General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYesterday, Elizabeth Warren assumed control of the Democratic Party
Yesterday, Elizabeth Warren assumed control of the Democratic Party in a bloodless coup. I'm not even sure she was trying.
I can't prove it, but I've had a sneaking suspicion for a few days that Elizabeth Warren was about to take the reins of our party, and yesterday's announcement has helped fuel my fire.
At this point, I think that few of us can credibly argue that the bulk of elected "Democrats" are behaving well, or performing well. In some cases, they're just grabbing as much cash as they can with both hands; but in many other cases, they just don't know what else to do. They are very smart people, very socially adroit, who've gotten ahead in life by doing what's been asked of them by wealthy people wearing impressive clothing. They eventually became politicians, in charge of important stuff.
Excellent Sheep.
But no matter how excellent the sheep, they are still sheep, in need of a shepherd. The wealthiest people in the most impressive clothing for the last few decades have been the Wall Street crew, with high-pressure hoses of cash to spray down anyone with the ability to spray back even more cash. So the excellent sheep followed Wall Street's shepherds, passing law after law aimed at grabbing cash from the 99% and handing it to their shepherds, while taking a nice chunk for themselves and their families.
And the American Dream was destroyed.
And here we are.
I don't think that the wholesale destruction of our country has gone unnoticed by our Democratic Excellent Sheep. They must surely realize that six years ago they held the Presidency and both house of Congress, and had a mandate from America to fix the @#$%ing thing; and that now they have no houses of Congress, a near-impotent Presidency, and things have only gotten worse for the 99%. I suspect that somewhere, deep inside, most of them feel terrible about it all when they lie in bed at night, or when they pass a homeless person begging for money to feed their kids.
They are powerful. They are adroit. But they are utterly clueless as to the way forward.
Here's the thing that makes Elizabeth Warren special, the thing that made my brain boing like a rubber band when I first noticed her years ago: Warren is as smart and adroit as any person alive - that's how one gets to be a Harvard Law School professor. But unlike the Excellent Sheep, she also has a big heart, a big vision, and one hell of a punch. In a few short years, that difficult woman from Massachusetts has set up an agency to protect the 99% from financial predation, publicly told Geithner and company to take a flying @#$% at a rolling donut, beat a popular incumbent senator like a drum, fended off yet another attempt to unleash Summers on the 99%, got financial regulators to start thinking about doing their jobs, changed the conversation in Democratic circles, and won the hearts of FDR Democrats.
I don't think that these things are lost on the Excellent Sheep.
I suspected that something was up last week, when three days after the elections Warren published an op-ed in the Washington Post instructing the President to not do what he does best, which is caving in to Republicans before they even ask in the bizarre hope that they'll somehow like him one of these days. Instead, Warren wrote, he must get up and do the right thing for working Americans.
A Democratic Senator instructed a Democratic President, in public: when was the last time something like that happened? Something interesting was up: Warren clearly felt like she had serious mojo.
Then, yesterday, Sen. Warren was given some sort of leadership position in the Democratic Party, she's now their "envoy to Liberals" or some such thing. It's not clear what that means. But, this unclarity may actually make the intent clear: I suspect that Democratic leadership, particularly Harry Reid, just want an excuse to bring a senator with only two years of tenure into their Mt. Olympus. Reid's had enough of the bull@#$%, and wans the horror to stop. He understands that Warren knows the path forward, and he wants her to lead.
And Warren being Warren, she'll grab a machete and plow through the dark jungle ahead until we find bright light and good drinking water. You totally know she will.
Great things ahead, I think. I could be wrong, but let's hope I'm not.
Excelsior!
(Copyright note: I gave myself permission to copy this, in its entirety, from my new blog which has almost nothing on it yet and will probably get abandoned in a few weeks, but I'll give it a go.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Autumn
(45,120 posts)
This is all because she is a troublemaking woman. 
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)We need to stand up for Liz.
Kath1
(4,309 posts)"...she also has a big heart, a big vision, and one hell of a punch."
That's why I love her!
brooklynite
(94,879 posts)I don't want to disappoint you, but as part of Leadership, she doesn't get to decide what the message is; at best she gets to make it clear to the rest of the Senate what the concerns of the base are. And even if she became Senate leader, she wouldn't be able to arbitrarily decide on policies and actions; she'd have to work with the rest of the caucus which largely isn't as liberal as she is.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)ollie4
(59 posts)....or our party turns into a nightmare!
MADem
(135,425 posts)apart--is going to do her bit to help make it truly a BIG TENT party....not a party of whinging gripers who try to set one faction against the next.
People are forgetting that Tester got a seat at the table too.
Opposites attract...everywhere but DU.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)would be the beginning of the end of DU's love for her, as DU prefers it "voices" in the wilderness, where they can be pure, though impotent; rather than, at the table and having to do more than talk, i.e., work with others.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She's ready to do that whole "work with others" thing, like Tester is, as well, and that involves being civil to people with whom one ideologically differs. It might even involve the dreaded occasional compromise!
Poor EW--under the bus with her! That's OK, we still like her!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That is what she will add to strengthen the Democratic Party. Her message is the missing ingredient. I doubt that she disagrees with other Democrats on most things, but I suspect she would like to amend the bankruptcy law, cut the interest rates on student loans and do a lot of specific things that would make life better for the American middle class.
She is a Democrat -- a progressive Democrat -- with great debating ability. She is going to do very well, make friends for the Democratic Party and stand up for the middle class and all working and low-income people.
I'm so happy that she is participating in the leadership of the Party. Her messaging is what the entire Party should run on.
Since Reagan, the only time that the Democratic Party really sent a clear, straight-forward message to voters was when Clinton ran on the "It's the economy, stupid" message. Since then we haven't been sending messages that voters can receive.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It helps make it clear that there's lots of room for everyone in the Big Tent.
Most Democrats agree on ninety percent of stuff. It's the ten percent that get some people huffy. Sometimes they get so huffy they get divisive, and that doesn't help anyone. Hang together or separately, and all!
I'd rather talk about the ten percent of differences reasonably, and do a little "give a little, get a little" on the issues. Beats taking the ball and going home.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)All that happens is they get even more representation to the exclusion of all others, they dominate the political arena because everyone works for them.
All you are calling for is for the money people to drive the agenda, that is functionally what a "big tent" is but with the filthy masses pretending they have a piece of the pie when all we really get to do is advance the interests of the few at the expense of the many.
MADem
(135,425 posts)BIG TENT means BIG TENT. ALL sides, ALL voices. From Warren to Tester and everyone in between, with all their "all politics is local" issues and concerns.
And I think it's awfully funny how you have this idea that Elizabeth Warren wasn't elected with some of that (progressive) Big Money. She didn't pass the hat at local Bay State functions. Her campaigned was fueled with massive sums of cash from some people who might be regarded as politically impure.
It's never a good idea to get all insular and "fuck THOSE guys" from within a party system. It's a swell way to Divide and Conquer. All it does is aid the GOP.
I think Warren's not going to jump on that train. She's not "selling out," she's helping the party grow. She gets that the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.
Pity more here can't see that, but whatchagonnado?
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)The entire Turd Way game is to maintain enough of this often offered pretense when everyone knows that one cannot serve two masters.
"The big tent" is in practical application, a logical fallacy and a scam. When you have competing goals and needs somebody sucks it and consistently observation tells us this is workers, the poor, the environment, education, civil liberties, justice, and peace.
What the people get is the occasional crumb and massive set backs along with threats that we better embrace the suck or we'll get worse.
Then you add to this the densely focused and unrelenting representation of wealth and power on the other side and what is actually done is the rich and powerful get super majority level representation while being a tiny actual percentage of the population and the structural advantages built into our system and the people are drowned out, even in rare instances of relative unity and pluralistic majorities a big fat nothing unless they happen to back up the powerful and are then of course trumpeted as universal in nature and if those numbers change the other way, NEVER heard again.
This isn't a social club, it is a political party there will be an agenda. Pretending EVERYBODY'S is a pure scam and epic level con artistry, unadulterated snake oil. Even if the fairy tail was actually in some way true (not in this universe because physics won't allow it but...) we'd still be stuck with over weighting the interest of the powerful because they would still have the full focus of one of two national parties and significant influence in the other which still means they are driving the agenda.
Same goes for neocon warmongers. Applies for anti tax lunacy. Works sickeningly well for authoritarianism. Helps the planet toilet crew. Even gives the anti American theocratic crazies a little purchase here and there, though this is the greatest divide and becoming the only real string tying us together at all.
Everything bitter and terrible is already well represented.
Plus, the ones we got aren't pissing out of the tent they are shitting and pissing all up in this motherfucker which is making the other occupants so sick we are puking the place up ourselves.
I would rather they try to piss from the outside, at least the tent blocks that shit and if you catch their dirty dicks coming through the door take cold steel to it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)So even Elizabeth Warren, with a full jug of ice cold water, won't be able to put even a splash in your cup.
Oh well, plenty for the rest of us! Enjoy your stew....
Your last sentence is just ... weird. Very weird indeed.
And that's not in a good way, either. Slicing off people's private parts is a very odd metaphor to use, IMO. I don't think it makes the point you are trying to express very well at all.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)I don't care about half full or half empty, the volume of the water available is exactly the same however you wish to label it for psychobabble nonsense reasons.
What isn't clear about stopping the pissing into the tent? Yes, a much better alternative than allowing them to infiltrate, apparently via folks like you inviting them and pointing to my head as a great place to relieve themselves.
Hell yes, cut them off and if that doesn't work spear anyone creeping around, if that doesn't work then you hunt them like the vermin they are but you do not invite vipers into your nest, you remove their threat.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This must have you in paroxysms: http://www.kpax.com/news/tester-tapped-to-head-democratic-senatorial-campaign-committee/
I like the big tent, and I can "deal" with people who do not agree with me on every single piddling issue. If they vote the right way on big picture issues like choice/equality/social security and safety net issues, I'm OK with differences, even if I am personally disappointed about specific matters and things don't always go my way. You're apparently not.
Complaining is not going to bring comity, and calling people who don't think like you do in every single respect (even when they share 90 percent of your agenda) "vipers" is really unhelpful and lame--it's divisive, and unnecessarily so. You can play a "your way or the highway" game, but it will be you hitting the road--and that's fine if you can't "deal" with the reality of compromise. Most people who stick with the party know enough to take the long view.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)state outweighing the people and ideologically inclined to demand blood from a stone and call it compromise.
Compromise is not defined by one calling the shots and the other being made to swallow it whole.
In real compromise there is give and take on all sides not one getting the moon and stars and the other getting a humiliating kick in the crotch.
Millions of people "compromised" their homes. Millions more their living.
We have "compromised" our environment into oblivion.
We have "compromised" our basic civil liberties.
We have "compromised" the fuck out of our futures on the alter of "free trade".
Millions are "compromising" their lives away in jail for a stupid and failed drug war.
We have "compromised" the shit out of the ability of our government to serve the general welfare in exchange for trillions in worthless war spending and corporate bailouts.
We have "compromised" public education to death.
We have "compromised" labor almost into non existence.
We are "compromising" away the commons as quickly as we can.
We have "compromised" our values into shit Ronald Reagan would be proud of.
When do we get ours? Seems to me certain folks have got a way, way, way better deal and it is now past time for their turn but you want them to be served even more.
That isn't compromise, that is complicity.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm not wealthy, I've retired from the miitary, I avoid smartphones and other "conveniences" that make it easy for me to be surveilled (or bothered by telemarketers), and I probably spend more time helping the truly needy and brutally poor and disenfranchised than most people on this board. In fact, that kind of thing fills my days in my retirement.
But hey, you knock your bad self out with your "characterizations! "
I'd like to compromise ourselves into a Democratic majority and the White House--and too bad if you don't like that.
The WORST Democrat is better than the BEST Republican.
And Hero To The Uncompromisers Dennis Kucinich works at Fox.
So....whatever.
juajen
(8,515 posts)We need to stick together. Elizabeth is a great democrat, and I look foroard to seeing how she handles herself. She's a pleasure to watch.
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #9)
Post removed
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 15, 2014, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)
And that will be through her filter/prism.
I like Warren, but I don't know if she is as a liberal. She has said that she voted for Republicans because she thought they were better for financial markets and that she switched to Democratic when she decided that Democrats were better for financial markets. And one of her Harvard colleagues who is a conservative wrote saying how conservative she is.
What she does have is a clear memory of growing up without money and that, I think, is a good thing for a legislator to know something about. It often gives people--though apparently not Scott Brown--something of a populist streak, which is not a bad thing.
tblue37
(65,503 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I just washed my keyboard and can't do a thing with it.
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)is no indication whatsoever of what their CURRENT thinking is. People, especially smart people, understand when something is wrong and they change their thinking. I've done it and I know for sure that many others do it. Once a Rethug doesn't mean you are always a Rethug. We on the left need to change that thinking or we will never get others to come over from the Dark Side.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)There are a lot of spokespeople for other issues--marriage equality, pro-choice,legalization, etc. Liz is maybe NOT the best representative for those issues, but she is a brilliant spokesperson for the lightening of the economic burden on the 99%.
merrily
(45,251 posts)On that we agree. And, now that is a Democratic Senator Warren says the correct things about the game being rigged. Still, I find her reason for switching parties--mostly switching, anyway-- a bit unnerving. And I simply cannot understand her notion that neither party should dominate, given what the Republican Party was before she switched parties
Political affiliation
Warren voted as a Republican for many years saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets".[16] She states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true, but she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate.[25]
And I did find it unnerving that a conservative spokeperson who actually worked with her wrote an article telling his fellow conservatives to calm down about her re: Dodd Frank: she was a lot more conservative than they were thinking.
Her biggest insistence about banks and credit card issuers at first was full disclosure. While that is a great start--and a sine qua non--as a be all and end all, it's a cop out issue, IMO. Mastercard and Visa can disclose up the yin yang. Most people aren't even going to read it. Why? What better options do they have? That nice credit card issuer on the corner who doesn't impose onerous things and charges only the most minimal interest?
Then, she moved on the rigged game stuff and I like that much more. A level playing plus full disclosure is an excellent start. But, still a start.
Now that she is a Democratic Senator, I am relatively certain that she is voting straight Democratic ticket. And I do like her and I do think she does have a populist streak. The only thing I questioned as to her was whether she actually speaks for liberals. And, as to this position, I question the whole thing. I am more a wait and see type than most DUers. And, maybe a little less of a hero worshipper than most, too.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I would simply say that all politicians bear close watching, all the more so as they rise toward a potential Presidential run, and still moreso if they have short track records.
All that said, I think Liz is WORTH watching.
merrily
(45,251 posts)About the author, Caldwell isa very serious conservative:
Christopher Caldwell (born 1962) is an American journalist and senior editor at The Weekly Standard, as well as a regular contributor to the Financial Times and Slate. His writing also frequently appears in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, where he is a contributing editor to the paper's magazine, and The Washington Post. He was also a regular contributor to The Atlantic Monthly and The New York Press and the assistant managing editor of The American Spectator.
Caldwell was born in Lynn, Massachusetts, and is a graduate of Harvard College, where he studied English literature. His wife Zelda is the daughter of journalist Robert Novak.[1] He has five children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Caldwell
Do I take what he says as gospel. No. But he had a lot at stake if he messed up, so I don't dismiss it out of hand, either.
As I said, I like her. I appreciate everything she has done so far and hope she does even more. But, I just am not sure yet if she speaks for liberals.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)She is OK because she seems to have a knack for doing the right thing regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. I think she does the right thing because she has a conscience, something lacking in many politicians.
merrily
(45,251 posts)She's my Senator. Brown was the other option. Of course, I supported her. And, as I said, I like and appreciate her.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and that I think is the one thing we need right now more than anything.
Because until we get rid of the parasites that corrupt the integrity of just about everything, we will continue to waste away.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)It will be a balance struck, I expect. Place one major pole further to the left and we can expect the other pole to shift towards it. That's generally how things play out in groups like this interpersonally, which inevitably affects the dynamic politically.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)That's partly where her power is. She sees solutions, and
communicates superbly. She's not beholden to anybody
except her own conscience. People are attracted to that.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I mean, you can't be suggesting that she'd compromise as a leader in the Senate are you?
Be careful not to blaspheme while church is in session.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(and this is a completely unrelated thought)
... People seem to reject their everyday life's experience when it comes to politics?
In life, in order to get most bad things done, one must work with others ... and in doing so, one can't, simply, dictate to others what will/will not be, and expect those others to work with you ... No matter "right" you might be.
But when it comes to politics ... all you have to do is be "right" and everyone will just fall in line.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)nt
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Maybe most of these folks have never done anything difficult, where you have to get many people who don't agree on everything to do something together.
That, or they are the King of their Castle and no one dares question them.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It's the exact opposite ... they are completely powerless and disregarded IRL, and come to the internutz to play at power.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)even if she has to wait patiently to see that she has prevailed. She is just a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than the rest of the leadership of the Democrats.
When they were pandering to big donors so that they could get elected over and over, she was doing research on bankruptcy and the American family and how it copes in our economy. That's why she is way ahead of the rest of the Democratic leadership in understanding how to frame the message that people want and need to hear.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,754 posts)A new blog? Hmmm...
I'll have a look.
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)I hope you're right.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)As for your comments on the meteoric rise of Warren, I must say it falls in line with some of my own thinking.
1) Of COURSE she's not running. This could be due either to the fact that she doesn't want to run, or it could be a simple matter of not revealing your hand before you have to.
2) She got her name and face splashed all over the country, including a lot of red-state territory, and elevated herself quite a bit in name recognition and in the esteem of the politically aware (both the pros and us simple junkies).
3) Liz is a team player. When everyone is signing a document raising Hillary, she signs too. Not to do so would be a red flag, a sort of call-out. And she doesn't know but what, a few years down the line, Hill might well be in the White House and she, Liz, in a position of power in the Senate, so why make a potential enemy now of someone you may need later?
4) She is demonstrating her personal magnetism all over the place, getting a lot of national media attention and getting her simple, clear & compelling messages out in complete paragraphs rather than being reduced by M$M to decontextualized sound bites.
5) She neatly and agreeably maneuvers herself into one of those strangely-named leadership positions; it essentially sounds like she'll be an "envoy" to the liberal factions of the party; it doesn't so much matter what the position nominally entails; what matters more is that it gives her a seat in the Inner Circle of the Party, which cannot help but enhance her power & visibility.
Nah. This is no way to start a Presidential campaign. No way. I gotta quit thinking that.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)And we know how THAT turned out! 
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)will never sit on a hot stove again.
Nor a cold stove.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But Warren has a long track record of positive accomplishment, and is a brawler.
When the 2008 race was down to three, I rooted for Obama because unlike the other two he wasn't known to be hostile towards the 99% - but if you go back through the DU archives, I think you'll see FWIW, that I also wrote at the time that he didn't have a strong track record of anything. It was possibly bad vs. known bad.
Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #10)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Response to polichick (Reply #20)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)Liberman was his Senate mentor, I had a lot of reservations.
merrily
(45,251 posts)against the Iraq War. (Easier from him than for anyone who was, at the time, in the US Senate, since he did not have to vote on the war.) That was one of the hugest contrasts between him and Hillary, who had given a speech urging her fellow Senators to vote for the war. (The other huge one was the individual mandate, which supposedly, Obama did not want.)
Maybe they had one of each lined up, you know, just in case the war wasn't the roaring success that Vietnam was.
Response to merrily (Reply #46)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)
dotymed
(5,610 posts)that Bernie Sanders runs for POTUS. In our current clusterfuck, he will have to do this as a Democrat instead of an Independent. Again, hopefully that will pull the party back to it's FDR leanings.
IF he becomes our President, or our candidate, it would be great for the party.
I am an FDR Democrat who has watched as our party has sold out.
Bernie has decades of proven votes and speeches for the common (95%) of Americans. With this proven track record, I feel safe with him as President. It would be the first vote of my life that was not for the lesser of two evils.
merrily
(45,251 posts)There was once a time when Republicans were the party that gave everyone "his turn" and Democrats were the Party that did not follow anyone who had lost once. Apparently, we are now following Republicans even in this. Apparently, it's now Hillary's "turn," as though the Oval Office were some kind of toy that children pass around.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I assume you mean Adlai Stevenson II, not I, III or IV.
Democrats have taken away a lesson from things like Stevenson's losses, or claimed they have. For instance, when Carter lost, it was supposedly because of a primary challenge. Ergo, it became "conventional wisdom" that incumbents should not be challenged in a primary. And,for a long time, Democrats have stayed far away from those who "twice led us down the path to defeat" or whatever the actual wording was. IOW, they did not give another Democrat who had lost one Presidential bid another chance.
However, Stevenson won the two primaries and lost the two elections, ergo, not directly comparable to Hills.
Also, not the point of my post, which you have to read in the context of being a reply to blackmusclmachine's post about the PTB feeding us stuff.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)to me, at least.
I was never sold Obama, sorry. I voluntarily LIKED him.
Found him intelligent, inspiring, sensible, articulate, and
funny. I was drawn to his character and his whole family
without knowing much about them. Same is true for
Elizabeth. Integrity.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 15, 2014, 12:43 AM - Edit history (1)
ETA: Especially since the Party's allegedly liberal wing of today would have looked center right until Joe McCarthy partnered with J.Edgar Hoover, while Ike expanded Executive Privilege massively to protect his circle against McCarthy, but let McCarthy go at the rest of America.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Walking. With determination, of course.
vlakitti
(401 posts)I'm pretty sure you're right, too. Realistic thinking doesn't necessarily mean reptile brain thinking, or the stab in the back.. She may be able to tolerate a bloc with Hillary C., though I'm betting it won't last long.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)...is the day the democratic party dies.
merrily
(45,251 posts)ago, spearheaded an autopsy on the GOP.
But, good for you, Josh, for posting on behalf of the candidate you say you want in 2016, Sanders.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)But I don't see Wyden running.
What perplexes me about Sanders, and Warren, uniquely, is their failure to support the Follow The Money Act (unveils PACs and superPACs) as well as the Ending Secret Law Act (forces FISA to reveal judgements while redacting or rewriting sensitive information).
Being that Warren is one of the highest earners for the Democrats I can understand her not supporting the former, though. The latter is inexplicable and for Sanders I don't understand why he doesn't support both.
Response to joshcryer (Reply #55)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)There's no waffling. He knows what's right and supports it. I think the only reason he doesn't outright support the carbon tax with Sanders is he wants quid pro quo when that bill is highly unlikely to pass any time soon (2016, unlikely, 2020 somewhat unlikely, 2024, 2028 are more realistic).
I hope to heck he runs. And if neither he or Sanders runs Reich will be a liar if he doesn't run (Reich suggested on his FB page that he would run if there was no populist running; which Clinton certainly won't be credibly, though she'll likely try, liberals will deny she's truthful or honest, etc).
Response to joshcryer (Reply #64)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And Warren's only the 19th liberal Senator; and, Lord knows, the Senate is a conservative body to begin with.
I wonder who you'll finally decide you just have to support. I can hardly stand the suspense! Well, at least I know it's got to be someone more liberal than Sanders.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)I'm sure that bothers you. If Sanders runs and the other options I talked about don't run, he'll get my caucus vote, and I will argue for him vehemently. I may even get some other caucus members to change their minds. I might choose Reich over Sanders if Reich runs, too, because I am more in line with his philosophical leanings (and I will be very pissed off at Reich if Reich doesn't run and Sanders doesn't run; he all but promised he'd run against Clinton if she had no opposition, and Sanders or Wyden are the only ones).
Wyden is clearly the most liberal Senate choice. Of governorships, none come close. I don't think anyone in the House would have a remote chance of winning, much less running. This, btw, is uncontroversial, it's objective fact, given the political leanings and political positions and standings.
Warren is safe, she runs on safe positions, she talks the game, but doesn't act it. Why I would be enamored with her "liberal cred" is perplexing to me. For instance, putting the subprime mortgage bankers in jail would require $100-200 million and a decade of prosecutions spanning two administrations (if you doubt that look at Kenneth Lay). If Warren was serious about doing this she would've announced her candidacy a year ago. It's a talking point. Literally nothing more. I cannot take it seriously. The time to go after the bankers was 6 years ago. They have 4 years before they're completely immune (statute of limitations). It would take two years of a new administration time to gather evidence (8 years old) to achieve it. It's insurmountable. Only someone who was dedicated to that cause could do it. And Warren clearly isn't dedicated to it.
All that said, I don't see how I am "throwing Sanders under the bus" by recognizing the objectively factual more liberal potential candidate. I voted for Sanders in the most recent poll here, it's uncontroversial. Wyden was not an option. But Sanders, Wyden, Reich, they're all better candidates to me than Hillary Clinton.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)Only someone ignorant of his liberal rankings and policy positions would say I was doing that by admiring and desiring the more objectively liberal potential candidate...
merrily
(45,251 posts)Why would it bother me? I like Wyden over all. Not so much some of his SNAP votes, but I like him over all.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)
Seems you ignored my general admiration from the start, unless I'm ignorant of a vote he did that was actually, you know, bad.
Wyden is the most principled liberal senator since Feingold. More so.
Glad you like him overall, at least, you can't fault me, then, for preferring him over Sanders. But that doesn't mean I think you're throwing Sanders under the bus.
merrily
(45,251 posts)To be more serious now: On the SNAP votes, I am not sure right. On one vote, a couple three years back, it seems to me that I was surprised by both Franken and Wyden. Not last year's vote. Before that. (Since then, Franken no longer surprises me on that issue. It's just consistent disappointment now.) But, now, I cannot swear to it. And I am not going to attempt to deal with Thomas, which I find frustrating. So, I will issue a conditional retraction, the condition being that I get to retract this retraction if I come across something confirming my recollection.
That said, whether or not my recollection is correct, it would not have been enough to put me off about Wyden anyway. I don't expect 100% agreement always from any human, even myself. (I have been known to change my mind and to regret past stands or actions of my own.) And I don't always agree with Sanders or Warren, either. Overall, Wyden was a good, people oriented Senator and he seems like an eminently decent person. That's all I can ask.
joshcryer
(62,280 posts)I would not be surprised if Wyden made an incorrect vote. Just like I am not surprised when Warren makes an incorrect vote. Or Sanders. Or Clinton. Or anyone. There are reasons behind the votes. I know that Wyden could easily be smeared by his efforts to expand logging in Oregon. If someone looked at the legislation myopically, and wanted to smear him. Any rational person would look at the full picture, though, they'd see the environmental orgs in Oregon supported it, and saw that it was the most significant protector of old growth forests in history, stuff like that.
I'm merely pointing out how one can slam Wyden without it actually reflecting reality. We have that as a common occurrence with many other Democrats.
Say, Democrats say they want to lower the corporate tax rate but close the tax loopholes. The corporate tax rate is higher than Germany! One of the highest in the world! But, here's the key, if Democrats say they want to lower it and close the loopholes, they're corporate neocon fascist corporate apologists. Without any consideration that by closing the loopholes everyone wins and revenues go up!
The Democrats cannot even approach this natural, common damn sense, logical approach to corporations hiding their profits overseas, because, far be it for the US to have a corporate tax rate comparable to Germany... that's how utterly ridiculous our politics has become. And this is where Republicans win. Because we're too afraid to close the loopholes in exchange for tax cuts, we're gutless, evil, corporate whores. At least, that's the Republican narrative. In reality they neither want the tax cuts (because they don't matter to megacorps who can exploit the loopholes) and in reality they cherish the loopholes existing in the first place! That's why we lose. Ta da, we eat our own over a simple, common sense, natural solution to an economic problem, and the Republicans control the narrative the entire time.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Speaking only for myself, the word "reform" has come to strike fear into my heart because things I like don't seem to happen when something is "reformed" anymore. Conversely, things I don't like do seem to happen when DC "reforms" something.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)There is a season - spin, spin, spin
ollie4
(59 posts)I miss Pete Seeger.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Not only did he do all he did for the poor, unions, civil rights, and the environment in this country, but, years ago, he documented native music all over the world. I don't know if he did it knowing he might be the only one preserving some of it on film, or whether he didit simply because he was interested in having the film for his own purposes. But, he documented things no one else had.
What a life!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)that OBSCURES.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)who I voted for twice - "caving in to Republicans before they even ask in the bizarre hope that they'll somehow like him one of these days." IMHO it's almost pathological. You cannot be "bipartisan" with people who hate your guts. I don't understand why he doesn't see this.
merrily
(45,251 posts)New Democrats do share some big goals with Republicans. For example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/10/obama-packs-debt-committee-with-supportes-of-social-security-benefit-cuts-and-privatization/ (note Paul Ryan, of whom few had heard at this point).
http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/bill-clinton-to-paul-ryan-on-medicare-election-give-me-a-call/
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/11/news/economy/debt_committee_members/
It's probably not so that the editor of Harvard Law Review, a man who has been in and around politics most of his adult life, is simply incapable of seeing things that are blatantly obvious to most DUers.
Sometimes, not always, but sometimes, people hit what they aimed at.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)On Demand showed Along Came Jones a while back, an old Western with Gary Cooper (Melody Jones) and Loretta Young in the leads and Dan Duryea(?) as the villain with whom Loretta Young is in love---until (spoiler alert!)
she, of course, falls for Cooper. (alert: more spoilers follow).
At one point, Cooper shoots in the direction of the villain, but the villain lives. Loretta Young concocts this convoluted story in her mind how Cooper tried to kill the villain, but missed. Later, she tells it to Jones (Cooper). Jones then picks up a gun and does some very fancy, very accurate shooting. He says something like, "That's just to show you, when I am at something; I hit it and, when I hit something, it's because I aimed at it."
I don't remember why Cooper's character pretended to be trying to kill the villain. In fact, I don't remember much from that movie beyond the above. It was a sweet enough movie from another era, not a great one or a very memorable one. Nonetheless, the scene described above taught me a valuable life lesson.
Anyway, faithful Democratic voters sometimes seem to me like Loretta Young in this movie, concocting all kinds of reasons and rationalizations for why their elected officials behave as they do However, sometimes, Democratic politicians, like Melody Jones, are hitting exactly what they aim at.
But, for one reason or another, they make it seem as though they are trying to kill the villain, but somehow missing. Again. And again. And again. At this point, they don't even have to try all that hard. Todays Loretta Youngs mop up after the fact.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Democrats need to reevaluate our perspective.
When reality contradicts common sense
its because we are not seeing the big picture.
Obama's and the Democratic congress does SEEM
"bizarre" and "almost pathological" if viewed through
the lens of common sense.
But this is not simply Obama sitting down with republicans
to work out policy in the interest of the public.
It's figureheads with handlers (Koch et al) doing the
biding of those who paid for their elections.
Just look at the BIG push for TPP by BOTH sides right now.
TPP does not benefit the general public, just campaign donors.
Look at it this way;
you work someplace where not everyone likes one another.
There is always cliques or factions in the workplace Dems/repubs/libertopians
As much as they ball bust one another, undermine individual personalities
at the end of the day they all work for and report to "The Boss".
To outsiders, it does look bizarre. In reality it's just another day
at a dysfunctional workplace. Except in DeeCee, it's by design.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Also, I wish she'd ease up on the ODS, but I realize that's part of the appeal. Anyway good luck to her.
TBF
(32,116 posts)but I don't see this "leadership" post as anything more than throwing crumbs at progressives. I would love for you to be correct but we've been tricked by the third way so many times that I'm always expecting them to pull up the football.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
& Rec !!!
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Lincoln was notoriously hesitant-moderate even-in pursuing the end of slavery during the Civil War. But the Republicans in Congress held his feet to the fire, and once the Republicans had control of the legislature and executive, they pushed through a period of progressive reform nearly unmatched in America's history until the New Deal.
As much as I'd love to see Warren as our nominee in 2016, I just don't see it happening, mainly because I don't think she runs. But a lot of our Senate/House leadership is old and perhaps not going to be in charge forever...Warren's rise means she's in prime position to take charge in the future.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Caretha
(2,737 posts)your best post yet Manny.
dflprincess
(28,089 posts)because, after an election where conservadems lost their seats and those with more traditional Democratic values kept theirs, it's only logical to pull the DSCC to the right.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/14/1344679/-New-DSCC-chair-Jon-Tester-doesn-t-like-or-think-like-his-party-and-that-could-be-a-problem?detail=facebook#
merrily
(45,251 posts)Rahm once had that job. 2006, I think. Which means, I guess, that Pelosi or someone picked him for it. Sad, but true....Tester may be an improvement.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)That core belief demonstrated by her over time, "people matter," will continue my support of her. My only concern is that nothing is ever is as it appears. Disappointment continues the pain of being an American who cares about America and the people who keep it going these days. The up-sucking is about to wear down and pull the wings off the worker bees.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I wouldn't conclude just yet that Warren has assumed control of the Party, or anything like that. I can think of several other explanations.
We'll see.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)We'll see, but for the sake of the Nation and the Democratic Party, I hope you are.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)About this.
I can't wait to hear their death rattle.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Don't count your corpses before they're totally decomposed, especially your corporatist corpses.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)She just came from no where and the rest is history. She speaks what we want and need to hear. I think Harry pulled one out of his * when he did this. He needs to leave the world with a clear conscious.
But we need a lot more like her to come forward. How does that happen, she's treated like a rock star at this reception, she's number one at these talks.
She needs like minded people around her pulling in potential new senators among the rank and file, and off the streets.
There needs to be a momentum and urgency around her and her progressive ideas.
This is what moving forwards is.
Now I'm looking for who's holding the purse strings.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Supposedly, she got to Obama at a party, so through mutual acquaintances. I don't know about you, but he and I don't go to the same parties.
He appointed her, but he did not want to nominate her for a permanent position. Instead, he encouraged her to run and pointed her at the DNC, which backed her run to unseat Scott Brown. Her two biggest donors were EMILY's List and moveon.org, both of which work closely with the Party. (After that, they were the employee PACS of Mass General Hospital, a bunch of law firms and a bunch of universities. Nothing to be ashamed of, IMO)
None of the above makes her a bad person, by any means, but I don't think she came out of nowhere.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)From the point of view of the casual observer, Warren seems to have burst onto the stage in a great flash,and thinderclap.
For Liberal political junkies in Massachusetts, much different!
For others, in between.
merrily
(45,251 posts)probably do keep up, via DU, more than some. But, the info about her did not come to me through living in Massachusetts. Just the DU board and wiki and national news sources. I don't even subscribe to the Globe
* Or what I thought traditional Dems were before I figured out that only a few years separated the Russian Revolutions and 1929.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)How so?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Sadly, that unfortunate attempt has been rather successful.
New Democrats recognize that they are not traditional Democrats. Hence, they called themselves "New Democrats," rather than simply Democrats. In so doing, they were saying, in effect, "We're different from all the Democrats who have gone before us. So, please don't confuse us with the likes of FDR, HST, LBJ and RFK, or even Carter."
At the same time, though, they, of course, wanted the votes of the Democratic base. So, they have attempted to refine "liberal" so that traditional Democrats are considered the far left. That makes the center right the norm for Democrats, instead of the center right.
I don't see "liberal" as the direct opposite of Third Way. I see "traditional Democrat" as the direct opposite of Third Way. I am a traditional Democrat.
In the day of traditional Democrats, like FDR, HST, LBJ and RFK, the far left was socialistic, quasi-anarchistic, "tune in, turn on, drop out, etc. (Think, as to FDR, the Hollywood crowd that got blacklisted after McCarthy, and, as to LBJ, Bill Ayers, Timothy Leary, et al. The ones that made the WWII generation go bonkers and turned some of them Republican.)
FDR, HST and LBJ were not liberals. A PBS program I saw a while back said that FDR had actually run to the right of Hoover. Of course, you can't trust PBS anymore, but, deceptively or not, that view was attributed to pundits who commented in the days of the campaign. Hell, FDR even imposed a hefty war tax to pay for WWII. Yes, he taxed rich people more, but everyone had to pay up. That's not liberal or Third Way or Republican, just traditionally Democratic. (Of course, I am traditionally Democratic only on the domestic side, and not all of that. Not at all a fan of Dixiecrats, internment, the Cold War, etc.)
HST was a Missouri farm boy who attended Sunday School and began public school only at age 8, who was so desperate to join the military that he actually memorized the eye chart so he could cheat on his physical exam! Although he integrated the military, earlier, he had also joined groups that he thought would give him votes, including the WCC.
He did not learn of the Manhattan Project until after FDR died, but used the atom bomb twice on a nation that would have been defeated anyway. With people barely over WWII, he started the Korean War without a vote of Congress. Cold Warrior par excellence as well. That was no liberal!
FDR was elected four times and Truman once, despite sinking approval ratings, Strom's challenge and a Progressive Party* challenger. (HST, of course, retired undefeated, supposedly because Bess wanted to get the hell out of DC. For that matter, HST didn't think much of DC, either.)
Strom's "third" party challenge took away many Southern votes from HST at a time when California was still going Republican in most Presidential elections and Democratic Presidential candidates really needed Southern votes to win. (California did go for Truman, I believe, but not by much.) So, yeah, it was a squeaker, but HST did win, making it five times in a row for Democratic Presidents. Those five consecutive wins were not the work of some leftist fringe of the Democratic Party of that day. Traditional Democrats, and, as to HST, maybe even some Republicans, "built that."
After Truman, of course, you had Ike, a World War II hero whom some Democrats had tried to run against Truman in 1948! And, on the Democratic side both times, you had Adlai Stevenson, a brilliant and good man, but not charismatic to most voters of the day and no match for Ike's name recognition and popularity. And that's what it took to break the Democrat's winning streak at the top of the ticket. (Who knows how much bipartisanship may have been involved in that election? Democrats were already going Cold War on steroids and some of them had wanted to run Ike themselves in 1948.)
Read between the lines of JFK's speech accepting the nomination of the Liberal Party for President. He's almost defensive about it. Clearly, he needed every vote he could get, running as, not only a Catholic, but an Irish Catholic, after a long, theretofore unbroken string of WASP males. "No ethnics, including Irish, need apply."
But JFK's speech cleverly and very carefully qualifies exactly what he is accepting, even as he appears to be complimenting liberals. ("If 'liberal' means XYZ, then I'm proud to be a liberal." Implied: "and only then. None of that socialist stuff." )
On MTP (MTP ran the clip on the 50th anniversary of his assassination), while running for President, JFK mentioned that Democrats had saved American capitalism (something he should know about, given his father's role in helping write New Deal legislation so that Wall Street sharks like Joe would be reined in by the new federal securities laws and the new SEC, so ordinary folks could have confidence in Wall Street again).
LBJ also won an election, even though the Southern states had already started going red in a very dramatic way. Also, many among the older generation of the Party were disgusted by the druggies and draft dodgers that their kids seemed to be turning into; and the liberal wing of the Party and other Americans opposed him over the war. Liberals sure "didn't build that" victory, either. Traditional, mainstream Democrats did.
Southern Sunday School teacher and entrepreneur Carter was big on civil rights, but he sure kept that deregulation ball rolling, the one begun by Nixon and continued by every president Democratic and Republican, to Clinton and Obama. Very little remains of the New Deal and the Great Society remain, besides the "Third Rail" programs. Carter is still proud of the deregulation he and his Democratic Congress achieved. Carter is a humanitarian; and I greatly admire him for that. I also admire him more than I can say for not starting a Middle Eastern conflagration over the hostages, just to show Ted Koppel how much spine the Oval Office had. Was Carter an economic or "big government" liberal, though? I don't really know.
In any event, FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ were simply Democratic Presidents, as what the Democratic Party stood for was understood at the time by rank and file voters. Their domestic programs, fiscal, union, equal rights, etc. was what ordinary Democrats thought the Democratic Party stood for.
The mantra of my extended family can be summed up by my mom's response, when my then-teenaged sister asked my parents to vote Republican in one Presidential: "Vote Republican? No, we don't vote Republican. Social Security. Unions. We don't vote Republican." That was the Democratic Party I thought I was espousing, the traditional Democratic Party that took care of people like my family. Then, not so very long ago, I learned about "New Democrats."
Liberals of the 20th century were way to the left of FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ. During the first half of the 20th century, before McCarthy, they were attending Communist Party meetings, even joining up. During LBJ's day, they were throwing bombs into the Pentagon john, etc. Not voting at all in protest.
That's not most people whom the Third Wayers falsely label the far left of the Democratic Party today. That's certainly not me. I am not a New Democrat, but I am not a liberal. I would never have been brave enough to walk at the militia, like the Kent State kids or break into the Pentagon, like Bill Ayers, or go to Vietnam, like Jane Fonda, or even go to jail. I am simply a traditional Democrat on the domestic side (sans the heinous stuff). Just an ordinary hard working, pro-union, pro equal rights, law abiding citizen (though I may be willing to say "fuck that" if a revolution starts) who literally loves voting in every election, even if I have to write in candidates. Just a garden variety, traditional Democrat. (Sorry for the long reply: when meanings of words get twisted, attempting actual communication gets much more difficult for me.)
*not to be confused with the confusing way that the term "progressive" is used today.
I was saying that only because I had limited background on her. After that I learned all kinds of things, like she used to be a Republican in another article I found around here. I meant no disrespect at all. I'm curious about her new position and what may come of it. People like her a lot including this people. 
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Purse strings, this is the huge question behind the curtain. Do you think Schumer and his Wall Street buddies are going to stand still and watch this takeover happen? The progressives need to control their own funding. Maybe Warren will create a coop, Progressive Dem Party Credit Union,where we all can transfer our bank accounts and accept donations.
Maineman
(854 posts)it may not be possible to do something at a broad, more-or-less national level. But the basic idea of coops for the good guys is a very good idea. We need to do things that can help change the system. As Liz says, the system is rigged.
Maineman
(854 posts)in which our new coop received a percentage of the interest payments? We need someone who knows how to set up some of these things.
We also need Howard Dean, we need more brains.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 15, 2014, 03:45 AM - Edit history (1)
The revenue streams could be limitless. How about fundraisers and loaning to small coop businesses that create our own jobs? I agree we need someone who knows the inner workings of credit unions. Just preliminary research shows there are coop financial services providing interbank networks like ATM networks and shared branching services. The CU's could be state or federally chartered. All credit unions are member owned with each member having 1 vote. Isn't this at the heart of progressive values/principles?
Blue Idaho
(5,062 posts)If not the Senator - then the Senator's supporters. This is not the first time and it most certainly won't be the last.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,509 posts)being more optimistic than I ever could. But I get where you're coming from bro.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)the corrupt status quo that goes on in DC today. If they did, they wouldn't keep going back for more, which they almost all do.
Elizabeth is the rare one who - while imperfect - isn't afraid to piss people off, even those who support her IF the stand is a principled and necessary one. THAT is what will win her votes. THAT dedication to integrity and traditional Democratic values is what will energize voters.
She is a WINNER, and I love WINNERS.
polichick
(37,152 posts)trying to get her under control and committed to staying in the Senate so as not to derail HRC.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)As in, she has a firm grasp of issues and has good ideas for improving things. That's great for her current job, and she's really growing into it, but further moves require further growth.
If she decides to run for President, which involves forming an organization and managing vastly complex webs of relationships, then we find out if her talent lies more in executive or in legislative roles.
My strongest hopes for the White House, though, lie with Jerry Brown. There is no doubt whatsoever about his executive branch talents.
But we at very least have grounds to hope Warren will become a powerful presence in the Senate.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)kickysnana
(3,908 posts)Taking turns, rather than letting the cream rise to the top, moving to the right to get corporate dollars, rather than holding hard won bloody ground has been heartbreaking to live with.
Keystone is America's Roman-lead-water-pipes. It will never be a good plan to poison everyone's drinking water for any reason. 
imthevicar
(811 posts)Need both their butchers and shepherds".-Vetinari
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- If you build it they will come. If you build it they will come. If you build it they will come....
cali
(114,904 posts)I think your adoration of Warren is akin to the adoration of Obama by some. It's just not a good idea.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think the party is looking at all wings and branches, and working on an outreach strategy.
That's probably too boring an explanation for this place, though!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:21 AM - Edit history (3)
We need fierce advocacy against the banks. Desperately.
But we also need someone to take on mass surveillance, the police state, the NDAA, Homeland Security....the need to get money out of politics....and the MIC and the shadow government that has usurped democracy itself in this nation.
She strikes me as too silent on these oppressive structures, which worries me. We don't just need to be more financially comfortable within the new police state; we need restoration of our democracy.
I still trust Sanders more at this point.
I have to add, though, that I was glad to see this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025807219
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Someone to galvanize the base.
Someone to speak for average citizens.
Someone to speak truth to power.
Someone to bring average repub voters to our party.
Someone to help build an unstoppable majority.
Then we can steamroll the opposition
and address the issues that we both agree need to be changed.
Elizabeth Warren is someone who can get "the job done".
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)in the bizarre hope that they'll somehow like him".
ladjf
(17,320 posts)I like her. But, I don't understand her reasons for eschewing the Presidency when we are in such urgent need of a GOOD one.
Maybe it's just a subtle strategy to achieve leadership through a more circuitous path.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Specifically for someone, it's a way of appeasing them so they can later be ignored. Historically, Senators have been very hard to control, and I question how much input into decisions she'll really have.
One can always hope for the best, but I don't have a particularly good feeling about this.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)then she will wield power.
The media clearly likes her, so she'll have no problem getting the microphone.
Hotler
(11,472 posts)Harry Reid and a whole bunch of Dems in Washington could have gotten tough and showed some spine if they wanted to, the problem is they are bought and paid for just like all the rest of them. I believe that there is a shadow government and those PTB will get to Sen. Warren and she will be made to tone it down, you just watch. The President is and was no help back when we had both houses. He talked all tough up until he got the nomination and then he came out and said "Now is not the time to point fingers." and then Nancy took impeachment off the table, the battle was lost right then and there and we have been getting our asses kick ever since. Change will not come until we the people get fighting mad and take it to Washington in the form of protest with millions of people the likes this country and the world has never seen. This mess can not be fixed by bitching from the computer keyboard or simply voting. There needs to be a fight. If those fucking repugs in Washington can shut this country down for two weeks because they didn't get their way we the people can shut this country down for a whole summer or until we start getting things our way.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)and I think you are right. I think this was a really smart move
on everybody's part.
og1
(51 posts)Now seriously DUers; Who Is going to finance her campaign or Bernie's? Until someone can tell her and show her how her campaign would be financed to compete against the dark money of the corporateocracy she or Bernie will not run! It is time for a third party a true Progressive party a party that understands that it doesn't need to be in the majority to govern that the other two parties would need the third party to govern! America would have a more stabilized society which is what most Americans seek. Top priority of this new party over turn citizen united! Stop waiting for Godot he can not find you because you haven't provided a path for him to travel on to find you!
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Kidding. 
Welcome to DU. Berni and Liz will do just fine.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025792533
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, look for his posts in any Manny thread
MineralMan
(146,343 posts)
Sincerely,
MineralManny
Autumn
(45,120 posts)You co opted that so well.
MineralMan
(146,343 posts)I had one of my posts hidden over it, and I don't like having posts hidden. I thought it was a stupid hide in the first place, but it made me realize that poking satirically at DU's favorite sons is done at some risk.
Maybe I'll start a MineralManny blog. Or maybe not. I'm already spending too much time on all this stuff. I need to earn some money from time to time.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)people don't get humor.
MineralMan
(146,343 posts)without getting posts hidden. That's a shame. Satire should be able to poke at anybody.
I live and learn.
brooklynite
(94,879 posts)...because I know a lot of the deep pockets funders who supported her.
But she won't. Because she doesn't want to. And she wants Hillary to instead.
ashling
(25,771 posts)Hope the copyright holds up 
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)I'm relatively new here but it didn't take me long to discover your posts. Appreciate your insight, humor and adherence to traditional populist Democratic Party values. Congratulations on your new blog!
kentuck
(111,110 posts)The Democratic Party assumed control of Elizabeth Warren?
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)She is one of 6 leaders but one, who is asked by soon to be Minority Leader Harry Reid, to help form a coherent Democratic message and policy on economics, specifically addressing economic inequality.
I support this move. It shows that Reid and the other Democrats in the Senate recognize the errors made over the 2014 election.
The next step Democrats need to do is boot out Wasserman-Schultz from the DNC chair and reinstall Howard Dean.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I always enjoy your writing. Bookmarked the thing...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Elizabeth Warren will speak for and lead the Democratic Party out of the desert into the House and the Senate. And we will all support her in that effort.
She is a natural-born leader with a big heart and most important knowledge (based on her years of research on bankruptcy and the bankrupt of the middle class) about what has gone wrong in America and what we can do to make it go right.
K&4 a zillion times.
Quixote1818
(29,008 posts)about once ever 50 years. I think if she ran she would easily win.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)From now on when things go the way you don't like, will you be blaming her for it all like you tend to do with president Obama?
And I believe Elizabeth would not cotton to the idea of one person controlling the party. OP would admire Putin and Cheney if consistent about qualities in a politician. Yet there is no evidence E Warren has that mentality
Old Nick
(468 posts)
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)I must say that when the notice of this article popped up today in my email, it took me from "I would love to believe Manny is right about this" to "maybe this is for real."
Autumn
(45,120 posts) maybe both are having a conversation with God? phaedrus351
(3 posts)...where everything from medicine to war is and has been for sale can anyone win anything by refusing to participate in the entrenched marketplace? It would seem to require a complete gutting of the existing system that, itself, took decades to hijack and reconstruct into its present form. I hope so, but really can't quite picture how that would occur without a similar effort and resources.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)We have to get $$$ OUT OF POLITICS first before we can have "elected representatives" represent US again & not Big Busine$$.
Mike Nelson
(9,978 posts)... Reid's job!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I mined a bit of similar territory in this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025817654#post19
Orsino
(37,428 posts)It's good to see Warren get promoted, but Tester shows that the status quo will keep on quoing.
navarth
(5,927 posts)'excellent sheep'.....indeed, indeed.
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)'cause everything "bad" that Dems do, will now be Warren's responsibility.
Sid
