Why bullshit attacks against Elizabeth Warren won't work. At all.

[MannyGoldstein]

Because she calls them out for the bullshit they are, then hits back with murderous bolt of The Truth.

No triangulation. No agreeing that "those on the Left" go too far. No keeping her powder dry. Just The Truth, in Liberal doses.

She knows how to deal with bullies. And she destroys them, my soon-to-be Senator does.

Finally, Rove and that scummy crowd will get the boot to the head they deserve. And hopefully the 99% will start getting the representation we deserve.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Refreshing to have someone not afraid to stand on liberal principle.

And it's absolutely amazing the kind of stuff they try to hang on her, like blaming her for the bailouts!!

[BzaDem]

2. I really hope they don't work.

The ad about OWS was despicable.

But even worse was the ad that accused her of being in bed with Wall Street because she was the BAILOUT WATCHDOG.

I mean seriously! If the Republicans can get away with this without significant media pushback, it will set a new precedent (like the Romney cutting off Obama's quote) as to what level of lying is "acceptable." If this flies, then the only "out of bounds" ads will be those that are uttery implausible on their face, even without any knowledge of the candidate in question.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. No worries, she's an FDR Liberal

She welcomes their hatred, and she will win.

[TheWraith]

6. She'll win because she's running in Massachusetts against an unpopular Senator.

Feel free to imagine that that strategy would work in Nebraska or Missouri, or even Ohio, but you'd be wrong.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. He was actually a well-liked Senator

Do you recall that, a few short months ago, he was considered tough to unseat because he was a... moderate?

Until people saw an FDR Democrat as the alternative.

Now, as you say, he has become less popular.

[TheWraith]

30. Emphasis on the "was." Brown is a wholly owned Republican.

If we can't win a competently run campaign for a liberal Democrat in Massachusetts, we might as well give up and go back to bed.

[No Elephants]

12. Brown was not unpopular in Massachusetts. She's been running a great ad and a

good populist oriented campaign.

Never once does she claim to be liberal. She just states what she stands for.


Feel free to imagine that can work only in Massachusetts. However, if you do, you will find that polls disprove that theory.

Do the numbers change after the Right goes full bore against the issue and the Dems do next to nothing to counter? Sometimes, yes, Duh. But not always.

[JDPriestly]

20. It would definitely work in the Middle West pretty much anywhere.

The Republicans fight back. Democrats have a far more appealing message, but don't fight back hard enough.

[Enthusiast]

21. A majority of citizens across the nation

want the Wall Street abuses reined in. They also want taxes raised on millionaires and billionaires. They also want an end to the wars and they want to preserve collective bargaining. Look at the push back against Kasish in Ohio. We should use her populist example nation wide.

[TheWraith]

29. Go for it.

But you'll find out that it's not for no reason that red areas are considered red, and the personalities that are accepted or not accepted, and social issues that are considered important, are wildly different.

[Scuba]

22. You might be surprised. nt/

[Bandit]

26. I don't think we would ever know because I doubt anyone has ever tried.

:shrug: Who knows maybe people would be surprised.

[TheWraith]

28. Some people would be. I wouldn't.

I say this as someone who's actually worked on a campaign that ran aggressively liberal in a red area. We got destroyed, 70/30.

[Tesha]

27. What? They don't believe in or value truth in those places? (NT)

[No Elephants]

13. I might say more of a TR populist than an FDR liberal.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. FDR, TR... either one is something to shoot for. But I'm curious,

what's your thinking behind her being more TR than FDR? I'm not disagreeing, just curious.

[Lunacee2012]

33. I really wish it was illegal to lie like this in Politics.

And the Romney ad was way below the belt. I still can't believe he tried to defend that bs. :mad:

[pa28]

4. Rove likes to attack the greatest strength of an opponent for the purpose of distortion.

Usually his tactic works but this time it's going to backfire.

Instead of avoiding or ignoring the issue Warren is going to say 'you want to talk about the poisonous effect of bailouts and how the big banks write the laws our politicians vote on. Fine, let's have that conversation.'

Then comes the part where she'll blow Brown and Rove out of the water with simple truth. I can't wait.

[msongs]

5. unlike one democrat we know, her motto could be "I welcome their hatred..." nt

[No Elephants]

14. She doesn't seem to go to that level. She seems to stay on issues. Imagine that!

[tblue]

15. No kidding.

She should give him lessons.

[riderinthestorm]

8. She's the first woman I have ever believed may have a shot at the WH

She's all that.

I welcome her presence in the Senate. I've got a feeling she's going to win big. But I see her as a real possibility for the WH in time. She's got excellent political instincts, a first class intellect, and the drive to "do good".

[musiclawyer]

9. The 99 % will beg her to run for POTUS in 2016....

If she wins next year. Which I think she will
Post 2012 will be the era of zero tolerance for triangulation
Obama is the last POTUS of that kind on either the left or right
George bush was actually ahead of his time All the ideas were bad but things got done Fuck the minority. I do what I want. Etc
Warren would never tolerate a weak leader like Harry Reid She never would have invited the insurance companies to the table to do health care reform
That's why they are deathly afraid of her

[No Elephants]

11. Harry Reid is an elected leader who represents the people who elected him very

well, including by allowing us to scapegoat him without ever once trying to defend himself at the expense of the people who elected him.

Depending upon your personal view, that is either a weak leader or a leader who is doing exactly what he was elected to do.

I realize that I am in the minority as to Harry, but, when he has the go ahead from his Caucus, he gets 'er done, whether WE like what he is doing or not. So, I think he's as strong as we can hope for in a Senate leader.

As for Obama, I believe he did do pretty much what he wanted to do from January 2009 through January 2011 and has not given up too much of his agenda since then.

Whether he was right or wrong in what he wanted to do is another issue, as is whether what he wanted to do was consistent with his campaign.

IOW, sometimes people hit exactly what they aimed at. Probably more often than not with Obama.

Where observers may go wrong (IMO) is in making assumptions about what he is aiming at. He may just be looking at a differnt bullseye than you are.

BTW, I would not be happy to see Warren start running for President as soon as she's into the senate. Been there, done that, got the T shirt--literally, in fact, two "free" T-Shirts and many letters and emails asking me for more money.

Next time, I'll want to look at a longer record of someone serving without running for President--to the extent that anyone with Presidential aspirations can ever be thought to be "not running."

[CTyankee]

32. That scum John Edwards did say one thing I agree with, even more so than in 2007

when he said it: "You can't sit down at the table with these people. They take all of the food."

He was talking about the health insurance companies and Big Pharma and was discussing his ideas about health care reform. I liked his plan best and was supporting him in the Dem primaries until the scandal broke. I had believed in him and believed the story about him and Elizabeth being happily married. I actually disbelieved the tabloid story at first and I defended him. In retrospect, I can't believe I was so naive...

[Lunacee2012]

34. Don't be so hard on yourself wrt Edwards.

After all, it did come from a tabloid.

[CTyankee]

35. well, yes, that was part of it. But my state of denial was another part and I recognize that.

I'm over it now of course but I never want to be that naive and believing again...

[Lunacee2012]

36. I hate that some politicians take advantage of trusting ppl like you. nt

[Left coast liberal]

23. Took the words right out of my head!

[Guilded Lilly]

10. She is a totally class act. Female, intelligent and strong...

everything the Republicans fear the most!

[No Elephants]

16. Unlike many here, I do not believe Warren is a liberal just yet, though I do think she is a

populist with a lot of smarts and integrity.

And I like ALL those things. (Prior to coming to DU, I considered myself only very slightly left of center and did indeed show up exactly that was in an unline "test.")

I think she may change her positions and approaches some after she is elected (and I believe she will be, as long as we do not get too complacent).

But, she will not lose her heart for average folks, her brain or her integrity--and, if I am right about that, I will be proud to have her as my Senator.

[madrchsod]

17. yup! we need a lot more elizabeths in the senate and house

i wish we had someone like her in illinois

[No Elephants]

18. You could. It's hard, I grant you, but you could.

[woo me with science]

19. What a great post.

Well said. Made me smile.

K&R

[jtrockville]

25. Fair and honest is a hard combination to beat.

Warren is both.
Rove is neither.

[ProSense]

31. Elizabeth Warren is great, and

she win. She'll win big with a strong Democratic turnout.

In 2010, Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold lost because of low turnout.

There will be a concerted effort to try to depress turnout.

[Remember Me]

37. "murderous bolt of The Truth"

I LIKE that. I like that a lot.

And Elizabeth Warren as well. Real Truth Teller, that one. Fearless.