” … progressive side of the aisle …”?

Ah, DDay, ’tis rarely that I find myself at a possumable wee point of disagreement with your tireless and most prolific self.

However, I’m most curious as to the “progressive side” aspect of your post.

WHAT progressive “side” might ye be referrin’ to?

Until and unless Elizabeth Warren, clearly and distinctly, distances herself from one Barack Obama, and, as well from the statement allegedly offered up by herself, that “defeating terrorism is job number one”, then neither is she, beyond her narrow focus, possibly, on economic foul-play, a “progressive” nor has she shown any deeply considered viewpoints that may realistically lead any thoughful person to so conclude.

Elizabeth Warren should be asked, very clearly and pointedly, a number of questions … questions which she must, honorably and reasonably, be expected to answer, before the goings-on you mention, the “million$ to be lavi$hed upon SCott Brown, may be considered to be anything more than futher, traditional “two-party” kabuki, the playground of billionaires.

If Warren is but a “better” Dem, then even the “event” of her election is but more of the same … and to pretend otherwise is neither to reasonably “hope” nor to engage in rational consideration, rather, it is to forlornly and fruitlessly hope against hope that some gilb and articulate, but essentially unknown “person”, will prove to be some sort of a savior … another “last chance” … for democracy and “the people”.

May I say I will not mind, in the slightest, to be proven quite wrong.

Would you care to speculate how you might feel if you are the one ultimately proven wrong?

Like the questions which Warren rightfully must be asked, so too, David, you must be willing to ponder the question which I have posed to you.

As always, however, you have my appreciation and deepest respect.

DW

Yes by all means, you must destroy your opponents before they even get into the game. You have to make sure that they will play ball, will sign the Grover Norquest oath of office and follow the rules as set out by Gingreich and the crew long before they even get to sit in on your own little private circle. If not pre-screened by the right wing, one may come up with ideas contrary to their wall street gods,and could make waves or put ideas into the heads of others that have already sold their souls to the corporate dictatorship of our brave new America. This country keeps loosing the blood of democracy by keeping some of the more principled people out of congress. I guess if we had a few people in their, that thought more about the real scales of justice and good vs evil, it would make the rest of the pack seem truly mercenary.

Seems to me Elizabeth Warren should run as Elizabeth Warren and clearly articulate her policy positions and her goals. She doesn’t have to be a one woman pole on O and his administration.

What she does have to do is watch out for the master framers of the right and their noise machine. Unless and until the non-right masters the frame game, it will lose.

There’s just no reason to do any of this if Warren wasn’t a) in prime position to beat Brown and b) a credible spokesman for the progressive side of the aisle who would have a major impact on national politics.

I pick a)

a 1%er masquerading as a 99%er. As P.T. Barnum said, “a sucker born every minute.” The country doesn’t need anymore “progressives” it needs revolutionaries.

Entropy has finally found it’s way to FDL.

a 1%er masquerading as a 99%er.

I would give her a little more leeway, a chance to prove herself — but YMMV.

What you said.

So far, I’ve not seen ONE erected offal who meets any definition of progressive . . . they either get bought off early, or sooner thatn later.

In Mz. Warren’s case there are already unanswered questions aplenty.

Warren has made some impressive remarks, but “Fightin’ Terra is Job One” is not one of them.

Impressive perhaps – in that it leaves an impression. Like a bruise incurred while flailing about when being waterboarded.

one must always wonder how the names on the paper got there. I clearly remember all that hope and change went the way of the cowhand.

I’m singularly unimpressed with Warren, as well. The system is corrupt and corrupting. I don’t really care whether she beats Brown or not. Just more Kabuki Show. I’d like to be proven wrong, but alas I doubt it.

DW and Larue:

I am very skeptical as well — but I think we can wait and see, no?

I agree with you on your skepticism towards Warren. I hope she’s the best thing ever, but at this point I’m not entirely convinced.

As far as this statement goes–

“If Elizabeth Warren were no threat to the established order, they wouldn’t get around to any effort to stop her ascension in the Massachusetts Senate race until much later in the cycle, if at all”

That doesn’t really follow, I mean repubs attack Obama relentlessly and he’s absolutely no threat at all to the established order.

wc fields used that one too.

Geez. Why do we have to knee-cap the woman before we see what she can do? I’d rather have her than Scott no matter what she does.

I’d rather have her than Scott no matter what she does.

Me too.

I shy on caution. One who plays in the cesspool carries a lingering stench.

And altho Bluetoe might seem a bit harsh, I too do NOT give much credence to the present political system and process as it’s FULLY owned and operated by the corporate fascists . . .

So a bit of disdain and distaste for ANY politician is first upon my thots and lips . . they gotta PROVE to me they are different.

N they can’t, NONE of them can . . . they are already owned or they would Never get a chance to run for office, much less HOLD office.

That’s where MY cynicism comes from.

I understand yer thots, Twain’s also.

But see my #18 . . . ‘splains simply and clearly why I feel the way I do.

She certainly managed to stand up to those flatulent @sshats who tried to denigrate her when she testified before the committee. I would like to give her more chances to do that in the Senate.

That doesn’t really follow, I mean repubs attack Obama relentlessly and he’s absolutely no threat at all to the established order.

Ding.

What I’m noodling over is the est order vs the est order.

There are factions within PTB. O is of a diff one from Koch. Who, exactly pulls O’s strings? Name names, is what I’m looking for. PhRMA/ins execs? Excelon CEO. That’s what I want to know. Specifics.

Mr. Dayen is referring to traditional election year campaigning and the money flows . . the cycles that are part of electioneering. Standard procedures we’ve all known and seen since our first vote.

In the case he discusses, the money and rhetoric are flowing earlier and heavier than ever before.

SO, it’s news worthy in that traditional coverage of electioneering and such.

Hope that sets yer comment back on course, prapuh like. ;-)

Mr. Dayen is one of the best I’ve ever seen at what he does, and I’m 58 and have been politically aware, active and well read since 15.

I tend to get a bit protective of him even if I disagree with him at times . . . ;-)

Yep, they are both right and it’s still true, too.

*G*

you mean like the leeway Obama was given?

If she’s no better then to what point?

And I think in Barney Frank and Alan Grayson, not to mention every politician ever, we have a history to suggest she won’t be any better . . . so . . . . never forget!

*stings*

;-)

i passed “cynical” a long time ago. If she were to come out and say, “I’m a revolutionary and this corrupt system cannot stand” I’d go and volunteer for her “campaign.”

Ok, and be what, THE FIRST TO EVER DO SO?

History, Twain, past behavior as a predictor . . . the system as is.

I just can’t DO the dream stuff anymore, it’s all kabuki and the end result is what the Senate is debating . . . the indefinite detention of US citizens who might dissent about it all.

So no, I don’t and won’t hold Mz Warren to any hope . . . the system does not allow for her to be what you want her to be.

It’s simple, Twain.

Obama and all the politicians proved it for me, never again.

Yes, I once proudly voted for Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi . . . and now I regret it.

Never again.

Isn’t everything the banks have done with the people’s money exactly socialism for them??

Heh, don’t really matter does it?

They all own and operate all the erecteds and appointeds so sides and names don’t really matter much to me . . . ;-)

Me,too.

Hope is what keeps me alive and I won’t give up. I have given up on the Dem party but our recovery from this horror has to start somewhere. Maybe it’s Warren. I can’t vote for her anyway but we need people who will say THE WORDS. Grayson say The Words and I’ll be glad to start with that.

“I just can’t DO the dream stuff anymore, it’s all kabuki and the end result is what the Senate is debating . . . the indefinite detention of US citizens who might dissent about it all.”

and the PTB just might want her to get elected so she can then be one in the minority voting against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and the PTB can then say, “see the system really works because we’ve had out debate and now the people have spoken.”

This system makes kabuki look like children’s theater.

I’d cook and shine her shoes.

Unfortunately, yes.

Grayson was last time I’ll ever donate to any pol. I not only get his relentless emails, his telephone slaves have the temerity to call me for donations on my cell phone.

What’s the definition of insanity again?

And I would fetch your pots and pans, and your polish and brush.

Yer hope is much more ensconsed in the establishment and the established order of things than mine is.

THAT hope was faint and has gone away forever once Obama announced his cabinet picks and The House & The Senate & SCOTUS continued to behave as if George Bush were their leader.

Nope, it’s corporate fascism, and there IS no hope in the system as is. This is NOT democracy, it’s not representative democracy.

It’s corporate fascism.

Hoping for politicians to lead us to better is just plain . . . silly.

Indeed.

The difference between insanity and hope is minute, I agree.

What unmitigated gall those basterds!!

I still get emails, and I BLOCKED the crap, too!

May weasels rip their flesh . . . . ;-) (Zappa)

Heh, you get extra rations then . . . I’ll control the pantry and larder. ;-)

I have no faith in the establishment – I have hope that there are some decent people who care about our country. None of those are in office now.

Think Groundhog Day.

and “liberals” sing “I’m a little pimp with my hair greased back” :)Zappa

Someone’s home, her weekend is here, and she demands I attend to the pantry and larder . . . go figger, with power comes, obesience. ;-)

All you FireBaggers be well and hug ‘em close . . . into the fray once more we will surely be cast soon enough.

She sat in the WH while the American home owner (consumer) was raped — with barely a public peep.

She needs to be pressed immediately as to whether that will change, I agree.

If not, then we need to jettison her.

Oh, shit. I killed another thread.

I don’t think that going after credit card scams makes her the progressive Joan of Arc that some people are making her out to be. In fact, she was only just advocating that, since Obama never put her to an up-or-down vote, nor did he use a recess appointment, to put her in as head of a basically-neutered CFPB.

As for her being “a credible spokesman for the progressive side of the aisle, we need to remember a few things:

She had no problem with Obama, for most of a year, using her for a liberal dog yummy to try to keep progressives on the reservation. If, fairly early on, in that repeated bass-plug-retrieval thing that he was using her for, she’d held a presser and demanded a straight-up vote (which the democrats would have won) instead of the yo-yo’ing that she held still for, she’d be more deserving of the adoring posts that some bloggers are writing about her.

And there is that bottom line of the fact that she was a republican until she was 46, and has refused to say whether or not she voted for Reagan.

IF she is elected to the Senate, she may very well have some votes which will be more important than any discomfort she may cause Wall Street. So far, everyone seems to be lobbing softball questions at her.

I’d like to hear what she would do if Obama launches a “premptive” attack on Iran.

I’m not dead agin her, but I’m concerned about the same old relativistic shit of: “At least she’s better than the republican.”
That campaign strategy is what got our asses handed to us in the mid-terms, and if we try it again, I think the result will be even worse.

She’s said some good things about her economic philosophy, but there is nothing she can do about that for more than a year. We need her to speak out about getting us out of Afghanistan, and about stopping the use of drones (another good question for her) to kill a few “terrists”, along with quite a number of innocent Afghans and Pakistanis.

Lastly, I don’t think she can win by running with Obama. I think that if she doesn’t put some serious distance between he and hersself, Brown will surgically implant him on her head. I’d like to see some indication that she understands that, and is willing to stake out a position more independent of the Great Compromiser. Failing that, I think that she’ll attempt to triangulate her way to a win, and will lose.

Good God David,

I do not believe you are this naive. a lot of comments here do not buy into your stupid thesis. banks are afraid so they are going after warren, even if she were elected what could her ONE VOTE do.

I am starting to wonder if you are bi-polar. you post articles that speak to the truth and then you post articles that prop up the lies. maybe it is time you decide what you think is the reality

The way I see it, here’s the best case scenario:

Warren is a genuine progressive.
Warren wins.
Dems in Congress then make sure than Warren sits on meaningless committees that have no jurisdiction over legislation involving finance, budget, justice, labor, commerce, etc. She ends up on the Inland Waterways Committee and the Dept of Interior committee on Subtropical Endangered Species, etc.

BTW, wonder what the chances are that after the election Warren, if elected, might reveal that her definition of fighting terrorism includes fighting financial terrorism.

that about sums it up. so save your energy

Man and here I thought I was cynical. Unless you are willing to take up arms and stand opposed to the powers that be most of you here are simply huge hypocrites. Yes its frustrating that our democratic candidates seem to be the “worst and the dumbest” (in comparison to best and brightest and rarely show a spine whatsoever BUT it still beats the alternative.

What I have given up on is the let em have it all mentality that only after they rule it all will the common folk suddenly awaken and see the error of their ways. I hear that alot from fed up progressives. It stinks.

Yes we should hold candidates feet to fire but to give up the good because they are not great isnot only political suicide but naivete of the first degree. GROW up and work for positve change…..

Putting all political labels aside, it is possible that Warren possesses a trait that makes the moneyed elite tremble: integrity. If that is the case, then the “lesser of two evils” becomes much more desireable in my mind. Does that mean that she would always vote the way progressives want? Probably not. But if OWS is praised for “changing the conversation”, wouldn’t it be helpful to have a voice that speaks with integrity and sincerity? Just her presence in the race has already elevated the level of enthusiasm for many voters.

And for the deeply cynical, I have three questions: What outcome would change your attitude? How do we get there? What would you contribute to the process?

What’s missing from DDay’s post?

A link to Warren’s site where you can sign up and make a donation to her campaign.

I hope she doesn’t win. She’s better off as an independent voice of sanity. She goes to DC that place destroys you. If she is a progressive, what the hell can she do there anyway?? LIke all of Bernie Sanders’ ideas are being imiplemented by Congress? Like Kucinich is a voice actually listened to in the House? YOu need at least 10-20 more like her in the Senate to have any impact and that ain’t happening in the next 50 years. Elizabeth Warren running for Senate is just another case of barking at the moon. Her election or non-election in the grand scheme has close to zero percent meaning.

Give more to “Occupation Supply.” Revolutions ain’t cheap.

I can answer that foreign policy question for you already. She’s honing the DSCC line: Don’t buck Obama’s line.

In late August, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) hosted a foreign policy briefing featuring the expertise of analysts with Third Way, the centrist Democratic think tank, and the National Security Network (NSN), a more progressive organization.

[S]taffers on the call were told that their candidates should stick to strong and pragmatic tones early in the campaign, by projecting the need for both “tough” and “smart” national security strategies.
Breaking from the president on foreign policy — or entering into gratuitous debates on international matters — was discouraged, as the hosts said it could only hurt a candidate at this point in the campaign.

“They aren’t saying ignore foreign policy, but, rather, that you should engage in a way that aligns yourself with the president,” the source said of the impression left by the call. “In other words, establish credibility without really saying anything.”

And my personal favorite:

Canter added that Democratic senators and candidates retain “the independence to ask tough questions when it comes to national security.”

Here’s what she said when asked about Iran: (w/ Video)

Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren gives a non-answer on Iran, saying that we should leave “all options on the table” and cheering the president’s very “nuanced” foreign policy.

She’s toeing the party line.
It’s a wingnut site so they are pissed off she’s not calling for the bombing of Iran, but ‘all options are on the table’ is an absurd position for a country that hasn’t violated the NPT and is pursuing it’s legal right to manufacture uranium for isotopes or energy, and hasn’t threatened anyone.

Unfortunately, no one who wants to get elected who doesn’t have their own money can buck this line until they are in.

Unfortunately good ideas without power to implement them will get us nowhere.