Thursday, April 27, 2017
Elizabeth Warren: the future of the Democratic party
I saw Elizabeth Warren on The Tonight Sow talking about her new book and about the future of the Democratic party. I think the future of the party lies with her, not with (Independent) Bernie ....
And here she speaks on the Senate floor about women's reproductive rights ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am impressed with Elizabeth Warren's record. She was a law professor specializing in bankruptcy law. She is a strong consumer protection advocate. Her advocacy led to establishment of the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She stood up to the Republican Senators during the debate on Jeff Sessions (and got smacked down for it; which reflected poorly on them rather than her).She is a supporter of Dodd Frank, and the enforcement of Glass Steagall. She is more than a match for the Wall Street and bank crowd. I suppose she is lock-step with the party line on reproductive rights; I really care more about what she would do with trade, foreign policy, health insurance, and economic inequality. I care deeply about the right to life as a moral issue. But the truth is it's not the issue that will decide our future as a nation. I would like to see the Democrats focus on actual issues of governance; how they are going to do better than the present ruling crowd (it shouldn't be that hard.) Or they can continue to focus on ideological non-negotiable knee jerk stuff.
ReplyDeleteI like the wonky side of Elizabeth Warren, and I would like to see what she would contribute to a serious discussion on tax code reform.
DeleteIt's too bad Hillary didn't pick her as a running mate - maybe then she could have won. I saw another interview with her in which she said she was very passionately pro-choice, so I don't think she's just doing the party line thing. Civil liberties, including women's rights, are really important, as important as economics - we can see this in the many recent court rulings against Trump's immigration bans.
ReplyDeleteAs Hillary Clinton herself has alleged, no doubt correctly, one factor contributing to her loss was misogyny. Much as I like Elizabeth Warren, I think that the number of votes she might have gained would probably have been more than offset by those she would have cost a ticket from those who could not bring themselves to vote for women in the two top offices in the land. Of course, it's impossible to know with any degree of certainty.
ReplyDeleteYeah, you're probably right. Hillary did actually win the popular vote - maybe she would have won over some of the Bernie people with Warren as VP, but I can see how it could have gone the other way instead.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as someone whose name is listed among the contributors, there is a limit to the amount of pro-abortion advocacy I am comfortable with on the site. Probably about 90% (or more) of what I have written in forums like this has been in opposition to what seem to be a host of bad arguments from "pro-lifers." However, I have never thought of myself as a pro-abortion advocate, and such advocacy does not seem appropriate for NewGathering. I am speaking, as I said, as a contributor, not as site-administrator. It is up to the group, not to me, to come up with commenting guidelines for the site, or perhaps a disclaimer that each contributor speaks for himself or herself. I am open to suggestions.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. I think that pro-choice orthodoxy has been bad for the Democratic party. If folks want to argue about the effect of the pro-choice plank and whether it helps/hurts the party's chances (or whether the pro-life plank affects the GOP's chances) in elections, I have no objection. I am happy to discuss books or movies that deal with abortion.
DeleteArguments advocating the need for abortion rights or overturning Roe v. Wade per se? No, I don't care to turn this forum into a debate on abortion rights because such arguments have been rehashed a million times over on the old blog, and nobody's minds are ever changed.
If others want to debate the issue, I will scroll through.
Pro-choice stuff is a part of the political landscape and even of Catholic world (Catholics For Choice), but since I'm the only pro-choice person here, I'll not dwell on it in the future.
ReplyDeleteIt may be ungentlemanly to bring this up, But Elizabeth Warren will be 68 in June and 71 for the next presidential election. True, Trump will be 71 himself in June, and she looks a heck of a lot healthier than the pudgy pouter, but if we are talking about the future of the party, Sen. Warren isn't it.
ReplyDeleteShe knows how money runs this country, and whats wrong with it, which is a huge plus for her. And she drives Trump crazy, for which you gotta love her. But I haven't the foggiest idea of how she would handle China, what she thinks about the Middle East or what she would consider to be tax reform. True, the incumbent hasn't demonstrated more than a comic book idea of foreign affairs, and even Douglas Holtz-Eaken is hinky about the Notes Toward a Tax Reform issued this week. But I hope he is not our standard.
As for pro-life, the fact remains that unless the Supremes change their minds (as they didn't when Scalia was one of the minds), there ain't squat elected politicians, especially the president -- who doesn't even have to sign off on proposed constitutional amendments -- can do about abortion. It is a huge mistake for Ds to keep saying that only they can save women from the abortion-banning Rs. If the Ds simply said the Rs are talking horse manure, which they are, instead of going to the stake to defend mommy's right to kill, the Ds might start winning again.