Elizabeth Warren selling out her progressive principles?

[brooklynite]

Of course not. But she has endorsed Natalie Tennant, a centrist Democrat with strong pro-gun and pro-energy industry views. Perhaps you can be a progressive and be a political realist?

[el_bryanto]

1. Natalie Tennant is in West Virginia - she might well be the best you can get there

On the other hand, for the national election, we might be able to do better than a centrist, pro-wall street, middle of the roader. Worth trying, anyway.

Although if we do end up with a centrist, pro-wall street middle of the roader as our presidential candidate - I'll vote for her.

Bryant

[treestar]

35. That's not the usual line

No, they should run a progressive in W VA and lose. That's better. That's standing by your principles. Or, the "real" progressive would win, because their ideas are so good. That's been the line and no excuses for Sen. Warren over anyone else.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Note - I don't have Warren for Pres in my sig line

I think arguments and debates about 2016 are silly when we are so close to the midterms.

I have a different take away from this -

Does Tennant have to take the approach on those two issues in WV - if she feels an endorsement from Elizabeth Warren would help among the voters?

Think about that - W.V. I don't know if Warren would be a great endorsement in my district in NJ - a better one would be Booker who represents to many here optimism and prosperity. But in W.V. - this 'far left Senator' could make a difference?

That's something. And it's very interesting.

[Thinkingabout]

3. Somewhere along the line we are going to have to learn to get Democrats elected

and forget about this idea we can elect those candidates by splitting the voting power. There will never be a perfect candidate, you may not agree with every issue position a candidate has. There may be some who wants to split the DNC but look no further than the GOP with their TP section and see the turmoil and division.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Elizabeth Warren was a freaking Republican during the Reagan era of death

She voted for destructive, hateful, bigoted, ignorant and vicious politics over and over again.
I consider Warren to have been on the side of my enemies when they were actively attempting to see us all dead.
I do not trust people who were Republicans at that time, or at anytime. But especially that time. If she wants my support, she's going to have to really explain herself.
Not surprised she supports a right winger.

[Larkspur]

8. FDR was originally a Republican

He switched to the Democratic Party because he didn't want to run in primaries against Teddy Roosevelt's kids and grand kids. He felt that they could easily defeat him in a Republican primary.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. That's cute. Don't want to talk about the 1980s so you bring up the 1930's!!!!!

You utterly and totally dismissed what was said to you. You evaded the point. Can't say as I blame you, it is a hell of a point.

[awake]

28. THIS is 2014 NOT 1980!!!!

what is you problem with Senator Warren today

[JustAnotherGen]

10. I have a hard time

With older people/Democrats who can't tell me they voted for Carter twice.

[Omaha Steve]

16. You forgot

Pro-choice and a few other things.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. How does a Pro Choice person vote for Anti Choice candidates? For Reagan?

At that time, I was still doing clinic defenses, she was voting to restrict reproductive choice. Why would she vote for the opposite of what she believes?
Well, she says she thought the Reagan Republican policy on markets was the best. Think about that. She says she has continued to vote for Republicans and Democrats, as she does not think either Party should dominate. I am a Democrat. I don't dig that.

[Omaha Steve]

23. Seems she has changed her position

I was an escort for years at two locations in greater Omaha. Marta and I both showed up for the BIG Kansas protest in Bellevue a few years ago. Cave dwellers tried to make a big deal out of that when I ran for office.

I was third generation D. I was a Raygun Dem in 76 when he ran against Ford. Perhaps Elizabeth is evolving like I did?

She still says she isn't running anyway.

OS

[Bluenorthwest]

31. I was too young to vote against Reagan and Ford, but I worked for Carter

So voting for someone like her requires her to explain why she endorsed hateful policy. She can not avoid it. She says she still votes for Republicans at times because no Party should dominate.
You very easily speak of your past, while she evades, avoids and pretends she was born in a Michael Moore film.
The reason I am politically active is that Reagan Republicans were so viciously bigoted that in order to save the lives of my people all of us had to unify to destroy Reagan Republicans, virtually force our way into the Democratic Party to do so.
I come from a different America than the one you live in. I come from the America where people have no rights at all unless we tear them out of the grip of Republicans. For me, it's not game time. It's life or death.

[Omaha Steve]

41. Well Rmon$y changed on choice several times

He was for choice as a governor. He came out anti-abortion as a presidential candidate. He was pro-choice during an Obama debate. Later he denied he even said it in the debate.

OS

[Cal33]

18. Certainly you should take her past in view, but what is of main importance is to look

at what she has done the past 5 years, and what she stands for today. She has been
a Democrat for 20 years. Her record is open for all to see.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. If she was so open, we'd not be needing this discussion at all.

I dare you to go watch The Normal Heart and come back here and tell me that Reagan Republicans should be endorsed without their open and full repudiation of the hateful policies they voted for year after year. She was voting for death to my friends. That requires an explanation. She has offered none.
Also, she clearly says she still votes for Republicans at times and that she does not think either Party should be dominate. To me, that's not really a Democrat worthy of a nomination. Sorry.

[m-lekktor]

19. i feel Warren's progressive cred is probably highly overrated

like Howard Dean's always was. DEMS get desperate and look for heroes when they see most of the party now as corporate sell-out but "not quite as bad as the republicans" types.

[frazzled]

22. Sometimes I think "progressivism" is confused with "populism" here

They're not the same thing at all. There can be left, center, and right populism (the Tea Party, for example, is a right-wing populist movement). Elizabeth Warren is perhaps what one might call a "center" populist. I'm not sure she's all that progressive. And you're right, Howard Dean was never the progressive hero people made him out to be. He was a realist governor of a small New England state, who had many good qualities and ideas and also some ones you might need to hold your nose on ... like any politician. Like any PERSON, I should say.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. So, a vote for Hillary in the 2008 primaries was a vote for wholesale slaughter?

A big thumbs-up to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, even millions of Iraqis? They could have voted for Obama, but they chose a culture of wanton death or something like that?

Seems like that's what you're saying.

[treestar]

36. FFS

Even Senator Warren?

And you'll never forgive someone, even if they changed their mind, for once being wrong! That's being determined to be a minority and being determined to lose. Talk about principles! Except you'd never see change.

This is comparable, in stubbornness, to the Puritans! (Not in political bent, but in the psychological determination of purity and rightness). The only place you can hope to see these wrong people be punished would be an afterlife!

[Orsino]

40. Still puts her ahead of many Democrats today.

Warren has obviously updated herself to good effect.

[Lee-Lee]

5. I have a hard time believing anyone with a net worth of $15,000,000 who keeps increasing it

to be "progressive".

If you are so deep into the 1% that you could live off your wealth now without working another day and still live better than 99% of Americans for the rest of your life, and you and your husband are still actively working to amass and hoard even more wealth and put yourself even deeper into 1% territory, what of that is progressive.

Talk is one thing- actions are much more.

Bernie Sanders IS progressive. Elizabeth Warren TALKS progressive.

[Omaha Steve]

6. So the D party should exclude wealthy candidates?

FDR, Hilary, and 3 Kennedys come to mind.

OS

[Lee-Lee]

11. The Party can do whatever it wants. Ideally in the primaries we will choose the right candidates

But I as a member have a hard time believing a person who has more wealth than they will ever need and continues to amass more when they talk about how income inequality is a problem.

With the example of the Kennedy family, I do have a problem with a party that claims to back progressive taxation having had as some of its heros and standard bearers a family that are masters of tax avoidance to protect their 1% status.

It is a disconnect between how a candidate talks, and how they act and live. To me personally, it makes their talk ring hollow.

The party will go where we as the members and voters guide it. The question is should we support candidates like that in the primaries? For me personally that is hard. I have been long frustrated to our parties willingness to look the other way to how so many of the party leaders and candidates don't live up to the values of the party or that they claim to support.

So personally, my votes rarely go to a candidate where there is a disconnect between how they talk and how they live in the primary. Sure, I close ranks in a general election but that doesn't mean I am thrilled.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Warren was a Republican during Reagan and Bush 41, when they were viciously anti gay

extremely anti choice, when they were intentionally ignoring the greatest health crisis of our time because it was killing people they wanted dead.
She has said that at that time she was too busy growing her wealth to care much about politics, so she voted Republican. All she ever talks about it money. Her history indicates that all she cares about it money. Hillary got rich after being in the WH. Big Whoop. It's pretty fucking hard to be that famous and avoid wealth. When Hillary was first lady, Warren was a Republican. A Republican who voted for Bush.
Then there's Hillary, who spent 17 years railing against marriage equality as if she was Sister Amy addressing the Angeles Temple.
I'd rather have a candidate that has not been part of anti gay bullshit, anti choice bullshit, trickle down bullshit, Trade Agreement bullshit. Is that really so much to ask, a candidate who has never been an open bigot, never been a Republican? Both of these women were against my rights for decades and I do not trust either of them.

[JustAnotherGen]

27. No

It's not too much to ask.

But don't forget -she's playing well in West VA. That says a lot. If it helps in the midterms - then lets use her for the win!

Besides - I think Hillary would seriously play up where she (Warren) was sitting on civil rights and liberties 30/40 years ago . . . No need for you to. I think they will tear each other apart and we won't see either one of these as the Dem candidate in 2016.

[JustAnotherGen]

9. I just googled that

I had no idea her net worth was that high. If you look at bluenorthwest's comments on this thread - you'll find my gut feeling on Warren is pretty much along the lines of his.

That said - it appears much of it as come from litigation consultant work and her writing. . . it APPEARS that way.

So thanks for putting this bug in my ear - I want to know more now. Like - was she on the side of David of Goliath in her litigation consultant work.

I'm not one to knock people down for their wealth - AT ALL. I love money. I'm very honest about that. But there's a right way to earn money and a wrong way. And it's better to be 'just a millionaire' and treat your employees right - than it is to jump over the ten million mark and bring shame on yourself and family.

[Lee-Lee]

17. It's a mixed bag

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/04/30/elizabeth-warren-had-key-role-travelers-asbestos-case-before-supreme-court/yf2idVzvhK6jhzV2isAvnL/story.html

Its pretty convoluted, but essentially as a result of her work a big insurance company ended up getting out of paying hundreds of millions to asbestos victims. She might have had purer motivations, but the end result is the end result.

[treestar]

37. That comes with the territory of being talented enough

to also be a leader. There are plenty of rich progressives.

[uponit7771]

7. NOPE impossible....Warren is not under teh bus dammit!!!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. Hell no, Elizabeth is drivin the damn bus and it's pullin out of the station . . . all aboard!

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Here we go again...

Note how this thread is veering dangerously into the realm of "not a good enough" Democrat, possibly leading to being slaughtered in the midterms and the Presidential.

And it should be obvious to all that to get elected to anything you have to be a "political realist".

[CBGLuthier]

15. Well, at least she HAS progressive principles to potentially sell out on.

Unlike a certain other politician I will not bother naming.

[conservaphobe]

25. No. Because politics is and should be about more than entrenched ideologues.

And Senator Warren is smart enough to know the all-or-nothing style of politics is detrimental to the party, as well as the nation.

Good for her.

[Eleanors38]

26. Numerous times DUers make a list of progressive

policies and stands that will appeal to the needs and concerns of the voters, to give them something to vote For and thereby defeat the GOPers, and invigorate the Democratic Party. I can't remember ever seeing "gun control" on those lists.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Tough crowd.

Better luck next time.

[gwheezie]

30. I'll vote for Warren, Hillary or Bernie if one of them is nominated

I might have my pick for a primary vote but I will vote for a dem. I'm not on the Warren bandwagon but she doesn't have to explain every thought she had to me. I'm a dem, I'll vote for the dem. It's way to early to focus on 16 anyway. I refuse to bash dems and play gotcha. It happens to Hillary and now Warren is getting it. I refused to play in the Obama vs Hillary war in 08 and I won't do it now with Hillary vs Warren or Bernie. Just not going to play.

[treestar]

33. And she is fundraising

as that article describes.

But I do expect the usual crowd to throw her under the bus. (Or I'll be forced to make deductions about the real state of their "support" for Democrats).

[Nye Bevan]

34. I think it's fair to say that the Democratic candidate in 2016 will be an enormously wealthy person

who many DUers will disagree with on a lot of issues.

It's also fair to say that the Democratic candidate will be vastly preferable to the Republican candidate.

[randome]

38. Warren is a politician.

It's not 'throwing her under the bus' to say she sometimes needs to play politics.

I'm not sure how the purists on this board can square that but it's simple reality to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Orsino]

39. Joining a party means selling out.

Not always in a bad way.