Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Elizabeth Warren Tag

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.  

Posted by New Neo on August 11, 2014 45 Comments
ISIS is the embodiment of evil. But:
“We don’t understand real evil, organized evil very well,” said America’s former ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, in an interview with The New York Times. “This is evil incarnate.” “People like [Islamic State commander] Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi have been in a fight for a decade,” he added. “They are messianic in their vision, and they are not going to stop.”
My question is: does anyone ever "understand" evil? I don't think so. Evil's very nature is to be inscrutable. Evil is altogether mysterious and altogether different from the way most people operate or could even imagine operating. In all the biographies and histories that have dealt with Hitler, for example, who has ever really explained him? No one. Religious people posit a spiritual origin for evil. Non-religious people tend to doubt its existence, until they look into its eyes. If it were necessary to fully understand evil in order to fight it, World War II would have never been won by the Allies. What is necessary is to be able to recognize evil and see it for what it is quite early in the game. Those are the important first steps. The next steps are finding the will and the tools to fight it. Evil is very strong, because it doesn't know the same restraints and limits as morality or good. Regarding ISIS, Elizabeth Warren pipes up:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 20, 2014 14 Comments
With Elizabeth Warren reaching cult status, and momentum growing to convince her to run for President, it's worth keeping in mind that Elizabeth Warren's career is nothing like portrayed. No, I'm not just referring to the Cherokee deal. From her legal representation for large pay of the biggest corporate interests to questions raised by other professors about her academics, there is a story behind Elizabeth Warren which is at risk of going down the memory hole. That's the main reason we created ElizabethWarrenWiki.org -- to preserve the record and the research. It's also why Twitter user @Coondawg68 has created a Storify, Liz Warren #RunLizRun on the occasion of Warrens star appearance at Netroots Nation (the left-wing blogger gathering). It is an accumulation of much of Warren's story via tweets, some of which are pugnacious, but most informative as to the historical record: The full sequence that will not require you to click through is below:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 19, 2014 19 Comments
Well here's something different. As Netroots Nation cries out for income and wealth distribution and props up the class warrior Elizabeth Warren to cult status, some careful economic analysis finds that income inequality is decreasing globally and that redistribution in the U.S. would hurt the developing world. In an Op-Ed in The NY Times, George Mason Univ. economist Tyler Cowan writes, Income Inequality Is Not Rising Globally. It's Falling:
Income inequality has surged as a political and economic issue, but the numbers don’t show that inequality is rising from a global perspective. Yes, the problem has become more acute within most individual nations, yet income inequality for the world as a whole has been falling for most of the last 20 years. It’s a fact that hasn’t been noted often enough. The finding comes from a recent investigation by Christoph Lakner, a consultant at the World Bank, and Branko Milanovic, senior scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study Center. And while such a framing may sound startling at first, it should be intuitive upon reflection. The economic surges of China, India and some other nations have been among the most egalitarian developments in history....

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 19, 2014 25 Comments
In many ways, Elizabeth Warren is the perfect Democratic Party candidate to follow Obama. First term senator? Check. No major accomplishments to speak of? Check. No executive experience? Check. A questionable life story that the media refuses to investigate? Check. She really has it all. The progressive base of the Democratic Party recognizes her potential and just like they did with Obama, they're already creating a cult of personality around her. If you can stomach it, listen to this new song created by the folks at Ready For Warren. Allahpundit of Hot Air provides an apt comparison:
It’s not a presidential campaign in America anymore until someone puts their progressive hero-worship for a Clinton challenger to music. The contrast in styles with “Yes We Can” is revealing. That song was celebrity-heavy and hymnal, both of which fed the idea of Obama as icon. He was an object of veneration, the left’s epitome of cool. Warren doesn’t have one one-thousandth his personal charisma and, unlike him circa 2007, she does seem to care about policy on the merits, beyond whether a given position will help or hurt her nascent presidential campaign.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 18, 2014 21 Comments
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:
Accessibility by WAH