2016 – GOP - Cruz In First – Rand Paul On Deck, DNC – O’Malley Most Likely, watch Julian Castro

The 2016 Presidential Sweepstakes begins today with the announcement that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), will be running for the Republican Nomination. Cruz, who made the announcement via Twitter, will be speaking at Liberty University today, an evangelical Christian college. (Mass Live).

Rand Paul (R-KY) is expected to announce his primary bid on April 7th, with with an “ambitious five state tour”according to the Washington Times.

On the DNC side, the likeliest first to announce will be the former Governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley, who, according to the New York Post, is a favorite if Hillary Clinton does not run (NY Post)

The likelihood of Clinton running successfully, if at all, is high. Going by DNC history, the more likely candidate to emerge would be the former Mayor of San Antonio who is currently being evasive about a VP roll in a Clinton campaign. (National Mortgage Professional.com).

O’Malley who spent both time and money is Iowa in 2014, and is well received, has yet to nail down the support. Apparently, those who would be pivotal are waiting for someone else, (Washington Post) could it be Castro?

In any event, and somewhat early to tell with few exceptions (Cruz, O’Malley, Paul), it will be a politically diverse slate of candidates, with perhaps the exception of the DNC, who has the Progressive’s front and center (thus less support Clinton). Given the recent thrashing that the standard politicians took in 2014, one might speculate that the candidate that is less “political party” would go the distance – to the White House. Cruz, in comments from any news article, is seen as a radical Tea Party, Canadian born (Constitutionally, that does not matter), super intelligent, but lacking experience, candidate. The fact that Cruz holds his own regardless of which side of the aisle he is taking to task makes him extremely interesting. Additionally, if he is acceptable to the Evangelical right, then, he will be the nominee and with the twenty million who sat out the last General election due to an inability to vote for a Mormon, he can secure the Presidency. Unless, of course, they are able to support multiple candidates, should the candidate social issues align with their own, on a personal level.

The top of the GOP field picks: Walker, Cruz, Paul, Perry. Top of the DNC field picks: O’Malley, possibly Castro, and that rascal from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. With O’Malley in the game, there is little incentive for Elizabeth Warren to step forward. If Warren is aware that Castro is going to jump in, then that would be a reason she is not doing the same. Clinton is being maligned from all sides – therefore, it is very unlikely that a credible female candidate will emerge in 2016 with enough stamina to break the glass ceiling.

Beating Up on Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) –What if a Politician has a mind of their own?

Elizabeth Warren, Senator (D-MA) image from Elizabeth Warren.com

Elizabeth Warren, known as the darling of the left, apparently has a mind of her own – shame on her. Warren recently suggested that Israel has the right to defend itself, even if that means, should Hamas be hiding bombs in schools and mosques, Israel is right in bombing said building – the left went- insane (Huffington Post).

It is not so much that this blogger would agree with Warren on most issues, but the Senator from Massachusetts has this issue spot on – good for her.

Not too long after the fact that the Senator has some sense of independence from the “herd”, the Boston Globe published ”Federal Agency that Elizabeth Warren Helped Found Rife with discrimination against employees” Obviously, to the Globe, being in on the ground game of an agency makes on complicit it its’ continuing issues. Apparently, the Globe was unaware that Warren, at one point, was one of “those” Republicans! (ABC News)

When one “shops” political parties, left to right, or vice versa, it is generally because on it either a)an opportunist (like so many politicians) or b) genuinely fed up and seeking an alternative – something “different”. Perhaps, Warren might be interested in what the Libertarian’s are about next? Or at best become “unenrolled” from any major party, like the majority of voters from the Commonwealth she represents.

Either way, one might see more articles of the attack nature, given Warren disavowed a run for the Progressive Wing of the Democrat Party in 2016. In few words: Good for her.

Elizabeth Warren 2016 – NY Post Headlines – Done Deal?

The New York Post blazed the story regarding President Obama’s choice of Elizabeth Warren for 2016 over Hillary Clinton, suggesting that sources insist that the President’s advisor, Valerie Jarrett is actively pursuing the coronation of the newly minted MA Senator, Elisabeth Warren over Hillary Clinton for the Progressive Democrats Presidential Nomination The story was written by Edward Klein, who is seen in the left circles as not reliable – unnamed sources aside, Klein wrote the book: The Truth About Hillary Clinton, and, although no one can actually substantiate fact or fiction based on hearsay, those on the left don’t care for the tome.

In order to counter the attack on Ms. Warren, or bring her out of the closet too soon, the Wire, suggests that the story is full of nonsense, especially considering the ability of Klein to tell a story that appeals. What is interesting is the fact that incorporated into the story by the wire are select “tweets” on Warren’s “American Indian” Heritage, as if to imply, picking on Warren is not appropriate.

It appears from all things Massachusetts that Warren is indeed, running for the highest office, a neophyte, not unlike the current President, also both academics and both raging Progressives. However, it is doubtful that providing a substitute for Clinton, gaffes and all, that Warren would succeed with anyone outside of the base – given this nations inability to elect a qualified woman to run the show. In 2008 the best choice was Clinton and she was thrown under the proverbial bus by progressives who preferred (in Congress, literally), to anoint Obama to the nomination, regardless of the fact that Clinton had both the popular vote and the delegates – the pulled an end run with the use of the Super Delegates – and the rest is miserable history.

Therefore in summary, although Klein may use “sources” and sensationalize a bit here and there, it would not surprise if Warren beefs up during the next year, pumps up the base and moves promptly to the middle – softens her image, and reminds everyone that will listen that she is more independent, having been a Republican in a previous life.

While Rome’s borders are burning (see Texas, Arizona and California), the fiddler may well be choosing the next successor to the Progressive policies that are destroying the nation. Of course, many will suggest that the rush on the border, like so many of the other “surprises” that have seems to assail this administration are premeditated, it is precisely the lack of experience coming from an academic with theoretical governing credentials that caused this entire debacle in the first place. If Warren were a man, truly, the nation would go on for round two, and as much as a qualified female would be this bloggers preference for the head office, that criteria is not present in Warren, as an academic and a one half term Senator from the State of Massachusetts.

2016 Early Polling Continues to pit Clinton only against GOP potential candidates, Paul on Iraq – Yes his opinion can be stunning!

It appears that all pollsters continue to compare Hillary Clinton, and no other Dem candidate against the pack of 2016 potential candidates. In a situation where not one has officially announced a candidacy - but may have hinted – the best of those past races are generally put to the poll test. The pollsters have decided that must be Hillary Clinton only for the Democrats, and Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and the 2nd place 2012 GOP candidate – Rick Santorum. In the latest round of Clinton vs. the GOP – she has lost some ground according to Forbes analysis, Clinton is still ahead but has lost ground in key demographics against both Jeb Bush and Rand Paul equally.

Here’s the conundrum – Clinton is likely to either bow out entirely in November, or be ambushed at the Democrat Convention again, by Obama-light – or the new Senator from Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren. Warren, despite protesting too much, has opened the door in recent interviews and is playing the role of 2014 candidate support, a potential sign of things to come. There is also the Governor of Maryland, who has made no bones about a 2016 run. The latter two are most likely to enter the fray.

On the Republican side, there is no telling who may emerge yet as a frontrunner – as the fortunes and the establishment hijacks, no unlike the national Democrats, will muck things up (See John McCain, Mitt Romney). Although Paul is the most likely to capture both the GOP nomination as well as the national title, it remains to be seen what machinations, if any, the GOP will mount against the son of former Congressman Ron Paul. The establishment GOP candidate is someone who is slightly less Democrat than a Progressive.

It is one thing to hold your ground and compromise while maintaining core principles (Clinton, William Jefferson, and Reagan, Ronald), and another thing when the debates are peppered with “I agree”’s from both candidates!

However, Rand Paul (KY) would most likely have the tables turned in such a debate given his issues are conservative, and at the same time, Libertarian, which allows him some leverage and more reasoned though processes. in an op-ed in the Salem, Oregon, Statemen’s Journal, there is absolutely hope in this letter that as a “Republican” (Paul) telling it like it is re: Iraq, blaming both Bush and Obama, if he will be able to take the “heat” from other Republican’s. It is likely as, in any contest that yes, there will be those incredulous naysayers who will insist that the Iraq war was a brilliant move, yet there are those who are more pragmatic and can honestly say – bad idea. Good for Paul, and doubtful that he will back down from that stance – even hotly contested. He will be battling (a la Ronald Reagan – who was almost kicked from the party), the left and the right of the political spectrum. Although so far, the left has flung only bad photographs and some trumped up plagiarism charge. Paul appears, so far, and this early, to be the best bet of those “who might run”.

On a side note: there has been so much to discuss recently that it is difficult to pick one topic at any given time – from the disaster on the US border where daily cries for help are heard from the local media, to the VA scandal to the IRS scandal to the horrific destruction of the middle east by ISIS, to so much more than one can comprehend in an hour – one debacle after another, makes one incapable of feeling nothing but sadness for the state this nation has been brought to under this administration. One does not necessarily blame the President, simply because he is pretty much a figurehead, and is surrounded by those who are acting on their own accord – yet, surely not this much junk could get by one CEO, or one governor, or one small businessman (say an eye doctor) – which begs the question, should we, as a nation, hire another academic for the highest office in the land?

The New Yorker on David Brat – and the 99% comparison to Elizabeth Warren

Oddly enough, the New Yorker’s take on David Brat (R) upset over Eric Cantor (R) in the VA primary, is spot on, while missing a greater point. They compare the economics professors abhorrence of crony capitalism to the Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) 99% Occupy Movement. The major difference in this analogy is that regardless of how one paints the Conservative – the one thing that they are dead set against is corporate welfare – those Billionaires are just fine, unless they are taking dollars from the government. On Warren, the billionaires are fine as long as they are being taxed, and most liberals don’t understand that the government subsidizes corporations.

The story, otherwise is worth the read (Read full story here) as it touches on the angst of those who have been railing against government bailouts pre-Obama – or, in simple terms-where the Tea Party originated.

Perhaps understated is the relationship between the Libertarian and the Republican’s as a whole – the key that they have conservative values, underscores the difference between free market peoples who do not consider the Chamber of Commerce, or business as needing assistance from the government.

If there was less of a penchant by the media to portray every free market Republican (Libertarian) as a “Tea Party” member, and or out-of-touch, perhaps they may want to reconsider the message and cease paining all with a rather larger brush.

However, that may not fit into the overall scheme of things – as when the general public listens to one of those Free Market politicians who are merely stating the obvious –they tend to vote, and as it was noted in the article by the New Yorker – to cross party lines in droves to do so. They also most likely will vote their conscience not their political party – rather than a Warren who will vote strict party line-similar to Obama.

Elizabeth Warren – 2016 – Stock Rising

The question has been asked and answered of the Junior Senator from Massachusetts, Democrat Elizabeth Warren – “Will you run for President in 2016?” All prior answers were no – except, the latest interview with the Huffington Post here, where she implies that there may be a run in her future. (Huffington Post)

As Hillary Clinton, the foregone conclusion as the front runner, begins to incur hostile media coverage (See: See CNN: “Hillary Clinton Downplays Controversy Around Bergdahls Release”), one begins to wonder if Clinton, will take the bait and run, knowing the probability that the progressive wing of the Democrat Party will likely push a Warren to the forefront, similar to what had occurred in 2008 (see PUMA).

Clinton on the one hand, has the experience in the Senate and is seasoned politically; however, she has liabilities associated with the Obama Administration, her personal story and the fact that she is a woman from a political dynasty. On the other hand, Warren, is “Obama light”, lacking experience, where any other time, that would be seen as an asset, with Obama’s falling poll numbers, and obvious errors in all facets of governing, the party association will hamper Warren. Both women will face the prejudice that one fears, won’t be overcome in the next several generations, they are women. Included in that summary is the premise that women are their own worst enemies, and as an example, look no further than 2008, when Clinton, the best of the three remaining candidates (McCain/Obama/Clinton), was cast aside in favor of a “better model”- for the most part by – women.

Although neither major party has anyone who has yet to announce, and speculation runs rampant as usual, the GOP has a real opportunity here, to sweep 3 – the House, the Senate and the White House, if, and only if they run the right candidate in 2016 – one that can compete with both the base and independents (and possibly a few Democrats – this does not mean their usual moderate, nor a fiercely right candidate. The meddling from both major party headquarters, if suspended for the next 3 years, would result in the best and one can be sure the worst of politics, but, it would be pure rather than sullied by those the pull the strings.

That said Warren is the one to watch as the most likely Democrat Party nominee.

On Benghazi and Boko Harem - Making Excuses by Pillorying Hillary Clinton – to what end?

A Politico article, (here)entitled: “The Boko Haram-Benghazi Link”suggests the premise of the article is a rebuttal to Allen West, the Tea Party Republican who is more than likely to hammer Obama for a host of issues, including the Benghazi Scandal. However, this piece was written to excuse Obama and the administrations culpability in both instances (standing down while letting embassy personnel die and refusing to acknowledge the Boko Haram as terrorist) by laying it squarely on the lap of the Clinton State Department. Sprinkled in amongst the rubbish, was a bit of the bad Republicans continuing to investigate a problem with Benghazi that simply did not exist, because it was part of the Obama administrations abhorrence of getting involved in too many conflicts (feint), and besides it all leads back to the State Department.

Of course, when one is possibly going to make a run at a higher office, say Hillary Clinton, there is nothing more assuring than a little help from one’s friends in the media. Therefore, one would think by dropping seeds that can be used by the opposition and planted at a later date, the Politico team is setting the stage for the anti-Hillary. The question remains – “which woman will the Democrats run instead?” – Look to Massachusetts for the answer. If the Democrats thought, however, that Hillary Clinton maybe a bit of a burden to bear, they may be having second thoughts after 2016. Will Hillary run? It appears less likely by the day. Watch for continued glowing coverage of the Harvard Professor turned Senator, Elizabeth Warren.

Examiner Asks “What If Elizabeth Warren Runs in 2016” – Not if – when.

There’s an interesting article in the Washington Examiner this morning regarding a potential run by MA short-term Senator – Elizabeth Warren The article asks what if Warren ran for office in 2016 and goes on to name some of the individuals who are helping Warren today. Read the article as it is a key to the who’s who of Progressive Politics backing or supporting Warren, and then recall one Jr. Senator from Illinois – Barack Obama. It does not take a brain surgeon to connect these dots.

Suffice it to say, as she recently rolled out her book tour in Massachusetts that certain staff also worked on the 2008 Clinton campaign. One understands that all is fair in Politics, however, there are far too many indications this early on, that Warren is the left’s next “ism”. On the one hand, she may surprise them as she appears to be an equal opportunity independent. On the other hand, she has a slight history of exaggerating circumstances for personal gain, i.e. claiming minority status to achieve a job, and borrowing a few recipes to finish a cookbook (If one is not from Massachusetts, search archives of the Herald (Boston), or Google to find articles on the aforementioned.)

She bears watching for two reasons, the first is obvious, can the nation afford one less than experienced Professor running the nation and the second, and she is savvy and appears to be able to fill any roll with enough prep time. The power brokers in Chicago know she has the time, and a growing following of progressives. (Just see Huffington Post for starters and search Warren.)

Therefore, looking at the basics, one might conclude that Warren will be a candidate in 2016, despite the hype about Hillary Clinton, who will most likely be teaching at – Harvard.

Examiner Article at www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-if-elizabeth-warren-runs-for-president-in-2016

Who is Elizabeth Warren – Former Republican turned Democrat?

Not knowing much about Elizabeth Warren, other than the fact that she was caught with her hand in the cookie jar, claiming a bit of Indian Heritage to qualify for a Harvard slot, and bested, on Obama’s coattails, one Scott Brown, not a great deal. For starters, one might associate the Jr. Senator from Massachusetts as being a rubber stamp for the Democrat Party, a lifelong Democrat, who frankly, would be another guaranteed vote for the Progressive left. However, a few recent articles, and not much research on a Tuesday morning revealed a bit more that just made Elizabeth Warren a lot more interesting. She is, based on the Democrat Party and its proclivity to come up with the next shiny new toy, projected to upend Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democrat primary, similar to the upending that Clinton sustained under Barack Obama. Warren is less known, and that unknown quantity can be remodeled, so to speak, to fit the “everybody” mold and then walk under the banner of the “First” right into the White House. The funny thing is, the Progressive left adores her, perhaps for her angst against big banks, and the legislation that allows them to run rampant, the brouhaha over high interest rates and student loans, and of course, the middle class, a group that is fast becoming extinct.

That said, she may just be one of those evolving politico’s who cannot quite find what’s right, or wrong, with a particular party, and has a bit of an independent streak. Here’s where that line of thought comes from:

Think Progresshas a piece in “Why Elizabeth Warren Left the GOP”, which was somewhat of an eye opener, and first thought was: Hillary Clinton, former Goldwater Girl (Goldwater – a Libertarian-Republican). The first note was about her GOP history, she was a registered Republican from 1991 through 1996, with no mention of previous party affiliation. Therefore, she was a registered Republican when the Clinton’s held the White House and the GOP both Chambers of the House – interesting schematic. She left due to what she perceived as a GOP affiliation with the big banks, but has since argued with the Obama administration as well. Think Progress.

In the same Think Progress article she refers to herself as an Independent, so one just had to look at the Congressional Record to see how well she played across the aisle.

Apparently, quite well, given the fact that on a quick review Warren sponsors and cosponsors, what appears to be equal amounts of legislation written by both Democrats and Republicans.

One has to be honest, if she was a free-market, Libertarian leaning Independent, she’d be perfect.

Of course, no-one is, and the obvious quick review does not answer questions on reliable voting with a certain party, or what ambitions Senator Warren holds regarding the 2016, that said, she is worth watching. It may be she sees the writing on the wall, and will wait until the following general election, but that’s and all this is speculation for the most part. As there is no mention of her party affiliation prior to 1991 (and she was of an age to vote, one would hazard a guess in the 1980’s), one might hold out hope that a pattern may develop – shopping parties like a thinking woman. If she were more “Liberty-minded”, and for the middle class, while hanging out with say, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul, alternately with Bernie Sanders and throw in a few Democrats, and be able to campaign on that – she would sail into the White House – no problems. Perhaps she should take another look at the upheaval in the GOP – should it change (historically) to a re-branded Liberty Party – it might be time for her to re-up. Just a thought.

The 2016 Speculated Packed Republican Field versus the Speculated Democrat Field of One (?)

Senators Bernie Sanders, VT, and Rand Paul (KY)Presidential Hopefuls - image from Politico

So much is now being bandied about regarding the individuals who are “front-runners”, denigrating and complementary, depending upon which media one prefers it becomes a bit tired. What is somewhat as musing is that this is a pattern that occurs every four years, yet, somehow those pontificators (including this one) continue to spout the good and the bad of potential candidates for two respective parties. There are those who accuse the party establishments of colluding against the populace (sounds about right), and those who are so wedded to an ideology (either right or left) that should their favorite candidate not jump into the race, they need therapy. It is nothing new really, but more of the same and this is where that same old jargon takes a twist and gives one side of the “two-party” system a little bit more depth.

An opinion piece in Bloomberg states the obvious - Winnowing The Republican Presidential Field - which goes into a place few dare to tread – some will drop out, some will show up late to the dance, and eventually there will be a winner. As of this moment the polls are indicating that Hillary Clinton, the lone Democrat who has yet to announce, leads the field, but recall 2006, when there was no mention of one “up and coming” Democrat from the State of Illinois, who most of the nation never heard of – Barack Obama. Therefore, one can bet, Democrats being Democrats, that the nominee will not be Hillary Clinton, chances are better than average that a little knows Senator from MA, who hails from Oklahoma, will be in the limelight as this year wears on.

On the Republican side, much to the dismay of many, the front runners, Chris Christie, Rand Paul and another Bush, lead the field, with Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and several others vying for spots, and that depends on the pollster. Straw polls being what they are should be taken with a grain of salt – yet, they offer insight into who the political activists favor. Having a crowded field, in the end, offers choices, which is a bonus to those who are in the political cheap seats, and normally have little to no say as to the nominee, given the Party’s ability to choose long before the positioning begins. However, times are changing, and there is always hope for a little rebellion and resurrection taking place in both parties, going even so far as to form a third party – which for some would be the Holy Grail of political gains.

The aforementioned terrifies the powerbrokers as one would imagine, as that’s hard cash splitting three ways rather than two – which is why the Tea Party is so frowned upon and vilified.

This is the time of the season when those of us in the trenches choose favorites (plural) as one should know, the field will narrow, and like any gambling, with the stakes much higher, betting everything on one horse is not the best way to play –unless of course, things stay the course and one knows the Party Elite. However, if there is a crack in the wall of power that is DC, then all bets are off. Confusing to say the least, but, as it should be.

Current favorites: Senator Rand Paul and Senator Bernie Sanders. If one were to pick two, one for each ticket, they represent politics the way it should be in this nation. Paul, who is a Libertarian Republican (Jeffersonian) is representative of the middle and the left with some right thrown in for good measure, he calls them like he sees them, and that doesn’t sit well with lapdogs like Rep. Peter King. Sanders, for being the Independent Democrat who suggests he really is a Communist – which, frankly, someone not hiding their true political bent behinds a blanket Party Logo, is refreshing!

2016 – The Early Players - Update– Elizabeth Warren (D) Continues War on Women, Rand Paul (L-R) squarely in the Middle, Jeb Bush (R) – Name Brand

First and foremost, one must understand that Hillary Clinton is most likely, not going to run for the 2016 nomination – despite all rumors to the contrary – and hints from the Clinton’s – part of the reason is one Elizabeth Warren – newly elected Progressive Democrat Senator, former Professor (Part-time) from Massachusetts – as the Washington Post suggests: “A case for Elizabeth Warren in 7 Minutes”. The drumbeat is just beginning. Warren, the female equivalent of Barack Obama, is a darling of the far political left, and with past “Super Delegate” experience, Clinton certainly knows that the Progressive Wing is capable of ousting the actual popular vote winner, in a heartbeat. With this is mind, and years of service, she is undoubtedly tired and wary.

Therefore the equal pay for women drumbeat has begun, yet, it may sound, at this point, overly familiar to those who are in the trenches, or feminists who have seen passages of Equal Pay Acts since 1963. Although denying she is seeking Warren, she is the best bet the Democrats have of even making a dent in 2016.

Unless of course, the RNC is ridiculous enough to run Jeb Bush – former Governor of Florida, son of President George H, and brother to President George W. Political dynasties are well-liked by the public in the same vein as lifetime Senators and Congressional Representatives. Yet, as CBS asks the question Can Jeb Bush win over the Christian right in 2016? , the answer is – yes. The next question would be – to what avail? The Christian base is put a part of the electorate that either shows up or not, and is unforgiving and unpredictable at best. The ranks and file would be expected to vote for yet another Bush, but that leaves the independents, the Libertarians, the Tea Party and a slim yet viable chance for Warren.

However, there is one Libertarian that has the RNC wary, as well as the DNC, that doctor from Kentucky – Rand Paul, the Libertarian leaning Republican – In the Politico article the Libertarian Surge, it is apparent that suppression of freedom, the growing and ever domineering Federal government, loss of free enterprise, and jobs, is becoming more popular with the general public. What Paul represents is a hybrid of both, the Republicanism of the 1960’s aligned with the Libertarian small government ideology and his popularity is growing, along with his donor base.

It is, of course, far too early to suggest one may best the other, as pitfalls happen to candidates in the primary stages, and in the general election and the players change – constantly up until those in New Hampshire, Iowa, and the Carolina’s suggest who may or may not be the next President, but who will continue to move forwarded on that particular quest. For now, we watch we wait and we listen for someone who is not necessarily wedded to the “Party” but to the people’s best interest – so far, we have one who can break the mold, so to speak, set by his father.

MSNBC – Run Elizabeth Warren, Run! On her very Popular Policies

Krystal Ballover at MSNBC lays out the case for why she feels Elizabeth Warren, brand new Senator from Massachusetts, should run for the Presidency on the Progressive Democrat ticket:

This view is puzzling because Warren and her policies are quite popular.

For starters, she is a strong backer of lifting the minimum wage which is massively popular across the ideological spectrum.

And Warren’s supposedly radical idea that we should expand Social Security by more accurately calculating the cost of living is also very popular. The National Academy of Social Insurance found that 7 in 10 Americans preferred expanding Social Security and paying for it by lifting the income cap to our current system.

But Warren has really made her name by fearlessly challenging banks and trying to reign in their predatory practices. Here again, she’s got the public’s backing with 68% of Americans believing that banks are hurting the country. On the issue of inequality, to me the central issue facing our nation, voters overwhelmingly believe inequality is growing and that the government should do something about it. So, if Warren’s a radical leftist, well I guess much of the country is as well.

The real problem is not that Warren is too left, it’s that we’ve allowed our politics and what is considered the “center” in our politics to be pulled farther right. That’s no accident. A lot of money has gone into convincing us that the moderate, centrist responsible thing to do is to lower corporate taxes, cut social security and basically let banks do whatever the hell they want. So yeah, Warren might be too liberal for the donor class, and Bill O’Reilly might want you to think that she’s too liberal for America, but America overwhelmingly disagrees. It is long past time for a course correction.

That doesn’t mean Warren can’t fundraise. In fact, she raised more in her Senate race than any other congressional candidate in the country. It turns out that there are a lot of folks who’d be willing to make a small investment in some actual people-powered, unbought democracy.

(MSNBC)

Although Ms. Ball finds that one might think Warren is too far left (seriously), all of her policies are wildly popular – the question remains, with whom? – Generally, the minimum wage is popular among a segment of the society that believes all things should be equal –and that tacking on the price of a raise to the customer is not an issue, nor the burden the small employer – go figure. – Who needs jobs and affordable groceries/fast food anyhow?

Inequality in voting does not keep most American’s up at night –there is an old history book, circa 1860, that offers an overview on the duty to vote: Once, in one place, and as a citizen, one got a ticket to vote – granted women were not given that ticket – times have marched on but the principals are the same.

Yes, the banks, we can all agree we’d love to have more in them, but, stretching the hard earned money of those still employed in order to put money into savings is becoming more difficult.

Had she said, nice old lady, a professor, looks like a grandmother, who can’t trust their grandmother – and she’s feisty, a carpetbagger from Oklahoma who suggested she had some Cherokee blood in her veins (the tribe hotly denies), in order to get tenure at Harvard. – So smart, and not above a bit of larceny.

Presidential Material – absolutely, especially if one is one the left –watch for a Warren center-right makeover and that will be the writing on the wall.

Who is Elizabeth Warren and why She will be the Democrat Frontrunner for 2016

Although it is understood that Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner now, given polling data and the obvious choice of the “next in line” of both political parties, one individual can best her – Elizabeth Warren. It began slowly with a great deal of hype about Hillary being unbeatable. She was pitted against Chris Christie the Republican Governor of New Jersey, with little to no push with the GOP and Independent Base, Hillary being the only “name” choice besides Biden, won handily. Warren, on the other hand was getting some press, and speculation early on, however that has ramped up as the news outlets are starting to push Warren over Clinton.

The Democrats will run an ism – in this case on feminism, so, it is almost certain that the nominee will be a female – they’ve got fewer bombs to throw with a generic male. The shot at Hillary came from several sources suggesting she may be too old to run for President (i.e. the John McCain syndrome), but the one that catches the eye is from NBC The Perils of being the presidential frontrunner. and the risks inherent this early in the game – while noting she is the frontrunner it also covers Elizabeth Warren, who is suggested as an option. The reason this is of import is that main news networks are now laying the groundwork for an anti-Hillary. The political blogs had previously, as noted, suggested age would be an issue See Politico – opinion on Hillary Clinton being too old to be President: this one suggests Generation X may choose a younger Republican. (Politico).

Elizabeth Warren is the first term Senator from the State of Massachusetts. (warren.senate.gov) and her short list of legislation since she was elected here at the library of Congress She is a former Harvard Professor, and had worked diligently for consumer rights in D.C. The Hill Blog’s Bernie Quigly, writes an almost unintelligible article on Warren suggesting an historical “Zen” moment. While MSNBC has literally had a meltdown as far as the suggestion Clinton would run, while there’s a perfectly good Elizabeth Warren in the wings Washington Post.

The obvious comes to mind when one is considering Senator Warren, specifically the similarities to the President – little to no experience in the legislature and a background in academics rather than in the private sector. That said, she is unabashedly, at this point in the game, a progressive – with no excuses – taking credit for the 99%, and owning the “movement”. If she stays true to herself and her ideology that would be commendable, but doubtful if one is in the Presidential race to win. She is, for good or ill, the darling of the left, and the progressive left is now firmly in charge of what once was a working man’s political party. They are not above making promises to pass legislation, whereby they are not necessarily forthcoming about the outcomes and the effect on the working class (See Obamacare).

It truly is too early to speculate, but with so few choices from the Democrat Party – one has to speculate that they will need a “hook”, which would be the female vote, and that they need a squeaky clean – brand new candidate to replace anyone with a hit of scandal outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - . That would be Elizabeth Warren.

Harry Reid (D-NV) – Brings Partisanship to New Heights – Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) – works with Coburn (R-OK) on Bill – Sick of it All Yet?

An article in the New York Times speaks to the power plays by the Majority Senate Leader, Harry Reid and his “uncompromising” position on anything Republican. Apparently, there have been bills brought forth by Republicans which Democrats of like mind might have voted for or against (with dialogue), yet Senator Reid stops all from being brought to a vote on the Senate Floor(New York Times). Reid, the Majority Leader, has the job of traffic cop when it comes to legislation and whose legislation is brought forth, voted upon and sent to the President’s desk for signature. When he blocks one party entirely, he’s playing partisan politics, which, one might suggest, will not turn out well for the current party in power (Democrats, which Reid leads by the nose).

Playing nice, at the moment, is the newly elected Progressive from Massachusetts, Senator Elizabeth Warren, with of all people Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Apparently they have co-written legislation on transparency with corporations specific to tax breaks, and the people’s money (both personal and tax) when it comes to banking. The referring article by the Huffington Post notes Coburn as an arch-conservative. - Coburn releases the annual government waste book available here, at www.coburn.senate.gov From this point of view, it’s a reasonable match, as Coburn is shouting government waste from the rooftops, and Warren is shouting corruption and waste as well. The bill will be on the Senate Floor, but the question remains, with Reid’s inability to allow anything with a Republican Label go to the floor, what happens to Warren and Coburn’s noble quest?

Reid is now in a position to play this either way – for example: He may shut it down entirely as it would appear that a Republican has something to offer and to be bi-partisans should it go to the Senate floor for a vote or, he can allow the vote – giving the one most likely to run for the Democrat Nomination for President (Elizabeth Warren), a leg up so to speak.

Meanwhile, all the worthwhile and the worthless legislation that both parties are writing (as that is the job they are hired to do), sits and nothing gets done – and Reid rules over a do-nothing Senate – if he were slightly less moral, one might liken him to the mad ruler of Rome, Caligula (referring to the madness of Power).

As the general voting public on both sides including rank and file Democrats and Republicans as well as Tea Party and Progressive, are growing more leery by the day of the partisanship shown on both sides. It is as if two big bullies are running the nation – into the ground. Which brings up a point – if one of each of what is seen as the more radical factions of both parties, actually makes a run at the Presidency and or any office for that matter, and avoids the general label of D or R – it follows that that individual would endear themselves to the public – the voting public.

A perfect example of such is the recent brouhaha over Chris Christie and his Turnpike Scandal. Not a fan of the Governor on some points, the level of partisan rhetoric coming from the Democrats, and stony silence from the Republican’s is ridiculous. The man took responsibility for something he was unaware of, and that shows leadership. Of course, the Republicans have some grievances with Christie as they felt he should not have embraced the President during the crisis of Hurricane Sandy, while Mitt Romney, the second worse candidate in recent memory, was trying to unseat the worst President since Jimmy Carter. Blaming Christie is ridiculous, as Romney was not supported by either the right wing evangelicals as well as the Tea Party! – When 20 million voters stay home, it’s time to change strategy. Not likely as they are having Bush delusions (Jeb Bush) and the Democrats are currently in love with Hillary Clinton. One might suggest that none of those mentioned in the preceding, will actually make it through the nominating process.

Which point, one of the most progressive individuals one might meet, suggested, who cares about Christie, why is this even news? This is referring, of course, to the labels - again.

Keep it up Harry, the DNC and the RNC and soon we will have new parties develop which are long past due. The public is becoming increasingly aware and increasingly Independent (or not affiliated with any political party)

Fighting Factions within the Democrat Party – Recognized – The Progressive versus the Democrat – Warren Coy About 2016 Run

From Politico: