She's a nice, well-meaning woman and all, but she is part of the political $y$tem and submerged in the Senate.
"A telling incident: MSNBC’s Chris Matthews’ exchange with Sen. Elizabeth Warren
David Walsh
The testy exchange that took place June 19 on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” between the host and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is deserving of at least a brief comment.
First, the irritable character of the interview stands out in contrast to the normally comatose character of media and official public life in America, and thus created something of a stir. And that irritability itself is a sign of growing nervousness and divisiveness in establishment circles over the social situation in the US, as well as foreign policy disasters in Iraq and elsewhere. Associated with that is the rapidly growing unpopularity of the Obama administration, the most reactionary in American history, as registered in recent polls.
No political novice, Matthews, who began his career working on the staff of various Democratic Party politicians and served as chief of staff to Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill for six years in the 1980s, clearly has his finger in the wind.
The MSNBC talk show host, who fancies himself a “populist,” opened his program June 19 with a relatively blunt questioning of the Obama administration’s plan to send the US military back into Iraq. Addressing his viewers, he asked, “Do you … think we should be doing this, getting back into the Iraqi fighting, this time in the midst of its civil war? Do you think the president has the constitutional and/or the moral authority to be doing this?”
He continued, “Is this what the American people really want?” Matthews knows perfectly well that there is overwhelming opposition to a new Iraq war or any new American military intervention.
Later, when MSNBC political analyst David Corn suggested that Obama was considering renewed military action in Iraq “because he feels the pressure, mainly from the right,” Matthews interjected, “Screw them!” All in all, the discussion on Iraq reeked of bitterness, tension and pessimism. As another of his interviewees, Anne Gearan of the Washington Post, suggested, “The politics are impossible.”
Enter Sen. Warren—whom Matthews had earlier referred to as “a huge hero to progressives in the Democratic Party and around the country, and perhaps the most powerful elected voice among the progressives right now.”
The Massachusetts senator’s “progressive” credentials are a fraud, based on her occasional—and essentially toothless—criticisms of the banking industry as Special Adviser, appointed by Obama, to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Warren is a special “hero” to the left-liberal charlatans in and around theNation, whose gushing comments about her (especially those by John Nichols) would fill an especially deceitful and unpleasant volume. A few of the countless headlines will provide some idea of the magazine’s attitude: “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Give Students a Fighting Chance,” “Presidential Prospect or Not, Elizabeth Warren Has a Lesson for Democrats,” “Elizabeth Warren Steps Up for Populist Politics,” “Elizabeth Warren Comes Out for Expanding Social Security,” “Candidate or Not, Elizabeth Warren Has the Right 2016 Message,” “Elizabeth Warren, a Great Investment,” “Elizabeth Warren Tackles Wall Street,” “Elizabeth Warren Heads to Washington, an Uncompromising Senator for the Left,” etc.
If the Nation’s campaign on Warren’s behalf didn’t threaten to create further popular confusion, it would be merely laughable. She is a conventional bourgeois politician, who represents no danger to any element of the status quo. In 2011, for example, the New York Times took note of Warren’s “charm offensive,” while still Special Adviser, in top financial circles: “Ms. Warren’s calendar this year has been jam-packed with meetings on Wall Street. She has met with the chief executive of every major Wall Street bank, including Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Vikram S. Pandit of Citigroup and James P. Gorman of Morgan Stanley. Her industry outreach included talks with dozens of community bankers, too, and meetings with top credit card executives like Ajay Banga, the president and chief executive of MasterCard.”
In any event, Warren was on Hardball in June to peddle her new book, A Fighting Chance—and herself, as a possible candidate for national office. As Matthews had previously noted, “In polls of Democrats, she often comes in second only to Hillary [Clinton]. Her voice will be heard, even if she doesn’t run for president.”
By the time he got to Warren, however, Matthews had built up a certain contrarian head of steam. He first asked the senator, “What can and could, or will, the Democratic Party do, since it is the party that wants to do it, to create real jobs for people?,” and illustrated the situation with several examples of economic desperation and hopelessness.
Warren replied with obviously canned and empty comments about the need for “investment” in education, infrastructure and so on (this, from the representative of an administration that has destroyed hundreds of thousands of education jobs since 2009!). “Every time we talk about roads and bridges, when we talk about power grids, it’s really about setting the table, so that small businesses can start, so that business can grow, so they can flourish, so they can create jobs here at home.” Blah, blah, blah …
For whatever reason, Matthews wasn’t in the mood that evening for the usual hot air. “So, what are the Democrats going to do then?,” he reiterated, and carried on: “We have got so much in this country falling apart under our cities. It’s going to be underwater some day, thanks to climate change. We have got nobody working. I don’t understand the union movement in this country. Why aren’t they bitching and moaning and complaining every day, ‘We want big construction projects’?”
The host pressed the point, “And the president of the United States isn’t doing it. I don’t hear him talking about it. He talks about one thing one day, something else the next day. But I’m telling you, I don’t hear you getting it done. The Democrats control the US Senate. The Democrats control the White House. When are you going to do what you just said you would like to do? Just when? Give me a date. Is it 2017?”
The conversation continued along these lines:
WARREN: No. It’s now.
MATTHEWS: 2023? When is it?
WARREN: It’s now.
MATTHEWS: It isn’t now.
WARREN: Stop …
The senator, her plans for a smooth and presumably celebratory appearance somewhat in disarray by this point, angrily interrupted Matthews and proceeded to blame all the problems on the Republicans in Congress, who are “filibustering in the Senate.” In fact, as her interviewer pointed out, the Obama administration is proposing nothing in terms of job creation.
The host pursued the issue: “And I’m afraid, five years from now, we’ll be having the same conversation with you. And you are a fine senator, but it isn’t happening. It just isn’t. … Why don’t you call the president right now and say, ‘Why don’t you do something really big on infrastructure’? It will grab the public imagination. He’s not doing it.”
Warren, losing her temper, replied with further excuses and meaningless catch phrases: “We’ve got to get out there and fight … Look, we are fighting back. We are fighting for what we believe in. We are fighting to build a future for America … We need people across the country to help push on the Republicans.”
The former Harvard Law School professor offered absolutely no relief to the tens of millions suffering from poverty, joblessness and miserable wages and conditions in America. She resolutely rejected any criticism of the record and policies of the increasingly discredited Obama administration.
The conversation ended in some degree of awkwardness.
So much for the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party. Inadvertently no doubt, Matthews lifted the lid for an instant June 19 on its insincere, worthless and right-wing character.
Of course, even the more combative arguments in the American media invariably take place within a political and ideological straitjacket. The question of questions, capitalism, can never be raised.
It would never occur to Matthews or any of his colleagues to examine the economic interests that make alleviation of any of the social ills impossible, much less to consider an alternative to the bankrupt profit system. The MSNBC host well knows what can and can’t be said, and conducts himself accordingly. Inevitably, in the end, his arguments veer off in a reactionary, nationalist, anti-communist direction.
--MORE--"
I hope you can understand why I have no enthusiasm for this page A1 $hit $how political fooley, folks:
"Warren takes populist message to GOP-dominant South; Campaigns in Kentucky for McConnell challenger" by Matt Viser | Globe Staff June 30, 2014
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Senator Elizabeth Warren was in full campaign mode Sunday, thrusting her fists in the air and delivering folksy aphorisms with a slight twang as she relentlessly attacked Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell.
“I’m a little surprised to be here, partly because I’m a little surprised to be in the United States Senate,” Warren said, standing next to McConnell’s Democratic opponent, Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes. “I am the daughter of a janitor and I ended up in the United States Senate. America is truly a great place.”
Wow.
(Blog editor's chin drops to chest in sadness. The above blog commentary is totally validated two paragraphs into the Globe article)
The former Harvard law professor was on a two-day political swing through Kentucky. Her latest travels, which will include a trip to West Virginia in two weeks, represent a test of whether her brand of liberal populism, which has captivated the national left, can also appeal in the South and help Democrats defend their hold on the Senate majority.
The results of this experiment could have far-reaching consequences, not only for her own political fortunes but for the party’s efforts to reconnect with Southern, white, working-class voters.
“She is against the corporate monoliths that the average blue-collar Southern [finds] anathema” said Dick Harpootlian, who recently stepped down as the Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina. “She is someone who represents that anti-establishment, economic populism without being extreme. There is a segment, especially in the South, that that appeals to.”
Related: Liz Warren's Hot Air
Now I'm wasting my breath.
As Democrats head into an uphill midterm campaign season, Warren — one of the party’s top surrogates and fund-raisers — is being welcomed in places where most Democrats, chief among them President Obama, are not.
Jonathan Hurst, campaign manager for Grimes, said inviting Warren to visit was “a no-brainer.” She is, he said, “one of the strongest advocates in our party” on pocketbook issues.”
Warren has said she has no intention of running for president in 2016, which she reiterated in an interview (“I am not running for president. Do you want to put an exclamation point at the end of that?”). But these events are offering her a chance to test the waters on behalf of her party, in states that have been unfriendly to national Democrats in recent decades.
Warren’s ardent supporters are still hoping that she will run, even in light of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presumed candidacy.
Her candidacy is kind of cratering in light of the rather elitist comments she made regarding family wealth, plus people sick of the political royalty of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.
In feisty speeches during her weekend trip to Kentucky, Warren emphasized her modest upbringing in Oklahoma, her first marriage as a 19-year-old, and her long-standing focus on economic issues.
“I don’t think Harvard professors would normally play so well with these electorates,” said Stephen Voss, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky. “But she’s got a comforting appearance that’s quite at odds with the sort of striking red blazers and West Coast slickness of someone like Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama, with his Chicago urbane demeanor. She comes across maybe a bit like a grandmother.”
In two weeks, Warren will campaign in West Virginia with Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, who is facing an uphill battle in keeping a Democratic seat from switching when Senator Jay Rockefeller retires. She is also planning to campaign in Michigan, a state rocked by financial problems. She’ll be aiding Representative Gary Peters, who is trying to keep a Senate seat in Democratic hands when Carl Levin retires.
She has also sent out fund-raising appeals for candidates in Georgia, Louisiana, and Arkansas. All told she has raised or donated $2.3 million for 28 candidates, according to a tally by her political operation.
“It’s about whose side the candidate is on,” Warren said in an interview, when asked which candidates she is planning to campaign for. “Do they want to go to Washington so they can help the millionaires and billionaires, or do they want to give everybody a fighting chance?”
That's the same empty rhetoric from the Matthews show.
Kentucky has one of the most closely watched US Senate races in the country. It is a rare place where Democrats could have a chance at unseating not only a Republican incumbent, but the Senate’s top Republican — McConnell, who Warren repeatedly criticized during her weekend swing through the state.
Related: Cantoring Through Politics
That was on the right, though.
A survey released last week by the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, which had Grimes leading 48 percent-to-46 percent, illustrated why Warren could be an asset in Kentucky. Eighty percent said they were more likely to vote for “a candidate who wants to close loopholes to make sure millionaires do not pay a lower tax rate than the middle class.”
Asked in an interview why she is being invited to states that are not usually friendly territory for national Democrats, she called it “a hard question for me.” “But I will say this. I’m clear about what I stand for . . . Nobody has to guess twice whose side I’m on.”
Warren said she has been in contact with Grimes for nearly a year and was eager to help her in her attempt to unseat McConnell — in part, she said, to achieve more gender equity in Washington.
I was thinking that Christine LaGarde and Janet Yellen are two of the most powerful women in the world, and yet it is still a $hit hole? What gives with the "if woman were in charge" thing?
“Would I like to see more women in the United States Senate? Yes. And you can put that in capitals,” Warren said.
As longs they are DEMOCRATS, right?
But there may be another impetus for Warren’s trip to Kentucky: McConnell helped block her bill making it easier for students to refinance college loans. That legislation was the theme of a rally Sunday morning.
Oh!
It's personal!
There is political risk in having Warren campaign in southern states where coal production is a vital part of the economy – putting her policies out of step with the candidates she is backing. Both Tennant and Grimes have opposed Obama’s plans to limit carbon emissions, something Warren supports.
Hey, WHO CARES ABOUT HYPOCRISY and all that when it comes to politics?!!
Republicans, publicly giddy over a Massachusetts liberal coming to campaign in Kentucky, have seized upon the division.
“She’s decided to bring anticoal Massachusetts liberal Elizabeth Warren to Kentucky to campaign with her,” read one of the many e-mails sent out by the Kentucky Republican Party over the past few weeks. “Yes, you read that correctly . . .”
American Crossroads, a GOP superPAC, released a video Thursday calling Warren a “war on coal enthusiast” and “the queen of class warfare.” A handful of Republicans stood outside her rally Sunday with signs that noted Warren’s salary at Harvard: “Warren took $429,981 from students.”
“From the McConnell side, they think it’s great,” said Trey Grayson, a Republican who recently left the Harvard Institute of Politics and returned to his native Kentucky.
Still, her appeal is clear.
“These are the kinds of things that presidential candidates do in the lead-up to running one day,” Grayson said. “How often does a senator in year two in office get invited to do fund-raising events 900 miles away, with no tie to the area at all? It reinforces that she’s a national star.”
I don't want "star" politicians in charge anymore.
On Saturday night, Warren headlined a fund-raiser in northern Kentucky at the home of Nathan Smith, a businessman who has also held fund-raisers for Clinton.
I'll get to her below.
Under a setting sun, with Katy Perry’s “Roar” echoing repeatedly from the speakers, donors streamed into a yard overlooking a country club golf course. Some carried Warren’s book, “A Fighting Chance,’’ others wore T-shirts bearing her name. A young girl donned a pink shirt that read, “Elect women.”
Country club DEMOCRATS!!!
As guests sipped from beer cans and wine from plastic cups, about 200 people helped raise more than $200,000.
That's what, $1,000 a piece? That's more than those they are claiming to be for make in a month. Why not give the money directly to them rather than wasting it on politics so media ads and campaigns can be paid for? Let the corporations take care of that.
“She’s a populist,” Smith said. “And I think a populist politician from Massachusetts is very, very exciting to have.”
???????
--more--"
And don't get me wrong; I'm not a supporter of scummy Mitch McConnell, either. Both parties $uck, and both are to blame for the problems of this nation.
And about her signature effort and battle front:
"Interest rates rising modestly on student loans" Associated Press July 01, 2014
WASHINGTON — Interest rates go up Tuesday for students taking out new federal loans. This hike is modest but could foreshadow more increases to come.
The war has been lo$t.
The change stems from a high-profile, bipartisan deal brokered last year by Congress and signed by President Obama that ties the rates to the financial markets.
Interest rates go from 3.86 to 4.66 percent on undergraduate Stafford loans. Graduate student loans go from 5.41 percent to 6.21 percent. Interest rates on Plus loans for parents go from 6.41 percent to 7.21 percent.
For every $10,000 borrowed, the average borrower will pay $4 more per month when she begins paying back the money.
That ain't much, right? Nickel and a dime.
If the economy continues to improve, however, rate hikes could continue....
The economy has only improved for the 1% and the rates are going up anyway because this economy is dead in the water.
The compromise in Congress was reached after rates doubled last July....
After the Democrats set the bill up to expire in the summer of 2012 so they would have a good campaign issue to motivate you pudding-head students.
Why didn't they just lock in a good, low rate like banks get?
Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of edvisors.com, estimates today’s freshman could see rates the same or higher than they were when Congress acted by the time they graduate. When Congress acted, rates for undergraduates were at 6.8 percent. ‘‘The real concern is that the interest rates have nowhere to go but up,’’ Kantrowitz said.
That is what I have been saying for months.
The deal did include some caps. Interest rates will not top 8.25 percent for undergraduates. Graduate students will not pay rates higher than 9.5 percent, and parents’ rates top out at 10.5 percent.
--more--"
Related: Instructor Obama Scamming Students
"Here’s a surefire recipe for meeting the first lady: collect millions of irreplaceable Yiddish books over
the course of 30-plus years, share the collection with 600 university
and research libraries around the world, and post the full texts of
12,000 of those volumes online. Aaron Lansky began this task in 1980 and
is founder of the Yiddish Book Center in Amherst, which was one of 10
recipients of this year’s National Medal for Museum and Library Service.
The awards were handed out by Michelle Obama on Thursday morning in the
East Room of the White House. “The Center’s work chronicling the Jewish story and educating families about Yiddish and Jewish culture is outstanding,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren."
Time to closing the book on Liz Warren despite what certain people may feel. She disowned me, not the other way around.
As for that other leading lady of the Democrap party:
Some schools paying big for Clinton stop
Six-figure fees for speeches at a time of austerity in higher education. Speaking fees could become a political liability for her in the 2016 campaign given that President Obama and other Democrats have made college affordability a central plank of the party’s agenda.
Pfft!
And she was out there crying poverty?
Arkansas should keep Clinton records open even to critics
You can look through them.
I've got checks to cash:
"Chelsea Clinton stepping up to the mic" New York Times July 10, 2014
NEW YORK — There is a new Clinton paid to deliver speeches — Chelsea, the former first daughter — and she is commanding as much as $75,000 per appearance.
Aides stressed that while Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton often address trade groups and Wall Street bankers, Chelsea Clinton, 34, focuses on organizations whose goals are in line with the work of the family’s philanthropic organization, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Organizers said her star power helped sell tickets and raise money.
I'm sick of Clinton celebrity, aren't you? That dysfunctional family is no role model.
See: Family is All in the Clinton Foundation
I don't want to think about it.
And unlike her parents, Clinton passes all of the fees she earned to the foundation, said her spokesman, Kamyl Bazbaz.
The family speech-making business is lucrative, generating more than $100 million for her parents over the past decade as they hopscotched the globe.
Yeah, thanks for contributing to the greenhouse gas and global warming problems, you $elf-$erving a$$holes.
Their fees range from $200,000 to $700,000 per appearance.
Doled out by the 1% they front for.
Clinton’s speeches focus on causes such as eradicating water-borne diseases. And she dispenses lessons picked up from her family. (“Life’s not about what happens to you, it’s about what you do with what happens to you,” she likes to say).
Such $age advice from a $poiled brat.
--more--"
At least Chelsea is being well-taken care of.
