A Warren Run Would Change Everything

Over the past few weeks, Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a leader of progressives on Capitol Hill. She led the charge against the part of the CRomnibus that gutted our financial regulations, and she is still fighting the White House over its nomination of bankster Antonio Weiss as Undersecretary of Domestic Finance in the Treasury Department.

But while those of us on the left are thrilled that Senator Warren is coming into her own as a voice for change in Washington, the right, well, isn’t so thrilled. In fact, it’s downright terrified.

During an episode of “Outnumbered” yesterday, Fox So-Called News host Melissa Francis said that as far as Wall Street was concerned, Elizabeth Warren was “the devil” and then warned that her populist message could be a big winner in 2016.

Melissa’s right to be scared, because Elizabeth Warren represents one of - if not the biggest - threat to Republicans winning the presidency in 2016. Warren is, essentially, a populist, and if there was one good sign from this year’s midterm elections it’s that Americans of all stripes, even those living in red states, support a populist agenda.

If Elizabeth Warren were to run for president on a populist platform, it could help the Democratic Party reclaim the so-called "red states." But a Warren presidential run wouldn’t just be good for the Democratic Party, it would be good for the entire country because it would change how we talk about politics.

Like Teddy Roosevelt before her, Warren doesn’t just take the fight across the aisle, she also sticks up to those people within her own party who do more for special interests than they do for everyday people. Her fight against part of a government spending bill that was supported by most of Democratic leadership and the White House was a great example of this kind of “no party” populism.

For Warren, it’s not about left vs. right; it’s about insiders vs. outsiders. That’s a really important point, and it’s the single most important reason why she should become our president in 2016.

In her memoir Fighting Chance, Warren quotes Larry Summers as telling her that when people get Washington, they have a choice: they can either be insiders or outsiders. “Outsiders,” Summers explained, “can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say.”

Summers’ message here was clear: If you want to get things in done in Washington, you have to follow the rules and avoid ruffling people’s feathers. But if we’ve learned anything over the past few weeks, it’s that Larry Summers, as has been the case at virtually every consequential moment in his entire career, was totally and completely wrong.

By speaking out about Antonio Weiss and the government spending CRomnibus bill, Elizabeth Warren is proving that being an outsider works. She’s proving that populism cuts across the left-right divide.

She’s proving that acting like an outsider rearranges the debate so that it’s about “us vs. them,” with “us” being the American people and “them” being the insiders and special interest groups that use government to pad their pockets.

An Elizabeth Warren presidential run would give us a chance to have a national conversation about these issues. And even if she didn’t make it out of the primaries, our country would be a lot healthier for having had that discussion than having not had it.

Senator Warren has said again and again that she’s not going to run for president in 2016. But that’s the exact same thing a junior Illinois senator named Barack Obama said back in 2006, and look where he is now.

It’s time for a real national conversation about populism and democracy. Go to MoveOn.org to tell Senator Elizabeth Warren that you want her to run for president.

Comments

ckrob's picture
ckrob 5 years 39 weeks ago
#1

Regarding today's conversation about torture and what would Jesus do: Killing Jesus according to Roman law was legal. So some 'Christianists' would side against Jesus? What a delicious irony! What can't be justified by fundamentalists?

Vegasman56 5 years 39 weeks ago
#2

Without a doubt Sen. Elizabeth Warren would be a great president, but she has said that she’s not going to run or seek the presidency, and I think we should respect that. A Bernie Sanders Angus King I believe would be a good ticket to run on. They are both independence and they are both progressive, just what this country needs. We cannot follow the Republican Conservatives ways, which sent this country down the path of austerity with aristocrats in command. Similar to what we had with King George the third monarchy that we fought a revolutionary war over. For we can put the power and the authority to the hands average American, instead of the bankers. As in the words of Pres. Abraham Lincoln from the Gettysburg address, government of the people, for the people and by the people, instead of government of the bankers, by the bankers and for the bankers.

Sir Geoff's picture
Sir Geoff 5 years 39 weeks ago
#3

I fear the bought-off Democrats have already annointed Hillary Clinton to be their nominee. Another Clinton or Bush in 2016? I thought the USA hated monarchies? Yeah, Obama came out of nowhere, but frankly I think he sold out once he got in. He's a good talker, but he hasn't done much as far as backing up his principles. I wonder if Warren would stick to her message or sell out if she became President like Obama. I would still vote for her over Hillary or the Republican nominee of 2016 any day and give her a chance! By Warren saying she is not running makes me think she already knows the oligarchy has already annointed Hillary to be the Democratic "choice" to oppose whoever they annoint for the Republican "choice" for 2016.

brennan102's picture
brennan102 5 years 39 weeks ago
#4

If populism carried these midterm elections and democrats were demolished by Republicans, how does this bode well for Warren in 2016. As a conservative, I have told my liberal friends that I believe that it will be Warren, not Clinton, who will be the Democratic nominee. It would be interesting to see Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul go against eachother in the 2016 election.

While Warren may be a populist, I do not believe that many will vote for her once she has to detail what she wants from working people to pay for her programs.

Vegasman56 5 years 39 weeks ago
#5

I watched Thom a lot on free speech TV; this is a first time I’ve seen Thom to get so upset. He should have. The Gentleman claimed to be Christian, his Christianity just comes from his lips, but the true meaning of Christianity escapes him. I also believe his convictions comes from his total hate for a black man being in the White House, yes I said it, racism, a Republican racism which is not any part of being a Christian.

This so-called enhance interrogation is nothing but true torture. Both Pres. George W. Bush and his VP Dick Cheney under the rules and articles Geneva Convention are considered war criminals. It would not surprise me after this report has come out that United Nations will call for a trial for these two gentlemen for war crimes. The question is, should we hand them over to the United Nations for trial, I believe so.

brennan102's picture
brennan102 5 years 39 weeks ago
#6

As a self described Socialist, how many votes do you think that Sanders can get in the fly over states. Bernie would lose in a landslide because of his own description of his policies.

brennan102's picture
brennan102 5 years 39 weeks ago
#7

the taliban are not covered under the terms of the Geneva Convention as they are not a State operated army and do not wear uniforms, just for starters.

Vegasman56 5 years 39 weeks ago
#8

brennan102

here is your information

Unlawful combatant click here we can read more

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a combatant or non-combatant who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action; subject of course to international treaties on justice and human rights.

How are war criminals prosecuted under humanitarian law?

01-01-2004

Extract from ICRC publication "International humanitarian law: answers to your questions"

On becoming party to the Geneva Conventions, States undertake to enact any legislation necessary to punish persons guilty of grave breaches of the Conventions. States are also bound to prosecute in their own courts any person suspected of having committed a grave breach of the Conventions, or to hand that person over for judgment to another State. In other words, perpetrators of grave breaches, i.e. war criminals, must be prosecuted at all times and in all places, and States are responsible for ensuring that this is done.

Generally speaking, a States criminal laws apply only to crimes committed on its territory or by its own nationals. International humanitarian law goes further in that it requires States to seek out and punish any person who has committed a grave breach, irrespective of his nationality or the place where the offence was committed. This principle of universal jurisdiction is essential to guarantee that grave breaches are effectively repressed.

hankgagnon's picture
hankgagnon 5 years 39 weeks ago
#9

We need Warren in the Senate. Hilary Clinton can push a populist agenda. I am sure Warren will campaign for her. All the main stream RepubiCON females like Bachman and Palin are stupid and incompetent.

I believe the country is ready for a woman President, but right now it's Hilary's time. I do not want see another boring Gore like Democratic candidate. I like Gore just think he was a terrible campaigner.

Both Bush Presidencies were disasters. The Clinton Presidency was a success no matter how much those right wing loonies say it was not. The facts are the facts! Oh by the way.... hey KEN (F***KING)STARR WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR YOUR INVESTIGATION RESULTS YOU CONDUCTED FOR THE ENTIRE 8 YEARS OF THE BILL CLINTON PRESIDENCY ON BILL CLINTON!

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer... 5 years 39 weeks ago
#10

I can not in good conscience vote for Sen. Warren due to her hawkish support of Israel's illegal occupation and terrorizing of the Palestinian people. Whether or not, she truly believes in Israel's unjustifiable political and military aggression or she's saying it for political pragmatism, I can not overlook such an obvious shortcoming in a potential world leader.

brennan102's picture
brennan102 5 years 39 weeks ago
#11

Vegasman56, I would assume by that definition any person who was breifed and apporved would also be guilty. That would mean the Dems who were in control of Congress at the time and Republican leadership who was also approved or was appraised of the techniques being used.

chicagotim's picture
chicagotim 5 years 39 weeks ago
#12

Other than her basic anti-banker stance, what would suggest that she'd be a "great president"? Has she ever had an executive position of any sort? The modern Presidency oversees a Trillion dollar budget, military all over the world, and also has to oversee basic and trade relations with 300 countries. Maybe I'm wrong... but isn't this the first time she's even had an elected office??

chicagotim's picture
chicagotim 5 years 39 weeks ago
#13

If you think Al Gore was a horrible campaigner and boring... ummm... you think Hillary would be exciting and a breath of fresh air? She's nearly 70... been around for 30 years... lost to a complete unknown last time... good luck with that.. yeah, she's next in line... so was John McCain and Bob Dole.

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 5 years 39 weeks ago
#14

RichardofJeffer... (Reply to # 10) ~ From what I understand, Bernie Sanders stand on Israel leaves a lot to be desired too. Nobody is perfect. Under normal circumstances I might agree with you. However, in the light that the Republican nominee might be Jeb Bush, I can assure you that I will vote for whoever might have a chance to defeat the man faster than I would swat a mosquito that landed on my face. Granted, it would be an automatic instinctive defensive reaction that would be completely devoid of any level of higher thought.

stopgap's picture
stopgap 5 years 39 weeks ago
#15

Elizabeth Warren would win in a landslide if the issues were what people voted on. After all, the people in poll after poll largely favor progressive/liberal policies.

Unfortunately, issues are less important to voters than their perception of the candidate, which of course is highly influenced by the incessant attack ads which the Supreme Court through "Citizens United", has decidedly tipped the scales in favor of big money. Lets face it, the average citizen is struggling just to keep their heads above water, let alone study issues which become more and more complex every day.

Still, I think it is important for Elizabeth Warren to run for the nomination, if nothing else, just to keep true liberal ideas at the forefront of the debate.

I have little doubt that Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee and unfortunately the country may be ready to be BUSH-wacked again. Shockingly, Dubya now has a 45% approval rating, the result of 6 years time and the short memory of the public, not to mention there has been a massive, though under the radar, effort by Karl Rove's groups and much of the mainstream media to rewrite his presidency . Lately the Bush adoring Sunday morning news shows have rolled out the red carpet to acquit Dubya,s administration of any wrongdoing and lay any problems squarely at the foot of Barak Obama.

Propaganda pieces that seek to present Dubya in a more positive light such as "his" new book, "43 ON 41"; Dubya's loving "heartfelt" opus to his father. Give me a break! I'm not sure that George W. Bush has ever read a book, let alone written one. Still, there they are, father and son, posed in all their homey heartwarming glory, ala Mount Rushmore. In my opinion a book written by a conservative think-tank for the purpose of helping pave the way for Jeb's nomination.

I don't think the big money multi-national corporations are ready to have a replay of the Republican Clown Car charade that took place during the last presidential primary campaign. Realistically, Jeb is their only plausible choice.

Could Elizabeth Warren beat Jeb Bush? It might be a long shot, but for the sake of the planet and my sanity, I'm willing to take that chance.

2950-10K's picture
2950-10K 5 years 39 weeks ago
#16

I'd be very happy with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders in the White House. They both understand the impact of economic and social injustice. Unlike Obama, I'm confident they both would surround themselves with the outstanding talent necessary to bring us back from the brink of, "vast majority," social and economic collapse, talent like Ralph Nader and Paul Krugman.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 5 years 39 weeks ago
#17

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are two of my favorite politicians. But I learned only recently of their support for IsraeI, which I find not only disturbing but deeply disappointing. Like Marc says, Bernie isn’t “perfect”; I suppose nobody is “perfect”. But I find Israel’s abuse of Palistine abhorrent, and morally bankrupt. I wish I could hear either Warren or Sanders speak on this issue, because I’m very curious how either of these otherwise upstanding individuals would defend the indefensible.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 5 years 39 weeks ago
#18

Reply to #9: I agree, this country is ready for a woman president… but NOT HILLARY! She’s a warmonger and a “free” trade toadie. As if that wasn't enough, she has indicated she would approve the Keystone XL pipeline. No thanks!

I could write a list of white male politicians I’d choose over Hillary in a heartbeat, if running against her for president... and who I would have chosen over Obama, who I never trusted really trusted in the first place; not even when he ran the first time.

I've not forgotten how Bill Clinton rolled out the red carpet for that job-killing NAFTA “free” trade agreement. Both Bill and Hillery are shills for “free” trade. Now look where it's gotten us! And wasn't it President Clinton who de-regulated the FCC, giving the green light for a corporate fascist hijacking of our media?!

I hate the Clintons. I wish they'd retire to their stupid mansion with their daughter and grandkid and get the hell out of politics, and just disappear.

As Obama’s presidency has clearly shown us, not just any black man will do. And as Hillary Clinton exemplifies, not just any woman will do either. Enough Clinton crap; enough of the Bush family of fascist clowns, enough of the corporatists (black corporatists are still corporatists, ditto female corporatists); ENOUGH already! And there’s my little rant for the day. Tah-tah. - AIW

dollymajig's picture
dollymajig 5 years 39 weeks ago
#19

Bryant Fisher really bombed. What a troll!

dollymajig's picture
dollymajig 5 years 39 weeks ago
#20

Alice, Good on you. I agree.

dollymajig's picture
dollymajig 5 years 39 weeks ago
#21

You are so correct.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer... 5 years 39 weeks ago
#22

DAnneMarc, I made a personal decision not to vote for a war hawk of any kind. I voted twice for Obama using pragmatism as a justification. I will not be using pragmatic rationalization to undermine my own sense of right and wrong. Warren and Sander are both dead wrong about their positions on Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian people just like Scalia is wrong about torture.

I understand the reasoning that you are using and it's sound logic. I just don't have the pragmatic sensibility to allow myself to vote for the lesser of two evils anymore.

Elioflight's picture
Elioflight 5 years 39 weeks ago
#23

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is another excellent progressive "for the [REAL] people" candidate.

ChicagoMatt 5 years 39 weeks ago
#24

Sometimes I get the feeling that the Republicans look at the presidency like a nice thing to have, but not necessary to get what you want. Since, for the most part, the current system is set up to favor Republican ideals, they have the easier job of stopping any change, rather than trying to make the change. So they don't really need the presidency as long as they control at least one part of Congress.

As we've seen with Obama, it doesn't really matter how populist or progressive or liberal the president is - he or she will face a wall of opposition from the Republicans.

Alan Lunn's picture
Alan Lunn 5 years 39 weeks ago
#25

Before the 2012 election, I remember hoping Obama would, in his lame-duck presidency, morph from his Lincolnesque demeanor to Teddy Roosevelt. He did change, but not enough to really fix this country. He still has his Wall Street connections. Our bought government even has its bought Democrats. I was just reading that in Indiana the governor before Pence was a Democrat, and he really believed the way forward for his state was tax cuts for the rich and trickle-down neoliberalism. Talk about a "great forgetting."

With two years to go and the intense choke-hold that money has on Washington -- not to mention the general economic ignorance there is in the voting public (young people polled before the mid-terms tended to think Republicans would do better fixing the economy) -- we would have to see a massive populist movement to bring Warren or Sanders to the fore.

Meanwhile, the GOP election-rigging and game-playing in Washington will continue with gusto. The most likely run-off for president in 2016 will be Bush vs. Clinton. Sounds more like we have an aristocracy than a democracy.

But history is full of surprises.

bobcox's picture
bobcox 5 years 39 weeks ago
#26

As Roosevelt indicated, you have to make him do something!~ We khave to "make" E. Warren run for President!

DigitalBluster's picture
DigitalBluster 5 years 39 weeks ago
#27

There is a book called The Keys to the White House by a historian named Allan Lichtman, in which he analyzes every US Presidential election since 1860, when the Republican Party came to prominence. He identifies a set of "keys," developed along with a scientist who developed models for earthquake prediction, which retroactively accounted for the winner of every election from 1860-1980 (before the system was devised), and predicted every winner since 1984. To my knowledge, the author hasn't yet predicted 2016, but others have used the keys to do so, which you can find online.

The point is, as of today the Democratic candidate, whoever it is, will win the Presidency in 2016 -- just barely. If a single key is tipped the other way, the Republican candidate, whoever it is, will win. One of the keys that can be tipped between now and then relates to whether there is a vigorous contest for the nomination of the candidate for the incumbent party. In other words, if the Democratic nomination process is hotly contested, the Republican wins. If the Democrats solidly back one candidate, that candidate wins.

It doesn't matter who the candidates are. The idea that we elect candidates is, according to the "keys" model, a misconception: we elect parties. Provided that a candidate doesn't flake out somehow, any candidate will do, from the perspective of a pragmatic electorate which perceives a change of party as the important factor when change is deemed necessary.

If Clinton runs unchallenged, she will be the next President, provided no other "keys" are flipped. If she has a strong challenger, then one of them had better bow out of the race or they will hand it to the winner of the Republican nomination.

I'm not suggesting that Clinton should be the next President. I'm a socialist, I don't support any pro-capitalist candidate, and that includes all Democratic Party candidates. But I do have preferences, and someone like Sanders or Warren would certainly be preferable to Clinton, from my perspective. I'm only suggesting that progressives had better hope there's only one strong candidate for the Democratic Party nomination. Better Sanders or Warren than Clinton, but better Clinton than any Republican.

bruceroberts's picture
bruceroberts 5 years 39 weeks ago
#28

Really............ Since when does the Geneva Convention state explicitely that it only covers State operated armies, and people that wear uniforms, just for starters? You might also define "enemy combatants" while you are at it. When you are talking to your friend Dick, would you ask him if he would like a free Rectal Feeding and Rehydration, he really, really deserves it.

bruceroberts's picture
bruceroberts 5 years 39 weeks ago
#29

Really............ Since when does the Geneva Convention state explicitely that it only covers State operated armies, and people that wear uniforms, just for starters? When you are talking to your friend Dick, would you ask him if he would like a free Rectal Feeding and Rehydration, he really, really deserves it.

upperrnaz12348's picture
upperrnaz12348 5 years 39 weeks ago
#30

Richard,

I understand your concern for what is happening in the Middle East, and how the event are affecting the Palestinian Arabs. I am equally concerned, but unlike you. I "live there", and know a few more things about what occurs. You are, by definition an outside observer, and there are facts that don't reach you, and are often discomobulated by the media, what they "don't tell you". I could go on forever, and I have something else to say, but allow me to offer you a "name" that you will not hear in the media that might enlighten you some, Mawan Barghouti, look it up in Wikipedia. Most Israelis and Arabs in this part of the word know who he is, but for some reason none of correspondents "have ever heard of him". They say he left the the PLO and the Hamas because he was fed up by their corruption, some people disagree, and explain the split for other reasons. In any case, he is in an Israeli jail for the time being.

Okay, this is my real point. I may not agree with you on what is to be done where I live, but the differenece between me and you is that I live where it is happening and you don't. That is one thing, the other thing is that if you really feel that Senator Warren is the candidate most suitable to be the President of the United States on account of her record, on account of what you feel she will accomplished were she elected as the president, that is what is more important.

The idea to elect a president that is good for the United States of America, Bush was hardly, and my sources, be they the Guardian, or Shmuffington Post, or the sources I learn about what is going on seven thousand miles away from where I live, they are all suspect. You know better, and I expect you be well informed enough to make an intelligent opinion. What Ms Warren thinks about foreign policy might be important, but I see a dystopia in the making.

As a ex-Pat, strange as it seems I feel more secure in Israel, than I would be living in the States. I am not afraid of a policeman stopping me and asking me to get out of my car and threating my limbs,, or my life, or ... my money. I can still have my opinions and and not be afraid that my phone is tapped, or my E-mails will be monitored. All of that is happening in the United States of of America. I am sure there other ex-Pats, in parts of the world that are percieved as less "dangerous" that enjoy the same sense of security where they live, and don't have the feeling that nation where they were born is what it was a while ago.

My wish to you is not to be as concerned about the area where I live and show some concern for what is happening in your "neighborhood". We are having our own elections soon, and Please God, that might affect what will occur in '15. for the better.

I don't think I can comfort you about the "my vote", because I make my decsion is based on what is best, in my opinion for "where I live" in all aspects of our national life,. I'll tell ya' I am more Traditional about Jewish values, and opt for one of the Clerical lists for all kinds of reasons you would not understand. You don't don't live here, and it's complicated, as i would not understand your political choices because you live in the States.

Again, please don't fret about the the conflict that is going on in my neighborhood. There are so many burning issues in the States that require healing for which you have an opportunity to correct, your concern for peace in our neck of the woods by definition is secondary.

mcowley01's picture
mcowley01 5 years 39 weeks ago
#31

I love you Alice. Marvellous posts. My kinda gal.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 5 years 39 weeks ago
#32

Thank you Mccowley. Sweet.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 5 years 39 weeks ago
#33

Reply to #30: Uppernaz, I’m not the one you’ve spoken to, but I appreciate your message. And I think you’re right. Either Warren or Sanders would have my vote in a heartbeat, as a presidential candidate. But I am very disappointed with their deference to Israel.

I wasn’t raised Jewish; it is by virtue of my maternal blood line that I am Jewish despite a non-religious upbringing. For a long time I identified with Israel. I still feel we Jews should have our own country, regardless of how much of the world's Jewish population occupies that country at any given time. But because of the many abuses and horrific cruelties inflicted on the Palistinians by Israel’s warmongers — to the point of mass genocide! — I no longer identify with Israel. And ithis saddens me, because I’m sure there are many fine souls among Israel’s citizenry. It wouldn’t surprise me if a large segment of Israeli’s population was as sickened by the plundering of Palestine and the genocide as I and like-minded Americans, we who view it as a crime against humanity. It is a crime our own government supports with money and weapons ad nauseam, in our names and on our nickel.

Whenever election time rolls around, like many Americans I am forced to make compromises I abhor. You are so right, uppernaz, we all need to vote in the best interests of our own communities. In many respects, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren fill that bill. Their mission sets them way apart from most of their colleagues, 95% of whom are only there to serve themselves, or so it seems. I believe Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren each occupy a seat in Congress to serve a purpose greater than themselves: the fight for “ordinary” Americans (translation: we Americans of ordinary means) to have a chance to thrive and prosper. They’re taking on the oligarchs in our behalf, against the backdrop of a 21st Century Gilded Age. We’re dealing with the worst institutionalized corruption and poverty statistics the U.S. has seen in close to a century. Their names are among what would amount to a very short list of politicians who remember, and still care about, their constituants, the ones they’re supposed to be serving.

Richard will vote his conscience, and I respect him for that. But if either Ms. Warren or Mr. Sanders run for president in 2016, that’s who gets my vote. - AIW

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer... 5 years 39 weeks ago
#34

upperrnaz, I respect your opinion and let me take this point by point. Or at least the points you've laid out in some kind of orderly fashion.

I want to state, as I have in this post, as in others before, I will not vote for any kind of war hawk, regardless of the military action. Warren just happens to support a military occupation, of which, American is greatly involved in foreign aid, military aid and using America's unjustifiable vetoing powers to crush Palestinians seeking justice on the world stage.

First, I am not sure why you've put "live there" in quotes. I have to respect your firsthand knowledge of the situation, however, I don't share you perception of media bias toward Palestine. I believe the opposite of what you are saying is true. The media frames Israeli aggression towards Palestine as justified and defensive. They paint Palestinian aggression as unprovoked and acts of terror. In both England and Israel, the coverage is much more critical of Israel, especially in England. The BBC, who can be suspect toward their own country, does an excellent job of telling a story that Americans don't hear of what happens in Gaza and the West Bank. I'm talking mainly about mainstream news sources.

I am not sure why you've mention Mawan Barghouti as a source. Is he supposed to discredit Hamas actions or support Israeli aggression? I don't support the militant actions of Palestine, however, they are not simply reacting out of religious hatred. Palestinians are reacting to Israeli dominations of every aspect of their lives. If you've “lived or live there” you must understand this point. Palestinians do not have to legitimize their existence in the Middle East, the Israeli state was born out of violence and terror, not the other way around.

Sen. Warren may make an excellent President, however, I have defined my criteria to where my vote will go in 2016. I was deeply disappointed with the Obama administration. I was duped by the hype and Obama’s soaring, but very empty, rhetoric in 2008. By 2012, I voted for President Obama on the much more cynical principle of the lesser of two evils. I made a choice after that very pragmatic and dubious decision to no longer vote for a politician that supports military action as an acceptable from of state action. Supporting Israel militarily is no different than participating in Israel’s illegal occupation.

In a functioning democracy, the American people wouldn’t be searching for a savior or “great man” or woman. In a functioning democracy, the people would make the decisions not an individual or a handful of individuals. Sen. Warren is not going to change the fundamental governing practices of the US government and that’s the problem. Enough about that, different topic, different time.

The US is driven by a constant war economy. That constant war economy also deals in selling weapons and using US foreign aid to subsidize private military/security contractors. Both the US and Israel have vested interest in public money from the US going to support Israeli occupation and US military corporation contracts, as well as Israeli military and private contractors. How does this not affect my “neighborhood”, as you put it? In effect, the citizenry of the US is subsidizing Israel’s illegal occupation and attempted elimination of the Palestinian people. Sen. Warren, more or less, supports this with a sense of pride and shamelessness that I can’t find in my heart to support.

AIW is correct that I will follow my conscience when voting. I also, share her disappoint with Sen. Sanders support of Israel’s illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, as result of this, I will not vote for either as a candidate for the leadership of the world’s most powerful constant war economy. I do, however, support AIW decision to vote against the Republican candidate and I see the reasoning behind it. I also understand that enthusiasm that Sen. Warren’s has generated as a champion of Wall St. reform, however serious she may be; I’m much more cynical and suspicious of politicians.

Most of my sources for Israel/Palestine “conflict” comes from Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Norman Finkelstein, I find Noam Chomsky to be to be an extremely credible source and impeccable in his research. Atzmon Gilad, who openly admits to be a self-hating Jew, does have some interesting insights, but I don’t find him as credible or serious as the before mentioned individuals.

Upperrnaz, we are all in the same “neighborhood” with consequences for our actions. The US is a dysfunctional mess with greed, corruption and corporate dominance leading our limited representative government. We could slip into a corporate fascist state, corpo-fascism, if we are not vigilant as a citizenry. But, I would rather be here than in Gaze or the West Bank under the occupation of a brutal militaristic force.

The hypocritical nature of Israel’s illegal occupation alone should shame anybody away from supporting it, but justifying it is equal to collaborating with fascist during WWII in my humble or not so humble opinion.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 5 years 39 weeks ago
#35

Richard, I cannot disagree with anything you've stated, even if we diverge on how to vote. But Noam Chomsky (another dissenting Jew, at odds with Israli policy) has had the greatest influence on my assessment of the Israli-Palistinian conflict. As voters of conscience, suffocating under the impact of the oligarchy here at home, we are stuck between the proverbial "rock and a hard place". Feels like a no-win to me. But just know, Richard, that I get where you're coming from. - AIW

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 5 years 39 weeks ago
#36

Richard ~ I too agree with everything you said; and, feel the same way myself. However, I recommend you reconsider Upperrnaz advice. Here is why. First, you are not alone. The vast majority of people like you--and I'd like to count myself in that number--need to unite and stand up with both conviction and STRENGTH in order to change US policy anywhere outside the US. Remember, they are competing with the Billionaires, the Military Industrial Complex, and Wall Street Bankers. That is no easy task.

Secondly, in order to have a prayer at reaching any of the righteous lofty goals that we all stand for, we need to be well fed, well educated, informed, economically comfortable, and reasonably abundant in various media , infrastructure, and political resources. The key element here is free time; and, lots of it. Free time only comes through prosperity. Prosperity only comes through getting our socioeconomic system in order.

If we vote--or fail to vote--out of spite over several foreign wedge issues and giveaway authority to Republican Oligarchical lap dogs who will only serve to help their masters rifle what is left of our collective prosperity to offshore banks we can kiss any chance of affecting foreign policy goodbye; along with any chance of a decent life for you, me and everyone else like us. Yes, people like you and I are not part of the 1%. It might be a complicated road full of dirty compromises that leads us back to the economic stability that enabled our generation to end the war in Vietnam and begin us moving down the path to equal rights for all; but, it is a road worth rebuilding if we ever stand a chance of ending the wars in the middle east and helping to bring a permanent peace to Palestine. I urge you to reconsider your position--even if it is at the last second in the ballot box.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer... 5 years 39 weeks ago
#37

DanneMarc, Upperrnaz is not offering advice. Read carefully what's he's saying and what's his underlying point, which is, stop talking about the illegal occupation. It was subtle but there.

I concern myself with the direction the US is going and I don't take my vote lightly. I will be voting in the next election. I just will not be voting for a candidate that considers violence and suppression a justifiable policy by any state. The issue of Israel's illegal occupation is directly connected to US foreign policy , constant war economy and it aint a wedge issue. Democrats, just like Republicans, can't wait to fall over their selves to show their undying support for the savage actions of the Israeli state against the Palestinian.

Sen. Warren is not going to change Washington or the status quo, even if she gets a shot at the White house, which I think is a long shot at best. The Democratic Party, with few exceptions, has become the Republican Party and the Republicans are just elected lobbyist for the corporate agenda. The only things that's going to change our situation is us. The citizenry of the USA must find our way to organize and use collective action to change the course of human events.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 5 years 39 weeks ago
#38

But Richard, respectfully... how are we the "ordinary" citizens ever going to achieve the sort of collective action you're describing without politicians legislating and enacting the kinds of policies that re-empower us?! Lacking that, how have we a prayer of a chance to influence foreign policy ever again? I think Marc raises excellent points.

Back in the days of the Vietnam War, when we had a bigger, stronger middle class, we were able to mobilize and help put the brakes on that war through the sort of mass movement only within the reach of an educated, prosperous and empowered citizenry. Without public intervention and protest, the Vietnam War could have dragged on much longer and wiped out a few more million people, mostly Vietnamese but with significantly more American casualties than what we had. Back in the 1960s and '70s, this country was not the banana republic we have now. - AIW

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer... 5 years 39 weeks ago
#39

AIW, I will respond, but I'm at work right now, so I'll get back to you tomorrow evening or Sunday..

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer... 5 years 39 weeks ago
#40

AIW, obviously, as I stated to DanneMarc, “ordinary” people must organize into democratic institutions like citizen unions or, as I advocate for, consumer based unions, however we organize, this must be done by the people. The political class has rarely acted willingly on its own, especial when it comes to public benefit.

I don’t see how voting for Elizabeth Warren, who supports Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian people, will help change foreign policy? I’m having trouble with the reasoning.

All great movements in the US has come from external pressure (the public) pushing the ruling class, normally out of fear, to allow for temporary change in government policy. I don’t agree with your assessment of the Vietnam War, however, Civil Rights, labor movements and women’s suffrage all come out of dedicated public pressure. Politicians looking for opportunity and a constituency may have championed these causes, but I would imagine most political support comes out of necessity over actual solidarity.

In your last post, you’re making the point that mass movements affect change on government. I don’t see why people have to wait for a politician in order to organize into public democratic institutions using collective influence to seek change in our system of government. The people are more than capable of organizing without legislative help. AIW, I am puzzled by your statement “how are we the "ordinary" citizens ever going to achieve the sort of collective action you're describing without politicians legislating and enacting the kinds of policies that re-empower us?”

We should be organizing as a society to counter or protect legislation, not waiting on a politician to inspire mass civic action through a bill, amendment or anything like that, that’s just not going to happen.

Sen. Warren might be an honest player in the Senate and might be a real champion for the people, however, her stance on Israel or any military intervention outside of actual defensive measures isn’t going to get my vote. I have a loose criteria, but on this matter, I’m not going to be pragmatic.

Republican domination happened years ago in the DNC with political hawks like the Clinton's taking the national stage. Obama is economically to the right of Ronald Reagan on most issues and he’s not much better on military interventionism. I’m not trying to be provocative or argumentative for the sake of it. I honestly believe the things I type; an honest liberal thinking person has no political option within the two major political parties. We have to re-discover the courage as a people to organize against the coming tide of corpo-fascist ideology wrapped in personal freedom, anti-unionism and economic domination, and a lot of other bad ideas to further segregate, isolate and dominate society here at home, in America, and around the world.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 5 years 39 weeks ago
#41

Richard, I’ve already made my feelings very clear regarding Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders’ deference to Israel. I don’t know what “reasoning” you’re referring to. And I didn’t mean to suggest we all sit around waiting for politicians to do something. I believe we need another mass movement like the one in opposition to the Vietnam War. (I don’t know what it is about my “assessment” of that war you disagree with, by the way.) I just don’t know what it’s going to take to motivate enough people to get involved in such a movement. I don’t see much evidence of that where I live. Just business as usual. - AIW

Trump's Latest Failure Could Kill 6 million Americans

Thom plus logo Although they haven't yet publicly acknowledged it in such stark terms, it's clear now that the Trump administration has decided pursue a herd immunity strategy to deal with the coronavirus.

Trump's new White House advisor on coronavirus, Scott Atlas, has said it on numerous occasions in multiple venues, and now our Attorney General, Bill Barr, is trying to argue that lockdowns to prevent the spread of the virus are as bad as slavery. Trying to achieve herd immunity in the United States against the coronavirus, assuming it's even possible, would involve between two and 6 million Americans dying.
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a creative thinker and committed small-d democrat. He has dealt with a wide range of topics throughout his life, and this book provides an excellent cross section. The Thom Hartmann Reader will make people both angry and motivated to act."
Dean Baker, economist and author of Plunder and Blunder, False Profits, and Taking Economics Seriously
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
Leonardo DiCaprio, actor, producer, and environmental activist
From Cracking the Code:
"In Cracking the Code, Thom Hartmann, America’s most popular, informed, and articulate progressive talk show host and political analyst, tells us what makes humans vulnerable to unscrupulous propagandists and what we can do about it. It is essential reading for all Americans who are fed up with right-wing extremists manipulating our minds and politics to promote agendas contrary to our core values and interests."
David C. Korten, author of The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community and When Corporations Rule the World and board chair of YES! magazine