The Limits of Elizabeth Warren

Senator Elizabeth Warren was pushed to her limit at the National Press Club, entrapped by a system she says she wants to debate, but clearly can’t, as Sam Husseini explains.

By Sam Husseini
Special to Consortium News

Senator Elizabeth Warren at the National Press Club in Washington on Tuesday launched into a blistering attack on unfettered corporate power in America but waffled when asked about military spending and Israel’s recent brutal reaction to Palestinian resistance.

Warren outlined with great specificity a host of proposals for eliminating financial conflicts, closing revolving doors between business and government and reforming corporate structures.

She pilloried former Congressman Billy Tauzin for having done the pharmaceutical lobby’s bidding by preventing a bill for expanded Medicare coverage to include a program to negotiate lower drug prices. “In December of 2003, the very same month the bill was signed into law, PhRMA — the drug companies’ biggest lobbying group — dangled the possibility that Billy could be their next CEO,” Warren said.

“In February of 2004, Congressman Tauzin announced that he wouldn’t seek re-election. Ten months later, he became CEO of PhRMA — at an annual salary of $2 million,” Warren said. “Big Pharma certainly knows how to say ‘thank you for your service.'” 

Warren: What does she want? (Wikimedia Commons)

But Warren’s laudable tenacity in ripping corporate lobbyists’ “pre-bribes” evaporated when faced with questions on the bloated U.S. military budget and ongoing Israeli assaults on Palestinian children. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic progressive who shocked the party by upsetting incumbent Congressman Joe Rowley in a New York primary election in June, had been mentioned earlier in the press conference. So I asked Warren if she agreed with Ocasio-Cortez who has proposed “slashing the military budget to help pay for human and environmental needs.” I also asked Warren if she would consider introducing and sponsoring [a version of] Rep. Betty McCollum’s (D-MN) bill on Palestinians children’s rights in the Senate? 

Warren responded:

I now sit on Armed Services and I have been in the middle of the sausage making factory on that one. And that has pushed me even more strongly in the direction of systemic reforms. I want to be able to have those debates. I want to be able to get them out in the open and talk about these poor issues that affect our government, affect our people. I want to be able to debate them on the floor of the senate. I want to be able to do amendments on them. Right now the whole of big money over our government stops much of that. It chokes off much of the debate we should have. So I am going to give you a system-wide answer because I think that’s what matters here. This is not about one particular proposal, this is all the way across. How is it that we get the voices of the people heard in government instead of over and over the voices of the wealthy and the well connected. The voices of those with higher armies of lobbyists. So for me that’s what this is about.

It was a classic politician’s evasion of sticky questions. She tells us she’s on the inside, invoking the cliché of “sausage-making.” She says she wants to debate the system. But she says she can’t. Warren seems to be crying out, trapped as she is in the compromise of power.

We’ve been here before with would-be champions of the people who run up against the “system.”  I could not help but think of Bernie Sanders in his 2016 presidential run when he was remarkably vague on foreign policy.

It reached almost comical proportions when, during a CBS debate right after the November 2015 bombings in Paris, instead of answering a foreign policy question he pivoted back to income inequality. No doubt Sanders was treated unfairly by the Democratic Party and media establishments. But he was greatly diminished by not having serious foreign policy answers. 

Sanders: Too little, too late.

Sanders began addressing foreign policy towards the end of his campaign and has since. But his answers are still problematic. At best they are too little, too late. Warren and other “progressive” candidates seem poised to follow suit.

What are Warren’s real goals? If she really wants to enact legislation to rein in corporations, why hasn’t she found a rogue Republican to work with? Questioned at the press conference by a New York Post reporter, Warren couldn’t name a single Republican she could pair with.

If her intent is to become the leading contender for the Democratic nomination will she simply play the sheepdog role of keeping the public on the “reservation” on behalf of the party’s elite?  

“Inside Washington, some of these proposals will be very unpopular, even with some of my friends,” Warren said at the Press Club. “Outside Washington, I expect that most people will see these ideas as no-brainers and be shocked they’re not already the law.”

The public would probably also be shocked to learn that funding perpetual war, unauthorized by either Congress or the U.N., is already against the law.

Sam Husseini is an independent journalist, senior analyst at the Institute for Public Accuracy and founder of Follow him on twitter: @samhusseini.

f you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

130 comments for “The Limits of Elizabeth Warren

  1. zman
    August 30, 2018 at 13:30

    Many comments on Ms.Warren, Bernie and others that many deem to be a sign of hope (or not)…the usual. I wish there were reasons to be hopeful. But I have realized one thing after many years watching the antics of the US voter. What we have as a government and representatives of said government is exactly what the US public wants. There can be no other explanation. One only has to look at those repeatedly returned to ‘serve’. Were these people not serving those who vote, they would not be there, they wouldn’t even survive a primary vote. It is the people of this country that is to blame, not politicians. Politicians (or any criminal) only do what they are permitted to do. If they please, they return…if not, they’re gone. Is it any wonder why people around the world no longer dis just our government, but us, as a people for our stupidity? Many will be rankled by this but, sorry, they’re right. WE have earned the scorn of the world. If The US population had any critical thinking attributes left, Reagan, Bush1, GW, Obama and now Trump, would never have been elected in the first place….much less re-elected(Clinton). So what does this say for US voters? Want to know when this happy horseshit will end?…when this country finally collapses under the weight of corruption and war. There might or might not be anything left of the country as it is now, but the world will rejoice it’s demise. There is another option, but it is so far fetched as not to be at all likely. The people will have to grow up and grow a pair. Quit looking for a saviour, there aren’t any…if there were they’d die pretty quick anyways. Voting only encourages a continuation of the facade(US voters aren’t smart enough to discern between BS liars and honesty in the first place)…want to know when a politician is owned? They use the same play book…show up with a flag, a bible, praise the NRA and pledge undying love for Israel…that’s all it takes in this country to be taken seriously. Any other meaningful discussion is ignored out of hand, as we don’t want to be bothered by it all. Only one-liners and quips count. The only way to overcome this embedded stupidity is to go the Iran route. How many know how the Shah was actually overthrown? It wasn’t by religious fanatics, it was the people. No going to work, no paying taxes, no nothing. It worked and didn’t take long. The likely-hood of this happening in the US=0. The likely-hood of any meaningful change otherwise=0. Get used to it, it ain’t going to change, because we won’t. When the people actually stand up and tell our ‘reps’ to GTFO of Syria, instead of eating up the CWFF BS and demand a huge reduction in defense spending (corporate theft) just as starters, then I’ll be encouraged…but I’ll pinch myself first, just to be sure.

  2. Mrs. Debra L. Carr de Legorreta
    August 27, 2018 at 18:12

    Warren is war monger and does not what to disclose her commitment to militarism. Why can’t she pinpoint Lockheed Martin or Booz Allen Hamilton as perpetrators of the evil she clams to be fighting? Instead she conflates the military issue with the need to make “system wide” reforms. That’s a chicken shit evasion. If she’s serious about corporate corruption, why not start with the military contractors??? After all they are slated to take half of the bloated military budget. Start there senator.

  3. August 27, 2018 at 13:58

    In my view there about 3 groups within the democratic party. One, corporate owned (establishment), ,2. the mddlle class (millionaires) blindly voting for establishment and the poorly educated vs labor ,educated progressives like Ocasio/Sanders. The battle within the party is the same as when Clinton and her miinions, representing the establishment vs. the progressives who support more social issues, and far less military,support. The two party system is a fraud. Foundees never supported a party system. They both control the citizens using cultural issues, and non issues (rascism etc). Bernie Sanderes knows full well as a jewish man in an election he could never speak out re: Israel. Read “they dare speak out” and see why…Its been going on snce 1948. Elect ONLY progressives if you want real change.

  4. Tim
    August 26, 2018 at 12:47

    Transcription error:

    The Warren quote ” Right now the whole of big money over our government stops…” should, of course, read “Right now, the HOLD of big money…..”

  5. Douglas Gibbens
    August 25, 2018 at 17:14

    Elected officials who have constituents with interests in defense contracting are always going to sound this way. It’s their job to represent those interests and this kind of “lawyered-up” answer is the best they can do under such circumstances. Like it or not, war is hugely profitable so opposing it is going to cost someone somewhere some money, and nothing pisses off a voter like having their livelihood curtailed.

  6. RickD
    August 25, 2018 at 11:17

    There is obviously a void in our government insofar as clear and strong voices on the left are concerned. Facing down the corporate run governance from the inside is, apparently, as difficult as it is from the outside. Even the closest legislators come to advancing progressive agendas, to speaking out against abuses, against the way our government works almost exclusively for the wealthy, the corporate, seem insufficient, appear to be not near enough.

    Perhaps survival is the real reason we see such “this far and no further” sort of stances from even the best of our elected officials ( from the standpoint, of course, of the left). Frankly I do not know. I do know, however, as one who has devoted decades to local activism, who has had the good fortune to work with other , like minded and motivated people, to accomplish some very worthy goals within our community, its schools, its services of which we are rightly proud, the way things get done.

    We have worked with elected officials of every stripe, republican and democrat, most of whom had official positions we abhorred frankly, but were vehicles capable of bringing about the programs, the services we felt were necessary. Today our little neighborhood schools have free lunch programs that include children taking home food on Friday to tide them over for the weekend as these kids eat mostly at school and have little to nothing at home. A small thing perhaps, and only one such accomplishment.

    We have a POP program in the sheriffs dept.and have officers working in our neighborhood who are truly people oriented police. Representatives of the Sheriff and the Highway Patrol attend our monthly meetings , listen to our concerns and actually act upon them.

    I raise these only to note that these, and several others such benefits were accomplished by working with those who had the power to effect these changes, bring these programs to reality regardless of their politics, their positions on other issues, other agendas. Once the politicians saw how many votes were available, how we spoke to other communities as well, the differences we had politically did not get in the way of achieving the goal we sought.

    I see, among the left , a penchant for vilification of those with the ability to get things done because they do not demonstrate 100% political purity. I see how the right has usurped so much of our governance by putting aside differences to work for that which they held in common. I also see children formerly going hungry now being fed because we worked with supervisors and other officials with whom we had damn little in common, I see books in the hands of kids who never read before ( another small victory achieved by that little neighborhood group) , better relations between citizen and officer as well, all because instead of condemnation we held our noses and worked with those who could accomplish a specific goal.

    Like it or not, the Sanders, the Warrens, the Ellisons et al are in a position to help the progressive agenda, not , perhaps, on all fronts , but certainly on several. We on the left participate in a circular firing squad and thus remain out of power, goals not accomplished.

  7. William Rood
    August 23, 2018 at 21:18

    “Warren couldn’t name a single Republican she could pair with.”

    Naturally, she can’t “pair with” Rand Paul. He’s for greater understanding of our Russian “partners,” and has even begun to question Israeli actions. Thus, he fails Warren’s litmus test.

    “Right now the whole (sic) of big money over our government stops much of that.”

    Then why doesn’t she support measures to break that hold? She could contact Move to Amend and ask what she can do to help: Warren won’t do that, but YOU can!

    • elmerfudzie
      August 25, 2018 at 12:58

      Mr Rood, why pretend to be a spokesperson for Senator Warren? Let’s see who she picks as a running mate, then we’ll have something to comment on, one way or another.

    • Punkyboy
      August 28, 2018 at 09:26

      Rand Paul came to my mind, as well. I am wary of him as a Libertarian, but I laud his visit to Russia in the face of what must have been blistering criticism. I am also not in favor of the censorship being aimed at the Ron Paul Institute. We are on a very slippery slope on so many fronts that it’s becoming more and more obvious that the US “empire” is on the ropes, taking all of us down with it.

  8. Eric Brooks
    August 23, 2018 at 21:08

    Let’s not forget the limits of Ocasio-Cortez.. Backpedaling on Palestine..

    Ocasio-Cortez: Well, I believe absolutely in Israel’s right to exist. I am a proponent of a two-state solution. And for me, this is not a referendum, I think, on the state of Israel.

    Interviewer: Of course, the dynamic there, in terms of geopolitics in the Middle East is very different than people expressing their First Amendment right to protest.

    Ocasio-Cortez: Yes…

    • Eric Brooks
      August 23, 2018 at 21:10


      More disturbing clarity on Ocasio-Cortez.. Here is what she had to say about Russia in her recent interview with The Intercept..

      “We now have Russia playing a very aggressive role in other nations. We have what we saw in Europe ahead of the French elections where, thankfully, they had planned for a cyberattack, but we have a lot of the destabilization of our political institutions as well. We see the role that Russia is playing in that. You look at what’s happening in these FBI investigations and the things we’re finding and lo and behold this petrol Russian oligarch is tied directly financially to what happened in the 2016 U.S. elections.”

      • backwardsevolution
        August 23, 2018 at 23:46

        Eric Brooks – yeah, sickening. Ocasio-Cortez is as deluded as Elizabeth Warren is, and people actually believe this stuff. They need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine so that the other side can challenge these allegations. These two ladies are supposed to be highly educated. Where is the intelligence? I’m looking hard for it, but I don’t see it.

        • August 25, 2018 at 23:48

          I don’t believe either one believes what they are saying. There is on the reservation and off it. If you want to play you play according to the rules if you don’t you don’t play. This is not an option. No politician can oppose the Deep State directly in matters of “security” if they do their careers are over and if they persist their lives are over. Everyone knows that so the lash seldom comes down on anyone.

  9. August 23, 2018 at 12:42

    One always hates to sound like one wears a foil hat as a daily fashion accessory, but given history, is it really that farfetched, given the clearly expanding power of both the MIC and the IC in this country, that anyone who blatantly challenges the status quo with regard to “defense spending” could very easily suffer an “accident” or other disposal?

    I don’t see people who aren’t willing to address foreign policy and military spending. I see people who’ve been around the sausage factory long enough to know, as Chuck Schumer famously said, the IC has “six ways from Sunday” of getting back at them. And anyone who thinks the corporate sector isn’t equally capable of silencing opposition permanently also needs to review history.

    I know it’s hard for us to consider the fact that we’ve been living in a fascist neoliberal plutocracy for years, and that the roots of those who are enjoying its benefits go deep and spread wide, but if even I, who have no power, have to wonder if my increasing criticism of the establishment and encouragement of others to do likewise have gone unnoticed. Because I have read history.

    • John
      August 24, 2018 at 22:32


      The foil hat wearers of yesteryear have been proven to be correct by current revelations (particularly those of Snowden and Assange). What makes you think the foil hat wearers of today will not be proven correct in the future as well?

    • Punkyboy
      August 28, 2018 at 09:33

      Wear that tinfoil hat with pride. Underneath it is someone who’s paying attention and asking questions. The American Revolution was based on, and won by, conspiracy. The word has been demonized to keep us afraid to speak out about things we aren’t supposed to question.

  10. August 23, 2018 at 11:58

    Warren is just like the rest. Her idea of making progress is lining her own pocket. We have people in charge of our government that will do anything to keep control. We the people need to have more viable parties to fight this system that has taken control of America. We all have to step up or our children’s future looks bleak! All we need is a plan and someone who knows how to achieve the goals of the people and to stand up to the banks, corporations and the ultra-rich and to end our assistance with helping them take what they want from other countries. We need to spend more money and time on our country!

  11. Rob
    August 23, 2018 at 11:05

    Anyone wondering why Sanders and Warren are evasive in their answers to questions regarding Israel should read the piece by Jonathan Cook in today’s Consortium news. It details the concerted attack against Jeremy Corbyn as being an anti-Semite by members of his own party and the mass media. Perhaps Corbyn should be more forthright in his own defense, but he has been intimidated. Politics are a dirty, scary business.

  12. mrtmbrnmn
    August 22, 2018 at 23:28

    Sad to say, Elizabeth Warren is a sheep in sheep’s clothing. She’s smarter and not as inauthentic as the Queen of You Owe Me. Better at pitching Dementedcrat woo and dogma. But the tell that she lacks the…uh…steel in her backbone was her refusal to challenge Hillary’s “coronation” in 2015-16. Not to mention her full-throated over-selling of Hillary in the general election. Bernie also drank from that poisoned chalice at the end of his run. The Dementedcrats have shown themselves to be a political coven of crooks and cowards. The last honorable, courageous and genuine liberal/progressive Democrat was Paul Wellstone!! If there were more of him, it might not be so frightening or dangerous to be one.

    • exiled off mainstreet
      August 23, 2018 at 18:51

      This clearly and concisely reviews the reality that Mr. Husseini’s article highlights: the “Democrats” have totally sold out on the life and death issues of power, rendering them useless despite the favorable posturings of a few of them on certain issues. The imperium has to be brought down before any serious progress can be made, and bringing it down is tricky since this may not be possible without the total destruction of everything. Particularly in light of subsequent history one has to wonder about the convenience to the power structure of Senator Wellstone’s accident.

      • Gregory Herr
        August 25, 2018 at 10:16

        When there was still such a thing as a true Democrat there was a man called Wellstone. Paul irked the Bush clan to no end by standing against open-ended war resolutions and the invasion of Iraq.

        “Wellstone — a college professor and political activist before he got into politics — was the only Senator who voted against President Clinton’s welfare reform bill. He actively opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement and every other piece of legislation that gave more power to corporations. He was a strong advocate for civil rights, for raising the minimum wage, for affordable health care, for protecting the environment and for campaign finance reform.” (And for single-payer as well).

        The FBI was “on the scene” in a curiously quick manner.

        • Bob Van Noy
          August 25, 2018 at 11:22

          Thank you Gregory Herr for bringing up Paul Wellstone as an excellent contrast to the spineless so called liberals in the current Congress. Your link brings back good memories of courageous stands against TPTB. Great link.

          Interesting too how the FBI has a knack at showing up early at significant airplane accidents.

    • Skip Edwards
      August 25, 2018 at 17:50

      Yes, and don’t forget what happened to him; and JFK; and RFK; and MLK; and Seth Rich; and on and on.

  13. CitizenOne
    August 22, 2018 at 22:30

    Elisabeth Warren stated “How is it that we get the voices of the people heard in government instead of over and over the voices of the wealthy and the well connected.” This is not a light questioning of how our democracy functions but asks a question which is the root of the problem in our democracy.

    That problem is how do We The People under the US Constitution end up underrepresented by a national government which is supposed to act in our interest but ends up rubber stamping legislation crafted by corporate lobbyists and special interests who have an undue influence on our laws.

    We no longer have a national government which protects citizen rights but perverts the intent of the bedrock laws of the Constitution to protect the rights of the little guy into protections for the wealthiest individuals and corporations. Our government has granted the former rights of citizens protected by the US Constitution to large corporations and the wealthiest individuals.

    What do these powerful, rich entities do with the new laws redefining of who is protected under the Constitution? They use their newly granted freedom of speech with unlimited money to ply Washington and Congress in ways never before considered to be legitimate interpretations of the Constitution and its guarantees of protections for citizens. Citizens United v. FEC, McCutcheon v. FEC and other Supreme Court decisions have handed the wealthiest corporations and individuals undue influence in elections.

    This was echoed in Supreme Court Justice Stevens dissenting opinion in the successful repeal of election campaign finance regulations granted by the Citizens United v. FEC ruling.

    Supreme Court Justice Stevens said in his dissenting opinion: :In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. The majority’s rejection of this principle “elevate(s) corporations to a level of deference which has not been seen at least since the days when substantive due process was regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests.” Bellotti , 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

    Well said Justice Stevens.

    Corporate money in politics is the reason we face a government which panders to the rich at the expense of the planet and the health and well being of the Citizens of the United States.

    • CitizenOne
      August 23, 2018 at 22:53

      I see a problem with the education of the commenters on this website. Commenters seem ill informed about the true causes of our election malady’s disease. Our national election disease is not at all due to Russian interference. This is just a made up fantasy by the intelligence agencies and the major media designed to cover up the real reasons for our election problems. It is a tale as old as history and has been used thousands of times to deceive the public in countless nations which have fallen under the boot of Fascism in apparent ignorance of the real reasons that their governments were taken over by Fascists.

      The underlying cause of hundreds of governments that have been overtaken by the wealthy campaign donors which devolved into despotism and the abrogation of their constitutions. The fall of democracy in the many nations which have fallen to Fascism is due to the confluence of money tied to their national press’s which effectively suppressed the real reasons for the results of national elections in a democratic country that successfully blames a foreign nation for the corruption which it endlessly covers as a root cause for the results of an election which elects a president or a prime minister or a radical right wing nationalist to power.

      This is the Iron Triangle of corporate money and its unfettered access to be able to influence national elections.

      What have we seen to describe the United States elections that corroborates the hypothesis that the national media and the wealthiest individuals and corporations have new and unencumbered influence in elections?

      The evidence is the Supreme Court appointments over the last thirty years who have been selected to serve as permanent Justices (as if they were really justices and not politicians in robes) that sided with corporate interests and the interests of Billionaires over the citizens of the nation in a deliberate way to elevate corporations and wealthy individuals to the status of “real people” The history of the recent Supreme Court decisions has been to elevate the rights of corporations and wealthy individuals and to grant the wealthiest individuals and corporations the rights granted formerly to citizens to grant corporations and wealthy individuals the same rights under the Constitution as actual real people.

      The Supreme Court and its members is a hotly contested ongoing fight which has played out to cause the republicans to play to the hilt fights about which Justice will be nominated. The carefully crafted major media propaganda as always makes it a fight over wedge issues while disguising and under reporting the financial reasons rich entities seek to usurp the court for their own special interests.

      Hence we are presented with the minimalist argument that the Supreme Court nominees are all about abortion and other wedge issues while the major media fail deliberately to disclose that they will benefit from the successful
      nomination of a given SCOTUS nominee because that nominee will enrich their corporate bottom line.

      Corporate money drenching the Supreme Court nominee directly enriches the national media corporations and the politicians too:

      Here is an example of how the unfettered and anonymous donations fro the wealthy contribute to corruption”

      While most of the country was occupied by FBI Director James Comey’s testimony that his agency was investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, hearings got underway for the president’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. The proceedings continued today, and things got interesting when Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse asked Gorsuch about a $10 million press and advertising campaign waged by an outside group to get him confirmed. The snag in the whole business is that the $10 million is dark money—its true sources are using 501(c)4 group Judicial Crisis Network to obscure themselves—so we don’t know who exactly it is that’s so eager to see Gorsuch on the bench.

      I can correctly predict that the reasons for the dark money contributions to Neil Gorsuch’s nomination were not about abortion politics which was the major media’s spin but were all about how he would side on behalf of billionaires to grant the billionaires who funded his confirmation by buying politicians with millions of cash dollars in order to secure a Supreme Court Justice’s nomination who would do the bidding of the the wishes of the billionaires.

      Also a dark money organization that has spent millions to finance conservative causes was the source of the $17 million spent to keep Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat in Republican hands, tax documents reveal.

      The Wellspring Committee, a Virginia-based nonprofit, donated more than $23 million last year to the Judicial Crisis Network, which spent $7 million on advertisements pushing Republican senators to block President Barack Obama’s court pick, Merrick Garland. After the election, the network spent another $10 million to boost President Donald Trump’s pick, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

      Wellspring received more than $32 million in donations last year, with $28.5 million coming from a single, anonymous donor. Before 2016, Wellspring had never received more than $13.2 million in annual donations. As a social welfare organization, Wellspring is not required to disclose its donors.
      A tax form from the Wellspring Committee shows $28.5 million coming from a single, anonymous donor. Wellspring gave $23.5 million to another dark money organization that spent millions to keep Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat in Republican hands.

      There is an unreported story here. The unreported story has been concealed by our supposed free press in a deliberate effort to conceal the real reasons that the republicans have blocked Supreme Court nominees. The only conclusion is that the major media have conspired to hide these truths about how dark money influences elections and nominations to elected posts some of which last a lifetime to turn the government into a tool for the wealthy while beguiling us all into believing we are nominating judges or politicians based on some notion the they are supporters of the right wing wedge issue campaign to end abortion.

      The Russians are just a ploy to deceive us.

      • Garrett Connelly
        August 24, 2018 at 16:58

        Friendly edit — first sentence started thus;

        Russian interference is just a made up fantasy …

    • dean1000
      August 28, 2018 at 17:08

      Citizen One: You & Senator Warren have it right. The root of the problem is the lack of free speech. It begets the under representation that converts the Democratic Republic that people want into an Oligarchic republic. I do not refer to an oligarchy of Grandmothers. Such an oligarchy might be an improvement. Grandmas think their relatives are special.

      I am talking about the monied interests of course. The constitution limits representation in the House of Representatives to 1 representative per 30,000 residents. ( Residents are the people (of) the U.S. rather than people who are merely (in) the U.S. to see the Grand Canyon, get a job, attend school, or spy for a foreign government or corporation.) The maximum number of representatives according to the Census Bureau apportioned population of 2010 (309,183,463) would be 10,311 House members. The population of each state (not the U.S. population) determines how many representatives each state has in the House. (scroll to page 2)

      Could the monied interests buy or financially intimidate a majority (5,156) of house members? Would they stay bought? An election district of 30,000 people where all the adults are married w/2 kids would have a maximum of 7,500 voters. With a maximum turnout the winning candidate could have as little as 3,751 votes. Candidates in such small districts wouldn’t need campaign contributions. A candidate advertising heavily on commercial TV may be advertising that he is a tool of the monied interests.
      So every election district needs a radio & TV station where candidates can debate and speechify without special interest contributions or expensive consultants. A majority vote of congress can give every election district a radio & TV station and website.

      A modest increase would quadruple House membership. There is no reason why all representatives should be in wWashington at the same time. The British House of Commons has only 427 seats for 646 members. If the U.S. had House representation
      proportional to the UK it would have 3,219 house members.

      Thomas Paine, of revolutionary fame, recommended large legislative bodies. Alexander Hamilton recommended a small congress. U.S. citizens have 200 years of experience with a small congress.

      Your opinions about government are founded on experience rather than guesswork or bias. How is small government working out for you?

  14. backwardsevolution
    August 22, 2018 at 21:08

    Senator Warren in all her glory on Youtube one day ago in “Senator Warren demands answers on Trump’s implementation of Russian sanctions”:

    “Frankly, I am not convinced that Treasury is doing everything possible to hold Putin accountable for using cyber attacks to interfere in our elections and those of our allies, for illegally occupying Ukraine, for propping up the Syrian dictator Assad.”

    She’s all for Russian sanctions, full speed ahead, rah, rah, rah! In her mind, with no evidence, apparently Russia interfered in the election. I’m sure she felt Gaddafi had to go down, and she’s firmly against Putin and Assad.

    Say no more. She is an idiot.

    • August 22, 2018 at 21:37

      English is a tricky language as the usage differs drastically dependent on context, necessitating a wide bookshelf of specialized dictionaries. From the dictionary of English as used by American politicians:

      Frankly, XXX

      I feel compelled to say this b…t: XXX

      As politicians are mere fallible humans, sometimes they use “Frankly” amusingly, e.g. an answer to a reporter “Frankly, I will not tell you the truth.” But I did not notice a case when XXX is not b…t.

      • backwardsevolution
        August 22, 2018 at 21:54

        Piotr Berman – yes, English is very difficult. There’s a separate word(s) for absolutely every single thing you can possibly ever think of, every emotion, the slightest of differences. If I were from a non-English-speaking country and had to learn English, I think I’d be pulling my hair out, and I certainly would not be anywhere as good as you are, Piotr!

        “Frankly” usually means to speak “in an open, honest, and direct manner” or “plain manner”, without any bullsh*t. Senator Warren is all about being “down homey” (try that one on for size, Piotr), golly-gee, shucks. It gives her an excuse if she doesn’t follow through on something. I believe she understands a lot more than she lets on. To me, she is a person who enjoys the status quo and doesn’t want to see any changes. Oh, maybe some small changes, but nothing major. Bernie in a dress.

        • August 22, 2018 at 23:37

          Give me an quote of an American politicians that starts with “Frankly,…” and then continues with something honest. Actually, even among non-politicians it is a rather suspicious way to start a sentence: if you want to say something directly, say it directly, otherwise you smile insincerely and start with “Honestly”, “Frankly” etc. Mind you, politicians like Warren do not lie every single time, but when they say “Frankly” you can stop listening.

          But not all hope is lost! Here Junior Senator from New York showing ten times more courage than Warren:

          On March 26, toward the end of a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) asked U.S. Central Command commander Gen. Lloyd Austin what the ultimate goal of the GCC air campaign in Yemen was, and for the general to estimate its likelihood of success.

          Gen. Austin answered with refreshing honesty: “I don’t currently know the specific goals and objectives of the Saudi campaign, and I would have to know that to be able to assess the likelihood of success.” Gillibrand replied, “Well, I do hope you get the information sooner than later.”


          I guess Gillibrand keeps waiting patiently. Actually, the background was that earlier that months some of her downstate constituents had demos requesting that she co-sponsors a Senate resolution to cut any support of the slaughter in Yemen, and while she did nothing of the sort, she had shown “concern”. At least, for a fleeting moment, her concern was not misdirected.

          • CitizenOne
            August 23, 2018 at 23:11

            All Hope is Lost in opposition to “All Hope is not lost” by Pietr Berman

            But not all hope is not lost! Here Junior Senator from New York showing ten times more courage than Warren:

            On March 26, toward the end of a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) asked U.S. Central Command commander Gen. Lloyd Austin what the ultimate goal of the GCC air campaign in Yemen was, and for the general to estimate its likelihood of success.
            Gen. Austin answered with refreshing honesty: “I don’t currently know the specific goals and objectives of the Saudi campaign, and I would have to know that to be able to assess the likelihood of success.” Gillibrand replied, “Well, I do hope you get the information sooner than later.”

            The dumping of millions of dollars of bombs on Yemen serves only the munitions manufacturers profits. Nothing more than corporate profits.

            If you cannot articulate the reasons for our dumping of bombs on some foreign country then you have said nothing but the firepower we can unleash as somehow serving out national interest.

            Just say it is in our national interest and leave us wondering what exactly is our national interest in bombing Yemen other than our national interest in supplying weapons?

          • backwardsevolution
            August 23, 2018 at 23:50

            CitizenOne – “National interest in supplying weapons” AND the national interest of OIL. Yemen’s oil. I believe the oil is of paramount importance, and the weapons come along for the ride.

    • August 22, 2018 at 21:49

      Example from my dictionary shelf: English as used by American journalists:

      Intellectually incurious = a public figure that is so stupid that is truly staggering

      Is the Senior Senator from Massachusetts intellectually incurious? Did she ask anyone what it would costs her constituents, fellow Americans etc. etc. to “do everything possible”? Does she want a literal total war (OK, not a Treasury decision) or merely economic mutually assured destruction?

      • Ed
        August 27, 2018 at 22:23

        “Intellectually incurious” is one of the kinder things said about George W Bush. I was never so kind as to use that euphemism to describe him, but then, I’m not a published political pundit.

  15. August 22, 2018 at 20:15

    “So I am going to give you a system-wide answer because I think that’s what matters here. This is not about one particular proposal, this is all the way across.”

    Voices of tormented souls that come from “the box”. To have “system-wide answers” one has to be outside the box. Clearly, the Senior Senator from Massachusetts knows more about healthcare (something) than about military (apparently, nothing), but even on healthcare, she tinkers what can be done within the box. If you look from outside, some issues are the same for the military and pharmaceutical. Through largely invisible but indefatigable efforts, economic solutions are removed from the box where are politicians are placed. I encountered the following example:

    Pfizer is selling automatic injectors of epinephrin, a necessity for 0.5-1% of the population, and currently is the only supplier, and successively doubled the prices for USA market twice, to ca. $300 USD per pair, and there is some debate what to do about it, EPA approved a competing product from another company giving hope of reduced prices. Given that I still remember the language of the country of my birth, I checked the situation in Poland. The price of auto-injectors is 25% of American price, AND it is not covered by insurance. Why? Insurance fully covers “injectors”, pre-loaded syringes that assure correct dose, but you have to press the piston yourself, and this “old tech” gadget costs four time less. In both cases, the cost of epinephrin itself is about 1 USD. Because of the invisible efforts I have mentioned, normal injectors are not recommended (approved?) at all in USA. They are a bit less convenient, but Poles with allergies use them without problems, and the minority that cannot handle it may fork $75 dollars that probably give ample profit margin to Pfizer. This is not the only atrocity affecting people with allergies. For example, herbal medicines and epinephrin inhalers that are suitable for milder cases of asthma (the majority) were removed from the market, while the remaining medicines are prescription only and have hugely increased prices. Cheap stuff is removed from consideration leaving only few medicines or devices protected by patents and then congress creatures debate if the pricing should be left to “the market” or not.

    Likewise, cheap options concerning the defense are removed from the box. Dazzled congress creature are presented with the lists of missions that DoD must be capable off and necessary weapon systems. If your doubt that we need to control waters of south-east Pacific you are about to surrender the control of our kindergarten and preschools with the most precious children to enemy hordes (actually, I suspect that both threats and missions are described in hermetic jargons so our Senior Senator still has no idea what is it about). Then there are systems that are “necessary” for those missions. One could try simple questions: why USA needed more money during active intervention (occupation if you will) than the entire military budget of Russia in years when Russia projects her forces in Syria? And with better outcomes. Doesn’t it mean that the money for intervention in Iraq were TOTALLY misspend?

    One can object that this comparison is unfair, because Russia could rely on a government that is supported by a sufficiently large section of population, so several “elite divisions” could be armed and trained to fight reliably, while we couldn’t find reliable officers and soldiers in Iraq (and Afghanistan). This begs the question of wisdom of intervening in countries where we have no faintest idea who would support our goals. One could then give a cursory look at those goals but I try to sketch only what should be actually safe to say while remaining a “mainstream politician” rather than some dreaded “free radical”.

    Both Warren and Sanders have rather reliable funding based on small donors and would not lose a lot by offending the fat cats, but they spend too many years inside the box to be able to think about true alternatives to the status quo.

  16. August 22, 2018 at 18:50

    Unless the Israel lobby has to register as a foreign agent under FARA, which it should, nothing will change. Cynthia McKinney refused to sign the “Israel Pledge” and the power of the lobby was brought against her for defeat in the House; she has a video on Youtube about that, Congress members are expected to sign the pledge, not forced, but the message is clear if they don’t. Massachusetts has a large Jewish population and is home to many large educational institutions and hospitals. I lived in Massachusetts when Warren first got into Congress, and my read of Warren has been that she has always focused on economic issues in trying to address inequality for the struggling middle class of the US. She now sits on Armed Services and should educate herself as to the interconnection.

  17. August 22, 2018 at 18:25

    All I gotta say is I LOVE the caricature of Liz. Not a fan. Warren was a Republican until she was 47 y/o.

  18. Bill Goldman
    August 22, 2018 at 18:17

    If Warren really wanted to tackle the pro-Pentagon war mongers and the military/industrial complex all she has to do is team up with Rand Paul. However, Raytheon, etc. stands in her way. Sure, she and Paul are miles apart on the issue of government regulation of business, she as a liberal and he as a libertarian, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says the President and Vice President must be in lockstep. If they were on the same page with the concept that “war is a racket”, they could jointly lead the brainwashed and the snookered out of the morass and toward a peaceful world while domestic issues could be pragmatically compromised without stirring up civil war.

  19. nondimenticare
    August 22, 2018 at 18:15

    (typo in Email address)

  20. nondimenticare
    August 22, 2018 at 18:12

    The largest mistake we voters could make would be the one made in Obama’s first presidential campaign. To every omission, every obfuscation we responded that he simply couldn’t say or do anything until elected, though he sincerely wanted to and undoubtedly had intentions that he could not reveal. We all know now that our presuppositions were groundless. Never assume.

  21. notlurking
    August 22, 2018 at 15:58

    She is part of that 1%…..self preservation will be her number one priority…..

  22. Deniz
    August 22, 2018 at 14:16

    Look at her research at Harvard, she is very well published bankruptcy and financial industry expert. The corruption in our banking system is a very serious problem and a great place to start. At least she has a highly accomplished, verifiable resume as a real public servant. At least she wasn’t concocted out of thin area, like our former presidents.

    Along that line, how does Obama become president of Harvard Law Review without a single publication?

    • Professor
      August 22, 2018 at 15:38

      The other kids backed back down and put him first in line. Academia is not the real world. Her studies and writings/ publications would have no bearing on anything that would happen in the nuts and bolts negotiations that would occur as a result of Regime Change in the future. She is irrelevant . A perfect candidate. No real values and situational ethics on all issues. . Her selling point is that she is a woman. Period. . Judge her for what she is. She has no charisma and after her years in the Senate she carries the same baggage as her peer group.

      • michael
        August 25, 2018 at 20:22

        “Her selling point is that she is a woman. Period.” She also claims Native American ancestry, which has helped her in her past.

        • Ed
          August 27, 2018 at 22:28

          Her claims of Cherokee ancestry have been exposed as falsehoods by several respected Cherokee genealogists. Liz was lying about having Cherokee ancestors. It’s a big mistake to publicly claim to be Cherokee unless you have proof. The Cherokee have well documented family histories.

    • Skip Edwards
      August 25, 2018 at 20:50

      A very good question. Possibly Mr. Obama could come out of his public silence and answer that question. Thanks for bringing it up.

  23. michael crockett
    August 22, 2018 at 13:43

    Empire is the elephant in the room for Warren as it was for Sanders. The US is a terrorist state run by the deep state to consolidate and expand the American Empire at the expense of the 99% here at home and abroad. We can be sure Sen. Warren, in her timidity, will not confront this and she will fail us. In her nuanced code she would have us believe that she gets it and when there is a coalition of the like minded, we can trust her to rise up and challenge the oligarchs/kleptocrats that run the show. I’m not buying it. She has taught classes in finance and economics but I have not heard her describe the American greenback as a petrol dollar backed by the Pentagon and its collateral of millions of dead bodies. For the MIC the money will keep rolling in. Competitors become adversaries. Adversaries become enemies. The game continues. Warren will not be a brake on it.

  24. Bud
    August 22, 2018 at 13:22
  25. F. G. Sanford
    August 22, 2018 at 12:47

    A Senator named Lizzy Warren, seems elusive on policy foreign.
    Palestinian kids threaten campaign cash bids,
    From that Lobby with money to pour in!

    Big Pharma was always fair game. Bilking sick people seems such a shame.
    Designer drug dealers and charlatan healers
    Are easier shysters to blame!

    She’s a Native American treasure. Her constituents praise every measure.
    She’s got honest blue eyes and she won’t compromise-
    She does Lobbyist bidding with pleasure!

    Legislation must always be guarded, and prejudice must be discarded.
    When it’s time to fund war, there are things to ignore-
    Like those kids that might just get bombarded!

    They’re malnourished, unlikely to thrive: young terrorists raised in a hive.
    It’s an open air jail with a fence they can’t scale,
    But benevolence keeps them alive!

    With nutrition they could reproduce. They’d quickly become too profuse.
    But with low body mass and by “mowing the grass”,
    It’s not quite genocide they induce!

    She parrots financial reform. It’s her principal campaign platform.
    With feeble endeavors and obtuse what-evers,
    She avoids making bankers perform!

    A Commander in Chief qualified, she’d never denounce apartheid.
    Critics declare that she’s easy to scare,
    And she proudly admits she’ll backslide!

    If she runs in the coming election, she’ll get plenty of Lobby protection.
    She’ll timidly claim that class struggle’s to blame,
    Thus avoiding a “deep state” objection!

    She’ll say healthcare reform won’t be choked, and benefits won’t be revoked.
    But the bucks for defense won’t decrease by two cents,
    So a tax increase must be invoked!

    Lizzy is America’s mirror. If you look, you’ll see us so much clearer.
    The truth we can’t face just compounds our disgrace,
    Without courage, the end just gets nearer!

    • Joe Wallace
      August 22, 2018 at 16:20

      F.G. Sanford:

      Bravo! I admire your wordsmithing facility!

    • Skip Scott
      August 25, 2018 at 09:39

      Another masterpiece F.G.!! Keep ’em comin’.

  26. elmerfudzie
    August 22, 2018 at 12:41

    I’d like to witness a Warren-Dole ticket (Elizabeth) Senator Dole, can you muster yourself? It’s asking a lot of you and there’s so much to do. Senator Warren, if you want campaign reform, Dole can round up leaders from her side of the aisle. Do it ! I must say, at long last, two politically outstanding and ethically straight, females for the Oval Office. If our politicking can fashion a LBJ JFK ticket, it can create just about any alliance. Poor example, I know, but it supports my point.

    Sam Husseini: America must first, remove the plank from it’s own eye before castigating Israel or more specifically, I sould say, their Likudnik NeoCon cabal. We are ankle deep in the blood of the Seminole and other American Indians, the Seminole’s originally resided in what is now, the State of Florida, three wars later, and torn from their past by one bloody slaughter after another, how can we point a finger at those crazed Zionists? not me brother, I know my history and I know something about my forefathers and their sins. Abel’s blood still cry’s out from the soil, for God’s revenge, and one of these days, the response will come from heaven, rather suddenly I should think….

    The MIC and it’s architecture must be given incentives to move on, to release Americans from their command economy, (left over from world war two) of inciting war and creating war machinery in support of it. Does our country’ economy need to collapse before the Lockheed, Boeing, Et Al, CEO’s redirect their weapon’s assembly lines into domestic infrastructure projects? And on foreign soils, participate in real nation building? such as constructing dams, electrical grids, communications and solar?

    • Miranda M Keefe
      August 22, 2018 at 15:03

      “how can we point a finger at those crazed Zionists?”

      If taking the plank out of your own eye first is important, then let’s do so! Let’s take out the plank of giving enormous military aid to Israel that they use to oppress Palestinians. Let’s take out the plank of vetoing any UN proposal that might condemn Israel for slaughtering Gaza. Let’s take out the plank of letting American citizens remain American citizens when they become Israeli citizens and even serve in the Israeli military, even to the point the can come back to the US and be in Congress or in the Executive Branch while still Israeli citizens?

      • elmerfudzie
        August 23, 2018 at 11:59

        Reply to Miranda M Keefe from Elmerfudzie: Perhaps you missed or glazed over my main point. Europeans came to the Americas to conquer, colonize and exploit both people(s) and resources. The American experience is tainted with many an indigenous peoples blood. Still unresolved to the satisfaction of those we have murdered and exploited, how can the U.S. take the moral high ground here? can any American point an accusing finger at a new generation of conquistadors? Be they Israelis or any other nation?

        The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act are designed to address Israeli penetration to governmental affairs. The U.S DOJ falls short when it comes to exercising their authority to prosecute, where necessary, by using these Acts(s). The Logan Act prevents private citizens from negotiating with any nation our government may have dispute(s) with.

        Issues regarding dual citizenship, can be addressed by each branch of our military. They must find their own way, statutory or otherwise, to address issues of what constitutes acceptable soldiering where any form of recusal may appear. I’m not entirely clear how this conduct could be enforced, by statute? by ethical standard? For example; during the early days of our Republic, that American hero, General Casimir Pulaski, fought along side George Washington but was not a US citizen tho awarded, post humously with honorary citizenship. In my view, intention is very important here. It seems to me that each case will require examination, based on it own merit(s). We have all the laws and legal precedents, but our government officials won’t pursue these types of cases or specific individuals. Can we leave it up to our crumbling fourth estate to, hammer it all out? Ugh !

        • William Rood
          August 23, 2018 at 21:04

          So two wrongs make a right? Got it! Of course that justifies us in helping our little brother commit the same crimes we did!

          • elmerfudzie
            August 24, 2018 at 09:23

            Reply to William Rood from Elmerfudzie: Mr Rood, I’m afraid you’ve missed my point entirely. In the sphere of today’s politics, can the blind lead the blind? Didn’t the biblical passage say, and I’m paraphrasing here, pluck the splinter from you’re own eye FIRST before you venture into removing the defect in others (criticizing). The phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right”, of course has validity but cannot be applied here. For example; Texas once belonged to the Mexican peoples. What chance, returning to them what was stolen by illegal annexation and war? This is the stuff of history. Texas was occupied by three different countries before claiming to be what it is today, “The Lone Start State”….

    • Ed
      August 27, 2018 at 22:45

      Mrs. Dole is 82, though. Unless your strategy is to make Mrs. Warren appear young by comparison, I can’t see the benefit.

  27. Onyx
    August 22, 2018 at 12:18

    She’s taking on one of our biggest issues. How corporate/wall street structure and its singular pursuit of shareholder profit affect our society. This is good. If you don’t trust her and think she’s just a distraction then say so. Saying she’s a phony because she doesn’t pick fights simultaneously with every powerful interest that ruins our lives is not helpful at all.

    If she picked fights with corporate/wall street interests, the military/intelligence interests and Israeli interests at the same time she would have zero chance of doing anything helpful. It would be certain political suicide. Guaranteed failure.

    Like you, I hate seeing/hearing her deflections on important issues, but I have to admire her discipline in sticking to the fights she thinks she can win. I for one will try not to second guess her and will instead support her.

    Same goes for Bernie.

    • cal
      August 22, 2018 at 19:29

      You’re right to say, in other words, its a complex game. There are two questions implied here: who is the greater villain, and, maybe more importantly in politics, who do people think the greater villain is? I think there is a very strong case to be made that corporate military-industrial power is far more destructive than what corporate domestic interests are, but that’s the debate. For you, Warren is better than nothing because she’s at least picking one fight, maybe the lesser of two evils, but at least one of the evils. But then you make a quiet deal to leave things elsewhere as they are, to be not too intrusive in your reforms. And, in someways that makes you a hypocrite and you have to buy one set of reforms with your tainted silence, but at least you get to do something.

      And this position has some rewards, because the days of My Lai are lightyears away. To even countenance that the US military machine is wicked, systematically from the roots up, and that soldiers are to be pitied is totally anathema. To publicly take this position is to announce yourself an infidel. Not only would you get ground to dust before even stepping into the national ring, you’d be hated by most regular folks, who many times can’t countenance the thought. So not only would you be going after the Leviathan and the Behemoth, but you would be hated by just about everyone. The most you can do is to take the Ron Paul position, and try to keep Leviathan in its own moat, and even that is a political impossibility.

      So, in a way, you’re right that we ought to temper the anger, as long as we realize that 1) someone like Bernie is no hero; 2) take what you can get without becoming jaded.

      • cal
        August 22, 2018 at 19:34

        Addendum: For the same reasons left-wing people should appreciate the various things the Trump regime has done/is doing. The sputtering madness from many leftists over his policies fails to recognize other elements, being dragged around by ideological purity and media-fueled hysteria to swallow various lies. You don’t have to offer unqualified support, or even any active support at all, to appreciate the goods, even negative goods like chaos in the establishment. Not as good as a Bernie presidency, but something.

        • Claire
          August 25, 2018 at 21:58

          Besides destroying the environment (also think of big oil/facking/coal in national monuments) in service to big oil, gutting the clean air act and the endangered species act, committing child abuse (treatment of immigrant children), signing on to the Tax Gift to the 1%, alienating friendly governments, gifting coal plants with cancellation of scrubber machine requirements, pulling out of Iran agreement, supporting the establishment of Jerusalem as capital of Israel (i.e. nixing possibility of 2 state solution), pouring money into buying guns for public school teachers (who don’t want them), aiming to eliminate regulations curbing for-profit college abusive practices, (there’s more), what exactly has this great white leader done for us?

    • Jean 2
      August 22, 2018 at 20:12

      Onyx, thank you for saying clearly what I think but can’t express. Mostly because I keep wanting to shout “This is bullshit” at the author of this persnickety “analysis”. Why do we on the left ALWAYS form these useless circular firing squads? Why are we so immature that we demand that our leaders be perfect human beings in all regards. Grow the hell up! Your Daddy (or Mommy) makes mistakes. Our leaders on the Left are flawed, but they are still light years ahead of the vicious corporate Thuglacrats that Sen. Warren is positioned and smart enough to take on. And no she won’t end your war, or reunite the children or wipe your ass– you’ll have to find another way to do that– but she will take out the snake head behind all these violations of decency, the corporate power state, if we get behind her and help her and stop whining because no one is perfect.

      • backwardsevolution
        August 24, 2018 at 01:57

        Jean 2 – but Warren doesn’t really take on the corporate state, not really. Does she want to eliminate stock buybacks, which used to be illegal prior to Reagan? Nope. Prior to stock buybacks, corporations were forced to funnel their cash into productive activities, creating jobs.

        Is she calling for a return of the Glass-Steagall Act, which created a separation between commercial and investment banking? Nope. Before Bill Clinton got rid of the Act (yes, a Democrat got rid of it!), if the banking industry got into trouble because of their own greed and stupid investment decisions, it didn’t require the public bailing them out because commercial and investment funds weren’t intertwined.

        Is she crying for an end to globalization? Nope.

        I hear her calling for wages to rise, but she insists on bringing in thousands and thousands of illegals. You’re not going to have wages rise with that. Supply and demand. That’s why corporations love all this cheap labor flooding in; wages don’t rise. The cost of healthcare and education does, but that’s okay, say the corporations, because those costs are just sloughed off onto the public. Privatize the profits; socialize the losses. Maria Lopez gets her baby delivered for free while her neighbor, who was born here, pays for her own AND Maria’s delivery.

        Warren is calling for CEO’s to hold their shares (the stock-based compensation they receive as part of their salary) for five years before selling them. I agree with her there.

        Is she calling for enforcement of the anti-monopoly laws that are already on the books, the laws that, if they were enforced, would bring down the cost of healthcare by a large amount? Nope.

        I’m not seeing a lot to get excited about here. Warren either doesn’t know enough or she’s pulling the wool over your eyes. She doesn’t want change, not really. She just wants you to think she does.

        I don’t care if she’s perfect, but she isn’t even close.

        • Skip Scott
          August 25, 2018 at 09:51

          Excellent reply B.E.! Warren is of the same clique as Clinton and Obama. I remember when Clinton pilloried Bush the elder for desiring to grant “most favored nation” trade status to China during the debates, and then did exactly that once he was elected. Obama’s “hope and change” was really just “more of the same”. To fall for Warren’s rhetoric is to allow yourself to be fooled yet again. We must work to organize a genuine third party option to challenge the empire. it’s our only hope at this point.

        • Skip Edwards
          August 25, 2018 at 21:09

          “Warren either doesn’t know enough or she’s pulling the wool over your eyes. She doesn’t want change, not really. She just wants you to think she does.”

          American voters seem to love the wool over their eyes. Blind faith requires no thinking. Americans do not cast their votes due to facts; they cast them due to emotion.

        • Ed
          August 27, 2018 at 22:51

          “I don’t care if she’s perfect, but she isn’t even close.”

          True, in fact she couldn’t catch a bus back to “perfect”. It always bothers me to see a career politician taking a run at the presidency. The office of president is one for which a career in politics should be a disqualification. Actually the office of senator is the same. How many senators have been state AGs and/or governors? Of those how many became headless nails once they gained a senate seat?

  28. August 22, 2018 at 12:08

    My earlier comments were critical of Elizabeth Warren, but to be fair, anyone choosing to challenge the existing Israel narrative will never even be nominated, most likely, and if they are, they will not win, most likely. There is a political graveyard for those who tried.And while a platform of cutting defense spending is not openly trashed, it is ignored when the politicians actually do what they do.

    I think millions of thoughtful people feel the same way as Sam Husseini, but it is hard to be optimistic and easier to be pessimistic about anything changing. Chipping away, however, is the right thing to do, and rays of light breaking through the clouds should be greeted with joy and hope.

    • August 22, 2018 at 12:55

      Everyone in Washington knows that if you criticize Israel in any way your career as a public official or a journalist/editor/producer will be over unless you aggressively apologize even then you will suffer. That’s just realpolitik.

      • Miranda M Keefe
        August 22, 2018 at 15:08

        Dr. King knew he wouldn’t be allowed to march in Birmingham to register Blacks there to vote. He knew he’d be stopped and most likely beaten. Those who marched with him knew this too. He knew he could end up in jail.

        He did it anyway.

        It’s only doing what doesn’t work in realpolitik that you eventually raise the Nation’s consciousness so it then becomes possible for change.

        But it takes courage and a commitment to the goal that is larger than a commitment to one’s own personal ambitions.

        Sanders and Warren either are too cowardly or too selfish to follow in Dr. King’s footsteps.

        After all he knew that speaking out against the Imperialism of the USA and marching with workers might get him killed. He did it anyway and it did get him killed.

      • Skip Edwards
        August 25, 2018 at 21:10

        It’s time to end this fear and speak truth to Zionist power.

    • DDJ
      August 28, 2018 at 02:16

      What do you think you’re chipping away?

      The internet is being censored.

      Net neutrality is gone.

      The gap between rich and poor is widening.

      The wars are increasing and Iran is next.

      The pollution is global and not just in our water, soil and air but in our bloodstream, brain and cells.

      The ice caps have never been this low in human history.

      Automation and robotics will replace millions of jobs while billionaires such as Bezos won’t even pay his employees a decent wage.

      Everyone on the planet is being spied on by the NSA.

      The Constitution is suspended and the Justice System is rigged on behalf of corporations and the very rich.

      And the Intelligence Community can create false flags and fake enemies for the purpose of endless war because it controls the radio, television, movies, newspapers, social media and search engines.

      You’re not chipping away at anything.

  29. Rob
    August 22, 2018 at 11:59

    I am 100% in favor of slashing the military’s budget, ending the state of perpetual war and getting serious about reigning in Israel. But let’s be realistic. A politician’s highest priority must be to win elections. To do so, she must make calculations regarding which policy positions will enhance her chances and which will harm them. Such choices are unavoidable, unless she simply wants to rack up purity points without concern for electoral victory.

    At the time of the National Press Club event, Warren was focused upon fixing the nation’s corrupt political system, something that is desperately needed and would ultimately impact the very issues that concern Husseini so deeply She was not prepared to discuss foreign policy. Asking hot button questions about the latter amounted to an ambush. I think it was unfair. Understand that Warren first needs to establish herself as a strong, desirable candidate. Once that has been accomplished, she can be expected to address foreign policy matters in greater depth and detail. In other words, it will be a stepwise process.

    Personally, I think that the American people would welcome a politician who runs against endless war and against military expenditures that drain the nation’s wealth for no apparent benefit. Israel is a much stickier issue politically. I expect that Warren will assure the public that Israel’s safety and security are foremost, but I also expect her to express sympathy and support for the suffering Palestinians. Let’s just give her time to figure out the approach that gives her the best chance of becoming the president. Those folks who insist on an “all-in” candidate will have to look to the Green Party and try to influence the system from the outside.

    • TomG
      August 22, 2018 at 13:30

      I hardly think asking a sitting senator (and one who serves on the Armed Services Committee) about military spending or any flash-point international conflict of our making and/or complicity when one was in your words, “focused upon fixing the nation’s corrupt political system” is an ambush. Sausage making has some safety standards. It’s seems clear Congress does not.

      Her “I want to…I want to…I want to” is the most depressing thing in her comments. “If only I were president” (Obama 2.0).

      • August 22, 2018 at 21:55


    • August 22, 2018 at 13:34

      If you expect to have a chance in winning the Presidency you cannot critique the MIC. You used to be able to critique corruption in the Pentagon but that is no longer allowed–the MIC is now the main power in Washington.

      • Joe Wallace
        August 22, 2018 at 16:30


        You may be right, but opposition to militarism is growing. It’s not the sacred cow it used to be. What should no longer be allowed is NOT criticizing the military-industrial-media-academia complex.

  30. Dan Good
    August 22, 2018 at 11:59

    To expect Elizabeth Warren to confront the systemic American military addiction and world-spanning protection racket is asking too much, unfortunately. It will require more than an “Elizabeth and Bernie Show”. What the world is headed for a an explosive event and until it happens all we can expect from Elizabeth is what she said: “I would welcome the debate”. The vast amounts of money flowing through the military contracting arteries is simply too overwhelming for any politician to confront. It will have to be done in the shadows and there will be a lot of misery to pay.

  31. Bill
    August 22, 2018 at 11:14

    I see a lot of criticism out here but very little thought of what to do. It’s easy to criticize people like Warren and Sanders who are trying to do something but this group seems to object a lot and support little.

    • TomG
      August 22, 2018 at 12:21

      Well, here are a few suggestions I’ve given some thought to…none require waiting on the next national elections to begin.

      Consume less. If you have to have a list to keep your tasks organized, consider reprioritizing what chews away at your time. Support the farmer whose animals are well cared for, whose land and water are well cared for. Garden if you can. Plant a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Do it with children whenever possible. If you have an organic garden, share your skills with others. Avoid making Monsanto and the like happy. Better a few weeds than no bees. What does your local community need? Work to make it happen. How complicit is your local economy to the war machine? If it is complicit, work to turn swords into plow-shares. Factories can turn out things besides armaments. Foster apprenticeships for the basic skills needed for the community. Not everyone needs a college education. Build well and maintain. End the bull dozer mindset. Have your church/club buy a blighted house and remake it a home for someone in the community.

      Life can go on without a growing GDP. Stop pretending it cannot. Forget Wells Fargo, Citibank, Chase. Forget mutual funds. Sacrifice a few points of return for a distancing of the great-greed-machine. Keep your money local. Press to start local public banks. Don’t depend on the great foundations to solve local problems or address international calamities fixed to their agenda. Know where the principal is invested before accepting a dime from any grant or foundation. Refuse tainted gains.

      If you see trash in the parking lot pick it up. Don’t wait for the wind to blow it out of your sight. It is yours to do.

      Stop defending the party. Don’t let the PAC’s influence your vote. Dare to have conversations about politics and religion without having to persuade anyone. If you believe in war, read and listen to Wendell Berry. Study Dorthy Day, Thomas Merton, MLK. If you can’t wrap your head around the Bible and the economy, read and listen to Walter Brueggemann and Ellen Davis. If you think you possess the whole truth, awaken! You don’t.

      Be kind. Practice empathy. Cook for those you love and for those you are called to love. Connect. Break bread together. Keep a tidy house and kitchen. Wash dishes by hand. Stop supporting the disposable goods industry. Sponsor a child’s music, art and dance lessons. Attend their recitals. Sing. Clash a cymbal. Beat a drum. Do it joyfully. Write something to offer encouragement. Give your gifts freely. Ponder the created world. It has much to teach us about our disconnected reality from it. Keep life honest. Don’t check your mind at door and don’t club others over the head for your limited-narrow point of view. We all see through the glass darkly.

      Support charities that stand unequivocally for non-violence and un-compromised dignity for all. Ask questions with no convenient and readily available answers. In it you will discover some of your own ignorance and some needed patience to think about the mainstream marketing of answers. Abandon the predestined fates of optimism and pessimism. Live in hope. Have faith in mysteries beyond your ability to comprehend. Weep for your own complicity. And when the last tear as dried, act with care. Repeat as needed.

      Contemplate what you can do and do it. When you stumble, try again. End the day in gratitude—peaceably in your own heart. Greet the new day with what can be, and in gratitude, begin again. As Wendell Berry says, “Care cannot be an industrial product or an industrial output.” Nor can it be wrapped up in a cause. Fighting for the cause may bring its warriors pride but it will never bring care to the fore. Care requires four things. Love, patience, awareness of our ignorance and action informed by the first three. Such care makes peace possible. Make peace possible.

      • zendeviant
        August 22, 2018 at 15:02

        HOO-RAH! Good advice on “what to do.”

        Thank you, Tom. It seems you have given thought.


      • Joe Wallace
        August 22, 2018 at 16:40

        Tom G:

        I salute you! Wisdom and words to live by!

      • Skip Edwards
        August 25, 2018 at 21:20

        Yadda, yadda, yadda. All that you say is admirable to occupy your time while the world is either destroyed by nuclear holocaust, or climate disaster. We need to rise up as citizens who have a Declaration of Independence as guidance and a US Constitution as legal authority to wave as we make the changes necessary for our survival as a nation and as a people.

    • Jean 2
      August 22, 2018 at 20:27

      Bill–I agree. This whole discussion seems to forget that our representatives don’t lead, they represent! We get a groundswell of opinion and desire going in the country and representatives go to Washington to IMPLIMENT our wishes.
      For the last too many cowardly years, the public has been swinging Right, to militarism and “we hate them A-rabs thinking, with no one on the Left effectively fighting back. But now, I see a swing away from war and guns and frat boys chanting USA, USA, on their campuses. So pretty soon there will be people running for congress who want to oppose our empire and I hope the hell we’re ready to support them instead of demanding that they be perfect before we’ll campaign for them

    • Jean 2
      August 23, 2018 at 13:49

      Love you, Bill! I’m almost cynical enough to wonder who pays these Constant Critics to constantly criticize. I mean, I do believe in criticism, it works to make us better; Malcom X made Dr. King better. But both were activists and had grounds for their critical points. Myself, I feel like I don’t do enough. I protested through-out my 20’s and early 30’s but quit in the 70’s because I was tired and depressed. Now, I trying to get back into it and will join the local Buddhists as they peacefully walk against ICE. It ain’t much but it’s something. And Liz is just a little bit younger than I am and as far as I can see, she never quit fighting. And has lasted longer and done more by fighting her way. So kudos to her and let’s stop making the perfect the enemy of the good!

    • RickD
      August 26, 2018 at 11:50

      Thank you for a breath of sanity amidst these hit pieces. One needs alliances to advance an agenda, especially among those in a position to actually effect change. Yet these trolls (and certainly some may very well be honestly misled) come out of the woodwork to demean and diminish those who can help achieve progress; never, ofr course, suggesting any othe rcourse of action only seeming to use political purity as an excuse to do nothing.

    • Ed
      August 27, 2018 at 22:55

      Let’s hear your ideas, Bill.

  32. Bill
    August 22, 2018 at 11:09

    What rogue republican would you suggest? They all seem to be firmly in the pockets of the rich.

  33. August 22, 2018 at 10:22

    Warren has always been something of an inconsistent phony in my view.

    If she is the best “liberals” can do in America, well, you might as well fold up your political tent and go off quietly into the night.

  34. Carolyn Clark
    August 22, 2018 at 09:43

    Sure sounds like Warren is auditioning for Bernie’s old sheepdog role for 2020. Rally the troops with stirring rhetoric on domestic economic issues — while doing squat about them in Congress—and don’t oppose neoliberal pro-war policies. Once the sheep are back in the Democratic fold, gracefully capitulate to the Wall Street-appointed, super-delegate selected front runner. It’s worked like a charm for decades—but this time it won’t. This crooked party is toast.

    • Deschutes
      August 22, 2018 at 09:57

      Nice post. I totally agree with you up until your prediction at the end. The DNC will never change. As this website, and have pointed out the democrats are running many former CIA, NSA and career military as candidates for congress. The dems will become even more war/ military obsessed than the repukes I predict. The days of the democrats being the working class party of FDR, New Deal, etc are long gone and ain’t ever comin’ back. Honestly, if you’re looking for ‘change’, your best bet is to move to another country. Just a reality check. Sometimes needed.

    • Bob Van Noy
      August 22, 2018 at 11:47

      Agree, nice post Carolyn Clark, that is my concern…

    • August 22, 2018 at 12:16

      Warren is Bernie in a skirt (or pants). The country exploded against the bank bailout in 2008, but the bigwigs shut out the people. Hence we got the Tea Party. Thanks to Obama, all three branches controlled by the GOP. And now Warren is going to save us from the next crash? Won’t happen. Congress will stick it to the voters again, regardless of who is president.

    • Skip Edwards
      August 25, 2018 at 21:24

      I wish I could hope it so. Should hapen; but, the sheep are in the pen.

  35. Deschutes
    August 22, 2018 at 09:36

    Warren is about a ‘progressive’ or ‘left’ as a pol can get and still be in the democrat party. But she is severely limited to trying to fix the system from within the system so she will never get far. At most she can bloviate idealisms about corporate corruption and oligarchy, but nothing will actually change.

    Sanders: I’ve never liked him. For the life of me I cannot understand why so many Americans like that guy. For starters he’s an old man: he looks old, frail, and ready for retirement. Like Warren, he’s more left wing bombast than an agent of real change. Look at how easily and meekly he capitulated to Clinton in the DNC primary–after the damning Wikileaks which revealed Clinton was already chosen before a single vote was cast. On Israel, on defense spending, and other issues Sanders is just another democrat. It is little wonder what passes for ‘the left’ in USA never gets anywhere year after year, decade after decade when they trot out old geezers like Sanders in vain hopes of electing that clown.

    Warren and Sanders = very limiting, indeed.

    • JoeSixPack
      August 22, 2018 at 11:21

      He’s an old man. That’s your complaint? Nice ageism.

      If you’ve bothered to research Bernie Sanders career you’ll see he has fought against economic and social injustice his whole career.

      Watch the CSPAN video of his blistering criticism of FED Chair Alan Greenspan.

      Look up the the legislation he managed to get passed to help people.

      Sanders is not the same as other Democrats on defense and Israel. He wants to cut the defense budget, unlike Democrats. He is critical of Isreal’s treatment of the Palestinians and supports a two state solution. In fact Hillary Clinton claimed Bernie Sanders was weak on his defense of Israel.

      Bernie Sanders did not capitulate in the Democratic primary. Bernie Sanders stated when he started that we would support the Democratic nomination for President and would not oppose it. That was his agreement and he stuck to it. There was no bait and switch. There was no capitulation. What many people had hoped was that he would run as an independent, especially after the DNC emails became public. But he wasn’t going to do that.

      Go back and come up with some substance before spouting non-sense.

      • Deschutes
        August 23, 2018 at 09:16

        Sorry to have popped your “Bernie for Prez” balloon Joe, and to have gotten your knickers in a bunch. In any event your angry retort has only reinforced my very negative opinion of Sanders and his supporters–who like you get a bit tetchy and thin-skinned when someone points out “St Bernie’s” numerous and sundry failings, as I’ll itemize as follows.

        He’s old: he’s 76 years old. It’s a straw man fallacy to accuse me of being ageist. Look at what happened to Ronald Reagan: alzheimers from old age almost got him forced out of the presidency in his 2nd term. He couldn’t even do press conferences because he couldn’t answer basic questions from the press! Being president is a hugely demanding job; someone approaching 80 simply is not, based on age alone, up for that job. In a country with 335,000,000 people, I think its time for younger people to be prez. Sanders had his chance and he blew it.

        “Bernie Sanders did not capitulate in the Democratic primary.”: wrong. He did in fact capitulate. He knew Clinton and the DNC screwed him over, and he did NOTHING but meekly bow to her royal highness Clinton, and even told his most pissed off Sandernistas to ‘support Clinton’. What is so galling and disgusting about this capitulation is that it was done after Wikileaks made public the emails proving Clinton, Padesta, Wasserman Schultz et al conspired to screw over Sanders and rig the nomination for Clinton! Where was his outrage? Why did he go along with being screwed over illegally and outrageously like this? And you glibly claim ‘he would support the Democratic nomination for President and would not oppose it. That was his agreement and he stuck to it’!? That’s fine to day before the DNC was busted rigging the nomination–NOT after they were caught red handed. What a wimpy little loser. Disgraceful behaviour.

        Sanders throws Palestinians under the Bus-
        The above linked article details how Sanders is against the Palestine BDS movement; that
        Sanders’ signature is right there with 99 other Senators beneath an AIPAC letter to the UN “demanding an end to anti-Israel bias” regarding Palestine. Sander’s defended the 2014 Israel pulverizing of the Gaza Strip aka ‘Operation Cast Lead’. Here is how he replied to his constituents when they called him out for his support for Israel’s crimes-

        “…the Vermont senator struck a very different tone, angrily shouting at his constituents as they challenged his defense of Israel’s killing rampage in the Gaza Strip that summer-

        ‘You have a situation where Hamas is sending missiles into Israel … from populated areas,” Sanders said, deploying standard Israeli government talking points. When a member of the audience called out a question on whether Palestinians “have a right to resist,” Sanders shouted back, “Shut up! You don’t have the microphone!” and threatened to call in the police. “Are you going to arrest people?” the constituent shouted back. ”

        There’s your so-called support for Palestinians. He’s a poser. He flip-flops. He says what is expedient at the time. You convince nobody who is paying attention.
        Finally, here is one of many articles that point out just what I was saying, that Sanders is really not a ‘revolutionary’ or authentic left winger. He is merely a diagnostician of America’s woes, as the above article details. The above article details how Sanders is against abolishing ICE, and how that pissed off so much of his base: “Come on man!” wrote Splinter news editor Jack Mirkinson. “Let’s hope that the next person who gets the chance asks him why he is still taking such a weak and morally timid position on ICE.” Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of The Intercept, wrote that “Sanders is choosing to be on the wrong side of history on this issue.”

        To be honest, Sanders only seems ‘revolutionary’ because of the massive shift to the reactionary right since the Reagan revolution. Again from the above New Republic article:

        “…but (Sanders’ positions (tax the rich, expand healthcare, pay people better wages etc) are radical positions only because the right wing has so successfully embedded hostility to welfare and government services in American political life. In previous eras, Sanders would have been a relatively mainstream politician. Bernie Sanders’s socialism is Eisenhower’s and F.D.R.’s world if Reagan had never happened’.

        Sanders also parrots the unproven narrative of ‘Russia hacked our elections. Further, he has accepted campaign money from Defense contractor Raytheon, a defense contractor, he continues his undying support of the $1.5 trillion F-35 industry and said that predator drones “have done some very good things”. Sanders has always voted in favor of awarding more corporate welfare for the military industrial complex – and even if he says he’s against a particular war he ends up voting in favor of funding it.

        For someone who is telling me to ‘come up with some substance’, you certainly seemed to have conveniently overlooked the above documented facts about Sanders that belie your great, esteemed ‘socialist’ (in name only) leader.

        • Skip Scott
          August 25, 2018 at 09:59

          Great reply Deschutes! There is no hope for us if we fall for the likes of sheep dog Bernie in 2020. Creating a viable 3rd party at this point is our only hope.

    • Professor
      August 22, 2018 at 22:09

      Being kind of old myself , well age doesn’t weigh in a valid criticism unless you want to denigrate Senator Feinstein, then I’m on board. . Nonetheless I agree that politically Sanders is just another Democrat . Preaching free College for everyone got him some love from youth and as did Single Payer from what’s left of Labor . Deschutes, young men aren’t Left. They don’t have the ideological base that Sanders has. They do not have the Labor Consciousness of the past and they aren’t taught critical thinking, which is to say Marxist ideology. That is taboo with the Fall of the Berlin Wall and US ascendancy after our Victory in the Cold War. Even in England, Corbyn , who is Left all the way can’t easily get traction . He is an Old Man as well. Though I do think he will become Prime Minister. . Young men are talk basically . In the Democratic Party of today women and the inside players at the DNC rule the roost. . Young Democrats must be Politically correct . Would you call Congressman Slawell a Liberal because he’s young.? The ones who have been elected are Centrists and climbers. They don’t want to rock the boat too much. Good Luck.

    • Skip Edwards
      August 26, 2018 at 16:55

      Being a Southerner, I cannot disrespect my elders; but, being older than Miss Warren I will agree with you about her. We don’t have time to work within that worm out party represented, and rightly so, by a jackass. They’ll probably leave their grandkids some $millions they’ve prostituted themselves for; but, those kids most likely will never get the chance to enjoy it. Damnit! We need a new Party which will bring us a new government under the Constitution we now have. Many of our leaders under these old regimes need to be tried for high crimes and put in jail as examples to those new leaders of what happens when a few criminals steal not only our trust but our money, too! There, that’s my opinion.

      • Skip Edwards
        August 26, 2018 at 16:58

        I will agree, though, that Sanders is just another sell out like Obama.

    • Ed
      August 27, 2018 at 22:57

      My big problem with Sanders is that he got rich in office. How his supporters swallow that is beyond me.

  36. Bob Van Noy
    August 22, 2018 at 09:24

    Thank you Sam Husseini for this article. Clearly the voting public has been needing more of this kind of political insight for many’s years. The fact that Sam gets any response, is indicative of how little is expected. I can’t recall Elizabeth Warren ever being challenged on this question. I like Senator Warren, she has the potential to become one of the most significant politicians of our time but because of her timidly on this issue, she looses credibility in every aspect of her rhetoric. She could risk defeat and speak the truth but she will not.

    Thanks as well to Joe Lauria for bringing us this kind of insightful reporting.

  37. TomG
    August 22, 2018 at 08:52

    Husseini asks, “…will she simply play the sheepdog role of keeping the public on the “reservation” on behalf of the party’s elite?” Yes! It what Bernie and she do best and how they stay in office.

  38. Bill
    August 22, 2018 at 08:49

    In other words, she’s not going to anything about it. If she runs for President I won’t be able to vote for her.

  39. Mike
    August 22, 2018 at 08:33

    Can you name a single Republican to work with Warren?

    Thought not.

    • TomG
      August 22, 2018 at 08:46

      She might find some common ground with Rand Paul…if she wanted…

      • Bill
        August 22, 2018 at 11:11

        Trump would just take Paul golfing and he’d be obedient.

  40. August 22, 2018 at 08:23

    Remarkable how a country with almost four hundred million people cannot find political “leaders” who think outside the box proscribed by their paymasters. I was struck by one of the write-ups of the latest attempt to corral Trump. It mentioned that it was illegal for foreign governments to finance candidates. Really? I guess the rule is interpreted to mean some governments.

    Husseini, of course, exposed Sanders for what he is, a flaming neocon on foreign affairs and on domestic policy a yet to be demonstrated honest to goodness socialist.

    • Skip Edwards
      August 26, 2018 at 17:09

      They all do it. They do it illegally, of course. Have you forgotten Chinagate? That was Bill Clinton’s baby, remember? How about Whitewater; Hillary and Bill’s baby? Whatever happened to the Clinton Foundation scandals? Buried under that Russiagate bs, it is. Whatever happened to journalism in this country? It is pretty much owned by a few Zionists. Oh, but we can’t talk about that taboo subject because of that sadistic, terrible holocaust. Well, the US has/is pretty close to murdering the same numbers of innocents. Where is the discussion about our own holocaust? We stand by like the good Germans did and knowingly allow our government to murder others. A sick world, it is, that we live in!

  41. David G
    August 22, 2018 at 08:08

    Thanks to Sam Husseini for this report on Elizabeth Warren’s timidity in challenging U.S. foreign “policy”. (I always feel that word is too elevated for what actually goes on.)

    Yet I think the paradigm of “Warren: good on domestic, bad on foreign”, which this piece seems to reinforce, isn’t really satisfactory.

    Recall that Warren’s debut on the national stage was as the chair of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel, following the 2008 financial crisis. In that job, she became known for asking tough questions relating to the bankster bailout. But TARPCOP’s key, built-in feature was its *impotence*. The actual Congressional oversight panel, of course, is supposed to be Congress itself. TARPCOP was designed to help Congress shed its responsibility for regulating the rotten financial sector, much in the spirit of TARP as a whole.

    Warren – by being the designated gnat buzzing around the banks’ head as the head of this ineffectual, improvised panel – served to demonstrate that indeed they own the government: she would call out specific problems without addressing the basic structural questions, or even getting co-operation or results on the issues she did raise. This isn’t to doubt her good-faith effort on TARPCOP, but to point out that the job was designed as a weak safety valve for public anger at the big ripoff and she never really rocked the boat, nor has she as a senator.

    I’m glad Warren wants things like fairer credit card contracts, and when she can she’ll do things like that. But in neither word nor deed should we expect her to lead a movement to derail the plutocratic train that’s been at full steam for 40 years – maybe she’d pull back on the throttle a little, given the opportunity.

    This is something to keep in mind even after she crafts a smoother answer to questions on Palestine than the word salad quoted in this piece.

  42. dick Spencer
    August 22, 2018 at 07:31

    I agree with John Pilger–the Israeli lobby–scares off E. Warren–she runs away.

  43. mike k
    August 22, 2018 at 06:53

    We want our candidates to be Simon Pure and perfect, even if that guarantees their irrelevance.

    The depressing truth is that really good answers to our problems are impossible in the totally corrupt system of US governance. The real answers are only possible after overturning the whole rotten system, and throwing the criminals in it in prison.

    This is extremely unlikely – so we are screwed. Don’t bother to fasten your seat belt, it won’t help. We are in for a tremendous and probably terminal crash of “civilization”.

    • Skip Edwards
      August 26, 2018 at 17:13

      Oh, thank you so very much.

      “The depressing truth is that really good answers to our problems are impossible in the totally corrupt system of US governance. The real answers are only possible after overturning the whole rotten system, and throwing the criminals in it in prison.”

  44. August 22, 2018 at 06:22

    This is a very good piece by Sam Husseini. It’s also rare. The reason everything appears to remain the same is not the rise of Trump and other extremists but a structural status quo guarded by the likes of Warren and Sanders. The litmus test is always Palestine and Israel. The same is true in Britain where Jeremy Corbyn is in full retreat before the Israel lobby. Perhaps false idol by idol, we are learning – or we ought to be.

    • JoeSixPack
      August 22, 2018 at 11:25

      If you think Bernie Sanders defends the status quo you’re not paying attention.

    • DFC
      August 22, 2018 at 11:48

      Tightening the screws on the corporations seems like the right direction. But what power are you going to invoke to that done? You might get National laws, taxes and tariffs passed that accomplish this, but thanks to Globalization the corporations will just pack up their employees and profits and go elsewhere. So on one hand Warren supports getting tough on corporations but on the other hand she supports Globalization which keeps the back door open. (A neat slight of hand.) If the this inertia continues, corporations will get stronger and stronger until they supplant nations and become the de-facto power centers in the world (if they are not already.) It is a lost battle IMHO…

    • Spike
      August 22, 2018 at 12:04

      If Bernie Sanders hadn’t run in 2016, where do you think the rage of the conscientious electorate would been directed? I see no healthy outlet for it, at best a chain rattling that would have only lacerated the ones in chains. If Sanders and Warren are sheepdogs they aren’t so by objective. Their candidacies are manifestations of voters’ will. No one should ever be castigated, regardless of their ideology, for running for office.

      Everyone in Washington knows that there’s only so far you can go on foreign policy before someone steps out of the shadow and literally puts a bullet through your head.

      God help us that some day we’ll be able to deal with Israel and Palestine justly. I wish it were today, and so, I’m sure, does Elizabeth Warren. You do the best you can under the circumstances.

      • Skip Edwards
        August 26, 2018 at 17:18

        “Everyone in Washington knows that there’s only so far you can go on foreign policy before someone steps out of the shadow and literally puts a bullet through your head.”

        Now we are beginning to realize why our government always supports the ‘banana republics’, as we are one; but, oh, we are the proud Americans flying that Red, White, and Blue. I think I am going to throw up.

      • Ed
        August 28, 2018 at 10:41

        “Their candidacies are manifestations of voters’ will.”

        That’s laughable. It seems that you really believe that all the votes are counted and the one with the most votes wins. There’s no evidence to support that naive idea.

    • Antiwar7
      August 22, 2018 at 16:26

      Right on, John. Sanders and Warren are part of the problem: their only objective achievement is to keep some progressives from leaving the Democratic Party plantation. And you’re right: the issue of Palestine and Israel is an excellent litmus test, which both Sanders and Warren failed early on. Though I’d expand that to include all wars of choice.

  45. jsinton
    August 22, 2018 at 05:52

    You’re missing the point. She’s saying that issues regarding Palestine or military spending are one in the same as corporate corruption over the government. She sees the root problem as the power and money influences on “innocent” democracy. She’s not big on foreign policy, but she’s got the concepts correct. Whether or not a President Warren could translate that into something meaningful to ordinary people is up for debate.

    • EamsG
      August 22, 2018 at 06:43

      Actually, jsinton, you’re missing the point.

      Issues regarding Palestine and military spending in general are not one in the same. Anything other than saying “we need to change to fact that we’re supporting Palestinian genocide at the hands of Israel” is just paying lip service to the problem and is not a sincere attempt at affecting change to the situation. Which is why the article raised the questions about Warren’s goals – is she really about changing the system or is she just playing up the talking points to win the favor of the electorate.

      Warren is very good at name dropping Pharmaceutical lobbyists and congressmen who cater to them. Why can’t she do the same re Palestinian issues? Why can’t she do it for MIC spending? Because pro-Israel and pro-MIC firms fund her campaigns and she wouldn’t have a job without them.

      • JoeSixPack
        August 22, 2018 at 11:30

        Which is why she’s tough on Wall Street? I think you are missing the point and ignoring her record. She’s absolutely right it’s a systemic problem. That’s not a satisfying answer but it’s the truth. The real question is, what will she do about it.

        Lobbyists are plaque on our government and until they are rooted out, nothing will change.

    • Spike
      August 22, 2018 at 11:50

      You got that right and deserve an applause response.

    • Antiwar7
      August 22, 2018 at 16:30

      Notice how Warren was quite specific about examples of corporate corruption and what to do about it, but then completely vague about the military budget and Palestinian rights? That was no accident. And we’d be foolish to ignore it.

  46. JWalters
    August 22, 2018 at 05:31

    Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in England is under fierce attack by the Zionist establishment, being slandered as an anti-Semite, in an effort to keep him from becoming Prime Minister, and to outlaw criticism of Israel. An absolutely excellent analysis by Norman Finklestein:
    “The chimera of British anti-Semitism”

    Similar intense pressures are obviously being applied to American politicians, along with a parallel attempt to outlaw criticism of Israel (e.g. BDS). Ultimately, war profiteering banks are behind Israel’s wars. So if Warren could bring the banks to justice, that would also solve the Israel problem.
    “War Profiteer Story”

    No U.S. Senator today could possibly be unaware of the vast and utterly unjust suffering of the Palestinians. But while it’s impossible to get MSM airtime to criticize Israel, an tiny little bit of airtime is made available to criticize the banks. So that could be her strategy.

Comments are closed.