Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,867 posts)
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:20 AM Nov 2013

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LA Times: The "Elizabeth Warren Wing" of The Democratic Party On The Ascendancy (Original Post) kpete Nov 2013 OP
The Hillary camp is not liking this at all 4dsc Nov 2013 #1
Sadly, it wouldn't be difficult to discredit the Clinton camp. Baitball Blogger Nov 2013 #4
The mere mention of the word 'Walmart' should send them to the Vomitorium. Octafish Nov 2013 #12
I already tell every progressive outfit that wants me to sign a petition Raksha Nov 2013 #63
I'm with you. CrispyQ Nov 2013 #102
We need to return to being the party of working people, the middle class and the poor. JDPriestly Nov 2013 #33
Progressives need only throw a dollar in the street MannyGoldstein Nov 2013 #14
Only if the street is named Wall Jack Rabbit Nov 2013 #26
I sure wish I could say you are all wrong with that last sentence. But I can't. n/t A Simple Game Nov 2013 #78
I wish I could say that I am wrong with that last sentence, too Jack Rabbit Nov 2013 #80
I can't think of a better example, and if I did try, it would probably hurt too much. n/t A Simple Game Nov 2013 #81
If that's all it takes, tblue Nov 2013 #39
You're so cynical, Manny. You're off base on this one. Jackpine Radical Nov 2013 #46
Wow, three Elizabeth Warren stickers in a row on this thread! Raksha Nov 2013 #65
one more sticker. Whisp Nov 2013 #69
And another Scuba Nov 2013 #94
Then we need to back them up in that fight. JimDandy Nov 2013 #20
The "Hillary camp" needs to recognize there's a new sheriff in town, her name is Elizabeth. InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2013 #30
Warren is in the Hillary camp AgingAmerican Nov 2013 #45
Hillery yeoman6987 Nov 2013 #54
Latest 3rd way strategy: Refer to Senator Warren by the diminutive, "Liz" Divernan Nov 2013 #57
it isn't even about "liz," so much as it's about the distaste for more centrist, third way.. frylock Nov 2013 #58
Post removed Post removed Nov 2013 #61
It' syour kind of defeatist thinking that not only loses us elections, cui bono Nov 2013 #62
I agree with you on all counts. Raksha Nov 2013 #66
Bingo! Scuba Nov 2013 #95
Mrs. Clinton couldn't win a primary in 2008; she's far more id'd w/ corporate interests now. Divernan Nov 2013 #64
Excuse me... what is blue14u Nov 2013 #67
I'm tired of that meme already as well davidpdx Nov 2013 #92
Excellent! City Lights Nov 2013 #2
I'm gonna have to fredamae Nov 2013 #3
I'm thinking of buying one of those Elizabeth Warren hoodies. Baitball Blogger Nov 2013 #5
Yep! It's chilly outside :) n/t fredamae Nov 2013 #9
I registered as a Dem to influence the party, not to be a blind follower. backscatter712 Nov 2013 #10
I did that fredamae Nov 2013 #16
Good for you!!!! blue14u Nov 2013 #70
Here's the thing hollowdweller Nov 2013 #6
Good points. n/t JimDandy Nov 2013 #21
I hope the days of the namby-pamby Democrats are over soon. LuvNewcastle Nov 2013 #7
Nice Politicub Nov 2013 #8
yes it is! nt Mojorabbit Nov 2013 #31
I always K&R good news in the morning. zeemike Nov 2013 #11
Warren is untested! MannyGoldstein Nov 2013 #13
It's her turn, Manny. How dare anyone even consider anyone else. LuvNewcastle Nov 2013 #15
Oh Manny...You do have a way blue14u Nov 2013 #72
Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.....nt Enthusiast Nov 2013 #17
I'm suspicious.... docgee Nov 2013 #18
Oh I'm sure the media will play this up........ socialist_n_TN Nov 2013 #23
Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren would make a nice ticket. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2013 #19
Oh yeah. That. ^^^ tblue Nov 2013 #37
Love the sound of that first one! InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2013 #40
not if you want to win Dustin DeWinde Nov 2013 #51
I'm a Democrat and a Socialist. So, I don't mind if a Dem runs with a Socialist or vice-versa. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2013 #53
my point is that Dustin DeWinde Nov 2013 #55
Ugh...Debbie WASSERMAN Schultz???? NorthCarolina Nov 2013 #77
is there a different Debbie Schultz? Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #89
lol. no he's not a "registered socialist". that's ridiculous. cali Nov 2013 #86
Schultz is cut from the same corporate cloth as HRC - no thanks. polichick Nov 2013 #97
everyone has their own views Dustin DeWinde Nov 2013 #103
Honestly, I like what Warren has been saying and the issues she... polichick Nov 2013 #104
fair enough. Dustin DeWinde Nov 2013 #105
As opposed to the CORPORATE WING. Octafish Nov 2013 #22
What a tragic loss libodem Nov 2013 #28
Odd, the timing. Octafish Nov 2013 #34
Paul will always have a special place in my heart. What a guy. InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2013 #41
Warren not getting the CFPB post may have been the best favor Repubs gave the Dems (n/t) thesquanderer Nov 2013 #24
if the warren wing gets elected, the might have to actually govern. KG Nov 2013 #25
Kicking libodem Nov 2013 #27
yes!!! gopiscrap Nov 2013 #29
Warren 2016 cantbeserious Nov 2013 #32
They're the only ones worth a damn. tblue Nov 2013 #35
There's a few more, but not many. InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2013 #42
Let's get it done in 2014, then 2016 will take care of itself.. mountain grammy Nov 2013 #36
Where do I sign up? lol InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2013 #43
totally agree. first things first. Dustin DeWinde Nov 2013 #52
I love your enthusiasm!!! blue14u Nov 2013 #75
Why is there an "insert Democrat's name" wing of the Democratic party every election cycle? wyldwolf Nov 2013 #38
She is not as liberal as you think. I figure she will eventually say or do something OKNancy Nov 2013 #44
Oh, I don't feel I have a complete grasp on her positions across the board at all. TheKentuckian Nov 2013 #50
so it's EW,who was a repug until she matured and wised up vs backwoodsbob Nov 2013 #56
Mrs. Clinton was a very active Republican at one point. Divernan Nov 2013 #59
Sounds a lot like Warren leaving the Republicans over financial crime n/t eridani Nov 2013 #71
No comparison, she was only 17 years old. Beacool Nov 2013 #73
HRC is corporate - no question. And Warren is saying all the right things... polichick Nov 2013 #98
true about Hillary, but she left at age 17 or 18, Warren in her mid-forties OKNancy Nov 2013 #100
k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t Laelth Nov 2013 #47
Progressive Change Campaign Committee ...this is how we do it. L0oniX Nov 2013 #48
K&R. Glad to hear it. Overseas Nov 2013 #49
GOOD !!! - K & R !!! WillyT Nov 2013 #60
Imagin the Army of Volunteers WRH2 Nov 2013 #68
How about that! nt silvershadow Nov 2013 #74
I love this!!! A dream blue14u Nov 2013 #76
I want a Progressive Democrat as the POTUS Flatpicker Nov 2013 #79
I guess this is where Elizabeth Warren was meant to be! AAO Nov 2013 #82
The Reality is that Warren is not running .. and we can be sure Hillary IS !! She's so coy. YOHABLO Nov 2013 #83
I hope so. I really do. DissidentVoice Nov 2013 #84
About-damn-time. n/t Fearless Nov 2013 #85
K&R DeSwiss Nov 2013 #87
Is anyone really fucking surprised? Remember what happened to the Economy? Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #88
, blkmusclmachine Nov 2013 #90
Kicked for Recognition. bluedeathray Nov 2013 #91
knr Douglas Carpenter Nov 2013 #93
We need to keep at it - TBF Nov 2013 #96
Warren doesn't have Clinton's tangled web of financial/political payback obligations. Divernan Nov 2013 #99
YES, THIS. Titonwan Nov 2013 #101
Loved the article...wonderful news. And I like the EW Wing of the Party...she's earned it. libdem4life Nov 2013 #106
The EWWDP? wildbilln864 Nov 2013 #107
 

4dsc

(5,787 posts)
1. The Hillary camp is not liking this at all
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:32 AM
Nov 2013

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.

Baitball Blogger

(46,532 posts)
4. Sadly, it wouldn't be difficult to discredit the Clinton camp.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:59 AM
Nov 2013

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.

Raksha

(7,167 posts)
63. I already tell every progressive outfit that wants me to sign a petition
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:16 PM
Nov 2013

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.

CrispyQ

(36,112 posts)
102. I'm with you.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:23 AM
Nov 2013

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.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
33. We need to return to being the party of working people, the middle class and the poor.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:59 PM
Nov 2013

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.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
14. Progressives need only throw a dollar in the street
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:29 PM
Nov 2013

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

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
26. Only if the street is named Wall
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:26 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
80. I wish I could say that I am wrong with that last sentence, too
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:45 PM
Nov 2013

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

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
46. You're so cynical, Manny. You're off base on this one.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 02:25 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Raksha

(7,167 posts)
65. Wow, three Elizabeth Warren stickers in a row on this thread!
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:22 PM
Nov 2013

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.

JimDandy

(7,318 posts)
20. Then we need to back them up in that fight.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:00 PM
Nov 2013

I'm not supporting a corporateer candidate like Clinton.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
54. Hillery
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 05:17 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
57. Latest 3rd way strategy: Refer to Senator Warren by the diminutive, "Liz"
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:39 PM
Nov 2013

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

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

frylock

(34,825 posts)
58. it isn't even about "liz," so much as it's about the distaste for more centrist, third way..
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:45 PM
Nov 2013

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

Response to frylock (Reply #58)

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
62. It' syour kind of defeatist thinking that not only loses us elections,
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:07 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Raksha

(7,167 posts)
66. I agree with you on all counts.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:37 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
64. Mrs. Clinton couldn't win a primary in 2008; she's far more id'd w/ corporate interests now.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:22 PM
Nov 2013

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.

blue14u

(575 posts)
67. Excuse me... what is
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:40 PM
Nov 2013


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..

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
92. I'm tired of that meme already as well
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 06:15 AM
Nov 2013

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!

fredamae

(4,458 posts)
3. I'm gonna have to
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:49 AM
Nov 2013

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.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
10. I registered as a Dem to influence the party, not to be a blind follower.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:15 PM
Nov 2013

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.

fredamae

(4,458 posts)
16. I did that
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:37 PM
Nov 2013

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.

blue14u

(575 posts)
70. Good for you!!!!
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:56 PM
Nov 2013


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!!!

 

hollowdweller

(4,229 posts)
6. Here's the thing
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:00 PM
Nov 2013

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.

LuvNewcastle

(16,813 posts)
7. I hope the days of the namby-pamby Democrats are over soon.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:03 PM
Nov 2013

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.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
13. Warren is untested!
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:25 PM
Nov 2013

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

LuvNewcastle

(16,813 posts)
15. It's her turn, Manny. How dare anyone even consider anyone else.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:33 PM
Nov 2013

Bask in the glory of her inevitability.

blue14u

(575 posts)
72. Oh Manny...You do have a way
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:14 PM
Nov 2013


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!!!

docgee

(870 posts)
18. I'm suspicious....
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:45 PM
Nov 2013

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.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
23. Oh I'm sure the media will play this up........
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:09 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Dustin DeWinde

(193 posts)
51. not if you want to win
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 04:58 PM
Nov 2013

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

Dustin DeWinde

(193 posts)
55. my point is that
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 05:41 PM
Nov 2013

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

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
77. Ugh...Debbie WASSERMAN Schultz????
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:05 PM
Nov 2013

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

Dustin DeWinde

(193 posts)
103. everyone has their own views
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 04:53 PM
Nov 2013

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.

polichick

(37,152 posts)
104. Honestly, I like what Warren has been saying and the issues she...
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 04:57 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Dustin DeWinde

(193 posts)
105. fair enough.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 05:13 PM
Nov 2013

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

If she decides to run that is.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
22. As opposed to the CORPORATE WING.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:09 PM
Nov 2013

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

libodem

(19,288 posts)
28. What a tragic loss
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:31 PM
Nov 2013

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

KG

(28,748 posts)
25. if the warren wing gets elected, the might have to actually govern.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 01:24 PM
Nov 2013

the any dems remember how to do that?

mountain grammy

(26,553 posts)
36. Let's get it done in 2014, then 2016 will take care of itself..
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 02:03 PM
Nov 2013

2014 2014 2014... organize and GOTV!

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

blue14u

(575 posts)
75. I love your enthusiasm!!!
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:49 PM
Nov 2013


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!!!

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
44. She is not as liberal as you think. I figure she will eventually say or do something
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 02:16 PM
Nov 2013

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

TheKentuckian

(24,904 posts)
50. Oh, I don't feel I have a complete grasp on her positions across the board at all.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 04:37 PM
Nov 2013

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.

 

backwoodsbob

(6,001 posts)
56. so it's EW,who was a repug until she matured and wised up vs
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 05:58 PM
Nov 2013

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

I'll take EW every time thank you very much

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
59. Mrs. Clinton was a very active Republican at one point.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:47 PM
Nov 2013
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

polichick

(37,152 posts)
98. HRC is corporate - no question. And Warren is saying all the right things...
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:17 AM
Nov 2013

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.)

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
100. true about Hillary, but she left at age 17 or 18, Warren in her mid-forties
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:34 AM
Nov 2013

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.

WRH2

(87 posts)
68. Imagin the Army of Volunteers
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:44 PM
Nov 2013

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

blue14u

(575 posts)
76. I love this!!! A dream
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:00 PM
Nov 2013


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

Progressive Change Campaign Committee asap!!!

Thank you kpete!!!

!

Flatpicker

(894 posts)
79. I want a Progressive Democrat as the POTUS
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 11:42 PM
Nov 2013

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.

DissidentVoice

(813 posts)
84. I hope so. I really do.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:36 AM
Nov 2013

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.

bluedeathray

(511 posts)
91. Kicked for Recognition.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 05:49 AM
Nov 2013

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!

TBF

(31,892 posts)
96. We need to keep at it -
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:04 AM
Nov 2013

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.

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
99. Warren doesn't have Clinton's tangled web of financial/political payback obligations.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:18 AM
Nov 2013

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:51 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&

Titonwan

(785 posts)
101. YES, THIS.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:10 AM
Nov 2013

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.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
106. Loved the article...wonderful news. And I like the EW Wing of the Party...she's earned it.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:27 AM
Nov 2013

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.





Latest Discussions»General Discussion»LA Times: The "Eliza...