2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
Elizabeth Warren gives every Democrat the narrative they need to win. Listen up!
Within Elizabeth Warren resides the fight Americans have been yearning for. It is the fight every Progressive politician must exude.
http://egbertowillies.com/2013/12/17/elizabeth-warren-middle-class/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
polichick
(37,152 posts)I so wanted to hear her answers to those!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)how she didn't take the "bash Democrat" bait; but rather, stuck to the course of her mission?
Yes ... I can see why that would be so disappointing to some.
But I loves me some EW ... on economic issues, she speaks very effectively AND then she backs it up with questioning regulators at hearings AND writing/introducing legislation that gets to the heart of what she just spoke on ... as opposed to giving press conferences (to bash Democrats) and/or posting to FB (to bash Democrats).
Yep ... I loves me some EW.
polichick
(37,152 posts)as am I and anyone else who's worked their butts off for the Dems over the years.
As for EW, she's saying the right things on economic issues now - but was also a Republican right through the Reagan years.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that the vast majority of folks that "worked their butts off for the Dem(ocratic Party) over the years" know the direction of the party and are more interested in supporting EW than waiting for her (or anyone else) to waste time, energy and effort, bashing Democrats.
WOW ... So now EW goes under the bus for saying and doing, today, what most Democrats/liberals/Progressive want to be said and done ... because of stuff she did 30 years ago?
WOW ... I think I now have a model for the "perpetual disgruntled."
polichick
(37,152 posts)What Warren is saying today is the opposite of what Reagan trickle-down was all about - so which is it?
Yes, those of us who have worked a lot for the party have seen where it's going - and it ain't good. It would be nice to know there's a movement forming that could turn things around.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)compare your thoughts today to what/where they were 30 years ago.
Secondly, those of US that worked are not overly concerned ... we are headed in the right direction.
polichick
(37,152 posts)btw thirty years ago my husband and I said trickle-down would wipe out the middle class.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)headed in a 3rd-Way direction (whatever that means) ... we are headed in a far more populace/less corporatist direction than we have in the past 50+ years.
This nation will never be devoid of corporatist thought; we can, however, strike a better balance over time. And that is the direction we are headed.
polichick
(37,152 posts)That's why Chris asked those questions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You keep dumping gasoline on the "Democratic civil war" fire ... and I will keep ignoring the manufactured sideshow, in favor of supporting Democrats that are actually moving in the right direction. One approach gives voyeuristic sense of relevance; the other moves the Party.
polichick
(37,152 posts)That's what primaries are for.
Impedimentus
(898 posts)Warren / Gillibrand for President / VP in 2016 !!!
tblue37
(65,401 posts)anyone ever thinks about are those two positions (POTUS and VP).
When Ted Kennedy finally stopped trying to get the "starring" role and focused instead on his day job, he became the "lion of the Senate" and did great work (though NCLB was a bipartisan major mistake!). (He probably also avoided being targeted for assassination by staying in the Senate.)
Warren doesn't long to ego trip her way into the presidency. She is using the considerable power of a senator--even a brand new freshman senator--to make waves and make news while holding the feet of miscreants to the fire.
If she runs and loses, she undermines her role in the new populist narrative. But if she stays where she is, her profile, her stature, and her power will grow. Kerry did a lot of good as a senator. I am glad that we got Warren when we lost him to the SoS position, but I really would like to see him return to the Senate after his SoS tenure. Can you imagine the two of them in investigating committees?
I wouldn't mind seeing Obama return to the Senate as well. There is precedent, after all. I forget, but I think it was the elder Adams who went to the Senate after the presidency. (I will look it up after I get this posted and return to edit if it was someone else.)
Here in Kansas we suffered greatly once Sebelius was plucked out of the governor's office to run HHS. We ended up eventually with Sam Brownback, and he and his ultra-RW toadies in the state legislature have done incalculable damage to our state.
That is something else I hate. Instead of bringing in other talented Democrats, Dem presidents always dangle juicy, irresistible cabinet posts in front of Democrats who are already in important positions, thus giving the Republicans the opportunity to grab those positions. Are there so few good Dems that only those already serving in essential offices are available for important appointed positions? Why not raise the public profile of other potential party players by putting them into the cabinet posts, and thus into the electoral pipeline as potential candidates for future office?
The Repubs know to fill the House and Senate with their effective people, which is why they support their candidates even when they don't much care for them --and thus wield outsized power in the two houses of congress, even when in the minority. But Dems always think the presidency and vice presidency are the only offices that matter--which also helps explain the crappy Dem turnout in off-year congressional elections.
Without strong allies in both houses, a Dem president cannot get his people or policies in place. Carter was hamstrung by lack of cooperation from congress, including Dems. Obama is a stronger political player than Carter (who is nevertheless one of my contemporary heroes!), but his appointments and his policy initiatives have been obstructed at every turn by Repubs in congress (and by "congress" I mean, of course, *both* houses).
Warren us burning up the tarmac in the Senate. The Repubs are probably sorry they blocked her appointment to the financial oversight agency she built--heh heh heh. Let her stay where she can do the most good.
(BTW, I also deplore the way so many people start clamoring for Oprah or some other famous person to be president the minute that person says something notably progressive. But that phenomenon highlights how people seem to view the presidency as a celebrity position to be given as an award to the person they like best at the moment for being progressive, or at least for saying something progressive that has momentarily captured the media's attention.)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I can assure you that if a more progressive congress passed progressive bills, Obama would sign them.
polichick
(37,152 posts)It was Obama.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)If progressive legislation passed congress, Obama would sign it.
That's my point which you totally missed.
Thanks for playing.
polichick
(37,152 posts)that are not based on his actions, but just on some dreamy idea you have.
I gave you an example of reality. Wake up.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)point to one piece of "progressive" legislation that President Obama has vetoed (or NOT signed) ... and I will point to "progressive" legislation that President Obama has signed.
His "actions" give lie your "dreamy ideas."
polichick
(37,152 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that I have heard having President Obama a "progressive" are "progressives."
What I have heard is people saying President Obama is MORE progressive/the MOST progressive president that we have seen since FDR ... there is a difference.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)President Obama "put SS on the table" THAT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED PROTECTIONS FOR THE POOR, THE ELDERLY POOR, VETERANS, AND THE DISABLED ... IN EXCHANGE FOR INCREASED TAXATION OF THE WEALTHY.
To leave that out of the argument is either, an exhibition of ignorance, disingenuous or flat out, dishonest. Please stop!
polichick
(37,152 posts)has no respect for Democratic principles.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Like I said ... a simplistic narrative.
Impedimentus
(898 posts)I'd prefer to see Warren in the White House. Hillary can take up residence in Boston or on Martha's Vineyard or wherever, and then fill a safe Democratic seat when Warren moves to the White House. Hillary has the disposition to flail the Republicans in the Senate, and her presence there would drive them completely mad - it's a different Senate now than when she was there before.
The suggestion that Oprah should be president, well that is kind of silly : )
My family comes from Hays and Oberlin, Kansas. They were the seven or eight Democrats in an ocean of Republicans and a sea of wheat. Not much out there anymore, except the Republicans and the wheat.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)And thanks for not playing the game Chris wanted you to play.
polichick
(37,152 posts)I want to know too.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)To further that Third Way story of last week or so where they were belly aching about Warren stepping over some line.
I am glad she sticks to her script and doesn't get hornswaggled.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(sorry Chris) is to further illuminate the "civil war within the Democratic Party" ... I mean, "fair and balanced" requires that the media must match republican wacko vs slightly less wacko civil war with Democratic populace vs 3rd war civil war ... ignoring that Democrats tend to resolve our intra-party differences (for better or worse) without blowing up the world.
polichick
(37,152 posts)I would've liked to hear the answers to those questions - which had to do with inequality happening even with Dems in control, and whether she is the leader of the Warren wing of the party. Good questions.
Cha
(297,285 posts)of what Chris Hayes was on about without me having to watch it?
Thanks 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Democratic Civil War" narrative, i.e., the Democratic Party is at each others throat, just like the gop. ... Plain and simple.
Cha
(297,285 posts)is too brilliant for that corporate claptrap.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)for them to get my vote. I've no doubt EW believes her narrative. Other Dems need to, as well.
polichick
(37,152 posts)governing or voting like third way tools.
