Tag: Elizabeth Warren

PC Eats Itself … Again … And Again

Right now, our Congress is debating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement between 12 countries across the Pacific. Battle lines are forming up much like they did with NAFTA. Pro-business Republicans, some Democrats and the President claim it will open up economic opportunities. Pro-union Democrats and protectionist Republicans claim it gives too much power to foreign countries and corporations. Since many of the details are unknown, I don’t feel qualified to comment at this point.

But one funny thing emerged during the debate. Barack Obama chided Elizabeth Warren, who is one of the most vocal opponents of TPP. And now he’s being branded as sexist:

President Obama is facing criticism from his liberal base over what they say are “disrespectful” and even sexist comments about Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has led the opposition against a White House-backed trade bill.

“I think the president was disrespectful to her about the way he did that,” Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, told reporters Tuesday, a few days after Obama referred to Warren, who is a Democrat, as “Elizabeth” and “a politician.” Shortly after that, Senate Democrats successfully blocked the trade bill, which would give the president expanded authority to negotiate a trade pact.

Brown made his comments as the liberal-leaning group the National Organization for Women said Obama’s remarks had sexist overtones.

“I think it is sexist,” NOW President Terry O’Neill told The Hill newspaper. “I think the president was trying to build up his own trustworthiness on this issue by convincing us that Senator Warren’s concerns are not to be taken seriously. But he did it in a sexist way.

So what did he say?

Obama told Yahoo in a story published Saturday: “The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else. And you know, she’s got a voice that she wants to get out there. And I understand that.”

O’Neill also said the “subtext” of Obama’s comments are “ ‘the little lady just doesn’t know what she’s talking about’. … I think it was disrespectful.”

Oh. Come. On. This is standard political debate. This is what Obama says about Republicans all the time. Maybe you could take an issue with him calling her “Elizabeth” rather “Senator Warren”. Some women find it belittling to be addressed by their first name by default instead of by a formal title. But some women don’t. I have no idea what Senator Warren thinks and neither do any of the people getting offended on her behalf.

McArdle:

However, I have to point out that not every use of a first name is sexist. Not every political disagreement secretly is about the gender or race of the participants. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes calling a senator by his or her first name is just, well, calling a senator “Sherrod.” Conservatives will attest that Obama does not reserve condescending and dismissive statements about his opponents and their motives for female politicians; this is pretty much par for the course when Obama discusses the Republican Party.

People who carelessly toss around the “s” word are trying to have things both ways: They want sexism to be something very, very bad that forces the refs to stop the action and pull you out of the game, and they also want to be able to level this charge at every minor verbal tic that might be sexist. Even if it might just be, you know, politics. In this and other contexts, this is not a bargain that a modern society will strike. If you make the punishments draconian, people will hesitate to apply them widely. This is true in law enforcement, and it is true of social sins as well. To claim “sexism” too often just robs the word of its power.

As was pointed out on Twitter:

Sexism is stupid. Racism is stupid. But invoking them by reflex is even stupider. Obama and Warren are having a disagreement over policy. And Obama has a tendency to be condescending when he disagree with anyone (as, frankly, does Warren). You don’t have to read any hidden agenda into it.

For goodness sake, does everything in our society have to be dissected like this? If you’ve been following the rise of political correctness, the answer for them is, “Yes. Yes it does.” But for the rest of us, it’s just exhausting.

The Cult of Warren

I’ve been keeping my eye out for the next Lefty Icon who, like Obama, will become the revered leader of the “progressive” movement while simultaneously betraying everything it purports to believe. Ladies and gentlemen, Elizabeth Warren:

At a St. Patrick’s Day breakfast in South Boston this past weekend, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) took a jab at pro-legalization Republican State Representative Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk), who is currently vying for the Republican nomination for Senate in Massachusetts’s upcoming special election.

Addressing the crowd, Senator Warren said, “I advise everyone to pay very close attention to Dan Winslow’s platform. He has a 100 percent ranking from the gun lobby and he’s for the legalization of marijuana. He wants us armed and stoned.”

Let the record show that on Planet Warren, the only conceivable reason to support legal pot is to want everyone to get high.

Addendum: If you want to see Warren opposing legalization with a direct “no” rather than wrapping the sentiment in a St. Patrick’s Day breakfast joke, go here.

Warren is rapidly becoming a hero among the Lefties for her ignorant diatribe in the “you didn’t build that” vein and her (occasionally justified) criticisms of regulators at Senate hearings. The image she has built is the sensible woman who is also very liberal and says what liberals always wish their politicians would say.

In the end, however, she is just another politician who thinks we are idiots and government is God. This is why she supports financial regulation that hems in all our decisions and allows us to only put our money where she thinks we should. This is why she thinks a $22/hour minimum wage isn’t an absurdity. And this is why she of course supports the War on Drugs.

This won’t hurt her political prospects. Being the worst President in 20 years on marijuana policy never hurt Obama’s.

You Didn’t Build That

What is there to say about Obama’s factually challenged “you didn’t build that” diatribe this weekend that I didn’t say when Elizabeth Warren spewed the same gibberish, only more eloquently? What I said then is still true now:

When you count all income, including capital gains, which are Warren Buffet is on about, you find that the richest quintile are paying about 25.5% of their income in taxes and the richest 0.1% about 30%. That includes the corporate tax that applies before capital gains and stock income. That can be contrasted against the lower three quintiles who, including the payroll tax that funds their Social Security and Medicare, pay effective tax rates of 1.6-14.1%. That’s not including state and local taxes, which tend to be progressive.

So no, the goods were moved on roads that the rich paid for. The factories used workers whose educations the rich paid for. The rich didn’t have to worry about marauding bands because of the police and military that the rich paid for. And the real problem is that all this happened with no one paying for it, so we had to borrow and borrow and borrow.

More here.

Earlier this year, I said Obama was in reruns. Now he’s in Elizabeth Warren re-enactments. Wake me at debate time.

The Elizabeth Warren debacle in MA.

In Massachusetts, where Elizabeth Warren is yet again running against Scott Brown for the seat vacated when Ted Kennedy was called to the matt to explain the Mary Jo Kopechne incident along with a slew of other such abhorrent things, there is a big brouhaha going on that seem to put the whole affirmative action movement into perspective. The gist of this unfolding scandal is that before Warren, and I should add her husband in a two-for deal, was hired by Harvard, she identified herself as a double minority – a female and a Native-American – but that distinction quickly vanished once she was part of the Harvard staff. The left has focused, as expected, on the angle that the issue is whether she had the right to claim that status or not.

At issue is that Warren is reputed to be, depending on how you break it down, 1/32 American Indian. Keep in mind that while some point out that this claim is based on a number that assumes that the ancestor she claims this minority status from had to be 100% Native, or the possibility that the Native-American was a second wife, a practice that was common back then, this is still not the focus discussion, even when this is exactly what the left hopes to make it. That argument they can win or use to distract from the bigger issue.

But Warren being Native-American or Native-American enough, is not what is at issue here: what is, is the thing that paints the whole Affirmative Action movement in a dark light, and that is the fact that Warren identified herself as Native-American while that served her career advancement purpose, but quickly dropped that once she got the Harvard hire. The story has morphed from the ludicrous “it was done by others, and not me” line off defense her campaign first tried to hide behind, to the even more insane and disgusting “I used it to make friends” meme, with the usual suspects in the LSM and academia working double time to make the absolutely unbelievable and stupid case that universities, the most diversity driven cesspools of affirmative action, in this classic affirmative action case did none of that, and that she was hired because she was just that awesome. That claim by Harvard and the many others is easily debunked by just looking at the facts.

What we have here is a case of a true believer, a collectivist twit of the highest order, gaming the affirmative action system, and who cares if she was doing it within the boundaries of what was allowed or not, and then pretending that the system isn’t a huge scam. That’s the big story. Warren got tenure at Harvard because she was a double whammy for their affirmative action compliance program, a woman and a Native-American collectivist to boot, and there is no argument the left can make to deny that. Then, when she had arrived, she conveniently dropped her Native-American bonafides because she didn’t need them out there anymore. After all, someone could then use those to point out she was an affirmative action hire. Of course, the admission that the system is rigged and totally abused isn’t something the left wants highlighted. I expect that amongst the intelligentsia in leftist politics and the LSM some will keep pretending, to the bitter end, that the mean right is just picking on this innocent woman – War on women! – while others, once the heat gets too close for comfort and endangers the whole AA scam by making people question how often this practice happens, will throw her under the bus, pretending to be offended that she gamed the system, as if the system isn’t constantly gamed and totally arbitrary, anyway.

We shouldn’t let the left’s credentialed elite get away with this and hammer home how stupid and worthless the whole AA scheme really is. Even in blue MA, I think, the revelation that the elite are abusing the system that’s supposed to provide social justice, thus providing nothing of the sort, will have consequences. If it causes this pseudo-marxist’s campaign to implode that’s good, but if it finally provides enough people with the knowledge of how insanely stupid and illogic the vile AA scheme is, and then undermines it’s credibility and helps us do away with the whole leftist scheme, it is even better. I wonder how many better qualified people, some even other Native-Americans got shafted because of Warren. No wonder Native-Americans are pissed at her while the LSM and the left, if you will pardon the expression, are circling the wagons.

Adorable Marxist

The mother/creator/inspiration for OWS is tanned, rested, has hammer/sickle in hand, and is raring to throw down against that male stripper. Ya know, I bet she was a looker 10 years ago:

Alright, admit it, during this whole video you were hoping that camera would pan just a bit farther south.

Personally,I think Brown is toast. Mass. has no business having a GOP senator, that would be like California having one, ridiculous. Technically anyone would be hard pressed to prove Brown is a Republican, given his voting record. He would say that his only chance of staying employed representing a soviet satellite you have to embrace your inner Mao, a fair point.

I can’t think of anyone more “out there” (maybe Van Jones, is he also running?) then Warren. Sure, if Hugo Chavez can’t be president then Obama would do nicely, and she certainly would rubber stamp anything coming out of this WH, but the type of damage she would do would not be good, whoever was president. It might be time for Brown to start sending out his resume, and working on that six pack for his next photo shoot.

The Warren Commission

Elizabeth Warren is now claiming that she provided Occupy Wall Street with its “intellectual foundation” (stop that laughing back there).

I guess she’s talking about her famous rant, which I fisked here. But honestly, this is more of a delusion of grandeur. Warren has a very clear agenda — more government in the financial sector, higher taxes and a government that treats non-rich citizens like children. OWS is neither that coherent nor that organized.

Warren Attacks

The Left is in a positive lather over this clip from Elizabeth Warren, now running for Senate against Scott Brown:

First, Warren is factually incorrect. We didn’t get into debt because of $1 trillion in tax cuts for the rich, we got into it because of $3 trillion in tax cuts for everyone. Tax cuts are tax cuts; revenues are revenues. Tax revenues do not magically multiply and close debts because they happen to come from rich people. As Alex noted, taxing the rich only gets you so far — and not nearly far enough.

When Democrats blame our debt not on the tax cuts, but only on those that benefitted the rich, what does that tell you?

She has a point on the drug benefit, but it should be noted that what she and her fellow leftists wanted was more expensive. She also has a point on the wars. But, ignoring the question of necessity, the Democrats weren’t exactly screaming for more tax revenue when the wars started. They voted for the wars and have continued to vote for the wars.

And that doesn’t include the decade-long boom in all other spending, which the Democrats have embraced with both arms. Just today, the supposedly fiscally responsible Democrats rejected the House continuing resolution. The reason? Republicans wanted to pay for disaster relief by rolling back corporate welfare — i.e., subsidies for green cars. Isn’t spending — now up to 25% of GDP — at least part of the reason we’re here? Not according to Elizabeth Warren.

Second, no one is saying the rich should not pay anything. They’re paying plenty. When you count all income, including capital gains, which are Warren Buffet is on about, you find that the richest quintile are paying about 25.5% of their income in taxes and the richest 0.1% about 30%. That includes the corporate tax that applies before capital gains and stock income. That can be contrasted against the lower three quintiles who, including the payroll tax that funds their Social Security and Medicare, pay effective tax rates of 1.6-14.1%. That’s not including state and local taxes, which tend to be progressive.

So no, the goods were moved on roads that the rich paid for. The factories used workers whose educations the rich paid for. The rich didn’t have to worry about marauding bands because of the police and military that the rich paid for. And the real problem is that all this happened with no one paying for it, so we had to borrow and borrow and borrow.

Finally, notice the angry and bitter tone. This is precisely why I can’t stand Elizabeth Warren. She is an abrasive and factually-challenged demagogue who passes herself off as the voice of reason. There is nothing positive in her diatribe, only vindictiveness.

The Left is very excited about this, as Hot Air noted, because it plays into their delusion that Leftist ideas are failing because they haven’t been communicated well enough. If only Obama would rant like this, they think, Americans would see the light and we’d have a socialist paradise.

But they are ignoring something. The Left already has the microphone. Hollywood pumps out movies with liberal themes. NPR, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSN all parrot the liberal line (media are 90% Democrat). I used to hold a contest to ask people if they could tell the difference between Democrat Party position papers and the editorials of the New York Times. From preschool through college, children are awash in Lefty ideas. I knew teachers who gave out extra credit if kids protested for higher teacher salaries. And academia tends to be not just liberal, but radical. Count the number of courses that teach Das Kapital as opposed to The Wealth of Nations.

People are exposed to Lefty arguments from cradle to grave. And about 70% of Americans reject them anyway. The problem is not the medium; the problem is the message.

Update: A note on my data on taxes. The Left likes to talk about the prosperity of the 50’s when marginal tax rates where in the 90s. They ignore that those rates only kicked in at *very* high incomes, much much higher than the $250k level they’re talking about now.