HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » LA Times: The "Eliza...

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:20 AM

LA Times: The "Elizabeth Warren Wing" of The Democratic Party On The Ascendancy

When was the last time you heard about any Democratic Senator or Representative other than Harry Reid making the national news? While Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and the entire Tea Party caucus in the House have all transformed themselves into political Kardashians, constantly mugging for the cameras with their latest outrage du jour-- the Democrats--particularly those in the Senate who wield actual majority power--have for the most part sat quietly by for the last five years and endured this nonsense. Many of them, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Tom Udall, were elected in 2006 and 2008; Elizabeth Warren and Chris Murphy, in 2012. By 2015 half of the Democratic caucus will have been in place since 2008. They represent a generational shift in the Senate that has known nothing but Tea Party intransigence--and ignorance--from the other side.

They're fed up and they're taking over the Party:


The senators' influence has already been seen in other fights, most recently in the 16-day shutdown, when new Democrats lobbied party leaders to stand up to Republicans — a tactic that seemed to shock many on the other side of the aisle, who were betting that Democrats would blink first.


Next on their agenda is extending the filibuster rule change from presidential appointments to legislation, which would enable the Senate to move on issues including gun control and climate change.




"The Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party definitely are showing that they have growing influence in the caucus, and in government in general," said Matt Wall of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a group that works to promote progressive candidates and issues in Democratic primaries. On Friday, Warren circulated a fundraising letter to supporters on behalf of Merkley and Udall, thanking them for their role in changing the rule. Both men face reelection in 2014.

The changing Democratic tactics may reflect a generational shift occurring in the Senate. It's almost certain that by the start of the next Congress in 2015, more than half of the Democratic caucus will have been elected since 2008, when gridlock reached new heights. But nine of the new Senate Democrats are former Congress members, all of whom served at least part of their time under Republican majorities. Three were governors who served with Republican legislatures.


..................


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-newdems-20131123,0,385097.story#ixzz2lTxJLuCu


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/23/1257832/-LA-Times-The-Elizabeth-Warren-Wing-of-The-Democratic-Party-On-The-Ascendancy

107 replies, 10292 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 107 replies Author Time Post
Reply LA Times: The "Elizabeth Warren Wing" of The Democratic Party On The Ascendancy (Original post)
kpete Nov 2013 OP
4dsc Nov 2013 #1
Baitball Blogger Nov 2013 #4
Octafish Nov 2013 #12
Raksha Nov 2013 #63
CrispyQ Nov 2013 #102
JDPriestly Nov 2013 #33
MannyGoldstein Nov 2013 #14
Jack Rabbit Nov 2013 #26
A Simple Game Nov 2013 #78
Jack Rabbit Nov 2013 #80
A Simple Game Nov 2013 #81
tblue Nov 2013 #39
Jackpine Radical Nov 2013 #46
Raksha Nov 2013 #65
Whisp Nov 2013 #69
Scuba Nov 2013 #94
JimDandy Nov 2013 #20
InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2013 #30
AgingAmerican Nov 2013 #45
yeoman6987 Nov 2013 #54
Divernan Nov 2013 #57
frylock Nov 2013 #58
yeoman6987 Nov 2013 #61
cui bono Nov 2013 #62
Raksha Nov 2013 #66
Scuba Nov 2013 #95
Divernan Nov 2013 #64
blue14u Nov 2013 #67
davidpdx Nov 2013 #92
City Lights Nov 2013 #2
fredamae Nov 2013 #3
Baitball Blogger Nov 2013 #5
fredamae Nov 2013 #9
backscatter712 Nov 2013 #10
fredamae Nov 2013 #16
blue14u Nov 2013 #70
hollowdweller Nov 2013 #6
JimDandy Nov 2013 #21
LuvNewcastle Nov 2013 #7
Politicub Nov 2013 #8
Mojorabbit Nov 2013 #31
zeemike Nov 2013 #11
MannyGoldstein Nov 2013 #13
LuvNewcastle Nov 2013 #15
blue14u Nov 2013 #72
Enthusiast Nov 2013 #17
docgee Nov 2013 #18
socialist_n_TN Nov 2013 #23
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2013 #19
tblue Nov 2013 #37
InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2013 #40
Dustin DeWinde Nov 2013 #51
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2013 #53
Dustin DeWinde Nov 2013 #55
NorthCarolina Nov 2013 #77
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #89
cali Nov 2013 #86
polichick Nov 2013 #97
Dustin DeWinde Nov 2013 #103
polichick Nov 2013 #104
Dustin DeWinde Nov 2013 #105
Octafish Nov 2013 #22
libodem Nov 2013 #28
Octafish Nov 2013 #34
InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2013 #41
thesquanderer Nov 2013 #24
KG Nov 2013 #25
libodem Nov 2013 #27
gopiscrap Nov 2013 #29
cantbeserious Nov 2013 #32
tblue Nov 2013 #35
InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2013 #42
mountain grammy Nov 2013 #36
InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2013 #43
Dustin DeWinde Nov 2013 #52
blue14u Nov 2013 #75
wyldwolf Nov 2013 #38
OKNancy Nov 2013 #44
TheKentuckian Nov 2013 #50
backwoodsbob Nov 2013 #56
Divernan Nov 2013 #59
eridani Nov 2013 #71
Beacool Nov 2013 #73
polichick Nov 2013 #98
OKNancy Nov 2013 #100
Laelth Nov 2013 #47
L0oniX Nov 2013 #48
Overseas Nov 2013 #49
WillyT Nov 2013 #60
WRH2 Nov 2013 #68
silvershadow Nov 2013 #74
blue14u Nov 2013 #76
Flatpicker Nov 2013 #79
AAO Nov 2013 #82
YOHABLO Nov 2013 #83
DissidentVoice Nov 2013 #84
Fearless Nov 2013 #85
DeSwiss Nov 2013 #87
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #88
LineReply ,
blkmusclmachine Nov 2013 #90
bluedeathray Nov 2013 #91
Douglas Carpenter Nov 2013 #93
TBF Nov 2013 #96
Divernan Nov 2013 #99
Titonwan Nov 2013 #101
libdem4life Nov 2013 #106
wildbilln864 Nov 2013 #107

Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:32 AM

1. The Hillary camp is not liking this at all

I have had several discussion with the centrist in the party and they don't want these people in any kind of leadership roles. Progressives have a fight on their hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:59 AM

4. Sadly, it wouldn't be difficult to discredit the Clinton camp.

All you have to do is go back and follow the campaign money that came from wealthy donors asking for favors. God knows there's more documentation out there than we care to admit. It would show a difference from the old ways, and the promises of true change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:23 AM

12. The mere mention of the word 'Walmart' should send them to the Vomitorium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:16 PM

63. I already tell every progressive outfit that wants me to sign a petition

or take part in a survey that under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary in 2016, for the same reason I didn't vote for Obama in 2012. Either the Democrats put a real progressive like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren at the top of the ticket, or I vote third party again. This can't be said too often, or TOO EARLY either.

The "Elizabeth Warren wing" of the Democratic Party has a nice ring to it. I'm glad there is one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raksha (Reply #63)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:23 AM

102. I'm with you.

The democratic party has, for too long, taken for granted the votes of the working class. Next time I'm snootily asked, "Who else you gonna vote for?" I'll reply, "The Greens, perhaps!"

When both parties represent big money, it's time to start thinking outside the two party box.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:59 PM

33. We need to return to being the party of working people, the middle class and the poor.

Let Republicans represent the minority of business leaders in our country.

Back in the days of the corner grocery store and the prevalence of small businesses, Republicans could represent business and have a good following. Now that the real bosses are few and the employees' category made up of almost all people, Democrats should represent working people and be really open about it.

Everybody knows which side I am on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:29 AM

14. Progressives need only throw a dollar in the street

in front of an oncoming car, and that will be the end of one or more Third Wayers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:26 PM

26. Only if the street is named Wall

That's where you find a typical Third Way Democrat looking for handouts.

I'm not sure it would work if one of we progressives throw the dollar in the street. It would have to be a bankster. Third Wayers are a lot more comfortable with Republicans than with rank-and-file Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Reply #26)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:21 PM

78. I sure wish I could say you are all wrong with that last sentence. But I can't. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #78)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:45 PM

80. I wish I could say that I am wrong with that last sentence, too

But, as long as Rahm Emanuel breathes air, I know I am right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Reply #80)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:50 PM

81. I can't think of a better example, and if I did try, it would probably hurt too much. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:05 PM

39. If that's all it takes,

what are we waiting for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:25 PM

46. You're so cynical, Manny. You're off base on this one.

I think it would take at least $10.

But for that price you should be aboe to get 6 or 8 of them at once, if you're smart about your tactics.

I would recommend throwing whole handful of those dollar coins out into traffic when a bunch of Turd Wayers are waiting for the pedestrian light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:22 PM

65. Wow, three Elizabeth Warren stickers in a row on this thread!

First mine, then JD Priestley's, then yours. And now mine again, but I don't think that counts. That has to be indicative of something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raksha (Reply #65)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:45 PM

69. one more sticker.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 06:19 AM

94. And another

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:00 PM

20. Then we need to back them up in that fight.

I'm not supporting a corporateer candidate like Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:36 PM

30. The "Hillary camp" needs to recognize there's a new sheriff in town, her name is Elizabeth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:22 PM

45. Warren is in the Hillary camp

It's the 'peoples view' camp that isn't liking this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 04:17 PM

54. Hillery

Hillery is not sweating Liz a minute. I don't think Liz would survive 3 minutes in the debate with Hillary. Seriously, can Liz take Virginia? Ohio? Heck even Pennsylvania. And don't use Virginia and the latest win. We barely won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #54)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 05:39 PM

57. Latest 3rd way strategy: Refer to Senator Warren by the diminutive, "Liz"

Now that Mrs. Clinton no longer holds any political office or title.

That's "Senator Warren" to you, fella!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #54)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 05:45 PM

58. it isn't even about "liz," so much as it's about the distaste for more centrist, third way..

triangulated bullshit. people are done with that crap, and young voters will be more likely to back a more progressive, populist candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #58)


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #61)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:07 PM

62. It' syour kind of defeatist thinking that not only loses us elections,

but is losing us democracy itself.

You are following the corporate way and not allowing a true lefty to run. If one ever was allowed to run a legitimate campaign, not ruined by the corporatist wing of the party and not ruined by the corporate media you would see the country flock to them in a second. Elizabeth Warren represents the interests of the people and she would win in a landslide if she were given the backing of the party and allowed to get her message out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #62)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:37 PM

66. I agree with you on all counts.

re "Elizabeth Warren represents the interests of the people and she would win in a landslide if she were given the backing of the party and allowed to get her message out."

Now watch the opposition try to paint her as a "designer" or "boutique" or "focus group" candidate, and not as the populist she is. I'm very familiar with their tactics at this point. I also know those tactics aren't going to work...not this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #62)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 06:20 AM

95. Bingo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #61)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:22 PM

64. Mrs. Clinton couldn't win a primary in 2008; she's far more id'd w/ corporate interests now.

The ONLY thing Mrs. Clinton has going for her is the Citizens United decision which allows her corporate sponsors to pump unlimited $$$ into buying her the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #61)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:40 PM

67. Excuse me... what is



MOFO's?

Whatever that means... I too am an Elizabeth Warren (D) supporter...

I could not disagree with you more.. Guess I'm selfish for wanting a

Progressive DEMOCRAT to represent me.. I think the

"Hillary is the only one who can win" camp is trying to shut us up, AND shut us down.

BTW.. I am very awake, and very aware of what is going on and I will not

"submit" to "getting on board" with Hillary... Try as you may, its doubtful I will be

changing my mind anytime soon.

Stop trying to bully us into your way of thinking.. I hate when people try and

tell me who to vote for.. It truly turns me off completely, if that's even possible where HRC is concerned..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blue14u (Reply #67)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 05:15 AM

92. I'm tired of that meme already as well

The in fighting has started early this time around. As soon as the 2012 election was over an assumption was made that the next nomination was already set with the usual meme's in full force.

People can blame whomever they want for that, but the truth is groups have already formed to fundraiser and eliminate any competition by taking people out of the running. They learned the hard way that competition is bad and even a unknown could show up and beat the inevitable candidate. They wonder why there is so much bitterness. Maybe it's because a certain candidate is being shoved down our throats three years before the election.

Stupid people don't listen, they just keep repeating what they are doing.

Ps-Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:36 AM

2. Excellent!

Warms my heart...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:49 AM

3. I'm gonna have to

re-register as a Dem....
I was a Dem from 1959-2013...I left because I could no longer support the direction the Wall Street/1% Dems in leadership are/were taking the party.

This looks a lot like the old Dem Wing of the Dem Party. I couldn't possibly be happier to read this--I just hope it's completely credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:00 AM

5. I'm thinking of buying one of those Elizabeth Warren hoodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:12 AM

9. Yep! It's chilly outside :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:15 AM

10. I registered as a Dem to influence the party, not to be a blind follower.

That's why you register, so you can vote in the primaries, so you can work to bring in more Elizabeth Warrens, and twist the arms of the DINOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:37 AM

16. I did that

for decades--the last 5 Years I contacted Dem Leaders the DCCC/DSCC/DPO and they don't want to hear it-they failed to respond to Multiple emails/ph msgs etc...and wen I did get a real person? They hung up on me.

I communicated with my lawmakers at the state and fed level.
If you are a Dissatisfied Dem--in my personal experience-they don't want to hear it.
My personal frustration grew to the point that I left the party after 54 Years of votes and loyalty.

I didn't expect "magical change" - I only asked to be heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:56 PM

70. Good for you!!!!



Sign up and lets fight this fight and WIN!!!

I have am excitement on the inside about Elizabeth Warren

like I have not had in a very long time!!!

Let's do it, because we can!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:00 AM

6. Here's the thing


They keep calling Warren a "liberal" it seems to me as a way to discredit her.

I believe that due to right wing efforts that the term liberal is perceived a different way than Warren is.

The term liberal is perceived to be giving minorities special favors and attempting to tell people what to do among a lot of the public thanks to 20,25 years of right wing talking heads.

However the economic ideology of Warren, if a lot of the voting public looks beyond the label, easily cuts across party lines because I have heard MANY republicans or dems that vote GOP voice the very same opinions as she does.

I think with the Warren wing of the party on the ascendency that we all have to be very careful to make sure that the main message, of equality an fairness for the average working American is out front and do not let the right and the media box us in the publics mind as some right wing stereotype, because this is a winning message for democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hollowdweller (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:02 PM

21. Good points. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:03 AM

7. I hope the days of the namby-pamby Democrats are over soon.

The Democrats, because of their lack of resolve, have gotten little respect in this country from most Americans, especially the Republicans since the Reagan years. I'm glad to see this new breed of Democrats who aren't afraid to stand for something and fight for their cause. If more Dems had been like this in the last 30 years, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. Too many Dems in the past have not only given in to the GOP, they've collaborated with them. I hope we're going to see all of that change.

So many American voters don't know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican, but they respect strength and the ability to govern effectively. Unfortunately, they haven't heard too many Democrats in the past who articulated the difference between the two parties. That's because a lot of Democrats tried to be just a softer version of Republicans. They were actually ashamed of Democratic ideals. When Democrats explain what they stand for, most Americans like what they hear. Let's hope the days of trying to trick voters into believing we're just like the GOP are over. That's the last thing we want to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:11 AM

8. Nice

This is like candy for Saturday morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:39 PM

31. yes it is! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:20 AM

11. I always K&R good news in the morning.

And this is that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:25 AM

13. Warren is untested!

Warren only had to get the CFPB created in a banker-owned government, then, after being fired for her insolence, swipe a Senate seat from the most popular politician in Massachusetts.

Hillary, by contrast, had to win big bucks from very careful and wise bankers, dodge sniper bullets in Bosnia, and win a vacant Senate seat running against a state rep from Long Island.

It's so unbelievably stupid and unfair to consider anyone but Hillary as our next president. She's been severly tested both in the voting booth, in the corporate boardroom, and in the battlfield. It's her due. Give it to her now, motherf#%^kers.

Sincerely yours,

Wall Street

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:33 AM

15. It's her turn, Manny. How dare anyone even consider anyone else.

Bask in the glory of her inevitability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:14 PM

72. Oh Manny...You do have a way



of putting things in perspective. Thank you and I think I will

take a glass of that same Champaign you are drinking.


I'm tired of Kool-Aid.

(had to substitute)

Champaign for all supporters of Elizabeth Warren for POTUS 2016!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:41 AM

17. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:45 AM

18. I'm suspicious....

I think the corporate owned media may be trying to put forth an argument that there is a war in the democratic party to distract from the repug civil war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to docgee (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:09 PM

23. Oh I'm sure the media will play this up........

and discount any Republican differences. That would be expected.

However, no matter how it's reported, it is true that there is as much of a difference in the Democratic Party as there is in the Republican Party. Actually in both Parties there's a BIG difference between the "establishment" wing and the populist wings, i.e. RW populism as in the Teabaggers and LW populism as in this grouping of the Democrats.

The advantage to the Dem side is that the POSITIONS of the LW populists are more popular with the general population than the positions of the RW Teabaggers. The advantage for the Republican populists is, because of gerrymandering, they hold more political power in positions of authority, obviously and especially, in the HOR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:54 AM

19. Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren would make a nice ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:03 PM

37. Oh yeah. That. ^^^

My dream ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:10 PM

40. Love the sound of that first one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 03:58 PM

51. not if you want to win

Liz Warren is a definite winner.
Bernie Sanders is a good guy but he would be pilitical poiaon on a national ticket.

Besides he isn't a democrat, he is a registered socialist. Dems can, should and will find dems to nominate.

Liz Warren/Debbie Schultz 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustin DeWinde (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 04:09 PM

53. I'm a Democrat and a Socialist. So, I don't mind if a Dem runs with a Socialist or vice-versa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #53)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 04:41 PM

55. my point is that

Putting a socialist on a presidential ticket guarantees a loss.

The teabaggers may prefer ideology over results, but I don't. And neither do the majority of dems

And for the record I like Sanders, but I'm unwilling to ignore reality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustin DeWinde (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:05 PM

77. Ugh...Debbie WASSERMAN Schultz????

Why would you want two diametrically opposed candidates on the ticket?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #77)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 04:11 AM

89. is there a different Debbie Schultz?

I'm not sure why her middle name warrants all caps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustin DeWinde (Reply #51)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:51 AM

86. lol. no he's not a "registered socialist". that's ridiculous.

He's an independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustin DeWinde (Reply #51)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:08 AM

97. Schultz is cut from the same corporate cloth as HRC - no thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #97)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:53 PM

103. everyone has their own views

But at least we agree that Sen. Warren would be an excellent nominee.

After the midterm elections we can argue and debate about the rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustin DeWinde (Reply #103)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:57 PM

104. Honestly, I like what Warren has been saying and the issues she...

has been tackling - but I do think her Republican background (pretty recent) is a red flag. I'll have to know a whole lot more about that and her views in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #104)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 04:13 PM

105. fair enough.

As for me, barring any really disturbing revalations, I'm on board with warren.

If she decides to run that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:09 PM

22. As opposed to the CORPORATE WING.

Which was grafted on after the removal of the Democratic Wing, once home to Paul Wellstone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #22)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:31 PM

28. What a tragic loss

I admired him so much. I have creative speculations surrounding his untimely demise, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:00 PM

34. Odd, the timing.

Odd, the circumstances.

Odd, how hard Wolf Blitzer and the CNN team pushed for icing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:11 PM

41. Paul will always have a special place in my heart. What a guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:14 PM

24. Warren not getting the CFPB post may have been the best favor Repubs gave the Dems (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:24 PM

25. if the warren wing gets elected, the might have to actually govern.

the any dems remember how to do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:29 PM

27. Kicking

Cuz it is just that good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:35 PM

29. yes!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:55 PM

32. Warren 2016

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:01 PM

35. They're the only ones worth a damn.

Can we please make one of them Majority Leader?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:13 PM

42. There's a few more, but not many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:03 PM

36. Let's get it done in 2014, then 2016 will take care of itself..

2014 2014 2014... organize and GOTV!

Almost forgot: "the Elizabeth Warren wing" love the sound of that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:14 PM

43. Where do I sign up? lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 04:04 PM

52. totally agree. first things first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:49 PM

75. I love your enthusiasm!!!



I too believe we can get this done.. Keep spreading the

word and don't let the 'HRC clan take us under again!!!

The Democrats that left the party will return if we have a

Progressive like Elizabeth Warren to Vote for!!!

Count on it!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:04 PM

38. Why is there an "insert Democrat's name" wing of the Democratic party every election cycle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:16 PM

44. She is not as liberal as you think. I figure she will eventually say or do something

to piss off the anti-Hillary people. Just wait.

-------------------------------------------------------------

“I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore,” Warren says. “I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role.”

Did she vote for Ronald Reagan, who ushered in much of the financial deregulation which Warren has devoted her life to stopping? “I’m not going to talk about who I voted for,” she says.

It wasn’t until later in life, when Warren was 46, that she had her political awakening. At the time, she was serving on a committee recommending changes to the nation’s bankruptcy laws. Until then, Warren says, “I said, ‘No, no, no, not for me on the politics.' ”

Warren decided then, in 1995, she could no longer retreat into the ivory tower. “I can’t just leave this to people who are going to wreck the lives of millions of American families if they get the chance,” she says. “I waded in.”

Warren adds that she voted for both Republicans and Democrats and thought that neither party deserved to dominate. “There should be some Republicans and some Democrats,” she says. Brown’s campaign could make the same point. In a state dominated by Democrats, it might help to have a Republican providing some healthy opposition.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/elizabeth-warren-i-created-occupy-wall-street.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 03:37 PM

50. Oh, I don't feel I have a complete grasp on her positions across the board at all.

However, she is far above the average in the most pervasive big picture issue, economics and what she is saying is pretty right on at least asa starting point ofa reasonable discussion.

Most are talking crazy to me. Not all the same crazy but all off the farm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 04:58 PM

56. so it's EW,who was a repug until she matured and wised up vs

the corporate wall street block who must win because they have the most money?

I'll take EW every time thank you very much

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 05:47 PM

59. Mrs. Clinton was a very active Republican at one point.

What many people don't know about Hilary, is that she used to be a hardcore Republican. When she was a teenager, she canvassed and campaigned for Republican Richard Nixon for President. She worked for Republican Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964, and was even elected president of Wellesley College's Young Republicans club. Due to issues like the Vietnam War however, Hilary left the Republican Party to help candidates like Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/13080/hillary-clinton-was-a-republican-and-ronald-reagan-a-democrat-top-10-political-defections-in-us-history

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #59)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:57 PM

71. Sounds a lot like Warren leaving the Republicans over financial crime n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #59)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:25 PM

73. No comparison, she was only 17 years old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #44)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:17 AM

98. HRC is corporate - no question. And Warren is saying all the right things...

on all the right issues - but I do see her Republican roots as a red flag because that party has always been on the wrong side of justice and history.

(HRC has Republican roots too.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #98)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:34 AM

100. true about Hillary, but she left at age 17 or 18, Warren in her mid-forties

I like Elizabeth Warren. Don't get me wrong. I think she is a wonderful Senator.
My point is that I can guarantee that she is going to say, do, or vote in some way that is going to disappoint some supporters here.
She is more like Hillary than not.
Her foreign policy stances are not leftish... they are definitely mainstream Democratic stances.

Nevertheless, I really doubt she will run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 02:30 PM

47. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t



-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 02:44 PM

48. Progressive Change Campaign Committee ...this is how we do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 02:50 PM

49. K&R. Glad to hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 07:25 PM

60. GOOD !!! - K & R !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:44 PM

68. Imagin the Army of Volunteers

Senator Warren would inspire a huge army of campaign workers. She represents purity to her followers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:28 PM

74. How about that! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:00 PM

76. I love this!!! A dream



that could come true if we try. I will contact the

Progressive Change Campaign Committee asap!!!

Thank you kpete!!!

!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:42 PM

79. I want a Progressive Democrat as the POTUS

But, I'm not willing to hand the Republicans the election by sabotaging a D in the primaries.

My hope is that this can get hashed out behind the scenes and we don't do what the TP'ers have done.

There is plenty of time for this to be handled and I'm happy to have Senator Warren where she is and causing the stir she is causing until we are much closer to the season.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 12:22 AM

82. I guess this is where Elizabeth Warren was meant to be!

 

She is a national treasure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 12:34 AM

83. The Reality is that Warren is not running .. and we can be sure Hillary IS !! She's so coy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 01:36 AM

84. I hope so. I really do.

I have had enough of purported Democrats ending up as "GOP-Lite" once they're elected.

I am sick to death of the supposed need to grab "the centre."

Third Way, DLC, whatever you want to call it, has wrecked this party. Oh, yes, it put us into power in '92, '96 and '08, '12...but Clinton especially walked in the penumbra of the Republicans after he waved the white flag on health care.

I really, really hope that Elizabeth Warren and those who think like her are on the way up.

However, the hand-wringers in control are all too likely to see her as another Mondale or Dukakis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 01:54 AM

85. About-damn-time. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 04:01 AM

87. K&R



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 04:05 AM

88. Is anyone really fucking surprised? Remember what happened to the Economy?

I mean, duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 04:16 AM

90. ,

,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 04:49 AM

91. Kicked for Recognition.

H.R.C.

Better than some elephant breathed, ignorant, selfish, Ayn Rand loving, war mongering asshole.

But NOT inevitable. If Senator Warren runs, she'll have my vote.

As well as funds and efforts. I will get off my ass, and out of the house for that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 05:42 AM

93. knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:04 AM

96. We need to keep at it -

I have non-political folks (not junkies like us) telling me about the Walton family owning more than 42% of the rest of the country combined. I hear them telling me they refuse to shop on Thanksgiving and they are tired of subsidizing Walmart employees. They are talking about low wages at McDonalds. Some have even clued into the Wendy's strikes.

We've seen Occupy bring the word "class" into the discussion and we've heard Elizabeth Warren hammer home the message that the big banks can't keep stealing us blind.

People are listening. We need to keep going and Elizabeth Warren is a big part of these conversations happening because she doesn't shut us down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:18 AM

99. Warren doesn't have Clinton's tangled web of financial/political payback obligations.

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:51 AM - Edit history (1)

In college Mrs. Clinton was president of the Young Republicans & supported election of several moderate Republicans - John Lindsay, Edward Brooke; interned for Rep. Gerald Ford and the House Republican Conference and campaigned for Nelson Rockefeller. In 1968, when she was 21 and after years of political involvement, she attended the GOP convention in Miami where she was upset by Nixon's dirty tricks campaign attacks on Rockefeller & left the GOP party.

In Carl Bernstein's 2007 book, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Alfred Knopf. ISBN 0-375-40766-9), he quotes from a letter she wrote to her youth minister, "she described herself as "a mind conservative and a heart liberal." (p. 50). Bernstein states she believed this combination was possible and that no equation better describes the adult Hillary Clinton.

I think Bernstein's opinion is valid. However, over the years, her support for liberal issues has become quite muted and taken a very distant back seat to her commitment to the MIC, Big Banking and the other "big" corporate interests which have funded Clinton family activities since Bill left office, to the tune that he now has accumulated a personal wealth of over $50 million dollars, in addition to all the millions "donated" to the Clinton Foundation and funding the very lavish life style the Clintons lead while involved in any remotely connected Foundation activities. Here are headline & sub-headlines of a recent article:

Bill Clinton's charities spent more than $50m on travel expenses in the past decade even though he regularly uses a billionaire pal's private jets. Former President Clinton runs a number of charities under his name that are focused on eradicating world health problems
An internal audit showed that the charities spent more than $50m on travel expenses since 2003, including $12.1m in 2011 alone
Rooting out inefficiencies in time for Hillary to decide whether she is going to run for office in 2016


This article is very detailed with fascinating examples of how the Clinton Foundation threw money donated for charity into expenses like flying a politically active movie star and her dog first class to an event. It also illustrates how the Clintons have failed to separate their non-profit charity from political involvement benefiting GOP candidates:

By using grocery-store magnate John Catsimatitis’ plane for trips- like his recent one with Chelsea to South Africa last month- the charities either pay a discounted rate to Catsimatitis or he writes the expense off as a charitable donation.

Such close ties to the Republican billionaire also shows another reason why the Clintons have been actively staying away from the ongoing New York City mayoral race, as Catsimatitis is running as a Republican against a number of Hillary Clinton’s former colleagues from her days in the Senate- not to mention her longtime aide Huma Abedin’s husband, Anthony Weiner.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398355/Bill-Clintons-charities-spent-50m-travel-expenses-past-decade-regularly-uses-billionaire-pals-private-jet.html#ixzz2lZEZDaRQ

The Clintons have the most tangled political/financial web of any US political dynasty ever. And all those invisible strings leading back to the corporate "donors" to the Clinton Foundation will be in place and calling the shots if there is another Clinton presidency.

See also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:10 AM

101. YES, THIS.

We liberals can't be complacent and need to get activated at the local, state and federal level to get more progressive policies/laws in place (That means 2014 elections). Only DRASTIC change is going to keep us from hurtling over the cliff.
$hillary is just more status elitist quo and we don't have time for that bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:27 PM

106. Loved the article...wonderful news. And I like the EW Wing of the Party...she's earned it.

But it feels to me like a single-issue political attraction. Anti-corporation ... there is no reason as of yet to believe she wishes to do anything other than to take them to task. The caveat to that is that we have found another Messiah. I remember the Obama Messiah group...and the outrage when he didn't deliver the anticipated miracles. And the Democrats were the loudest.

Her work is the entire reset of the exceedingly complicated and inner workings of the foundation of our economy, yea the global economy. This doesn't happen with sound bites or on a checklist of To Dos. She just may be able to pull off some real miracles in this arena.

JP Morgan Chase paid their first, huge fine for their European manipulations. Recently, they paid a rather large one here with more to come. I firmly believe that her unique ability, personal magnetism (startling for an economist in a numbers-crunching world), and passion will enable her to do far and away more than she could being shuttered in as a president, forced to deal with the global political melange that keeps all Presidents dangerously close to the political cliff.

Presidents have little direct power over the economy and that's her work. Being in the Senate on the Banking Committee is the most powerful position for her influence, guidance, and ability to use her own bully pulpit for the good of all the Parties and even the non-voters...we, all the people for real, and she is able to make people understand. Comes from her career as a law professor.

The following article...it's long but fascinating and instructive. The President's power is immense as being the global leader ... wars, complex foreign negotiations, relationships with experienced world leaders such as the G-8 and G-20 ... presidencies are made and lost there. (The striking photo of JFK and RFK is worth a click to see.) Not economics...at least economics over which they have any power. The dearth of job programs and disappointing job growth figures is not because of PBOs intransigence or failure. But he gets blamed for it on a daily basis. I do not see Warren fitting into this scenario. We would lose a rare jewel.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Power-and-the-Presidency-From-Kennedy-to-Obama.html

Obama has had a hard first term because he Was Not a Washington Insider. He didn't know how it worked, didn't have the alliances and relationships needed to push through his agenda. He was politically weak because of that...not because he was incapable or lacking determination or a weak person.

Also, because Populism doesn't work for a president. It may help get him elected, and there may be incidental or incremental gains, but there are more populist groups at the national level. Even more restrictive is the Federal Bureaucracy, which exists fairly permanently and operates independently even as Presidents come and go.

Someone reminded me that Carter may have been the only "Liberal" president in my life as I noticed all have been Centrists during my lifetime...starting with Truman. That is not a comforting political notation. He was brilliant, a warm and caring human being, mostly liberal, but easily the most failed President in recent history. He, also, was a Washington Outsider.

She is not a Washington Insider and she would be the first woman...tough row to hoe. I can see her as Majority Leader of the Senate or Treasury Secretary, although I selfishly want her to continue harassing the murky Robber Barons milking the middle-class and bring their asses to justice, at best, or back in line at least. Without her in this role, they will skate off with more of our national treasure...taxpayers funds...repossessed homes...bankrupted students via their usurious loans...cutting out on regulations...blocking further regulations...the list goes on. No one person has been able to do much of anything. This is Huge. Elizabeth Warren is the person for it.

I pray that all this Progressive Presidential Pleading does not deter her from her focus on what she does best...take the corporations to the proverbial woodshed. Again, at the risk of being repetitive, as President she can do Very Little About Corporate Thievery, their reproducing like bunnies, and free rein to operate back in the shadows. And, as a candidate, she'd need to be in a position to be required to take their money...one way or the other...and that's not even smart. I think she knows that, as she's a smart person.

Last of all, I have little knowledge on her political positions on the vast regions of global politics other than economics. I'm going to assume she's pro-choice. But what about the TPP? Has she said anything about that? That is definitely within her field and important to Progressives. Where is she on war...we have Armageddon potentially emerging in the Middle East. One or two assassinations away from possible chaos. Foreign policy? Single Payer health insurance? Is her family on board? (I hear that's a no) Does she have any health problems?

Very little vetting has been done. The Republicans will hate her worse than Hillary and I don't need to state the obvious reasons, the least of which being she is a female. They will devour her with her inexperience, if nothing else. She doesn't appear to be the type that would take that well, at all.

Teachers and Professors excel at being in control...the ones setting the classroom stage, providing the information and asking the questions, because they know the answers. Politicians/Presidents have to think, act and speak on their feet in a variety of venues, to a variety of interests, questions and even taunting.

I hope she stays the course.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:35 AM

107. The EWWDP?

hey that's me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread