Elizabeth Warren promoted to (D) Senate leadership

[glenn1]

Will be interesting to see how far down the populist rabbit hole the Democrats are willing to go. The history of populists isn't really a good one in the U.S. outside Andrew Jackson, so hopefully the left brushes up on its history about William Jennings Bryan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/13/elizabeth-warren-senate_n_6149454.html


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) gained a leadership position in the Senate Democratic caucus Thursday, giving the prominent progressive senator a key role in shaping the party's policy priorities.

Warren's new role, which was created specifically for her, will be strategic policy adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, helping to craft the party's policy positions and priorities. She will also serve as a liaison to progressive groups to ensure they have a voice in leadership meetings and discussions, according to a source familiar with the role.

A source close to Warren told The Huffington Post that the senator was interested in the position because she wanted to have a seat at the table in the leadership meetings in order to influence the agenda.

<snip>

 

[theeedude]

Good to hear.
GOP is trying hard to wrap itself in fake Tea Party populism.
It's time for the real deal.
You should brush up on the history about FDR
http://www.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his2341/fdr36acceptancespeech.htm

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor - these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

These words fit today's moment like no others, we just need Democrats to start speaking them again. And it looks like Elizabeth Warren is at least steering the party in that direction.

 

[unokitty]

Will be interesting to see how far down the populist rabbit hole the Democrats are willing to go. The history of populists isn't really a good one in the U.S. outside Andrew Jackson, so hopefully the left brushes up on its history about William Jennings Bryan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/13/elizabeth-warren-senate_n_6149454.html


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) gained a leadership position in the Senate Democratic caucus Thursday, giving the prominent progressive senator a key role in shaping the party's policy priorities.

Warren's new role, which was created specifically for her, will be strategic policy adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, helping to craft the party's policy positions and priorities. She will also serve as a liaison to progressive groups to ensure they have a voice in leadership meetings and discussions, according to a source familiar with the role.

A source close to Warren told The Huffington Post that the senator was interested in the position because she wanted to have a seat at the table in the leadership meetings in order to influence the agenda.

<snip>

Don't know that much about Elizabeth Warren. But she has said some insightful things... Don't know what the future holds, but the status quo seems metastable to me...

I wish her luck.

Uno

 

[Newell Steamer]

I like her.

Also, in before the bashing of her Native American ancestry remarks,.. 3,.. 2,...

 

[theeedude]

As Democrats have just found out, there is no room for a second corporatist party in the US. No matter how hard they tried to be GOP lite, or stand for nothing, it didn't save those Senators, all it did was give their base no reason to vote for them, it didn't stop the Republican base from voting against them.
It's either populism or irrelevance for the Democrats.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Always liked her. I wish her massive success in carrying out her ideologies.

 

[kage69]

Always liked her. I wish her massive success in carrying out her ideologies.

Seconded.


The Banana republicans and their billionaire overlords are scared shitless of her. Good.

 

[thraashman]

Congress needs more people like Elizabeth Warren. She seems to be one of the few in Congress who's actually fighting for the people and not the self or the party.

 

[nageov3t]

the phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind.

I doubt she's going to be more than window dressing for Harry Reid to justify his otherwise terrible tenure of leadership.

 

[ElFenix]

she literally wrote the book on bankruptcy (textbook author) but i'm not sure how much i trust her when she can't accurately represent easily verifiable facts (claims average american house is not really bigger because number of rooms went up from 5.5 to 6, ignores square footage increase of ~50%)

 

[feralkid]

the phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind.

I doubt she's going to be more than window dressing for Harry Reid to justify his otherwise terrible tenure of leadership.

How was Reid so terrible for Democrats?

Or the country, for that matter?

 

[Jhhnn]

the phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind.

I doubt she's going to be more than window dressing for Harry Reid to justify his otherwise terrible tenure of leadership.

How was Reid so terrible for Democrats?

Or the country, for that matter?

He doesn't need any *reasons*. He just needs to affirm his Faith.

Righties simply do not approach politics from a rational POV. They apply deeply held principles of truthiness instead. They simply Believe whatever fits with those preconceived notions, and that's that.

 

[michal1980]

I like her.

Also, in before the bashing of her Native American ancestry remarks,.. 3,.. 2,...

lying is a resume booster for dems

 

[nageov3t]

He doesn't need any *reasons*. He just needs to affirm his Faith.

Righties simply do not approach politics from a rational POV. They apply deeply held principles of truthiness instead. They simply Believe whatever fits with those preconceived notions, and that's that.

well, it's at least marginally better than you assuming I'm a right wing nut because I don't like Harry Reid... not like you're just believing whatever fits with your preconceived notions

 

[werepossum]

well, it's at least marginally better than you assuming I'm a right wing nut because I don't like Harry Reid... not like you're just believing whatever fits with your preconceived notions

In Jhhnn's defense, I'm pretty sure he's just a buggy piece of code looking for key words and kicking out the tabular-dictated piece of proggie foam, not an actual person. So expectations should be kept low.

 

[werepossum]

I like her.

Also, in before the bashing of her Native American ancestry remarks,.. 3,.. 2,...

Dang, now my Fauxcohontas macro just seems like a waste of time.

 

[jackstar7]

She's typically capable of using the English language. That's a step in the right direction for Dems, and something from which they could learn.

 

[Jhhnn]

well, it's at least marginally better than you assuming I'm a right wing nut because I don't like Harry Reid... not like you're just believing whatever fits with your preconceived notions

If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Reid has been presented with unprecedented obstructionism by Repubs. It's really just that simple. They've adopted a radical agenda, and they have no intention of letting anything go any way other than their way w/o a fight. They'll take whatever hostages they need to accomplish that, to force failure & blame it on Dems.

And it's worked so far. Your disdain for Reid shows that.

 

[Jhhnn]

In Jhhnn's defense, I'm pretty sure he's just a buggy piece of code looking for key words and kicking out the tabular-dictated piece of proggie foam, not an actual person. So expectations should be kept low.

When you have no argument, resort to empty derision.

 

[werepossum]

When you have no argument, resort to empty derision.

Nice. I just defended you and you attack me.

If I thought you were capable of actually parsing sentences for meaning, I'd be hurt.

 

[nageov3t]

If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Reid has been presented with unprecedented obstructionism by Repubs. It's really just that simple. They've adopted a radical agenda, and they have no intention of letting anything go any way other than their way w/o a fight. They'll take whatever hostages they need to accomplish that, to force failure & blame it on Dems.

And it's worked so far. Your disdain for Reid shows that.

it's obstruction on both sides. the chief characterization of this past Senate term has been Reid pocket vetoing any bill for fear that Democrats might alienate voters by actually, you know, voting on things.

the leadership on both sides needs to be thrown out of the leadership, if not out of office entirely, for the current state of dysfunction.

 

[Matt1970]

He doesn't need any *reasons*. He just needs to affirm his Faith.

Righties simply do not approach politics from a rational POV. They apply deeply held principles of truthiness instead. They simply Believe whatever fits with those preconceived notions, and that's that.

Zero content, other than derision. Your usual.

You describe yourself rather well.

 

[michal1980]

so the left losing on the liberalism, goes more left.

 

[bozack]

not overly surprised as she is a rising star in the democratic party and somewhat favorable with the public given the emphasis by her party and the media on her work with banking and finance

However as someone from the state which she represents I am disheartened as here we have another limo liberal claiming to represent those which she cannot possibly relate to...someone who touted an overhyped background for personal gain, and who has little experience in the position to which she currently holds.

Its all posturing as they are moving her to a presidential bid and I figure if Hillary implodes this will be their fallback candidate.

 

[unokitty]

so the left losing on the liberalism, goes more left.

All of those politicians take money from the same lobbyists and campaign financiers. And they all pay similar think tanks to write similar propaganda...

Fact is a liberal Democratic politician has more in common with a conservative Republican politician than either has with you or I.

Fact is Congressmen spend 40 to 70 percent of their time looking for campaign contributions.

Fact is when either is defeated for congress, they will go down the street and go to work for the same Lobbying firms for about a 1500 percent raise.

For example, "In 2009 alone, lobbyists spent $3.5 billion, or about $6.5 million per each elected member in Congress." Anyone think that the lobbyists didn't get something for their $3.5 billion?

What we have is a political system that is legally corrupt. And the corruption is deep and it is systemic...

Blaming people that have a different political philosophy that you, doesn't do anything to fix the corruption in the system.

Uno