Why Elizabeth Warren Should Stay Where She Is

[WilliamPitt]

Why Elizabeth Warren Should Stay Where She Is
By Charles P. Pierce
Esquire

12/03/2013

There are a number of reasons why I pray that Senator Professor Elizabeth Warren ignores the importunings of silly pundits and stays right where she is in the United States Senate for, oh, I don't know, seven terms or so. The most important reason is pure selfishness. She's our senator. You bastids go find one of your own. The second reason, and one that is almost as important, is that she is invaluable right where she is because she is making all the right people completely crazy. Former senator McDreamy, for example, whom she beat like a tin drum in 2012, hasn't gotten over it yet, and is still making noises about loading his carpetbag into the bed of his Potemkin pickup truck and going to New Hampshire in order to get beaten like a tin drum by Jeanne Shaheen. (Run, Scotty, run!) It is pretty plain that she's wrongfooted Wall Street poodle Chuck Schumer pretty badly, too.

(snip)

And it's not just Schumer, either. We are hearing from the Ghosts Of Fake Centrists Past (the inexcusable Al From as well as steam-grate philosopher Pat Caddell) and Centrists Present (the Third Way grifters), all of whom warn of the dangers of taking up too loudly for anyone who can't afford to buy them all dinner. We have even heard from Richard Cohen, who is making a strong rush in the final straightaway to have the single stupidest year ever produced by a pundit not named Bill Kristol.

(snip)

I do not want Elizabeth Warren to run for president because I want her to continue to be my senator. I also don't want her to run for president because she might lose -- and, considering she hasn't done anything you do to start a presidential campaign yet, that's the way to bet right now -- and then her message goes down the memory hole. Leave the Republicans out of it for a second. Among the Democrats, she immediately becomes George McGovern. The Schumers, and Froms, and Caddells, and Cohens get to tut-tut liberal populism into yet another early grave and they get license to start taking bids from whoever they see as the next Evan Bayh. If Warren stays in the Senate, she can keep pushing her issues and keep pissing off all the right people. (My dream is not Warren in the White House. It's Warren as chair of the Senate Banking Committee, subpoena power and all.) She can do the work there that desperately needs to be done.

And, besides, you bastids get your own.

Full article: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/elizabeth-warren-should-stay-senator-120313

[Dawgs]

1. If not her, then who?

[customerserviceguy]

4. Seeing as how we're stuck with Hillary

the best thing we can do is pour money, time and effort into getting a progressive Congress that will pass laws that she's stuck with signing.

I just don't see any other possible alternatives.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Unfortunately many Dems don't take midterms seriously

See 2010.

They think the President has all the power, but they forget that legislation originates in Congress. Many Dems think the President is a dictator. This is far from reality.

This is why many folks like myself are trying to get people to focus on 2014 rather than 2016.

It's important as hell.

[rhett o rick]

39. We can focus on both. The race for 2014 hasnt started yet. And if we dont get working on 2016

we will be stuck with HRC. I am assuming you would be ok with that. Most that are asking the left to ignore 2016 are HRC supporters. Eight more years of DLC presidency will most likely finish off the middle class.

If you dont want Christie Creams for president, dont nominate HRC.

[Cali_Democrat]

42. I don't even want Hillary

LOL. You continue to act as if you know me so well.

Well, obviously you don't.

Oh and fuck Ron Paul.

[rhett o rick]

47. I see you are using Sid's posse's signature emoticon. How special. And what's your obsession with

doing something weird with Ron Paul?

[Cali_Democrat]

48. sex is not weird.

[rhett o rick]

50. I would say it would be with Ron Paul. But that's just me. To each her own. Good luck. nm

[ReRe]

13. Why not Bernie Sanders as an Ind? ;-) n/t

[rhett o rick]

56. I doubt that Sen Sanders really wants the job as president. But as a Democratic challenger

he would get good opportunity to push his agenda for the middle class. If he runs as an Independent he wont get much from the Corp-Media.

[ReRe]

58. Corp "Librul" MSM....

... gives nothing to no one except the Republicans.

The only way they would be forced into recognizing Bernie/Independent would be if he was ahead in the polls. They would have to then, wouldn't they?

[JDPriestly]

15. I would have a difficult time ever voting for Hillary. I might force myself to do it, but I really

don't know if I could at this time. And the campaign with Hillary as the Democratic candidate will be reduced to quibbling over her past mistakes and alleged crimes. She is barely if at all a Democrat. (She was a Goldwater Girl in her youth I have heard.) Really, I want Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016. We need a progressive woman in the White House.

So if not Elizabeth Warren for 2016, who? And as you can see, I do not think that Hillary can win, not at all.

[Purveyor]

26. We are walking the same path, indeed! eom

[Beacool]

44. Hillary was 17 when she was a Goldwater girl. Warren was in her mid 40s when she switched parties.

Hillary is plenty Democrat, whether some of you like it or not.

[dreamnightwind]

60. Well it very much depends on how you define Democrat

To those of us on the left, we don't see the DLC-wing as actual Democrats, speaking for myself at least.

I agree with you though on the Goldwater-girl thing. She was young, and Warren was a Republican much later in life. We need to focus on what their positions are now. And though I'm a huge Warren supporter, before it's too late I would like to see more vetting of her positions on some of the issues that separate Dems from Republicans. I know she will stand with us for economic justice (which IMHO Hillary won't), which is extremely important, but there are other issues where I still don't know enough about Warren.

[customerserviceguy]

61. I'm sure that by November 2016

The Rethuglicans will have nominated someone so foul, that a vote for Hillary will seem like doing your duty to your country. They simply don't have anyone who can win nationally, period.

So, since the Democratic nomination process will pick the next President, who's getting the face time on the news networks these days? I doubt that 9 out of 10 Americans could pick Martin O'Malley out of a lineup. Joe Biden will make a token stab at getting the job, get his ass handed to him in Iowa, and make Hillary look young in comparison, thus burying the age issue for her throughout 2016.

Yes, Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. Reagan used to be Democratic. So what? Hillary is the only feasible weapon to shatter the glass ceiling, that will get her plenty of votes in the primaries and in the general election from people who have no idea who Elizabeth Warren even is.

[JDPriestly]

63. Hilary is boring and followed wherever she goes by shadows from her past.

Good luck trying to get her elected. She is popular among the establishment Democrats and has lots of money. But she does not have the answers to the questions Americans are asking about the economy, jobs, immigration, security, the banks, the economy, the economy, the economy again. I believe it was Bill Clinton who used the motto, "It's the economy, stupid." The economy was great during the Clinton years, but he signed the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall as well as the NAFTA agreement, two major bills/agreements that led to the shakedown of the American middle class.

And it is that shakedown that is on the minds of ordinary Americans. Millions of Americans foreclosed. Many of them went into bankruptcy and not only lost their homes but their jobs, their businesses and many of them, their family relationships.

The hurt of that will be what Americans vote on in 2016. The Republicans will offer lots of empty promises. And what will we offer if Clinton is the candidate? Answers from the past. That's not smart and not good.

[Skink]

8. Schweitzer!

Run that dog!

[jaysunb]

10. Yup...w/ either Brown or Coumo n/t

[bvar22]

12. Its way early yet.

We'll see.

As much as I like Warren for President,
Charles Pierce makes a good case for leaving her in the Senate.

Aside from all that,
this piece was brilliantly written.
I couldn't stop laughing:

"...still making noises about loading his carpetbag into the bed of his Potemkin pickup truck and going to New Hampshire."

"We are hearing from the Ghosts Of Fake Centrists Past (the inexcusable Al From as well as steam-grate philosopher Pat Caddell) and Centrists Present (the Third Way grifters), "

"..the single stupidest year ever produced by a pundit not named Bill Kristol."

The whole piece is well worth the read.

[Purveyor]

28. "steam-grate philosopher Pat Caddell". I had to do a little screen cleanup after reading that one.

[arcane1]

2. Word.

[annabanana]

3. fair enough . .. . . . . n/t

[warrant46]

5. Wall Street poodle Chuck Schumer

And here I thought Blair was the Poodle

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I think 3rd Way Hillary supports that idea.

[jaysunb]

9. She will. (stay in the Senate)

[dreamnightwind]

11. So apparently his dream is Hillary in the White House?

His argument rings hollow.

First, she might actually win if she runs, which would be huge, and I mean huge.

Second, many Senators run and keep their seats when they lose. She could make a lot of noise for some arguments that desperately need to be made in this country. In my opinion she would do this better than anyone else out there. In doing so, she could advance the causes we believe in, bring the Democratic Party back into people's minds as a protector of the little guy, and prepare the ground for a real progressive uprising.

"and, considering she hasn't done anything you do to start a presidential campaign yet, that's the way to bet right now"

That's a great response to all of those posts about how we need to solely focus on 2014 until after those elections. Pre-2016 positioning and decisions about running are happening NOW. If we don't mobilize for an alternative candidate now, we'll be left with Hillary and possibly a token liberal that runs to et the message out but that doesn't actually wage a full campaign, such as we've seen from Kucinich.

"and then her message goes down the memory hole. "

Makes no sense whatsoever, I think her message would be amplified.

I've only read the posted excerpts, not the full article, so responses are limited to that.

I'm open to Warren alternatives, I'm not open to sitting around saying nothing while the party lines up behind Hillary.

[Divernan]

16. Her senate term runs through 2018. She can keep Senate seat AND run for president.

As did Hillary Clinton who campaigned for the presidential nomination in 2008 while serving in the U.S. Senate. In January of 2009 she resigned her Senate seat to become Secretary of State.

[dreamnightwind]

59. Exactly - eom

[Gothmog]

14. A very honest post

I wish that I just had one Senator who was not a complete idiot

[Cha]

17. A seemingly reasonable request.

[Gothmog]

18. Lets turn Texas blue

Some friends are recommending Maxey Scherr for US Senate and so far she sounds great

[Cha]

20. First I've heard of her.. thanks Gothmog..

Found on her FB page..

Retweeted OFA FL (@OFA_FL):

More than half of SNAP recipients are children—Fight to have their funding restored: http://t.co/488wcPviGU
Organizing for Action
OFA.BO
JOIN THE FIGHT TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE No one who works full time in America should have to live in poverty. Join the fight to increase the minimum wage --

https://www.facebook.com/maxeyscherrforussenate

[Gothmog]

25. I trust the people who recommended me to her

I like what I have seen so far. The key will be helping her raise enough money to run in Texas and hopefully seeing Cornyn have trouble with a tea party candidate

[Cha]

29. Yep!

".. and hopefully seeing Cornyn have trouble with a tea party candidate."

[cantbeserious]

19. Profoundly Disagree With This Argument

eom

[Scuba]

22. +1

[loyalsister]

21. If the last few years have taught us anything

I think one lesson would be that we need Democratic leadership in Congress. Warren is one of the strongest leaders we've got.

It is also worth noting repeating that the president has less power than some believe. A Warren administration would still only be able to sign or veto legislation passed by Congress.

[Jamaal510]

52. Can we put this up on a billboard somewhere on DU?

"It is also worth noting repeating that the president has less power than some believe. A Warren administration would still only be able to sign or veto legislation passed by Congress."

[longship]

23. But, but, but, but...

Warren 2016.

She says she's not interested.

Warren 2016!

She's going to be an awesome US Senator.

Warren 2016!!!!

Why are people so focussed on 2016 when we have a very important mid-term election in one year, mid-term which Democrats don't often do well in.

WARREN 2016!!!!!!!!

She's already said she's not interested in the White House. How can you be so delusional that she'd change her mind?

WARREN 2016!!!!

(No point in even arguing about it. It's three years off. Who runs will be who runs. Meanwhile, 2014 looms.)

[DFW]

24. I very much agree with the OP/Esquire article

Aside from the "you bastids get one of your own," which I think the article could have done without (some states would never elect a Democrat like her, no matter how good she would be for them), I agree. Elizabeth Warren is already in her early sixties, and could be a brilliant advocate for us in the Senate. She hasn't made the slightest noise about wanting the White House--that has all been done by the pundits.

I think if presented with it to read, there would be few who agree more with the OP than Elizabeth Warren, herself.

[Laelth]

27. Once again, I disagree with Mr. Pierce.

It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

I appreciate the post, in any event. I like seeing EW's name in print--the more exposure she gets, the better.

-Laelth

[Niceguy1]

30. I think she should do whatever she wants

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Trying hard to understand the normally-coherent Pierce...

So if Warren runs for President and wins, we get the first Liberal President in 48 years. My understanding is that Presidents can do a lot more stuff to shape American's lives than individual Senators can. So that sounds fine to me.

If she loses, she has to leave the Senate? Or she stops being a good senator?

Huh?

[WilliamPitt]

35. "My understanding is that Presidents can do a lot more stuff to shape American's lives than..."

"My understanding is that Presidents can do a lot more stuff to shape American's lives than individual Senators can."

Your understanding is wrong.

Ted Kennedy did more good for America from his seat in the Senate than all the presidents he outlasted, combined.

Liz Warren sits Ted's chair.

Get over the pornography of presidential "power."

Governing - actual governing - is done in the legislature.

Leave Sen. Warren where she is.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Which senator, in your opinion, was the most

impactful on US history?

Which president?

Probably best to exclude pre-1800, that was a very special case.

[northoftheborder]

32. I totally agree she is very important in the Senate, and hope she....

....stays long enough to gain much power in the Senate working in the fields she is most knowledgable and passionate about.

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. fine.. but if not her - who will raise the progressive flag on the national level?

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. "McGovern". Liberals loved him. Everybody else? Not so much.

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. conservative loved Goldwater - but Everybody else, not so much

But did the conservatives after 1964 do what the liberals did after 1972 and give up? No, they built a movement and won and came back and dominated American politics for a generation - a movement so to the right of Barry Goldwater that he eventually ended up a pariah in the movement he helped create. What a different America we would have if liberals had come back and built a movement instead of adopting the philosophy of reshaping the Democratic Party into the moderate wing of the Republican Party.

McGovern was right. He was right from the start. He was right about the war in Vietnam. He was right about changing the tax system and fundamentally altering the safety net. He was right just about everything. McGovern was sabotaged by a very hateful campaign initiated by the Democratic Party leadership who were determined to steal the nomination from him even if meant wrecking the entire party. What a different America we would have if the Democratic Party establishment had simply accepted the mandate of the primaries instead of trying of trying to steal the nomination and hadn't intentionally sabotaged the McGovern campaign in 1972.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Almost as awesome as Alf Landon's crushing defeat of FDR

And what was the name of that bozo in 2008 who ran for President on a Liberal ticket? African-American fellow, I believe. What was he thinking?! A public option for health insurance, ending the surveillance state, not cutting Social Security, and all of that other unreasonable claptrap.

[lonestarnot]

40. Hey Charles... EW should do whateva the fuck she wantsa do.

[Beacool]

45. Well, since she has repeatedly said she won't run for president, Charles should be a happy man.

[lonestarnot]

49. People say things. People change their minds. Fuck Charles.

[MannyGoldstein]

57. Actually, she says she *isn't* running

A bit different.

[Demo_Chris]

41. What other moderately progressive Democrats do we have at the national level?

[Art_from_Ark]

43. That's like saying Obama should have stayed in the Senate

because he could have lost the election, and besides he was more effective there and the people of Illinois couldn't replace him.

If Senator Warren ran for president in 2016 and lost, she would still be Massachusetts' senior Senator, since she would only be in the 4th year of her term.

[dsc]

54. Obama wasn't all that effective a Senator

certainly not as effective as Warren has been in a fairly short time. Also he did get replaced by first Roland Burris then by a GOP Senator.

[Art_from_Ark]

55. If Obama wasn't effective as a Senator

why would people think he would be effective as President?

At any rate, Senator Warren is just one of 100 votes in the Senate. Her influence is largely limited to a few committees. She cannot appoint judges, only cast one of 100 votes for them. She cannot appoint Cabinet members, only only cast one of 100 votes for them. As President, she would be at the very top of the executive branch, with the ability to appoint judges and Cabinet members, among other things, which could hopefully pull the US back toward a more liberal direction. I don't see how people can claim that she would be more effective in the Senate than as President.

[Beacool]

46. This is going to be a looong three years.

[hrmjustin]

51. I doubt she will run but if she feels she should then she should.

I do not think she will beat Hillary.

[davidpdx]

53. I am open to almost anyone & ignore the talking heads that say one person should or shouldn't run

I think there are a few potential candidates on our side. I've said in the past, I won't vote for Clinton in the primary. Nothing will convince me otherwise. I believe there will be alternatives and will wait to see who they are.

[Matariki]

62. I've always been baffled by the knee-jerk 'run for president' clamor

the minute a politician does or says something that impresses us.