Elizabeth Warren | Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion - Part 24
Accessibility by WAH
Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Elizabeth Warren Tag

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:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 15, 2014 26 Comments
I know, you thought I'd been trolling you these past few months with all my writing about how Elizabeth Warren might actually run for President, and how she would crush Hillary if she did (and they both know it). But I wasn't trolling. Warren's surge in the Wisconsin delegate straw poll was noticed mostly only by us, but was a sign that there could be a groundswell of support. Despite all her present tense denials, there is no doubt in my mind that Warren is seriously considering running but waiting until Democrats demand it. Warren is a unique political talent, in ways we have been documenting since early 2012. There is no one on the political scene today who plays upon and preys upon a sense of victimization and envy as well as Warren. So it doesn't surprise me that Ready for Warren has formed, as reported at HuffPo:
An enthusiastic band of activists has launched a campaign to slow the momentum of Hillary Clinton and convince Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that she should run for president in 2016. "I think there's an opportunity for us to convince her if we're really able to make the case as to why we think she's the right person," said Erica Sagrans, who has signed on as the Ready For Warren campaign manager. The group already has a Facebook page, Twitter account and a new website with a petition encouraging Warren to run. Sagrans, who worked on President Barack Obama's re-election campaign, will be joined by political activist Billy Wimsatt, who previously founded the League of Young Voters and is going to be a senior adviser to the new group. Reached for comment, Lacey Rose, Warren's press secretary, told HuffPost, "No, Senator Warren does not support this effort."
They are not intimidated by the well-monied Ready for Hillary:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 29, 2014 41 Comments
If Hillary Clinton runs for President, she's still the odds-on favorite because she has the Democratic machine behind her. The conventional wisdom is that the nomination is Hillary's to lose. If Hillary's disastrous book rollout and tone-deafness about her wealth are any indication, Hillary might just accomplish the unthinkable of imploding a second time as presumptive nominee. Hillary's worst enemy is Hillary. There's only so long you can pretend to be something you are not. Enter Elizabeth Warren. We have been arguing for years that Warren is a unique political talent, someone who can demagogue the national victim narrative better than anyone in recent memory. Do not underestimate the power of a politician whose entire reason to be is to convince people that the problems in their lives are not of their own doing, but of a rigged system in which they are abused by powerful, if unseen, forces. Put aside all the hypocrisy's of Warren's own life. There are many people willing to overlook how Warren tried to rig the system to her own advantage if that is what is needed to believe in their own victimhood. In a nation suffering from an unending decline in workforce participation rates, in which every month hundreds of thousands of people give up hope of finding a job and drop out, blaming a rigged system is a powerful message. Jonah Goldberg calls Warren The Obama of 2016:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 22, 2014 18 Comments
I told you so.  Elizabeth Warren's repeated supposed refusals to run for President always were framed in the present tense: I am not running for President. That, of course, technically was correct.  I don't think anyone of note "is" running for President yet, but many are seriously considering it and likely will run. Nothing makes Warren's word games more clear than her interview with (my law school classmate) Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post:
The Massachusetts Democrat insists that she’s not running for president, and there’s little reason to doubt her — although, interestingly, Warren sticks doggedly to the present tense to describe her intentions. I asked Warren about this phrasing the other afternoon over iced tea mixed with lemonade at a restaurant near her Capitol Hill office. In these precincts, senator sightings are commonplace but, even here, Warren enjoys celebrity status; the manager promptly presented Warren with a copy of her memoir, “A Fighting Chance,” to sign. Why not simply declare that she will not run for president in 2016? “I am not running for president in 2016,” Warren responded. Yes, I pressed, but why not say, I am not running and I will not run?

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 21, 2014 30 Comments
Elizabeth Warren is doing the best she can with the ideology she has. So it was a shock to see Chris Matthews, of all people, call her out for being all talk and no real action. As if she would just say things for political effect. Or take advantage of situations unfairly for her own gain. Come on Chris. Leave Elizabeth alone. From The Daily Caller:
Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren clearly expected a softball interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Thursday night. But midway through her predictable talking points, the left-wing “Hardball” host unexpectedly struck out at the progressive darling over what he views as Democratic inaction on jobs and infrastructure.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 12, 2014 15 Comments
The Kentucky Senate race is essentially tied in the polling. A poll released today by a Republican pollster shows Alison Lundergan Grimes up by 3 points, within the margin of error. Elizabeth Warren is about to inject herself into the race in a big way. Warren's student loan bill, which even an author at liberal Slate.com called "a glorified talking point," failed to pass an early procedural vote on Wednesday. In response, Warren declared war on Mitch McConnell, vowing to campaign and raise money for Grimes. The notion of taking political retribution is in keeping with Warren's vow to have "plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor" of those who oppose her. HuffPo reports, Elizabeth Warren To Hit Back At Mitch McConnell By Campaigning For Alison Lundergan Grimes:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) railed against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday for failing to support her student loan refinancing proposal, which the Senate killed in a 56-38 vote earlier in the day.... When MSNBC's Chris Hayes asked Warren how she planned to fight back, the senator gave a response that could shake things up in Kentucky, where McConnell faces a tough race for reelection against Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes. "One way I'm going to start fighting back is I'm going to go down to Kentucky and I'm going to campaign for Alison Lundergan Grimes," Warren said. "She's tough, she's feisty, she endorsed the student loan bill, said she wanted to bring down interest rates for Kentuckians. ... So my view is I'm going to get out there and try to make this happen for her."
Seems to me that making Warren an issue in the race is risky for Grimes.