Elizabeth Warren Has Latched Onto the Issue That's Beneath All the Others

[BlueMTexpat]

With the scenes out of Donald Trump's impeachment trial these past two weeks, it's a good time to run against corruption.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a30738531/elizabeth-warren-corruption-donald-trump-impeachment-trial/

...
If nothing else, this obviously should be a good moment for Warren, whose campaign is based on her conviction that our government and our politics are so corrupt that Big Structural Change is needed to clean out the Augean Stables in the District of Columbia. On Saturday, she deftly connected decades of increasing corruption with the undeniable end product, which is this administration* and this president*.

“The good news is that I have the biggest anti-corruption plan since Watergate,” she said. “The bad news is that we need the biggest anti-corruption plan since Watergate. These problems, this corruption, started long before Donald Trump became president.

"Some of the things we can do quietly. But that anti-corruption plan, there’s no way to do that quietly. We can’t keep doing this as a country. The one good thing about Donald Trump is that he’s got everybody off the sidelines. We run against that corruption. We run against the most corrupt administration in the history of this country. Have you been watching these trials? At the center of the whole thing was an ambassador [Gordon Sondland], and how did he get to be an ambassador? He had no qualifications, except that he cut a check to Donald Trump’s inaugural committee for a million dollars. He bought a public office. That is the height of corruption.”

...After two weeks in which the president*’s corruption was laid bare in the Senate, only to have the Republican Senate majority essentially decide that the corruption was an inherent part of the office of the president—Alan Dershowitz as much as said that—and prepare to give him a gentle warning and send him away, it can be argued that corruption of the office is the only issue that should matter.
...

[loyalsister]

1. I really hope she's the nominee

In MO our state auditor is running for governor on the same theme. I would love to see it become a broad theme for Democrats and give both of them momentum.

[blm]

5. It is THE winning message. She'll explain it to American people better

than anyone. She’ll inform them how that widespread corruption has a daily effect on most every aspect of their lives.

This is why she has Charles Pierce, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stieglitz, Ayanna Pressley, Deb Haaland, and Katie Porter siding with her message.

[loyalsister]

6. Exactly

Down every ticket in every state.

[xmas74]

74. Have you met Nicole?

I can't wait to vote for her as our next governor.

[loyalsister]

79. Yep

She's awesome!

[xmas74]

90. I'm really excited about her.

In the Fourth Congressional District Erich Arvidson has dropped out, leaving Lindsey Simmons to run against Vicky Hartzler. Simmons graduated from Marshall High School and Missouri Valley College. She then graduated from Harvard Law and worked as an attorney. She is no longer working,instead focusing on the race. If elected she would be the first to ever serve in Congress with an active duty spouse. (Her husband is in the Army.)

You should look her up.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

2. I hope Warren is nominated too

[BlueMTexpat]

3. Thanks!

[blm]

4. Warren's the anticorruption nominee to face/replace Trump's corrupt WH.

She knows exactly how to pinpoint it and address it.

She can hit the ground running.

[Tweedy]

12. Senator Warren is this president's opposite

And she is an Okie, which should open the door for her in Texas.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

7. Running on the theme that everything is "corrupt" is a double-edged sword.

It makes people cynical and undermines the sense that we have American ideals--including legitimate limits on power, and especially of limits on executive power.

When this cynicism is compounded by calls to act by fiat on day one and ruling by executive order instead of by moving legislation through Congress, the de-legitimization of the logic of our republic's system of checks and balances is further eroded.

It would compound the damage done by Donald J Trump, in my estimation.

We don't fix a broken system by breaking it more.

No friends, we need to fix it.

Populism is not the answer. Embracing the traditional liberalism of our party--and restoring limits on executive power--is the answer to populist Trumpism and to corruption.

Let's not embrace false solutions.

[blm]

9. She can FIX it correctly.

She is the only candidate who has built an agency from the ground up, an actual RARITY in DC, and has a full understanding of what is involved at every level.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

10. Warren has also rolled out a long list of areas where she would rule by fiat.

I greatly respect her work in consumer protection--one of the most vital areas where we need reform. Full kudos to her for that. Brava!

However when she embraces populist over-reach by an executive, I shrink away from supporting her.

[blm]

11. Placing the right cabinet member for the job

who puts real people above the financial profiteers is the appropriate use of executive power and NOT overreach as some like to claim.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

13. Depends how power is yielded.

Rule by executive order and urging things like elimination of the filibuster are destructive to the seperation of powers and the system of checks in balances that are already under threat by Trumpism.

We need to restore the logic of the Constitution, and not further erode it by mirroring Trumpism in any fashion.

[blm]

18. There is no mirroring. Warren is not an abuser

and I think you are pushing a line of horseshyt to try and lay that description on her.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

21. She has called for ending the filibuster. Has put out a long list of executive orders

she'd issue on day one, ones that should be settled by Congress in my estimation.

Saying she'd set up a commission to go after Trump as a campaign promise is troublesome. That's not how justice should proceed IMO. Not a good look.

[blm]

22. It's jumpstarting the discussion to end the

lasting effects of corruption. Pretty sure that many Dems in Congress will take up the call.

Leading on a serious issue like corruption is exactly what this nation needs from a president AND our congress.

Your opinion is a genuflect to a status quo that is not viable and has only encouraged the fecklessness of unamerican holders of power like Trump and McConnell.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

28. Nah. My opinion is that Democrats should embrace liberalism,

respect the limits of power in each branch of government, and never embrace populist overreach.

Trump and McConnell show no respect for the Constitution, as liberals we should be firm counter-examples.

[Bradshaw3]

53. So you're comparing her to drumpf and McConnell?

As if she's just another side of the same coin? Your inaccurate and highly perjorative description of her proposals sound like bashing to me. Funny, you've been her such a short time yet read like one who has been here awhile. Hmm..

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

88. Nah. That's just you inventing slams on a fellow Democrat.

Are such personal attacks allowed here? I read that this was a friendly place for Democratic loyalists to meet up.

[DallasNE]

30. What Populist Over Reach?

That statement can mean anything so what, specifically, are you talking about.

Speaking of fiat, last week under the cover of impeachment the Trump members of the Federal Reserve proposed rule changes to gut Dowd-Frank by deregulating "covered funds" like derivatives. That is the very area that fueled the Great Recession. Enabling corrupt practices is the exact area Warren is addressing and it is vitally important. And timely, as this shows.

[blm]

78. 👍🏽

[Tweedy]

47. GOP thinks CFPB is rule by independent agency fiat

It is not.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

49. The GOP is wrong. They generally are.

[Tweedy]

60. No doubt

The GOP is wrong too in its belief that only a republican president is allowed to execute the law.

The GOP is wrong that a president can break the law without consequence (although we need to boot them out to once again prove that truth)

Finally, the GOP is wrong that no democratic president is allowed to shape the executive within the confines of the law with executive orders.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

61. Let's boot the Republicans (who have abuse their powers) and then

start moving legislation through Congress, in the fashion our founders intended.

[Tweedy]

71. George Washington was a founder

And he issued executive orders.

[Kurt V.]

77. ALL presidents rule by fiat to some degree. She's wise enough to know when and when not to.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

80. Announcing she'd cancel all student debt by fiat

doesn't strike me as "wise." These are the sorts of policies that should pass through Congress, in my estimation. Subject to debate and in faith with the roles of divided government.

[Kurt V.]

82. It's very important policy. both economically (a bust is coming) and for income inequality.

in the past you'd be right. but those days are gone and this policy is too important.

[Tweedy]

15. real solutions to real problems

Are not false by definition

Naming and shaming a problem is a problem? That construction makes no sense to me.

Executive orders are as old as George Washington. He issued his first on June 8, 1789.

So far, Senator Warren's proposals are well within presidential power. They are designed to protect all of U.S. from the corruptions that have run rampant for decades.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

17. We have the Congress as a co-equal branch of power for a reason.

Rule by fiat is not how a republic operates.

We need to restore the logic of liberal democracy in the functioning of government, and not to further erode it by embracing populist overreach.

[blm]

20. Warren has never shown any indication of that

type of abusive behavior towards good governance, yet here you are spreading fear that she will be like Trump on a thread acknowledging that she is the exact opposite of Trump, especially in regard to corruption.

Maybe you don’t see that you are overreaching in your effort to discredit her.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

33. I've expressed areas where Warren seems like she's embracing an over-reach

of executive power and ending the filibuster in the Senate.

Having different goals than our opposition doesn't mean it isn't possible to mirror some of their means.

Rule by fiat is not a way to govern in a constitutional democracy.

[blm]

39. Exaggerating your fear and concern still won't work.

Warren is not the abusive governance person you need to pretend to fear.

Pretty sure we’ve seen this act play itself out over a few election cycles here.

[Tweedy]

31. With one hand tied behind our back?

Everything Senator Warren is proposing, that I have examined, is well inside the bounds of existing law. Ergo, there is no executive fiat; although, there certainly is executive direction.

If you know of proposed order that is not, please tell us.

If Congress disagrees with any order, it can overturn it with legislation.

This is a necessary part of executive power and has been since our inception.

A wait and see approach is rarely successful when trying to excise corruption.

Yes, we are a law abiding people. Of course, excising corruption in our government is popular. How that popularity creates an effective argument against taking action is beyond me.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

32. Yes. With one hand tied behind our backs.

That's how the founder's set up our Constitution, with 3 co-equal branches of power, as a way to limit power.

We can't only be in favor of limiting executive power or limiting majoritarianism when the other side is in control.

Rooting out corruption is vitally important, but having important goals should never serve as an excuse for populist overreach, or we can kiss or republic goodbye.

[Tweedy]

35. ?

If you can demonstrate one proposed executive order by Senator Warren that is outside of existing law, please do.

Otherwise, this is not executive overreach. It is standard practice.

A president, as head of the executive branch, takes an oath to faithfully execute the law, including by executive order.

Why would we make our next president operate under GOP "rules" which too often write good law into non existence simply because enforcing the law as written is popular?

That upside down result is not what our framers intended.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

36. Wiping out all student debt by executive order would be an executive over-reach IMO.

It is not about "GOP rules," but--rather--following our Constitution.

The power to enact legislation resides in Congress. That is a power that ought not be usurped by a president of any party.

[Tweedy]

37. Actually, there IS a law for that

The higher education act gives the education secretary the “authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans."

That is literally right there in the law books.
Freeing our future from mind numbing debt will anger some, especially those who profit from this maze of a system. Nonetheless, it is not executive overreach when the power is clearly enunciated in federal law.

People can argue -- and they are -- that is not what the law says. Nevertheless, those are the exact words and there is no limitation.

If Congress believes it is better to leave our future buried under mountains of debt, it can change the law.

Congress has the power to legislate. The president has the power to execute those laws.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

38. Not the way to govern in a republic, in my estimation.

[Tweedy]

45. Better to be bound to the present, with ⚓️ from the past

The law is the ⚓️ which can only be changed at Congressional initiative.

Yet, to limit a president to his predecessors executive orders, is not an ⚓️ it is a hole in the bottom of the ship of state. It would have us solving problems that no longer exist, while ignoring those right in front of U.S. all.

Executive orders cannot exist in a vacuum unless the president is a republican with a republican toadying senate (as recently demonstrated). There must be a legal basis. Maybe this gives you some relief?

Because if we learned anything from the senate non-trial, surely we learned the Democratic Party believes in and practices fair play.

[MichMan]

50. The only loans that could be cancelled by EO aare those issued by the federal government...

not those held or issued by private lenders. Trying to figure out who the profiteers are that you are referring to? The Federal Government?

Certainly not the profits made by the colleges, as this would only encourage them to raise tuitions even higher.

The $$$ still have to come from somewhere unless it just goes against the Federal debt.

[Tweedy]

52. Only federal loans, but private profiteers

Yes. The federal government does make money.

Yes. There are private profiteers

1) for profit mills (which should not be allowed federal student loans imho)

2) student debt buyers who buy for pennies and hunt kids for the total amount plus interest at a much higher rate than any of us can get anywhere

As for adding to the deficit--
It would be a drop in the bucket compared to the GOP tax cuts
it is an excellent investment in the future
And
Young adults need money to start their lives which, unlike trickle down economics, ends up boosting the economy, not billionaire bottom lines

[MichMan]

55. The government sells off student loan debt to private companies?

Why would they do that? I know that has occurred in private loans, but not the government issued ones.

Also, why aren't federal loans at 0% interest? They could have done this from the very beginning.

The big gorilla in the room that is never addressed is why has tuition risen so much ? No one is talking about that.

[Tweedy]

58. Some

Loans in default are sold.

Some democrats did propose lower interest. Some democrats, including Senator Warren, asked why the government should profit on students.

Before president Obama and mainly democrats fixed it, a private for profit company, Sallie Mae administered federal loans and profited from it.

The elephant in the room imho we lowered taxes and changed priorities to more tax cuts. We used to spend a larger share of
Federal GDP on education.

[KPN]

65. Exactly. I am a great example of what we used to do, how

the federal government assisted people financially in the past. The interest on my federally funded loans was 1.5 percent.

[BlueMTexpat]

40. And we've just had

a very blatant example of how Congress does NOT work. Do you really believe those Neanderthals are going to suddenly see the light in 2021?

As a lifelong Democrat and a liberal through-and-through, I'm with Elizabeth.

And I'm not too impressed by someone who has only recently joined DU and who has come into this thread specifically to sow dissension about her.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

41. No. But we should not adopt the tactics of the GOP in response.

Nor adopt tactics that remotely resemble theirs.

I could care less whether you are impressed by this lifelong liberal Democrat standing up for liberal democracy and limited government, or not.

This liberal Democrat doesn't think we should follow Trump's populist abuse of presidential power with more of the same. No.

A republic if we can keep it.

[BlueMTexpat]

43. Elizabeth Warren will hardly

be a "populist abuser" of Presidential power.

Nice try, but no cigar. And I'm done with you. Buh-bye.

[Bradshaw3]

54. So few posts

Yet so much bashing and right wing talking points.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

56. Categorically false.

[Bradshaw3]

57. I disagree. Categorically.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

59. Dead wrong.

[BlueMTexpat]

72. Quite noticeable, indeed! eom

[progressiveradical]

63. Really?

Will the day ever come where we just vote for a candidate who wants things that will help the working class families of the US?

The system is broken.

Wake up.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

64. Joe Biden is the best choice to help working families IMO.

He has the experience of actually...you know...working.

[progressoid]

67. Yeah, working families really appreciated his bankruptcy bill.

[blm]

83. And what was Warren doing in the 4 decades before

she ran for senate?

She was working AT being a working person and then spent decades working to fully understand the needs of working families and forming solutions to benefit their lives. That took many years of actually collecting and studying the data, which brought her to the attention of a guy running for senate in 2003....Barack Obama. Her PERSONAL body of work and accomplishments.

But, yeah, tell us how she can’t possibly understand working people as much as other candidates.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

86. Yes. She was doing all those things.

Warren has many great qualities and an impressive level of expertise on personal finance and bankrupts issues. I stipulate to the truth of these things 100%.

[ecstatic]

8. That's why I'm still supporting her. Nt

[MichMan]

14. She is 100% correct, but awarding ambassadorships for political patronage is a long tradition

[BlueMTexpat]

44. Not to the extent

done by this MisAdministration.

And in cases where such Ambassadorships are awarded to large donors or personal friends rather than to career foreign service officers, they are generally ceremonial. The real work of diplomacy, etc. is done by the Deputy Chief of Mission.

I was an Attorney-Adviser with the DoS for several years. That is how the system worked with every other President, even and including Shrub.

This MisAdministration is a total abomination in every way.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Her corruption message fundamentally helps all her other messages

I think Warren is the smartest politician in the race. Possibly Yang or Bloomberg might be smarter people. Hard to tell.

But Warren is the sharpest politician in the race.

[DallasNE]

19. Correct. To Fix You Install Anti-Corruption Regulations

Deregulation, that really got its start under Reagan, is the policy shift that has fueled this corruption. And 51 of 53 Republican Senators just voted for the continuation of this massive corruption.

The opposite of regulation is not deregulation; it is corruption.

Just this past week the Trump members of the Federal Reserve proposed deregulating "covered funds" such as derivatives and that is the very area that enabled the Great Recession. Dowd-Frank needs to remain in place because the alternative is more corruption. It is that simple. The opposite of regulation is corruption.

[bucolic_frolic]

23. Beneath

as in foundational. Not as in diminutive relative to others. Suggest clarity of headline.

[ms liberty]

89. Underlies would have been a better word, I think, do you agree? n/t

[JudyM]

24. Warren and Sanders are the biggest hope for fixing the underlying problems eroding our democracy.

Rooting out corruption from our political system is Job One IMO. This will help on so many fronts... including the urgency of greening our economy.

[Pepsidog]

27. So right Judy.

[Pepsidog]

25. I love Warren. I want her to be President but I want to beat Trump first. I would love to see Biden

run for 1 term with Warren as VP and next Dem candidate in 2024. Biden to concentrate on foreign policy and Warren in Domestic. Or Biden/Warren 2020 and Warren/Biden as VP in 2024. It sounds crazy, I know, but it is certainly a change. I will support any Dem candidate but electability is the most important factor.

[pattyloutwo]

34. This is interesting

But I don’t think Biden will choose a progressive. I think he’ll go with a moderate, like himself.

[BlueMTexpat]

42. I can guarantee you

that GOPers are going to milk the Biden connection to Ukraine to the utmost in the GE, if he is the GE candidate.

There is no proof whatsoever that there was anything wrong, but that will not stop the spinners and outright liars who dominate the GOP. And it's already having an effect ....

I just saw an example (not on DU, btw) of someone who purports to be a "lifelong Democrat" who bought the RW rhetoric hook and sinker and stated that Republicans were correct to request the Bidens to testify about their so-called dealings with Ukraine and that she was ashamed of Democrats for impeaching Trump.

Given the type of low-information voter we have too many of, I fear for ANY Dem GE candidate, but especially one who has that particular albatross hanging over his head.

Warren will NOT run as ANYONE's Veep. She is either in it for the Presidency OR she will remain in the Senate and hold ANY President to account.

"Electability" is a weird concept and a cop-out, IMO. If ALL Dems vote for the GE candidate, whoever that candidate is, that candidate is de facto electable.

I am committed to voting for whoever is the nominee, as is anyone sane and who understands what is at stake.

[Pepsidog]

46. Respectfully disagree. Electability, beating Trump is the only thing that matters.

[Tweedy]

48. The GOP smear will not work

Former VP Biden has a deep well of good will with U.S.

Americans also comprehend that parents do not control their adult children.

This smear is just another example of the keystone cop aspect of this president's GOP. It is yet another reason why the U.S. will win if we unite.

E pluribus enum

[KPN]

66. Yup. Just another form of the "emails!" charade.

And it will work on millions. If the GOP could beat Kerry with swift boat and Hillary with emails, they damn well will try like hell to do the same with a Ukraine, and could well do it.

[MH1]

51. I like that plan. I do see a path for Warren to win.

But not as clear as for Biden.

I will be happy with either one of them getting the nomination.

If it's Biden, I will be REALLY happy if Warren is the VP pick.

[pangaia]

26. REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION !!

Are there corrupt Democrats? Well I am sure.. and self-interested ones, you bet. And people with HUGE egos? Absolutely.
BUT..

NOTHING like republicans.
So I propose....

REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION !!
REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION !!
REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION !!
REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION !!
REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION !!
REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION !!

teach------
FASCISM !!
FASCISM !!
FASCISM !!
FASCISM !!
FASCISM !!
FASCISM !!

[zentrum]

29. If she doesn't get

..the nomination, she'd be great in the Cabinet. Love her!

[bucolic_frolic]

62. #TCC Trump Crimes Commission is trending

Glenn Kirschner stated his interest this a.m.

[barbtries]

68. what i thought it might be:

poverty. no one seems to talk about poverty.

[blm]

84. Corruption in financial industry assures widening spread of poverty.

[ancianita]

69. Warren was solidly on the corruption theme before any of the other candidates. People know she's

read the core problem of this country just right, and has the background to know how to slow it down to a stop.

All we'll need is a Democratic Senate.

[dbinfla]

70. Why is DU so skewed towards Warren?

I like her as a secondary choice, but do not understand why more here support her than any other candidate???

[Tweedy]

73. Because she is the right candidate for the job at this time

That is my assessment.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

75. Elizabeth Warren can get young people excited about voting ...

Elizabeth Warren won't scare old farts like me. She knows the root problem and can get others in office to help go after it.

[Nikki28]

76. Go Liv

That is a good message. Love myself some Liv who always speaks her mind and tell it like it.

[brewens]

81. I posted a long time ago that she should run partly on a world wide war on white collar

crime. Go after all kinds of corruption. Money laundering, tax evasion, fraud and whatever else. Of course about everything Trump has been right in the middle of or wanting to be.

[blm]

87. 👍🏽

[IndyOp]

85. Yes! (n/t)