Elizabeth Warren | Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion - Part 23
Accessibility by WAH
Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Elizabeth Warren Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 11, 2015 19 Comments
I'm a believer, a true believer, that Elizabeth Warren would crush Hillary, if she wanted to. Just Run, Elizabeth, Run! Now a poll backs me up, Shock poll: Warren leads Clinton in Iowa, N.H.:
Populist groups cheering "Run Warren Run," today released 2016 election polls from Iowa and New Hampshire showing Sen. Elizabeth Warren ahead of dominant Democrat Hillary Clinton. The YouGov poll of likely Democratic voters for MoveOn.org and Democracy for America also found that 79 percent want Warren and majorities support her anti-Wall Street positions. The poll of 400 conducted Jan. 30 to Feb. 5 put Warren ahead of Clinton in Iowa, 31 percent to 24 percent. In New Hampshire, her lead is 30 percent to 27 percent.
SCIENCE! Why do some people hate SCIENCE?

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 13, 2015 13 Comments
Until now, it's been purely present tense. "I am not running for President." The tea leaf readers were undeterred, insisting that Warren had not ruled out running in the future. BREAKING: A possible twist. Someone asked Warren if she is "going to run" for President, and she said "No." Granted, the words "going to run" did not come from her mouth, but were built into the question, but she did say "No." TPM reports:
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) gave a new type of answer about possibly running for president: she's not going to run for president. Warren, a favorite of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, was asked if she was going to run for president in an interview with Sheila Bair for Fortune magazine. "So are you going to run for president?" Bair asked. "No," Warren responded. That response is different from one Warren gave in an interview with NPR where she said she's not running for president but declined to say in the future tense that she wouldn't run for president. Fans of Warren running for president in 2016 said this showed that she had not completely closed the door to the idea.
How significant is this? She didn't say it herself.  It could have been Warren didn't pick up on the nuance between present and future (?) tenses: Elizabeth Warren Not Going To Run The Wall Street Journal reports the progressive groups who want Warren to run are undeterred:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 10, 2015 28 Comments
Hillary is the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee. She has a large double-digit lead over other potential contenders. The one thing Hillary doesn't have, however, is grassroots enthusiasm. Her support as the presumptive nominee is a mile wide and an inch deep. She's popular because of name recognition and organizational power. No one wants to be on Bill and Hillary's enemies list. But Hillary has an image problem, as reflected in this Jay Leno appearance, via The Daily Caller:
Comedian Jay Leno says he likes presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, but she just seems so old. Speaking of Clinton on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday, Leno commented, “I don’t see the fire.” “Her and Elizabeth Warren are almost the same age,” Leno said, comparing Hillary to the Massachusetts senator beloved by the left wing of the Democratic Party. “And I see Elizabeth Warren come out — ‘boom’ — throwing punches. ‘Boom, boom, boom, boom.’” “And I like her,” Leno continued, speaking of Hillary. “But she seems to be sort of, she seems very slow and very — I don’t see that fire, you know, that fire that I used to see, that I see in Elizabeth Warren. Because I say to people, ‘how much younger is Elizabeth Warren than Hillary?’ And people go, ‘oh, 15 years.’ No! 18 months.”
Elizabeth Warren, by contrast? She's intriguing:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 29, 2014 16 Comments
Ignore the polls showing Hillary up by 50%+ over potential Democratic rivals. Elizabeth Warren "is not" running. Everyone knows (or assumes) Hillary is. The second Warren declares she's seeking the nomination, if she declares, the polls will narrow. The second Warren goes after Hillary as the crony-capitalist, contrived-candidate that she is, the polls would narrow. Defeating the Clinton machine would not be easy or quick, but I stand by my view that if Warren were to run, she would end up crushing Hillary. The massive lead would narrow and then evaporate, just like it did with Obama. But it would end there. As part of my effort to spread the word, I have a column today at The Boston Herald, Will Elizabeth Warren sell ‘outside the bubble’?. Boston Herald Will Elizabeth Warren Sell Outside the Bubble Here is an excerpt, head over to The Herald for the full story:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 15, 2014 67 Comments
The internets have exploded with Elizabeth Warren-mentum. Elizabeth Warren is playing hard to get when it comes to running for President. She still "is" not running, which literally is true, but never says that under no circumstances will she ever run:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is not running for president, but might she in the future? She wouldn’t say when repeatedly pressed on NPR Monday morning. Instead, she just repeated the same present tense denial she’s uttered dozens of times this year: “I’m not running for president.” It’s hardly the first time Warren, who became a progressive hero this week during a high-profile Senate showdown over Wall Street regulation, has dodged a question on 2016. Even as she and her staff insist the senator is not interested in running – and she distances herself from an effort to draft her into the race – Warren appears to be intentionally leaving some doubt hanging in the air. She may not want to run, but she would like voters to think there’s a chance. “She’s never slammed the door shut,” said Ben Wikler of MoveOn.org, who is hopeful she will run and recently launched a campaign to draft Warren. “As senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president,” Warren spokesperson Lacey Rose told msnbc.
That tease is getting attention.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 13, 2014 39 Comments
Forget the polls. Forget. The. Polls. The Democratic nomination for president is Elizabeth Warren's for the asking. If that wasn't the case two weeks ago, it is now after Warren's performance trying to kill CRomnibus because of a rider scaling back a part of the Dodd-Frank financial scheme. It doesn't matter if Warren is right or wrong. She's doing something. She's leading. Where has Hillary been? Seriously, is Hillary any place to be found? The headlines are all Liz Warren, all the time, and she's getting the positive treatment for risking a government shutdown that Ted Cruz and Republicans never will receive. Danny Vinik at The New Republic declares this The Week Elizabeth Warren Decided to Run for President:
We won’t know for a few months whether the Massachusetts senator will challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but if she chooses to run, we’re going to look back at this week as a pivotal moment in Warren’s decision-making.... This doesn’t mean that she will run. On Tuesday, her press secretary said, "As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president." But note the present tense—Warren could still run in the future.
Team Obama, or more precisely, Team Obama operatives, are lining up behind Warren:
In an open swipe at Hillary Clinton, more than 300 operatives from President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns are urging the lefty Massachusetts senator to challenge Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Their “Ready for Warren” site posted a letter Friday signed by the ex-Obama staffers.
Ready For Warren Letter Run

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 13, 2014 9 Comments
Last night on Special Report with Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer offered commentary on Elizabeth Warren's very theatrical protest of the so-called Cromnibus. Things are a little different now that a Democrat is objecting to a government funding bill. Transcript via National Review:
What should one think of Elizabeth Warren’s brinksmanship over the cromnibus bill last night? “Spectacular hypocrisy, a festival of hypocrisy,” says Charles Krauthammer. “And, of course, the media loves it when it’s a liberal Democrat who leads the fight, she’s a ‘principled’ politician,” Krauthammer said on Friday’s Special Report. “Whereas when it’s Ted Cruz, he’s a terrorist, essentially.” Although Krauthammer is not convinced that Warren will run in 2016, “her star is rising,” he said, “and the hero worship of the media is beginning. This sort of sounds and feels a bit like the early Obama years, between 2004 and 2008.
Here's the video, via the Washington Free Beacon:
Krauthammer noted that if Warren is running for president, this was the moment she launched her campaign.

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 30, 2014 23 Comments
With the midterms over, both parties are turning their focus to 2016. Democrats, who were the clear losers on November 4th are struggling over leadership and the direction of their party. It's hard to imagine Elizabeth Warren harshly criticizing the Obama administration just a few years ago. The age of Obama is over. Peter Schroeder of The Hill:
Democrats assail Wall Street ties in Obama administration President Obama’s nomination of Antonio Weiss to serve as the Treasury Department’s top domestic finance official is drawing fire from an unusual sector: his fellow Democrats. Liberal lawmakers like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have been quick to oppose Weiss, a major investment banker with Lazard. Among their grievances is the fact that Lazard’s work is primarily in international finance and he is nominated for a domestic position. They’re also critical of his role in structuring several tax inversion deals, which have drawn criticism from the president himself. But an underlying thread to the Democratic opposition is a fatigue with filling top-ranking administration spots with officials that have spent significant time working for or on behalf of Wall Street titans. Warren penned an op-ed in The Huffington Post criticizing the administration’s approach under the headline “Enough is Enough.”
The discord isn't limited to the Warren wing of the party. There's plenty of scorn to go around.

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 13, 2014 35 Comments
Can Elizabeth Warren save the Democratic Party's voice in the U.S. Senate? Harry Reid seems to think so. After the historic losses suffered by Democrats last week, Reid wants to give Mrs. Warren a promotion. Manu Raju and John Bresnahan of Politico reported:
Harry Reid wants Warren in Senate leadership Senate Democrats want to enlist a progressive firebrand as a member of their leadership: Elizabeth Warren. The incoming Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, is engaged in private talks with the Massachusetts freshman to create a special leadership post for the former Harvard professor, according to several people familiar with the matter. It’s unclear exactly what the new job would entail — but luring the populist liberal into leadership could inject fresh blood into a team reeling from significant midterm election losses. Adding Warren, Democrats say, would bring in a nationally known name who could help sharpen the Democratic message as it goes toe-to-toe with the new Senate Republican majority. The move would likely be viewed favorably by an increasingly liberal caucus.
The Democratic Party's hard-left progressivism was soundly rejected by the American people last week. Their solution to the problem? Even harder-left progressivism! That being said, maybe Elizabeth Warren will finally get big money out of American politics...

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 29, 2014 10 Comments
Elizabeth Warren appeared on The View on Tuesday and gave ringing endorsement to Jeanne Shaheen for working so hard for the people of... Vermont. From the Washington Free Beacon:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) gave an impassioned endorsement of senator Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.) on Tuesday’s The View. The only problem was that she forgot which state Shaheen is from. Warren touted Shaheen’s historical significance, but made a crucial slip-up when trying to sell her case to Whoopi Goldberg and Rosie O’Donnell (as if they needed convincing): “The only woman in the history of the United States who has been both a governor and a Senator,” Warren said. “Independent, out there working for the people of Vermont.” Unfortunately, Shaheen is running for re-election in New Hampshire.
Here's the moment on video:
You can watch the extended version here. You'll notice Warren doesn't correct herself and neither does anyone else. Aaron Blake of the Washington Post is seeing a pattern:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 23, 2014 13 Comments
Elizabeth Warren has said many times that she "is" not running for President. Yet still the progressive movement doubts her, convinced that she is just waiting for the right moment. Because in their heart of hearts, they believe that Warren would crush Hillary. I believe Hillary knows that too. And so does Elizabeth. The polls mean nothing now because Warren "is" not running. Progressives want her so much, they have reached the point of Kremlinology when it comes to Warren:
During the Cold War, lack of reliable information about the country forced Western analysts to "read between the lines" and to use the tiniest tidbits, such as the removal of portraits, the rearranging of chairs, positions at the reviewing stand for parades in Red Square, the choice of capital or small initial letters in phrases such as "First Secretary", the arrangement of articles on the pages of the party newspaper "Pravda" and other indirect signs to try to understand what was happening in internal Soviet politics.
[caption id="attachment_103768" align="alignnone" width="575"]http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/10/post_493.html (Photo via Classical Values)[/caption] A recent article in The Nation reflects this technique, Did Elizabeth Warren Just Change Her Tune on Running for President?:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 22, 2014 30 Comments
Oh, thaaaaaatttttt historically underrepresented group. Not the one you were thinking of. Via CNN:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren told CNN she has been treated differently as a woman in the clubby upper chamber — echoing the general sentiments of her colleague Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who wrote about sexism in the Senate in a recent book. During a wide-ranging interview on the Colorado campaign trail—where she was stumping for endangered incumbent Sen. Mark Udall—CNN asked Warren whether she had experienced any different treatment as a woman. "Yes," she said. Would she elaborate? "Nope." But was it surprising? "Not really, I wish it were," she told CNN. "But it's hard to change these big, male dominated institutions. What I am very happy about is that there are now enough women in the United States Senate to bring change to that place and I think that's just powerfully important." There are now 20 women in the senate. Warren added: "You know, others have said it before me. If you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu." Warren's comments did make one clear case: women will be treated as equals when there continue to be more women in the Senate.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 08, 2014 20 Comments
Elizabeth Warren says she "is not running" for President. (You know where I'm going with this, don't you?) Progressives will not take "is not running" for an answer. Ready for Warren is up and running, and now so are other progressive groups in Iowa and New Hampshire, as reported by The Hill, Liberal grass roots gather to find a challenger for Hillary Clinton:
Liberal groups are building a grassroots army in Iowa and New Hampshire in hopes of stopping a Hillary Clinton coronation in 2016. While the progressive groups don’t have a candidate, they are hiring organizers and opening offices as if one will emerge. At a minimum, the groups hope their efforts will push Clinton to the left. And if the political winds blow just right, the activists hope Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will take the plunge — and turn their organizing work into the foundation for her candidacy.
Bill Maher just kissed the ring (featured image). Watch Warren's reaction when Maher says “You're going to make a terrific presidential candidate and an even better President of the United States!” :

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 02, 2014 22 Comments
Are the folks at Jeopardy trolling us? Via The Wall Street Journal, here are questions (and the answers) about Elizabeth Warren asked on a recent episode of Jeopardy:
1) In 2012, Elizabeth Warren was elected a senator from this state. Answer: What is Massachusetts? Mr. Trebek: You got it. 2) Mrs. Warren is on the Senate committee known as HELP: Health, Education, Labor and these retirement benefits. Answer: (incorrect) What is Social Security? Answer: (correct) What are pensions? Mr. Trebek: P stands for pensions, correct. 3) Elizabeth chaired the Congressional oversight panel for this program, whose 4-letter abbreviation sounds like a canvas cover. Answer: What is TARP? 4) An expert on bankruptcy, Elizabeth Warren wrote a 2008 text on the essentials of this part of the bankruptcy code. Answer (incorrect): What is Chapter 13? Answer (correct) What is Chapter 11? 5) Mrs. Warren championed the creation of and was the interim director of this bureau, CFPB for short. Answer: Contestants are stumped
Okay, I'll take the bait. Here are 5 alternative questions for the next time Jeopardy covers the topic in its regular rounds:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 29, 2014 20 Comments
Now I come to praise Elizabeth Warren. Warren long has made sense when it comes to the Middle East, in her strong support of Israel and her understanding of the neighborhood in which Israel lives. Whatever her other positions, we should at least acknowledge when she is right. And she did so again the other day:
But when the man in the green Hawaiian shirt stood up, Warren went from voicing her support for those local causes to defending her vote to send $225 million to Israel in its ongoing conflict with Hamas. "We are disagreeing with Israel using their guns against innocents. It's true in Ferguson, Missouri, and it's true in Israel," said Harwich resident John Bangert, who identified himself as a Warren supporter but said the $225 million could have been spent on infrastructure or helping immigrants fleeing Central America. "The vote was wrong, I believe," he added, drawing applause from several in the crowd. Warren told Bangert she appreciated his comments, but "we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one." "I think the vote was right, and I'll tell you why I think the vote was right," she said. "America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren't many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world." Warren said Hamas has attacked Israel "indiscriminately," but with the Iron Dome defense system, the missiles have "not had the terrorist effect Hamas hoped for." When pressed by another member of the crowd about civilian casualties from Israel's attacks, Warren said she believes those casualties are the "last thing Israel wants." "But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they're using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself," Warren said, drawing applause. Noreen Thompsen, of Eastham, proposed that Israel should be prevented from building any more settlements as a condition of future U.S. funding, but Warren said, "I think there's a question of whether we should go that far."
For that perfectly logical and appropriate statement, Warren incurred the wrath of Glenn Greenwald.