Type to search

Sen. Warren Is Tribune Of Left And Its Fondest White House Wish

McClatchy Tribune News Service Politics

Sen. Warren Is Tribune Of Left And Its Fondest White House Wish


By Lesley Clark, McClatchy Washington Bureau

DETROIT — “Is this the line for the groupies?”

Amanda Knief asked the question with a laugh, but liberal fervor for Sen. Elizabeth Warren runs deep, as evidenced by the fans who’d gathered some 90 minutes before the Massachusetts Democrat took the stage in Detroit recently at the nation’s largest gathering of liberal activists.

Volunteers with a group that’s hoping to convince Warren to launch a bid for the White House handed out “Warren for President” stickers and hats. As the senator signed copies of her latest book, “A Fighting Chance,” supporters pressed her to consider a run in 2016.

Warren’s pugnacious battle against Wall Street titans and her impassioned defense of liberal touchstones have fans swooning.

“She represents the conscience of America,” said Monica Lewis Patrick, 48, a public policy analyst in Detroit.

She cited Warren’s unabashed criticism of the banking industry, which the senator charges duped homeowners and helped spark the financial crisis.

“She speaks truth to power unapologetically,” Patrick said.

Knief, 37, a public policy activist, said Warren was inspiring a new round of activism.

“She makes us think, ‘We can do this,’ ” said Knief. “She’s out there making things happen.”

A former Sunday school teacher, Warren delivers populist stemwinders with confrontational rhetoric. She speaks more like an activist than a politician, decrying “sleazy lobbyists” and their “Republican friends in Congress,” along with rapacious corporations and big banks that she says “swagger through Washington” focused on squashing any effort to regulate them.

For liberals and many who feel left behind by an economy that’s supercharged Wall Street but done little to lift salaries, the subjects of Warren’s ire are fitting targets.

“Most of our politicians are preoccupied with raising money, much of it from Wall Street,” said Egberto Willies, 52, a Houston blogger and software developer. “We finally have a politician who truly believes and advocates for the middle class.”

Warren comes by her populism honestly. She taught for two decades at Harvard Law School, but the Oklahoma native underscores her modest roots: Her father was a janitor and her mother worked at Sears, earning minimum wage, Warren tells audiences.

Her parents didn’t have enough money to send young Elizabeth to college, so she enrolled at a commuter school, paying $50 a semester.

Warren first drew widespread liberal ardor when she issued pointed critiques as the chair of a congressional oversight panel that monitored the $700 billion federal taxpayer bailout of the banking industry in 2008. At one hearing, she allowed protesters toting signs that read “Give us our $$$$$ back” and “Where’s our money?” to stay during a nearly two-hour congressional hearing.

She left the panel in 2010 to help launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, aimed at cracking down on deceptive and abusive loan products. Calling for a strong consumer watchdog, she memorably said her second choice would be “no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.”

Many had hoped she’d become the bureau’s first director, and she was a natural choice. But President Barack Obama passed her over amid staunch opposition from congressional Republicans and financial service industry lobbyists who thought Warren was hostile to their interests.

She ran for the Senate instead, defeating Republican former Sen. Scott Brown, despite what she says were pledges by Wall Street to “send money by the double bucketful” to defeat her.

Warren boasts that the financial protection agency has returned $4 billion to consumers, and as much as some backers would like her to run for president, many want her to remain in the Senate. She’s repeatedly told reporters pressing her about presidential aspirations that she’s serving out her Senate term, which runs to 2019.

Republicans have taken note of Warren’s popularity. America Rising, a conservative group that does opposition research on Democrats, says it’s tracking Warren now, along with Clinton.

“Democrats are launching a campaign to draft liberal Democrat Elizabeth Warren for president,” America Rising said in a fundraising appeal. “America can’t afford to let that happen.”

Photo: Senate Democrats via Flickr

Interested in U.S. politics? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!



  1. Dominick Vila August 1, 2014

    A politician willing to confront Wall Street, and issues that most politicians don’t want to touch with a 10-foot pole, should be like a gift from Heaven for any person capable of rational thinking.
    In a political environment where opportunists take advantage of the naivete of so many people, an environment where the truth is irrelevant, where the record is nothing more than an irritant to be ignored, and where former Presidents, when asked what they remember most about their tenure, can’t think of anything more relevant than say “the feeling of fame and power”, a politician like Elizabeth Warren is a blessing. I hope she runs, and if that means I am a liberal, so be it.

    1. FT66 August 1, 2014

      As much as I like Elizabeth Warren, and as much as I admire what she always says, this woman can’t win the General Election. As simple as that. We should differentiate to like what a person says and to like the person who says what we like and makes sense.

      1. Dominick Vila August 1, 2014

        The problem with Elizabeth is that most Americans don’t know her, and are unaware of what she has done, and what she continues to do, such as trying to change the tax code to make it more progressive.

        1. FT66 August 1, 2014

          Exactly, You are 120% right. Thanks for getting my point.

        2. DurdyDawg August 1, 2014

          Progressive is the key word here.. The GOP wants conservatism (the more right the better).. Their philosophy is, so long as the oil is flowing, why waste time perfecting green power? Their motto is, so long as you can avoid pot holes and don’t fall into highway gaps, why repair or create a better transportation system.. They believe space exploration is a waste of time because the earth is not going to be destroyed (in their lifetime) and anyway, God’s planet isn’t too far away and will be available when (if) the earth is destroyed.. Progressives just wants to improve and head into the 21st century as it should be done, for balance, for harmony.. for progress’ sake.

          1. Dominick Vila August 2, 2014

            For the GOP the environment is nothing more than a resource to be exploited. As for space exploration, anything that challenges their medieval beliefs is, by definition, evil, but only when it does not allow them to criticize people they hate. Do you remember the attacks against Obama when the Shuttle program was cancelled because of the dangers posed by aging vehicles? He was blamed for not having a replacement program ready, even though it usually takes a decade to finalize the concept, design, development, and testing of a new manned program. The funniest part is that they were criticizing Obama’s decision to transfer responsibility to private industry! So much for socialism…

          2. dpaano August 27, 2014

            And, if I remember, they didn’t want to give him any money to do what they expected him to do! Hypocrisy at its finest!

          3. RobertCHastings August 28, 2014

            Like demanding he do something about immigration, and refusing to come up with adequate funding. Bush did the same thing with his wars and No Child Left Behind – both mandated by the government, but no funding sought or authorized. Taxes SHOULD have paid for them, but public debt was issued, public debt from which the wealthy benefit because they are the ones that buy it up.

          4. dpaano August 28, 2014

            But the conservatives don’t seem to understand that in order to pay for things they want, they have to raise taxes, which they won’t do. For some reason, they seem to think this country will run on nothing! It’s ridiculous!

          5. RobertCHastings August 28, 2014

            Much of the “stimulus” packages (BOTH) were credited to Obama’s budget, and the continuing expenses for BOTH wars were attributed to him. While he TRIED to do the right thing, PAY for his budget items through taxation, the Republicans have resisted the repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

      2. Mark August 1, 2014

        A. How do we know she couldn’t win the general election? Considering the way top GOP contenders keep shooting themselves in the foot (Chris Christie, Scott Walker), in the mouth (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz), or are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun (Rick Santorum, Rand Paul), not to mention their resident idiot-savant (Rick Perry), who would she face? Even if she didn’t win the nomination, she’d force Hilary to address liberal concerns.

        1. FT66 August 1, 2014

          We know that she can’t win the General Election here is why: (thanks to Dominick has already answered your question). Just in brief she is not known. It needs more than 2 years to let people know her and hence vote for her. If everyone of us is rooting for winning, why put a person who is known by few and not able to carry away the win?

          1. Mark August 2, 2014

            Remember a guy named Barack Obama? Prior to the 2008 election, he was a virtual unknown (don’t tell me about the 2004 convention speech; most people forget about those 5 minutes after they hear them.) He announced his candidacy late in 2006. Two years later, he took the inevitable Hilary coronation down for the count, then went on to win the presidency. If he could do it in two years, why can’t Elizabeth Warren? By running, even if she doesn’t win, she forces Hilary to address liberal issues. Without a serious challenge from the left, Madame Secretary will run as a Wall Street Democrat, which is good for absolutely no one.

          2. FT66 August 3, 2014

            Yes I do remember the then Barack Obama Jr. as the Senator in 2008. Do you compare him then with Elizabeth Warren of now? Really?? The man that time was setting fire in every point he touched and left it to burn while doing campaigns. People were quite inspired by him and had a reason to vote for him. Watching him it was like watching wild fire burning and no one could had the power and gut to extinguish it. Are you expecting this from Ms. Warren? Please be frank!

          3. Mark August 4, 2014

            What about all the work Elizabeth Warren has done fighting Wall Street and other financial interests on behalf of consumers? She terrifies Wall Street so much, they moved heaven and earth a few years ago to have the Republicans block her nomination as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board. You indicate people need a hero; someone to believe in, and I agree, Barack Obama was that hero in 2008. Elizabeth Warren can be that same hero Barack Obama was. Two years is an eternity with all the tools at a candidate’s disposal these days. Tell me something; in 2008, did you ever buy in to the Hilary mystique? I didn’t then, and I don’t now. I’ll vote for her if she’s the Democratic nominee, but I’m tired of the Democrats expecting us to vote for whichever party stalwart they trot out. For Hilary to get my vote in the primary, she has to prove to me that she has some legitimate ideas, not that it’s her turn. Elizabeth Warren would be a breath of fresh air, and she would likely get the Obama supporters who still haven’t forgotten 2008.

          4. RobertCHastings August 28, 2014

            Don’t rag on the Democrats crowning their favorite. Remember Bob Dole?

          5. RobertCHastings August 28, 2014

            Since the Recession of 2007/2008, Warren has been vocally calling to task the BANKERS AND those who allowed them to get off so lightly, INCLUDING some of the regulators. As she continues to, like Bernie Sanders, advocate Progressive solutions, she will, by 2016, become MUCH more visible than Obama was by 2008,and much more influential in Congress than Hillary OR Obama ever were, making her a very likeable candidate.

          6. Douglas Johnson August 4, 2014

            Geraldine Ferraro was active in the Hillary Clinton primary campaign in 2008 when she commented, in March, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” She responded harshly to criticism of her remarks, saying “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?” Clinton expressed disapproval of Ferraro’s comments.


          7. Mark August 4, 2014

            Are you saying that because Elizabeth Warren is a woman, Geraldine Ferraro’s comments would affect her? Or is the point Ms. Ferraro’s comments will come back to haunt Hilary?

          8. Douglas Johnson August 4, 2014

            No, the comment pertained to Obama. I agree with Ferraro that he arrived at a fortuitous time in political history. I supported Hilliary and voted for Obama when he got the nomination. Hilliary disavowed the racism in Ferraro’s remarks, so I think the comments are OBE other than as a timely explanation of Obama’s meteoric rise in popularity.

          9. dpaano August 27, 2014

            As I said above…..she may not run for president, but it would be an interesting election if she ran as VP with Hillary!! The Republicans would go batshit!

          10. RobertCHastings August 28, 2014

            I would love to see her and Bernie Sanders on the same ticket, but two Progressives of their caliber would be almost too much. At present, the ONLY thing Hillary has going for her is moderation.

          11. dpaano August 28, 2014

            I have to agree….she’s the the PERFECT candidate, but she has the wherewithal to win if she handles it right.

          12. RobertCHastings August 28, 2014

            I fear many of us Democrats look at Progressives as clones of liberals. Nothing could be further from the truth. While both of these branches of the Democratic Party have been around for a long time, Progressives are of a more pragmatic turn, and less ideological purists.

          13. RobertCHastings August 28, 2014

            Let us NOT forget that one of the most POPULAR Democratic presidents in the past sixty years (Bill Clinton) was a virtual unknown, before he won his first primary battle in 1992. JFK was a virtual unknown who, like Obama, had only served one term as Senator. Before his election as president, Obama’s main claim to fame was being a keynote speaker at the 1996 Democratic convention – he was no better known that Elizabeth Warren four years before he ran as president, and Warren will be much more of a household word by 2016 than Obama was by 2008. Warren was catapulted upon the public stage shortly after the collapse in 2007/2008 when she demanded accountability of the big banks, and she has been in attack mode ever since. She will have a much more favorable public image by 2016 that ANY of the Republicans who, at this time, might be considered to run against her. And Hillary, by trying to distance herself from Obama, is alienating a lot of Democrats. Lest we forget, at THIS point in W’s presidency, his approval rating was just over half what Obama’s is, so the guy in the WH is STILL far more popular than his Republican opponents (Congress’ approval ratings are below 15% and, except for Romney, ALL the above-mentioned Republican/Libertarian candidates are STILL in Congress).

      3. DurdyDawg August 1, 2014

        I believe she would win regardless, especially with the 2012 re-run that the GOP is ready to re-introduce but also I think at this time and with her lack of experience (unlike H. Clinton) that the opposition would make her tenure a repeat of what they have and continue to do with Obama.. She’s tough I know and can probably take it but to accomplish anything under her administration she would have to take off the gloves and literally play hardball which would again bring out the hate for the commie libs and sympathy for the neo-cons who keep promising they can fix the country (but continue to play mud pie in the hog trough).. In my opinion it would be a tactical mistake that would resound for decades to come.

      4. Elliot J. Stamler August 2, 2014

        I agree with you totally. She is not the liberals’ dream candidate, she is the leftists’ dream candidate..the same “activists” that gave us George McGovern and Michael Dukakis and gave the country resultantly Richard Nixon and G.H.W. Bush. I too like and respect Sen. Warren and happily contributed to her senatorial campaign but the facts are: she won’t run; if she does, she won’t be nominated; if she was she’d lose the election. And if that happens those leftists who are a veritable CANCER in the Democratic Party would again give us a national disaster..take your choice: President Cruz/Rubio/Perry/Santorum/Huckabee/Paul.

        1. RobertCHastings August 28, 2014

          Bernie Sanders, except for his age, is more of a liberal than Warren. Elizabeth is much more of a pragmatist than Sanders, and much more likeable than Hillary, although, as you say, she WILL take the gloves off and throw a punch when it is necessary.

          1. Elliot J. Stamler August 28, 2014

            When she ran here in NYS for senator she had no problem at all taking off the gloves (but decently) in dispatching her first Republican opponent, former Rep. Rick Lazio and her utterly hapless and pathetic second opponent, Yonkers Mayor John Spencer.

        2. Mark August 28, 2014

          While you’re probably right on all counts, would it be so terrible if she ran and forced Hilary to speak her mind on progressive issues? Right now, Ms. Clinton is happy to run as a Wall Street Centrist, something we neither need nor particularly want. She needs to be prodded just a little before she gets the Democrats who vote on the issues excited about her candidacy.

          1. Elliot J. Stamler August 28, 2014

            Assuming Sec. Clinton runs I have little thoroughly explain her views on all issues and her philosophy of politics and governance. So I don’t think anyone need run to prod her. Today any candidate is examined under one hundred microscopes about everything. I want to comment on your use of the term “Wall St. centrist.” I am that myself perhaps even ‘tho I never was employed in finance. Being an investor has made me a (small) millionaire and I am thus involved in Wall St. as any smart investor is. You are smearing the entire financial industry for the stupidities, greed and misdeeds of some…that, Mark, is stereotyping. Why do you think there are Wall St. tycoons who are strong Democrats, have intelligent, humane and progressive views (‘tho you mightn’t agree with them) and whose generous financial support of the party is literally INDISPENSABLE for Democratic victories. Do you want every wealthy person to go with the Kochs and Rove? As for being a centrist that is EXACTLY what our country needs and wants. This is NOT a leftist or ultra-liberal country but–neither is it a rightist ultra-conservative country, thank God. I want a sensible, centrist-to-liberal, realistic and humane Democrat elected in 2016…the alternative to Hillary Clinton is NOT Sen. Warren or Sen. Sanders…the alternative to her that you will get, we’ll all get, is President (take your choice, Mark): Cruz/Rubio/Perry/Bush/Huckabee/Santorum/Paul … and there goes the constitution and political democracy.

    2. RobertCHastings August 8, 2014

      It by no means implies that you are a liberal. Warren is NOT a liberal, but a pragmatic Progressive who, like Bernie Sanders, sees the truth for what it is and speaks it, regardless of the consequences. Many politicians know the truth, but have come to understand that, although it is not irrelevant, it need not be spoken. The more often the truth is heard, the more important it becomes. Conservatives look at the other side of this coin.

      1. Mark Forsyth August 27, 2014

        I’m coming back to this page due to a late response to one of my comments,and have stopped to reread yours.I would emphatically agree with your statement “The more often the truth is heard,the more important it becomes.”
        Considering the gop/t propaganda machine that operates on the old Nazi playbook of telling a lie often enough to cause people to believe it, I would say that telling the truth is imperative.

        1. RobertCHastings August 28, 2014

          Lincoln once said “You can fool some of the people some of the time ……”. However, I THINK it was Will Rogers (or Mark Twain) who stated that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Romney sort of made a play on that one during his campaign, accusing his sons of lying to him (shows what kind of father he is, to call his sons liars in public). Having got that behind me. The propaganda machine of the conservatives in this country has the public convinced there is a “liberal media”. We both know there is no such animal, for, if there were, there is much more the American public would be aware of than they really are.

          1. Mark Forsyth August 28, 2014

            I think they call anything they disagree with ,the liberal press.I guess they don’t watch CBS which frequently appears to be decidedly republican.Just take a gander at their Face the Nation program on Sunday morning.More often than not,they have a republican guest and a Democrat shows up so infrequently as to be the producers afterthought.
            One needs to watch Bill Moyers and Company on PBS in order to get a peek at liberality.

  2. jointerjohn August 1, 2014

    I would love to have a true progressive president, but first we must use the vacant middle of the road to hold the presidency until we can realign the Supreme Court. Until that is done, it would be pointless to move leftward.

    1. Mark Forsyth August 1, 2014

      As far right as those fascist five judges are,it will be one long damn haul to reach the middle much less to move left.

      1. jointerjohn August 1, 2014

        Only takes one dead justice while a democrat is in the White House to make it a brand new game.

        1. Mark Forsyth August 1, 2014

          I am reminded of the old poster depicting two buzzards overlooking the Valley of Death.One buzzard looks at the other and says,”To hell with waiting for something to die,I’m gonna kill something.”

          1. jointerjohn August 1, 2014

            Our only other hope is an American public who will turn off their idle amusements and start paying attention and giving a damn again. I fear neither will bring immediate gratification, but it’s all we have!

          2. Mark Forsyth August 1, 2014

            Yes,it’s always important to get the vote out,but I wonder what percentage of eligible citizens is who don’t bother voting.The other concern is with those who have been so dumbed down that they vote against their own best interests.As I’m sure you are aware,the use of convoluted thinking has become popular that the land seems filled with parrots repeating propaganda drummed up by mental gymnasts .

          3. jointerjohn August 1, 2014

            I used to believe that getting out the vote was the thing to do, but an uninformed voter is the last one I want to encourage. I like your term “mental gymnasts”, makes me think they seek out and prey upon “mental quadriplegics”.

          4. Mark Forsyth August 1, 2014

            To be sure,the message is delivered to those most likely to be receptive.When I use the term “mental gymnasts”,I’m usually referring to people whose mental processes must be terribly complicated and contorted in order to take that which in reality is unreasonable and wrong,and convince themselves that it is correct.
            From my experience working with the chemically compromised,I know that this is the same insane thinking that heroin addicts use.They become so morally corrupt that they believe their own lies.
            I have known such people who after watching a river flow into a lake,will proceed to tell you that the water flows the other way.

          5. DurdyDawg August 1, 2014

            Also they play on ego.. Once they commit them selves (to one side or the other) when faced with a reality that the one they chose is not in their best interest they ignore that fact, not because their committed but to save face.. Only logical thinkers can correct themselves when bad things become visible.. Those who believe they can never be wrong will not change regardless how it begins to affect them much less anyone else..

          6. Mark Forsyth August 1, 2014

            Absolutely! You can’t fix a problem unless you admit that you have one.

          7. jointerjohn August 2, 2014

            AAHH Mr. Forsyth, I now understand your clarity and concern in a whole new light. I also once served those chemically distorted, many years ago when they were returning from the Viet Nam War. I now serve, (and live in by choice), low income neighborhoods where I frequently witness the same utilization of the amazing human intellect to distort reality to one’s singular purpose. We all do it, only some of us simply stay on the main page, keep a foot in reality, while others do not.
            I mistakenly interpreted your term “mental gymnasts” to refer to the hucksters who are the predators. I now see what you meant. I certainly appreciate your patience and thank you for responding to me for my edification. You and I could have one hell of a back porch discussion of life someday, but it would likely not end until far past my now age-imposed bedtime. Thank you again for clarifying your message, in today’s world I encounter far too few Mark Forsyths for my intellectual appetite.

          8. Mark Forsyth August 2, 2014

            Thanks jointerjohn for the compliment.Like you,I have been in the trenches for many years.In regard to encountering those who satisfy your intellectual appetite,I believe we manifest what we think about most.The trick is to think about what we want rather than what we don’t want.I would encourage you to experiment with that and see how it works for you.I too share your appetite.I have good luck hanging out at libraries and schools(colleges).
            By the way,those hucksters you mention often have the same mental affliction.I didn’t intend to exclude them from my explanation. I’m sure that I would thoroughly enjoy you and your back porch.Between your back porch and my front porch,I like to think that if we got started early enough, the two of us just might settle the world’s hash to our satisfaction by the time we both get drowsy.

          9. jointerjohn August 2, 2014

            Well Mark I have now identified your affliction. You choose to hang out in libraries, schools and colleges! Icky, Icky, icky, you intellectually curious people give the right wing a serious case of the cramps. How dare you be informed! How dare you be open minded! You bastard, you are messing up what the international corporate world wants, a stupid bunch of sheep workers.
            You, probably like me, find Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman physically attractive but I was raised to never take advantage of the mentally disabled, and learned my lesson many years ago about entanglement with insane women. Aint going back there.
            It’s no wonder you are a hopeless liberal, you have spent far too less time at World Wrestling Federation matches, monster truck pulls and pie eating contests. See where you went wrong?

          10. Mark Forsyth August 2, 2014

            Yes indeed.My belief in as well as my addiction to Democracy,lead me to become a dedicated Socialist long before I realized I was one.Unfortunately,my union activity occurred in a right to work state where the unions were perverted.But don’t mistake me,I love my hunting and fishing and own my share of guns,though I am particular about the company I keep.I can still do redneck real good when I’m pissed off.I can infiltrate any right wing group I please and convince them that I am one of them.
            I used to think that Palin was an attractive woman until she opened her mouth.Glad I don’t have to live with the sound of that voice,she could make the words Merry Christmas sound like a threat.
            I was well schooled on fascism by my Dad who was a WWII vet.I know how much they abhor intellectuals or anyone who can perceive their nonsense.One must step on them at their first infraction or they think their behavior is acceptable.Hell,their very existence is a plague,one that must be purged with ample doses of logical and reasoned progressive liberalism.

          11. dpaano August 27, 2014

            The problem is that the GOP uses fear and lies to keep their base in line. They’ve always done this and will continue to do so. Lesser-informed people seem to rally around this more than informed voters. Somehow, we have to change that, but not sure if the Democrats are up to it. They’d have to get a little “dirty” themselves, but it might be worth it. As it stands now, they seem to just sit on their hands and let the lies and fear go on without trying to backstop it!

          12. Mark Forsyth August 27, 2014

            I know it often seems that way.I have encountered a growing number of people who think that some of those undereducated folk will need to suffer a bit more before they wake up and realize that it is their own dog that is biting them.

          13. dpaano August 27, 2014

            Mark: I just finished reading a great book by John Dean entitled “Conservatives without Conscience,” and it explains clearly how the double high authoritarian conservatives function…..they use fear and lies to keep their base, as mentioned. It was quite eye-opening, and if you get a chance to read it….go for it!!! It even goes into the Bush/Cheney era and how Cheney was so egotistical that he was irresponsible. He also said the same thing I’ve been saying for years….Bush was the “puppet” to Cheney and his gang. Interesting. But, unfortunately, it’s the under-educated people in the south (because they have such poor schools and a curriculum that is ridiculous) that believe their EVERY word!

          14. Mark Forsyth August 27, 2014

            Sounds like a good read that confirms what I have long believed to be true.I have been dealing with a great deal of political negativity of late and think I better wait to read that book until I am psychologically rejuvenated.I am trying to concentrate on the positive.

          15. dpaano August 27, 2014

            Yeah, it does tend to piss you off! It goes into the different types of conservatives and how they operate; then it talks about specific individuals; i.e., Cheney, Bush, Rove, Issa, Delay, etc. Some are followers; some are leaders….but, either way, they are dangerous!!! Especially good was to find out how they operated and how they think, which was scary as heck!!! My next read is Nixon and Watergate, also written by Dean. He’s an awesome writer, but his books are depressing when you know what’s REALLY going on with the GOP!

          16. Mark Forsyth August 27, 2014

            Yes indeed.I would encourage you to have a book or two of humorous,positive,and inspiring quotes on hand when you are reading those by Dean, just so you don’t get depressed.I never loved republicans,but these are the worst ever.

          17. dpaano August 27, 2014

            You’ve got that right! It’s just scary as heck to think about what would happen to the United States if they EVER got complete control of our government. We can kiss democracy good-bye! This is why it’s important to get the Democrats out to fight against all the lies and BS that they are spewing out to the un-educated base.

          18. Mark Forsyth August 27, 2014

            It definitely is scary,and while I don’t like to project too much I sometimes feel comforted by the fact that the Canadian border is not much more than a mile from my front door.I don’t know anyone who is not voting these days.I try not to associate with the socially irresponsible.I wish I had more money to help the cause but you know what they say about wishing in one hand and what you can do with the other one. I will have to rely on my vote and that of others to protect the Republic.

          19. dpaano August 29, 2014

            Elliot: I’m going to go on Amazon and order the book….I know Kansas has been totally screwed by their Republican governor….do you think the people of Kansas will EVER learn! Anyway, am starting to read another John Dean book, “Worse than Watergate,” which is about the Bush/Cheney administration….should be interesting also!!! The more I read about what has been going on, but more I understand why we’re in the situations that we are currently in. I just wish more people would read these books (if they could read…..Texas’ educational system isn’t all that great). Anyway, will let you know how it goes, but it’ll just be more of the same. I’ll have to have cartoons on in the background to keep me from blowing up!! LOL! Mark, I agree with you….you don’t want to read the book because it’s FULL of political negativity….stuff that’s been going on right under our noses!

          20. Mark Forsyth August 29, 2014

            Well,I did live through all of it,to the extent that I and others could somewhat predict the scenarios that unfolded.It was only the willfully blind who refused to see that we would go to war when Bush jr. was elected.One must smarten up after a while,or be consumed by that negativity.I’ve no doubt that the book is a good read,beyond little known details,I don’t require the info anymore.

          21. Elliot J. Stamler August 28, 2014

            I haven’t read this book but I have read several others by John W. Dean and he is terrific. Dpaano, you might enjoy greatly reading Thomas Frank’s WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS? on some of the same subjects you remark on. It is interesting that the deep south and Texas (which ideologically is the deep south too) spend the least amt. on education and then boast of their very low taxes. As for Bush, I always felt he was an embarrassment in office..he was in way over his head and being shallow and unintelligent (not evil or malicious) was led around by the highly intelligent and manipulative Cheney to the consequences we all know.

          22. dpaano August 29, 2014

            Unfortunately, Elliot, I was born in Texas, but my parents were bright enough to get us out of there when I was a baby, and I’ve never gone back!!! Thank God…..because I had an excellent education in California. It’s worth it to me to pay a little more in taxes and get a better quality of life!

        2. DurdyDawg August 1, 2014

          Isn’t it pathetic that the game is played like this? I certainly think so and would rather have ten (or better yet, twelve) justices and if they become split and something big comes up, their duties then would be to convince at least one on the other side to swing over through compromise and exact constitutional jargon and not because one out of nine can sit back and wait (usually with hand outstretched under table) to lean it toward the highest bidder.. I would rather see complete stymie than ONE eventually deciding the fate of the entire nation be they Dem or Pub.. In any case both religion AND politics should not be a factor concerning SCOTUS but ONLY the constitution and the laws that adjoin it..

          1. jointerjohn August 2, 2014

            It is indeed Sir/Madam beyond pathetic, it is dangerous. The fact that majority control of the US Supreme Court has become now the biggest political football is sad indeed, and not at all what the founders of the country intended. I am an old man who has personally witnessed everything since the Warren Court. What we have today is a redacted court set up in lousy, terrible, under-qualified appointments of people like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The most frightening prospect before us is the absolute intractability of these rising numbers of far right wingers in our elected Congress. We need a Supreme Court who is willing to keep them in check. We cannot survive one more Supreme Court appointment from the political right or we will be doomed.
            This is the reason that I am calling on the country to elect another democrat president in 2016. not because of philosophy, but only because purging the Supreme Court is, in my interpretation, our only hope. I am no big fan of Ms. Clinton, but I will bust my ass to insure that our next President is a Democrat just because the teetering balance of the Supreme Court is our only future hope.

          2. Mark Forsyth August 2, 2014

            I don’t want to be over confident,and I’m quite sure with infusions of dark money and other nefarious activities that another election could be stolen,but I think the extremes of the S.C. and those who favor its most offensive judgements have worked at least to some extent,to drive people to their more compassionate sensibilities.I’m inclined to think that with an increasingly enlightened electorate,the people will prevail and the court be damned.

        3. Douglas Johnson August 4, 2014

          I vote for Uncle Thomas for dead justice.

        4. dpaano August 27, 2014

          Yeah, but imagine how difficult the Conservatives would make it for a Democratic president to place a more liberal or centrist judge on the Court…..nigh onto impossible!

      2. Dominick Vila August 1, 2014

        A couple of them may not be around too much longer. That’s one of the most important reasons to make sure a Democrat is in the White House, and we control the Senate, when that happens.

        1. Mark Forsyth August 1, 2014

          I would have to say that I’m more concerned with the Senate races than the one for the Whitehouse.I really don’t see republicans legally winning the Presidency any time soon,but there is always that weird,little,incongruent chance it could happen.Who do you think will be the first to retire?

          1. Dominick Vila August 1, 2014


          2. Mark Forsyth August 1, 2014

            Thanks Dom,I will have to read up on him a bit more.I do know that he is a former corporate officer at Monsanto.

          3. Dominick Vila August 1, 2014

            I was talking about Clarence Thomas. Ginsburg is also fairly old and is in poor health.

          4. Mark Forsyth August 1, 2014

            Yes,I thought you were referring to Clarence Thomas.Though I did not read the article,I have the impression that Ginsburg made a statement earlier this week that she would not retire.I can’t help but think that she might wish to hang on until the circumstances you have described exist.

      3. Elliot J. Stamler August 2, 2014

        You again. I remember the last time I replied to one of your screeds. If you think Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts and Samuel Alito are fascists, then you again show what a tea-party type you are…of the left variety. Justice Thomas is not a fascist either..he is an originalist par extreme who adheres to the deluded “constitution in exile” philosophy of Richard Epstein, etc. Justice Scalia arguably could be called fascistic…none of the others.

        1. Douglas Johnson August 4, 2014

          I am going to side with Mark. Thomas is a catastrophe who almost always follows Scalia. Just ask professor Anita Hill.

          1. Elliot J. Stamler August 4, 2014

            Well Douglas your comment is a non sequitur. When Prof. Hill testified Thomas was the nominee..neither she nor anyone else knew nor testified about the potentiality of his joining Scalia. Moreover at the time of his nomination he had an utterly scant judicial record having been a Court of Appeals judge for less than one year…and moreover I did not find Prof. Hill a very credible witness herself about what she did testify. But my point is that without getting too complicated that while he and Scalia usually come out to the same place their judicial philosophies are not precisely identical. Scalia would argue that his view is the epitome of democracy not fascism; my view is too often his opinions represent a statist viewpoint of such extreme degree that it arguably can be termed fascistic. For what it’s worth, William Rehnquist’s opinions were the same.

          2. Douglas Johnson August 27, 2014

            You missed something. Professor Hill recently published a book and appeared on one of the talk shows to promote it. I enjoyed what she had to say, and she was a lot more composed than she was when she was testifying. Thomas is a papist who would like nothing more than to see Torquemada installed as a special prosecutor to oversee your observance of his idea of christian morality.

          3. Elliot J. Stamler August 27, 2014

            Yours is anti-Catholic bigotry and as for my observance of Christian morality I try as best I fallibly can to observe JUDEO-Christian morality. The use of the term “papist” is something that I’d hoped ended when Pres. Kennedy was elected.

          4. Douglas Johnson August 27, 2014

            Hard to be an anti-catholic bigot when you are a practicing Catholic. Although I am intensely ashamed of that portion of my cultural history that was shielded from me until I started to partake in secular education. Torquemada thought he was saving souls as he persecuted the Marranos in Spain, which makes him one of the first right wing nut jobs. I voted for Kennedy, mostly because the Southern Baptist Conference came out against him as a papist, and I knew he was not a papist although I do think Thomas is one.

          5. Elliot J. Stamler August 27, 2014

            Douglas, here’s an interesting factoid. I sent an e-mail recently to the hq of the worldwide Dominican Order of which Tomas de Torquemada was a prominent leader inquiring if like many other branches of Catholicism they had apologized for their order’s centuries-long participation in the Inquisition and its cruelties. I got a rather diffident reply indicating that no they hadn’t but that they MIGHT consider it and anyway it all occurred a long time ago. I find that rather incomprehensible in that mainstream Catholicism has been very candid and affirmative in acknowledging past horrors and apologizing them including three popes. I just fail to see why you think J. Thomas is any more Catholic than J. Scalia…who is known to be very devout. Devotion to Catholicism does not by any means lead one to think as J. Thomas does…here in New York we have the very opposite example of the very seriously religiously Catholic former governor Mario Cuomo.

          6. Douglas Johnson August 28, 2014

            What you call rather diffident I would call obnoxiously arrogant. My recollection is rather dim because I actually researched it over thirty years ago, and not only was there a society that was a direct descendant of the Inquisition but they were aggressively unrepentant. I quit talking to them with a parting rejoinder that they should read Martin Luther’s Ninety-five Theses. That produced a threat to excommunicate me so I left before I punched the arrogant son of a bitch in the face and reminded him that the church’s position was that Martin Luther died a Catholic. I later discussed the incident with a Jesuit who was a lot more conciliatory and convinced me that dealing with Dominicans was like tilting with windmills and I should subdue my passions and drop it. As for Clarence Thomas, he thinks the first amendment prevents the government from interfering with the church but says nothing about the church interfering with the government. Theocracy, anyone? Maybe you don’t think abortion and women’s issues are religious dogma, but I do. And I dislike having judges who think they have a right to impose Catholic dogma on me.

          7. Mark Forsyth August 27, 2014

            And I thank you for the moral support Douglas.

      4. dpaano August 27, 2014

        I wish they’d change the rules and give Supreme Court judges a time limit…..this lifetime thing is not working!

        1. Mark Forsyth August 27, 2014

          I agree.Considering the rulings that some of the judges like Alito and Scalia have recently made, and are likely wearing bullet proof vests in public,it’s possible that they themselves may worry that someone will render that “lifetime thing” a moot point.

          1. Douglas Johnson August 28, 2014

            We can only hope. Will a Barrett fifty penetrate a vest?

          2. Mark Forsyth August 28, 2014

            I don’t know Doug.I’m not overly informed with sniper ammo or armor piercing loads.I do know that 50 cal.has been a favored rifle and load for many years.
            I would prefer not to take that action.I’m thinking that if it is possible to amend the Constitution,then it is possible to set term limits for S.C. judges.

          3. Douglas Johnson August 28, 2014

            I missed my support group of paranoid conspiracy theorists this morning because of gastric distress. That would have been the place to ask as there are many gun nuts in the group and even a couple of trained marksmen. But back to real life,amending the constitution is designed to be hard, and that particular amendment would be close to impossible with republican/right wing christian obstruction. Maybe the solution is a clean sweep of obstructionists from the appointment process. Vote.

          4. Mark Forsyth August 28, 2014

            I have great respect for the vote and I believe that it can,if allowed,provide the means to achieve the higher goals of the “people’s will”.If the results of the vote were once again perverted and an election stolen as it was in Florida when Bush was elected,then I think that would be the reason when extreme measures would be justified.Otherwise I do think,as you suggest,that a clean sweep is called for.What remains to be seen is what methods will serve best as the broom.

          5. Douglas Johnson August 28, 2014

            Simple one word answer: turnout. Scott and company are so heady with successfully stealing Florida from Gore that they have gerrymandered the state to the point that democrats won’t run for office. The state party has promised a candidate for every district and if we actually get that I think that enough republicans are alienated by TP antics that there is a real possibility of a crossover vote.

      5. RobertCHastings August 28, 2014

        We can always hope that a “Pelican Brief” pops up.

        1. Mark Forsyth August 28, 2014

          I would say that we need to allow for that possibility when we consider that there are those both inside and out of government who contemplate those methods and circumstances on a daily basis.Supreme Court justices are likely not the only ones wearing bullet proof vests.

  3. Mark Forsyth August 1, 2014

    I would vote for Warren whenever she decides to run for President.Considering how far to the extreme right that the gop/t has gone,it would be a good thing for the pendulum to swing the other way.The major question is whether Warren,in the face of Democratic love for Clinton,could win the nomination unless Clinton decides not to run.Because Warren has done such good work as a Senator,there are many who are loathe to see her move on from her position at this time,especially with Hillary appearing as the shoe in candidate.
    Personally,I wish that Clinton would not run.Though I certainly would not vote republican,I would not vote for Clinton.Consider that we did not need to wait for the Citizens United decision to see mega-corporations’ undue influence on our government processes.Clinton has a very long history of corporate wheeling and dealing.It is rather unsettling to see her all palsy walsy and making patty cake with the likes of Monsanto,when that company’s list of offenses both here and abroad are a matter of public record.
    What we don’t need in America is to see the Monsanto agenda promoted by a Clinton presidency.

    1. dpaano August 27, 2014

      No vote for Clinton (if she runs) is a vote for the Republican nominee….remember that. You HAVE to vote against the Republican candidate…..even if its someone you don’t 100% approve of. Anything to keep the conservatives from taking over this country and turning it into a monarchy (or corpocracy) again!

      1. Mark Forsyth August 27, 2014

        I think you need to read my post again and consider what it is exactly that I am saying.You appear to already be giving Clinton too much credit for preventing corporate fascism when her own corporate history is well known.Further,when you reread my comment you will see how your admonishment to me,not to vote republican,was a wasted effort much more needed by others who are not convinced.

        1. dpaano August 27, 2014

          Sorry if I misunderstood…..I don’t give Clinton too much credit…I would sincerely hope to see someone else from the Democratic party run rather than her, but I don’t see anyone in the wings that would have the wherewithal to win at this point. It WOULD be nice if Warren would run, but I think she’s better off in the Senate…..maybe a run in 2020 would be in the cards for her. She definitely has the brains AND the chutzpah to do the job!

          1. Mark Forsyth August 27, 2014

            No apologies required,dpaano,but thanks anyway.I just wish that the democratic constabulary had not given Clinton carte blanche when she has yet to declare her candidacy,it makes people think that no one else stands a chance. I still think a Democrat could win if Clinton does not run.I really don’t think it would be any more risky if she doesn’t.Unless they steal it,I just don’t see republicans in the Whitehouse for a long time.Trouble is that they seem content to queer the government from the house or senate.

  4. Arthur C. Hurwitz August 1, 2014

    Of “The Left!?” I would say, merely, that she is an authentic liberal!

    1. Mark Forsyth August 1, 2014

      Given the current state of political divisiveness ,it seems that anyone who is not extreme radical right is apt to be labeled liberal.I am rather proud to claim that title.It could be soon that anyone who favors democracy will be similarly labeled by that crew.

  5. DurdyDawg August 1, 2014

    She has commented many times that she’s not ready to run for president.. Don’t pressure her into doing something that she doesn’t feel she could handle at this time as it can backfire on all Democrats for many future presidential opportunities. That’s what the GOP hopes will happen and if it does then as the vultures they are, they will pick her to the very bone and if she fights back will have to do it in the same manner that Obama is doing it now and you can see what the GOP has made out of that. No, honor her words, she knows herself best and positively knows about tactical dirty political opposition. Allow her to fight for us through channels that the shadows can’t touch and when it’s time SHE will tell US.

  6. Douglas Johnson August 4, 2014

    I frequently find myself in agreement with Dominick Vila, and I am today except for the fact that republicans may be pushing these two ladies to split the vote and foster a contentious primary. I don’t think the electorate has matured enough to support a female candidate and of the two, I think Hiliary has the gravitas to challenge the glass ceiling. I supported Geraldine Ferraro only to see her swamped by St. Ronnie the Raygun, whom I consider the worst president of modern times. Elizabeth Warren is doing a lot of good in the senate, and she is plenty young enough to wait eight years for Hilliary.

    1. Elliot J. Stamler August 4, 2014

      I just would comment that I do not think Reagan was the worst president of modern times–I think on the whole he did plenty of good AND plenty of bad. I did not vote for him. Being a New Yorker, city and state, I will t ell you Geraldine Ferraro was a very poor pick to be vice president by Mondale..she had neither the in depth knowledge nor experience to be vice president. She certainly was a decent congresswoman from Queens County but that’s about it..nothing at all special. And she obviously did not do anything electorally to help Mondale.

      1. Douglas Johnson August 4, 2014

        Reagan had a degree in economics which he got in 1932 before we had assimilated the lessons of the great depression. Consequently he tore down all the safeguards imposed by government to avoid the natural faults of capitalism and started us on the present donnybrook under the rubric of deregulation. Hence, “worse president ever.”

    2. Mark Forsyth August 29, 2014

      Me again.Warren might be able to wait eight years,but do you think the country can? One issue of global importance is genetic engineering and Monsanto’s promotion of it along with their GMO Round-Up ready seeds of wide variety.Clinton needs to have her head turned around about Monsanto,G/E, and GMOs.The likelihood of that happening is small given the long history Clinton has with Monsanto.Her old law firm went to bat for the company long ago.Monsanto helped to fund her last campaign.Monsanto has a long criminal history.They may be a mega corporation,but that does not make their organized crime less egregious.The world is staring an environmental catastrophy in the face.What we don’t need is a President who has a relationship with a shady company that has designs that will promote the catastrophy.
      It really is a shame that there appears to be no other Democrat who is interested in running for the Whitehouse at this time.Such is the carte blanche love for Clinton.With Clinton as President,I fear we would have much too much the status quo where corporate interests are concerned.

  7. dpaano August 27, 2014

    It would be interesting to see an election wherein Elizabeth runs as VP with Hillary…..WOW! Would that bring together ALL the women voters to the Democratic party!?? Hey, it’s a dream, I know, but it would be fun to watch!


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.