• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Elizabeth Warren's Star Rises Amid Confrontation

Mayhem

Banned
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/elizabeth-warrens-star-rises-amid-confrontation-n267251

As this week made clear, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is taking aggressive steps to push the Democratic Party and President Obama to the left, in effect trying to be the true leader of the party even as Obama remains in office and Hillary Clinton is heavily favored to be the Democrats' next presidential nominee.

The first-term senator's decision to forcefully urge other Democrats to oppose a government funding bill because it would weaken a plank of the Dodd-Frank bill that regulates Wall Street is a direct confrontation with her party's leadership: top Senate Democrats negotiated the compromise that Warren is blasting, and it was endorsed by Obama. Most House Democrats, following Warren's lead, opposed the legislation, nearly scuttling it on Thursday.

The bill, which funds the government for the next year, narrowly passed the House, just hours before funding ran out, and is expected to be approved by the Senate. But her role in leading the opposition illustrated the rapidly-rising influence of Warren, who is now battling with the Obama White House on key issues, taking an official leadership post in the Senate and being strongly urged to run against Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Her campaign against this bill, which would relax some regulations on derivatives, is one of a series of moves Warren has made over the last month to urge Democrats to shift to the left, not the political center, in the wake of the drubbing the party took in last month's elections. Warren is also leading the opposition to Antonio Weiss, President Obama's choice to be the under secretary for domestic finance at the Treasury Department, arguing that Weiss will too closely follow the views of Wall Street since he is currently the head of global investment banking at Lazard.

She is publicly urging President Obama to be cautious about reaching agreements with the newly-empowered Republicans on Capitol Hill.

"The solution isn't for the president to cut deals — any deals — just to show he can do business," she wrote in a recent op-ed in the Washington Post.

Some have compared Warren to Texas Republican Ted Cruz, another freshman senator who has also implored his party that not all compromises are the right policy.

But Warren is unlikely to lead a government shutdown over the weakening of Dodd-Frank, as Cruz did last year to block the implementation of Obamacare. And the other key difference is that unlike Cruz, who is preparing for a presidential campaign, Warren probably won't run in 2016.

Her supporters are begging Warren to enter the race, to give the populist wing of the Democratic Party a chance to either block Hillary Clinton's likely nomination or force Clinton to confront directly her differences with Warren on stage in debates during the primary.A group of 300 former Obama staffers released a letter this week urging Warren to run.

"We'll host an Iowa launch event in Des Moines, where the road to the White House begins. We'll go all in. Hire staff. Open offices. Run ads in major media outlets. Mobilize an army of volunteers. Reach as many voters as we can. Senator Warren, we're ready to show you that you have the support needed to enter--and win--this presidential race," wrote the leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org this week, in an op-ed published in the Huffington Post, as they announced their "Run Warren Run" movement to draft her.

Warren has said repeatedly again she won't run for president and has eschewed the repeated visits to Iowa and New Hampshire and other moves that would signal she is seriously considering such a campaign. A presidential run would have obvious challenges for Warren, who has much less electoral experience than Obama did when he successfully challenged Clinton in 2008. (Warren, a longtime law professor, had never served in elective office before entering the Senate in 2013.)

But Warren is making a shift in an attempt to elevate herself politically, even if she opts against a presidential run. She has been a favorite of liberals since her Senate campaign, because of her populist rhetoric and sharp questioning of witnesses at congressional hearings, which have turned into popular viral videos. But she mostly focused on giving speeches about the high costs of student loans and other economic issues in her first 22 months in the Senate, not trying to use her grassroots popularity to shape the broader Democratic Party.

Those days of limited ambition for Warren seem to be over. Last month, she accepted a newly-created post in which Warren is supposed to be a "strategic policy adviser" for Senate Democrats, a job which has not been completely defined but ensures she will regularly offering advice to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. She wrote the Post op-ed only a few days after the election, in a clear attempt to influence the party's direction.

And there are signs her new approach is already working. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a longtime Obama ally, has said he too will oppose Weiss' nomination, and many other Senate Democrats are also considering voting down Weiss. That would be a huge victory for Warren over Obama and his team, who are actively trying to build support for Weiss.

Warren's attacks on the government funding bill seemed to embolden other Democrats, with even House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi following Warren's lead and also becoming a very strong opponent of the provision.

Warren has not indicated this publicly, but her moves suggest her role in 2015 will be holding Obama accountable to the political left. The president has talked about reaching compromises with Republicans on reducing corporate tax rates and enacting free trade agreements, both goals Warren is skeptical of.

And Warren could be headed toward a confrontation with Clinton as well. Whatever stance Warren takes in Congress, Clinton will be asked by reporters on the campaign trail if she agrees with it. And the liberals in the Democratic Party will be expecting that the answer from Clinton is yes.

If Liz doesn't run, I have absolutely no idea who I'll vote for. I just can't see myself dropping a lever for Hillary.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
If Liz doesn't run, I have absolutely no idea who I'll vote for. I just can't see myself dropping a lever for Hillary.

I don't want Clinton either but what if the republican nominee is Ted Cruz? Choice between the lesser of two serious evils at that point. Is there a republican out there who would be an acceptable alternative to Clinton? Is there anyone who can really mount a serious challenge to Hillary if Warren won't run (and I don't think she will....not in 2016 at least)? Would Warren be acceptable to enough independents to swing the election her way if she were to somehow become the democratic nominee? :dunno:
 

Mayhem

Banned
I don't want Clinton either but what if the republican nominee is Ted Cruz? Choice between the lesser of two serious evils at that point. Is there a republican out there who would be an acceptable alternative to Clinton? Is there anyone who can really mount a serious challenge to Hillary if Warren won't run (and I don't think she will....not in 2016 at least)? Would Warren be acceptable to enough independents to swing the election her way if she were to somehow become the democratic nominee? :dunno:

My crystal ball says that if Liz manages to squeak, Obama-like, past Hillary; she takes the general election in a walk. There is no Republican, Cruz or otherwise that can hope to win against her. It all comes down to our dipshit fellow Democrats actually voting intelligently. Once the debates happen, the independents will see the writing on the wall and Warren will be elected by landslide.

I would consider voting for Cruz, if he's running against Hillary. Let "Sam I Am" set the country on fire for 4 years, get a Democratic House and Senate in 2020, and that's when Liz would take the White House too. Just like letting a forest fire run its course to let the new growth have its chance.

I'm reading periodic headlines that there's a faction that wants Romney to run again. That would be exquisite.
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
Elizabeth Warren is a moron. :tongue:

 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
You're the one that went off half-cocked over another college professor and the claims he made. So who is the moron?

And shouldn't you be building bomb shelters in Rome, or something?

It wasn't just a professor. :facepalm:


Warren is a nutjob.
 
She's quite new in politics so I guess it's why she doesn't wanna run, she probably thinks she needs more experience. On the other hand, the fact that she's not one of these people who spent their lives in politics and that her days as a "regular" citizen are not far away makes her not as disconnected from the real life or "regular" citizens as other politicians are.
Could be a good thing to have a US president who knows what the life of its citizens actually looks like...

Conservatives would like us to think that Obama is a socialist, a liberal. They couldn't be more wrong : Obama is a crony cpaitalist, pro-corporations, pro-bankers, etc. And Hillary is even worse.
Warren is probably the only shot the Democrats (and al US Citizens. And the rest of the "civilised" world) have to hold banks accountable for what they do with people's money.

Democrats always win when they run progressive campaigns : In 2008, Hillary was the favorite but Obama came out of nowhere and won the lection with promises of "Hope" and "Change". But before that, he was nobody, the public didn't knew what he really stands for. Now we know... Warren is different : we already know what she stands for, we know that she's not lying when she says she's gona go after the banker : she promised to do so, she's now actually doing it. So If she runs for president and gets elected, she will go on, just 100x tougher. Or maybe she won't. Maybe DC will crush her, maybe the banking lobby will brake her. But if she can't make it, no one else can.
If you're fed up seeing the stock-market sky-rocketting when you can't even remember when was the last time you had a raise, you only have one shot to try change this and her name is Warren.

The only thing that bother me with her is that we know little about where she stands on other topics, like ISIS, relations with allied western nations, Putin, Ukraine, the Patriot Act, NSA wire-tapping, TAFTA, Net Neutrality, Freedom of Religion/Freedom from Religion, the Death Penalty, gay rights, immigration, etc.
 
I don't want Clinton either but what if the republican nominee is Ted Cruz? Choice between the lesser of two serious evils at that point. Is there a republican out there who would be an acceptable alternative to Clinton? Is there anyone who can really mount a serious challenge to Hillary if Warren won't run (and I don't think she will....not in 2016 at least)? Would Warren be acceptable to enough independents to swing the election her way if she were to somehow become the democratic nominee? :dunno:

I'm not sure who in the Republican field that might run that I would vote for.
Romney - Nope
Christie - There was a moment in time, but nope
Cruz - Nope
I like Ben, but he isn't realistically going to be viable and I'm not sure of his leadership ability.
I'd vote for Pete King, but understand there are times I partake in too much Gentleman Jack. (yes, he isn't running)

So, Clinton or Warren? Warren hands down for me. Clinton or Cruz...more Gentleman Jack for me. Clinton or Christie, King, or Ben Carson - Any of the Republicans. Clinton or Romney....I'll flip a coin. Warren against any of the Republicans - Warren.


If you are a liberal then Elizabeth Warren seems to be the best choice. Hillary just seems to care about Hillary and the Clinton Political Machine.
I agree

My crystal ball says that if Liz manages to squeak, Obama-like, past Hillary; she takes the general election in a walk. There is no Republican, Cruz or otherwise that can hope to win against her. It all comes down to our dipshit fellow Democrats actually voting intelligently. Once the debates happen, the independents will see the writing on the wall and Warren will be elected by landslide.

I would consider voting for Cruz, if he's running against Hillary. Let "Sam I Am" set the country on fire for 4 years, get a Democratic House and Senate in 2020, and that's when Liz would take the White House too. Just like letting a forest fire run its course to let the new growth have its chance.

I'm reading periodic headlines that there's a faction that wants Romney to run again. That would be exquisite.

Thoughtful post. Interesting.

Elizabeth Warren is a moron. :tongue:


It wasn't just a professor. :facepalm:


Warren is a nutjob.

If ignorance is bliss, then I am happy for you. You are a very cheerful fellow.
 
It's not, and I am not ignorant to Warren the idiot.

You know what?

I took a shot at you just for having an opinion different than mine. I was wrong to do that. Sorry. I apologize.
 

Mayhem

Banned
Our Nation's Most Important Verb Conjugation Is All About Elizabeth Warren

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...erb-conjugation-is-all-about-elizabeth-warren

Elizabeth Warren said it again, and again. She's not running for president. This time, Warren was talking to NPR's Steve Inskeep, who like many in Washington, pointed out that Warren keeps using the present tense when she describes her presidential aspirations–leaving open the possibility that she might run in the future, like in the first quarter of 2015.


INSKEEP: You're putting that in the present tense, though. Are you never going to run?

WARREN: I am not running for president.

INSKEEP: You're not putting a "never" on that.

WARREN: I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?

The interview caught the attention of both the right and the far left—with the Republican National Committee blasting out the remarks in an email where they noted that "Democratic insiders aren't buying" her denials. Within minutes, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee also focused on Warren's words, shooting out an email that recounts the work that the group has done for her. "The way for Democrats to inspire the public is to give Americans the debate about big ideas that we deserve–and that means following Elizabeth Warren's lead," said S tephanie Taylor, the committee's co-founder.

This debate about the senator's choice of verb tense has been going on since at least last year, when the New Republic floated the notion that a Warren candidacy would amount to a "nightmare" for Hillary Clinton. Shortly after that piece hit the newsstands in late 2013, the Boston Globe's Noah Bierman questioned Warren at length during a news conference. Bierman honed in on her verb choice, got the now-standard rebuff, and then tried another angle of attack that Washington journalists might find more fruitful to copy: Will Warren promise to finish her six-year term in the Senate? (She's up again in 2018.)

Warren's answer in December 2013: "I pledge to serve out my full term."

Since then a number of groups have been trying to change Warren's mind, including the Ready for Warren super-PAC, MoveOn.org and a group of former staff to President Barack Obama. She also took center stage over the weekend arguing against the $1.1 trillion cromnibus legislation because of riders that water down regulations on financial institutions, which is partly what prompted Inskeep to revisit the verb conjugation question.

It's a quandary for any politician, who generally are advised to never-say-never to the presidential question. After all, no one can predict with certainty the dynamics of a race.

Leaving that tiny amount of wiggle room keeps her relevant—and leaves the national media and her legions of supporters scrutinizing her words—without exposing her to the criticism she would attract during a national campaign. That national network gives her power, it's useful for raising cash, for flooding the Senate phone lines when a key piece of legislation is being debated and filling auditoriums when she's out campaigning. (We don't see photos of half-empty Warren events, unlike another star Democrat.) Those legions of supporters allow her to be both an insider and an outsider at the same time, a space that few in Washington manage to occupy. (Ted Cruz too is doing it—another who is making the 2016 lists.)

In "A Fighting Chance," Warren remembers a conversation with Harvard's Larry Summers at the Bombay Club, a clubby Washington restaurant near the White House. “He teed it up this way: I had a choice. I could be an insider, or I could be an outsider,” Warren wrote. Outsiders would have a voice that the masses might listen to, but the decision-makers behind closed doors would ignore her. Insiders keep their opinions to themselves and get access to important people. “Insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders,” Summers said, she wrote. “I had been warned.”

It's a rule that just isn't applying to Elizabeth Warren. She's shown little restraint this year criticizing President Barack Obama. She also just got promoted to be in Senate Leadership.
 
Heck yeah and a bag o' chips! It must be that time of year again. Let's band together to increase the peace then pool our resources so we can throw our egg nog all over a sad, lonely hooker's face.

Is that dinner at your house? ;)
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I don't want Clinton either but what if the republican nominee is Ted Cruz? Choice between the lesser of two serious evils at that point.


Agreed. But the question would be, which represents the lesser evil? :dunno:
 
Top