Outside the Asylum

taz6_0.jpg

Come outside.

I rarely use this OT to talk about political candidates or elections, because a lot of the discourse around political candidates and elections resides firmly Inside the Asylum. Today, however, I wanted to take a moment to talk about Elizabeth Warren.

Consider this an aperitif, because I have now got my new laptop computer and a new writing set up so that I can write somewhere other than the rec room. (Well, it's actually a laptop I inherited from Kate, but it's capable of connecting to a wireless network, which is more than my laptop can do anymore). Now that I've got those ducks in a row, I expect to be writing much more often than once a week. And there's a lot to say about Elizabeth Warren, not as a person or a politician, but as an object of discourse. More on that later. Here's the aperitif:

aperitif.jpg

I know some of you don't like watching videos, so I will transcribe what Warren said just below.

Elizabeth Warren: "I'm just gonna be blunt. I do not believe in unilateral disarmament. We gotta go into these fights and we gotta be willing to win these fights."

Chris Hayes: "So this just applies to the primary, like, were you to get the nomination, were anyone else to get the nomination, like, just raise all the money you can, however you can."

Cenk Uygur: "So, does this only apply in the primaries, or will you carry this over to the general election, or any other election you'll have going forward?"

Elizabeth Warren: "So, this is for primaries. Look, I do not believe in unilateral disarmament. We need a lot of power, a lot of dark money, a lot of SuperPACs, all to the fight. >We play by the same rules, and in that one I say, we gotta be all in."

In case you missed that, the progressive Elizabeth Warren, enemy of Wall St, defender of the innocent against Trump, just said that in order to be "all in" for the fight against Trump "we" need lots of dark money and SuperPACs because "we" all play by the same rules.

There's a lot to unpack here. Let me take it a point at a time.

1)WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA

This point does not come directly from Warren's words, but is an underlying assumption not only of her campaign, but of most of the Democratic campaigns. I don't know if you've noticed this, but we are no longer fighting Republicans. We haven't been fighting Republicans since 2015.

Now, of course, from one point of view, the Democrats haven't been fighting Republicans for a long time, if ever. This is the "it's a big club and you ain't in it" point of view. Carlin's point about the illusory nature of partisan conflict--at least among politicians and the elites--is true. But that's not something that was ever admitted to publicly, nor could it be. After all, the whole point of this pro wrestling show we call D.C. politics is to display a fake conflict so we can avoid having a real one.

The need to get the public to buy into a fake conflict has only increased as conditions worsen for most of the people of the world. After all, the worse conditions become, the more likely it is that people will get fed up and direct their displeasure toward those responsible. So it's all the more important that we buy into the Democrats fighting an individual bad guy who can take the attention off all the other bad guys who run banks, Fortune 500 companies, and the CIA, to say nothing of the bad guys who run political parties on behalf of all the other bad guys.

However, the heel in this pro wrestling rivalry is no longer the Republican Party. We still have the good-guy Democrats on one side, but now Bush Republicans are their allies--not in a clandestine way, but right out in the open. We're all supposed to think Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz and Dick Painter and Bob Kagan and Bill Krystol and the whole gang are our friends--because they don't like Trump either. In fact, we're supposed to think that we didn't know how good we had it under George W. Bush.

So when we go "all in" for this fight, remember that it's not a fight against Bush administration people or policies, or Republican people or policies generally. It's a fight against Trump. Non-Trump Republicans are our friends.

Now that we've got that settled, on to:

2. THE GREAT GAME

The overarching aim of these conversations between Warren and Chris Hayes, Warren and Cenk Uygur, is to change progressives' minds about taking big money donations. Warren's words are designed to make taking that money acceptable, even moral, rather than being a sign of corruption. Getting Cenk Uygur involved in disseminating that framing is important, since Uygur was involved in creating the Justice Democrats, whose calling card was that they took no corporate money. If you want to get critics of money in politics to abandon their criticisms, it's a good idea to use a public figure who made a big deal out of opposing money in politics a little while ago, just like if you want to make taking large amounts of money from Wall St acceptable, it's a good idea to use a public figure who criticized Wall St all through the 2008 crash. So big donor contributions from anywhere, including large donations hidden from the public eye, are all moral now, measures of our commitment to fight Trump.

But what is this new frame we've put around big money donations?

You may have noticed Warren repeatedly using the words "unilateral disarmament."

boom.jpg

In the 1980s, opposing "unilateral disarmament" was the calling card of Reagan Republicans, as it was of various warmongers previous to them. Their argument went something like this: These stupid peaceniks with their high-minded ideals don't understand that we live in a dangerous world with bad men. We can't afford their morality in such a dangerous world. We face an existential threat which requires that we keep lots of--well, lots of these:

boombang.jpg

Those purist nincompoops will get us all killed with their fancy, ivory-tower morality. It's their morality that threatens to get us killed--not these

boombang.jpg

We're smart, pragmatic people who live in the world as it is, and we know that to battle The Bad Guy we have to avail ourselves of all possible weapons without scruple. After all, as another warmonger once stated, we have to deal with the world as we find it.

So when Elizabeth Warren repeats the words "unilateral disarmament," she is using the frame of the Cold War. More specifically, she's using the frame of the Great Game: the competition, through espionage and other means, between the Soviet Union and the United States. That's why she also speaks of playing a game, saying "we play by the same rules." This is the language of the missile gap: we have to do the morally questionable thing because our enemies will do it, and if we don't do it, they will get ahead of us, and that is appeasement, weakness, or tomfoolery. It's not actually possible to change the game, or play another one:

There's a great deal to say about this. First, one could note that a person who doesn't believe it's possible to change the game of politics is unlikely to change the results of politics. In other words, the "same rules" that everyone plays by have produced the political results we currently live under, including the presidency of Donald Trump. That's obvious to everyone who hasn't bought into the notion that the perfidy of the Kremlin is to blame.

From_Russia_with_Love_–_UK_cinema_poster.jpg

Elizabeth Warren is, thus, basically saying the same thing that Joe Biden is: nothing will be changed. She's saying it more adroitly, and with a more earnest face, but the message is the same.

There's too much packed into the use of the nuclear arms race as the metaphor for taking massive amounts of money from donors to go into it all here. However, before moving on, we should note that Elizabeth Warren just referred to an American general election the way most people would refer to an arms race against a foreign power.

I suppose I should be grateful that this time a leading Democratic candidate referred to gaining one's political will through nuclear deterrence rather than through actual bloodshed:

But as a member of one of the two Cold War generations in this country, I continue to be horrified at the cavalier way with which politicians throw these ideas and words around, as if they weren't a matter of the most deadly seriousness. I also continue to be astounded that the same liberals who marched with me against these ideas in the 1980s have no problem with the Cold War rhetoric they once opposed. Again, at least this time it *is* a metaphor, rather than actual foreign policy; at least this time I don't have to hear that we need to make sure our nuclear arsenal is prepared for any threats we might receive:

But on the down side, this time I *do* have to hear a candidate from a major party refer to her upcoming contest against a sitting President in terms of preparing for war. It used to be that Americans frowned on the notion of comparing a political contest to war, cold or hot. We competed with each other as rivals, as opponents--but not as enemies. There was supposed to be a difference between a domestic, non-violent political rivalry, and international conflict.

3. THERE'S A BEAR IN THE WOODS

This aperitif is becoming more like several rounds of drinks at the local bar, so I'll try to wrap this up.

Since 2016, Democrats have been using the same rhetorical strategy that George W. Bush used to garner support for the Iraq War and decimate the legal and moral infrastructure of this country. It's the same strategy Reagan once used to vastly expand the military industrial complex. You see, there's a bad man out there who means us harm. This presents an existential threat to our democracy. In other words, it's now OK to do whatever cruel or crazy thing we want to, no holds barred. We can't think about the finer points of morality at a time like this. The wolf is at the door. The bear is in the woods. Anybody who thinks we should restrain ourselves with rules or moral precepts is a traitor, a weakling, or a fool. Anyone who questions our actions and choices is likewise a traitor, a weakling, or a fool. We have to be all in against the Bad Man.

4. WHICH BAD MAN? WHICH WAR?

But what if my Bad Man isn't Warren's? Or, to put it more clearly, what if Warren, from my standpoint, looks like she's defending taking lots of money from the Bad Men who started posing existential threats to me decades before Donald Trump ever considered going into politics? What if it looks, to me, like Warren is defending taking money from people who have made a lifetime career out of posing existential threats to everyone except themselves?

I don't like imagining political contests as wars, cold or hot.

But if there were a war against Bad Men, people who give dark money donations wouldn't be on my side.

Share
up
32 users have voted.

Comments

mjsmeme's picture

she was (and still is) a republican to her core

up
19 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@mjsmeme

Damn, it looks like Susan Sarandon was more correct than she knew!

up
19 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

ovals49's picture

discourse that I’ve read in a long time. In a world gone mad, anyone “going along to get along” in the political arena is just another cog in the wheel that has been crushing us.

Bravo, well put, well said!

up
26 users have voted.

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein

“And an uncomfortable truth is always superior to a comfortable fantasy.” Caitlin Johnstone

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@ovals49

I kind of can't deal with the repurposing of the nightmares of my childhood and teen years into Democratic talking points (I mean that quite literally; when I was a teenager I had recurring nightmares about nuclear war, including one where I was watching from space). And most of the people talking this way are my age or older! If it were people who never knew the Cold War, who were too young, it would be one thing, but how can someone who remembers those days possibly be OK with any of this?

up
17 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

ovals49's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
the “duck and cover” drills in grade school, as well as my older brother’s good morning wake-up joke “The Russians just sunk one of our subs!!” as the Cuban Missile Crisis was unfolding. Not funny, and something I never forgot.

Still, as an imperfectly realized human being, I am not immune to the debilitating and mind warping effects of fear, real or imagined.

If it were people who never knew the Cold War, who were too young, it would be one thing, but how can someone who remembers those days possibly be OK with any of this?

When people you trust tell you about a pernicious danger to you, your family and your country, it is almost impossible not to feel fear. Joseph Goebbels understood this well, and designed his propaganda take advantage of this tendency to unify the population in war against their “enemies”, to save them from “grave danger”. What many people do not see, or do not want to see, is that we now live in an environment saturated with more effective fear mongering and divisive propaganda than the Germans experienced during WWII.

I trust almost no one who is a part of the MSM, and question absolutely every declaration or fear engendering statement that comes out of the mouths of government representatives, candidates or employees. These people work to control and manipulate us, they do not work to serve us.

up
10 users have voted.

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein

“And an uncomfortable truth is always superior to a comfortable fantasy.” Caitlin Johnstone

snoopydawg's picture

@ovals49

She has been hyping up the Russian threat since Herheinous made it up. She scared people into believing that Russia hacked the energy grid and people were going to freeze to death. And every time Russia Gate tries to die she brings it up again as well as everyone else in the media whose job it is to push propaganda. You should look at the wreck list some time. Not a day goes by that there isn't a diary there about Trump and Vlad or Moscow Mitch. Senator Lee is in Russia right now for some reason and people are saying that he is there to get his marching orders from Putin.

There are a few diaries about Trump canceling the Taliban meeting and the comments are just sad. Look at the responses to the tweets. Almost every one of them say Trump is committing treason. Even Bernie is pushing this BS! Cold War take two.

up
9 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

lotlizard's picture

@snoopydawg  
the Greens and the Social Democrats going along with, and doing nothing to mobilize opposition to, the new Cold War anti-Russian myth-building on the part of the U.S. and European Atlanticist elites.

The German Greens started out as an anti-militarist peace party, the parliamentary arm of the popular movement opposing NATO deployment of nuclear-tipped Pershing missiles in the 1980s.

up
3 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

Do these people, Warren and her ilk, really believe their own schtick? Have they been conned by their own con? Do they really believe that they are the Good Guys, fighting for "truth, justice and the American Way"?

Or do they realize that they themselves are Bad Men, and are willfully and knowingly gaslighting us and imposing their brutal, corrupt, destructive regime onto Americans and the entire world?

I'm not sure which would be worse. Either way, they're insane. We're being ruled by crazy people. I mean that literally.

Over the past few weeks, I've lost whatever respect I had for Elizabeth Warren. By her actions, she's revealed herself to be part and parcel of the Dem establishment that does the bidding of the oligarchy.

The fact that she feels compelled to kiss Clinton butt demonstrates all we need to know about her ability to be a leader. She has none.

up
23 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Centaurea

that Warren doesn't know she's pushing propaganda. OTOH, she may have convinced herself that all this crap is justified (including dark money) because TRUMP!

Trump is a moral blank check for everyone who opposes him, or claims to. That's why I think they'll keep him in office. He's too useful to lose.

up
18 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Centaurea

why former Bernie supporters would switch this time to Warren, given what she did last time.

up
16 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Deja's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
At first, TYT seemed to be all in for Bernie, then he, especially iirc, flipped like a switch to Killary Koolaid. Almost like he got the same memo that kos got. You know, the one that announced who would be the party's candidate and the only one allowed to be supported, complete with talking points that Armando parroted, and either a shill or clueless dolt repeated, virtually word for word, in the same comments under the same diaries, over and over.

We have gorilla partisanship too. While Prez Cheney and his idiot W are now revered by those who used to pretend to detest them, the aisle has become more of a canyon when it comes to average people. Partisanship has become damn near militant. People actually hate each other based on political party affiliation. It's sickening.

Side note: I cannot hear/watch Warren speak without thinking that she's spoofing herself in an SNL skit. Guess it's just the way my brain works. She's a characature. *Pardon spelling. New phone and spell check that irritatingly likes to change what I tap out with my thumb.

up
16 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@Deja

that Cenk was working from the same memo as Kos. He did his pivot to Hillary shortly after Kos's infamous Ides of March edict and purge.

I remember the exact moment when it happened. It was the night of the New York Dem primary. Prior to that day, Cenk had always expressed fury at the Dem establishment. So the NY primary rolls around, and we all know the election shenanigans that were taking place.

Cenk was covering the NY election results live. During the first part of his show, he was his usual fiery self. Then he cut to a commercial break. When the show resumed, Cenk looked at the camera with a hang-dog expression on his face and said, "Let's face it, folks, it's not looking too good." From that point on, the fire was gone.

I recall sitting there, feeling like I had a case of whiplash, thinking "What the heck just happened here?"

up
9 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

travelerxxx's picture

@Centaurea

Wonder whether it has anything to do with this:

Uygur is taking money from Wall Street, a shadow industry that he ironically blasts on his programs, to the tune of $20 million to help pay for a massive expansion of the TYT Network. The progressive outlet hopes to add field reporters and increase ad revenues for their programming on YouTube as well as other online sources.

According to an article on The Wall Street Journal, Uygur is taking equity funds from 3L Capital, as well as venture capitalists Greycroft Partners, e.ventures, and WndrCo, an endeavor founded by Jeffrey Katzenberg, former chairman of Disney Studios.

I just picked one of the first hits in a search. The WSJ article is behind a paywall, btw.

up
10 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@travelerxxx
Also, if I recall correctly, shortly after the NY primary, TYT announced that they'd signed a contract with MSNBC for a project to be done during the 2016 general election season.

up
7 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Raggedy Ann's picture

I need to send this to my brother. We had a discussion last night about candidates. He is for Tulsi, but asked me about Warren. I told him she is who the DNC wants as she rises to the top with Biden and Sanders because, bottom line, if they can't have Biden, they want Warren, because, in their minds, SANDERS MUST NOT BE THE CANDIDATE! We had a good discussion of a Bernie/Tulsi ticket. He's on board.

IMHO, Warren cannot be trusted. I agree that she is rethuglican to her core.

I just got a new laptop, too. I'm so happy with it!

Have a beautiful Sunday, folks! Pleasantry

up
17 users have voted.

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

-- Voltaire

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Raggedy Ann

You and ovals have given me some serious compliments today.

up
7 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

up
6 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Lookout's picture

She likes war, but at least she wants to make our military green. Talk about missing the mark...
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/elizabeth-warrens-green-imperialism-is...
https://medium.com/dsa-detroit-newspaper/last-week-massachusetts-senator...

I dismissed her in 2016 when she lacked the courage to support Bernie and cozied up to the $hill. I will not support her if the give her the nomination.

Glad Dorian missed you last week!

up
15 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Lookout

Thinking about doing some kind of benefit for the Bahamians. Dear God, they took it in the face.

up
13 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Wally's picture

IdPol in NH. Nothing else matters.

up
11 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@Wally

who identifies as a second-wave feminist from the '70s, who remembers what it was like back then, and who dealt with a lot of sexist crap as one of the first wave of women in a formerly all male profession, I have to say I'm disgusted by the "we have to vote for her because she's a woman" stuff.

It's superficial and cynical, and in my opinion, it makes a mockery of what we went through back then.

up
15 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

@Centaurea I regard as mainly just another promotion angle for the campaign, another way to market their candidate, at least for this small group of backers in NH. When/if it gets to the point where the candidate herself is opening her stump speeches with, It's Time to Vote for a Woman! then it's gone too far in the IdPol direction.

How about though the other side of the coin -- people complaining that the only reason a voter is backing Liz is because of her gender? A little sexist perhaps? Do we hear people complain that the only reason someone is backing a male candidate is b/c of his type of genitalia? Not that often.

up
1 user has voted.
Wally's picture

@Centaurea

It works both and maybe even more ways that aren't typically even considered. It may work to solidify Warren's Democratic Party lily white professional upper middle class base but beyond that?

And actually, I've never looked at what percentage split there is in terms of her M/F supporters. Probably because I've never noticed anyone bringing it up. I just quickly tried to find something but came up blank.

Thing is, too, it seems as Snoopydawg has posted, these were mostly young staffers who were being (under)paid by Warren to be there to chant exactly what they were chanting.

up
4 users have voted.

@Wally stuff about noisy backers voicing their support for EW, thus inflating the actual level of local enthusiasm: all candidates, or the better campaigns anyway, arrange to have their supporters present and vocal at major political gatherings. Some candidates have the ability to round up more supporters, paid and volunteer, than others. So the implied notion that the Warren campaign is the only one to do this is misleading.

up
0 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

I recall when Bernie was regularly called on in 2016 to repudiate so much stuff that surrogates or even supporters said or did.

Maybe Warren should be called on to repudiate IdPol?

Would she?

I think not. I think it's very fine with her. And her top people, and maybe even she, directed it.

And the stacked signs were a bit much, too. Nice article in Medium methinks (see my Tues afternoon "essay" about it.

up
1 user has voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Centaurea

Daughter of a second-waver here. She had me young enough that I was busy being a feminist in the 80s. And you know what? This stuff IS a mockery, even of what we had in the 80s. Can't imagine what feminists from the sixties and seventies feel.

up
6 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Have no votes of any consequence. I am in a deeply red state. So it really doesn't matter much to me what I think or want. I will probably make another green protest vote. Most likely that will be how I vote for the remainder of my life unless I move to a state that is a toss-up state. Then I guess I will really have to consider the lesser of two evils. But as long as I live in a hard core red state, the most I can hope to be is part of the cheer squad high up in the cheap seats. There is nothing happening that would make me want to join a cheer squad or even pay for a cheap seat at the political arena.

up
9 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@davidgmillsatty

I've often voted Green in November.

But I won't be voting at all in November 2020 or ever again if Bernie doesn't pull off the miracle.

Won't matter.

up
8 users have voted.
MsDidi's picture

I agree that Warren is essentially a stalking horse for big money interests. Her cleverness in adopting Bernie’s lines is beginning to show itself as a bit of a ruse. Unfortunately, she is better at selling Bernie’s ideas than he is -- her appeal is to those who want a safe version of Bernie -- who like his ideas but are afraid of having to endure substantive and radical change in order to get there. And of course, they won’t get ‘there’ if they ride this Trojan Horse to the finish line!

So Liz is here to tell us we can get there without so much disruption. Her acknowledgment in the climate debate that she would leave private control of utilities intact is telling. In the end, she is a muckraker -- don’t dismantle the big money interests, just regulate them! Give the big guys more rules to follow while leaving them intact. And then have them write the rules for themselves.

I think we all know the ending of that movie. It isn’t accidental that her favorite president is Teddy Roosevelt -- that individualistic rebel who helped to further colonize the American Indian and to extend U.S. imperialism -- all while appealing to the notion that the little guy can fight back by just being a rough and ready individualist.

Her theme song of “fight back” or “this fight is our fight” is designed to appeal to the soft underbelly of the middle class who know they’ve been taking it on the nose but don’t want to get “too radical” here. Her schoolgirl innocence in explaining that her grandmother told her she was part Indian is belied by the way that Harvard used that position aggressively to argue that their faculty was already 'diverse.'

The DNC is playing the ‘anybody but Bernie’ game on many fronts. Their first choice would be Biden, but they know that he is unlikely to weather the storms of the primary. By flooding the primary with multiple candidates, they can assure that Bernie doesn’t win on the first ballot and that they broker the result. If Biden’s support withers later in the game, the fact that many of his voters would likely go with Bernie may already have been neutralized by Warren’s ‘fortitude.” With Warren appearing on the leftward flank and Buttigieg in the middle (capturing much of the Wall Street money as he opens 20 offices in 20 days in Iowa) the party’s power brokers have reinforced their flanks with candidates whom they can rally round on the second ballot.

When Warren refused to endorse Bernie in 2016, one had to question why. She stood up the next day and shouted, “I’m with Her!” -- a huge slap in the face to the Bernie forces who had been intimidated and shamefully dismissed at Hillary’s convention -- while Michelle Obama babbled about "going high." Indeed she is still coordinating with Hillary and the neo-libs -- today’s news reports frequent contact between the two.

Those who are hungry for a woman president are simply putting their hands in the sand and refusing to acknowledge all the open clues Warren is giving to the establishment that 'she’s with them.' And she is spending considerable time in private meetings in Washington to assure the party powerful that they can be assured of her toeing the line in the end.

Never forget that they never actually counted the votes in California in 2016 before declaring Hillary the Queen. And remind yourself daily that when Bernie supporters sued the DNC for these electoral shenanigans, the DNC said it doesn’t really have to have primaries nor to abide by the votes of the rank and file, arguing that it’s their decision in the end who they run.

Sound a little bit like the Republicans in South Carolina?

up
23 users have voted.

@MsDidi really good post.

up
7 users have voted.
Anja Geitz's picture

@MsDidi

Never forget that they never actually counted the votes in California in 2016 before declaring Hillary the Queen.

I live in California and voted for Bernie. Between never counting my vote, and the crude Machiavellian tactics Hillary & Co. used at the convention, Demexit-ing was a no-brainer.

up
4 users have voted.

Play me another broken record Joe. Maybe then I'll learn why we pay twice as much for healthcare as everybody else in the world. ~ Not Henry Kissinger

Wally's picture

Scoopy Snoopy caught this one already but it's worth repeating.

Warren sez she wants to cut the military budget but won't answer question why she voted twice for Trump's military budgets and even voted to increase them:

up
15 users have voted.

@Wally question to pose to EW, as compared to several other misleading, debunked, or junk news items I see thrown at her in this thread.

Obvious question to pose to her in the next debate this week. Kamala could use a boost in the polls. Bootajudge too. There's even a way for Bernie to pose it directly to her w/o doing so in a negative personal way: "Sen Warren I consider a good friend. We agree on many things. Just not on some of the votes we've cast in recent years to fund the Pentagon. Sen Warren voted, for whatever reason, to give the military still more billions. I voted against ..."

Other legit question: her unfortunate, tone deaf decision to accept money from big contributors after the primaries, including dark money.

There are in contrast the junk/debunked/misleading/trivial items which seem to get some folks riled up here which will have zero interest for 99.9% of Dem primary voters, among which: the fact that she switched parties later in life; her declining to endorse during the 2016 primary contest then endorsing when the candidate had the nom in hand; her saying some nice words about Repub prez TR (presumably for his famous trust-busting activities, not for the colonialism).

up
2 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

Bernie rising all around and ahead or in statistical ties with Biden in 3 out of four states (edit/correction).

Liz seems to have reached her ceiling given her limited base.

up
3 users have voted.

@Wally much into ceilings right now for Liz. She seems to be up trending, so who knows the ceiling.

By contrast, Uncle Joe seems to have a while back hit his ceiling and now begun the downward slide several of us have predicted, with increasing signs of a declining mental state which even the blind and deaf of the MSM can detect.

I'm not worried about Sanders -- he is a steady presence and shows no signs of decline, even being a little older than Joe. One question though is whether he would continue to just basically stick to discussing the issues while Liz threatens to surpass him in some early states.

up
3 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

Leading in Nevada:

• NEW HAMPSHIRE — BERNIE IN VIRTUAL TIE FOR FIRST: The CBS poll shows Bernie has gained 5 points since July -- and is now is a virtual three-way tie for first place.

Oh, one other new factoid: A brand new Essence poll finds Bernie is now leading the entire field among younger African American women: https://www.essence.com/feature/black-womens-roundtable-survey-results-2...

Also, I don't care all that much about her flipping a couple houses or mansions or whatever. But I do know and care she ain't never flipped burgers; rather she's always been pretty damn entitled moneywise and has always gotten richer and richer, obscenely rich in my working class background estimation. That wouldn't be a reason for me not to vote for her, however.

Warren's deal breakers for me begin with her voting for and increasing Trump's military budget. And there are many more.

up
3 users have voted.

@Wally on the houses b/c the story is untrue, wildly misleading at best. No flipping occurred and no mansions were involved -- only rather normal buying and selling time frames re modest property in the modest OKC r/e market. It's RW spin designed to damage EW politically back in the 2016 cycle, a debunked old story resurrected here to try to damage her again. But if you know of a solid piece of reporting that debunks the debunking BG story, please, I'll be happy to look at it. Otherwise it's just junk, political propaganda.

I'm for Bernie (and Tulsi) but have a policy of not unfairly smearing other candidates. As you yourself noted the other day, Liz has questions to answer on her fundraising in the past and her intents on big donor fundraising for the general. Also her lack of plan (so far) on M4A -- an unusual omission for someone noted for all her plans. Plenty right there to go after her on, w/o having to resort to junk stories.

As to trends, both Bernie and Liz show upward mo. Bernie, importantly, as you note in some of the early voting states. Liz a little there in the early states, but more noticeable in national surveys. Obviously since we don't have a national primary, the individual state polls are far more important.

But here is more from CBS/YouGov polling: Liz edging ahead above Biden and Sanders in voter preference in early primary states (18 surveyed). Again, this is both interesting and somewhat misleading as all 18 don't vote on the same day, and as we know voters preferences can be influenced greatly by how candidates do in the first 2-3 primaries. Bandwagon effect and all that.

One of several interesting takeaways from that above poll: 8 of 10 Bernie backers would be either satisfied (my position) or enthusiastic if Warren were the nominee. This is in huge contrast to those who post here (99% would not be either satisfied or enthusiastic if EW were the nom; I represent 100% of the 1% ...)

up
1 user has voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

No way I will ever vote for Warren unless she's Bernie's VP pick come November (unless she ups Yang's ante by say $99,000 by writing me a personal check to vote for her in the primary). Again, I don't think she would ever accept a VP offer from Bernie.

Of course, all these polls are fun to play with but there is so much contradictory information coming out of different ones that all we can really do at this point is play with them.

I'd also across the board tack on 5-10 pts to all the percentages Bernie gets. He sure regularly outperformed them all in 2016.

up
2 users have voted.

@Wally contradictions is that Morning Consort poll I cited the other day with the jarring finding that the 2d choice for most Bernie backers is Biden. Then we have the CBS/YGov poll showing that half or so of Bernie backers would be dissatisfied/very unhappy with a Biden nom. Of the two, I prefer to think the latter poll is more accurate. If not, the political world has really gone topsy turvy and is beyond proper analysis.

Agree too that Bernie's support might be undercounted, in major part b/c of the MSM coverage which not only doesn't pump for him, but often denies, disregards or downplays the positive stories about him.

Meanwhile, still fairly early in the race for most primary voters, Biden still enjoys artificially inflated numbers, probably owing primarily to name recognition alone. He's already hit his artificial ceiling and has nowhere to go but down.

up
1 user has voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@wokkamile

You shouldn't care on the houses b/c the story is untrue, wildly misleading at best. No flipping occurred and no mansions were involved -- only rather normal buying and selling time frames re modest property in the modest OKC r/e market. It's RW spin designed to damage EW politically back in the 2016 cycle, a debunked old story resurrected here to try to damage her again. But if you know of a solid piece of reporting that debunks the debunking BG story, please, I'll be happy to look at it. Otherwise it's just junk, political propaganda.

I am asking you stop posting stuff like this. You are certainly entitled to your opinion here, but so are the rest of us.

I posted articles from other websites that backed up the story and as I said it has been in the news since the crash. You may not believe it is true but again you don't get to continue telling us that it isn't. Did you do a search to see how many websites were reporting it? Did you actually look at the one I posted because if you did you would see that there were links in it that showed what she did. Did you read any of my links? I read yours, but there were more that said that she indeed did the deed. SHE flipped houses. Period. And lent money to her family so they could do it. Was it wrong of her to do it? Up to everyone to decide, but it was her saying that Trump wants a recession so he could do it that makes her a hypocrite. IMO of course.

This is in huge contrast to those who post here (99% would not be either satisfied or enthusiastic if EW were the nom;

Please stop deriding those of us who have either chosen another candidate or who have chosen to stop being involved in this farce after what happened in the last election. If you or others have a favorite candidate and still want to vote for them that is fine. This is a non partisan site. How many times do you need to be reminded of that?

up
4 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

Wally's picture

@snoopydawg

I don't think it means that somebody can't be partisan towards this or that candidate but I may be wrong.

ISTM to be non-partisan, the "site," however that is defined, need only not require endorsement of this or that candidate (or non-participation in electoral politics) and not expect posters to endorse this or that candidate (or no candidate). Maybe I'm missing something.

up
1 user has voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Wally

An activity usually inspired by some form of partisanship.

It's too bad that that's the kind of political parties we have in this country--trying to maintain credibility by scapegoating voters--but they have to find credibility somewhere. And if they don't effectively silence or discredit their critics, they'll have none.

up
7 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Wally's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

And can an individual who believes that the electoral system is total bullshit engage in voter shaming somebody who shows partisanship towards this or that candidate?

up
1 user has voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Wally

Here's my definition of voter-shaming:

Voter-shaming (n): The act of shaming a citizen for their use, or refusal to use, the franchise. Includes shaming based on choice of candidate, choice of party, and choice of whether to engage with the electoral system. Distinct from simple disagreement or dissent in its attack on the credibility or personal character of one's opponent.

Shame (n): a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior.

Disagreement (n):

a)the act, state, or fact of disagreeing.

b)Lack of agreement; diversity; unlikeness.

c)difference of opinion; dissent.

d) quarrel; dissension; argument.

Dissent (n): difference of opinion

a : religious nonconformity

b law : a justice's nonconcurrence with a decision of the majority

c : political opposition to a government or its policies

In other words, I can think that your decision to vote is all wrong, and rationally point out my basis for saying so. That is not an attack on your character. It's an attack on a choice you've made--if it's an attack at all. It might simply be a disagreement--depends on whether the person arguing with you has the intent to change your mind or change other people's minds about you. Some do. Others simply want to point out why they won't go along with your choices, and why they made theirs.

up
6 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Wally's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

Thanks.

I can imagine, though, that one person's feeling of being shamed is another person's idea of reasonably disagreeing.

I'm glad I'm not a moderator.

up
2 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@wokkamile

She's basically running a whitebread version of Obama's campaign, with less inspirational rhetoric.

up
7 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal underestimate EW's ability to attract non-white and non-well to do voters. She was very enthusiastically received at a recent AA forum in SC -- energetic personality to go with a good policy program. I would expect she will get a decent share of the Biden voters in SC when the many AA voters there finally realize their guy is slipping mentally as he goes into the deep twilight period of his life. And she has not been out there condemning the Obama admin for its failures.

Bootajudge I think is your whitebread candidate. Ditto Klobuchar. Not that these two matter.

up
1 user has voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@wokkamile

What's more whitebread is her. Obviously, she is more whitebread than Obama. She is a white woman from Oklahoma. That's more whitebread than Barack Obama, a black man (or mixed-race, if you prefer--whatever you find less offensive) from Hawaii.

up
4 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

snoopydawg's picture

@wokkamile

misleading, debunked, or junk news items I see thrown at her in this thread.

Or what has been debunked or considered misleading? Or what others feel is important to them when deciding on a candidate.

There are in contrast the junk/debunked/misleading/trivial items which seem to get some folks riled up here which will have zero interest for 99.9% of Dem primary voters, among which: the fact that she switched parties later in life;

She stayed a republican while Reagan was dismantling the unions. Social programs and not doing a gawd damn thing while thousands of Americans died from AIDS. She became a democrat after ByeDone's bankruptcy bill? Why not when Bill gutted welfare? Or when he passed NAFTA. Or deregulated the banks? She didn't feel it was important to pay attention to what the less fortunate were going through?

And as for this.

her declining to endorse during the 2016 primary contest then endorsing when the candidate had the nom in hand;

Did she actually have it in hand or was it just rigged to make people think she did? The California primary was called for her a day before people even voted and then the votes were never counted. Do you not know this or are you once again being selective with what you want to believe? You throw so much crap out and no matter how many times people show you proof that you are wrong you still do it.

The Virginia delegates should have gone to Bernie at the convention, but they went to Hillary. People have posted videos and articles about it here many times. This is fair in your mind?

up
11 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

enhydra lutris's picture

bare so much, about warn, the Dems, the GOP, most of the candidates and most of the "players", and that indeed they re, playing with our lives, psyches, mores and morality. Meme pushers who intend none but themselves any benefit.

I love the way you were able to encapsulate the overall net effect and impact into one simple line:

What if it looks, to me, like Warren is defending taking money from people who have made a lifetime career out of posing existential threats to everyone except themselves?

and one simple action principle:

But if there were a war against Bad Men, people who give dark money donations wouldn't be on my side.

Thanks, I've clipped this for future use and reference.

up
14 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

magiamma's picture

Great thread. I will be stealing this for talking points. So there. Thanks so much. Have a good one...

up
11 users have voted.

Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation

Hot Air Website, Twitter, Facebook

I’m sure you know I’m agreeing. Everyday, I am more and more convinced Warren will be the nominee. She personifies the DNC’s goal of “better branding” to a T and she can tick off some IdPol boxes (how many is open to question) and she serves as a proper anti-Trump.

The thing that gets me is how it seems the mere act of saying the right things seems to be enough to avoid closer scrutiny from too many people. Wasn’t being so desperate to have a major politician acknowledge the problems of the middle class how we got trump in the first place?

It’s funny how things are so hyper partisan and yet people don’t seem to be the least bit suspicious of someone who jumped parties. I mean, isn’t that at least a human interest story? It’s almost like it’s verboten to mention Liz switching registrations. If it came down to Trump vs. Warren, we all do realize we’d have a Republican who used to be a Democrat running against a Democrat who used to be a Republican, right?

Of course if that was the way it shakes out (and I’m thinking it might be), I just don’t think Warren will win. She’s not as polarizing as Her was and she will likely pick up a lot of never Trumpers. And I know she does have her supporters, but so did Her.

However, one of the many things the Democrats are failing to realize is that while their buddies in the Republican Party may say bad things about trump, there are a lot more actual voters who are looking forward to voting for him again. It’s easy to laugh and point at these “deplorables” but no Dem, aside from Sanders, is inspiring that kind of dedication. I live in the Midwest. I see it. His supporters are way more pumped up than those of any other Republican I’ve seen in my life anyway.

The Dems still think just not being Trump is going to be enough, especially if they can co-opt Sander’s message. I think they are going to be sadly mistaken. Of course, it’s heads the win, tails we lose anyway. Even if Warren wins, nothing really changes. If she loses, they can say “see! We tried that progressive stuff and it failed” and nothing else really changes.

(On a personal level though, I’m really not looking forward to it. I hated talking politics with friends at that time but at least most of them could finally accept I had valid reasons for not voting for Her. For most of them, who won’t really start paying attention until after the primaries, it’s going to look like cutting of my nose to spite my face when I won’t support Warren. I try to avoid these conversations but people always ask me things because they know I read a lot. Unfortunately they rarely like my answers. Heh.)

up
9 users have voted.

@Dr. John Carpenter I keep saying over and over that people on the coasts have no clue what flyover America thinks. Trump won 84.3% of the counties, lost the popular vote significantly, and then handily won the EC. And Sanders to my mind, is the only Democratic candidate who appeals to suburban and rural America. Howard Dean said Sanders had a knack for appealing to rural people who never vote liberal.

I have certainly lost my enthusiasm for Sanders after backing HRC and Russiagate. I don't think his labor union solutions work in an economy of financial capitalism (what we have now) like they worked for industrial capitalism (what we used to have thirty or forty years ago). I think he is great on healthcare and education.

I think his notion that we can put lots of people to work ramping up renewables is a bad idea because the more labor intensive energy is the higher the cost of energy and the cost of energy needs to be kept very low for the middle class and poor and for businesses. Low cost energy is why I think we need nuclear and I have written about Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors on this blog and why they were the nuclear we were promised and never got. We need lots of energy and it has to be cheap -- cheaper than coal -- and that is what LFTRs bring to the table. If you don't know about LFTRs here is an article I wrote for another blog and pasted it here almost two years ago.

https://www.thecommunityforum.life/post/thorium-nuclear-power-using-molt...

It is a radically different kind of nuclear. If Sanders gets on board with LFTRs he would have my vote because they can be made assembly line fashion like planes or ships. From very small to very large. That would provide good labor prospects similar to airplane manufacturing, cheap energy for here, and for export.

There is a chance I will be moving to Iowa in the spring of 2020. If that happens maybe I will vote lesser of two evils. Otherwise, I will vote Green again in the general. May vote for Sanders in the primary.

up
5 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

Literally lmao here because that is exactly what Liz did after the housing crisis. She bought foreclosed houses and flipped them. This was such fun that she started lending money to her family at a higher interest rate to let them get in on the fun.

Wow, if that is not the definition of the pot calling the kettle black or just full blown hypocrisy I don't know what is.

up
7 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

travelerxxx's picture

@snoopydawg

She bought foreclosed houses and flipped them.

I followed the 2007-8 meltdown and associated fallout like a hawk, and this is the first time I've heard this. Could you point me to some links (no videos, please, unless there's nothing in text)?

up
3 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@travelerxxx

Warren the foreclosure queen

This came out years ago, but fortunately it's making the rounds on Twitter again. The article shows how she went after Mnunchin for what he did during the foreclosure crisis which her fellow candidate Kambama didn't prosecute.

IMG_3727.PNG

The hypocrisy is staggering isn't it?

up
6 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg Repub Senatorial Comm'ee? Good grief.

Boston Globe debunked this story 3 yrs ago.

No "flipping" of houses involved. Mortgage loans by EW or spouse to family members on small-time property in the OKC area. Only several homes purchased out of foreclosure. None in the wake of the 2008 r/e crash. Profits, to the extent those can be calculated, were small-time in that small-time r/e market.

But I would be interested to see if you can provide a valid story, not from Republican party or other confirmed RW sources, which debunks the BG debunking story.

RW talking points, long ago debunked. If they had been legit charges, why do you imagine such allegations wouldn't have been raised by now, 8 months into the primary process, by either the MSM or other candidates, not to mention the many pro-Bernie podcasters out there?

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@wokkamile

Here's the Boston Herald

Yahoo News

Do your own search and see how many hits there are on this.

There is nothing wrong with using what you consider right wing websites here. I trust more of them than I do WaPoo and the New York Slimes or CNN and MSDNC. This story has been out since she started doing that. For gawd's sake the mainstream news has been out and out lying to us for two plus years about Russia Russia Russia. You trust "left wing" sources? Fine. But don't tell the rest of us what is acceptable here.

up
9 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

@snoopydawg is trying to thread nanny, but just point out the obvious horrendously biased source. Worth noting. You said nothing.

And no, on anything touching on politics, I wouldn't uncritically cite to an NRSC story about anything or anyone, least of all allegations about a Dem.

Obviously the MSM has major flaws, as we all know. In certain areas like R-gate they are not to be trusted. But by and large on a lot of the rest, often enough, apart from a few major controversies, they can be considered a legit source of news.

On this non-story they have the debunking goods. Again, if there were a debunking of the debunking story, we would be hearing a lot more about Liz's flipping/foreclosure problem.

We don't b/c this story never got traction as it was bogus from the start.

But for Liz haters in the political contest, it is understandable it would be trotted out once in a while to try to smear her.

up
2 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@wokkamile

How daily kos of you to say that. Legitimate criticism of a person doesn't mean that people hate them. It means that they don't like what they are doing.

You might think that the media is telling you the truth, but when they have people from the military and intelligence agencies telling us what they want us to believe I'm going to take it with a grain of salt. The NYT, CNN MSDNC and others all told us that Saddam had WMDs and that Assad gassed his own people. If they lied about that then how can you trust them on the little things?

up
8 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@wokkamile
It's odd that you should put it that way.

There is a modern penchant for identifying hatred and criticism, but I don't expect to find it here at caucus.

Apart from anything else, hatred is irrelevant. What matters is getting as close to the truth as possible.

The difficulty of the items you listed is not that they are "junk" or that people who say them are "haters." Those items address the question of Warren's sincerity and trustworthiness. The problem with them is that, on the question of trustworthiness, it's difficult to get from evidence to conclusive proof. It's not as difficult to establish untrustworthiness for certain as it is to establish trustworthiness for certain, but it's still hard, and by its nature, such an attempt would require that you wait for the person to do something really awful.

This issue can be a bit of a discursive dead end, so I've come up with my own way of resolving it. I look for signs that the person in question is willing to risk and sacrifice for principle--because that's what it will take, now, to act on behalf of the many rather than the few. Warren, unlike Gabbard, shows little ability to risk or sacrifice for principle. The closest she came is speaking up about the Wall St crash and bailout (and other forms of perfidy) from about 2004 to 2009/10. As far as I can tell, that's the last time she took a serious political or professional risk. Those who aren't willing to take serious political or professional risks will be of no use to us when they get to the Oval Office. Probably no one will be of use to us in that office, but if anybody would be, it would have to be someone willing to take serious risks.

In other words, you could be a former Republican who's seen the light and still be trustworthy. But probably not if you wink at obvious election fraud by supporting a candidate who beats her strongest opponent by playing dirty games in caucus states and getting her friends in the media to call elections before the votes have been cast. There's also the magically helpful purges of people off the voter rolls in Brooklyn and out of the party in New York, Arizona, and other places--to the point that Bernie supporters made a point of checking and re-checking their voter registration status. It wasn't proved that Hillary did that--though it was proved that a Hillary Clinton superdelegate bought a run-down tenement from the woman who did the Brooklyn purge at many times its market value. Something that, under ordinary circumstances, would be considered worthy of investigation.

Now imagine that you're Elizabeth Warren. Multiple allegations of election fraud have been levied at this candidate. No investigation is forthcoming. People have literally been denied the franchise in states where she won. What do you do? Do you shrug and say, Well, it's not certain that she committed election fraud, endorse her, and go for a beer? Why would you do that? Is there any defensible reason why you should do that? Protecting your career isn't good enough.

up
12 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

snoopydawg's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

She is telling people that she is running a grassroots campaign, but that is not true. This is not only turning voters off from her, but it's even making her big donors mad and many are calling her a hypocrite.

How Elizabeth Warren Raised Big Money Before She Denounced Big Money

Ms. Warren wooed wealthy donors for years, stockpiling money from fund-raisers, and has used $10.4 million from her 2018 Senate race to underwrite her 2020 bid.

On the highest floor of the tallest building in Boston, Senator Elizabeth Warren was busy collecting big checks from some of the city’s politically connected insiders. It was April 2018 and Ms. Warren, up for re-election, was at a breakfast fund-raiser hosted for her by John M. Connors Jr., one of the old-guard power brokers of Massachusetts.

Soon after, Ms. Warren was in Manhattan doing the same. There would be trips to Hollywood and Silicon Valley, Martha’s Vineyard and Philadelphia — all with fund-raisers on the agenda. She collected campaign funds at the private home of at least one California megadonor, and was hosted by another in Florida. She held finance events until two weeks before her all-but-assured re-election last November.

Then, early this year, Ms. Warren made a bold bet that would delight the left: She announced she was quitting this big-money circuit in the 2020 presidential primary, vowing not to attend private fund-raisers or dial up rich donors anymore. Admirers and activists praised her stand — but few noted the fact that she had built a financial cushion by pocketing big checks the years before.

The open secret of Ms. Warren’s campaign is that her big-money fund-raising through 2018 helped lay the foundation for her anti-big-money run for the presidency. Last winter and spring, she transferred $10.4 million in leftover funds from her 2018 Senate campaign to underwrite her 2020 run, a portion of which was raised from the same donor class she is now running against.

As Ms. Warren has risen in the polls on her populist and anti-corruption message, some donors and, privately, opponents are chafing at her campaign’s purity claims of being “100 percent grass-roots funded.” Several donors now hosting events for her rivals organized fund-raisers for her last year.

Can you spell hypocrite?” said former Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who contributed $4,000 to Ms. Warren in 2018 and is now supporting former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

But when Mr. Rendell co-hosted Mr. Biden’s first fund-raiser this spring, Ms. Warren’s campaign sent brickbats, deriding the affair as “a swanky private fund-raiser for wealthy donors,” the likes of which she now shuns.

“She didn’t have any trouble taking our money the year before,” Mr. Rendell said. “All of a sudden, we were bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers. In 2018, we were wonderful.”

I can. There is more to the article... this is why many people think that she is just a female version of Obama. She is saying what people want to hear, but what will she do if she becomes president? After Obama. After what the DNC did to Bernie.

up
5 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

travelerxxx's picture

@snoopydawg

It's all new to me. Guess I'll have to do some research. Sounds as though there's some controversy afoot, judging by some of the responses here... I'll have to decide for myself. Glad you brought it up though, as my lack of awareness of this might have blindsided me down the road.

up
4 users have voted.

I appreciate your taking the discussion above the Democrat vs. Republican paradigm, as it has become meaningless. You make the very good point that Warren is trying to give the impression that she’ll take dark money solely to fight against our oppressors, but in fact she will take it from the very people who have been systematically undermining, disempowering, and keeping the American people down -- and then using it to defeat Donald Trump, as if he were the source of our problems.

Also, have you noticed how she avoids plain talk, avoids giving straight answers to questions? Warren doesn’t use language to communicate; she uses it to distract and obfuscate. She is slippery.

The only Democrat with the courage and clarity to call Warren out is Tulsi Gabbard, and I think that is a major reason why the DNC will not allow Tulsi on the debate stage with Warren.

up
12 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@laurel

And I hadn't thought of that. I figured Tulsi was just getting punished for puncturing Kamala's balloon reputation.

up
5 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

orlbucfan's picture

Glad we fellow central Floridians dodged yet another major, cosmic, weather bullet. I like the name, Dorian. The hurricane folks are retiring it. No surprise. My oldest friend had (note the tense) a condo for years in Treasure Cay, Abacos. It is gone. Absolutely horrendous devastation throughout the Abacos. You should see the pics on Facebook and Weather Underground.

Terrific, thoughtful essay. I never liked Liz. Her changing from a GOPuke to the Dems made me suspicious immediately. That GOPuke to Demo stuff started cranking up after Raygun got in. A lot of conservative (1980 definition) GOPukes started eyeballing the opposition and felt more comfortable in it. So, they changed party names and very little else. 'Infested' is a good description of what happened.

Here's hoping we get through the last couple of months of hurricane season. You take good care and stay safe. Rec'd!!

up
5 users have voted.

" Our solutions to the climate crisis must match the demands of physics."
c/o truthout

Anja Geitz's picture

But, wow. You hit this one straight out of the ballpark.

Unilateral disarmament? Does Warren's team really think we don't know what she's doing? Maybe some don't. But writers know words, and they know the impact of using them. Her team knew exactly what they were doing when they placed that term in her interviewing tool kit.

God do I loathe these sons of a bitches.

up
5 users have voted.

Play me another broken record Joe. Maybe then I'll learn why we pay twice as much for healthcare as everybody else in the world. ~ Not Henry Kissinger