Posts Tagged ‘Elizabeth Warren’


America doesn’t need two Hillary Clintons.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Elizabeth Warren has been coddled ever since Fordham Law Review insisted on believing that the blonde blue eyed woman was Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color”.

She has as much “color” in her pale face as she does principles, ideas, wit, ethics and speaking skills.

Warren isn’t a good speaker. Her speeches are inept, her cadence is uneven and she ends sentences on a squeak. She stumbles breathily through prepared texts, seemingly confused to be up on stage as if she’s waiting for everyone to realize that there was a mistake and replace her with someone competent.

Sadly that never happens. All this might be excusable if she had something to say, she doesn’t.

If Elizabeth Warren ever had a single original thought in her head, it long ago died of starvation. She achieved national fame by claiming that no one got rich on their own because the police protect factories. That was probably a more compelling argument back when the stereotypical millionaire got rich from factories. But Warren was cribbing from the twenties because she has no new ideas.

Either that or she imagines that Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg and Mark Zuckerberg became billionaires by having a lot of factories in Lowell.

These days she tours as Hillary Clinton’s attack Chihuahua lobbing piercing insults at Trump. Like the time she accused Trump of being “greedy”. Then she charged him with having a “goofy hat”.

But the media cheers every squeaky insult from the former Republican turned Democrat and class warrior turned millionaire as if she were the anemic half-assed second coming of Don Rickles.

In the same media echo chamber where Jon Stewart was a mighty smirking destroyer and John Oliver makes for compelling television, Elizabeth Warren’s tepid putdowns can be described as devastating assaults. (Or as NPR’s Nina Totenberg dubbed her, a “pugilist” which is how people who don’t watch or like boxing describe boxers today.) But outside it, Warren is a joke wrapped in its own punch line.

Take the hilarious chutzpah of Elizabeth Warren accusing Trump of greed and money-grubbing at a Hillary Clinton event. Say what you will about Trump, but unlike Hillary he didn’t shake down the Boys and Girls Club for a quarter million for a speech. The Clintons ripped off everyone from earthquake victims in Haiti to public universities controlled by their former associates. Bill and Hillary would steal candy from a baby if they could fly a private jet to and from the scene of the crime.

The Clintons have more money than even they could figure out how to spend in the next two decades. Their only child is married to an investment banker. They keep grifting money they have no need for. But they have so little self-control that they had to return property to the White House after leaving. Bill and Hillary can’t stop grubbing and stealing. This isn’t greed. It’s a mental illness.

Bill and Hillary made a fortune through corruption and conflicts of interest. They are the least qualified people in the world to hurl accusations of greed and grubbing at anyone. And trotting out Harvard Law’s “first woman of color” who got paid $350,000 to teach a single course is almost as bad.

Elizabeth Warren attacked Trump for conflicts of interest. Warren is a living conflict of interest. She ranted about student debt after singlehandedly eating up the tuition fees of seven students.

After her star turn on the Daily Show attacking financial interests, she went right to fighting against asbestos victims on behalf of an insurance company, before clutching her blood money and then making a bid to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers from people like her.

Elizabeth Warren hates banks and hedge funds, except one particular fund that may just have a way of profiting from her agenda. But Warren also keeps finding ways to profit from her rhetoric.

If any of this sounds familiar, it should. Elizabeth Warren is just a less successfully slimy Hillary Clinton.

Imagine Hillary without Bill, without the detour to Arkansas, the fake accents and the sideways climb to power and you have Elizabeth Warren. Unlike Hillary, Warren never learned to talk to more conservative voters or operate outside the corridors of power in a handful of major northeastern government blocs.

Elizabeth Warren took the path Hillary was on before she married Bill, maneuvering through a shadowy incestuous world where academia, government and special interests bleed into each other and can turn bland hacks like her into power brokers. But that means she lacks even the elementary political skills that Hillary was forced to learn along her long journey to becoming the inevitable nuisance-in-waiting.

The only question then is why Hillary Clinton would want a more inept version of herself tagging along.

A Saturday Night Live skit did have its version of Hillary Clinton boasting that she would be her own vice president. If nothing else, picking Warren would give the country two Hillary Clintons to endure. And next to Warren, Hillary Clinton seems polished, competent and coherent. Elizabeth Warren could be Hillary’s Biden. A terrible choice who exists to make the top of the ticket look better by comparison.

Progressives will feel the old familiar thrill every time Warren calls for purging the kulaks before boarding another private jet back to her three-story Victorian mansion in Cambridge or her $740K Penn Quarter D.C. condo. And Hillary Clinton will clap supportively as Warren stumbles through another speech accusing Donald Trump, Wall Street and everyone except her greedy new boss of being greedy while trying not to roll her eyes.

And mostly succeeding.

Like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren is a pathetic joke. Both senators are greedy class warriors buzzing with a million plans that they have no ability or interest in actually implementing. The difference is that Bernie sold himself cheaply to Revolution Messaging and got a few months of flying private jets. Warren held out for Hillary and is hoping for four to eight years of flying private jets to denounce private jet flyers.

Hillary may just be stringing Warren along. A few appearances with the progressive great hope whom Bernie was just temporarily stepping in for before letting her know that it’s not going to happen.

If Hillary Clinton wants to win, she’s going to have to turn out minority voters. And Elizabeth Warren is as popular with minority voters as Bernie Sanders. Warren Democrats are rich, old white men. Bringing her on board would make the Hillary ticket as diverse as a ticket with two Hillarys on it can possibly be.

America doesn’t need two Hillary Clintons. It doesn’t even need one.

And it doesn’t need another boring leftist with nothing to say being coddled by the media as a wondrous wit for spewing sonorous clichés. That’s what we have John Oliver and Stephen Colbert for.

Back when Scott Brown brought up Warren’s $350K payday for teaching a single course, Elizabeth Warren complained, “I want to talk about the issues. Senator Brown wants to launch attacks.”

Now Warren has come full circle, ignoring the issues while launching feeble attacks that miss by a mile. It’s a fitting end to the political life of a political hack. Like many progressives, Warren liked to pretend that she was better than politics. But Elizabeth Warren wasn’t better than politics. She was worse.

America doesn’t need her. Massachusetts doesn’t need her. No one needs her. Almost.

Because somewhere an insurance company looking to put one over asbestos victims or a university seeking a celebrity minority professor to score $350K for teaching one course does.

Matthews Challenges A Shocked Sen. Warren To Deliver On Progressive Promises: ‘I Don’t Hear YOU Getting It Done!’

Matthews Challenges A Shocked Sen. Warren To Deliver On Progressive Promises: ‘I Don’t Hear YOU Getting It Done!’
Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren clearly expected a softball interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Thursday night.

But midway through her predictable talking points, the left-wing “Hardball” host unexpectedly struck out at the progressive darling over what he views as Democratic inaction on jobs and infrastructure.

Warren had just finished a diatribe against Republican recalcitrance on issues like education investment and income redistribution when Matthews pounced.

“We’ve got nobody working,” the host said angrily. “I don’t understand the union movement in this country. Why aren’t they BITCHING and moaning and complaining every day? We want big construction projects. And the President of the United States is not doing it. I don’t hear him talking about it. He talks about one thing next day, something else the the next day.”

Warren’s eyes became saucers as Matthews plowed on. “But I’m telling you, I don’t hear YOU getting it done!” he accused. “The Democrats control the U.S. Senate. The Democrats control the White House. When are you going to do what you just said you’d like to do? Just when, gimme a date? Is it 2017? 2023?”

“No, now!” a shocked Warren pushed back. “It’s now. Stop this! It’s now. We just voted on this last week. You stop and think about it! Because all of the things you have talked about, every time we get up and talk about helping education, whether it’s preschool or college, we talk about roads and bridges and power grids. We talk about NIH research every time.”

Warren went on to blame the Republicans, saying they always claim there’s not enough money. “You’re blaming the Republicans, but you control the Senate and you control the White House,” Matthews charged.

But the progressive senator continued to blame Republicans, particularly filibusters in the Senate. She claimed that Democrats must “make it clear what the choices are” and “push back on the Republicans who say it is more important to protect billionaires, people who already made it, then it is people who are trying to make a start.”

That seemed to please Matthews, who kind of looked like he was deliberately goading Warren into a fiery response. “Well everything you’re doing is good,” the liberal host said. “I just don’t see the main hope coming back to the American people when it comes back to real jobs.” He went on to call Warren “a fine senator,” much to her apparent delight.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton’s series of gaffes and lackluster book tour pushed Matthews to audition Warren for the role of Democratic candidate in 2016? If so, it appears she passed the “Hardball” test.

Read more:

Dirty, Dirty, Dirty Elizabeth Warren's Hit Squad

Smearing journalists who disagree with them.

This is part of the Obama slim Government

Liberal conspiracy theories make life worth living, so we’ve been enjoying the latest Web sensation courtesy of the Huffington Post and Elizabeth Warren’s gang at the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

These columns haven’t joined the rest of the press in treating Ms. Warren’s policy goals as gospel, and our criticism seems to have struck a nerve. Shortly after our latest editorial on the new bureau, Ms. Warren’s minions collaborated with the Huffington Post on an ad hominem smear of our colleague and Journal editorial board member Mary Kissel. The scandalous news? Before she turned to a career in journalism, Ms. Kissel worked from 1999 to 2002 at . . . Goldman Sachs.

How did the Huffington Post’s intrepid Zach Carter pull off this scoop? Well, perhaps he read Ms. Kissel’s bio on our website, For years we’ve posted the secret there in plain sight.

Our policy is not to disclose who writes specific editorials because they genuinely are the voice of the editorial board and a collaborative product. We do demand that our writers know something about the subjects they write about, so in our view having worked in finance is a useful credential for writing about finance. Financial knowledge is apparently not a requirement at the Huffington Post. As for the Goldman-is-behind-it-all view of modern life, we’d note only that Mr. Carter and his sources in the Obama Administration have now reached spiritual communion with Glenn Beck.

Mr. Carter quotes “a source close to Warren” as spreading the smear about us and our editorial writer, albeit without providing a name. For the record, while reporting our editorial we spoke with “senior spokesperson” Jen Howard, who handed us off to senior adviser Dan Geldon, who declined to speak on the record but whose colorful animadversions we would not print in a family newspaper in any case.

Perhaps Ms. Warren—or some adult in the Obama Administration—should ask who on her staff thinks it’s cute to smear journalists on the taxpayer’s dime.

Obama, Warren and The Imperial Presidency

The Wall Street journal
SEPTEMBER 22, 2010
The Senate should vote on all senior appointments within 60 days. But the president should give it a chance to vote.

President Obama’s appointment of Elizabeth Warren late last week is another milestone down the path toward an imperial presidency. During America’s first 150 years, Ms. Warren’s appointment as a special adviser to the White House would have been unthinkable. Today, it’s par for the course.
Only in 1939 did Franklin Roosevelt win the right to appoint six “special assistants.” To gain congressional approval, he pledged that his assistants would act strictly as advisers. Thus they did not require Senate confirmation.
Since Roosevelt’s initiative, presidents of both parties have consistently expanded the size and power of the White House establishment. There are now more than 500 super-loyalists intervening in the affairs of Cabinet departments. But until now, presidents have maintained the legal fiction that they were merely advisers without decision-making powers.
No longer. As White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained, Ms. Warren has been appointed “to lead” a team of “about 30 or 40 people at the Department of Treasury working” in “standing up” the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This burst of candor punctures the legal fiction that has exempted White House appointees from the Constitution’s requirement of “advice and consent” from the Senate. Since Ms. Warren will be a key executive in Treasury, earning the salary of an undersecretary, shouldn’t she be treated as an undersecretary and be required to run the gauntlet of Senate approval?
To deflect this question, the president’s lawyers have cobbled together yet another legal fiction. The trick is to give her a second appointment. In addition to serving as President Obama’s special assistant, she will also serve as a special adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. This allows her to pretend she is Mr. Geithner’s humble consultant when she and her staff come up with an action plan for the new agency.
This legalistic gambit serves as a fig leaf for a very different reality: Mr. Geithner will never reject any of Ms. Warren’s “advice.” The simple truth is that the Treasury secretary is being transformed into a rubber stamp for a White House staffer.
In his great book on 19th-century British government, “The English Constitution,” Walter Bagehot emphasized the importance of distinguishing the “efficient” from the “dignified” aspects of the constitution. Britain’s “dignified” constitution then focused on the Queen, diverting attention from the “efficient” power wielded by the Cabinet.
A similar but opposite transformation is happening in today’s America. The dignified Constitution emphasizes Senate confirmation of cabinet officers, but effective power is increasingly exercised by presidential assistants. Despite Mr. Obama’s campaign against the excesses of the Bush White House, he is now making his own contribution to the ongoing construction of an imperial presidency.
Maybe so, say the president’s defenders, but the Senate has only itself to blame. John Kennedy had to wait two months for the Senate to confirm his initial round of nominees. It took six months for Ronald Reagan, and nine for George W. Bush, and even longer for Mr. Obama. Given the Senate’s increasing intransigence, the president has no choice but to engage in legal fictions that will allow him to govern effectively. Although Republicans are condemning Mr. Obama for creating another White House czar, they will change their tune if their party regains control of the presidency and confronts a Democratic roadblock in the Senate.
Americans can break through this impasse if both sides negotiate a “grand bargain.” Here is the deal: The Senate should change its rules to require an up-or-down vote on all executive branch appointments within 60 days. In exchange, the president should sign legislation to require Senate approval of all senior White House appointments. By reaching this agreement, the president regains the powers to govern effectively and the Senate regains its authority to approve all major appointments—regardless of their location in the executive branch.
This grand bargain requires both sides to give up the petty privileges of the existing system. Senators will lose their power to hold up nominations to blackmail the administration into approving their pet projects. Presidents will lose their ability to appoint super-loyalists who can’t convince 51 senators that they merit powerful White House positions. But the rest of us will profit greatly from the reinvigoration of the founding principle of checks-and-balances for a new century.
Mr. Ackerman is a professor at Yale and the author of “The Decline and Fall of the American Republic,” forthcoming from Harvard University Press.

Obama to Senate: Stick that in your advice and consent clause.

Obama to Senate: Stick that in your advice and consent clause.

The Wall Street Journal
SEPTEMBER 18, 2010
Elizabeth III
Whatever else can be said about this White House, it isn’t afraid to poke a stick in the eye of its critics. How else to explain President Obama’s decision Friday to put Elizabeth Warren in charge of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau while avoiding Senate confirmation and, for that matter, any political supervision.
The chutzpah here is something to behold. The pride of Harvard Law School, Ms. Warren is a hero to the political left for proposing a new bureaucracy to micromanage the services that banks can offer consumers. But she is also so politically controversial that no less a liberal lion than Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd has warned the White House that she probably isn’t confirmable. A President with more political and Constitutional scruple would have nominated someone else. Mr. Obama’s choice is to appoint her anyway and dare the Senate to do something about it.
The plan is for Ms. Warren to run the new bureau from an office at the Treasury Department. Instead of calling her the “Director” of the bureau—the statutory title for the organization’s boss—Mr. Obama has appointed her an “assistant” to him and a special adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Mr. Geithner’s supervision will be pro forma, however, because Ms. Warren rolled over him during the financial reform debate and has her own pipeline to the Oval Office. The President emphasized that Ms. Warren will enjoy “direct access” to him and said she would oversee all aspects of the creation of the new agency, including staffing and policy planning. For all intents and purposes, Ms. Warren will be Treasury Secretary for all consumer lending.
We would have thought a Harvard law professor would object to the extra-legality of this arrangement, but then this is also the crew that gave us ObamaCare via budget reconciliation and put Donald Berwick in charge of Medicare without a Senate debate. Remind us again why the tea party critique of Obama governance is crazy.
The new bureau was already destined to be a bureaucratic rogue. When Members of Congress objected to it being “independent” in the way Ms. Warren hoped, Mr. Dodd and the Administration cooked up a plan to make it part of the Federal Reserve without actually answering to anyone there. The bureau has independent rule-making authority and can grant itself an annual budget up to $646 million. It will draw this money from the operations of the Fed, so the bureau needn’t deal with the messy intrusions of Congressional appropriators and will therefore receive limited Congressional oversight.
Ms. Warren’s bureau will dictate how credit is allocated throughout the American economy—by banks and financial firms, and also by many small businesses that extend credit to consumers. The bureau’s mandate under the new Dodd-Frank law is to ensure that “consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination.” If those terms sound vague and overbroad now, wait until Ms. Warren’s hand-picked staff begins interpreting existing laws on fair lending and writes new rules.
In a blog posting Friday on the White House website, Ms. Warren made her intentions clear enough: “President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again for families and creating protections that work not just for the wealthy or connected, but for every American.” Given the economic growth and jobless figures, maybe we should start calling this the “leveling” Administration.
Though her mandate goes beyond banks, the banking system is likely to suffer the most damage. Ms. Warren was a vociferous opponent of allowing regulators charged with maintaining the safety and soundness of banks to control this new bureau. No matter how destructive its new rules may be, they can only be rescinded by a two-thirds vote of the Administration’s new Financial Stability Oversight Council.
And the bureau will now be staffed and shaped by an “assistant” with no obligation to appear before the Senate. The possibility that an appointed official could hold significant authority is why the framers wrote the Senate into the process of approving the President’s senior hires. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Officers of the United States.”
Article II, Section 2 also says “Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone,” but Congress explicitly did not view the head of the financial consumer bureau as an inferior officer. On July 21, Mr. Obama signed a bill passed by both Houses stating that the “Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
We have here another end-run around Constitutional niceties so Team Obama can invest huge authority in an unelected official who is unable to withstand a public vetting. So a bureau inside an agency (the Fed) that it doesn’t report to, with a budget not subject to Congressional control, now gets a leader not subject to Senate confirmation. If Dick Cheney had tried this, he’d have been accused of staging a coup.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor