Archive for the ‘Elizabeth Warren’ Category

Years ago, Minnesotans got quite a chuckle at the expense of Iowans. The joke was that Iowa wasn’t name but an acronym. The joke was that Iowa was an acronym that stood for “I Owe the World an Apology.” Last night, the first in the nation caucus did something that no other political party had done before. Iowa held a caucus, then didn’t report the results.

Each of the top Democrats delivered a quasi-victory speech, with Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar being the first Democrat to sound upbeat without having anything except anecdotal evidence on the results. Klobuchar was followed by Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang. It was thought that Sanders, Buttigieg and Warren (not necessarily in that order) were the top 3, with Biden “finishing a distant 4th.” If that’s true, and we don’t know that it is, Klobuchar will have survived because the Democratic Party of Iowa was too incompetent to count votes.

CNN is reporting that “Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price faced intense criticism from multiple Democratic campaigns during a call early on Tuesday morning, with senior advisers repeatedly questioning the transparency of the process.”

Price continued:

Price sought to defend the process, arguing that the delay in reporting results stemmed from the party’s desire to “ensure the integrity of the process” but that the party was working to keep “campaigns in the loop throughout this entire process.”

Guy Benson tweeted this incomplete data from the Sanders campaign:


It isn’t Guy’s fault that he didn’t have complete numbers. That fault lies 100% on the Democratic Party of Iowa. Mark Meadows’ tweet:


What could possibly go wrong?

When it was first reported that the final CNN-Des Moines Register poll before the caucuses wouldn’t be published, the Des Moines Register issued this explanation on why it wouldn’t be published:

The Des Moines Register, CNN and Selzer & Co. have made the decision to not release the final installment of the CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll as planned Saturday evening. Nothing is more important to the Register and its polling partners than the integrity of the Iowa Poll. Today, a respondent raised an issue with the way the survey was administered, which could have compromised the results of the poll. It appears a candidate’s name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate.

Jazz Shaw’s article asks some important questions that stop well short of conspiracy theories:

How big would the impact have been on the final results? The sample size for the last Des Moines Register Iowa poll was 701 likely caucus-goers. Let’s say there were ten people making the calls. If one person’s font size was off, there might have been roughly 70 calls where a name was left off the list of choices. But they randomize the order of the names, so all the candidates would have missed being listed, likely less than a dozen times each. Wouldn’t that randomization balance out?

I’m not a statistician but couldn’t this be fixed by weighting the results differently? To the statisticians reading this, feel free to offer insights into this question in the comments section.

UPDATE: Powerline has an update on this story that’s worth checking out:


I won’t say that I’ll trust this information. I’ll just offer this opinion: if it’s true, then the Klobuchar campaign ends in Iowa.

The other thing worth noting is that the DMR poll is the gold standard in Iowa polling, much like the Marquette Law School poll is the gold standard in Wisconsin. We’ll still have to wait on the results but the DMR poll is usually accurate.

Elizabeth Warren’s question this afternoon was intentional partisan grandstanding. On Day Two of questioning, Warren submitted a question to Chief Justice John Roberts to read. The question read “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”

That question is one of the most partisan questions I’ve ever heard. First, it overlooks the fact that Adam Schiff conducted the most partisan, most incomplete investigation in impeachment investigations in US history. President Trump’s legal team pointed out that the fair trial provisions in the Constitution protect the defendant from the government. Double jeopardy is part of the Bill of Rights to prevent the government from getting multiple bites at the apple. The Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches by the government.

Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton worried that the government, with all its resources, could just grind the people down and force them to plead guilty even if they didn’t commit a crime. That’s essentially what they did with Gen. Flynn. The question that hasn’t been adequately addressed is this: What was fair about Schiff’s sham investigation? The government called whichever witness they wanted. The White House Counsel’s office wasn’t allowed in the SCIF to cross-examine the government’s witnesses. The only time the White House Counsel’s office was invited to participate in the impeachment investigation was after Speaker Pelosi announced that the House Judiciary Committee would start writing articles of impeachment.

What’s been disgraced, Sen. Warren, is the Democratic Party, especially, though not limited to, the House impeachment managers. Adam Schiff has told more lies per minute of speaking than any other member of House or Senate leadership in US history. He’s been worse than Baghdad Bob.

What will it take to satisfy Sen. Warren, Speaker Pelosi and other House Democrats? A: President Trump getting convicted. Anything short of that makes President Trump illegitimate.

Last week, Sen. Klobuchar shared the co-endorsement of the NYTimes with Elizabeth Warren. Later, she won the endorsement of the Quad Cities newspaper in northeast Iowa. Unfortunately for Sen. Klobuchar’s campaign, Sen. Klobuchar didn’t win the endorsement of the only newspaper in Iowa that matters. Instead, Elizabeth Warren won the endorsement of the Des Moines Register.

In their editorial explaining their decision, DMR’s editorial board wrote “The Des Moines Register editorial board endorses Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses as the best leader for these times. The senior U.S. senator from Massachusetts is not the radical some perceive her to be. She was a registered Republican until 1996. She is a capitalist. ‘I love what markets can do,’ she said. ‘They are what make us rich, they are what create opportunity.'”

That’s gotta sting for St. Amy. She’s been running in the Democrats’ moderate lane, where she’s thought she was competing with Joe Biden. Along comes DMR’s editorial board, who says that Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate in the race. Sen. Klobuchar, aka St. Amy of Hennepin County or St. Amy for short, must’ve been blindsided with that headline. This doesn’t help, either:

Warren doesn’t measure the health of the economy by looking at the stock market or an unemployment rate that doesn’t count the longtime jobless or chronically underemployed. She measures it by how working families are doing. Many are not doing well, and Warren seeks major reforms to help them.

A qualification: Some of her ideas for “big, structural change” go too far. This board could not endorse the wholesale overhaul of corporate governance or cumulative levels of taxation she proposes. While the board has long supported single-payer health insurance, it believes a gradual transition is the more realistic approach. But Warren is pushing in the right direction.

It’s difficult to picture Sen. Warren as a moderate, especially after this dispute:

Elizabeth Warren isn’t a moderate. Neither is St. Amy. Joe Biden thinks that we should eliminate fossil fuels so that we’re once again dependent on Middle East oil, especially from Iran. Further, each of those candidates want the US to return to the JCPOA. What part of those policy positions sounds moderate to you?

Finally, it’s thrilling thinking that Sen. Klobuchar will soon be able to spend more time focusing on her day job as Minnesota’s senior senator. Then again, it’s a little frightening thinking of her returning to being Minnesota’s senior senator.

A consistent part of Elizabeth Warren’s stump speech is when she criticizes the current system as being rigged against the little guy. She who wields the sword shouldn’t be surprised when they get sliced by that sword. That’s what happened while campaigning in Grimes, IA.

While campaigning in Iowa, Sen. Warren was approached by a man about her student loan proposal. It didn’t finish well. In fact, it was pretty harsh medicine throughout:

“I just wanted to ask one question. My daughter is getting out of school. I’ve saved all my money. She doesn’t have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?” the father asked Warren. “Of course not,” Warren said.

“So you’re going to pay for people who didn’t save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?” he responded. The man went on to say he had a friend who “bought a car and went on all the vacations,” while he worked a double shift. “You’re laughing at me,” the man said, which Warren denied. “Yeah, that’s exactly what you’re doing. We did the right thing and we get screwed.”

A great economist said that “if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you’ll always have Paul as an ally.” Obviously, Sen. Warren’s proposal requires a little ‘Robbing Peter to pay Paul’ action. That isn’t the greatest sin, though.

The problem with Sen. Warren’s proposal is that it doesn’t fix the problem. Ten years after the student loan debt is forgiven, we’ll be right back into the same situation. That’s because people’s behaviors won’t change. That’s because the universities’ behavior won’t change. What incentive do universities have to start being fiscally responsible? After all, it isn’t their money that they’re spending.

The problem is OPM, aka Other People’s Money. In the hands of a bureaucrat or a politician, OPM is as addictive as opium. That’s the simple, indisputable truth. The conversation is a little difficult to hear but here’s the confrontation:

If people still entertained the silly notion that CNN was impartial about who wins the Democrats’ presidential nomination, that notion just disappeared. That notion disappeared because CNN moderator Abby Phillips ignored Sen. Sanders’ answer to her question.

The fight started when Phillips asked “Senator Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?” Sen. Sanders replied, saying “Well, in fact, I didn’t say that.” Sen. Sanders’ answer apparently didn’t fit CNN’s narrative so Phillip asked Sen. Warren “what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

Welcome to the club, Bernie. You now know how Republicans feel when the Agenda Media ignore their answers. Implicit in the Agenda Media’s response is the inference that both parties know that the aggrieved party is lying. The answer isn’t important. What’s important to CNN is whether they maintain the narrative.

After the debate, CNN went further in antagonizing Sen. Sanders, releasing audio of Sanders and Warren fighting. During that fight, Sen. Warren said “I think you just called me a liar on national TV.” After that accusation, Sen. Sanders replied “What?” That led Sen. Warren to respond, saying “I think you called me a liar on national TV.”

Bernie’s supporters aren’t taking this lightly:


Sen. Warren went into this debate needing to regain momentum going into the first contest for the Democrat presidential nomination. Sen. Warren came across as dishonest and vindictive during the debate and afterwards, too.

I didn’t watch last night’s Democrat presidential debate but it sounds like the fight between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren took a nasty turn after the debate. This upsets the Democrats happy little family storyline:

Sanders and Warren approached one another and he stuck out his hand. She did not shake it. What followed was a brief but clearly uncomfortable conversation. As Sanders’ campaign co-chair Nina Turner put it on CNN: “I’m not sure what she said, but you can read the body language. Obviously, their conversation was not pleasant.”

Then the fight turned to social media. As of Wednesday morning, the hashtag “#neverWarren” was trending as Bernie allies took to Twitter to attack the Massachusetts senator as a lying snake.

There’s little doubt that Warren is lying, not Sanders. Sanders doesn’t have a history of lying. Warren does. This is from last night’s debate:

Elizabeth Warren has a lengthy history of lying:

Policy-wise, Bernie and Pocahontas are nuttier than fruitcake. From a character standpoint, though, they’re different. Warren is utterly corrupt.

This reeks of desperation on Warren’s part. She’s been sinking in the polls ever since she couldn’t explain how she’d pay for her health care plan. With the first votes looming, she needs, to use a football metaphor, a Hail Mary pass. This intentional leak is likely Sen. Warren’s attempt to regain momentum and relevance.

Last night’s Democrat presidential debate got stupid fast when the moderators changed the subject to Iran. Democrats didn’t attempt to abandon the DNC’s talking points. From there, things went downhill fast.

Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden stood out but not in a good way. Sen. Klobuchar said “Because of the actions of Donald Trump, we are in a situation where Iran is starting to enrich uranium again in violation of the original agreement. What I would do is negotiate. I would bring people together just as president Obama did years ago. And I think that we can get this done. But you have to have a president that sees this as a number one goal. I would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

First, it’s stupid to negotiate if the country you’re negotiating with isn’t feeling pain or is frightened of you. When John Kerry negotiated with Iran, Iran wasn’t worried about whether their people would overthrow the regime. The product was an agreement that was so weak that the Obama administration wouldn’t submit it as a treaty for ratification. The agreement was so terrible that most Democrats opposed it.

Next, President Trump’s taking out of Gen. Soleimani triggered an uprising against the Regime, with 5 straight nights of protests against the regime. With Iran’s economy collapsing, unemployment skyrocketing, inflation hitting 50% and students having lots of time to protest, there’s reason for Iran’s regime to worry about getting overthrown.

Third, Sen. Klobuchar should pay attention to events. Yesterday, Boris Johnson announced that the British, French and Germans had taken the first step in dragging Iran back into compliance with the JCPOA:

Britain, France and Germany on Tuesday formally accused Iran of breaking the 2015 agreement that limited its nuclear program, taking the first step toward re-imposing United Nations sanctions.

The European countries started the clock running on what could be some 60 days of negotiations with Iran about coming back into full compliance with the nuclear deal. Under the agreement, if they cannot resolve their dispute, that could revive United Nations sanctions on Iran that had been suspended under the deal, including an arms embargo.

Call me crazy but I’d argue that President Trump’s strategy is working beautifully. Biden sounded almost as incoherent:

“I was part of that deal. It was working,” he said. “It was being held tightly. There was no movement on the part of the Iranian government to get closer to a nuclear weapon. And look what’s happened. We’re now isolated,” he continued. “We’re in a situation where our allies in Europe are making a comparison between the United States and Iran saying both ought to stand down, making a moral equivalence. We have lost our standing in the region; we have lost the support of our allies.

“The next president has to be able to pull those folks back together, reestablish our alliances and insist that Iran go back into the agreement, which I believe with the pressure applied as we put on before we can get done. And quite frankly, I think he’s flat out lied about saying the reason he went after [Soleimani] was because our embassies were about to be bombed,” Biden added.

That’s breathtakingly uninformed, which is dangerous for us. Biden being this uninformed gives credence to his nickname of Sleepy Joe. We can’t afford a president who isn’t paying attention to the world around him.

It’s either that Biden is uninformed or he’s unwilling to admit that President Trump’s strategy is well thought out and working. This information about the British, French and Germans accusing Iran of breaking the JCPOA didn’t happen right before last night’s debate. It was announced during Tuesday morning’s BBC Breakfast Show. That should’ve been part of these candidates’ morning briefing.

In short, the Democrats’ presidential candidates couldn’t admit that a) President Trump’s strategy is working and b) US allies are joining us in increasing pressure on the Iranian regime. This is what the Democrats’ stupidity towards Iran looks like:

God help us if any of these idiots becomes our next commander-in-chief.

When it comes to dovish presidential candidates, this year’s Democrats look more like 1972 than any other bunch of dovish Democrats. Kim Strassel’s article highlights just how leftist this year’s Democrat frontrunners are. Let’s start with Bernie Sanders’ dovishness.

Strassel writes “Voters now know that a President Bernie Sanders would not take action against Iran or other rogue regimes, no matter how many red lines they cross. Mr. Sanders will take no step that might bring us anywhere closer to ‘another disastrous war’ or cost ‘more dollars and more deaths.'” Honestly, I’m not certain Bernie would have any red lines. Thankfully, we won’t have to worry about that since he doesn’t stand a chance of winning the general election. That being said, he’s got a decent shot at winning the Democrats’ presidential nomination.

Then there’s Elizabeth Warren:

A President Elizabeth Warren would similarly offer a pass to leaders of U.S.-designated terrorist groups, at least if they have an official title. The Trump strike, she said, amounted to the “assassination” of “a government official, a high-ranking military official.”

Richard Nixon was right when he said that “the world is a terrible neighborhood to live in.” Anyone that thinks that these Democrats are prepared to be commander-in-chief is kidding themselves. People this dovish aren’t prepared for the harsh responsibilities of making difficult decisions on a moment’s notice. This interview is proof that Elizabeth Warren isn’t bright enough to be commander-in-chief:

Anyone that thinks that the US isn’t safer as a result of killing Maj. Gen. Soleimani doesn’t pass the commander-in-chief test. Sen. Warren thinks we aren’t safer now than we were 3 years ago. Right after 9/11, we were told that killing terrorists created more terrorists. After the US took out the Taliban and things settled down a little bit, we were told that the Arab street respected “the strong horse.” It’s time to stop thinking that these Democrats have a clue about national security/terrorism. They don’t. They’re idiots. The guy in the White House is the only person currently running that I’d trust with these matters. Trusting Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg or Warren with national security, terrorism or foreign policy is foolish.

Saying that Dan Crenshaw had had enough with the Democrats’ talking points is understatement. Crenshaw’s speech utterly demolished the Democrats’ chanting points. Pete Buttigieg blamed the US for the loss of life onboard Ukraine Flight 752:


What a total loser. Then there’s Elizabeth Warren:

“When President Trump first announced that he had Soleimani killed, I thought, Why now? We’ve know about Soleimani for years. What’s the reason it’s not last month? What’s the reason it’s not next month? And does this have to do with the fact that we’re right here on the eve of impeachment,” Warren said.

Rep. Crenshaw had a reply:

“Ok, Elizabeth Warren, I’ve got an answer for you. The reason why now is because Soleimani just orchestrated an attack on our embassy, killed an American citizen and we have very good intel from the CIA, the DNI, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They said was some of the best intel they’d ever seen, that there was an imminent attack coming within days. So, Elizabeth Warren, that is why.”

In other words, President Trump ordered the killing of Gen. Soleimani to prevent a war. Further, President Trump ordered that killing based on strong intelligence. He didn’t approve the killing because he’s facing impeachment. He’s already been impeached. He isn’t getting convicted. What’s there to worry about impeachment? Meanwhile, here’s Rep. Crenshaw unloading both barrels, first on Buttigieg, then Warren:

Notice what Crenshaw did that permitted him to effectively decimate Democrats. Rep. Crenshaw’s command of the facts was superb. Then he explained why President Trump did what he did. Further, he was under control while he made his case against the Democrats. That’s how you blow the Democrats’ talking points out of the water.

The important thing to understand is that few Democrats are able to sound coherent if they aren’t regurgitating Democrat talking points. Elizabeth Warren doesn’t sound the least bit coherent when she’s confronted about foreign policy. Her stump speech about Iran essentially is ‘President Trump killed Gen. Soleimani to distract from the impeachment trial that he isn’t worried about.’ There’s nothing substantive about Sen. Warren’s foreign policy.