What about Warren makes DU so certain she'd be good in Senate leadership?

[Recursion]

I'm not being snarky or an ass. I'm actually curious. There's a reason Kennedy was never in Senate leadership, for instance.

I'm wondering what people here think about 1. Senate Leadership and 2. Elizabeth Warren that makes them think that would be a good match?

Side note: I have nothing against Warren: for all I know she would be a great Minority Leader or Minority Whip. I just haven't seen anything from her that suggests that (or suggests against it).

What is it about Warren that makes people think she would be successful in the kind of ruffled-ego-soothing, large-donor-reassuring job that Senate leadership is?

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I'm not convinced her proponents...

actually know what these jobs are.

[wyldwolf]

2. She's much more of a fighter than Harry

She lacks the connections and political prowess at this time.

[Recursion]

5. Yeah, I still don't know what "fight" means

So that whole argument is lost on me. Since Sumner or so actual fighting is discouraged.

[Ykcutnek]

3. Reid is creating a special position for her.

So it won't be a traditional leadership role.

[wyldwolf]

4. interesting. Any details on that?

[Ykcutnek]

7. This just came across Twitter:

Jeff Zeleny @jeffzeleny

Elizabeth Warren will be a liaison to liberal groups as part of Harry Reid's leadership team, @ABC has learned. It's a policy position.

[Mass]

6. Change the leadership. It is a disgrace the party leadership seems like the Soviet Union government.

We need new blood. But I do not see a need TO CREATE an additional position for Warren. They should offer her the DSCC chairmanship. She is a good fundraiser and campaigner.

BTW, this special seat is the best sign that they do not intend to get her a real role. It is just pandering to the left.

[Scuba]

10. +1 on the pandering comment.

[Marr]

27. +1

[JimDandy]

32. + 3 Hope she refuses. She should be minority leader. Reid has sucked at it. n/t

[Orsino]

8. I'm not certain.

She might even stink--but her heart being in more or less the right place puts her several steps ahead of most of the competition.

Put her to work now, I say, before The DC rot can progress.

[Recursion]

9. Does it? Why?

In what other fields does having one's heart in the right place make one better at something?

[Orsino]

11. Only fields in which people's lives hang in the balance.

Medicine, for one. Legislating is another.

[Recursion]

13. So you'd rather have a doctor whose heart is in the right place than the one who knows the condition

best?

[Orsino]

18. Quite possibly.

A doctor who may know more, but has been paid for years not to treat illness, is not necessarily my go-to person.

[JimDandy]

33. Great analogy for what's going on in Congress. n/t

[tkmorris]

19. No one wants a completely incompetent doctor

But, assuming a certain minimum amount of knowledge of the condition, yes there is quite a lot to be said for a doctor having their heart in the right place.

I'd say Congress can be quite similar. There is little to be gained from certain positions being filled by those who are skilled at the job, while having completely the wrong ideological goals. If ideology didn't matter we could just pick Republicans.

[Zorra]

35. Better to have a doctor who actually wants to heal you than one who doesn't care if s/he kills you,

or actually wants to kill you.

[hobbit709]

12. She certainly can't do worse that we got so far from the current ones.

[Recursion]

14. Sure she could

We could have 30 seats, for instance.

[Octafish]

15. She acts like a Democrat.

She might lead like one.

[Recursion]

17. Is that a good thing?

Do people you call "Democrats" "lead" well?

[Octafish]

40. Yes, because good Democratic leadership is what Democrats and the nation need.

Here's why: What we don't need (which is what we've now got):

The Democrats' Political Suicide

by Michael Brenner
Huffington Post, November 10, 2014

EXCERPT...

This bizarre tale knows no precedent in American political history. The explanation, though, is readily apparent for those willing to look at the record. The formula did not require anything as exotic as hemlock; rather the more prosaic ingredients were imbibed gradually. The most toxic have been these.

One, alienate your core constituencies. That includes reneging on a pledge to help the trade unions; launch a campaign of vilification against school teachers -- from kindergarten through college; attack civil liberties protections; commit to reductions in Social Security and Medicare; stiff the environmentalists. In short, do to them in a calculated way what a Republican president would do instinctively.

Two, curry favor with your party's traditional enemies: Wall Street, Big Pharma, the Christian Right, the energy and industrial agriculture trusts. That has the dual effect of blunting your message and blurring your image while emboldening the objects of your favors to demand even more.

Three, permit the Republicans in Congress to exploit to the fullest their irresponsible tactics by never denouncing them for what they are or moving to challenge them on their own electoral turf. As a corollary, go along with the coy designation of the Tea Party controlled radical reactionary Republican Party as self-styled "conservatives."

Four, enable the Republicans to shape public discourse by monopolizing the airways and media. Democratic silence, timidity, defensiveness and evasion have given the Republicans the free run of the playing field. On this score, the party's leadership has been abject -- the president above all. Endless visits to daytime TV shows to schmooze about nothing in particular undercut respect for the presidency, neutralize the advantage of the incumbency and motivate the public to tune out or denigrate important messages. Mr. Obama seems oblivious to the obvious truth that most of the country stopped paying attention to what he says years ago.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/11/10/democrats-political-suicide

As that also happens to be the kind of political leadership the Republicans offer, I'd prefer someone more close allied to my own political philosophy, the Democratic.

[Scuba]

16. I'm not sure she would be good in such a position. Outside of her ...

... position on the banksters, which I highly admire, she's no liberal.

For example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025318501

[Recursion]

20. Well, I also still don't know what a "bankster" is, so I'll leave that one alone...

(I really, really dislike DU making up words like FR does...)

[JaneyVee]

43. Huh? DU didn't make that word up. Here:

bank·ster

ˈbaNGkstər/

noun

USderogatory

a member of the banking industry seen as profiteering or dishonest.

The term was coined in 1933.

[Recursion]

44. Thanks! I had no idea it was that old.

Given that definition, I have no idea which if any banksters should be in jail. I'd be willing to see all are profiteering, and most are dishonest, though. So there's that.

[Scuba]

45. "... like FR ..." Excellent smear! You must be so proud!!!!

[karynnj]

21. Though you are wrong on Kennedy never having a leadership post, he later said losing it was good

In January 1971, Kennedy lost his position as Senate Majority Whip when he lost the support of several members and was defeated by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, 31–24.[75] He would later tell Byrd that the defeat was a blessing, as it allowed him to focus more on issues and committee work, where his best strengths lay[75] and where he could exert influence independently from the Democratic party apparatus,[76] and began a decade as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy

The difference though is that in 1971, Kennedy was young and already had about 8 years of seniority. He immediately became the chair of an important subcommittee -- and later the chair of the entire committee. Warren's position is more like that of Hillary Clinton after she lost the nomination - neither had the seniority to get a powerful chair. In both cases, you have people who have less power in the Senate than their prominence and support in the country. For instance, there are many people ahead of Warren on the Banking committee. ( http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=CommitteeInformation.Membership ) There are links to the subcommittees as well, but it is not clear that she could become ranking member of any in the reorganization.

Given her age and her seniority ( almost 2 years), there is no way that she could get the type of powerful position that Kennedy (or later Kerry) had due to their seniority - then magnified by the quality of their work. For a freshman, Warren has been incredibly successful - and she has driven both the need for REAL oversight of banks and the need to have a solution for the unbearable burden of student loans. In her case, as with Kennedy and Kerry, she WOULD be a wonderful person to have heading a powerful Senate committee - but she does not have the seniority.

[Recursion]

23. She has. I really like Warren. I look forward to an awesome career from her

I just don't get why people think she would be good at the kind of inherently compromised job Senate leadership entails.

Good catch on Kennedy, by the way: he was in leadership briefly.

[karynnj]

30. I am a bit conflicted

I do think there is value "being at the table" and I think her voice is a good strong voice.

The question of whether having that voice as an "insider" might temper her ability to challenge the party position as she has done occasionally from the outside. Here, the examples might be Dick Durbin, who is a very good liberal and the current majority Whip and Patty Murray.

As whip, Dubin's JOB is to push Democrats to vote with the leadership and he is pretty good at that. He has also been a good, clear voice for the Democratic Senate. However, I can't recall him ever strongly advocating against the position that leadership has taken. Murray has been another strong voice. We so not know if Dubin/Murray/Leahy moved policy to the left with respect to Reid/Schumer. (Leahy is Senate pro tempore, but he also chairs the Judiciary committee) Stabenow and Beigich were the other two, but - at the risk of being wrong - have the more junior positions.

To me, the idea of pushing her for a leadership position seems almost like trying to give her a more influence Senate position to reflect that she is NOT a typical freshman in terms of political influence. The question for her will be whether she wants to more of an insider. (Being in the Senate itself makes her one of 100 insiders) There are advantages to that. The Kennedy quote - even admitting the difference in their seniority - shows the advantage of being outside the leadership. Kennedy could and did take on things the Senate leadership would not have had at that point as their agenda. This is even truer of John Kerry. (Think BCCI and his contra/drug and gun running investigations)

At this point, Warren has (almost unbelievably) have made a difference on policy. The President's action on student loans may well have been pushed by her advocacy and work on this. Even before she was a Senator, she was incredible in her contributions to the bill Dodd and Frank got passed. What is clear is that, like Democratic MA predecessors, she is very very good on working issues. As she has already made an impact though issues, that might be where she is most comfortable and effective. The surprise with Kennedy was his early career was that he was someone interested in politics and developing the relationships within the Senate. That actually made him a powerhouse when he shifted to making his mark through committee work.

[leftyladyfrommo]

22. I like Elizabeth Warren because she's got grit.

She's smart and she's not afraid to call BS, BS.

I don't know about her qualifications for a leadership position but I bet if she got it she would be up to speed in no time.

[Recursion]

24. But Senate leadership is an inherently compromised job

You're spending all of your time dealing with the most conservative member of your caucus. Why would she be good at that?

[Orsino]

34. A Senate leader isn't a disinterested broker, but rather a party to compromise.

I believe that Warren would make an excellent scold on our behalf, and would steer Senate business away from fantasy and more in our direction in the public eye.

Whether or not Republican fascists can be shamed is a secondary concern if Warren can successfully and visibly represent our interests. That will motivate voters to make the next Congress more responsive to our needs.

[HERVEPA]

25. Yeh, right.

And people said she couldn't win a senate race and wouldn't be effective in the senate.
You do a wonferful job of just keeping under the radar.

[Recursion]

26. Well, feel free to answer

Like I said above I'm a fan of hers. I just don't see the point of moving her to an inherently compromised position like Senate leadership.

[HERVEPA]

28. It's inherently compromised if you don't have someone competent in there.

Absolutely no reason to believe she wouldn't be competent. And in that position. more people in the country would hear her voice.

[Recursion]

31. Very well.

I'm behind it. I look forward to DU's reaction to what she does...

[Tatiana]

29. She's not owned by Wall St. or the bankers.

That's a plus in my book.

She might not be good at all in leadership. But, I believe she will mount more of an opposition than the current bought and paid for crew.

[Recursion]

37. Is she not? (nt)

[kentuck]

36. it's a sop to the progressives..

To stay on board the ship. Nothing more.

[Recursion]

38. Maybe

That seems like more of a coordinated plan than any of my experience in politics suggests has ever happened...

[tritsofme]

39. She is not entering the elected leadership, it looks like a symbolic post

More about PR than anything else.

[OregonBlue]

41. She will be there to remind them what the party stands for and to lobby for the average American's

agenda. That alone makes her a leader.

[Rex]

42. So all of DU is certain of this?

She has supporters, get over it already.