Archive for Elizabeth Warren

President S*itting Bull

I have to confess at the outset that I get this stuff wrong. I don’t get how we elect presidents. Obama? Who thought he was a good idea?

Hillary? What a joke.

Elizabeth Warren? Our Elizabeth Warren? Fauxcahantas? Crockagawea? Lieawatha?

President???

The notion that Elizabeth Warren should challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination has been optimistically tossed around in left-wing circles for a while now. Activists at Netroots Nation recently chanted ”Run, Liz, run.” And no doubt, the excitement generated by Warren is a function of her ideological sincerity—a sincerity that’s most obvious when contrasted with Hillary Clinton’s lack of earnestness and pandering.

Maybe American idealism has degraded to the point that a politician who promises to stand on a picket line with fast food workers rather than a politician that promises to help fast food workers find better paying jobs is the one that captures the imagination of grassroots activist. Maybe progressivism has always been that way. It seems unlikely, though, that this kind of superficial populism will capture the imagination of the average voter. As the economy improves, in fact, inequality mongering will likely lose some of its political power—a development Barack Obama could probably confirm these days. When it worked, Obama’s rhetoric could be uplifting. He promised all of you health care. Warren promises you $10.10 a hour.

That’s not fair. Elizabeth Warren talks about how the middle class gets “hammered”. In fact, it would make a great drinking game to take a shot every time she uses the word. The only way to survive an election season with her running would be in a perpetual bourbon-infused buzz.

Still, if only to revisit her ludicrous Indian claims (especially her plagiarism of New York Times recipes in the patronizingly titled Pow Wow Chow), I would support her candidacy.

After all, it’s not like we’d ever elect an unreconstructed socialist with two years experience in politics to be the leader of the free world.

Comments

The Second Time as Farce

Sacagawea helped guide Lewis and Clark to the Pacific coast of Oregon.

Some 210 years later, Crockagawea—aka Fauxcohantas, aka Lieawatha, aka Betty Buckskin—performs the same role, only instead of Lewis and Clark, she’s guiding Benjamins!

Elizabeth Warren heading to Oregon to help Sen. Jeff Merkley fend off an unexpectedly tough challenge: The senator is flying to Portland next Wednesday for a “grassroots fundraiser.” Republicans nominated pediatric neurosurgeon Monica Wehby in Tuesday’s primary, who they think can put the state on the map. Democrats have sent Andrew Zucker to be Merkley’s deputy campaign manager, reassigning him from Louisiana – where he’s been assisting Sen. Mary Landrieu’s reelect. He ran communications for Ed Markey in the Massachusetts special election last June to fill the seat opened by John Kerry’s elevation to State.

I think it’s so cool that Democrats, especially a Democrat woman, are pulling out all stops to prevent a woman from being elected to the Senate. I would have thought a pediatric neurosurgeon would add to the skill set of the Senate, but if Democrats think otherwise, that’s why we hold elections.

Some might call all this ganging up on a highly qualified candidate a “War on Women”, but who really uses such melodramatic language? It’s comical even to contemplate.

As a native Beaver Stater, and adoptive Bay Stater, I hope I can warn my old friends and neighbors. Harvard Law School may employ a Tribe (Laurence), but it is not itself a tribe. Elizabeth Warren is about as Native American as anyone who pronounces the state “Or-uh-gahn” is native Oregonian. Which is to say, 0/32nds.

Comments

Bloodthirstan Book Club! [UPDATED]

Move over, Oprah (sorry, I didn’t mean anything, there’s plenty of room, really). BTL is launching a book club.

Half of you read Hillary’s new book, Chard Choices (I guess it’s a cookbook), and the other half read Elizabeth Warren’s tome, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee—no, sorry, A Fat Chance. Aggie and I will facilitate discussion (w/o reading either one).

We’ll want particularly to examine how each woman faced up to hardship in her life. Like when Lieawatha got called anti-Indian epithets by the white kids or Hillary got a blue dress not her own back from the dry cleaners.

To call these books does a disservice to Hemingway and Flaubert. They’re manifestos (With apologies to Marx and Engels). Most ambitious candidates write one. This was my favorite:

Oops. My mistake. He has better hair.

Btw, if you think Warren isn’t running, you’re as dumb as she thinks you are. She’s got to fly under the Clinton radar as long as possible or draw fire.

UPDATE:

An excellent retelling of Fauxcahantas’ Fable in US News. The trail of tears recounts not only the number of times she casually slipped into and out of her buffalo hides, but how cynical the whole affirmative action game is. Harvard touted her as their first law prof of color. (I wasn’t aware that clear was a color.) In one swing of a tomahawk, her career and the racial diversity shell game are laid bare.

UPPERDATE:

Did Crocagawea plant this question?

MATT LEE, AP: I have a brief question on the QDDR [Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review]. Off the top of your head, can you identify one tangible achievement that the last QDDR resulted in?

JEN PSAKI, State Department spokesperson: Obviously its an extensive expansive process.

LEE: Just one.

PSAKI: The Secretary wants it to be focused on a more narrow range of issues, its always to look at how we can improve things, and we’ll see where we come out in the end.

LEE: So, can you off the top of your head identify one tangible achievement that resulted from the last QDDR?

PSAKI: I am certain that those that were here at the time worked hard on that effort and could point out one.

LEE: Since you’ve come on board that you’ve noticed, that you noticed that you can point to and say wow the first QDDR identified this as a problem and dealt with it.

PSAKI: As you know, I’ve only been here since it was concluded. I’m sure there are a range of things that I’m not even aware of results.

LEE: I won’t hold my breath.

C’mon man, what difference, at this point, does it make?

Comments

Look Who’s on the Warpath

Lie-a-watha, Fauxcahantas, Crocagawea, Betty Buckskin…call her what you like as long as you call her the senior senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The unresolved Native American question is seen as a potential campaign issue.

Politico said Warren admitted she initially “fumbled” when reporters first asked her about it.

When Brown picked up the drumbeat, Warren said, “He attacked my dead parents. I was hurt, and I was angry.”

“I was stunned by the attacks.”

Politico’s report recites Warren’s oft-repeated claim of family lore, without any new documentation: “Everyone on our mother’s side — aunts, uncles, and grandparents — talked openly about their Native American ancestry. My brothers and I grew up on stories about our grandfather building one-room schoolhouses and about our grandparents’ courtship and their early lives together in Indian Territory.”

He attacked your dead parents?

What, like those cannibals in Pakistan who dug up graves to feast upon the bodies buried therein? Is that the secret to his good looks?

Just for the record, Elizabeth Warren is 0/32nds Cherokee. And if you went to 64ths or 128ths, I very much doubt you’d find a platelet of Indian blood. Even in this book, her one big chance to set the record straight, she relies solely on family “lore”:

Warren says she was stunned by the attacks – and that she couldn’t provide documentation because her family hadn’t registered any tribal affiliation.

“In Oklahoma, that was pretty common,” she writes. “But knowing who you are is one thing, and proving who you are is another.”

“Pretty common”? Is she implying Cherokee are libertines and sluts, promiscuous savages sleeping with any paleface who flashes a few beads their way?

What difference, at this point, does it make, you ask?

She reiterated that she did not use her background to gain special treatment. “I never asked for special treatment when I applied to college, to law school, or for jobs,” she writes.

Of course she didn’t use her “background”! She doesn’t have any background, except as white trash made good. She used a casually adopted, and even more casually discarded (hence the charge of “spiritual genocide”), identity as the descendant of a noble and victimized people. Perfect for advancement in academia!

Not that we should believe one word from her forked tongue, but I like this tale:

After legislation was passed creating the [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau], Warren was informed that some named and unnamed advisors close to Obama opposed her as the nominee to head that department. One unnamed advisor to the president reportedly told Warren that her role would be a “cheerleader” for the new agency.

“I assume that was meant as a metaphor, but I had to wonder: Cheerleader?” Warren wrote. “Would the same suggestion have been made to a man in my position? I did not rush out to buy pom-poms.”

I could ridicule her humorlessness, but I like the seething anger at a fellow Democrat. At least he didn’t attack her dead parents.

Comments (1)

Great Minds Think Alike

Or else:

Witness the political tempest that blew up in response to the December 3 op-ed we published by Democrats Jon Cowan and Jim Kessler of the Third Way think tank. The former aides to Andrew Cuomo and Chuck Schumer, respectively, would be considered liberals in most places outside of the Harvard faculty lounge. But the campus and union left that increasingly controls the Democratic Party has launched a campaign to purge them for their deviation from progressive dogma.

Messrs. Cowan and Kessler had the temerity to suggest that the average American voter might not be as liberal as the New Yorkers who chose Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio or the Massachusetts voters who fell for Senator Elizabeth Warren. They argued that economic populism of the redistributionist kind was a political loser in most of America.

The authors were also guilty of acknowledging research from the Congressional Budget Office showing that Social Security is going broke. Progressives believe it’s high treason to admit the undeniable fact that such entitlements are paying out more in benefits than they collect in taxes. If left unchecked, such candor might motivate politicians to consider reform, and the last thing the left wants is a debate over the limits of the welfare state.

But the progressives didn’t try to rebut the op-ed’s arguments. Instead they set out to silence Third Way, intimidate Democratic politicians and donors into disavowing the group, and discredit the think tank on grounds that—gasp!—some of its supporters work at financial companies.

Senator Warren made her contribution to the new progressive orthodoxy by sending a letter to six large banks demanding that they disclose donations to think tanks. “If the information provided by think tanks is little more than another form of corporate lobbying, then policymakers and the public should be aware of the difference,” wrote the Member of the Banking Committee that oversees banks.

Ms. Warren, who was well paid as a lawyer for business clients even as she pursued her liberal political causes at Harvard, seems to think that every think tank is merely a mouthpiece for donors. Heaven forbid Messrs. Cowan and Kessler might believe what they write.

Elizabeth Warren is an unreconstructed Stalinist. Not content with committing “spiritual genocide” against Native Americans, she would line every American capitalist up against the wall and shoot them. (Without benefit of a last cigarette.)

And she’s got comrades:

The Democratic party’s further shift to the left is worrisome to some of the party’s more moderate members, such as Morning Joe contributor Steve Rattner. A former member of the Obama administration’s task force to address the auto-industry crisis, Rattner joined Joe Scarborough in pushing back against Howard Dean, who argued that a more left-leaning party is not a problem.

“As a centrist Democrat, I am scared about the progressive wing of my party — I’m scared,” Rattner interjected.

And she’s got her Stalin:

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): Professor Turley, the constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?

JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.

[W]e have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations.

I’ve asked this before: do you think these people are going to go quietly? That they will respect the outcomes of elections in 2014 and 2016? Increasingly, I don’t.

PS: Even Stalinists don’t like what they’re seeing:

“You’re attributing to Obama not only good intentions but good actions around Afghanistan and Iraq. Actually he’s not acting well. He’s acting like any imperial leader would act,” Ayers told his interviewer in a new Chicago Magazine story, published online Tuesday.

Comments (1)

Chief Shi**ing Bull Speak-um With Forked Tongue

Help, Senator Warren! The middle class is getting “hammered” by a rapacious entity that seeks to monopolize an entire industry and tell people what they may and may not buy. “Folks” are losing what they have long held, and being forced to buy something more expensive, with features they neither need nor want. Oh yeah, and the the entity can’t run a dishwasher, much less a website, much, much less one-sixth of the US economy.

This is a job for Consumer Gal!

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, on Friday defended President Barack Obama’s decision to allow health insurers to issue plans for one more year that do not meet the standards set out by the Affordable Care Act, as a transitional move.

“What the president’s done is said no one for a year, no insurance company, needs to cancel its coverage because of the Affordable Care Act,” Warren said, speaking to reporters after an Associated Industries of Massachusetts breakfast at the Westin Hotel in Waltham. “They’re trying to make the transition work. They’re trying to do everything they can to make it work and get people into the system.”

However, asked whether individuals should be able to keep their current insurance plans indefinitely if they do not meet the minimum standards laid out by the Affordable Care Act, Warren did not say yes or no, but implied that she agreed with the changes required by the new law. “I think what we’re looking for is to get people coverage that means something,” Warren said. “We do not sell cars with three wheels. We sell cars that travel on our highways and that have some basic standards of safety. And that’s what we’re talking about with insurance, making sure that if people are paying for insurance, they’re getting some insurance.”

Well, ma’am, you can buy a three-wheeled car, a Beemer no less:

But people don’t need to be protected from scurrilous car salesmen peddling vehicles just shy of the requisite number of wheels. People can count to four (most of them). So, I don’t get why they can’t choose their own insurance plan. For many people (most people?), an insurance plan is insurance against something, or in case of something. Who needs to be insured against a bad cold? Pneumonia and a stay in the hospital, sure—but what business is it of the government to summarily cancel policies and impose more expensive ones in their place? And as cancer survivors are telling us: policies that may extinguish what flickers of hope of survival they may have?

A day after Obama acknowledged that the administration “fumbled the rollout” of the health care law, Warren said similarly that “there’s clearly been a problem with the rollout.” The other major issue that has plagued the rollout has been problems with healthcare.gov, the national website that controls many of the states’ new health insurance exchanges, although not Massachusetts’. The administration has said the site, which went live Oct. 1, is expected to be working smoothly only by the end of November.

Warren said the site is “getting better.” “They tell us they’re going to have it basically completely functional by the end of the month,” she said. “And I think that’s going to be the key to it. It’s going to be the way that people without insurance are able to get health insurance, affordable health insurance, insurance that will cover them.”

She not 1/32nd Cherokee; she’s half parrot, repeating word for word what the namesake of ObamaCare just said—and all of it lies!

She’s not Consumer Gal. She’s Bay State Bob(bi).

Comments

Watch Out, America

Elizabeth Warren could be the next President.

Elizabeth Warren is the senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. She claimed Native American heritage in order to advance her somewhat so-so career as a law prof. She was at a no-name school in the midwest when she checked the box for Native American and ended up first at UPenn and later at Harvard. Harvard advertised having a Native American on the faculty. From there she went to the US Senate, but the real Native Americans unmasked her false claim.

She is the darling of the Left because she really, really, really hates Business and adores Big Government. And the world is just that black and white for her.

…Can Democratic activists, for whom politics is catnip, cheerfully contemplate the uncontested nomination of someone who will be 69 on Election Day 2016, who will have been conspicuous in the nation’s life for a quarter of a century, and who cultivates nostalgia for the last decade of the previous century? Can forward-leaning, clench-fisted MSNBC viewers really work themselves into a lather of excitement about the supposed feminist triumph of smashing the ultimate “glass ceiling” for a woman whose marriage took her to the upper reaches of politics? Do Democrats, ankle-deep in the rubble of Obamacare’s paternalism, really want to nominate the author of Hillarycare? Before a Democratic-controlled Congress spurned it, she explained her health-care plan this way (a delicious quotation excavated by the Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins):

“We just think people will be too focused on saving money and they won’t get the care for their children and themselves that they need. .?.?. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better.”

Come 2016, Clinton may be the one thing no successful candidate can be, and something Warren (or some other avatar of what Howard Dean in 2003 called “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”) would not be: boring. The social scientist Robert Nisbet called boredom “one of the most insistent and universal” forces that has shaped human behavior. It still is. So, all those who today regard Clinton’s nomination as it was regarded in 2008 — as a foregone conclusion — should ask themselves: When was the last time presidential politics was as predictable as they think it has become?

Will she be worse than Obama? Can she really be worse? Doubtful. But she won’t be any better. If you like ObamaCare, you’re gonna love single payer.

- Aggie

Comments (6)

At the Fights

In this corner, representing the left-wing wackos, Elizabeth “Don’t Call Me Fauxcahantas” Warren!

And in this corner, representing cut-throat lefties everywhere, Hillary “The Hero of Tuzla” Clinton!

Okay, men, shake hands and come out fighting.

In addition to being strongly identified with the party’s populist wing, any candidate who challenged Clinton would need several key assets. The candidate would almost certainly have to be a woman, given Democrats’ desire to make history again. She would have to amass huge piles of money with relatively little effort. Above all, she would have to awaken in Democratic voters an almost evangelical passion. As it happens, there is precisely such a person. Her name is Elizabeth Warren.

It’s hard to look at the Democratic Party these days and not feel as if all the energy is behind Warren. Before she was even elected, her fund-raising e-mails would net the party more cash than any Democrat’s besides Obama or Hillary Clinton. According to the Times, Warren’s recent speech at the annual League of Conservation Voters banquet drew the largest crowd in 15 years. Or consider a website called Upworthy, which packages online videos with clever headlines and encourages users to share them. Obama barely registers on the site; Warren’s videos go viral.

The poll numbers also suggest the Democratic Party is becoming Elizabeth Warren’s party. Gallup finds that the percentage of Democrats with “very negative” views of the banking industry increased more than fivefold since 2007, while the percentage who have positive views fell from 51 to 31. Between 2001 and 2011, the percentage of Democrats who were dissatisfied with the “size and influence of major corporations” rose from 51 to a remarkable 79.3.

[T]hen there’s the way Hillary Clinton’s weaknesses so perfectly align with the passions of the moment. “There’s very much a wait-and-see approach to Hillary among progressives,” says Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “I think it’s mutually exclusive to be a real hero for reform and accountability and to have a [fund-raising] strategy that relies on Wall Street.” A financial reform activist is more blunt: “Unless there is some major public break by Hillary Clinton with this disreputable crowd, then everybody will have to think long and hard before they support her as president. We do not need yet another administration packed full of Wall Street–friendly politicians.”

When I recently asked a top Clinton campaign operative from 2008 if there’s any Democrat who Hillary should fear in 2016, he immediately named the Massachusetts senator. The typical Democratic insurgent, he explained, captivates the latte-liberal demographic but has trouble making additional gains. This is where Howard Dean ran aground in 2004 and where Bill Bradley stumbled in 2000. “I don’t think there’s anyone out there who can break out of just that left coalition like Warren could,” says the operative, who hopes to work for Hillary again. “She’s got a real message tailored to the middle-class and working-class people.”

[T]he long-standing knock on the Clintons in these circles (unfair in many ways) is that they primarily represent the cause of themselves. “Warren has core convictions that would allow her to answer the question, ‘Why are you running?’ and not spend a lot of money on focus groups,” says Dunn.

It’s very long (very, very long), so unless you really want to see Lie-a-watha receive a tongue bath, don’t waste your time.

And somehow the whole fake Indian thing didn’t survive to the final draft. Hillary won’t make the same mistake:

As in 2008, Greater Hillaryland, if not the Clinton campaign itself, would quietly work to disqualify Warren as a crazed, countercultural liberal. A former Obama campaign aide recalls Clintonites planting stories in foreign newspapers, then watching them enter the domestic bloodstream through outlets like The Drudge Report. This appears to be how Obama’s dubious connection to former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers first gained widespread attention. “They were the kings of bank-shot press attention,” says the aide. “They were pitching stories domestic outlets would not cover . . . because the information they were peddling was so toxic.”

This is like the sports pages, so I don’t blame you for not having the energy or patience right now. But Elizabeth Warren is so ambitious, such a brazen liar, I know she’s going for it in ’16. Know it. But as those are also two of Hillary’s most prominent characteristics, it should be quite a primary fight. Can’t wait.

Comments

Blech!

Lawrence O’Donnell Asks for Elizabeth Warren’s Autograph

Her first bill! I’m kvelling!

What was the bill, anyway?

Federal loan rates are scheduled under federal law to double on July 1, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Warren’s bill would let students borrow instead at the rate big banks pay to the federal reserve, which she said is currently about .75 percent, between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014. The rates would go up again after that unless Congress acts again.

Wow, a tax Democrats would cut! Can I get an autograph too?

Just one question:

Warren said the federal government expects to make $34 billion on student loans next year, or $.36 for every $1 it lends a student. But she argued that forgoing that income, even as Congress has been focussed on deficit reduction, would be a worthwhile trade-off.

You bet! So what will you cut by $34 billion, Senator Warren?

Senator Warren…?

Senator…?

Comments (1)

A Line in the Sandbox

It just came to me: Massachusetts politics are like a sandbox. There are turf battles, prized possessions (the green bucket, for example), and sharp elbows. All for a patch of arid wasteland.

See if that doesn’t apply to this situation, in which a fake Indian holds a fake ceremony to stump for a colleague to be a fake Senator—all in front of a fake Secretary of State and a real Supreme Court Justice pretending to perform a mock swearing-in.

Only in Massachusetts (and maybe Illinois):

With months of fiscal wrangling ahead on Capitol Hill, newly christened — and soon-to-be senior — U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren called retiring Bay State Congressman Barney Frank an “extraordinary” choice to temporarily fill John Kerry’s seat yesterday, adding to what mounted to an impassioned stump speech for the Newton Democrat.

Warren, speaking at a mock swearing-in ceremony to celebrate her admission as Massachusetts’ first female U.S. senator, lauded Frank for his fiscal prowess, calling him “my tutor, my guide” and a “champion” of consumer protection.

The remarks came a day after Frank, citing a desire to be part of the debt ceiling debate, said he asked Gov. Deval Patrick to name him interim senator upon Kerry’s expected appointment to secretary of state.

Patrick, who left yesterday’s event without speaking to reporters, said Friday that Frank would make a “great senator,” but would only go as far as to say “he’s definitely on the list.” Patrick was forced to address the matter after Frank announced his desire for the seat on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” earlier in the day.

In a departure, Kerry himself even touched upon his nomination by President Obama.

“I was a junior senator for 26 years,” he said, referring to working alongside late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“In terms of legislative days, if — IF — I’m confirmed and if I’m confirmed on time, (Warren) may have been junior senator for three legislative days.

“I’m not allowed to get ahead of myself,” he added. “I have to keep saying ‘if.’?”

Oh, ick. The fix is in, hairdo, give up the pretense.

BTW, the only reason we’re in this position is that our fake democracy has contorted itself and the law into this legislative Gordian knot. They’ve changed the law of succession so many times (to avoid letting Republicans take office) that even they haven’t the balls to change it again.

Speaking of faking:

Massachusetts voters have gotten used to their elected leaders pulling bizarre stunts, but this one’s right up there with Bill Weld jumping into the Charles River.

There was the newly unemployed Barney Frank going on one last ego trip to reveal how he pressed Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint him to the U.S. Senate. And there was Patrick, facing a horde of media inside his office, squirming to respond to Frank’s begging.

Awkward, to say the least.

“He’d be a great, uh, he’d be a great senator, even on an interim, um, basis,” Patrick said, dancing around the question.

It’s especially strange for a guy who, just a few weeks ago, said he wasn’t interested in the expected Senate vacancy. And when Frank announced he wasn’t running for re-election, he basically said it was because he didn’t feel like asking for the votes of the 325,000 new voters in his reconfigured district.

“One of the advantages to me of not running for office is I don’t even have to try to pretend to be nice to people I don’t like,” Frank said.

Whether Frank’s planned ploy will work is still up in the air, but it definitely stunned the governor and even state Democrats who are used to Frank’s arrogant antics.

“He just announced himself to be a United States senator,” one veteran Democrat said, calling Frank’s move “the deep end of arrogance.”

At last, an honest and true assessment! Who let this guy in the sandbox?

But imagine the humiliation it would be if Governor Patrick doesn’t appoint Frank to the position. Like kicking sand in his face. Can’t wait!

Comments (1)

Gored by the Horns of a Dilemma

Why do bad things happen to good people?

Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Massachusetts Democrats are facing a tough political dilemma created by their own machinations: how to hold onto US Senator John F. Kerry’s seat in the face of a special election law they created eight years ago that is now working against them.

With all indications suggesting that Kerry will vacate the seat to become secretary of state, party insiders see huge hurdles that could include a divisive and expensive primary fight, followed by what will probably be a general election battle against Scott Brown, a popular Republican, who is seen by analysts as a strong contender in a low-turnout special election.

One of the easiest ways to ensure that the seat remains in Democratic hands would be to do away with a special election, instead allowing Governor Deval Patrick to appoint a fellow Democrat to serve out the remain der of Kerry’s term through 2014. That was the longstanding law for filling Senate vacancies in Massachusetts before the Legislature changed the statute in 2004, creating a special election procedure in effort to deny Mitt Romney, then governor, a Senate appointment if Kerry had won the presidential race.

Five years later, in 2009, the Legislature again amended the law at the behest of Edward M. Kennedy, who was dying of brain cancer, allowing the governor to appoint an interim senator to fill the seat only for a brief period until the special election. Kennedy argued that the state needed to be represented in the debate at the time over the national health care law.

Because Democratic leaders have now changed the law twice in the last eight years, it would be politically difficult to finagle the process yet again.

“The Democrats are getting what they deserved,” said Jeffrey M. Berry, a political science professor at Tuft University. “They manipulated the rules last time to ostensibly help them keep the Senate seat. . . . It was pure politics.”

Well, give the Glob credit for trying. They use “finagle”, “manipulated”, “pure politics”, and “machinations” to describe the Dems’ actions. They were certainly all that, but they were a lot more. All due respect to the dead, but Kennedy’s “behest” should have meant nothing. He knew he was dying, had been absent from the Senate for months, but never resigned his seat to allow an orderly transition. Why should a state law be changed (again) to protect a Senate seat that belongs to the people, not the Kennedy family, and had already sat empty for months? To all of the above add “selfish”.

For some Democrats, the party, by allowing an open race, could invite a free-for-all primary that would drain its resources and give Brown a leg up to defeat a battered Democratic nominee.

“In an abbreviated election with a significant lower turnout, it is [in] the Democratic Party’s interest to rally around one candidate,’’ said Joseph Ricca, a veteran Democratic operative who has worked on both state and national campaigns.

But it is unclear if the party leadership can impose the discipline that could clear the field for one candidate.

US Representative James P. McGovern, a Worcester Democrat, said it is not politically feasible to control the primary election field, nor would it make any difference.

“I don’t think any of us can really handpick somebody,” said McGovern, who said he has no interest in seeking the seat.

I’m surprised to hear them so resigned. There were no depths to which they would not plumb to get the fake Indian elected. Why wimp out now? I’m sure there are plenty of unqualified, race-faking, practitioners of “spiritual genocide” out there just dying to be US Senator. It’s a pity we can elect only two!

Comments

Bay State Reprobate Update

As far as I know, Auntie Zeituni is still holed up in her state-subsidized apartment, enjoying the fruits of her formerly-illegal status. So, this isn’t about her.

Her half-brother, however, equally illegal—even more so!—is another story:

It’s Uncle Onyango’s world — you’re just livin’ in it.

You remember President Obama’s uncle, the repeat-offender, illegal immigrant/drunken driver who was ordered to leave the United States but, like the president’s Aunt Zeituni, decided to stay put here in Massachusetts?

He has repeatedly ignored orders from the federal courts, blatantly flaunted federal and state laws against illegal immigrants working in the United States — he even has a driver’s license (also illegal) — but finally the court system caught up with him.

Finally Onyango Obama got his comeuppance from the Obama administration.

He’s been ordered. . . to get another hearing on his immigration status.

“President Obama’s uncle has won a new deportation hearing in Boston immigration court, more than a year after a drunk-driving arrest in Framingham revealed that he had violated a longstanding order to return to Kenya,” reported The Boston Globe-Democrat.

Why shouldn’t Omar join Zeituni as formerly-illegal Americans? As rule-bending, law-breaking, system-abusing, victim-playing, 0.14% alcohol-blowing (Omar), cripple-faking (Zeituni), citizens of the world, aren’t they made to be Americans? Isn’t that what at least 50.8% of us want for our country? Prove to me that it’s not.

The president may not want to be seen with them—Obama has been to Boston several times over the years, but hasn’t so much as taken his aunt or uncle out for a small Dunkin’ Donuts decaf hazelnut, which Omar could sorely use to sober up—but they can be seen as standing for him. Laws don’t apply, not if they’re “unfair”, and that goes for laws of economics, physics, the Constitution. Laws exist only to be applied to those who can and do. Those who can’t and don’t (or won’t) are excused, and their parking will be validated.

Speaking of rule-bending, law-breaking, system-abusing, victim-playing Americans:

U.S. Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren said in a fundraising letter to supporters on Wednesday that despite raising $42 million, her campaign finished in the red and needs a “little more money” to pay off the debt.

Warren, a Democrat who defeated incumbent Republican Sen. Scott Brown in one of the nation’s most closely watched races, said the shortfall resulted from the campaign’s massive get-out-the-vote organizing effort on Election Day.

The letter did not give the size of the debt, but a campaign official pegged it at about $400,000, less than 1 percent of the total raised. The official requested anonymity because final campaign finance reports had not yet been filed.

“I know this was the most expensive Senate race in the country. And I know that we’ve sent you a bazillion emails asking for money over the past year. I’m sure you expected them to all end once the voters were counted – and yes, that’s what I thought too,” Warren wrote.

The Harvard Law School professor cited the cost of providing coffee and pizza for the more than 20,000 supporters who volunteered on Election Day, thousands more than had been anticipated. She also said the campaign rented dozens more vans in response to a greater-than-expected volume of calls from voters seeking help in getting to the polls.

The result was an “embarrassment of riches” that left the campaign with the small debt, Warren said.

“Everyone, we need a little more money to pay off our final bills. Can you help one more time?” she wrote.

Is she for real? (When was she ever?) She raised untold millions from Hollywood—Jeffrey Katzenberg could retire her debt with what he keeps tucked down his left sock—and she’s shnorring for shekels from the sheep who voted for the sham Shoshone?

Why doesn’t she just shake down her tribe-mates at the Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods casinos?

The DNC targeted this seat, and paid good money for it. They own it. Let them pay off her debt. But we won’t. We’ll send in our box tops and bottle caps until her debt is retired. Her monetary debt, that is. Her moral stain for committing “spiritual genocide” can never be expunged.

Forget it, Jake. It’s Massachusetts.

PS: “Cripple-faking”, BTL? Cripple-faking.

Comments (1)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »