Warren: The Democratic Party is going to say 'no' to the billionaires

[Rory McRory Fitzrory]

Source: THE HILL

BY TAL AXELROD - 01/02/19 10:29 PM EST

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Wednesday that the Democratic Party should say "no to the billionaires."

Warren, during an appearance on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show," called on the party to disavow billionaire 2020 presidential candidates "whether they are self-funding" or funding Political Action Committees (PACs).

“Is this going to be a Democratic primary that is funded by the grassroots, that is done with grassroots volunteers, or is this going to be something that’s just one more plaything that billionaires can buy?” Warren asked.

“So I think this is a moment for all of the Democratic nominees to come into the race to say ‘in a Democratic primary we are going to link arms and we’re going to say grassroots funding. No to the billionaires. No to the billionaires whether they are self-funding or whether they are funding PACs. We are the Democratic Party and that’s the party of the people,’" she continued. "That’s how we not only win elections, that’s how we win movements that make real change.”

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/423627-warren-the-democratic-party-is-going-to-say-no-to-the-billionaires

---

Uh-oh, do I detect a whiff of purity here?

[elleng]

1. Something wrong with a principled approach to public policy???

[Igel]

4. No.

But there's nothing wrong with a false dichotomy, either, I guess.

[pecosbob]

2. Please do not link to RWTPs from The Hill

[pecosbob]

6. Of course not, but The Hill's piece is

They never quote Democratic figures without manipulating what they actually have said. They continually take things out of context with the intent of causing dissension among Democratic readers. The Hill, Politico and the Intercept will never publish a story about Dems without spin. Your commentary in the OP shows that it accomplished what it intended, to make Dems bash their own potential candidates.

[still_one]

3. Interesting how the Headline, "is going to say 'no' to the billionaires", is NOT quite what she said

Rather she said, "should say 'no' to the billionaires"

Typical of "The Hill"

[LiberalLovinLug]

7. There's 2 kinds of "purity", both are meant derogatory.

There are those that define purity to mean pure to progressive principles. Even if it seemingly hampers candidates in Red districts, if they push for Obamacare, and gun control etc. or "say no to billionaires". Which may also reduce their election spending coffers.

And there are the other "purists" that insist someone like Sanders MUST officially change his party status permanently or he isn't pure enough to run. Or AOC is not respecting the pure tried and true established Democrats in the top circles, and their "Third Way" corporate leaning approach initiated by the Clintons and other long time Democrats. That she hasn't earned her place yet to criticize anything.

I'm on board for the first type personally. Sanders proved you could raise almost as much from small donations from the grass roots. And if you did that, you could use that fact in whatever advertising you did do.

[SunSeeker]

8. That is NOT what she said.

I just watched the whole interview on Rachel Maddow.
Warren said that FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, campaigns should be fueled by "grassroots," not billionaires. Rachel explicitly asked her if this meant she thought Steyer and Bloomberg shouldn't run and she said that is not what she meant, that they should run, but their FUNDING should not be by self-funding or by funding from billionaires. Warren explained that the Dem candidate should be one that is supported by a "movement."

I am pretty sure that when it comes to the general election, Warren does not expect Democrats to unilaterally disarm against the GOP money juggernaut. I am sure Warren would have no objection to progressive billionaires donating to the Democratic nominee.

[beachbum bob]

9. until PUBLIC FINANCING is the RULE, having this purity test is nonsense

pure BS to advocate taking away any democrat's right to run for office if they happen to have been successful...

[duforsure]

10. Warren's will get my vote any day she runs,

Because she's so smart, compassionate, caring , and will represent the American people well. We'd be in really good hands with someone like her in charge. She's far and above any other that may run for office, and she scares the hell out of trump , or he wouldn't be so critical of her. Smart women scare him badly .

[Magoo48]

11. Wanna say no to billionaires?

Build a society where both they and their wealth is irrelevant.