Hey, there! Log in / Register

Why Elizabeth Warren shouldn't run for president

Over at Blue Mass. Group, David peruses the Globe's full-on campaign to get Warren's hat in the ring and explains why he thinks she might be better off not running.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

...disagree with the reasoning. Congress is where the important work is, and most particularly, electing a better breed of Congresscritter. Elizabeth Warren will do the best work right where she is.

up
Voting closed 0

The most important work is moving quickly from the legislative to the executive branch. More and more the most impactful governance comes out of administrative regulations as opposed to legislation. This is mostly because governance is becoming too technical for professional politicians (as opposed to bureaucrats, not meant to be a jab at the lifers). All the gridlock doesn't help either. There's some fascinating literature on the subject. There're also some terrifying implications if you're cynical enough.

Long story short, the legislative branch is quickly becoming obsolete, there's little anyone can do about it, and real change needs to come from the executive branch.

up
Voting closed 0

is coming from the executive branch because Obama is using it to bypass the Senate, House and Supreme Court to force his will on the country. The Legislative branch is not becoming obsolete and you will be very sorry if it does. Because then the President will be a Dictator. I have no doubt Obama would prefer this so he doesn't have to deal with the Congress and Court but too bad for him I hope.

up
Voting closed 0

She can't win. Granted, that's not stopping Ted Cruz from his grand delusion.

up
Voting closed 0

makes my skin crawl that he's running... He must think he can win *shiver* sure he's a tea party darling but he's too extreme to gain the rest of the GOP vote (and sway the independents).

up
Voting closed 0

Warren wouldn't get elected. She to the left of Obama, not to mention her lack if experience.

up
Voting closed 0

If she ran she would be totally exposed. The national media would dig up every story about being a fake Indian, shady Oklahoma land deals, hypocritical speeches about the middle class being "hammered" while she is part of the student debt problem etc etc etc. She also seems to have a fear of talking to the general media, especially in press conferences. She always has an aid pull her away as soon as the questions get tough. Thats not going to fly on the national stage. But I hope she runs - it would be very amusing.

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://www.badcontroller.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/joker_notsureifserious.jpg)

up
Voting closed 0

Man on the left in the picture is none other than US Senator Patrick Leahy.

up
Voting closed 0

while she is part of the student debt problem

Your post makes me wish we had a larger student "debt problem".

up
Voting closed 0

I don't get it? What point are you trying to make?

up
Voting closed 0

He's not a natural born citizen. He can't run.

up
Voting closed 0

"Natural born citizen" means citizen at birth, which he undoubtably was. Geography is irrelevant. Also why the birthers are even dumber than most assumed—even if Obama was born in Kenya he would still be a natural born American because he mother was unquestionably an American citizen.

up
Voting closed 0

The definition of "natural born citizen" hasn't been legally specified. It's not an entirely specious argument that someone who wasn't born in the United States, to parents who weren't then living in the United States, and to a father who wasn't then an American citizen, could be considered not a "natural born citizen," despite his non-resident mother being a US citizen.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 holds that "children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.” However, Cruz is not the child of citizens but of a citizen and a foreign national. Existing law distinguishes between these cases:

http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

The question of whether Cruz has citizenship from birth or after birth is a case that should probably be tried, and the only court that could decide it is the Supreme. It would be to our national benefit that the definition become settled law, which may ultimately require a constitutional amendment.

I'd imagine that if the law were settled as Cruz wishes it to be, however, it could require changes to actual immigration law, and could lead to an increase in immigration cases based on single-parent citizenship.

up
Voting closed 0

Title 8 US Code Section 1401:

(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

up
Voting closed 0

Cruz is a citizen. The question is whether he's natural born or naturalized.

According to the law effective at the time, if his parents were married when he was born, he's natural born, and if they weren't he may not be.

So it boils down to whether you think he's a bastard or not.

up
Voting closed 0

Cause the link I provided a) says he's natural born and b) does not at any point mention the marital status of the parents.

Additionally changes to who counts as a natural born citizen are often retroactive, like when the US acquired Puerto Rico. So I'm not sure if "law effective at the time" matters when the law now says it's fine.

up
Voting closed 0

Here you go:

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-...

Sec. 309. [8 U.S.C. 1409] states "a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother…"

It doesn't say the citizenship, it says the nationality. There's a whole category of people who are nationals and not citizens. (See previous section, 308)

I'm not saying he's not a citizen from birth, just saying he could clear up all doubt by releasing his parents' marriage certificate.

up
Voting closed 0

She was born in Delaware and claimed US citizenship. That settles it. She wouldn't have to be married.

It was his father who was born in Cuba.

up
Voting closed 0

They don't have to win, to win. Look at Huckabee, or Palin, or Trump. A lot of these yahoos on the Right "run" simply to keep their wingnut bona fides current. Then post primary they slip right into a seven-figure deal at Fox or one of the "think tanks".

up
Voting closed 0

Then post primary they slip right into a seven-figure deal at Fox or one of the "think tanks".

Maybe Cruz will do that, leave office, and go away slowly. The US can do without him undermining progress.

Honestly what the GOP fails to realize is having too many candidates reduces their chances of actually winning since they aren't unified. Right now they have such a broad variety of candidates that it's going to be hard to unify under one.

up
Voting closed 0

They're about every wingnut for himself, the country's best interest be damned.

up
Voting closed 0

they are a dead platform and will just die off on their own.

up
Voting closed 0

Haven't you been reading? They're MAKING MONEY off it. They can get stupid people to elect them on a platform of impossible nitwit crack dreams, and then not get called to account when nothing comes of it, and then "retire" to a seven figure salary blowing hot air. What's "dead" about that?

up
Voting closed 0

I think you're missing the point what I am saying.

The GOP party is bleeding at the seams. You have people like Cruz and Palin, who are batshit crazy. Then you have the (some what) moderates like Jeb Bush. And then the almost-democrats like the old timer GOPers (who are far and few between)

There's no unity in that party. If it they don't spit into two parties in the next few years I'll be very surprised The Republicans are having a hard time unifying these days.

Not saying the democrats are any better but honestly the differences (in terms of most views) between Hillary and Warren are very little. I can't say that between any two current (or soon to be) republican candidates, where it varies from person to person.

Sure variety is the spice of life, but not in politics. You want one candidate that can unify ALL voters under one so you can win. Not several different people that don't have enough support to win.

All the GOP is doing is ensuring a win for the Democrats in 2016 (IMHO)

up
Voting closed 0

US Senate seat > Fox News talking head/think tank

up
Voting closed 0

Sure, as a resume booster and networking device. The pay is crap, but the payoff is moving into the sweet gigs with k street afterwards.

More recently, as stated above, you can build you own brand of shock sclitck and be your own boss, pulling in even more money than you would on K street.

The right wing echo chamber is hugely profitable, selling fear and loathing to people that desperately need their tribe to be right. Snake oil salesmen never went away, they just changed, moving from products to a service.

up
Voting closed 0

This and all the other crap I've heard coming from the liberal opposition to Warren boils down to "our country is so screwed up the best person for the job shouldn't be president because then she won't be the best person for the job anymore."

Talk about throwing in the towel.

up
Voting closed 0

BMG is Democratic hack central. The party is 70% owned by big business and they have their candidates (Hillary and Jeb). The word has come down to unite and protect the team.

up
Voting closed 0

She knows she can be far more effective in the Senate than she could be in the Oval. Given the fact that Mass voters will assuredly keep sending her back to the Senate, she's in a position to challenge any President of either party eventually on legislature. She will be that powerful someday.

In fact, I would not be surprised to see her on the Supreme Court if someone were that inclined.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not surprised the Globe pushing EW in their paper. The Globe has
some status for journalism but they are trying to find a way to get paid
subscriptions. I'm glad I dropped out a long time ago, now I get the obits
on line and the advertising drop once a week on the stoop.

up
Voting closed 0

The Glob doesn't actually want Warren to be President; they just want somebody to run against Hillary. Without opposition in the D contest, they'll only have one of their beloved horse races to pretend is exciting, and they won't sell as many papers.

up
Voting closed 0

about lack of competition in the primaries, then perhaps they should be lobbying to end this archane practice of requiring voters to select a political party in order to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Not to mention abolishing this total nonsense of not having the presidental primary vote on the same day in all states.

One ballot, one primary. One primary, one day.

up
Voting closed 0

Although you don't have to declare an affiliation to vote, even in primaries. You just say which party's ballot you want. I've been an (I) for many years, despite voting in all the primaries.

As to the nationwide primary day, the Glob would certainly oppose that very good idea, as it would shorten the horse-racing season, and make them talk about the whole country instead of easily-covered small places. I would love to see an end to the Iowa/NH idiocy. Candidates I like early in the campaign always seem to fail because a herd of cornholes or hamsters don't want them. It makes no sense to allow those tiny fringe populations veto power over who makes it to the Presidential race.

up
Voting closed 0

Which is still being forced to declare a party afflilation (albiet temporarily) in order to vote.

Especially when the list of voters and the ballots they were forced to choose are part of the public record for the election.

up
Voting closed 0

Warren's time is now!!! Strike while the iron is hot.

up
Voting closed 0

Elizabeth Warren running for president will only add tension to Hillary Clinton's campaign significantly hurting Clinton's chances of winning the election. Now I am by all means the least sexist person you will meet but the United States of America has been run by men since the beginning of its existence and having an inter-party battle between women will only hurt Clinton's chances even more. Nothing against women but our society is in no-way, shape, or form ready for a "first-man" and I honestly don't see a women president helping women's rights in our country in any way. Therefore, by Warren running for president, we are only putting more unnecessary pressure on women who would hope to run in the 2020 election.

up
Voting closed 0

Our society is still deeply sexist, and much further from being able to elect a woman than it was to elect an African American in 2008. Whether Clinton or Warren or anyone else is the right person for the job is immaterial, as long as the majority of people in this country are idiot sexist asshats.

up
Voting closed 0

Worried About Dems Splitting Party

The Democrats need to take a lesson from the Maine Democrats. The last 2 Maine governor elections have resulted in the election of a Tea Party governor although in each election the two more liberal candidates got a combined greater percentage of the vote. And the liberal split is between the Hillary and anti-Hillary wings of the Democratic Party. ... they really dislike one another intensely.

up
Voting closed 0

Sen. Warren (D-MA) should absolutely run. I may even send a check. Complete phony and fraud. It would be great for the American people to see what passes for a "Democrat leader" these days. 1/32nd Cherokee? Give me a break.

up
Voting closed 0

You can tell Oaf is a wingnut by his use of the word "Democrat." Also by his continuing outrage at the total non-issue of Indian blood. Nobody but wingnuts cared about that three years ago, and nobody but them cares about it now. Since he does care about it, I invite him and the other two people who care to have a look at the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.

up
Voting closed 0

Again, I strongly encourage Warren to run. Do we disagree?

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, we disagree.

up
Voting closed 0