General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo Elizabeth Warren's getting a title to match the reality
that she's a leader among FDR Democrats. Less than two years after becoming a Senator! This is what happens to proud Liberals who know when to use their fists.
It wouldn't surprise me if she gets another title in 2016.
I understand that some Democrats hate her because she used to be a Republican, years before entering public service. Or maybe they're just yammering about it in a strange attempt to boost some Third Way presidential contender. In either case, those Democrats should think about meditation, or learning anger management techniques, because she's now a full-throated Democrat, she's tough, she's passionate, and she ain't going away.
And if she has her way, and we all help her out, the American Dream won't go away either. It will turn around and come back to us.
This is a great start; let's do what we can to turn it into a great finish.
Regards,
Very-Happy Manny
fredamae
(4,458 posts)puts Jon Tester in charge? Don't get me wrong-I like him....I'm certain he's perfect for MT. That said, I don't believe he represents the entire left leaning rest of us.
The DSCC learned, imo...absolutely Nothing.
pscot
(21,023 posts)He's no Wall Street shill. He also speaks Cowboy, a language known to damned few Beltway smart alecks
NiceTryGuy
(53 posts)I don't know. It looks to me like she's being used as a tool to keep the current establishment in power. This seems like a way for the establishment to get its claws into her, and marching to their drum. It would be one thing if this happened before people started asking questions about the strength of Democratic leadership, but this looks like a move to save Harry Reid's neck as minority leader, while keeping Warren in line.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)She'll rise above any nonsense they try to pull, and they'd only give her the title if it was consistant with the reality.
NiceTryGuy
(53 posts)The establishment is where you become a so-called "realist."
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I don't think it applies to Warren. She's extraordinarily unusual.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)I think she will walk away before falling into that sewer.
Wella
(1,827 posts)back when she was a college professor making speeches about the shrinking middle class wealth--way before 2008. I worry that they will co-opt her or destroy her.
I worry that they will co-opt her or destroy her.
Do women not have a brain in their head anymore? WTF! We can't think for ourselves! Holy shit~
Wella
(1,827 posts)Not much one can do about that.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She discusses how the establishment works at length when she describes going to dinner with Larry Summers. Get the book and read that part if nothing else.
Elizabeth Warren is smarter than the rest of them. Even more important she is more honest than the rest of them. She will be fine.
She is an excellent debater. She is realistic. She is realistic about what it is to be a poor kid growing up in a state like Oklahoma, going to what I would call community college and ending up teaching the very rich and the very intelligent at Harvard Law School. Can't get more relaistic than that. Great preparation for dealing with the establishment.
polichick
(37,152 posts)strong enough not to let them use her. Maybe she'll use her new spot for her own agenda.
pscot
(21,023 posts)Let's see who ends up pwning whom.
sheshe2
(83,319 posts)Senator from Mass much credit for brains. She is not being used and she is no tool. She has taken on the big boys before, both the banks and the GOP and they fear her. The GOP underestimated her when they stalled her nomination for CFPB, they thought they got rid of her. Well she came back to bite them as our Senior Senator from Mass. She is stronger than ever.
Elizabeth Warren is an intelligent, strong, fearless and dynamic woman. Trust me, do not underestimate that woman ever. You do her a grave disservice with your post.
NiceTryGuy
(53 posts)I'm not worried about doing her a "grave disservice." I'm worried that she's taken the establishment bait, and is now on the leash. I'm looking at this situation with cold, hard political calculation, not my emotions over something she said before that I agreed with.
Response to NiceTryGuy (Reply #49)
sheshe2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)About women. You have made some pretty fantastic and inspirational posts, and I will continue to listen. But I think you're completely off base here. No one is trashing Warren because she is a woman--they're sincerely worried that she may be affected by big money, just as many others have been.
"To summarize. Women are stupid, easily lead, cause they have no functioning brain. She is following the establishment blindly on a leash, like a dog. Like a B***h"
If I've ever seen an example of putting words in someone's mouth, this is it. I'm sorry, but I think you're flat out wrong. This isn't a misinterpretation, this is an attack. I've heard the same words said about men on the establishment leash many times. If anything, I've seen posters constantly praise Senator Warren for her intelligence. Though sexist comments are made (and they have been, and I and others have objected), it really feels like you're looking for something here.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Unlike most members of Congress, Elizabeth Warren knows why she is there and what she wants to accomplish there.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I wish they were all like her.
I support Hillary but you won't here me say a bad word about Warren.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I see. One of the things about taking a break from here is the powerful realization that many of the arguments here don't exist in the real world of real Democratic grassroots workers.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)And those promoting the "Dems are divided" BS are almost invariably the same people.
You know, it's almost as though they WANT to see divisiveness within the party ...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Or Glenn-Greenwald Libertarians.
I mean... Of course there's no disagreements, 'cos who could grumble about this best of all possible parties?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1265&pid=1641
Maybe you could write something incisive yet lofty about it?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... the "paid disruptors" thingy. There are plenty of disruptors here who are more than happy to do the job for free.
And there is a difference between disagreements among Democrats (always have been, always will be) and promoting the idea that the party is "divided" on some grand scale.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)an emissary to Liberals? Because everyone's on the same page?
Is Harry Reid a disruptor?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Big Tent - herding cats - I'm not a member of an organized party, I'm a Democrat, etc.
I'm not the one complaining about centrists, red state Dems, blue dogs, Third Wayers, DINOs, Conservadems, yadda yadda. There are posters here who have been promoting the idea that to be a "real Dem", or a "real liberal", or a "real progressive", one has to march in lockstep with self-proclaimed "real" members of the party.
I call bullshit on that noise.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)an official emissary being appointed to a group within the Democratic Party?
I cannot remember such a thing, ever - but I look forward to your references otherwise.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Being a liaison to liberal organizations is not the same thing as being an "official emissary" to a "group within the party".
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)How is it functionally different?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that Warren's new role is that of an "emissary" (an "official" emissary, no less) whose goal will be to reach out to "liberals" within the party.
The announcement of her new role clearly specifies that she will be acting as a liaison between the the Democratic Policy and Communications Center and liberal organizations - which makes perfect sense, as the Policy and Communications Centre concerns itself with messaging and policy, and the input of liberal organizations would be of great assistance in shaping that messaging and policy.
I know that you (and others here) want to see this as some sort of reaching out to "liberals" who you believe to all be disgruntled Democrats who are never, ever listened to or acknowledged. Thus your insistence that Warren is an "official emissary" whose mission is to listen to your complaints and attempt to pour oil on troubled waters.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)significantly different meanings, which they don't?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=emissary
Or are you claiming that "Liberals" and "Liberal organizations" are somehow vastly different things?
And again, when has anything like this happened in the history of the Senate?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Liaison: a person who helps organizations or groups to work together and provide information to each other
Emissary: a person who is sent on a mission to represent another person or organization
(Merriam-Webster dictionary)
And yes, "liberals" and "liberal organizations" are different things. "Liberals" are individuals who share certain ideals and principles. "Liberal Organizations" are just that - organizations - composed of individuals who have formally banded together, usually with specific goals in mind.
For example, there is a difference between liaising with individual kids who play baseball and liaising with Little League International.
There are also organizations that are seen as liberal organizations in that they share common principles/goals with liberal Democrats i.e. environmental protection groups, organizations devoted to fair voting practices who are not affiliated with any political party.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Nope, you're sure not!
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Democrats are Democrats. They come in all shapes and sizes, from all different backgrounds, from different parts of the country. Some are more conservative than others; some are more liberal than others. Some are conservative on some issues, but liberal on others.
Over the past few years here on DU, there are those who have continually fomented the idea that some Democrats are worthy, and others aren't. Much discussion about who needs to be shunned, or be rid of completely.
Now, it would seem obvious that promoting the idea that Democrats should distance themselves from each other, and break off into their little "groups" to fight with fellow party members, serves the purposes of one party only - and that party is NOT the Democratic Party.
The self-labelling that has emerged is nothing less than laughable. "I'm am FDR Dem," "I'm a Wellstone Dem," "I'm a JFK with overtones of LBJ, a smattering of Ted Kennedy, and a soupcon of Jimmy Carter Dem."
What next? Secret handshakes? Decoder rings? Coloured bandanas folded in certain configurations so that you can all recognize each other on the street?
This kind of divisiveness is not only detrimental to Democrats as a whole, it childish in the extreme. And the fact that so many DUers are willing to fall into lockstep behind this kind of bullshit speaks for itself.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... would be far better off without the neocons who have infiltrated it over the last 35 years.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... ridding the Party of everyone you don't like, or have deemed to be not Democratic enough.
With the keyboard warriors on DU at your back, I'm sure you'll be wildly successful.
BTW, the Nordstrom's analogy is utterly laughable!
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)They have no sway in the party. They just mouth off as the adults in the room do what needs to be done. This latest appointment is a case in point, but it is questionable whether it will work, because the so called liberals are having such a fit over it.
The adults in the Democratic Party are trying what they can. I think they are too obsessed with some radical element that has no relevance because it has shown at least two times in a row now that it can't GOTV and doesn't give a shit (and in fact will bemoan the party itself when the activist left fails, it's all so cute).
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Dems, especially young Dems, have reached the point where they no longer are willing to just go along with the march to the Right of their party, and are working hard to rebuild the party from the bottom up, locally, so THEY rather than the Third Way are the ones who influence their party, as it should be.
Just met with some very young Dems today and they are amazing. So much more informed about what their future will be if they simply allow their party to take their votes for granted.
It's an exciting time, it's good to have seen the whole picture which many of us did not for a long time. Because once you do, you know what needs to be done.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)The OP is just trying to stir things up like usual.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And incorrect.
www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5248278
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5123636 (as usual cali_democrat deleted his post when it later proved inconvenient, but you'll get the drift)
etc.
I await your apology.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)months now that she's going to the front of the line in 2016.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)Whether she has an arbitrary title to go with it or not.
sheshe2
(83,319 posts)She is on a leash now....a brainless woman! I am so over this place.
msongs
(67,193 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)We held the Congress for 40 years after FDR... because he, and they, DID SOMETHING for ordinary working folk.
K & R, Happy Manny !!!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks for spreading the good news about Sen. Warren's new title!
The Third Way will soon Go Away!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Democrats from now on. The current situation isn't helping the working class and they know it.
Proud FDR Dem here who has noticed a strange attempt to denigrate one of the party's best presidents, right here on a Dem forum.
Baitball Blogger
(46,570 posts)I'm counting on all the savvy DUers to let me know which organizations are valid enough for us to support.
tclambert
(11,080 posts)and this universe settles for nonsensical election results . . . again. I'm really starting to hate that other universe. They get all the good stuff, and this universe gets crap. I mean, progressive proposals passed by massive margins in states that voted for Republican politicians. It's like voters in this universe get hit by some sort of force field that deactivates the logic centers of their brains as they prepare to vote.
Come to think of it, I believe the machine that does this is called a television, and the force driving it is called dark money.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)We're back in the 1930s again. Do we get FDR, or Hitler?
It's our job as FDR Democrats to see that we get the former. I think we can do this.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)want Progressive issues' as they voted for Ballot Issues, but 'we no longer believe our elected officials support what we want'.
We'll see what those officials do with the message they were sent by the voters.
We know now from the voters that we are being lied to when we are told, to excuse Dems in DC going along with Right Wing policies, that we have to 'move to the Center', because 'This is a Conservative country'.
I thank the voters for putting that lie to rest once and for all. I don't think you are giving them enough credit. That was an important message.
madokie
(51,076 posts)can't wait to be known as a Warrenite
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts). . . My fear, though, is that with Harry Reid having been re-elected as majority leader, this is simply a move to mollify the progressive wing of the party. I sincerely hope that fear turns out to be unfounded.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Which many didn't want. I think he really likes her.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"needs to go."
I think there are a lot of people here who like to stir up shit, and create divisions that do not exist.
It gives their lives meaning.
Or something.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I think he's one of the very few in Congress whose heart's in the right place.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I've never seen more crapping on the guy anywhere else, except when I read about the goings-on in the Republican caucus.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts). . . I guess that's cause for some comfort, at least!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And pulled her in to stop the horror of it all:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1265&pid=1641
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)When Chained CPI was being debated, and every single Democratic leader went on camera in support of a Bill, I decided to do a video on the issue (something I've yet to finish but may revive.) Anyway, when I was gathering the video clips of the entire Democratic leadership voicing their support for cuts to SS, the only Democratic leader I could not find a clip on was Harry Reid. I think he's held up quite a few Republican Bills over the years that the Third Wayers would have gladly voted yes on, if only Harry would play.
I don't know if you saw the thread about McCaskill voicing opposition to Reid remaining minority leader, but it solidified my belief that he has been less than willing to play Third Way games. I hope I'm right. LOL
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I think he was raging mad at Obama for that Social Security garbage:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-mcconnell-and-biden-pulled-congress-away-from-the-fiscal-cliff/2013/01/02/992fe6de-5501-11e2-8e84-e933f677fe68_print.html
He's also been shutting down the TPP.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Let's hope there aren't enough Third Way Dem votes in the Senate to help Repubs override an Obama veto, if he actually does that. I have my doubts. We live in frighteningly interesting times.
G_j
(40,366 posts)I hope you're right too.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)He will have Warren's back. I hope he teaches her the tricks of the trade, so to speak.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)role previously. It was he who called on her to head the group reviewing the work being done on the bail-outs.
I strongly recommend that people read her book A Fighting Chance.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Same with mentioning Bernie.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I'm a Mannyfan
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,079 posts)Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed