Ted Cruz Announces Presidential Bid

Ted Cruz will seek the Republican nomination for President. Here's a place to discuss him and the 2016 Presidential race.

< The So-Called "ISIS Hacking Division" | Monday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ted Cruz jokes? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 11:48:23 AM EST
    Texas Senator Ted Cruz had quite a day yesterday. To protest a government bill that would fund Obamacare, he decided to take the floor of the Senate and keep speaking until he was no longer able to stand - at which point he would collapse, be taken to the hospital and be treated for exhaustion by Obamacare." -Jimmy Kimmel

    Fair is fare. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    The media needs to discuss the important features of Canadian Candidate Cruz:   His hair is pretty dark for a 45-year old, does he use "Just for Men?"  He seems to be gaining weight, certainly not the same as in those Princeton photos. I do see some wrinkles, but can't see his cackles. Is he hiding something with those long trousers?  Where was he on the night of Benghazi?  Does he email Jeebus or does he have a direct line, like W.?   Please, let's get down to the brass tacks.

    I think you will enjoy this (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    It seems official candidate Ted Cruz did not register the TedCruz.com domain, and it's now being used to troll him. The black page simply instructs visitors to "Support President Obama. Immigration reform now!" Its only other feature: sharing tools and a pop-under ad that we're guessing is not generating revenue for candidate Cruz.
    TedCruzForAmerica.com redirects to HealthCare.gov. That was registered just today, while TedCruz.com was registered in April 2004 and last updated in April 2014. MSNBC resurfaces a 2014 Mother Jones article that noted an Arizona lawyer of the same name owns the site. link

    can't be as bad as what the internet (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 02:23:49 PM EST
    did to Santorum.

    Not that he didn't deserve every bit of it.


    I missed it (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    What did the Internet do to Santorum?

    For the record (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 03:34:39 PM EST
    it was not the Internet. It was Dan Savage.

    I love me some Dan Savage


    look up Santorum in the urban dictionary (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 02:48:39 PM EST
    during his presidential campaign - one of the top 5 google searches for Rick Santorum was a website that was created for this purpose - not sure if it's still around or not, don't really want to link to it or name it here due to certain filters.

    Urban dictionary should be ok...


    O.K. Thanks I guess (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 03:14:56 PM EST
    Urban dictionary worked. You are right,  so far the Internet treatment of Cruz so far is extremely mild by comparison.

    MO (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    You have to remember that, when you Googled 'santorum' the results appeared like THIS.

    It was rather remarkable that people could game the algorithms Google uses to get the result they wanted as the first link.

    Now you always get two paid ads disguised as results, but not back then.  


    Nope I never googled "Santorum" (none / 0) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 10:07:31 PM EST
    I was aware of his disgusting remarks on homosexuality but somehow I missed Savage's response. Not sure how I missed it since I visited a lot of web sites then but I did.

    Details do not seem to (none / 0) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 02:38:24 PM EST
    be Cruz's forte.

    I may only be able to get through this election (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 11:54:27 AM EST
    by picturing him in the paisley bathrobe of his college days, described in TPM.

    I'm glad he is jump starting the campaign  - let's end all the speculation and let the games begin. Marco, come on in, the water is warm!

    Do you think it was creepy silky? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    What about a cravat?

    The Continental


    Cruz' former boss (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 07:36:38 PM EST
    Ted Cruz may have developed an interest in demonstrative clothing from his former boss, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist.  As I recall, the Chief Justice then (when Cruz was his law clerk) had special epaulets placed on his robes in honor of the position and all that.  (Nixon, after all, had his trumpets.)

    Which brings me to: While I am aware of the pitfalls of academic "smarts" in reviewing history, let's hope that this smart-mouth academically bright Cruz is really the fool that he appears to be.  I get the feeling that it is Cruz in the Repub party who will get the best of himself by the usual mistake of thinking that he is smarter than he is.


    One positive point re the current CJ. (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 07:51:19 PM EST
    He dropped the gold trim.

    That's way too icky for me; try (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    bib overalls like Mr. Haney wore in Green Acres.

    It's bad enough to have Cruz in your head at all, ever, but if he's going to be there, he might as well be wearing something that doesn't make you shudder.


    I think the next one scheduled (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 11:57:21 AM EST
    is Rand.  

    So an open (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    seat in KY then?

    Aparrently so (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    My husband saw a recent interview with (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 01:08:08 PM EST
    Rand Paul and thought he was interesting. Then he went and checked Rand's voting record compared to promises he made to voters, and no Senator's voting record is more 180 degrees off from his rhetoric than Rand Paul's :).

    Problem being (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 01:09:21 PM EST
    how many people will do that

    The Independents will (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 01:16:37 PM EST
    Paul has probably said too many Liberal things lately to win the nomination.  But you have to have Independents to become a President, and they care about such things.

    Paul (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    has been trying to twist himself into a pretzel regarding that Iran letter he signed. Some of his biggest fans turned on him regarding that and it also showed that he doesn't stand for anything he says.

    I think I read somewhere that there (none / 0) (#9)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 12:43:53 PM EST
    are changes being considered to election laws in KY that would enable him to run for both offices at the same time.

    The KY (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 12:56:01 PM EST
    law would have to be changed for him to do that and it's not happening from my understanding. There was a movement to change the law but the legislature in KY is not going to do it. My understanding is that there was hope that the KY legislature would change hands therefore the law would change. It didn't happen and so Rand is going to have to resign his seat. Now he doesn't have to resign it until January of 2016 is my understanding but it's still before any primaries or caucuses are held.

    The law doesn't have to be changed (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 03:21:18 PM EST
    Instead Kentucky could change the GOP primary to a caucus which under current law would carry him all the way through the primary season.

    Okay (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    Thanks. I did not know that.

    Yes, the paisley bathrobe. (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 01:35:52 PM EST
    Better imagery is Ted's brother, Tom--in his white socks and jockey shorts.  But, the US, after a Ted administration would look a lot like the Goodson's north-suburban Chicago residence after Tom's party.

    I Keep Imagining... (none / 0) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    I see (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:03:32 PM EST
    LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:24:27 PM EST
    Republicans as The Munsters?
    Because Paul Ryan looks like Eddie Munster.

    He used no notes (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 12:03:32 PM EST
    no teleprompter.  He was as comfortable and natural as they get.  IMO anyone, mostly any republican, who does not take this guy seriously is whistling past the graveyard.  I don't believe it will be Jeb.  Admitting I have said this before.  I didn't believe it would be McCain.  I didn't believe it would be Romney.  And it may again come down to money and corporate power.  That said.  This time, I don't think it will.

    All I have (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 12:14:42 PM EST
    to say is if it is Jeb the tea party is going to steam and sit home. Jeb is probably even more toxic than Cruz in a lot of ways. At least with Curz he's justifying their victimization complex. Jeb does nothing. He's just like like an empty dough boy wandering through a campaign unable to answer the simplest questions without tying himself up in knots.

    So, are Orly Taitz (none / 0) (#10)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    and the other Obama "birthers" going to  come crawling out from beneath their rocks to question Cruz's eligibility for the Presidency?
    After all, not only was Cruz's dad a Cuban citizen at the time, but Cruz was born in Canada.  He had dual citizenship until 2013, when he renounced his Canadian citizenship.

    and we add another twist to (none / 0) (#13)
    by fishcamp on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 12:47:42 PM EST
    The Constitution.

    The Constitution (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    Five syllables that Ted Cruz loves to conjure and invoke :)

    I can't believe you actually think (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    something like consistency or the lack of it will be a problem and the question is rhetorical.  The short answer is no. They will not.

    And if someone else does (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    the answer would be OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA.

    Oh, I don't actually believe (none / 0) (#19)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    that they will.  I was being snarky, and I think the Democrats should point out the hypocrisy if the birthers remain silent about Cruz.    ;-)

    This is ok as a snarky joke, I guess (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    But there is no serous question about his constitutional eligibility.  Cruz is a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. (the constitutional language) because under the law that applied at the time of his birth he was automatically a U.S. citizen.  Not because he was born w/in the U.S.A., which he wasn't, but by virtue of his being born to a U.S. citizen mother and legal U.S. resident non-citizen father. Not actually similar to the bogus arguments made about Obama.

    Peter, I perhaps should have made (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    it much clearer that I was totally annoyed and disgusted with the whole Obama/birther thing.
    Of course Cruz is a "natural born" US citizen and eligible to become President (well, there's a whole lot of reasons I don't want him as Pres, but citizenship isn't one of them).  As is John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, albeit in a US military base.  As was Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona when it was still a territory.  And as was Mitt's father George Romney, who was born in Mexico.  Yet McCain, Goldwater, and G. Romney all ran for President.
    For that matter, our first five Presidents, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, were all born while we were still a colony of England.
    And if you what to get really picky about it, just what exactly constitutes "natural born"?  Does this mean that someone who was delivered by Caesarean section cannot be President?  Because Caesareans are not "natural" births, so you could argue that they are not "natural born."
    We could go on and on with this.  In future years, what about a baby born via assistive reproductive technology (IVF, etc)?  Is that "natural"?
    I leave it to you lawyers to argue all of this.   ;-)

    I was trying, perhaps foolishly, (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    to give a serious response to the question, Zorba.  A "natural born citizen" is a person who has automatic U.S. citizenship, under the federal law governing citizenship, by reason of the circumstances of his/her birth -- that is, place and/or parentage -- as contrasted with a "naturalized" citizen (which refers to a person who chooses to apply to become a U.S. citizen later and satisfies those requirements).  That's what the Harvard Law essay to which I linked, co-authored by Obama Solcitor General Katyal and Bush Solicitor General Clement, makes rather clear. It is not a medical term.

    Well... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 02:12:29 PM EST
      Obama was in reality born in Hawaii not Kenya, so the whole issue was grounded in falsehood, but even if he had been born in Kenya would he not be a "person[] born abroad who [is a] citizen[] from birth based on the citizenship of a parent."

    I don't know how the U.S. citizenship law (none / 0) (#40)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 03:50:04 PM EST
    would apply to the hypothetical situation that the birthers imagined existed in Obama's case -- a person born in Kenya to a U.S. citizen mother and a Kenyan father, where the father's only tie to the U.S. was having been a graduate student here. I guess I just assumed that such a child would not be a "natural born citizen" under the U.S. citizenship law in effect at that time (Aug. 1961), since if he was, then what was the whole phony brouhaha about anyway? Cruz's father, as I understand the news reporting, was a lawful permanent resident alien of the U.S. (or perhaps some other similar, special classification for Cuban emigrees), a classification that carries legal privileges not shared by other aliens. And Cruz was born in December 1970, at which time the pertinent law may have been different from what it was in 1961, for all I know.

    I don't really (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 04:34:57 PM EST
    want to argue with you, Peter, because I respect your opinions.

    "Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

    Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born. His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out. He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen. The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

    "I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

    The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 -- 48 years after leaving Cuba. Why did he take so long to do it?


    So, while he had gotten political asylum and eventually a US green card, after that time, he became a Canadian citizen.

    May I repeat that- Rafael became a Canadian citizen, per his own words.

    I certainly am no legal expert, but this situation seems much more complicated.


    Did a person with a "Green Card" (LPR) (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 05:30:39 PM EST
    who then became a citizen of another country lose his LPR status at that time? I certainly don't know. I'm not carrying water for Cruz here.  I'm just pointing out that these are technical questions of U.S. immigration and nationality law, which cannot be answered by amateurs (like us) who are either trying to use "common sense" or pursuing our political prejudices.

    Again, I must reiterate (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 05:43:08 PM EST
    I think Cruz is a citizen and can therefore run for the Presidency.
    I just think that it's entirely ironic that some of the people who believe that Obama isn't a "natural born" citizen will no doubt support Cruz and turn themselves into pretzels trying to explain the differences.
    Personally, I can't wait, and I'm happy to pass you some popcorn.     ;-)

    I love popcorn (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 07:23:23 PM EST
    but I like spanikopita and baklava better.

    I was basing that (none / 0) (#41)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    from your link:

      I interpret that to mean as long as one parent is a citizen, the citizenship or residency of the other does not matter because before the elimination of favoritism to the paternal lineage a child was a natural born citizen if his father was a citizen regardless of mom's status.

      I also just assumed that because it said before any of the potential presidential candidates were born, it was also before Obama was born.

     Hillary is older than Obama.


    The law that was in effect (none / 0) (#45)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 04:35:46 PM EST
    at the times of both Obama's birth and Cruz's birth was passed by Congress in 1952. So, even if Obama had been born in Kenya, which we know he was not, he would be a natural-born citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen.

    8 U.S.C. 1401 (g) (none / 0) (#97)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:32:56 AM EST
    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.  Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;....

      This gets more confusing. The INA was enacted in 1952 (Truman vetoed and it was overridden in 3/53), but to some  extent it was a recodification of existing laws that were scattered throughout the code and not just "new law.". Link  That means it's not possible without further research  to determine exactly what the law was prior to 12/52.

      In this particular subsection section (8 U.S.C. § 1401 (g) it is not clear from its face if the subsection amended existing law beyond adding the proviso. The proviso clearly establishes 12/25/52 as the date on which it applies to births but it's not clear when the  portion before the proviso became effective. We do know that the portio prior to the proviso was subsequently amended.

      Looking deeper,  "not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years," became law in 1986 (by Public Law 99-653, Nov. 14, 1986) Prior to that the law required of the citizen parent 10 years of residence at least 5 after age 14. ( See: PL 99-653, SEC. 12. Section 301(g): "8 U.S.C. 1401(g) is amended by striking out 'ten years, at least five' and inserting in lieu thereof 'five years, at least two."

      What's still not clear to me is when the one citizen parent, "10 and 5" standard became law, but it would appear to be the law applicable to Cruz. In other words since we know his mother was a U.S. citizen, the question would be did she live in the U.S. for 10 years total prior to his birth, with five of those years after reaching 14?

      I can't find anything specific  about mom including a birth date which indicate how old she was 12/22/70. I do see that she graduated from Rice  and presumably resided in the USA at least through graduation and unless she was very precocious, that would be more than 5 years after reaching 14.


    Agreed. But, I would (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 02:32:34 PM EST
    not categorize the play as snarky as much as schadenfreude.  Especially, with Rafael Edward Cruz, the Tea Party darling. It is true that  most all legal scholars subscribe to this being "citizen at birth," not requiring a naturalization process, but there is a degree of uncertainty.

    The issue did arise with McCain being born on a military base in Panama (legislation to overcome doubts on McCain was offered by then Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) and there were some considerations of legal challenges at the time.

    The "natural born citizen" issue will probably follow Cruz without a SC Court ruling to resolve the uncertainty.  Cruz probably was sensitive to such comments when he gave up his dual citizenship a few years ago.


    This really should not be hard to understand (2.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 07:40:01 PM EST
    Cruz is acceptable to the Right for the same reason Obama is acceptable to the Left.

    Both reflect the views of their base.

    And said bases will....gasp!...attack the other side.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#102)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:59:44 AM EST
    For channeling David Broder today.

    and only one will win (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:01:13 AM EST
    a national election.

    Have fun with your declining base.


    Thank you, KeysDan (none / 0) (#33)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    You basically got where I was coming from with this.

    The Wong case is the key (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 10:27:34 PM EST
    Wong is referenced in the linked article.  Wonderful case with a lot about English Common Law and English history.  "Natural Born Citizen" comes from the English "Natural Born Subjects."

    One birther argument is that the President has to have both parents born in the U.S.  The Wong case officially makes that nonsense.


    Of course not. That special treatment (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 02:44:42 PM EST
    is reserved for a particular heritage. Even the right will probably not pretend otherwise.

    Seems he's Canubian (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 06:37:13 PM EST
    Canadian plus Cuban. I question which red white and blue are in his heart. And I have heard from my sources in the Mounties that he even has  little maple leaf tattoos over his nipples.

    Great Elizabeth line to (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 07:21:00 PM EST
    Sir Walter Raleigh, "Virginia!  When I'm married will you change the name to Connubia?"

    The Donald (none / 0) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 08:23:56 AM EST
    In a telephone interview with MyFoxNY.com, Trump got right down to business, saying "you're supposed to be born in this country."

    "He's got a hurdle that nobody else seems to have at this moment. It's a hurdle and somebody could certainly look at it very seriously. He was born in Canada." link

    Of course, it is in the realm of possibility that some of Cruz's supporters would talk about him being born in our 51st state, Canada. 😃


    npr (none / 0) (#12)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 12:47:31 PM EST
    Is Ted Cruz Allowed To Run Since He Was Born In Canada?

    Riding to the nomination on Barack Obama's coat tails???

    While you're all debating Cruz's origins, (none / 0) (#50)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 07:20:52 PM EST
    I'll just mention that a friend of mine says that Ted's rubbery face looks like a classic theatrical Tragedy Mask.

    She's right.

    He could have had a career (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 07:22:30 PM EST
    in laxative commercials.

    What has always perplexed me (none / 0) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 07:35:12 PM EST
    is, why would highly educated, high achievers choose to join the Republican Party?
    People like Ben Carson, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jon Huntsman, Tom Cotton all have impressive credentials. Do they truly believe in the immoral tenets ingrained in this Party, or do they simply feel they can achieve their lofty ambitions easier with a Party, arguably, comprised of un/under educated, easily fooled voters?

    OTOH (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 07:41:27 PM EST
    Who are the high achievers who choose the Left???

    Elizabeth Warren, (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:46:19 AM EST
    Alan Grayson, Harvard and Harvard Law graduate, Lawrence O'Donnell, Harvard graduate.

    That's three, but you surely a techie like you can do the research and find more of them if you want to.


    I will remove (none / 0) (#57)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 07:42:22 PM EST
    Jon Huntsman's name from the list of names that you provided. He did not degrade himself with ignorant rhetoric.

    And add (none / 0) (#58)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 07:54:25 PM EST
    Bobby Jindal. Ivy League & Oxford graduate, Rhodes scholar.

    I guess the answer to your question is "Opportunism".


    And Greed (none / 0) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 08:56:59 AM EST
    I think the number one factor in determining party is empathy.  Either you have it or you don't.

    Having a connected family almost assures you a top notch education regardless of your intelligence and/or study ethic.

    And schooling has little to do with convincing people you are worthy of representing them.


    It's called (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 07:57:29 PM EST
    people who like to play to the lowest common denominator because it's easy and in some cases less competition.

    10 Horrifying Facts about Tom Cotton, (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:04:51 PM EST
    "one of the worst bullies in the Senate."

    2. Senator Cotton said the only problem he has with Guantanamo Bay prison is that "there are too many empty beds."

    Trust me (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:20:50 AM EST
    he is not even warming up yet.

    So Peter King (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 07:59:07 PM EST
    says he'll jump off a bridge if Cruz is the nominee. LOL. There's plenty of them around NYC for him to use. Trump is investigating Cruz for his birth certificate. Oh, my it's already started. Of course when one of the top clowns is the first to kick off his campaign it was going to happen LOL.

    Best thing I've read so far re Cruz' (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:07:07 PM EST
    appearing at Liberty U.:  the students were obligated to attend. Demerits for no-shows.

    Probably (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:08:27 PM EST
    even demerits for not clapping and cheering too. LOL.

    Man, if I still lived there (none / 0) (#63)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:07:45 PM EST
    I'd drive him to the closest one :)  I do not miss that loud mouth about everything at all.

    Is Trump really checking his BC?! lol!~


    In other news (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:12:42 PM EST
    Charlie Pierce did a pretty good (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 07:53:32 AM EST
    takedown of the Globe's push for Warren to run.

    His concluding paragraph:

    The Globe's assertions aside, there is no data I've seen that makes Warren much more of a formidable potential challenger to Hillary Clinton than Jim Webb or Martin O'Malley. Her supporters are more fervent than are the supporters of most of the other candidates, but that advantage can melt away easily under the heat of 10,000 television commercials. I think she's being set up for a fall here. If she doesn't run, it will be said of her that she doesn't truly have the courage of her convictions in the areas most important to her, and on the issues that are closest to her heart. If she runs and she loses, then it will be said that those issues are not the kind that motivate voters, and they will slide into a morass of weaselspeak, never to be heard clearly again. Leave the woman alone, please. She has no obligation to give you all a cat-fight because you think that's what democracy demands.

    Hard to disagree with this.


    Sorry Anne (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 08:52:04 AM EST
    that not only completely misses the point it adds the required "cat fight" nonsense.  Perhaps he should not put "the Globes assertions aside.  
    Here's what I think, the Globe agrees with we who think the draft Warren movement is perhaps more important that an actual run.  She is already effecting the debate.  Hillary was making noises yesterday that sounded exactly like her.  This pressure will keep those issues hot.  Even if she does not run.  So much the better if she dies but she has already had an effect on the rhetoric of both parties.  One of the many points the op eds make is that giving lip service to the issues is not the same as giving them real weight.  She can help do that.  And she will in or out of the race.  And the draft Warren movement will help her di that.  Pierce should stick to his own cat fights and stop projecting.

    You should read the whole thing. (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:40:29 AM EST
    Maybe you did, but I think you missed Charlie's point in any event.

    Pierce's point was that all the things the Globe says Warren could do "even if" she doesn't have a realistic chance of winning the nomination are things she can do ably from her position in the Senate.  That her presence in the race isn't required in order to get the issues she cares about in front of the electorate.  That getting into the race isn't how you establish your bona fides in areas where you don't have much experience - you do that from your position in the nation's legislative body.  

    And so on.

    The part about the cat fight is about the fact that the Globe's rationale for why she should get in are so ill-reasoned that perhaps this is about wanting to see sparks fly.  Sparks flying means opportunities to write juicy headlines and increase readership and advertising.

    In my opinion, the energy that is going into trying to draft Warren to do something she shows zero signs of doing would be better spent on organizing around issues, making sure that those involved are registered to vote, and demonstrating the power of those numbers.

    Yes, I get that Clinton seeing a Draft Warren movement may move her or be moving her to shape her campaign to appeal to Warren supporters, but I would rather see her shaping her campaign around the voters, and the issues that matter to them, directly.

    Do I think Warren would be less beholden to the powerful interests that have been generously filling Hillary's coffers?  Of course -  but she doesn't have to get into the race to keep challenging those interests.  


    One more thing (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:02:26 AM EST
    this "cat fight" bullsh!t is right up there with the most offensive things I've ever seen trotted out.  How can you possibly not call that out.  A race between two serious women can be seen as anything but a cat fight?  Seriously?  Do honestly think that is what thise three thoughtful op eds and the other piece were about?  That honestly leaves me sort of speechless.

    I really think we need to take a step back and consider what that is saying about anyone who pushes that meme.


    It's not (4.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:14:34 AM EST
    people like Anne and I that are going to be the problem. The press wants to women to run so they can bill it as a "cat fight". You haven't noticed about how much time they spend on nonsense? It is offensive that that is what they want. If they wanted a serious debate on issues the press could already be talking about issues but they're not. I don't think the press should decide who runs or doesn't run. There's already enough sexist BS going on with one from the press. It would be double with two. Now that's not a reason for anyone to avoid running but my point is that is not the reason they want Warren to run.

    So your solution is to let (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:24:20 AM EST
    the press pick the candidates.  It pains me to point out that "cat fight" press piece was just posted with what seemed like approval.  

    Anne, please, I'm not saying you approve, or can't imagine you would.  I'm saying look at the language and think about it.


    No (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:19:13 AM EST
    I'm not saying let the press pick the candidates and said so above. I just have my doubts that the press would cover issues. they're not covering them as it is now.

    This is (none / 0) (#99)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:36:43 AM EST
    the media we are talking about, they absolutely want some kind of fight. Sure we can see " A race between two serious women" but there is no guarantee that the media will play it that way, in fact I am pretty certain that a least some outlets would play the "cat fight" meme. CPP often goes over the top with some of his rhetoric but he understands as much as anybody the tendency of the press to cheapen the debate.

    It's laudable that the Globe wants to promote Warren's policies, but trying to hector her into running does indicate that they are trying to set up some kind of "fight".


    That (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 08:02:15 AM EST
    is exactly how I feel. Does anyone think that the millionaires that run the Globe are truly interested in income inequality?

    Thanks for posting that Anne.


    Here's another Pierce quote (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:13:53 AM EST
    fron April of 14-

    Elizabeth Warren Is the Teacher
    She has come to remind us who we are, or at least who we once were. She is the only one warning that conditions in the financial sector are in some ways worse now than before the collapse of 2008. Her message has gained her many powerful enemies. And it has a lot of people very eager for Elizabeth Warren to run for president.

    She sees the country in a different way from most people. She has a natural way of expressing the idea of a political commonwealth by anchoring it in the individual pasts of individual citizens, by teaching history, as it were, to a country that has forgotten much of it. People are drawn to her not necessarily by her intelligence or by her willingness to speak truth to greed but by an ineffable feeling that she is reminding them of something they already knew. Somebody mentions to her that his family rose in this country because his grandfather was a cop, and his father a veteran who used the GI Bill to build a career as a public-school teacher. She rises partway from her chair, her lesson having taken hold.

    Maybe he should drop the snarky bullsh!t and try to understand that lots of people agree with this.  And have no interest in cat fights.


    You can try and dismiss the 'cat fight' (4.00 / 3) (#149)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    but 2 women competing against each other always equals a 'cat fight' in way too many minds. And a naked cat fight if they fall in a certain age bracket. It starts way back in grade school . . . . Sadly, having a female President won't even change many of those minds . . .

    I am not dismissing it (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    im saying its ridiculous demeaning bullsh!t.  And so should you.   Every time it's mentioned.  Including by the great Charles Pierce..

    You still (2.00 / 1) (#162)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:28:09 PM EST
    do not get it. Charlie and the rest of us are not calling it a cat fight, we are just saying that we have no faith in the media not calling whatever they choose and given their record......you know.

    Oh right (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:34:08 PM EST
    some people will call it a cat fight.  Of course I never would but we know SOME PEOPLE would.



    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:48:26 PM EST
    If those two words, always used as metaphor, are so offensive maybe we should eliminate dog fight from our lexicon. I call over sensitive BS on your BS. Is the Republican race a dog fight  a cock fight or thunderdome. WTF cares ?  

    Thank you for making my point (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 04:56:05 PM EST

    I Agree With Captain... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 10:15:51 AM EST
    ...but I think this is something that may be regional as I don't remember it being used except on the TV.

    And what is really weird, female cats don't fight, tom cats fight over females.  So the only other reference would be cats as it relates to p**, and that is just f*cked up on so many levels that even writing it, for any reason, is despicable.

    Hardly the stuff of over sensitivity.


    If (none / 0) (#171)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:21:17 PM EST
    Your point is WTF cares then why are we having this discussion?

    The four separate articles (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:16:02 PM EST
    I will say (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 09:00:57 PM EST
    that it's a bit gratifying to see a publication taken as seriously as the Globe making, in four separate articles, essentially exactly the same points on this subject that I, and others, have been making for months.

    You know (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:21:39 PM EST
    I don't understand it. It seems that O'Malley has taken up the Warren mantle and seems to be running with it.

    And I have to wonder if they don't want Warren to get rolled so that they can ridicule her. I understand that paper endorsed the Republican for governor last november.


    If you had read it (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:31:19 PM EST
    you would know that is not true

    I did (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:02:17 AM EST
    and it ignored subjects like foreign policy. The debate isn't going to be just about one thing. They want to report a cat fight I guess even though that's not what it would be. To me it came off as Hillary needs someone to punch her or Warren needs to be Hillary's punching bag.

    IMO they want the primary to be an episode of Real Housewives.


    But (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:03:46 AM EST
    I think the people around here who think Warren should run are sincere but I don't buy that the Globe is being sincere.

    I do not think (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:32:39 AM EST
    The globe is secretly hoping for a reason to sabotage the Democrats in the next election.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 08:55:45 AM EST
    if you read them you would know they were not ignored.  The fact is there won't be a debate about that or anything else if there isn't a real primary.  
    And you repeated insistence that this is some nefarious plane to make Warren is as offensive as it is ignorant.

    Martin (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:17:29 AM EST
    O'Malley is very much picking up the income inequality issues and running with it. So there is going to be a debate on that issue if he keeps it up. Even Webb is talking about it but in a different way. If it's an issue of importance then  there are many messengers.

    Btw (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:20:13 AM EST
    could you point out one single potential republican candidate who has any more foreign policy experience than Warren.

    There are (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:22:09 AM EST
    not and maybe that's the reason she's being pushed to run in some quarters. It levels the playing field in that area.

    Ah! (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:25:23 AM EST
    but the only time it's ever mentioned is on Warren.  Why do you think that might be?

    the problem for me is not experience (none / 0) (#95)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:29:35 AM EST
    if nothing else I at least know that those right-wing nutjobs want a war with Iran.

    I have no idea what her foreign policy stance is on anything.  She doesn't seem like she wants that role.  It's why I never thought she wanted to run for president.

    I'm sure she could get up to speed.  But I think voters have a right to know where she stands on foreign policy if she's running for president.  And right now it's a legitimate question.


    Ok (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:45:15 AM EST
    one last thought.  I wish people could get their heads around the fact that we understand she might not want to be president.   That shows you how sane she is.  What we want is for her to take the domestic issues so important to her and us to the table and make sure they get more than lip service.  There will be a time when that becomes very difficult outside the race.  Very few people think she would defeat Hillary.  Including me.  That certainly doesn't mean we are "setting her up to fail" (fer gods sake) any more than it is Ted Cruz who everyone seems to agree will only raise his profile by running.   But Warren being a woman, of course we only want her to fail. Interestingly Cruz is in the race for much the same reason we want to see Warren.  To influence the debate.   He will do that.   It's already the primary topic of conversation how much he will do that simply by being on the stage.  Her voice is needed.  On the stage not on the sidelines.  That's what the Globe is saying.

    fair enough (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:53:07 AM EST
    I guess I also feel like Bernie Sanders is up there and he will be making the case.  

    But to your point - he's not as cool or hip as Warren, so unfortunately he won't get the press.

    I honestly don't know how I feel about announcing your candidacy just to influence debate.  I know if I were in her shoes I might think it's not worth it, unless she's making a play for a cabinet level or some other position.  But if I were Hillary I might have already talked to her about the possibility to keep her on the sidelines as well.


    But there is (none / 0) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:05:39 AM EST
    a down side to her running just to "influence the debate". As Charlie points out
    If she runs and she loses, then it will be said that those issues are not the kind that motivate voters, and they will slide into a morass of weaselspeak, never to be heard clearly again.

    As a presidential candidate Warren is pretty much a one trick pony who would struggle to reach double digits against the Hillary juggernaut (sorry just political reality). Many pundits would of course assign blame to her ideas and policies thus allowing them to be marginalized.


    of course there is the alternative (none / 0) (#105)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:07:07 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton ran, lost, became secretary of state.  No one marginalized her ideas.

    Depends how well she does I think.  But she could certainly "lose" and still win.


    of course (none / 0) (#106)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:15:14 AM EST
    Hillary was a mainstream candidate who came within a whisker of winning. Her ideas were very close to Obama's in the first place so of course they weren't marginalized.

    I believe Warren knows exactly how to make her voice heard, I do not know why everyone thinks they are smarter then her.


    cmon now (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:20:59 AM EST
    speculation isn't thinking we're smarter than her.  Will you still feel that way if she changes her mind and decides to run?

    FWIW, I don't think she will since she's given every indication she won't.  But I really don't understand the animosity towards the speculation that she might or should.  Somehow suggesting that a person would make a good presidential candidate became insulting?


    if (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:04:54 AM EST
    I had
    animosity towards the speculation
    I doubt I would be hanging around here. Speculation is fun, especially when it comes to politics. It just seems like the "animosity" is generated when people point out the reasons she should not run. Sure I would love to see the Democratic candidate totally adopt EW's populist economic platform, however I am not sure that a Quixotic run by her would accomplish much and might even do some damage to her message.

    Don't you find it interesting (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    that precisely the opposite is being said everywhere about Ted Cruz.  Or any other make candidate for that matter?   Running will only raise their profile.  But if Warren runs and loses she will instantly be ostracized sink into obscurity.

    Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    have this problem.  They eat their own.  Look at Dean.  Look at what people said about Kerry after he lost.  Look at what people said about Al Gore after he lost.

    It certainly doesn't HAVE to be that way, but for whatever reason it often is.  And Republicans don't seem to have that problem.

    The difference here - she's not going anywhere either way.  She's not gonna lose MA over any of this.  And she's not gonna shut up in the senate either.  It's not like the press is why she's being heard now.  She's being heard because people like what she's saying and they share it, and then it gets picked up by the press.  I don't see that changing if she loses.  Because frankly she's got more chops than Dean or Kerry or any of those guys.


    No Republicans (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:33:13 AM EST
    have that problem too. It's not like you hear a lot of nice things said about Bob Dole do you or Mitt Romney for that matter.

    What annoys me about all this is the push for her to run when she's said many, many times that she isn't running. Do people think she's a massive liar on that account? I don't happen to think so. I mean there comes a point where it's downright ridiculous. If she wants to run she should say so and go for it but it's not her that's doing all this. It's everybody else.


    McCain and Romney both lost the primary (none / 0) (#116)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:36:31 AM EST
    before they won the nomination.

    Losing a general is a little different - so maybe the Dean comparison was the more apt one.

    It's a grass-roots movement.  It's what drafts a lot of people into politics to begin with.  It's certainly not unheard of.


    No (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:46:44 AM EST
    but do they think she's lying when she says she's not interested? They must if they keep pushing. It would be more understandable if she had things like "I haven't made up my mind or I'm considering it" but she's flat out said no.

    And it's not like there's nobody else talking about this. Martin O'Malley seems to be running with it.


    I see (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:06:01 AM EST
    so we are ok with O'Malley losing then sinking into obscurity and despondency?  On that subject, coukd you bring me up to speed on his foreign policy experience?  

    I wouldn't (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:15:41 AM EST
    say O'Malley is going into obscurity. Warren has said repeatedly she does not want to run. Why don't you respect her decision? O'Malley IS running and we will see what his foreign policy stances are. He's been a governor so it's not like that kind of thing has been something job related like Warren's is being a senator.

    Why aren't people organizating around the issue and making all the candidates repsond instead of hoping against hope Warren runs? Is she the only one that can talk about this issue? And maybe running for president would get her out of the senate where she's a watch dog? Is that the goal?


    I don't understand (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:19:58 AM EST
    you seem to think this is critical for Warren.  

    He's been a governor so it's not like that kind of thing has been something job related like Warren's is being a senator.

    Please explain why you seem completely unconcerned about the same deficit in O'Malley.


    It's the (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    same concern about foreign policy. Do you think that it wouldn't hurt O'Malley in a general the same as Warren?

    But O'Malley has announced that he is running. Warren has not. That's the difference but Warren also sits in the senate which deals with foreign policy and O'Malley was a governor. Senators usually already have foreign policy stances. Find another senator running and I would have the same questions for them as Warren. As a matter of fact I have the same question for all the candidates. Hillary is going to have to explain hers just like everybody else.


    Ok great (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:36:18 AM EST
    we can officially dispose of the silly notion that Warren is automatically disqualified for lack of foreign policy experience.

    Good news.


    For some reason - and I think this (none / 0) (#128)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:46:37 AM EST
    is one of the things Pierce took issue with - there appears to be this idea that running for president is the only way establish one's FP positions.

    And that's why we don't hear Warren talking about her own views: if she does, the assumption is that she's running.

    It's a shame, really, that we've so narrowed the territory within which someone can express his or her views on these kinds of things that those who aren't interested in higher elected office tend to keep those opinions to themselves.


    I went (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:11:59 PM EST
    and read the piece by Charlie and more interesting than his article were some of the comments. One of the commenters made an interesting statement. Since Warren has torpoeded at least one of Obama's nominees and constantly points out some of the problems it would be much less of a hassle for Obama to get the cat food commission approved and a lot of other stuff through if she wasn't there pointing it out. Right? If she's running around trying to win a primary she's not going to be able to do much of that kind of stuff in the senate. Think about it. It makes a lot of sense to me.

    Maybe that simply is not of interest to her? (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:12:49 PM EST
    this is perfectly ok.  Afaiac.  Do you think Ted Cruz cares about foreign policy.   Somehow I doubt he could even define it.  You know what he does care about?  Domestic issues.  Every republican strategist who can get to a microphone has been saying 'There goes the neighborhood'.  They know he will controll the debates.  And he will.  He will get every headline and no one thinks he will be president.

    What the Globe is saying is that Warren coukd do the same thing.  FOR THE GREATER GOOD.  She would be the media star.  Every word she said would be a headline.  Sure, she can and will effect the debate in or out of the race.  But in the race she could do more.  A lot more.  

    And frankly is idea of her being defeated and "damaging the cause" is pretty close to the stupidest thing I have ever heard.


    O'Malley (none / 0) (#129)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:47:46 AM EST
    is currently unemployed and has plenty of time to brush up on other issues. Unlike Warren who is able to make serious noise from her position in the Senate O'Malley has only the primary races to get his message out. Ask yourself who would you rather make a futile run to try to "frame the debate" and then fade into "obscurity"? Warren is the face of economic populism, O'Malley not so much. A total failure, real or trumped up, by Warren would be much more damaging to the cause then one by O'Malley.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:04:28 PM EST
    for making my case.

    You should read that again, Capt.; (none / 0) (#133)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:15:14 PM EST
    I don't think Joe was making the case you think he was.

    Unless I'm not reading it right, I took the comment to be saying that if Warren failed, that failure would hurt populist causes and issues much more than if O'Malley failed.

    Because you know that the translation would be, "well, see - people don't care so much about income equality and the banksters and Wall Street robbing us blind" if Warren failed.

    If O'Malley fails, it's "Martin Who?" and not much more.


    You (none / 0) (#134)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:19:37 PM EST
    are correct Anne.

    Martin who (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:25:29 PM EST
    is my case.  The only one that matters.   I have made my thoughts on the other pretty clear I think.

    O'Malley isn't going to be running on (none / 0) (#123)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:26:24 AM EST
    his foreign policy experience - he doesn't have any.  But he has a lot of political, legislative (member of the Baltimore City Council) and governing (mayor of Baltimore - twice - Governor of MD - twice) experience.  

    If he decides to get into the race, he may be auditioning for a spot as VP more than anything else - or at least making a case for landing somewhere good in a Democratic administration.

    The main difference is that he has said he's considering a run, and Warren has said she isn't - and she hasn't wavered from that.  


    I thought (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:29:19 AM EST
    he already announced he was running?

    No, he hasn't made that announcement. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    Democrat Martin O'Malley's supporters say the former Maryland governor is increasingly likely to run for president, making him one of the few Democrats who may challenge former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    Some of the more than 150 backers who gathered at the Baltimore Hilton for what was billed as an "issues conference" told the Washington Post that O'Malley didn't specifically address his 2016 plans but appeared upbeat about challenging Clinton.

    "I think he's energized by the reception he got this past weekend in Iowa," Rob Werner, a supporter from New Hampshire who attended the conference, told the Post. "I think he's poised to do it, to get in the race. He certainly seems to be heading in that direction."



    Oops (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:22:38 AM EST
    any other MALE candidate.

    Just (none / 0) (#114)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:28:17 AM EST
    another case of IOKIYAR and perhaps a bit of sexism thrown in. It's alright to be a "clown" if you are a Republican, your "obscurity" will probably lead to a gig on Fox or least regular appearances on the Sunday morning gab fests.

    What ideas? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:24:28 PM EST
      What ideas did she have that were at risk of being marginalized by her loss in 2008? "I'm the best Democrat and the Republicans are bad" are more attitudes than ideas.

      Can you name a single "idea" that distinguished or distinguishes  her from the center-right "establishment?


    If you listen the last few days (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:29:38 PM EST
    oddly since the weekend especially she is sounding more and more like a Warren populist.  

    Clinton trumpets income inequality message in wake of Warren push


    Is that an "idea?" (none / 0) (#138)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:45:27 PM EST
    Clinton stressed that "a lot of inequality has only gotten worse" in recent year, arguing cities need to address people who are "trapped in generational poverty."

    "We need to think hard about what we're going to do now that people are moving back into and staying in cities to make sure that our cities are not just places of economic prosperity and job creation on average, but do it in a way that lifts everybody up," Clinton said.

      I don't really think "we need to think hard about [insert issue]," qualifies as an idea.

      An idea, in my mind, requires that the person is not only aware of an existing condition  issue, but has some thoughts about  policies that will address the condition. Of course, even having "an idea" about what should be done is not very helpful if the person lacks the courage and conviction to express the idea in a manner which would allow it to be judged.


    There you go (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 12:52:12 PM EST
    While everyone is caterwauling about a frontal attack through a primary, Warren is quietly and effectively "framing the debate" through the back door, well played Elizabeth.

    Actually (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    most people think that statement was less a response to warrens "ideas" as it was to the Globes full throated endorsement of those ideas which you seem to have your panties all in a wad about.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    she's said things much like that before but I guess people weren't paying attention.

    What exactly (none / 0) (#143)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:30:26 PM EST
     about "things much like that" is worthy of much attention.

      She didn't discover the existence of "income inequality" or the reality that many of the people on the downside of that imbalance find it very difficult to impossible to move up the ladder. I'm pretty sure she's not even the first person to deem that worthy of thinking about.

      Even granting she doesn't need actually to come up with new ideas because there are many that have been around for generations, when has she paid more platitudinous lip service to the issues and put her political weight behind concrete proposals that might actually help?


    She did (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    in 2008. She was suggesting we bail out the homeowners. If we could do that for the banks we could help homeowners. Right? Obama said those people didn't "deserve" those houses.

    You've already announced you won't be voting for her no matter what. So that's fine but why should anyone listen to your critique?


    What does that have to do (none / 0) (#146)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:07:46 PM EST
      with income inequality or people being trapped in poverty or near poverty?

      Mortgage assistance to a narrow class (people with existing mortgages whose payments equaled at least 31% of their income was a one-time (and dubious because people with principal balances exceeding $700K were eligible) subsidy that did nothing to address the structural problems that keep the poor at the bottom.  

     Not that she was responsible, but what was the justification for making a family which  made say $96,000  a year ($8K a month)and lived in a $200K home with a monthly mortgage payment of $1500 contribute to assisting a family that made $144,000 a year ($12K a month) but decided to purchase a $600,000 home and take on a mortgage payment of $4500 a month?


    at the time (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    it also had to do with the health of the overall economy.

    Keeping people from going through forclosure at that time would have done wonders for increasing spending power and stability when the bottom was falling out.  That would have helped people at all levels of income.


    Please do not let Recon suck you into (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:23:50 PM EST
    the argument he wants to have, the one conservatives always want to have, which is, why should people who pay their bills have to pay for people who don't?

    oops - I think it's too late.


    When they are roughly (none / 0) (#160)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:38:00 PM EST
     at the same income level, how can you debate that? It's entirely different to help those less well off than it is to help those equally or better off.

      If you were to frame the difference between conservatives and liberals as:

     Liberals believe some  should have to give to people equally or better off to save those people from  the consequences of their own decisions and conservatives don't,  I can pretty much guarantee you that you would cause a lot more people to start identifying themselves as conservatives.



    That's a better justification (none / 0) (#152)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:52:41 PM EST
     than Ga6th's silliness, but if we were truly worried about how the poor and near poor are faring would it not make sense to allow house prices to decline to their natural level rather than taking money from all taxpayers in every bracket to subsidize a narrow class?

      As many of the poor and near poor  rent and many more live in substandard homes they own because that is all they can  afford, is subsidizing people who make many times what they make really the best way to help them?

      Obviously, it's not, directly. The theory that the homeowner bailout helped the overall economy is probably true (though some disagree) but there is scant evidence that the benefits of  an economy that is better than would have ensued in the absence of the bailout has served to benefit the poor and near poor to a proportionally greater degree than those above them on the income scale. Can you ven make the case the poor and near poor  benefitted equally let alone to a greater degree? If not, logic would suggest it increased rather than decreased "income inequality."


    they didn't bail out the homeowner directly (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:10:49 PM EST
    So none of this happened.  They bailed out the banks.

    But a lot of the foreclosures occurred in lower income neighborhoods as well.  It wasn't just megamansions.  Subprime mortgages were the primary driver of foreclosures and they were overwhelmingly offered to minority home buyers regardless of their credit risk, and lower income buyers in general.

    If the economy is stronger and more people are working eventually wages rise - that's what we're finally slowly starting to see today.  If it had happened years ago that would be even better.

    Also - those people who were foreclosed on are now in the renters market, driving up rents for people who can't afford to own.  I rent - it's not like rents went down when the foreclosure crisis hit - the opposite occurred.  There were a lot of empty properties.  The banks aren't becoming landlords.  It just squeezed the rental market further.


    We have (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:20:04 PM EST
    high unemployment here in GA largely as a result of the housing crisis. The shelters have waiting lists. A lot, lot, lot of people who lived in some of the poorer neighborhoods in downtown Atlanta lost their houses and then some of them couldn't find a place to live so they lost their jobs and then it's a lot more difficult to find another one without an address or even a place to bathe sometimes. And then the ones who could move to an apartment like you are saying drove up the rents. So there again making it worse for a lot of people with rents taking so much of their income with stagnant wages. Anyone who thinks just wealthy people "who made bad decisions" are the only ones affected truly doesn't understand the depth of the problem and the suffering it created for a lot of people.

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:18:31 PM EST
    Homelessness is a big creator of poverty. If you don't have somewhere to live you can't get a job or anything.

    Again, a lot of people who were middle income got hit in the housing market. A lot of lower income people got hit in the housing market too. You're making the argument that these people don't deserve help much like the same argument the tea party is making. I'm glad you get to sit there and decide "who is worthy" and "who is not".


    You don't believe (2.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:41:37 PM EST
     that people with substantial incomes who made poor decisions by purchasing a home they could not afford under the terms they accepted are less worthy of being bailed out than people who make much less but did not make such poor decisions?

      That your only recourse when  confronted with that is to avoid addressing it squarely and squeal "Tea Party" speaks volumes.


    I think they were more worthy (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:44:55 PM EST
    of being bailed out than the banks who made predatory loans.

    And bailing them out would've done more to help the economy as it would've helped the banks as well.

    And that we spent trillions of dollars bypassing the homeowner and just bailed out the banks instead.


    That's a different question (none / 0) (#153)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 02:56:53 PM EST
     We bailed out the banks and the really rich so we should bail out some  in the middle and upper middle classes too, has a certain simplistic appeal. But the appeal diminishes greatly when you understand it was other middle and upper middle class folks bearing the disproportionate burden of the homeowner bailout not the bankers and the super rich.

      Again, we began by talking about "income inequality" and the problems of the poor and near poor and the homeowner bailout is not a good example of a program that was intended to or did help them much.


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:05:24 PM EST
    made the middle and lower classes bear the burden of the bailout with nothing I mean NOTHING in return for doing it. Read what his hand picked person Timothy Geither said about it.

    I'm NOT (none / 0) (#157)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:19:14 PM EST
     defending Geithner, Obama, TARP or any policies that favored the rich.

      What I'm saying is your chosen example is a prime (of many) example of the poor being ignored while those with some money and those with a lot of money fight about it.

      Just because TARP etc,, favored the rich does not mean the Affordable Homes program helped the poor.

      This isn't hard, if you think.



    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 03:00:53 PM EST
    Not everybody who got kicked out was wealthy. You seem to think that everybody who bought those houses was wealthy. The vast, vast majority of them were middle and lower income.

    Your thinking and statements are the same as Obama's and they hurt the middle class and the lower income and working class people in this country. There's a reason why the GOP has been able to tap into rage from voters. And statements like yours are a prime reason.

    And in places like California 500K is is a 1200 square foot house in a lot of places. Are you glad that Californians suffered so much with the housing collapse? Honestly you sound like you do.


    Whatever (none / 0) (#141)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    She also (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 10:26:58 AM EST
    doesn't seem interested in a lot of other areas either but that's okay for a senator but if you're running for president of course it's a different story.

    What's a legitimate question? (none / 0) (#184)
    by unitron on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 07:20:30 PM EST
    Whether she's going to run for president?

    Or where, as a candidate for president, she stands on foreign policy?

    At this point she's perfectly justified in ignoring either one.


    Maybe it's because... (none / 0) (#183)
    by unitron on Wed Mar 25, 2015 at 07:16:50 PM EST
    ...Warren hasn't really said a lot about foreign policy so far.

    Of course on the other side it's mostly brought up to have yet another thing with which to complain about Obama, or to push for us to go to war with someone or the other in the ME.


    the Republican governor (none / 0) (#94)
    by CST on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:27:15 AM EST
    • who is a vocal and active supporter of same sex marriage
    • who put a whole bunch of left wing democrats on his cabinet

    I have a lot of problems with Charlie Baker on his tax stance and his history with the big dig and transportation funding, but he is no Ted Cruz - he's a more left-wing Mitt Romney, back when he was passing healthcare reform - before he started running for president.  A lot of people who supported Charlie Baker also support Warren, they are certainly not mutually exclusive.  But he won his in a squeaker, she didn't.

    If nothing else, Warren has earned the respect of the Globe.  They won't ridicule her.  One thing of note - she has been doing almost zero fundraising for her own re-election.  As of last summer she was the most popular politician in MA.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:34:04 AM EST
    ive been wondering about you thoughts on the Globes pretty much unprecedented act of last weekend.  

    Honestly I don't feel like arguing about this all day so I'm disengaging (probably) but I feel rather vindicated by what they did.  If you read those  four pieces they makes the best case I can imagine being made and effectovely refute every stupid baseless accusation better than I could.  


    The NYT editorial board (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:31:43 PM EST
    doesn't think much of Cruz.


    Im SHOCKED (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:32:37 PM EST
    Based on recent coverage of Jeb, (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:47:02 PM EST
    I assume they would prefer he got the nomination.

    Of course they would (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:58:42 PM EST
    Anne is exactly right.  The political media is going to do everything they can to have a Bush/Clinton race.

    And then (none / 0) (#172)
    by Politalkix on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:35:36 PM EST
    nobody has to bring up Wall Street thievery and war with Iran (which is going to happen if either of them is President) and other ME policies as issues because HRC, JB and the political media are all on the same page on these subjects.

    HRC and JB can then lament about the lack of civility in our political discourse and repeat a Cheney-Liebermann kind of debate. The media can then tell us how much courage both candidates are showing by facing up to the fringes in their respective parties.


    The obvious (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by lentinel on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:02:57 PM EST
    solution is a Clinton-Bush unity ticket.

    They should run together.

    The first term, she could be President, and if re-elected, they could switch.

    We don't really need two parties.
    So yesterday.


    This (none / 0) (#177)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 06:10:31 PM EST
    is the state of our democracy, cherish it.

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#173)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:53:34 PM EST
    The media for now would rather see a horse fight, cat race or dog dance then some then some inevitable Bush-Clinton snoozefest.

    Like (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 07:38:15 AM EST
    that is going to make any difference to the people that vote in the GOP primary. That will probably endear Cruz to them.

    Ready for boldness dot com (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:00:13 PM EST
    One of the top progressive activists groups in the country is launching an aggressive grassroots initiative in New Hampshire and Iowa this morning aimed at urging Democratic presidential candidates, including likely candidate Hillary Clinton, to adopt a "bold" Elizabeth Warren-style agenda.


    More (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:02:41 PM EST
    Unlike the joint effort of MoveOn.org and Democracy for America, the PCCC project is not aimed at drafting Massachusetts Sen. Warren to run for President, but rather to push Clinton and any other Democrat who may run to focus on Warren's populist agenda.

    The group issued this joint statement:

    "We want the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee to campaign on big, bold, economic-populist ideas that tangibly improve the lives of millions of Americans. We urge all candidates for president to campaign on big, bold ideas -- such as establishing a national goal of debt-free college at all public colleges and universities, expanding Social Security benefits instead of cutting them, creating millions of clean-energy jobs, reducing big-money influence in politics, breaking up the `too big to fail' Wall Street banks that crashed our economy, and ensuring that working families share in the economic growth they help create."

    The web site notes, "The more momentum we get, the more Hillary Clinton and others will take notice."

    Once again (none / 0) (#168)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:12:32 PM EST
    Warren has shown her ability to get her message through without joining the presidential carnival. Once again, well played Elizabeth.

    If HC hasn't figured this out yet (none / 0) (#169)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:16:06 PM EST
    nobody should push her to it. Better to support someone who believes it vs someone who has to adopt it for a campaign, imo . . .

    If that ship has not sailed (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:58:02 PM EST
    it is definitely weighing anchor

    Yeah (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:17:06 PM EST
    that's more like it!!

    It's about making candidates address the issues instead of putting all your hope into one person.


    Ted Cruz signs up for Obamacare (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 05:55:01 PM EST
    Delicious (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Mar 24, 2015 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    He says he is following the law. Such a rebel.