Home | About | Donate

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics—And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/14/elizabeth-warrens-rise-plus-issue-politics-and-bad-sign-billionaires

4 Likes

“showing an unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the crash.”

If you think Obama “reneged” on that promise, it indicates you were idiotic enough to accept it in the first place.

While it seems early to talk about polls, with so much time left, no “pundits” are questioning talking about Liz and Bernie as if other progressive (or even so-called progressive) candidates don’t exist.

They seem to have made up their mind that either Bernie or Liz will be nominated, or at least will be the last to drop out against the turd that the DNC is trying to force down our throats.

People here are quick to point out that CD (among other outlets) is ignoring Tulsi Gabbard. But CD, at least, is ignoring Cory Booker just as much, and it certainly isn’t because he’s too progressive.

So what’s going on? Part of it is a popular demand for a hero as a nominee. Bernie came across as a hero in 2016, so he seems to have earned such a role this cycle as well, and I think Liz is trying to do the same with her seemingly weekly, “If I ruled the world. . .” proposals.

This is nothing more than any ordinary schmoe does at the bar or wherever they hang out. Plus it leaves me asking what the point of all these amazing proposals is. We know that even if the Dems wind up with a majority in each chamber, the proposals won’t pass, so they don’t give us an accurate picture of what to expect from her if she does win. And on the other hand, before she started campaigning, we regularly heard from her that she’d enforce laws and make those corrupt corporations pay. This WOULD be something a president would have some authority over, yet she seems to have dropped the message. So the weekly proposal really seems to be about establishing herself as a popular “hero”, and I can’t help but feel a little taken.

So why do voters and “pundits” eat it up so much? Perhaps Occupy Wall Street was an event that so thoroughly established a group identity that people are willing to ignore foreign policy, (and for many, also climate change.) Maybe we’ve been screwed so much that we feel like we have to take care of number 1 before we can focus on the rest.

For all these “pundits” if you’re going to ignore candidates who are focused on something besides corporate greed, could you at least a) be up-front that you’re more concerned with finding a hero than with overall justice and b) at least expand the conversation and ask these candidates, especially Liz, what they plan to do on war, Palestine, Brazil, Venezuela, and let’s not forget single-payer health care and climate change?

2 Likes

I respect Matt and the work he has done, but not here. Elizabeth Warren may have some respectable ideas, but she will be completely unable to implement any of them. Bernie also will face major obstacles but he generates a huge energetic following which is the only way his agenda will have a chance. EW simply does not, simply look at her waffling track record as shown in this short clip - she folds under pressure.

8 Likes

Leaving aside Taibbi’s analysis that the problem with monopoly capitalism is corruption rather than its fundamental nature, unless she supports Medicare for all and stops triangulating about things such as climate change and charter schools, she will not capture the enthusiasm among the left he clearly craves for her.

3 Likes

I’ve been doing this thought exercise: Which of the 24 candidates should be on the Top 5 list? Admit that only 1 millionaire will make it. Sanders, Warren, 1 millionaire, and 2 others, one of whom I really believe Ohio rep Tim Ryan is now on the list. The final 3 on the list must include 1 millionaire. Probably not the coffee guy whose shops are where I never buy coffee. I don’t like yerdam coffee. man. The service sucks, frickn donut cop hangout zone, loyal spies for the artsy fartsy crowd. I’m supporting Tim Ryan because he seems like a nice guy, a nice guy who’s not gonna be a nice guy any more. He’s going to crack heads, nicely!

I can’t agree with Taibbi on this one. Warren’s economic approach will be to save capitalism, at all costs. That’s what self defined capitalists do. I don’t believe capitalism will allow us to save our selves with the environmental disaster we face. Not to mention, as history has proven, no matter haw many restrictions you impose on the markets, eventually the 1% will figure out away around them, or buy their way past them. Capitalism just doesn’t work equally for everyone.

9 Likes

EW’s campaign feels a bit frantic to me. She strikes me as a spoiler whose candidacy is siphoning off support for Bernie, making space for a centrist to take the nomination. Maybe it’s because of her clueless behavior in releasing her DNA info, leaving Trump an opportunity to make her look a fool for a second time, or maybe because of her breathless, whiny wonkishness, but I shudder to think how she would handle a debate with Trump. Also, I question her dedication to the economic policies she currently espouses. I don’t believe that she is strong enough to stand up against the kind of pressures that she would face in the WH. And, anyone who describes themselves as a capitalist down to the bone is not a progressive.

5 Likes

I hate to put it this way, but I have said it before in posts here. Trumps supporters would literally die (in some instances) for him no matter what. Bernie Sanders supporters are as solid as Trumps. If for some reason Sanders drops out of the race, my next choice AT THIS POINT probably would be Warren. If Harris was the ultimate nominee, what I know of her at this point, I would probably vote for her. Booker, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or any of the others I can’t see myself voting for AT THIS TIME. Now everything is subject to change, but If the eventual nominee is Biden or a Klobuchar I’ll do what I did in 2012 & 2016, vote some kind of 3rd party like Green.

4 Likes

When Warren first threw her hat in the ring she stated she will take no $$$ from big donors, until…….she gets the nod from the DNC. Then she said all bets are off and she will take it from anyone.That and her I will fix everything with zero plans or ideas tells me NO way is she gonna help the country.

3 Likes

Not necessarily. It means that the promise was heard, not believed.

Warren was the force behind the increasingly toothless Consumer Protection Agency, literally a leaf out of Nader’s handbook.

She has a definite plan for taxes and banks. She has been fearless in her attacks on financial institutions in congress.

She has not had the best stand on our foreign policy and our wars.

She has shown a malleability to when quizzed about certain aspects of her stand. I am not sure what to attribute this too.

She is a genuine candidate for the people on her strong suits. Not so much on other fronts.

Harris, Cloudbootjar and Bootygigg should find a hole right now and stay there until the new president is sworn in on Jan 2021. They are total flakes, and without smidgen of foundational policies.

Biden been taken his pills?

If Gabbard becomes a viable candidate, she is in first in line for me.
Otherwise, I lay my discretion down for Sanders/Warren.

My stand in 30 seconds.

1 Like

“…feels a bit frantic to me…strikes me as a spoiler whose candidacy is siphoning off support for Bernie, making space for a centrist to take the nomination. Maybe it’s because of her clueless behavior in releasing her DNA info, leaving Trump an opportunity to make her look a fool…”

No…no, that wasn’t a “spoiler” tactic…just clueless…in the end, the spunky and good intentioned but ultimately nerdy and easily owned academic leopard cannot change its spots…why I want her in nomination debates to clearly debunk Obama-Biden’s 2008 corporate bailout - but not facing Trump.

Must be a tongue in cheek, essay, because there’s no way this author doesn’t know that in the next general election nobody’s vote will be counted. The winners have all already been chosen and this essay is as he says is just part of the, “dog and pony show”.

Taibbi’s correct enough about most of what he actually addresses here; he just fails to address most of what he reasonably should.

It is worth acknowledging that the matter of economic egalitarianism is central to all the other valuable issues in this election. However, it is false that it negates the rest.

It’s fine that Taibbi does not have a dog in the fight, but we all share an investment in it, even without a dog to fight. We ought to have a look at these war policies.

1 Like

We need a summary of all her and Sanders’ proposals: Medicare for All, Green Manufacturing and Infrastructure, free college, student debt forgiveness, universal childcare, direct job creation. There are estimates for all. PERI at UMass/Amherst has laid out the M4A proposal, 60% of funding comes from corporations who already fund healthcare insurance. The main problem is gaining mass approval and appearing responsible. The household net worth is $104 trillion, up from $48 trillion in January 2009. See Fed Reserve report Flow of Funds, page 2. Money and potential tax revenue are in abundance. The federal government spent $4.1 trillion in 2018. My blog http://benL88.blogspot.com – Warren’s proposals are affordable. Yes the national federal debt may rise, as will the overall benefits for those whose incomes are suffering. There is amble room for re-allocation and new revenue sources. How to pay – sum it up.

Matt Taibi is spot on about campaign coverage, no discussion of issues, merely informing us of poll results. Being from New Hampshire, I have heard Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard in person. Each of the three is very impressive. They don’t talk about polls, they talk about issues.
Bernie talks about the overarching issue of inequality and its effects on our lives. He has had the courage to stand outside of political parties and the common sense to run this time within a political party because that is where the majority of voters are found. He has worked his whole political life to get a better deal for working men and women. He does not change his positions according to what the polls say. He speaks without hesitation, clearly and confidently with no sign of being ‘elderly’.

Warren, too, speaks with confidence about specific ways of addressing inequality and she has done her homework on it. She comes through as brilliant, but warm and with a sense of humor and living a down to earth existence.

Tulsi Gabbard has put ending our wars at the forefront of her campaign. As a veteran, she has military experience and has paid attention to the nonsensical foreign policies that we engage in, policies that chew up our tax money in huge gulps with never a thought about whether we can afford it or if it is good for us or how it affects the people who must live in our war zones.

All three are worthy candidates. I am putting Bernie as my first choice in this election because he is too valuable to pass up his policies which will be game changing and we desperately need the game changed in recognition that we, the people, are getting the very short end of the stick. And we will have Elizabeth Warren waiting in the wings, hopefully as VP to Bernie, and then a turn as President, and finallyTulsi Gabbard whom I hope would be brought on board as a Secretary of State who renounces our history of bullying, threatening, and values the lives of our own military personnel and civilian lives and respects the rights of other countries. Could it be in 12 to 20 years we really could have a ‘great country’? And will I be around to see it?

2 Likes

I think she’s looking to become vice president. She’ll be able to shmooze with her zionist friends in Israehell…

if it takes 20 years just to get to the point where a revisit of a watered down New Deal is possible, then we’re all pretty much dead.

Our biosphere is running on a much faster clock.

2 Likes

If the Democrats nominate an anti-war candidate then I will vote for them. It doesn’t matter if I think they are sincere or not. If their candidate (even if it’s Clinton or Biden) takes an anti-war position and their platform is anti-war, I’ll vote for them.

Otherwise, it’s back to third parties.