Skip to main content

Rebecca Kaplan, on CBS News, describes Elibabeth Warren's interview of Face the Nation Elizabeth Warren warns against a Republican takeover of the Senate." towards the end, she is asked if she is a socialist and she responds, "I don't know where they get that!"  

She warns we do not want a Senate that works like our current House.

"What are they on now, is this their fiftieth vote to repeal Obamacare? That's not how you run a country. We have real issues we need to deal with: minimum wage, student loan debt, equal pay for equal work, a little accountability for the big financial institutions," Warren said in an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday. ...

"This is a crisis that now is not just affecting families that get hurt by it, it's affecting the whole economy," she said. "I don't think the U.S. government should be making tens of billions of dollars in profits off the backs of our students, which is what the current student loan system is doing. And I think most Americans agree with me on that."

Warren was being interviewed about her new book "A Fighting Chance," which solidifies her reputation as a passionate and articulate champion of progressive causes.  

"Washington works for anyone who can hire an army of lobbyists and lawyers. It just doesn't work for regular families," she said. "They've got the concentration of money and power that makes sure that every rule works for those who are rich. What we have on the other side, is we've only got two things. We've got our voices and we've got our votes. And we've got to make sure we get heard. That's the only way we ever get a level playing field."

She denied the book was a first step in a presidential bid and denied, once again, she is running for president in 2016, also saying it is too early to endorse Hillary Clinton or anyone else because we have too many other big issues on the table such as student loans and the minimum wage.

Although not mentioned in this article towards the end of the above video when prodded by Scheiffer "Your critics say you are a socialist" Warren stayed on message by responding "


"I don't know where they get that"

She goes on to give a small speech about economic equality and justice.

(Thanks to Maggiejean who called to my attention that Senator Warren doesn't actually say she is not a socialist, she says, "I do not know where you got that and then pivots." so I made this correction with is more precise, (see update for time stamp.) If someone can suggest how I can fit this into a title change please suggest it.)

She's a wonderful leader and we are lucky to have her representing our interests in the Senate.

Go Senator Elizabeth Warren.

10:21 AM PT: Thanks to doroma for improving title with addition of "against."

3:58 PM PT: Thanks to Maggiejean for clarifying that Senator Warren does not actually say she is not a Socialist. So I made this adjustment to be more precise.

Although not mentioned in this article towards the end of the above video when prodded by Scheiffer "Your critics say you are a socialist" Warren stayed on message by responding "



"I don't know where they get that"
She goes on to give a small speech about economic equality and justice.

I can't see now how I can change the title with so little room. If anyone has a suggestion, please let me know. Thanks MaggieJean.


4:09 PM PT: Changed title in response to maggiejeans correct observation that Senator Warren did not actual deny she was a socialist, but rather pivoted by saying "she didn't know where people got that idea and then made a speech about inequality of wealth distribution.

Originally posted to HoundDog on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:08 AM PDT.

Also republished by Massachusetts Kosmopolitans.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (214+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leftykook, joedemocrat, LaFeminista, side pocket, shrike, skillet, BMScott, doroma, blueoasis, radical simplicity, Paragryne, Gooserock, alypsee1, DRo, Dallasdoc, tardis10, shesaid, k9disc, theKgirls, jrooth, markthshark, leonard145b, Capt Crunch, Chitown Kev, exNYinTX, StillAmused, avsp, Themistoclea, sunny skies, The Lone Apple, Seattle Socialist, quiet in NC, leeleedee, commonmass, Byron from Denver, GAS, unfangus, Siri, OregonWetDog, psnyder, Matt Z, Grandma Susie, JDWolverton, Shockwave, skod, kevinpdx, Words In Action, bleeding blue, camlbacker, tommy2tone, Alumbrados, filkertom, scott on the rock, wasatch, Laconic Lib, Mr Robert, Jackson L Haveck, Radiowalla, mnguitar, Hammerhand, FindingMyVoice, Shelley99, chuck utzman, goodpractice, DeadHead, tofumagoo, 2dot, ask, Glen The Plumber, Flint, Knucklehead, marina, mconvente, SanFernandoValleyMom, cpresley, AnnieR, expatjourno, nocynicism, Catte Nappe, Joffan, jomi, spunhard, hbk, raina, BlueFranco, onionjim, Free Jazz at High Noon, Cat Servant, confitesprit, Trotskyrepublican, Subterranean, maryabein, smileycreek, WheninRome, elwior, PeteZerria, Wood Gas, ban nock, high uintas, HedwigKos, breathe67, buffie, greenbird, historys mysteries, realalaskan, lineatus, Preston S, RepresentUsPlease, AllDemsOnBoard, JVolvo, hooper, wintergreen8694, AverageJoe42, lenzy1000, Habitat Vic, Superpole, MBramble, fugwb, Thomas Twinnings, Chi, Rogneid, barbwires, immigradvocate, Lefty Ladig, glitterscale, Bluesee, clinging to hope, Santa Susanna Kid, bakeneko, Libby Shaw, sidnora, cybersaur, myrmecia gulosa, Heart n Mind, peacestpete, rapala, slowbutsure, ridemybike, CA Nana, MichaelNY, soaglow, bluezen, thomask, TomP, charliehall2, gakke, kerflooey, ladywithafan, dandy lion, ozsea1, twigg, sodalis, BYw, dotsright, Diana in NoVa, Duncan Idaho, myboo, ginimck, triplepoint, pierre9045, dewtx, alice kleeman, peachcreek, willynel, citizen dan, yoduuuh do or do not, JamieG from Md, indres, PsychoSavannah, GeorgeXVIII, Betty Pinson, renbear, Albanius, Nespolo, 207wickedgood, dmhlt 66, ichibon, Tonedevil, begone, ColoTim, quill, tegrat, Youffraita, Jujuree, reflectionsv37, George3, Steveningen, 2thanks, offgrid, Throw The Bums Out, J M F, LamontCranston, kfunk937, BarackStarObama, eeff, kurt, Jon Sitzman, SaintC, BocaBlue, randallt, Sun Tzu, where4art, groupw, The Nose, agitatednactivated, Heimyankel, Ohiodem1, sendtheasteroid, zoom314, Aureas2, dalef77, reasonshouldrule, Bruce Brown, mstep

    Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Comments and Posts intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited.

    by HoundDog on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:08:50 AM PDT

  •  "Warns AGAINST GOP takeover of Senate" Maybe a (6+ / 0-)

    title change?:)

  •  A reminder that "socialist" is a pejorative (22+ / 0-)

    to the vast majority in this country.  

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:15:28 AM PDT

    •  Time to change that (16+ / 0-)

      As I say below - I don't care what kind of "ism" it is - as long as it is fair and it works.

      •  And I say it should remain so... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shrike

        this country was built by Capitalism balanced by a government elected and controlled by its people.  We bring back a govenrment elected and controlled by its people and things will be fine.

        The more you learn, the less you know.

        by quiet in NC on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:56:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because there were no public institutions (7+ / 0-)

          and investments to make that all possible for capitalism...

          I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

          Trust, but verify. - Reagan
          Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

          by Words In Action on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:12:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  nuh-uh (6+ / 0-)

          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

          by UntimelyRippd on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:35:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  capitalism doesn't even FEED everyone (12+ / 0-)

          If the purpose of an economic system is to provide the necessities of life to the members of its society, then capitalism has been a massive failure on a global scale.

          Although it HAS always made a tiny proportion of the population obscenely rich . . . . It is interesting to compare the distribution of wealth in the US today to that of the 1890's, 1920's, 1930's, 1950's, 1960's, 1980's, 1990's, and 2000's . . .

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:02:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You don't get to lie about history (12+ / 0-)
          this country was built by Capitalism
          What a load.

          This country was built by a mix of approaches.

          Hell - even the Green Bay Packers are socialism in current practice.

          Try living in the real world.

        •  I agree that the country, and most of the world (7+ / 0-)

          was built by capitalism.  But we can do better than that now, and we should.  Feudalism accomplished a lot compared to old slave economies, which in turn accomplished more than hunter gatherer societies.  It doesn't mean we should keep those things out of nostalgia.

          •  Hey!!!! A thoughtful repsonse! Thanks. nt (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RabbleON, elwior, tarkangi

            The more you learn, the less you know.

            by quiet in NC on Sun May 11, 2014 at 02:35:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You want a thoughtful response? (0+ / 0-)

              This country's industrial power was founded principally by war, slavery, war, indentured servitude, war, outright theft (usually, via war), and child labor. Our original manufacturing base was built on the production of textiles from southern cotton, financed by traffic in tobacco among other things. Our wars were fought by conscripts, using munitions whose production created the first great explosion in American industrial capacity. Having slaughtered hundreds of thousands of our "own", we turned those same munitions and conscripted soldiers to the task of dispossessing -- nevermind murdering -- the folks who inhabited all of the land between the Ohio and the Pacific. Our western railroads were built by chinese laborers who were treated as utterly disposable, and being thus treated, died abundantly. Our coal was mined by laborers who "owed [their] soul to the company store", trapped in debt bondage. We embarked on an imperial quest, challenging Spain for dominance of North and Central America (worked out well for United Fruit) as well as the South Pacific (worked out well for Dole, as well as various resource extraction industries).

              Mind you, none of this takes issue with your primary assertion, because slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, theft and war are all practices beloved of capitalists, precisely because they maximize capitalism's capacity for exploitation of every person, place and thing that can possibly be exploited.

              To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

              by UntimelyRippd on Mon May 12, 2014 at 08:22:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Capitalism but with a lot of government help (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            quiet in NC, elwior

            at least in the United States.

            •  Yeah, government plays a huge role in capitalism. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              quiet in NC, elwior, PlinytheWelder

              There would be no capitalism without the state enforcing the continued rule of capitalists and maintaining the infrastructure of capitalism.

              •  As required by the US Constitution (0+ / 0-)

                Article I, section 10:

                No State shall ... pass ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts....
                Amendment 5:
                No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
                Amendment 14, section 1:
                No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
                Yup, the Constitution protects the property of capitalists, and enforces contracts. You got  a problem with that?
                •  Yep. I do. (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not claiming my political stance is routed in constitutional principles because I'm not a supporter of capitalism.  In the 18th century a constitution routed in classical liberal capitalism made sense, and was probably inevitable.  That doesn't mean it should outlast the conditions that it was born in.

                  •  What specific changes do you recommend (0+ / 0-)

                    to modify these constitutional protections?

                    •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                      For Amendments 5 and 14, I would replace property with personal property, to differentiate it from capital. There would admittedly be a bit of grey area with real estate, but I think that would leave room to legislate/adjudicate (perhaps differentiating between primary residences and investment property).

                      As for Article I Section 10 - I admit I'm not sure exactly what I would do with that. My first thought was some sort of "public interest" clause allowing for impairing of on contracts for some reason of over riding importance.  But the courts and/or Congress would likely twist this in favor of the powerful without a specific definition of the public interest (which is difficult to define in constitutional language).  I suppose leaving Article I Section 10 as it is wouldn't present too big a problem to change, as long as the public has a right to regulate/remove property.

                      You might be able to find a number of problems with these specific ideas, but I guess the point I was trying to make in a more general sense is that I think property should be subject to democratic power instead of being enshrined constitutionally.

                      •  I would certainly add dramatic constraints on (0+ / 0-)

                        the ownership of property, and perquisites of such ownership, by anything other than a live, natural-born human being.

                        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                        by UntimelyRippd on Mon May 12, 2014 at 08:24:33 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  What I was actually referring to (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RabbleON

                were the many government subsidies used to help private entities run banks, canals, turnpikes, railroads, and the like.  Today we call these arrangements "Public-Private Partnerships" as if they are some newfangled thing. But in fact they are as old as the Republic. Some examples are the First Bank of the United States, the Erie Canal, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, all the transcontinental railroads save one, and two of the three New York City subway systems.

        •  Actually there was economic pluralism (5+ / 0-)

          until the capitalists "won".

          The whole idea of a commons -- which was a non-controversial fundamental to the Founders and Framers -- is anathema -- "socialism" -- to laissez faire capitalists, to whom everything is for sale, including "religion".

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Sun May 11, 2014 at 03:10:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Socialism and Capitalism weren't viewed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          as opposites in their day.  But as kissing cousins in the fight of the old aristocracy.

          Thus, they have things in common, including recognizing that at least some things should be a pubic monopoly, rather than a private one  --  like, for instance, having a national currency.

        •  No, it wasn't. Women and POC's were "its people," (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, UntimelyRippd

          too. Women and POC's weren't allowed to elect or control this country's government. Much of this country wasn't built by capitalism; it was built by slaves. Minorities are people, despite what white men might assume, and they deserve every bit as much credit for building this country as do any white men in wigs.

          •  Oh, don't get me wrong... (0+ / 0-)

            when people like Sarah Palin and her butt lickers start calling themselves the "real Americans", my first response is to tell them there is a 95% chance a black person can trace their roots to ancestors landing in America before another white person can.  
            And, I would aargue that slavery was the epitome of Capitalism.  

            The more you learn, the less you know.

            by quiet in NC on Mon May 12, 2014 at 09:25:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Heh. (12+ / 0-)

      Communism is more popular than Congress.

      I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

      Trust, but verify. - Reagan
      Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

      by Words In Action on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:13:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Among those under 30 (14+ / 0-)

      Socialism is pretty much in a dead-heat.

      As if they continue to be screwed, and they will--because of the huge disconnect between those who have fought their way through a dozen grand compromises to get to the upper-most inner circles of public and private decision-making, and the people who live with the decisions--they will become even more disenchanted with postmodern, crony, kleptocratic capitalism.

      I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

      Trust, but verify. - Reagan
      Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

      by Words In Action on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:15:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Only because we concede the narrative (12+ / 0-)

      Even "liberal" was pejorative these last 30 years, though I think the tide is turning there.

      Whomever defines the words controls the debate.

      I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony Everything good a man can be, a dog already is. - pajoly

      by pajoly on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:41:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What are you basing this on? (0+ / 0-)
        though I think the tide is turning there.

        New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

        by AlexDrew on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:49:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nothing really, other than my own perception (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lunachickie, elwior, Tool

          As the Right has become demonstrably crazier, moderates and independents not fixated on social issues have become to reject the Right. With every insane lie and pronouncement, the Right loses more credibility on the other things it says. 20 years ago, even ten, Rush had a much wider audience and people were more likely to buy in to his comments. I think the number of those willing to align themselves with the Right is dwindling, and with that a sense that those who have been historically against countering the Right -- liberals -- must not be so bad after all.

          If conservative = right = crazy then liberal most = sane.

          I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony Everything good a man can be, a dog already is. - pajoly

          by pajoly on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:04:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior

            "With every insane lie and pronouncement, the Right loses more credibility on the other things it says"

            If that was true, the party wouldn't even exist now.  Is it really a 'conservative' party?  So it should be "After every 1,000th insane lie and pronouncement, the 'Right' loses slightly less credibility with its true believers..."

            "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." -James Madison

            by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:28:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  That's because Conservative wing-nuts do not know (9+ / 0-)

      the meaning; therefore, when an "ism" is thrown out as red meat, they snarl...they have no real understanding as a basis to judge the accurateness of the word"s use.

      Case in point...a small business man was equating many things to "socialism"; when I pinned him down to define the word he was using, he fumbled around but finally came up with, "when government does for people what they can do for themselves."  After explaining that he had just defined the opposite of "rugged individualism" instead of "socialism," I shared the two-part definition that my 10th grade students learn.

      How many reporters and "commenters" can accurately define the word?  The next liberal who is asked this kind of question needs to say, "before I answer that, I need to know what definition you attach to the word..."  Let the questioner squirm on that...plus provides an opportunity to get the correct definition in front of a wrongly-informed public.

      Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

      by ranton on Sun May 11, 2014 at 02:21:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, what the heck is that about? (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Tool, mkor7, lenzy1000, Tonedevil, katiec
      "Your critics say you are a socialist"
      Even if she was ... so what?!

      Why is it automatically just taken as a given that "socialist" is a negative -- among both Republicans and Democrats?

      There's never any examination about what that actually means, or what different kinds of "socialists" there are.  It is apparently just taken as a synonym for "communist".

      •  Under the First Amendment, everyone has the (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        niemann, elwior, mkor7, ozsea1, Tonedevil

        right to believe whatever they want.  That includes believing in Communism or one or another of the variants of Socialism.

        And yet the US -- which loves to tell itself stories about how it's the freest and greatest country on the planet -- drums alternatives to monopoly capitalism out of the debate, out of the political arena.

        By contrast, Britain, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden -- al of whom are staunch allies of the US -- are monarchies, with democratically elected parliaments, and socialist economies.  Yet are not tyrannies.

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Sun May 11, 2014 at 03:19:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I seem to recall reading that the countries (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, mkor7, katiec

          with more socialistic systems are the ones doing the best after the economic collapse a few years ago.

          If I remember right, that was a response to Bill O'Reilly ranting about how all those [sneeeer] European (i.e. SOCIALISTIC!!!!) countries' economies are collapsing and going to austerity, etc.

          And someone pointed out that the countries that are doing worst are the ones that are ... well, that are the most like the U.S. ... while the more socialistic Democracies of Northern Europe are doing the best.

        •  Britain, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all have (8+ / 0-)

          capitalist economies, and social welfare governments. There is a big difference. National health is a basic right, so it is run by the government. There are private health companies too, that make a profit just like any other capitalist venture.  

          While Norway has chosen to nationalize oil and gas, it is mostly privately owned in Denmark.

          Taxes are the big difference. They pay for institutionalized day-care, which allows women an equal footing in the job market, but it is the unions that have brought about the 5 to 7 weeks of vacation a year, up to 240 sick leave days in a year, 7 to 12 months payed maternity/paternity leave, and pension plans for all besides social security.

          A parliament does not equal socialism, and for that matter neither does a strong union movement.

          They do however have the ability to counteract the worst evils of capitalism.  

          Politifact, the lie of the year is. - Yoda

          by gakke on Sun May 11, 2014 at 05:33:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't say a parliament -- a democratically (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior

            elected parliament -- equals socialism.  That point is to counter the simpleton's incomprehension of the fact that the fact that they have monarchies does not make them tyrannies.

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:22:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  @Niemann...That was my exact (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        niemann, elwior, lenzy1000, ozsea1, Tonedevil

        reaction as well. Even if she is, was, going to be, ....so what? I have a far more positive view of socialism than I do of unfettered capitalism. Considering that Social Security, Welfare, and our entire social safety net is derived from mixed policies that are rooted in socialism - I am more inclined to say capitalism has failed dramatically while socialistic programs have saved this country from having a vastly more unequal (than it already is) society.

        It reminds me of all the republicans who call the President and Muslim and all the people who run around screaming " NO HE's NOT!" It is true that he is not but I am always puzzled and frankly want to ask those people - Even if he was.......

        so what?

        She needs to respond the next time someone asks her this question by asking what they mean by their definition of socialist and I don't give a fuck if a vast majority of the country considers that word a pejorative. The ones who do are never going to vote for a democrat in the general election in the first place. Time to take a stand and take back our language. Conservatives  are trying to do to progressive what they did to liberal while third way shit heads are trying to co-opt the label for themselves and make people believe that progressive = third way.  

        “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell

        by Tool on Sun May 11, 2014 at 04:23:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That is a legacy of the Cold War (7+ / 0-)

        when being "pink" was practically as bad as being "red."

        I really think if this country hadn't closed its collective ears, eyes and minds against anything the wasn't a free-market free-for-all, for so long, we would all be better off. For one thing we would have fixed our healthcare system back in the 40's when the U.K. was fixing theirs.

      •  and just last week (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, ozsea1

        she was accused of being a Republican. The Sunday morning shows sure have a strange set of questions for Warren. They have to pursue a Hillary endorsement as well. I guess they don't want to talk about her book.

        Some people have short memories

        by lenzy1000 on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:47:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  La Liz....Massachusetts SENIOR senator. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, commonmass, elwior, buffie
  •  Bob Schieffer: (9+ / 0-)
    My take on it is that Washington is broken
    ...so fuckit, lets just give up.  

    How does that thinking make it on the airwaves these days, much less make him sound like the most reasonable commentator out there?

    The more you learn, the less you know.

    by quiet in NC on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:38:04 AM PDT

    •  The people inside it today (9+ / 0-)

      cannot fix it.

      All of the people in it--with few exceptions--are setting aside the mission they were chosen to serve in order to serve the oligarchy to get favors and better paying jobs.

      They won't fix it.

      And we won't fix it through electoral politics alone.

      There is a crisis of authority. Trust is largely gone for the elites in both the public and private sector. They are not doing anything to fix it. The unelected Party establishment is doing nothing to fix it. They all lack the moral imagination and willpower to do it.

      I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

      Trust, but verify. - Reagan
      Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

      by Words In Action on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:20:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They don't "lack" (7+ / 0-)

        moral imagination and willpower. Something else has either become more important to them than--or sits in the way of their--demonstrating the moral imagination and willpower they actually possessed as people before they were elected to office.

        The rest of your comment is essentially spot-on, though. They are not fixing it, and we



        ...won't fix it through electoral politics alone.

        There is a crisis of authority. Trust is largely gone for the elites in both the public and private sector. They are not doing anything to fix it. The unelected Party establishment is doing nothing to fix it.

        "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

        by lunachickie on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:29:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, HoundDog, lunachickie, ozsea1

          I think we're saying the same thing. I think they do lack moral imagination and willpower because they are enmeshed in a system in which the ostensible mission of serving the people has been subverted into a platform for peddling influence, culling favors, securing synecures, getting filthy rich.

          To go down that road, anyone but a sociopath has to go through a series of compromises in order to climb the ladder through increasingly higher levels of influence and money. In the end they are not the same person, they see things differently, are basically disconnected from the people about whom they make decisions, and routinely engage in unethical and amoral behavior if not thought. It becomes impossible for them to reject the system they have mastered.

          Whether it's the DOJ giving Wall St. a pass or Wall St. laughing about their scams in e-mails and office skits...
          And there's always a whole culture around stifling and ostracizing those who don't go along.

          Another angle on it is a person who has a cash business and pockets some or all of the money without paying taxes and/or pays employees under the table to avoid employer contributions. They can never stop.

          Basically, we all have a price. As long as the system meets or exceeds it, people will usually swallow their principles and accommodate. And they usually don't stop. I did, after fifteen years, when the 2000 election basically broke what remaining faith I had in the system and people on both sides: Republicans for cheating and Democrats for letting it happen. I left corporate management and went into small business, where I focused a lot on service and equitable pay, employee respect, etc.

          I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

          Trust, but verify. - Reagan
          Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

          by Words In Action on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:02:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I tipping both of you. This isn't just because I (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, lunachickie, ozsea1

            like both of you or I'm wishy washy - yes, both of those or true, but how can one not love this place and both of you, when we can find on a lazy Sunday afternoon two people deeply engaged in this debate


            They don't "lack"

            (4+ / 0-)
            moral imagination and willpower. Something else has either become more important to them than--or sits in the way of their--demonstrating the moral imagination and willpower they actually possessed as people before they were elected to office.

            Countered with great vigor with:

            I think they do lack moral imagination and willpower because they are enmeshed in a system in which the ostensible mission of serving the people has been subverted into a platform for peddling influence, culling favors, securing synecures, getting filthy rich.
            LOL. I've seen enough of these romantic comedies of the Turner Classic channels to suggest, in the nicest possible way that you two get a room as soon as possible because I can already predict what is going to happen soon.

            In fact, with your permission, I've already worked up a script proposal and have a call into my agent to set up a pitch for a movie on Oxygen, Netflix.

            I',m trying to get Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan to play the two of you -  two feisty new liberal arts professors at Berkely who have trouble finding apartments due to skyrocketing rents in the area end up in renting apartments across the hole in this run down tenement complex where they have to share an external laundry and bathroom.

            Both are willful, articulate, and used to getting their way but soon clash when he keep leaving up the toilet seat and she keeps hanging up her panty hose in the laundry room.....

            Please, don't get mad, I'm just saying what everyone else is seeing. And, I mean this in the nicest possible way. ....
            :-)

            Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Comments and Posts intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited.

            by HoundDog on Sun May 11, 2014 at 02:05:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Heh (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HoundDog, elwior

              Come on, dawg, it would be darned nice to see actual rebuttal to the meat of the comments themselves ;)

              "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

              by lunachickie on Sun May 11, 2014 at 03:53:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not getting in the middle of this one (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                elwior

                lunachickie.

                But I might be induced to put up a poll if you could remind me who these people "they" are who either do or don't lake political will and willpower because either "something else either has or hasn't become more important to them" or not, or "they
                I think they do lack moral imagination and willpower enmeshed in a system in which the ostensible mission of serving the people has been subverted into a platform for peddling influence, culling favors, securing synecures, getting filthy rich," or not.

                Could it be both, or neither?

                What if their political will and moral imagination has been compromised by eating so much pie, that they can't even get off the sofa, and because like me they are getting older and can not even remember what the original question was.

                I''m sorry Lunachickie I didn't realize this was a real hot debate between the two of you or I wouldnt have jumped in the middle of this.

                I thought the two of you were playing. Because from the outside,  for just a moment,  the little piece of the exchange I saw, and from the vigor the two of you were putting into to it did look remarkable like an Alan Alda play.

                Or what was the name of that other move that stared Jack Nichelson and Diane Keaton both in their 60s,  She writes a play that has this one scene. ... well I digress

                Please accept my apology.  

                Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Comments and Posts intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited.

                by HoundDog on Sun May 11, 2014 at 04:34:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Seems to me that the multiple paragraphs (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  HoundDog, elwior

                  after this line sort of laid waste to...something you said:

                  I'm not getting in the middle of this one
                  I guess.
                  Please accept my apology.  
                  Sure, assuming you're apologizing for not commenting on the actual content of others' comments, instead seeing fit to come up with these repetitious, rather dense and patronizing allusions to recent Hollywood theater fare. Just...wow...

                  "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                  by lunachickie on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:13:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Fair enough lunachickie. I see your point. My (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    elwior, lunachickie

                    difficulty is I really do not know what the difference of opinion between you and WOM is about.

                    I am sorry. In retrospect I admit my comments were glib and disrespectful. Given the original light topic it did not occur to me that people would have found something to be this seriously hot with each other about. Especially on the middle of Mother's Day on Sunday. I let my own mood, totally cloud my judgement.

                    I've been around here long enough to know better.

                    Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Comments and Posts intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited.

                    by HoundDog on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:27:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree with your assessment lunachickie. You (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    elwior, lunachickie

                    even gave me a fair heads up and I still didn't get it. A total failure of perception and sensitivity on my part. and a worthless apology. Sorry.

                    Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Comments and Posts intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited.

                    by HoundDog on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:54:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Hi, after agreeing with lunachickie's assessment (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                elwior

                of my stupid glib joke I reviewed the concept flow so I could contribute a more substantive comment, as she rightly requests,  and again find points in both points of view I agree with.

                We better find way we can change this systems from with with imagination and willpower because we do not seem to have an outside system we can rely on to come save us.

                How exactly we do this I do not know yet.

                The writing and collective thinking we do here is my current best attempt but I would agree with anyone who challenges saying we need to do more than this.

                As a self criticism, perhaps I  preach too much to the choir staying within my comfort zone here. I  need to move out some to wider audiences engaging people who are not progressive Democrats trying to convert them to our views.

                Building on Lunachickie's point:

                Something else has either become more important to them than--or sits in the way of their--demonstrating the moral imagination and willpower they actually possessed as people before they were elected to office.
                research has shown that liberal and conservative process information differently but I believe both groups have sets of beliefs,  paradigms, and conclusions, we already lean to and selective glean data, or sway analysis to align with our preconceived belief systems.

                This may be a similar point to what WOM is suggesting.

                So, perhaps, our challenge may not be a lack of will and imagination as much as us figuring out what are the basic building block components of our progressive liberal Democratic worldview, and how to we convey and teach this and the values that go with it to others?

                Not at the level of facts, accusations, derisive put downs, or character assassination of their leaders, which I spend a fair amount of my time on, but some other kind of communication, or "something else, the could be a common bond and building block of a better future for all people that would simultaneously bring us together at unconscious levels and at the levels of shared experience and values without having to even have debates or arguments.

                For example, energy independence and self-reliance through solar and wind energy, as well as conservation seem to me to be excellent examples of this. So are community and individual food production and security.

                Tea Party folks are quite attracted to the independence, freedom from government control, and mega-corporate utility control individually owned solar arrays, combined with conservation gives individual or community homeowners just as are progressives.

                Mahatma Gandhi'a essays on self reliance being a pre-requisite to true freedom, is an example of applying "moral imagination and willpower" in the service of achieving  individual and community freedom to help people who have been trapped and "enmeshed in a system in which the ostensible mission of serving the people has been subverted into a platform for peddling influence, culling favors, securing synecures, getting filthy rich" as exemplified by the British occupation of India, transcend that "emeshment" and achieving democracy in against a system that must have seemed even much more oppressive and hopeless than the one we are in now.  

                And, in a way that has appeal to both progressive liberal Democrats and Tea Party survivalists. So I offer this example as a possible example of how I see possible elements of both lunachickie's and Words in Action combining to produce a breakthrough in how we approach political interaction with our current political adversaries.

                Using myself as an example, could this mean that comparing the time I spend writing scathing attacks against Governor's Christie, Walker, Scott, Perry, McCrory, and Senators Paul and Rubio may not have as high a return on investment measured in long-term advancement of our social system towards better futures, as my writing trying to accelerate solar energy, wind generation, conservation, other renewable energy and sustainable food production?

                Which seemed like a funny thought, which lead me to make the silly and stupid joke about the movie since I was in a good mood about to call my Mom to wish here a happy Mothers Day and tell we found a house in Florida.

                I'll have to think about this more. It might be too much of a stretch. What do you think Lunachickie and WOM?  

                 

                Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Comments and Posts intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited.

                by HoundDog on Sun May 11, 2014 at 08:04:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  I don't care what kind of "ism" it is (17+ / 0-)

    As long as it is fair and it works.

    Viewing socialism as inherently evil is stupid.

  •  You know, when you listen to her... (22+ / 0-)

    she has almost the exact same complaints Re: banks and big business/big government, as the Tea Party--the biggest difference is she wants to do something about that shit and the Tea Party just wants to shoot something or stand around pissing and whining.

    The more you learn, the less you know.

    by quiet in NC on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:45:34 AM PDT

  •  "I don't know where they get that" (6+ / 0-)

    its all right here, Elizabeth (ignore the date it was written, BTW):

    No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.

    There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.

    But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.

    "....No Compromise in the Defense of Mother Earth!"

    by Seattle Socialist on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:48:11 AM PDT

    •  in defense of socialism.. (5+ / 0-)
      We in America already have moved very far indeed toward some aspects of state socialism, as the needs and complexities of a vast urban society require types of regulation and control that were quite unnecessary in earlier times.
      http://www.greenpeace.org/...

      "....No Compromise in the Defense of Mother Earth!"

      by Seattle Socialist on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:55:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is hardly a confession. (3+ / 0-)

      In fact she uses a term popular with libertarians, "statism" which is not exactly feel-good one.  

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:56:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  i was just teasing her. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      Elizabeth Warren already knew more about the Powell Memo than I do like 25 years ago. She went to Harvard, they all get taught about it there (actually Powell went to Harvard too if I am not mistaken)

      I was just getting her attention to tell her that I am originally from Newark, NJ, she used to live there too. I love her for that, and everything else.

      "....No Compromise in the Defense of Mother Earth!"

      by Seattle Socialist on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:32:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Founders/Framers were "statists" -- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      the were not only pro-gov't, they established gov't.

      They were not "Libertarians" who don't know how to spell "Nihilists".

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Sun May 11, 2014 at 03:28:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not at all by today's accepted definition (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auron renouille, elwior

        Statism is  

        The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
        The key word there is "economic".   Even today central economic planning is verboten.  No one would tell Ford how many cars to produce, for example.

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Sun May 11, 2014 at 03:43:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Any form of regulation of the economy is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          "verboten" to the extremists who oppose "statism".

          Yet we have economic regulation -- or we did, until the Glass-Stegal Act was repealed, the result of which was predictable: economic crash.  

          Glass-Stegeal, Sherman Anti-Trust Act -- those are centralized economic regulation, which I hope were planned.

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Sun May 11, 2014 at 04:21:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Regulation is perfectly acceptable in capitalism (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior

            See FA Hayek, the premier Austrian economist.  But regulation is not central planning just as the early whiskey taxes was not.

            It is only our right-wing nutjobs who have lately espoused tearing down all regulations.  

            "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

            by shrike on Sun May 11, 2014 at 05:48:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If the Congress is not centralized Federal (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior

              power, and its regulations are not planned centralized regulation, then I don't know what they are.

              This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

              by JJustin on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:26:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Regulation is not economic central planning. (0+ / 0-)
                Economic planning is a mechanism for economic coordination contrasted with the market mechanism. There are various types of planning procedures and ways of conducting economic planning. As a coordinating mechanism for socialism and an alternative to the market, planning is defined as a direct allocation of resources and is contrasted with the indirect allocation of the market.
                (Wikipedia - central planning)

                Central planning is the government telling the means of production how much of every item to make and when to make it.  It is necessary in Socialist countries.  I.E. "Statism".

                In the US markets decide inventory and pricing.

                "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

                by shrike on Sun May 11, 2014 at 07:04:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  . (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior, ozsea1, katiec

              Article 1, Section 8

              Section 8.

              "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

              "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

              Note" globalization doesn't jive with regulating commerce.

              "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." -James Madison

              by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:51:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  That's because people don't understand (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          that in granting Congress sole authority to both issue our national currency, and regulate it's value, the founders placed the state at the center of markets.

          Try having a market without a consistent unit of account.

          Try regulating the value of a currency without both spending some into existence, and taxing some away when necessary.

          Markets are the creature of the state, because money is nothing but a system of laws, and someone has to both issue the laws, and have the authority to enforce them.

  •  My only criticism of her (if she were a candidate) (4+ / 0-)

    would be for her to directly confront this socialist smear:

    "Look, I am all for private enterprise.  But these corporations need to be regulated so they don't finish destroying the middle class whether its pollution or another financial crisis"

    Done.  On message.

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:48:23 AM PDT

    •  Except that that it truest part of what (11+ / 0-)

      she has to say and it resonates with people.

      Fact is Wall St. created the '08 disaster, wiped out trillions in wealth, financially murdered millions of people, with the biggest, most ruthless ponzi scam in the history of the world. And they have been commiting more scams ever since, first to recover their losses and now to just get back to the business of chasing the highest, most golden rung of the ladder through endless floors of inner circles, regardless of who gets hurt and by how much.

      I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

      Trust, but verify. - Reagan
      Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

      by Words In Action on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:28:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So the fact that we have controlled at least (0+ / 0-)

        2/3 of the government since Jan. 20th 2009 means nothing?

        New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

        by AlexDrew on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:36:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah. Sure "we" have. (9+ / 0-)

          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

          by UntimelyRippd on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:38:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So what does Dem control mean/look like to you? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior

            New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

            by AlexDrew on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:51:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, first of all it would involve (7+ / 0-)

              Democrats who actually embraced the Democratic Party platform, were in touch with their constitutent's need, focused on those needs instead of the oligarhc's, and in general cared about democracy.

              Studies have shown that neither lower or middle classes have much of any substantive representation by either Party.

              We will NEVER reverse the dying of the Middle Class with this corrupt system--in which most who enter become instantly re-programmed into peddling favors for perks, fame, and sinecures. NEVER.

              They have to be coerced into doing it (fixing the system, first by taking the influence of money and jobs, etc. out) and not through elections, which themselves are too corrupt to attract people who are not already either corrupt or corruptible. And the violent ones on the Right might well take it on before the non-violent ones on the Left can get enough support...

              I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

              Trust, but verify. - Reagan
              Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

              by Words In Action on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:10:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  By your definition, Dems will never have control. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                auron renouille

                New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                by AlexDrew on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:32:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not unless the unelected portion of (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  elwior, Free Jazz at High Noon

                  the Party gets organized and takes control of the Party. No. They won't.

                  Instead, we will circle the oligarchy into decline and ultimately some kind of violent upheaval, most likely undertaken by Bundy bunch.

                  I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

                  Trust, but verify. - Reagan
                  Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

                  by Words In Action on Sun May 11, 2014 at 01:32:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Chuck Schumer, btw, is the one who killed (5+ / 0-)

                  the effort to resolve Hedge fund manager income taxation. Obama was ready, Pelosi was ready. Schumer made and distributed a million dollars and it was buried. And of course "we haven't had the votes" ever since.

                  That would have been a significant step if the Democrats wanted to actually take a role in addressing the crisis of authority we have, in which no one outside a relatively small, sycophantic, fawning, favor culling establishment trusts our public or private sector elites.

                  Schumer's credibility is the thing in doubt, to 95% of the population. And while he's fine with that and perhaps you are to, it's a recipe for disaster. Because he's not making healthy decisions for America. He's not. And America is sick and the middle class is dying. That's not going to end well for anyone who can't spend the rest of their lives in an airplane or some remote gated community.

                  I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

                  Trust, but verify. - Reagan
                  Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

                  by Words In Action on Sun May 11, 2014 at 01:37:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  "Democrats" never ever were in control (4+ / 0-)

                  They were "in majority" of the government when income tax, Social Security, and the Civil Rights Act became law but even then there were plenty of "Democrats" firmly against their passage.
                  The real power of the progressive movement in the 20th century came from very rich and powerful people who strong-armed the government into providing for the common good. FDR, JFK, and LBJ were all from very influential and powerful environments of extreme political power - families and friends and "favor repayers" that made up a dense network permeating the political and economic structure of the US. In the early 2oth there were also powerful capitalists who forced change with lots of money, like Carnegie, Pullman, and Ford (tho  the last two guys went bad eventually).
                  That was not "grass roots", "us little people" "our individual vote means something" politics. It was the big guns of the liberal capitalistic establishment fighting on equal footing and with no pulled punches against the greedy oligarchs of the capitalistic establishment.
                  Unless that happens again -- unless we get dynasties like the Kennedys or billionaires like Bill Gates and Richard Branson to convert all their money and time to heavy political influence -- then you better get used to the way life is and is going in the US. "Voting" is just a illusion to keep the masses thinking they can change things. If that illusion goes, then the armed rebellion occurs -- and the rich know it.

                  Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizam!

                  by fourthcornerman on Sun May 11, 2014 at 02:38:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Just for starters, it means that major policy (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior, karma13612, NWTerriD, Choco8

              initiatives begin with a discussion amongst ALL of the Democrats about where the starting point will be for negotiations with the Death Party.

              It means not trying to work with Death Party leadership when that leadership is clearly committed to national failure for partisan gain.

              It means voiding the various "comity" traditions of Senate procedure, given, again, that the Death Party's delegates in the Senate are committed, not to governing, but to subverting. And I don't mean finally saying, after 5 years of this BS, "Okay, so we're going to put some restrictions on the use of the filibuster." I mean, after 5 months of it going nuclear across the board. No more bullshit "blue slips" for judicial appointments. No more filibusters on appointments. No. Fucking. Mas. The President nominates. The Senate schedules hearings. The Senate votes. Period.

              It means every Democrat in every context at every opportunity calls out the entire Death Party for their seditious refusal to execute the offices to which they have been elected. "We" don't question their motives, "we" denounce their motives, always, everywhere.

              To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

              by UntimelyRippd on Sun May 11, 2014 at 01:46:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Let's start w/filibuster-proof Senate majority. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior

              Which I think we had for 3 weeks in late summer/early fall of 2009, but only if you count Lieberman as a Dem, which would be kind of silly, seeing as how he was just coming off of being McCain's right-hand man and presumed Veep choice for the entirety of  2008.

              Because there's no way you can say the Dems have "control" of anything that Rs have the power to block.

              "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

              by NWTerriD on Sun May 11, 2014 at 04:51:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  What did Schumer mean by "Left-wing"? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          Was he reflected the meaning of that proffered by the person who was questioning him?  The right-wing meaning?

          I doubt he was actually engaged in the same politically illiterate over-simplification which reduces everything to "Left" and "Right" without the moderate middle, which is where the vast majority is located.

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Sun May 11, 2014 at 03:34:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  These are my words below. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Words In Action, DiesIrae, elwior

        "Look, I am all for private enterprise.  But these corporations need to be regulated so they don't finish destroying the middle class whether its pollution or another financial crisis"

        That is what I suggest her answer to be in response to the "socialist" barb.

        Yes, I know it SOUNDS like her words.  But they are mine.

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:57:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What are you talking about? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, ozsea1

      You seem confused.

      "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

      by lunachickie on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:35:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If we were more like the Democratic Socialist (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, ozsea1

      countries of Europe, my impression is we would probably be doing a lot better in general.  I sure wish we could have a little more socialism.

      Why does it always have to be a black-and-white duality in our culture:  Either pure, out-of-control Capitalism ... or Stalin-like totalitarian communism?  

      Apparently there is no possibility for any kind of in-between ... a balance of the two?

      I wish she had mentioned the kind of socialism and government interference in the marketplace that corporate America absolutely LOVES:  government bailouts, government subsidies, tax loopholes combined with huge tax refunds, government research being given to pharmaceutical companies ...

      •  Granting only private banks access to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, niemann

        our national payments system (to our central bank), while forcing the public to pay private banks access to the same.

        We could have the post office act as a simple depository bank and clearing house.

        Let the private banks do what they claim:  Be independent of government.

  •  Typical Corporate Questioning (13+ / 0-)

    The socialist question was right out of the corporate playbook. I wouldn't be surprised if the fossilized Sumner Redstone thought it up.

    And as the song and dance begins, the children play at home with needles, needles and pins.

    by The Lone Apple on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:50:04 AM PDT

  •  Warren is a Republican's (14+ / 0-)

    worst nightmare... a smart woman.

    (consider the types they dredge up from the bottom of the sump — Bachmann, Ayotte, McMorris-Rodgers, Blackburn, Palin, Foxx, et al)

    Socialist?

    The GOP insult: "Are you now — or have you ever been — intelligent or coherent?"

  •  These days, anything to the left of the John (18+ / 0-)

    Birch Society is considered Communist.

    Strange times we live in.

    Sen. Warren has already become a national treasure. Somewhere, Teddy and his brothers are smiling.

    SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

    by commonmass on Sun May 11, 2014 at 10:57:25 AM PDT

  •  As far as I can tell HoundDog (8+ / 0-)

    she did not say she was not a socialist. As soon as she says that it becomes a Nixon line: "I am not a crook."

    "Your critics say you are a socialist"

    "I don't know where they get that"

    Please don't put words in her mouth, especially in the title. Framing matters.

    The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    by maggiejean on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:10:35 AM PDT

    •  That is a fair point. She didn't exactly reject (0+ / 0-)

      the accusation.

      So she looks like a slippery politician instead with a non-answer.  

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:15:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was about to say almost exactly the same words (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maggiejean, elwior, jplanner

      as shrike. I would think that maybe Shrike was anticipating that and making fun of me, but then deviates from what I'd say, in the second sentence, so I have to assume this is just  coincidence.

      So, as I was saying.

      You make a fair point maggiejean, which I am glad to concede. That sentence didn't reflect any great level of thought on my part I was just quickly framing her quotes, and would gladly rewrite it to be more accurate by saying

      "When prodded by Scheiffer "if she was a socialist," Warren stayed on message by responding "I don't know where they got that."

      I don't know shrike well enough to know if the second sentence below is meant to be a "harsh indictment," or a "protective caution" and I'm not trying to start anything up,

      So she looks like a slippery politician instead with a non-answer.
      So I'll grant the benefit of the doubt, since Warren seems like such a good person, and such a rare, guileless, noble, altruistic, kind hearted leader so truly dedicated to advancing the common good of the average citizen and working person who have so few other champions that it would seem unlikely that a person with shrike's 73410 UID would be lurking here so long only to jump up to tear her down now.  

      I'd make this change right now maggiejean but I have to call my Mom first and I'm running out of energy. Please give me a chance to wish my Mom Happy Mother's Day and get cranked up on coffee and I will try to improve this post and title to be more reflective of Senator Warren's actual statements.

      To the readers I am sorry I did not concentrate with more precision to more accurately report her comments. Senator Warren is one of my absolutely most favorite of our progressive leaders along with Senator Bernie Sanders so I would never want to do anything to detract from letting her excellently chosen and delivered words speak for themselves.

      Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Comments and Posts intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited.

      by HoundDog on Sun May 11, 2014 at 02:24:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  HoundDog, this is a wonderful (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, HoundDog

        post. Having said that I must also say that I'm old enough to remember "I am not a crook" and how that idea registered. Republicans are spending time trying to paint that picture of Sen. Warren, no need for us to help.

        Is there anyone you know who doesn't, to this day, think of Christine O'Donnell without thinking "I am not a witch." ;-)

        The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.― Neil deGrasse Tyson

        by maggiejean on Sun May 11, 2014 at 02:29:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Christine O'Donnell No, I believe it is common (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maggiejean, elwior

          knowledge she is a witch.

          Hasn't even the American Society of Witches acknowledged that? I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere maggiejean.   (humor alert.)

          Your point is well taken and I agree with it in any case.

          Thanks for commenting.

          It sure has been a pleasure chatting with so many friends today. Last week I hit bottom of the worst depression I've had in years. I don't know why, it just has been steadily descending on me over the last few months as sometimes happens.

          When this happens, I just grit my teeth and slog through, feeling a painful emptiness inside I've tried to keep posting but it as seemed sometimes as if I was just a ghost here at the keyboard and the real HD was gone.  

          Today, I can feel that I seem to be "rematerializing" back from where ever it was that I dissolved too out to.  

          You always give me a happy feeling when you stop by, maggiejean.  I hope you do not mind when I try to make these silly jokes with you.

          It cheers me up, that you are kind enough to let me pretend that I'm like a funny guy. Sort of like at faculty club - standing in the corner trying to make somewhat light-hearted conversation or occasionally maybe an honestly funny joke but everyone likes enough that they play along with each other and drop by and say hello.

          Thanks maggie.

          Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Comments and Posts intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited.

          by HoundDog on Sun May 11, 2014 at 03:51:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry to hear you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HoundDog, elwior

            suffer from depression. It's not uncommon I know. You are such a great diarist and I'm sure you've noticed I'm a big fan.

            If you ever feel down, I'll do what I can to help pick you up.

            The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.― Neil deGrasse Tyson

            by maggiejean on Sun May 11, 2014 at 04:22:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks you already have. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior, maggiejean

              Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Comments and Posts intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited.

              by HoundDog on Sun May 11, 2014 at 04:35:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I so agree about her character-very sincere (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HoundDog, elwior
  •  Elizabeth is pragmatic (10+ / 0-)

    When the government does better she goes with that.  When private industry does a go job, she would support that.

    She obviously doesn't think the financial industry is working well so she wants to re-introduce Glass-Steagall among other measures.  But she is not calling for a government take over.

    Minimum wage, student loans, inequality.  She's got my number.

    Capitalism but regulated capitalism.  A level playing field.

    She repeated twice "I am not running", she didn't say "I will not run", a nuance that gives me hope.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:18:10 AM PDT

    •  Personally, I think 2016 is not the Presidential (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shockwave, jplanner

      year for Sen. Warren. I think she would be perceived--wrongly--as some kind of extension of the Obama administration, something polls at least right now show people don't want. But I don't think they want the GOP, either.

      I would hate to see her blow a good shot at the White House.

      Then again, it really is too early to say what the mood will be like next year.

      SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

      by commonmass on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:25:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd go for (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shockwave, elwior, ozsea1

        Robert Reich or someone like him.

        Sanders would be great and I will work for him if he runs, but...

        Reich has good credentials, just not sure if the country is ready to elect a President under 5'6. Heck, 5'8 is probably a stre-tccchhhh... ;^)

        I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

        Trust, but verify. - Reagan
        Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

        by Words In Action on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:32:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reich supported NAFTA and other Clinton (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shrike, elwior

          policies. Are you okay with that?

          New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

          by AlexDrew on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:53:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If he's learned from it, and I believe he has, (6+ / 0-)

            YES.

            I think he's wrapped his head around globalization since.

            It is hard to see these things from the ground-level when you are working in the penthouse...

            I think he's mostly come around. I mean, listen to him vs. Obama for the past 6 years... It's basically the difference between Krugman and Obama...

            Also, Reich wouldn't be a noob in the White House.

            I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

            Trust, but verify. - Reagan
            Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

            by Words In Action on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:13:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  2020 is too late for Warren (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shockwave, jplanner

        She's 64.  If she waits any longer she'll be in the Reagan age range.  

        Anyways it's all moot because she doesn't want the job, and I don't blame her.  It just sucks that we can't have a presidential candidate who is an actual progressive.  

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:44:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She hasn't said that she doesn't want the job. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          karma13612, goodpractice

          What she has said, and continues to say is that she's not running for president.
            And she means it, she is not running for president, at this point in time. She always says it the same way. And she goes on to say that she's focusing on 2014 and the relevant issues like her bill, like the minimum wage, extension of Unemployment, immigration reform, and so on.

             This will be a different conversation by the end of this year.

          "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

          by elwior on Sun May 11, 2014 at 02:06:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, 2016 IS the year. (0+ / 0-)

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Sun May 11, 2014 at 03:07:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  MA is a loser state for presidential nominees. (0+ / 0-)

        Dukakis, Kerry, Romney.  All from MA, all won their party's nomination, all lost.  Why go to that well yet again?  

        And Warren didn't win blue state MA very easily to begin with, what makes people think she can win the presidency?  She'd have to win lots of purple states to do it.

    •  Shockwave, are you really holding on to that? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subterranean, Shockwave

      BHO said he wasn't running in the after glow of his 2004 Senate victory. But then:

      Oct. 2nd 2006:
      http://www.cnn.com/...

      Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday that he may run for president in 2008, despite previous assertions that he would complete his current six-year senatorial term, which ends in 2011.

      "I would say I am still at the point where I have not made a decision to pursue higher office, but it is true that I have thought about it over the last several months," the 45-year-old Democratic senator from Illinois told NBC's "Meet the Press."

      In January, Obama told NBC that he would not run for president or vice president in 2008.

      Asked Sunday about his earlier stance, Obama said, "That was how I was thinking at that time."

      That would be the equivalent of October 2014. And of course he announced three months later, which be Jan. 2015.

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      She ain't running.

      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

      by AlexDrew on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:48:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  She should turn it around on the "journalist" (14+ / 0-)

    When someone asks, "Are you a socialist?" she -- or any Dem -- should say, "Do you think I'm a socialist? If so, why?"

    And when it turns out that they have no fucking clue as to the definition of "socialist", she -- and every other Dem -- can say, "Well, if you can't even define it, why are you repeating Republican attacks on me that claim I am one? Why are you accusing me of being something when you don't even know what it is? The word is loaded. It is a classic example of a 'dog whistle', and by using it you're showing that you're not interested in journalism, or getting to any sort of truth, only in feeding the controversy and helping your friends in the Republican party under the guise of asking 'tough questions' that sound good but have no basis in reality. You, and they, should be ashamed."

    -----
    Tom Smith Online
    I want a leader who shoots for the moon. The last time we had one, we got to the moon.

    by filkertom on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:20:37 AM PDT

  •  Mustn't talk back to the water-carriers (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dallasdoc, Johnny Q, elwior, Choco8

    Now, now, don't be silly, that's just simply not permissible ;)

    "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

    by lunachickie on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:41:57 AM PDT

  •  A question like that, "Are you a socialist?" (4+ / 0-)

    is simply an opportunity to talk about what you are, what you believe, not waste it on a simple denial. And that's what Senator Warren did.

    It's debunking 101. Don't talk (as far as possible) about the false or confusing stuff - just state the positive alternative.

    This is not a sig-line.

    by Joffan on Sun May 11, 2014 at 11:55:18 AM PDT

  •  Bernie Sanders would, I hope, have answered that (6+ / 0-)

    same question with: "Yes, I am. Got a problem with that?"

    ;)

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:06:57 PM PDT

  •  She didn't "Say She Wasn't A Socialist" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    and I think it's wrong to title a diary or even imply in the body of it that her "response" was her, saying that. She said no such thing. She brushed off that ridiculous gotcha "question" with a non-sequitur, with all the gravitas it deserved.

    Which is to say, exactly none. The only thing she didn't do at that question was laugh at it outright.

    "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

    by lunachickie on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:08:37 PM PDT

  •  The framing of these discussions is propaganda (8+ / 0-)

    Even the mildest criticism of unfettered capitalism is always met with direct or implied charges of socialism.

    "Critics say," FFS. Critics spout a lot of crazy bullshit -- this doesn't mean the press is obligated to give them equal time. This reminds me of the hatchet job done on poor Mike Dukakis over the dreaded 'L' word.

    •  There is a template for this. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      You are correct, that assumptions are made in the very questions, and its so relentless and constant that we hardly notice it.

      A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

      by onionjim on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:25:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Has anybody ever mentioned (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, doroma

    a Clinton-Warren ticket? Or even vice-versa.

    "PLEASE STOP EATING ANIMALS" Fourth Grader's Crayon Poster.

    by Pirogue on Sun May 11, 2014 at 12:23:00 PM PDT

  •  She could say this again (5+ / 0-)
    "Washington works for anyone who can hire an army of lobbyists and lawyers.
    I hear her there. I think that's a statement that about 99% of American can agree with.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Sun May 11, 2014 at 01:15:17 PM PDT

  •  Senator Warren may not have known at the moment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    of that broadcast taping, but she will be knowing right quick, of that you can be guaranteed.

    doggie doing great, i see: keep eating right, save time enough for good play, good rest ... w00f !!

    TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes? -- Addington's Perpwalk.

    by greenbird on Sun May 11, 2014 at 01:32:20 PM PDT

  •  Another way to answer (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Justanothernyer, goodpractice

    Would be to say, "I'm a  United States Senator democratically elected by a majority of the voters in Massachusetts to do the job I said I would do.  To anarchists and fascists, democracy looks like socialism but believe me it is far from it and so am I."

    The implied statement is, "If democracy looks like socialism to you, you must be an anarchist or a fascist."  

    •  You're using the term incorrectly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joedennis

      Anarchism is a socioeconomic theory that embraces democracy far more than what is found in representational democracy of the United States.

      Anarchism is a branch of socialism which is non-authoritarian and non-statist.

      Anarchism is the antithesis of fascism, and anarchists have died by the tens of thousands fighting against fascism. In fact, it has been the US which has supported fascism over anarchism (a form of socialism) whenever there was a choice between socialism and fascism. The Spanish Civil War is an example.

      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

      by ZhenRen on Mon May 12, 2014 at 09:50:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  GOP thinks that *any* regulation of capitalism (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, shrike

    equals "socialism".  Warren has always been a capitalist.  She's for regulated capitalism, everything she says and advocates shows that.  That might disappoint some of her fans on the left, and it might "disappoint" (for want of a better word) her right wing haters, but that's the reality.

    •  Yes, there is a New Yorker interview where she (0+ / 0-)

      defends herself as an unabashed capitalist.

      Many here are projecting their hopes onto her.  It is bound to end in disappointment.  

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Sun May 11, 2014 at 03:48:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fundamentally, capitalism and socialism needn't (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      goodpractice, elwior, ozsea1

      be in conflict.  Capitalism, in layman's terms, is the notion that businesses should rise and fall on their own merit, not government fiat, and socialism, again in layman's terms, is the idea that government has the duty and the power to, in essence, set out a minimum standard of living as a fundamental right.  Those two things, although in certain economic sectors needing to be balanced, aren't inherently in conflict with each other - ask the Swedes.  There are no purely capitalist or socialist countries out there.

      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

      by auron renouille on Sun May 11, 2014 at 04:25:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If only she WERE a socialist. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    I love Warren, but I really wish there were a "socialist caucus."

  •  Elizabeth Warren spoke truth to Schieffer's smirk (5+ / 0-)

    There are so many issues that need work to fix this country, and Elizabeth Warren is working hard to highlight them.  She offers solutions and arguments.  But on Face the Nation, the only dialogue that Schieffer could offer was "Are you running for President?", "If Hillary doesn't run, will you?", "Are you supporting Hillary for President?", "Are you a socialist?"  Of course, Schieffer's $10 million dollar net worth means he's hardly sympathetic to wage theft, minimum wages, wage inequality, income inequality, indebtedness, lack of health insurance, or unemployment.  The first half of the program could be characterized as "Yes, yes, I know the country is in decline, but what about this latest Secret Service scandal?"

    . . . in dog we trust

    by don corazon on Sun May 11, 2014 at 02:58:41 PM PDT

  •  I almost wish that there was a better word out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    there than "socialism."  Socialism, as we all know, is not an inherently bad concept, and anyhow, many aspects of it exist in America today - Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, UI, and the EITC (and I could go on).

    But it's unfortunately tied to the brutal era of the Soviet Union and Cold War Eastern Europe, which while borrowing some aspects of socialism was fundamentally communist, statist and, in tragic cases like Romania, totalitarian in nature - socialism doesn't require a dysfunctional centralized command economy, authoritarian misrule, treating a nation's own citizens as hostages, and massacres of dissidents.  Those particular features weren't "socialism," they were communism as decreed by Lenin and Stalin.  "Socialism" is Scandinavia, whose nations are democratic and free.

    Anyone got a good idea of how to rebrand socialism? ;p

    "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

    by auron renouille on Sun May 11, 2014 at 04:20:45 PM PDT

    •  Social democracy. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      auron renouille

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Sun May 11, 2014 at 05:47:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, Scandinavian countries (0+ / 0-)

      are mixed capitalist, like most European countries. The trend in Sweden is toward privatization in recent years, and there have been riots over lack of jobs for minorities.

      True socialism abolishes all wage slavery and the owning class/working class relationship.

      Leninism incorporated Marx's ideas of top-down statism as a way of implementing socialism. Of course, we have a top down statist government here in the US.

      Bakunin, a socialist in the anti-statist branch of socialism (anarchism) predicted that based on Marx's approach, socialism would end up simply replacing the capitalist owning class with the socialist owning class (the socialist state central bureaucracy) and that the workers would be just as enslaved as before.

      What you want is to re-brand capitalism as socialism. A better approach is to educate people about the different forms of socialism.

      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

      by ZhenRen on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:06:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sen. Warren is the word on fairness in gvernment. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    goodpractice, elwior
  •  There are plenty of us on the Left (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shrike, elwior, LemmyCaution, ozsea1

    who aren't socialists but understand that capitalism needs regulation to insure that it doesn't destroy itself and everyone with it. Elizabeth Warren appears to be one of those folks!

  •  The Terms Have Lost Their Meaning (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LemmyCaution, RabbleON, elwior, ozsea1

    Most of the people who call Warren a Socialist probably have no idea what that means.  If they did, they might be surprised to learn that the USA already has many widely-supported public policies like Social Security that are inspired by Socialism.  Or that Socialism is an ideology that has widespread acceptance around the world.  Or that it arose not from some elitist brainstorm, but as an answer to objective conditions of poverty and misery caused by rampant and unchecked predatory capitalism.

    "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

    by FDRDemocrat on Sun May 11, 2014 at 07:13:34 PM PDT

  •  Here's a blog on Merriner Eccles that seems (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior
  •  Elizabeth Warren (0+ / 0-)

    Well, shoot. I thought she was a socialist, and mighty glad to hear it. Channelling Eugene Debs.

    oldenoughtoknowbetter

    by joedennis on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:04:50 AM PDT

  •  New definition of socialist.. (0+ / 0-)

    is anyone who disagrees with the doctrines of the conservative religious agenda.

    P.S. Jesus was a communist, who did not work and survived off the charity of others (a taker in today's terms)

  •  Like many other descriptors, 'socialist' is... (0+ / 0-)

    ...better as an adjective, particularly with a comparator, than as a noun.

    Sen. Warren is not 'a Socialist', but she's more socialist than many, for example Ayn Rand, Russell Kirk, J. Edgar Hoover, and Eric Cantor.  I am likely more socialist than she; I am less socialist than many....

  •  Senator Warren doesn't know why people think she i (0+ / 0-)

    IF BELIEVING IN THOSE THINGS MAKE YOU A SOCIALIST, THEN I AM A SOCIALIST AND DARN PROUD OF IT....

    LETS USE THE SAME REASONING THAT MAGGIE-JEAN ESPOUSES.   THE REPUBLICANS DO NOT SAY THEY ARE NOT FASCISTS, BUT THEIR POLICIES AND PRACTICES DO.

  •  Senator Warren (0+ / 0-)

    The socialist/capitalist dichotomy is a false choice, a red herring, straw men and straw women and many other logical falsehoods. We should know the strengths and weaknesses of past economic systems by now and be ready to design something better. Warren is too smart to be a socialist but it's our current definition of capitalism that is the problem. She has that much right but her solutions seem to be a box of band-aids.

  •  Socialism (0+ / 0-)

    is rampant in China, Russia, the UK and in the USA, however it does not bear the Marxism trademark where the government owns all the means of production and distribution. Gop and Dems both support partial socialism via Federal support of our citizenry via SS, Medicare and Medicaid, ACA, block grants to states for infrastructure projects, etc. We have had this socialist methodology since the New deal which was designed to bring the country out of depression, fight and fun a world war and bring employment to the citizenry using government taxpayer funded employment. Now what is wrong with that? using taxpayer's money to create employment and from that employment comes a ton of creative new industries, inventions and new business. The Reaganesque method is pure myth, does not work for all the citizens and works for the wealth and corporate levels only and they do not like minimum wage up scaled or unions or anything that represents a decline in their profits.

  •  Billions (0+ / 0-)

    The Oligarchy of this sinking ship that we call "The USA" has spent billions of dollars to make the word "socialist" a bad thing. Senator Warren is correct when she says all we have is our voices and our votes.

    But.....

    If you look at the trend - No one is going to show up in November except the extreme right wing nut jobs and rich people so, what is the point??

    It's like taking a teaspoon to the Pacific. The Koch's make 1.6 million dollars and hour, 7 days a week 24 hours a day. What do I get- emails asking me for donations.

    Here is the secret; The Koch's know this and are happy to have you spend all of your money to try and beat them.

    David letterman said it best: "WE'RE SCREWED."

  •  A LITTLE BIT of Socialism ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... is not necessarily a bad thing.  I'm well aware that this is FAR from a popular sentiment in today's Amurika, but "popular" and "true" are not synonymous.

    Heck, even our Ultra-Capitalist bankers like a LITTLE BIT of socialism, now & then.  Like, when they've made some REALLY BAD investments in TOXIC MORTGAGES, and lost BILLIONS on those bets, they were MORE THAN HAPPY to have the ENTIRE NATION share in that loss.  So, obviously, socializing LOSSES is a fine thing - just so the PROFITS remain private!

    OF COURSE the New Right is wrong - but that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

    by mstaggerlee on Tue May 13, 2014 at 10:44:33 AM PDT

  •  Warren for pres.? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silina

    Why not Hillary-Warren? Let the shit fly.....Carpe Diem baby!

    Molon labe....

  •  Why is is "socialism," to (0+ / 0-)

    not want a third world nation? Why is it that someone who wants to bring the exorbitant pay of CEOs more in line with what they REALLY deserve, is labeled a "socialist?" Why is it considered socialism to want companies to hire sufficient numbers of employees and pay them living wages? Not only is this not socialistic but it improves business. If you hire sufficient numbers of employees here in this nation, people who are knowledgeable and can speak English and maybe a second language, too, but to be fluent in English instead of outsourcing jobs to make more money for those at the top, your business will improve and grow.  That is capitalism at its best. We have, now, capitalism at its worst, with too many greedy colleges, employers, and politicians.

  •  Sounds like she thought about how she would (0+ / 0-)

    Answer that idea, and went with a very good response that couldn't be used as a damaging quote.



    Women create the entire labor force.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Tue May 13, 2014 at 04:53:03 PM PDT

skybluewater, Alumbrados, chuck utzman, Chi, filkertom, Radiowalla, slinkerwink, glitterscale, Gooserock, greenbird, Emerson, Shockwave, Heimyankel, eeff, windwardguy46, cyberKosFan, fugwb, ask, gakke, vmckimmey, PeteZerria, Iberian, sidnora, psnyder, Dallasdoc, mnguitar, Jujuree, Steven Payne, lcrp, 2dot, Diana in NoVa, Major Kong, Sembtex, Curt Matlock, randallt, realalaskan, bahaba, rapala, historys mysteries, Bluesee, marina, jrooth, ichibon, LakeSuperior, Tonedevil, Superpole, Flint, dewtx, stagemom, bleeding blue, Sun Tzu, bjedward, spunhard, FindingMyVoice, quiet in NC, Rogneid, peacestpete, mrchips46, Box of Rain, begone, martini, Knucklehead, tarheelblue, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, myboo, Kingsmeg, Themistoclea, Gorette, cookseytalbott, The Wizard, blueoasis, shrike, twigg, Libby Shaw, real world chick, JVolvo, Preston S, AllDemsOnBoard, onionjim, CA Nana, kurt, markthshark, cpresley, tegrat, clinging to hope, hooper, Habitat Vic, hawaii2, camlbacker, offgrid, yoduuuh do or do not, FishOutofWater, Matt Z, Dave in Northridge, joedemocrat, rogereaton, leonard145b, skod, TomP, JDWolverton, mconvente, GAS, Youffraita, Thomas Twinnings, Aureas2, elwior, tofumagoo, triplepoint, elpacifico66, Parthenia, BYw, lenzy1000, JamieG from Md, billybam, dmhlt 66, statsone, LaFeminista, maggiejean, Bule Betawi, buffie, J M F, Throw The Bums Out, bobatkinson, CanyonWren, maryabein, Ohiodem1, indres, mkor7, jomi, Shelley99, Former Chicagoan Now Angeleno, nocynicism, Words In Action, Lefty Ladig, commonmass, smileycreek, confitesprit, willynel, breathe67, piers, NM Ray, pixxer, anonevent, Betty Pinson, BlueFranco, ericlewis0, soaglow, theKgirls, Pakalolo, kerflooey, ozsea1, Liberal Capitalist, ban nock, slowbutsure, deeproots, Boston Beans, badscience, thomask, Santa Susanna Kid, BarackStarObama, tardis10, Grandma Susie, wintergreen8694, myrmecia gulosa, sound of progress, Joe Jackson, bakeneko, leftykook, Chitown Kev, MichaelNY, BocaBlue, wolf advocate, quill, ridemybike, bluezen, Heart n Mind, Siri, charliehall2, The Lone Apple, AnnieR, a2nite, Trotskyrepublican, radical simplicity, doroma, New Minas, avsp, rat racer, AverageJoe42, raina, Glen The Plumber, George3, katiec, ShoshannaD, Hammerhand, Blue Bell Bookworm, jusjtim35, Dallas L, poopdogcomedy, SanFernandoValleyMom, goodpractice, HedwigKos, alice kleeman, Jon Sitzman, Icicle68, librarisingnsf, jplanner, Bruce Brown, OregonWetDog, Mystic Michael, Capt Crunch, pierre9045, old mule, patbahn, ConnectTheDotsUSA, ginimck, LiberalLoner, hbk, RepresentUsPlease, KOKO1956, Cynthia Hobgood Strauss, kfunk937, agitatednactivated, BMScott, alypsee1

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site