Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Elizabeth Warren category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Elizabeth Warren’ Category

Crazy Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, aka Pocahontas, won’t like what a recent Rasmussen poll showed about socialism. Newt Gingrich wrote about the poll in this article.

In his opinion piece, Gingrich cited the poll as saying “As the Rasmussen poll reported on Wednesday, 41 percent of Americans may have a favorable view of socialism…” That doesn’t sound like bad news for Crazy Bernie or Elizabeth Warren but that’s because I didn’t include the rest of the sentence. The full sentence said “As the Rasmussen poll reported on Wednesday, 41 percent of Americans may have a favorable view of socialism – but “most who like the term socialism do not think of it as an economic ideology.” It gets worse from there:

Voters still think free markets are better than socialism, by 55 percent to 12 percent, according to Rasmussen. They also say free markets are better for raising people into the middle class, creating good jobs and shrinking poverty. Finally, a clear majority of Americans of every political persuasion are optimistic about the future of our country, according to the survey.

That last sentence is a killer for Democrats. I’ve listened to the Democrats’ economic message, if they have one. Most of them are trying to convince people that the booming Trump economy isn’t booming. That’s if the Democrat presidential candidate even has an economic message.

That’s how a party walks into a harsh, stinging defeat. To say that these candidates are tone-deaf is understatement. They think that Sleepy Joe Biden is a moderate. Good luck with that one.

Every Democrat running for president wants to eliminate the corporate tax cuts that have played a huge part in reviving the lackluster Obama-Biden ‘recovery’. Blue collar workers are experiencing the fastest wage growth of any cohort while Democrats insist that President Trump didn’t deliver on his promises to these workers. Good luck with that. This is the post-kickoff reaction of Trump supporters:

Forgive me on this but I’m betting it’s difficult to convince that many smiling people that they’re living in Soup Line America. The point is that it’s difficult to convince a person who’s having a fun time that their life is a struggle. To put it differently, Democrats are trying to tell people that their lives really aren’t better than they were 4 years ago. The great news is that the American people get it:

A theory developed while reading Salena Zito’s latest article, which is titled “What happens when Joe stops being Joe?” Salena’s article asks the question of what happens to VP Biden when he stops being lovable old Joe. That theory is that President Trump should highlight his economic accomplishments by highlighting his regulatory accomplishments in Rust Belt states.

She notes that Biden’s rollout was virtually flawless but that his handling of the Hyde Amendment was a disaster. Then she quotes Jeff Brauer, a “political science professor at Keystone College here in Factoryville.” Brauer said “What Biden needs to do is appeal to voters in the middle and even the Right. This move isn’t going to help in that. Moving hard left in the primary could prove to be fatal for the general. Biden has also succumbed to far-left pressures on the environment by rolling out a policy plan that is far more liberal than expected.”

Zito then points out, as I have multiple times, that “Trump’s victory in 2016 was primarily due to his support in the Midwestern, Rust Belt states, whose voters had been hit hard economically as jobs moved elsewhere. With a recent boom fueled by natural gas, some of these areas are bouncing back.”

The Hyde Amendment hurts Biden in the short-term but the environment hurts him in the long-term. If Democrats don’t flip the blue collar vote in 2020, they can kiss that election good-bye.

Few people paid attention to the early days of the Trump administration. That’s when Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and President Trump used the Congressional Review Act to eliminate tons of Obama environmental regulations. That wasn’t just smart policy. It was fantastic politics. President Trump can visit the Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana cities most affected (positively) by the elimination of those Obama-Biden era regulations.

What should worry Democrats most is that Biden and Tim Ryan are the only Democrats with a legitimate shot at those voters. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg don’t have a shot at those voters.
This is Biden’s Hyde Amendment flip-flop:

On issue after issue, President Trump has been the reasonable politician in the room. Whether we’re talking about immigration, taxes, regulations or the economy, President Trump has presented sensible options. When Congress runs away from some of those policies, it just makes him look that much more reasonable, especially in light of the fact that Democrats are hell-bent on impeaching President Trump.

What’s especially helpful to President Trump is the fact that he, Ryan and McConnell eliminated so many environmental regulations. Now that the US is a net exporter of energy, he’s in an especially strong negotiating position with Eastern bloc countries and Russia. Put differently, President Trump should make the case that his strong economy has made the US stronger internationally. Biden can’t make that same argument.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is nuttier than any other Democrat running for president with the exception of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Recently, Sen. Warren proposed a “$1.25 trillion education proposal.”

The article starts by saying “On Monday, Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren released an ambitious $1.25 trillion education proposal that would address rising college costs and the student debt crisis. ‘Higher education opened a million doors for me,’ the senator wrote in a Medium post introducing the plan. “It’s how the daughter of a janitor in a small town in Oklahoma got to become a teacher, a law school professor, a U.S. Senator, and eventually, a candidate for President of the United States. Today, it’s virtually impossible for a young person to find that kind of opportunity.”

Universities used to be required for people to ‘get ahead’. That isn’t as true anymore. I won’t say that universities don’t serve a purpose but they don’t serve as much of a purpose as they did 25 years ago. Trade schools, apprenticeships and other types of training might be more helpful than a 4-year degree. Also, these alternatives often lead to solid middle class jobs without the student getting hit with a pile of debt.

Finally, many of the degrees that universities hand out like candy won’t produce a job that’ll pay off the student’s loans. Students are starting to figure things out. Unfortunately, politicians haven’t. Then again, I’m not surprised even slightly.

What a dipshit! She wants to punish people who’ve been productive while letting the freeloaders, aka endowments and administrators, get off without punishment. Talk about sending the wrong signal.

Say what you want about Elizabeth Warren, aka Pocahontas. She’s nothing if not politically flexible. It wasn’t that long ago that Sen. Warren “trashed the politically vulnerable Montana Democrat for supporting a landmark bank deregulation bill.” This week, Elizabeth Warren “is coming to the rescue of Sen. Jon Tester in the face of escalating attacks by President Donald Trump.”

In her fundraising letter, Sen. Warren said “Jon and I don’t agree on everything — but I know that Jon makes every decision with the working people of Montana and all across this country in his mind. He’s a good and decent man, and right now he needs our help.”

Rather than calling her Pocahontas, I’d argue that it’s more appropriate to call her Pinocchio. What “good and decent man” throws a military veteran under the proverbial bus for purely partisan gain? That isn’t what I’d consider the actions of a good and decent man. Listen to what Sen. Tester said in this press availability:

Less than 30 seconds into the availability, when asked to confirm Sen. Tester’s statements, Sen. Tester said “I just can’t confirm it at this moment in time.” If that’s the case, Sen. Tester, why didn’t you just do your due diligence rather than leak this information to the press? I’m betting that Sen. Tester wouldn’t have followed this path had Adm. Jackson been appointed by President Obama. I’m betting that Sen. Tester would’ve quietly checked into the allegations rather than leaking it to the press. In fact, I’m betting that had Jackson a) been nominated by President Obama and b) had been guilty of the charges, Sen. Tester would’ve swept that information under the rug.

Later in the video, the MSNBC anchor and the MSNBC correspondent admit that they don’t know if the allegations were true or false. Since then, however, we’ve found out that the Secret Service has issued a statement that emphatically said Adm. Jackson wasn’t guilty of the accusations leveled against him.

Meanwhile, Sen. Warren has defended Sen. Tester, saying “Jon’s a man of integrity and courage, and I know he’s not going to back down or change his votes because of a television commercial or a tweet. But he needs our help to build the sort of grassroots campaign that can go town-to-town, person-to-person, to talk about what this election is really about.”

Finally, Sen. Tester defended himself, saying “It’s my duty to make sure Montana veterans get what they need and have earned, and I’ll never stop fighting for them as their senator.” What a crock. Sen. Tester has less integrity than the witch that ‘entertained’ the media at this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

The city of Cambridge, MA, has a fight on its hands, thanks to their attempt to silence one of Elizabeth Warren’s opponents. Shiva Ayyadurai is suing the city because “Ayyadurai called the city’s order to remove the signs ‘a political vendetta by city officials who are supporters of Elizabeth Warren.'”

The lawsuit comes after Cambridge’s building inspector said there were a ‘series of anonymous complaints’ about the signs. Branden Vigneault, the inspector, said the signs were posted without permits and violated a zoning ordinance. Ayyadurai faces $300 for each day the signs don’t come down as well as potential legal action. But Ayyadurai said the signs are not going anywhere and tried to make it a matter of free speech.

First and foremost, the fines are likely unenforceable because they violate the First Amendment. Cities, counties and townships have been attempting to silence political speech through ordinances like this for years. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled these impediments unconstitutional because they’re thinly-veiled attempts at censorship.

What touched off this firestorm is this advertising:

Elizabeth Warren frequently complains about how life is rigged against the common man. How isn’t this rigging the system against her opponent? Then again, doesn’t Warren really mean that life isn’t rigged enough to her preference?

This is an attempt at censorship to save Sen. Warren some embarrassment for making dishonest statements. Pocahontas shouldn’t be protected against prior foolish decisions.

Saying that United We Dream is far outside the mainstream on immigration issues is understatement on steroids. Their statement starts off with a outrageous statements and finishes the same way.

United We Dream’s statement starts by saying “Let’s call this proposal for what it is: a white supremacist ransom note. Trump and Stephen Miller killed DACA and created the crisis that immigrant youth are facing. They have taken immigrant youth hostage, pitting us against our own parents, Black immigrants and our communities in exchange for our dignity. To Miller and Trump’s white supremacist proposal, immigrant youth say: No.”

Apparently, United We Dream isn’t capable of making rational arguments. I’ve seen fifth graders who’ve made more adult-sounding arguments than that. Then again, it’s typical for hardline progressives to immediately jump to race-baiting.

United We Dream’s statement finishes by saying “So let us be clear: any politician who backs up this ransom note is enabling Trump and Miller’s white supremacist agenda. Members of Congress of conscience must make the moral choice to reject this white supremacist proposal and pass legislation that protects us without harming others.”

The thought that they’ve broken the law didn’t enter their statement. Instead, there’s just a sense of entitlement to living in the United States. Following the rules of the United States hasn’t entered these illegal immigrants’ minds.

I’m not just talking about DREAMers, either. It’s impossible to identify a single demographic group of illegal immigrants who don’t think they’re entitled to ignore U.S. law. Then there’s enablers like this:


By saying “By ending DACA, @realdonaldtrump subjected 800k Dreamers to deportation. Now he wants to hold them hostage to Steven Miller’s anti-immigrant wish list. It’s insulting. We already have a bipartisan solution to the Trump-created crisis: it’s called the Dream Act”, Sen. Pocahontas has told America that she hates the rule of law. That isn’t surprising since she apparently thinks she’s a Native-American even though she’s white. We don’t need people who think they can make up the rules whenever they want.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

In his farewell speech to the US Senate, Sen. Franken said that as “I leave the Senate, I have to admit that it feels like we’re losing the war for truth. Maybe it’s already lost. If that’s what happens, then we have lost the ability to have the kinds of arguments that help build consensus.”

Later in that speech, Sen. Franken said “Often, the ‘debate’ here in Washington can sometimes seem arcane and tough to understand. Other times—especially in recent years—it can be so bitter that it doesn’t even feel like we’re trying to resolve anything, just venting our spleens at each other. I get that. I get why people want us to stop arguing and start, well, doing stuff. But since I am leaving the Senate, I thought I would take a big risk and say a few words in favor of arguments.”

What BS. Literally the day after all Democrats in the House and Senate voted against the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, Sen. Franken is attempting to justify the Democrats’ refusal to cooperate with Republicans in cutting people’s taxes. This is a Democrat difficulty. It isn’t just Sen. Franken who has difficulty working with Republicans. So-called moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Jon Tester made initial ‘friendly noises’ before voting like Elizabeth Warren.

It used to be said that the US Senate was the “greatest deliberative body in the world.” It isn’t that anymore. The definition of argument is “an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation.” Meanwhile, the definition of deliberation is “careful consideration before decision.”

With the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Democrats immediately opposed the legislation before the first page was written. That’s the opposite of deliberation. There’s nothing deliberative about that. That fits the definition of argument more than it fits the definition of deliberation.

Here’s Sen. Franken’s final speech on the Senate floor:

There isn’t any proof that Sen. Franken tried identifying the truth. That’s why it’s one of the first casualties upon entering Washington, DC. Rather than lamenting the death of the truth, Democrats should try employing it more consistently.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

It’s apparent that Democrats don’t understand that their unanimous vote against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has painted them into a political corner. Let’s start with by examining the difficult position Sen. Manchin painted himself into.

Sen. Manchin said “he’s repeatedly tried to find areas to reach across the aisle and vote with Republicans for Mr. Trump’s agenda, but said he couldn’t do it this time. ‘There’s some good in this bill. I acknowledge that,’ Mr. Manchin said on West Virginia talk radio, after host Hoppy Kercheval pointed to the tax cuts he said the state’s middle class residents stood to gain.” Why do I think that Sen. Manchin’s constituents will hold it against him for voting against their tax cuts? Why shouldn’t West Virginians, aka Mountaineers, hold it against Sen. Manchin for voting with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on the tax cuts?

Later, Sen. Manchin complained that “the bills seemed too skewed toward business, pointing to the permanent nature of corporate tax cuts, compared to the planned expiration of the reductions in the individual rate.” First, I’m reminded of President Reagan’s saying that you can’t be pro-jobs and hate the employer. Apparently, Sen. Manchin didn’t learn that lesson. Next, Sen. Manchin is whining about the Senate’s rules, which he’s repeatedly voted to approve. If the Senate’s rules weren’t so screwed up, the individual tax cuts could’ve been made permanent.

Sen. Manchin’s excuses sound like ‘the dog ate my homework’ excuses than legitimate excuses.

By contrast, Patrick Morrisey, Sen. Manchin’s likely opponent, will be able to vote for eliminating coal industry-hating regulations, great judges and never vote with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren out of party loyalty. Hint: Anyone that thinks Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren plays well with coal miners should view this video:

Hillary lost West Virginia by 40+ points. What should frighten Sen. Manchin is that it wouldn’t surprise me if Hillary is more well liked than Sanders or Warren.

At a town-hall meeting in Missouri last week, Sen. Claire McCaskill framed her vote against the bill as disappointment that the plan favored corporations. She argued the bill betrayed the principles Mr. Trump had originally proposed. “This isn’t Trump’s bill,” she said at the event in suburban St. Louis. “Trump campaigned on the bill being about you.” But one resident told the St. Louis Public Radio before the event that he didn’t understand her opposition to the bill and hoped she’d explain it more. “I’m having a hard time finding a way that it does not benefit the people of Missouri,” said Dennis Hugo, a 32-year-old, self-described Libertarian.

Finally, there’s this:

In Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, another Democrat, told his voters he met with Mr. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence over the tax bill. “From the beginning of this year’s tax reform effort, I’ve been willing to partner with Republicans, Democrats, and President Trump and his administration,” he wrote in an op-ed in the Indianapolis Star. “Despite this common ground, the bill produced by Sen. Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan was the complete opposite of what the president and I had discussed,” Mr. Donnelly added.

In North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who said last month she was open to voting for the bill, said that the $1.5 trillion in additional deficits piled up by the tax cuts swayed her to vote against it. But some voters in her state don’t see that as a reasonable opposition.

Sen. Heitkamp is gonna have a ton of difficulty peddling that excuse. There wasn’t a tax cut package that wasn’t going to pile up deficits according to the CBO’s scoring. That’s actually the least of Sen. Heitkamp’s worries. She, along with Sen. Donnelly, Sen. Tester, Sen. Baldwin, Sen. Casey and Sen. Brown, voted against significantly reducing the estate tax on farmers’ estates. The full expensing of equipment isn’t insignificant to farmers, either.

In DC, the spin will be that this helps corporations, not working people. In Indiana, Montana and North Dakota, big farms are incorporated. Saying that the Democrats’ messaging doesn’t exactly fit those states is understatement.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Let’s be clear about something. When Doug Jones won the Alabama special election Tuesday night, he won because Steve Bannon’s candidate did what Bannon’s candidates always do. Bannon’s candidate lost a race that mainstream Republicans couldn’t lose in a million lifetimes. Predictably, Democrats are misreading what tonight’s results mean.

Tuesday night’s victory is the result of a terrible, far-outside-the-mainstream, candidate who thought he had a mandate from God misunderstanding how toxic he’d become. If Democrats think they’ll get to run against a lengthy list of candidates that share the same qualities as tonight’s loser has, they’ll quickly be disabused of that foolish notion.

Martha McSally isn’t a clone of tonight’s loser. Republicans have already recruited top-tier candidates to run against vulnerable incumbents in Missouri, Florida, Indiana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Montana and West Virginia. Any thought that this will turn out well for Democrats in 2018 will quickly be dispatched.

The Democrats’ seismic victory Tuesday in the unlikely political battleground of Alabama brought jubilation, and a sudden a rush of confidence, to a party that has been struggling to gain its footing since Donald Trump won the presidency 13 months ago. Democrat Doug Jones’s triumph, the result of a vigorous turnout of the party’s traditional voters and of Republican splintering in a deeply conservative state, sent a thunder clap across the national political landscape that Democrats hope will signify an emerging comeback at the start of the 2018 midterm election campaign.

There’s no disputing that Democrats are feeling exhilarated after tonight’s victory. That thrill of victory won’t last long, though. Republicans will pass the tax reform bill before Jones is seated as Alabama’s junior senator for the next 3 years.

Tonight’s loser refused to admit that he’d lost:

Most likely, tonight’s winner is thrilled. MSNBC certainly is:

The best news of the night for Republicans is up for debate. Arguments could be made that the best thing is that Republicans don’t have to run with Bannon’s loser strapped to their neck. That’s certainly a positive. Another argument that could be made is that mainstream Republicans can now emphasize tonight’s defeat as proof that Bannon’s candidates are losers in primaries, thereby giving top-tier candidates a better shot at winning primaries. Still another argument could be made that the best news is that Republicans rejected sexist pigs even though it hurt their party.

Democrats tried claiming the moral high ground when Al Franken and John Conyers resigned amidst allegations of sexual harassment. It didn’t take long for Republicans, President Trump especially, to highlight that a special election in Michigan would replace Conyers with either his son or his nephew and that Minnesota’s DFL governor would pick a DFL legislator to replace a DFL senator. In other words, Democrats didn’t stand to lose a thing.

Republicans voted their values despite the fact that they lost an important Senate seat. Finally, it’s worth noting that ‘moderate’ Democrats will have to defend their voting in lockstep with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on judges and on cutting taxes. They also have to explain why they threatened to shut down the government.

The notion of moderation and reasonableness within the Democratic Party died this afternoon when 48 Democrats and independents voted against cloture to proceed to a final vote on Judge Don Willett. Less than a week ago, the American Bar Association, aka the ABA, gave Judge Willett a “Fully Qualified” rating, their highest rating.

That means so-called Democrat moderates Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Jon Tester, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Bill Nelson and Bob Casey voted to prevent a fully qualified judge from getting a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite these Democrats’ immoderation, Willett will be confirmed. When he is, he will be part of a record class of judicial confirmations in a president’s first year. As good as that is, what’s most impressive is the quality of these judges.

If ‘moderate’ Democrats vote the same way on every Trump-appointed judge as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, where’s proof that the term moderate is anything more than an election ploy? It’s like the term Blue Dog Democrat. It sounds nice but they’re only Blue Dogs until Nancy Pelosi needs them to vote like Keith Ellison.

Republicans should hammer these Democrats for voting against this fully qualified judge:

They voted in lockstep against this highly qualified justice, too: