said “… his decision to go down that road was unstatesmanlike and, frankly, incomprehensible.”

          Ah hell. See what you made me do?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 17, 2018 at 2:30 am

          And you continue to lie. The author you cite made absolutely no objection at all to calling Warren out.

“Well, it depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. I mean, I is not running for President, not right now, not at this precise moment in the time-space continuum. But if you ask me if I am ‘going to’ run, I will deflect and not answer your question.”

Fauxcahontas has been busted as a joke and a fraud.

She speaks with forked job application.

What a low-life: depriving an American Indian of the position she stole.

Fauxcahontas is no different than the corrupt Indian “agents” of the 1800’s who exploited American Indians while authorized to interact with the tribes on behalf of the U.S. government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_agent

    You cannot possibly be seriously suggesting that Harvard was looking for an Indian, and that had it known she wasn’t one it would have hired a different one instead. That’s just too ridiculous for words, even if its claim not to have known about her listing is untrue.

      I spoke to harvard. Turns out they were looking for an Indian.

      After they found out Tanto wad dead, Fauxcahontas got wind of the job opening and applied in 1/32rd of a second.

      You should start a blog. No one will read it, buf try it anyway.

        More lies. Do you get a thrill out of lying even when you know nobody will believe you?

          Edward in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 7:44 am

          You need to take whatever action to improve your sarcasm detection ability. Or do you enjoy having more down votes than upvotes, sort of a badge of distinction?

          Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 12:00 pm

          He’s not lying. I was there returning the Dean’s wife’s bra. He was unbelievably distraught at the news Tonto was dead and wouldn’t be teaching Law. He even sang a little soliloquy from the top of his desk, something very close to

          Tonto is dead? Oh my!
          What are you doing with Betty’s bra!

      healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 12:14 pm

      Re-frame this and it’s certainly plausible to say that Harvard was looking for “diversity” and thought they got it from a lying Warren.

      Heck, their publication of her as one of their brag list of minority women successes shows as much.

    She abused the racist affirmative action policies of a university by pretending to be an Indian and thereby obtaining a professorship.

Shrieking Crow prepares the war trail alone. She counts on her irrational, maddened greed to clear the way.

I would love to see Warren run for office for campaign slogans against her would be most entertaining. 23 and me, 23 and me….

    Milhouse in reply to Cleetus. | July 16, 2018 at 7:28 am

    Um, she is running for office, as she has done before.

      Edward in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 7:46 am

      When you are right we should acknowledge the fact. You are correct, she is running for re-election.

        tom_swift in reply to Edward. | July 16, 2018 at 8:13 am

        The qualification “I would love to see Warren run for office” makes it clear that the trivial case—her current office—is not what the statement is about. I speak for many in Massachusetts when I opine that I would not love to see her run for the Senate again, because she’ll probably get it.

      Immolate in reply to Milhouse. | July 16, 2018 at 10:01 am

      When did you become a scold?

In all seriousness, 2016 was Warren’s best shot at the nomination. She blew and stood aside for Hillary. Now she’s actually too conservative to win the Dem primaries. (look what just happened to Feinstein in California)

Elizabeth Warren says she “is” not running for President.

Depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Sorry.

Bucky Barkingham | July 16, 2018 at 11:22 am

As Bubba once noted it depends on the meaning of “is”.

“You cannot possibly be seriously suggesting that Harvard was looking for an Indian, and that had it known she wasn’t one it would have hired a different one instead.”

I don’t need to suggest, the runner up that Warren replaced was Eschita “Raven Mane’ Hiyeela, a very bright young woman who now shelves case files at the Sally Struthers School of Law.

Here’s a pic

https://goo.gl/images/J4Xah8

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend