__
“… scary conservative“?
Both Charles P. Pierce (“Big Bad Professor Warren“) and TBogg (“Legacy Hires Against Elizabeth Warren“) have much fun mocking Luke Russert and Nathan Daschle’s solemn centrist thumbsuckers warning that the DNC may regret giving Warren a speaking slot at the convention. But Dave Weigel at Slate wades into the brackish pools of the conservative written records to unearth a forgotten testimonial to Warren’s ‘essential conservatism’:
The Democrats have made a controversial choice by selecting Elizabeth Warren as a convention speaker. We know this because Nathan Daschle says “her anti-Wall Street message is powerful but limiting,” and because “centrist Dems” who are either retiring or have been primaried tell Luke Russert that “moderates and centrists” might be spooked by her.
Why would they be spooked? Republicans tell us that her viral 2011 speech about social interconnectedness and paying fair shares of taxes — the inspiration for Barack Obama’s Roanoke speech — is controversial. How do we know? Because Scott Brown’s press guy released a statement saying so. You could point out that since giving the speech Warren has consistently tied or led Brown in polls…
Or you could just go to the candidate’s actual policy. That’s rarely done in pieces about why a candidate’s controversial. News items about candidates are colored by the fact that they’re, well, running for something, and that some people want them to lose. But back in August 2011, before Warren was a candidate, [the Weekly Standard‘s] Christopher Caldwell actually read her work and determined that her critiques of modern economics were, essentially, conservative…
Since Warren became a candidate, Caldwell’s Weekly Standard has found ways to argue that — one example — Warren is sympathetic to Communism, because she points out that China spends more on infrastructure than America does.
But Warren hasn’t much shifted her beliefs or rhetoric since moving from academia to politics… She’s making observations about taxes and middle class spending that, 5 or 10 years ago, would have been uncontroversial. Republicans, who want to defeat her, claim that these observations are radical. Their hope is that people fall for it, in the service of objectivity.
the Conster
I like her latest ad a lot – the one where she talks about infrastructure jobs for idle construction crews and at the end says, “let’s get to work!”. She really needs to hit that theme hard to pick up the Hillary Clinton voters in the center of the state. Compare that to Scott Brown’s lame ad where that old hack and Vatican apologist Ray Flynn whines about lack of bipartisanship and how Scott Brown is just the guy for his old fart self. Outside of Boston, Ray Flynn is nobody, and nobody cares about bipartisanship because that ship sailed in 2000. Like everything else, if the hacks are squealing about controversy, ur doin it rite.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I can’t remember if it’s Pierce or Tbogg who points out that Nathan Daschle is part of or attempted to start (and I can’t imagine it matters) a Gen X version of No Labels. You’d think his father’s experience might have taught him something, but there’s no guarantee the old man learned anything. On the day Daschle left the Senate, Mitch McConnell let it be known that anyone who joined in the farewell tributes would face his chinless wrath.
The existence of Luke Russert’s career, and his belief that Elizabeth Warren (who IIRC was a registered Republican until the mid-80s, you know, Reagan) is ‘controversial’ is a frightening but useful summary of the state of the VIllage. The boy projects a smug self-satisfaction that even the Mittlets probably couldn’t bear.
mechwarrior online
Democrats really need to portray STEM education spending, infrastructure spending, and economic stimulus as a national security issue and pound the podium night and day with it.
Just Some Fuckhead
How the term “anti-Wall Street” can be painted as a negative after the last few years is one of the mysteries of the universe.
Monkeyfister
I’ll donate directly to a good Liberal Candidate, but ActBlue has given us an awful lot of Blue Dogs over the years, and I have difficulty putting money into that General Fund, anymore.
Sorry.
jrg
I never in a thousand years would have thought it would be “controversial” to point out that the wealthy got there in part due to things like infrastructure and education spending.
We’re approaching idiocracy levels of stupid, here. Why the fuck do Republicans think we have teachers? I mean, Jesus, move to Somalia. Seriously.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Monkeyfister:
actually it was voters who did that
Jay C
Just another example of the warped BS that passes for political discourse in this country: it doesn’t matter if Elizabeth Warren’s policy prescriptions were copied verbatim from a Republican Party platform: she’s a Democrat: running against a Republican, and therefore partisan bile has to rule all: she HAS to be smeared as a sort of latter-day Rosa Luxemburg – no matter the particulars of her ideas.
Hopefully, Warren will confront this nonsense head-on in future ads: it may seem like a “radical” idea to confront the voters with intelligent policy choices: but who knows, it may work this time…
FWIW, here in South Berkshire County, I’ve seen a ton-load of Warren-for-Senator yard signs pop up recently, with but a single one for Scott Brown (bearing the slogan “He’s For Us!” – really, Sen. Brown, who might “Us” be???)
Violet
If the Villagers say she’s a controversial choice, that means the Democrats are doing something right. Just like Harry Reid and Romney’s taxes.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
If the choice is between a Blue Dog and a Tea Partier, goddamned straight I’m gonna vote for the Blue Dog.
First, we win. Then we can worry about dragging the goddamned Overton Window back a few inches.
Steve
If a candidate as awesome as Elizabeth Warren can’t win, running in Massachusetts of all places, there’s very little hope for anything we want to accomplish. So I prefer to believe that she will win.
NCSteve
Of course her views are “controversial.” What idea that was accepted as an essential part of the mainstream consensus in this country prior to 2008 isn’t?
I mean, we live in a world where the concept of progressive taxation, from its philosophical and economic underpinnings right down to its important practical role in preserving the middle class and saving the rich from the otherwise inevitable consequences of their inherently insatiable rapacity is “controversial,” for Christ’s sake.
Mattminus
Clearly, the Democrats should have selected Zell Miller instead.
The Thin Black Duke
As a proud Massachusetts resident, if Elizabeth Warren loses to Scott Brown, I will be deeply ashamed.
Lurking Canadian
@The Thin Black Duke: Here’s what baffles me. The president is going to win Massachussets with >60% of the vote, right? But there’s a non-zero probability that 15-20% of the people who vote Obama for President will then go on to vote Scott brown for Senate? How can that be? Who are the people who will do that?
xian
she’s getting the next-nominee shot
(I was a blogger at the 2004 convention in Boston and when Obama spoke pretty much everyone knew he’d be president someday — we just didn’t realize how soon.)
Origuy
@Lurking Canadian: Some people like the idea of having the President and Congress (or a governor and the legislature) of different parties. It’s kind of a misguided form of checks and balances. Massachusetts has a history of doing this.
jwb
@xian: this is why the oligarchs are so opposed to Warren. She’s already proved herself to be a natural politician and she’s a trained evonimist who can see right through the corporate wall street bullshit. They know they are on deep trouble if Warren gains political traction and becomes a national pol, which she will now if she beats Brown.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Origuy: adding: Massachussetts, like a lot of more or less reliably “blue” presidential states, has a more complicated political make up. MA, CA, NY, IL have all had more Republicans than Dems in the gov’s office over the last twenty-five years, IIANM. Brown got in based on a number of lucky flukes–wave year, incredibly bad opponent, etc– but between the advantage of incumbency and his not being an outright hateful nutjob, he’s not going to be an easy mark
Weaselone
@Lurking Canadian:
I can see a couple of reasons why someone who would vote for Obama would vote for Brown and not Warren.
1. Sexism. My observation is that female candidates for important elected positions in the state suffer a significant headwind.
2. Brown is not a complete frothing wingnut. He has occasionally crossed the aisle and hasn’t had a major screw up during his time in Congress. This is attractive to moderates limits the number of voters who would cast a vote for Warren just because she isn’t Brown.
3. Brown is Massachusetts’ only national level Republican. Getting rid of him and going full Democrat puts MA at a significant disadvantage when it comes to bringing home the bacon.
4. Patronage. MA congressman and senators tend to be pretty decent at the whole constituent services deal. Brown’s new to national level office, but there’s probably still a fair number of voters who are fond of him because he’s assisted them or someone they know.
5. His wife is a member of the local media establishment. Helps with the positive press, and general tongue bathing he receives.
6. The Boston Herald. A Murdoch owned newspaper. It basically alternates between attacking Warren and fluffing Brown.
WaterGirl
@Origuy: I’m not sure anyone who has been paying attention since 2010 likes what they have seen.
folsom ca
I will always be in moderation, do not know why. I give money to Warren through the web, (there is a box to check if you want to give a percentage to act) I also give directly to Heide – from North Dakota. She is doing quite well from her opponent Rick berg. He is a sleazy piece of work. Support women like Eliz Warren and Heidi. She is taking on a hard fight, we need more women in the US Senate. Go Harry Go. Love to see some gravitas. Deb. N.
Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God
@Steve:
…exactly why so much out-of-state PAC money is being poured into the State by Wall Street interests (among them, “noted centrist” Mike Bloomberg).
She and her ideas must be crushed: So it’s talk radio hell until November.
The Boston Herald refers to her as ‘Granny’, BTW. (Classy supportahs yah gawt thayer, Scottie).
WaterGirl
@Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God:
Seems like it would be touch to paint “Granny” as some terrible person to be afraid of. Aren’t they limiting their own attacks with that tactic?
WaterGirl
Somebody or sombodies must have made some substantial donations for us to be at that number for donations with 42 people donating. Whoever you are, thank you! I wish I was in a position to do that. My donations have to be small this time around.