HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Lizzie Warren had an axe,

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:55 AM

Lizzie Warren had an axe,

And gave Republicans forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done
She gave the Third Way forty-one.

Thanks Liz! Bye Larry!



Regards,

First-Way Manny

120 replies, 8796 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 120 replies Author Time Post
Reply Lizzie Warren had an axe, (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 OP
xchrom Sep 2013 #1
Capt. Obvious Sep 2013 #2
madokie Sep 2013 #3
MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 #11
Jackpine Radical Sep 2013 #14
SammyWinstonJack Sep 2013 #17
Cryptoad Sep 2013 #26
Divernan Sep 2013 #39
Cryptoad Sep 2013 #51
AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #70
Cryptoad Sep 2013 #81
NealK Sep 2013 #94
AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #112
merrily Sep 2013 #72
Cryptoad Sep 2013 #83
merrily Sep 2013 #89
Cryptoad Sep 2013 #108
merrily Sep 2013 #113
Divernan Sep 2013 #98
Cryptoad Sep 2013 #107
Divernan Sep 2013 #109
Cryptoad Sep 2013 #110
Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #86
Cryptoad Sep 2013 #111
pampango Sep 2013 #30
Jackpine Radical Sep 2013 #33
progressoid Sep 2013 #49
merrily Sep 2013 #73
Enthusiast Sep 2013 #79
davidpdx Sep 2013 #71
Enthusiast Sep 2013 #76
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #41
MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 #54
Kennah Sep 2013 #59
merrily Sep 2013 #92
Jackpine Radical Sep 2013 #106
merrily Sep 2013 #114
Orsino Sep 2013 #36
Jackpine Radical Sep 2013 #50
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #58
TBF Sep 2013 #4
morningfog Sep 2013 #5
Aerows Sep 2013 #62
11 Bravo Sep 2013 #6
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #7
Divernan Sep 2013 #10
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #61
Maedhros Sep 2013 #68
Enthusiast Sep 2013 #84
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #101
Marr Sep 2013 #69
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #103
merrily Sep 2013 #75
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #104
merrily Sep 2013 #116
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #120
merrily Sep 2013 #82
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #105
merrily Sep 2013 #115
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #119
Autumn Sep 2013 #63
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #64
Autumn Sep 2013 #65
merrily Sep 2013 #77
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2013 #100
merrily Sep 2013 #117
Divernan Sep 2013 #8
ReRe Sep 2013 #9
MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 #12
ReRe Sep 2013 #16
Jackpine Radical Sep 2013 #18
MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 #37
Ichingcarpenter Sep 2013 #32
zeemike Sep 2013 #15
Iwillnevergiveup Sep 2013 #13
zeemike Sep 2013 #19
Myrina Sep 2013 #20
MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 #24
Myrina Sep 2013 #25
MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 #27
Myrina Sep 2013 #53
MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 #56
merrily Sep 2013 #80
JoePhilly Sep 2013 #28
treestar Sep 2013 #78
JoePhilly Sep 2013 #102
Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2013 #55
90-percent Sep 2013 #21
homegirl Sep 2013 #38
Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #45
Enthusiast Sep 2013 #85
MrMickeysMom Sep 2013 #22
rurallib Sep 2013 #29
MrMickeysMom Sep 2013 #31
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #66
hootinholler Sep 2013 #35
bvar22 Sep 2013 #43
Enthusiast Sep 2013 #87
merrily Sep 2013 #95
MrMickeysMom Sep 2013 #118
MrMickeysMom Sep 2013 #48
CrispyQ Sep 2013 #52
merrily Sep 2013 #88
RandiFan1290 Sep 2013 #74
Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #91
merrily Sep 2013 #96
90-percent Sep 2013 #23
merrily Sep 2013 #93
Fuddnik Sep 2013 #34
Jackpine Radical Sep 2013 #40
Fuddnik Sep 2013 #42
Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #44
merrily Sep 2013 #90
lupinella Sep 2013 #46
Aerows Sep 2013 #47
pscot Sep 2013 #57
Zorra Sep 2013 #60
Deep13 Sep 2013 #67
merrily Sep 2013 #97
NealK Sep 2013 #99

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:59 AM

1. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:08 AM

2. HE WAS NOT THE NOMINEE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:09 AM

3. And she made damn sure of that

Go Liz, we love you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:37 AM

11. This is another glorious victory for President Obama

A triumph over the EmoProg Firebaggers that have nearly destroyed this great nation. Fortunately only a few of these dead-enders remain, their relevance decreasing daily.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:51 AM

14. Promoting Summers for the Fed was just a diversionary tactic

in Obama's n-dimensional chess game that focused the Republicans on the wrong target and cleared the way for him to appoint a real liberal to the post.


Obama is now in negotiations with the Easter Bunny in a devious plot to block Keystone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:58 AM

17. HA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:25 AM

26. How funny

If Obama had wanted Summers , he would have nominated him,,,,,

Obama has more sense than that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #26)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:05 AM

39. Obama didn't nominate him because O didn't have the votes.

Simple as that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #39)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:45 PM

51. Proof?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #51)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 01:35 AM

70. How a small team of Democrats

...defeated Larry Summers....and Obama.

"Perhaps even more surprising is who did Obama in: a small team of Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee. On Friday, Montana's Jon Tester announced he would not back a Summers nomination. That followed similar comments, via aides, by Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the progressive icon and former Obama aide, was also thought to be reluctant. That meant Summers would have required at least four Republican votes to clear the Senate Banking Committee, and around 10 from the wider Senate to reach the 60-vote threshold likely needed to overcome GOP procedural obstruction."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #70)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:02 AM

81. Speculation and conjecture is not Proof...... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #81)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 07:19 AM

94. OFFS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #81)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:04 PM

112. The article states facts

Of course you don't have to accept them, but facts they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #26)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 05:42 AM

72. Obama never runs things up the flag pole? How funny indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #72)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:06 AM

83. Amazing you know who runnings who up whose flag pole,,,! nt

Good speculative conjecture but that about as much as you know.!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #83)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:32 AM

89. I'm just observant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #89)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:47 AM

108. but the trouble lies in fact

that you think Obama is playing by your rules......

Many have underestimated him!
Many have been punked!

Thank you Mr President!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #108)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 03:01 PM

113. You have no clue what I think or what my rules are.

Obama has his staff, aka "White House sources" float things to see what reactions are. Most modern Presidents have. If you've missed that very obvious reality, I don't know what to tell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #83)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 07:45 AM

98. Keep posting, babe! Poster child for Obama supporters!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #98)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:45 AM

107. Does snarking make you feel better inside?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #107)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:47 AM

109. When it comes to snarking, you da man!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #109)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:48 AM

110. I'll take that as a YES,,,,,,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #26)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:19 AM

86. Proof? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:54 AM

111. ummmm

TRUE,,,,, Obama is POTUS and can appoint who he wants
True,,,,,, Obama has not appointed Summers



All elements of my preposition are true
therefore my preposition is true.

Proof


btw the part about is having "more sense" is an opinion not requiring proof but it seems to be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:46 AM

30. Or maybe it is Wall Street playing multi-dimensional chess.

CNBC: "If it's Yellen, Wall Street gets the Fed chief it wanted, not expected"

Multi-dimensional chess is such a hard game to follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #30)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:02 AM

33. Well, nobody's gonna appoint Stiglitz or Robert Reich, after all.

While I have no particular illusions about Yellen, she does have 2 traits I favor: First, she's concerned about unemployment, which Summers never was, and second, she actually understands market dynamics better than most--having, for example, seen the bubbles coming.

And of course the thrid thing in her favor is what she did NOT do--she didn't write the "End Game Memo."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #33)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:39 PM

49. I don't think we're supposed to talk about Yellen yet.

We should dutifully stay quiet until she has been nominated. Then we can discuss her, but only in supportive way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #33)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 05:43 AM

73. Or Krugman.

Does it really matter, anyway?

Reich did work in the Ford, Carter and Clinton administrations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #33)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 05:56 AM

79. Nice post.

As usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 03:12 AM

71. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 05:54 AM

76. There sure are a lot of diversionary tactics.

I've grown fond of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 12:08 PM

41. Isnt there a rule about one Manny posting in another Manny threads? How about if one Manny alerts

on the other Manny? Just sayin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #41)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 06:53 PM

54. I think I saw that rule too

It's really unfortunate that these people break the rules just to be negative about our president. President Obama has been the best president in my lifetime, but Hillary should be just as good or better. I hope people aren't mean to her, too.

Regards,

Government-Sock-Puppet Manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #54)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:12 PM

59. We have been dependent on Manny to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:41 AM

92. The victory was in confining to two the universe of possibilities.

In floating two names, the debate became who is preferable, Yellen or Summers?


That backed many of the more left types into backing either Yellen or Summers .

The real debate should have been, of all the eligible people in the U.S., who should have the position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #92)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 09:39 AM

106. "The real debate should have been, of all the eligible people in the U.S., who should…"

Maybe. But I declined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #106)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 03:04 PM

114. Yeah, me, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:44 AM

36. NO ONE WAS THE NOMINEE n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:44 PM

50. Right. Captain Obvious was aping a certain poster

who justified the whole Summers fiasco with her insistence that "SUMMERS WAS NOT THE NOMINEE."

Thus the comment has a contextual history, but if you missed a couple of the wrong threads the point is lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:09 PM

58. Exactly, and NO ONE wanted to bomb Syria. Like to find out who the hell NO ONE is. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:10 AM

4. :)

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:11 AM

5. Here's to this becoming and oft repeated refrain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:41 PM

62. We could only hope!

God bless the woman. Some days it seems like she is the only person in DC that gives a crap about anyone but themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:20 AM

6. But she supports Janet Yellen! Doesn't that make her some kind of a lickspittle ...

running dog lackey for our corporate masters? Damn it, DU can be so confusing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:31 AM

7. But ... But ....

we LIKE EW ... today.

DU is such the romantic place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:36 AM

10. DU has always liked Elizabeth Warren and for damn good reasons.

I take it from your cynical comment that you supported Summers. And on a separate note, why cynical about Warren? Some specifics please? Other than that she successfully beat Obama on this issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #10)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:40 PM

61. I was speaking to ...

DUer's penchent to loving someone ... until they hear that they might have done something that they may not like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #61)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:20 AM

68. Some of us are concerned with actions rather than with personalities.

If a politician acts to further Liberal and Progressive policies, I approve of the action and will praise the politician.

If a politician acts to thwart Liberal and Progressive policies, I disapprove of the action and will criticize the politician.

Whether I "love" or "hate" the politicians themselves is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #68)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:07 AM

84. Me too.....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #68)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 08:31 AM

101. And others ...

are happily concerned with what they think the actions of others MIGHT be.

BTW, I largely agree with your "if" statements; though I rarely make the support/thwart decision until the actual vote ... and then, after seeing the votes out come. Politics has too many moving parts to make judges on a single vote/proposal.

I, also, agree with your "Love/Hate" statement ... though I can't think of a single politician that I love or hate ... well maybe a couple from texas get pretty close to the hate category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #61)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:35 AM

69. So you were just making things up again.

Thanks for clarifying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #69)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 08:35 AM

103. Okay ...

Question: Why did you waste the time thinking up and posting that pithy response? You know, you will never have that 2 hours, again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #61)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 05:52 AM

75. I've learned to reserve judgment until I see actions.

However, I see nothing wrong in turning against people who do things I don't like.

If I don't apply my standards, what is the point in having them?

Of course, everything is relative.

Drop a nuclear bomb on people and I'm going to turn against you.

Prefer Yellen to Summers? Meh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #75)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 08:41 AM

104. Again ...

I was commenting on the apparent hot or cold/on or off attitude that seems to exist in this politlical space where folks support a politician until that one particular vote they disagree with; then, the body of that politician's work is forgotten/ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #104)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 03:08 PM

116. Again, that was not how you set up the hypothetical.

I responded to what you posted.

However, you are only assuming that "the body" of a politician's work is forgotten or ignored.

If you are hinting about Obama, the reality is that his supporters see his alleged accomplishments much differently from the way that his critics see them. It's not a matter of amnesia, but a matter of very different perceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #116)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 09:54 PM

120. Okay n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #61)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:03 AM

82. As opposed to what? Blindly supporting someone, no matter how many bad things they do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #82)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 08:45 AM

105. Or blindly ...

"unsupporting" someone, no matter how many positive things they do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #105)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 03:05 PM

115. That was not how you set up the hypothetical, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #115)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 09:53 PM

119. True ...

but I was responding directly to your comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:55 PM

63. I like EW every day. Not in a romantic way, in the

shes a hell of a good Democrat way and she seems to give a shit about the people and put them first over the banks. Oh hell, maybe I love EW ...every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #63)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:00 PM

64. No doubt ...

I suspect until her first compromise vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #64)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:05 PM

65. I don't mind compromise votes. Sometimes they are necessary.

It just all depends on where you start the bargaining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #64)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 05:54 AM

77. Exaggerate much?

BTW, how can you tell the difference between a compromise vote and any other kind of vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #77)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 08:23 AM

100. Probably so ...

So make that until the first care about. vote, on a single issue, that I disagree with; regardless of the balance of her work product on other issues that I agree with or otherwise don't care about. Then EW will join the under the bus gang, as a 3rd way, corporate sell-out.

BTW, how can you tell the difference between a compromise vote and any other kind of vote?



Simple ... by considering whether I agree withe that particular issue or not; failing that, by considering the volume producted of those in disagreement with that particular vote. Then the vote is just another vote by a 3rd way, corporate sell-out.

Note to reader: I am being facticious ... but only barely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #100)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 03:13 PM

117. "Note to reader: I am being facticious ... but only barely."

No, you are stating the position of those with whom you disagree in a very exaggerated way. However, that seems to be the U.S. culture anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:33 AM

8. Harvard women get the last laugh - all too delicious for words!

Too bad, so sad for Larry and his bff's, Barry, Bill & Hilary. Anybody got a pic of the world's smallest violin, playing the world's saddest song? This may be the long overdue beginning of Wall Street reform and it certainly is the hand-writing n the wall to Washington - NO MORE BANK BAILOUTS! WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYMORE TOO BIG TO FAIL BULLSHIT!

When Summers was president of Harvard, he got in trouble for suggesting that women like Liz Warren might be innately deficient in science and math. But I guess she has Larry’s number, because she just made her first kill. And it’s Larry.

She may be only a fresh-faced senator, while he’s the genius economist and hugely powerful former Clinton Treasury secretary who was supposed to be Obama’s pick as the next chairman of the Federal Reserve.

But Liz objected, and took him out, making way for the Fed to promote current Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen, a girl.

Liz was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” with the words beneath her “David” (that’s Liz) vs. “Goliath” (the big banks). She was alternately described as “the reform renegade,” the “populist scourge of Wall Street” and “ the darling of the rising left” that’s finally going after Occupy Wall Street’s 1 percenters.



- See more at: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/margery_eagan/2013/09/eagan_elizabeth_warren_bounces_larry_summers_as_stock#sthash.6z7tCiFt.dpuf





http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/margery_eagan/2013/09/eagan_elizabeth_warren_bounces

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:34 AM

9. Limericks make me smile

Especially this one. Thanks, Manny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #9)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:39 AM

12. Full disclosure: I ripped it off

It's an adaptation of this:

Lizzie Borden took an axe
And gave her mother forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done
She gave her father forty-one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:58 AM

16. I recognized the similarity

Who authored it originally? Nash?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:58 AM

18. I know the original and was thinking yours doesn't scan very well--

even Gus

thinks it's doggerel.

How 'bout "and gave the Banksters 40 whacks?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:46 AM

37. Tough crowd...

But doggerel it is (you made me look that word up!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:49 AM

32. Lizzie Borden

was tried and acquitted

Just like Wall Street......LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #9)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:57 AM

15. Actually it is a school yard chant after the Lizzy Borden trial and acquittal.

And Manny has cleverly adapted it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:43 AM

13. In her short time as a Senator

Elizabeth has demonstrated what leadership looks like. More and more she's becoming the champion I long for.

Thanks for posting, First-Way Manny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:00 AM

19. Love it First Way Manny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:09 AM

20. ... you do realize though that now Wall Street is going to get who it wanted IN THE FIRST PLACE?

They're only going to allow Warren to do 'cosmetic damage' to them, to make the sheeple think they're "taking back democracy" when in fact, we're being screwn harder than ever by TPTB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #20)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:22 AM

24. Who do they want, and how do you know it? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #24)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:24 AM

25. link:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/if-its-yellen-wall-street-gets-fed-chief-it-wanted-8C11166978

Take it for what it's worth but, seems like the source knows of which it speaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:29 AM

27. I've seen that before, but they don't seem to disclose

their methodology.

In any case, I trust Liz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #27)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 03:41 PM

53. Ok, well for what it's worth, here's another:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/janet-yellen-glass-steagall_n_3940730.html


"Yellen's reputation as a more consumer-friendly economist than Summers rests largely on her tenure as president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve during the Bush years, when she identified the emerging housing bubble and called for deploying stronger regulation to limit its damage.

But in the 1990s, Yellen and Summers both served in the Clinton administration, and pursued many of the same policies. Yellen began serving as Chair of President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1997, and publicly endorsed repealing Glass-Steagall's separation between traditional bank lending and riskier securities trading during her Senate confirmation hearing. Yellen referred to deregulating banking as a way to "modernize" the financial system, and indicated that breaking down Glass-Steagall could be the beginning of a process allowing banks to merge with other commercial and industrial firms. A full transcript of Yellen's Feb. 5, 1997 confirmation hearing is available here.

At the same event, Yellen endorsed establishing a new statistical metric that would allow the federal government to reduce Social Security payments over time, by revising the consumer price index, or CPI, the government's standard measurement for inflation.
"I agree with the principle that Social Security and the tax system should be appropriately indexed to take account of movements in the cost of living. I believe we need as accurate a measure as we can possibly have of the cost of living," Yellen said. "I believe that we are now obtaining broad agreement among professionals that the CPI does overstate the actual increase, properly measured, in the cost of living."

Once in office, Yellen put that belief into action, writing a letter to the Bureau of Labor Statistics encouraging it to devise a cheaper inflation metric. BLS Commissioner Katharine Abraham responded that the agency had been testing the new measure in an experimental mode, and planned to deploy it in 1998.

At the time, this new metric, known as chained CPI, was being aggressively pursued by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), following then-Fed Chair Alan Greenspan's criticism of the existing cost-of-living calculations. Greenspan and other economists had argued that the consumer price index overstated cost-of-living changes by failing to calculate the way that households substitute different goods for each other when prices rise. While BLS developed the statistic, it has not been applied to Social Security. Some economists argue that a more appropriate inflation measure for Social Security would look at price changes for elderly people, and the BLS does track an experimental metric addressing inflation for older Americans. Such a metric is not useful for politicians looking to cut Social Security spending, however, as it shows that living expenses tend to go up more for older people, driven in part by health care spending.



.... more at link ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:04 PM

56. Non-optimal, to be sure

But if Warren and Krugman are both behind her, there's probably a good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #56)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:00 AM

80. Are they behind Yellen, or do they simply prefer Yellen to Summers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:34 AM

28. See ... THIS is why we can't have nice things!!!

Manny finds the one totally pure candidate ... and you're ruining it!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #28)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 05:54 AM

78. She should be thrown under the bus for supporting

a candidate Wall Street wants!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #78)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 08:32 AM

102. The DLC got to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:03 PM

55. Wall Street actually WANTS there to be job growth. It's Republicans that don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:13 AM

21. comment

Elizabeth is the kind of public servant that should be the rule, rather than the exception.

How novel, a politician who's duty is to serve their voters instead of their donors. Would there were fifty more like her in the Senate!

I supported her run and I'm glad she's just one blue state over from Connecticut.

-90% Jimmy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 90-percent (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:47 AM

38. Elizabeth

Thank you for putting your money where your mouth is. I too supported Sen. Warren, all the way from California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 90-percent (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 01:04 PM

45. She had the good company of 4 other Democrats on the Banking Committee alone

Jeff Merkley being the point man through most of it. Warren is not alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 90-percent (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:16 AM

85. Plus one, Jimmy!

Should be the rule, rather than the exception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:17 AM

22. I promise I won't ask anymore if someone explains first way, third way...

I can't keep up with my party, I swear to Goodness. Maybe it's because of what I do on the local end of govt.

How did the "way" nomenclature come to be again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:41 AM

29. I will try - but this is what I have been able to glean

First way is a liberal (I'd say New Deal Democratic) way
I guess a second way would be the regressive republican way
The third way then is a combination of the two and leans republican.
- avoid real issues
- compromise quickly without negotiation
- give away the house to get a compromise.
- NAFTA was a third way bill IMHO

I will say here that I could easily be wrong and welcome correction (without name calling)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #29)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:48 AM

31. Thank you, rural lib!

I guess these terms develop legs of their own, but I'd agree that NAFTA (and thus Clinton) would be third way, which is how most of the den of whores abide if they want to stay in the House of Representatives!

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:24 PM

66. "if they want to stay in the House of Representatives" - Plus the Senate. Kerry lost to Bush-II, in

 

part, because he was a NAFTA supporter. Not enough FDR-type Democrats showed up to vote for 3rd-Way Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:27 AM

35. The DLC disbanded a couple of years ago

They rebranded as the Third Way, which will bring back into the fold those who were disgusted with the DLC. They are the right wing of the democratic party.

Manny has coined the First Way to refer to New Deal Democrats, which are few and far between, but hopefully growing in numbers as people like Senator Warren have some success.

Personally I think it should be second way because the Democratic party was pretty damned conservative until Teddy R. split the republicans and the progressives there left with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 12:39 PM

43. Like a snake shedding its skin, the DLC morphed into "3rd Way".

The DLC (fundeed by Koch Bros.) was a vehicle for the BIG MONEY Takeover of the Democratic Party and the marginalization of the Pro Working Class Democratic Party,
so that they could tilt the Table in favor of the Ownership CLass.

They were VERY successful,
and the Powers behind the DLC are still very much in control of the Democratic Party.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #43)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:20 AM

87. They will morph again.

They will morph again once the people get to know where they really stand. Subterfuge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #43)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 07:19 AM

95. The term "Third Way" was around since at least the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way



The general political philosophy of centrism in one form or another has been around for as long as there have been political parties.

However, if we are talking very specifically about a think tank named Third Way, as opposed to the Third Way political philosophy, that think tank was one of several successors to the DLC.

The Progressive Policy Institute ("PPI"), having been started by an original employee of the DLC, is probably the most direct successor to the DLC. When the DLC was still active, the DLC and PPI often re-published each other's articles at their respective websites.



1985 DLC think tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council


1989 Progressive Policy Institute think tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Policy_Institute


2003 Center for American Progress think tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress


2005 Third Way think tank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28think_tank%29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #43)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 05:09 PM

118. Meet the new bosses... worse than the old bosses...



I'm especially disappointed with Vilsac, since the USDA gets lots of "people's garden" enthusiasts like me actually thinking that what we're doing is a GOOD thing for America, Michelle Obama, and all of that reaching out to kids...

But, the mixed message is his interests to play to big aggri-business and GMOs don't raise an eyebrow. Big business with these folks trump anything good coming out of the slow food movement. It's all about turning farm land and farmers into growling animals pulling at the same piece of non-GMO commodity.

"The DLC (fundeed by Koch Bros.) was a vehicle for the BIG MONEY Takeover of the Democratic Party "... enough said right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:23 PM

48. Interesting...

I wonder where Howard Dean's "democratic wing of the Democratic party" would fall in? I'm thinking "first", as that is what should unite many of us. I don't know how we could have ever strayed away from those values, if you ask me.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 03:01 PM

52. I actually don't think the First Way is few & far between when it comes to economic justice.

There are millions who feel neither party represents them, especially the last 30 years as both parties have drifted to the right, hence the huge numbers of non-voters.

There are also a lot of right wingers, who I am certain are more aligned with the left on economic issues, but TPTB have wedged social issues between us. When I have given conservatives that Joe Conservative essay to read, they all say about the same things: 1) I'm in favor of these things & 2) why do liberals take credit for them?

Their lack of understanding aside - they don't seem to see that they have voted against these things by voting republican - they relate to the essay. How to get through to them? I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:30 AM

88. Essentially the same philosophy: 3rd Way, DLC, Progressive, New Democrat, Centrist, No Labels.

The term "Third Way" has been kicking around since at least the 1930s.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 05:51 AM

74. Obama making the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent

Turd Way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:39 AM

91. The origin story is a bit too complex for a concise post

But generally, the third way is a transnational reaction among leftists and socialists to a perceived loss of power (that happened at different stages in different countries but is generally associated with the Reagan/Tatcher revolution).

Bluntly stated, the political philosophy of Third Wayers is a combination of right wing economic policies and left wing social policies (although the second part is mostly only found in rhetoric while the firs part has been very successfully implemented).

That's why you can't tell a neoconservative from a neoliberal, and that's why you can't tell most democrats from republicans. (Although many people argue that the neocon and neolib are distinct from third wayers, I've yet to see a practical, as opposed to a rhetorical difference - they're all selling the same pack of stale ideas with different marketing strategies.)

Bulding a narrative that coherently deals with the origins of the term is a complex task, as the term was in use among (mostly german) political scientists even before the Second World War and had a slightly different connotation, and often was applied only to economic positions.
The clearest example of a traditionally left wing party transforming itself along the third way is British Labor under the "Blair revolution" (or was it Blair "turn"?), although I think that an unbiased view does suggests that the very same thing happened to the Democratic Party in the US as well. But it gets murky when applied to administrations that pre-date Reagan. Arguably attempts at implementing some kind of third-wayish philosophy among leftists goes back way further than Reagan, but it seems that the era of Reagan and Thatcher were instrumental in shaping the Third Way into a coherent philosphy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 07:32 AM

96. I gave a little bit of info and several links in Reply 43.

Regardless of the technicalities, though, IMO, in practical reality, it boils down to mostly Republican fiscal policies and a mid way position on social issues, "mid way" meaning somewhere between batshit rightwing crazy and f liberal. In the old days, it might have been called socially moderate Republican. (By old days, I mean before moderate Republicans vanished.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:20 AM

23. Now that the progressive left appears to have some momentum

It's time to focus our righteous might on that heinous TPP deal.

What will the PTB think of next to make even more money by taking it from the bottom 99%;

"The legalize human trafficking act"?

"The minimum 80 hour work week act"?

"The make the employees pay their own salaries act"?

"The make working people suffer even more act"?

"The make people earning less than 25K per year donate a kidney to a corporate executive act"?

"The serfs don't deserve weekends act"?

-90% Jimmy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 90-percent (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:51 AM

93. "Progressive left"

is an oxymoron, unless you believe that DLC, Third Way, New Democrats, triangulating and centrism = left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Policy_Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress

Obama: "I am a New Democrat."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19862.html

Obama: "I am someone who is no doubt progressive."

http://www.democrats.com/obama-i-am-a-progressive


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:18 AM

34. Summers was a walking rejection.

That's why he was never formally nominated.

There were enough Democratic Senators who came out strongly opposing his nomination that Obama told him to withdraw from the process. They saved Obama some face.

That's the ONLY reason HE WAS NOT THE NOMINEE!!!!!

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:09 AM

40. Damn. For a minute there I thought you said

"walking erection…"

out to stiff us again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #40)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 12:12 PM

42. Well, Summers is a dickhead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 01:02 PM

44. Third Way is the Democratic version of the Tea Party

The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is taking over again. Not a moment too soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #44)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:37 AM

90. I hope you are correct, but it's too soon for me to reach the conclusion

that the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is taking over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 01:35 PM

46. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 01:36 PM

47. If there is any hope for our nation

This woman is a shining beacon of it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:06 PM

57. Proud to be rec# 100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:27 PM

60. lol...knr nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:27 PM

67. chop away! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 07:35 AM

97. 149th rec.

I like what I have seen so far of Warren in office. However, I will reserve judgment until I have seen more of her actions in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 07:45 AM

99. Lol!

At first I thought that it was a song parody:

Lizzie Warren had an axe, EE-I-EE-I-O.
And gave Republicans forty whacks, EE-I-EE-I-O.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread