Tag Archives: Elizabeth Warren

Impeachment is all about politics

Elizabeth Warren actually has said with a straight face and in an earnest-sounding voice that impeaching Donald J. Trump is not about politics, but is about “the Constitution.”


It’s all about politics and for Sen. Warren of Massachusetts, one of 23 Democrats running for president in 2020 to say otherwise is, shall we say, empty rhetoric.

That is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is correct in digging in on the issue of impeaching Trump.

At least until the House and Senate finish their tedious work in determining whether to proceed.

Impeaching a president is all about removing that individual from office. The House would draft articles of impeachment; its Judiciary Committee would recommend whether to impeach; if it votes “yes,” then the full House votes on whether to file the complaint.

If the House votes to impeach, then the Senate puts the president on trial. Here is where the bar gets high; senators need a two-thirds vote to convict. Senate Republicans occupy 52 seats in the 100-member body. Is there a realistic chance that a dozen or so GOP senators are going to vote to kick Donald Trump out of office?

That is the calculation that keeps Pelosi from pulling the impeachment trigger in the House.

Thus, it’s all about politics. Sen. Warren.

To be sure, I happen to agree that Trump has committed a crime. I believe he has obstructed justice. I also believe former special counsel Robert Mueller was hamstrung by Justice Department policy prohibiting an indictment of a sitting president.

Republicans continue to stand with a president who has committed the very “crime” that drove GOP lawmakers to stampede toward impeaching a Democratic president two decades ago.

Pelosi knows the steep hill she faces if the House were to proceed with an impeachment.

So, let’s quit the high-minded rhetoric about the Constitution. Impeaching a president is the epitome of political action. If the House is going to impeach the fraud masquerading as the president of the United States, it had better do it right.

Or else … the pols don’t want to consider what will happen if they get it wrong.

Still miffed that Sen. Warren has stiffed Fox News

I’m still peeved at Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts U.S. senator and Democratic Party primary candidate for president of the United States.

She got an invitation to appear on a Fox News Channel town hall event. Fox News, which is not normally friendly to progressive such as Sen. Warren, was offering her a forum, a platform from which she could offer Fox News viewers the reasons why they should endorse her for president.

She turned Fox down! She said Fox uses its outreach to preach “hate” and she would have none of it.

Sen. Warren has made a big mistake. I believe she should have accepted Fox News’s invitation. She should have shown up. She should have taken questions from the audience and from the commentators who would moderate the event.

But she chose to stiff the network.

I agree with her about Fox News, that it is a “hate for profit” organization. Still, she should make her case even in front of a media outlet she opposes.

I believe that would be more of an American course than the one Sen. Warren has taken.

Sen. Warren errs in turning down Fox News town hall invitation

Let me try to sort this out.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has turned down an invitation to participate in a presidential campaign town hall session sponsored by the Fox News Channel. She contends that Fox — Donald Trump’s favorite cable network — peddles in hate, bigotry and falsehoods. She won’t take part because Fox operates a “hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists.”

So, the Democratic candidate for the presidential nomination, is turning down the chance to grab a “megaphone” and challenge the network? Is that what she is doing here?

That is a bad call, Sen. Warren. It is self-defeating. It’s also an act of political cowardice.

I happen to agree with her about the manner in which Fox presents its view of “news.” I rarely watch the network. I cannot stomach the opinions expressed by its cadre of right-wingers.

However, I am not a candidate for president of the United States. Sen. Warren, a Massachusetts lawmaker, is among the 20-plus Democrats seeking their party’s 2020 nomination.

“It’s designed to turn us against each other, risking life and death consequences, to provide cover for the corruption that’s rotting our government and hollowing out our middle class,” she wrote in explaining her decision to stay away from the Fox town hall.

Good grief, senator! Stand up and speak your piece. Tell the public why it should reject the Fox world view. Tell us why the president is unfit for the office he holds.

What’s more, she ought to face the tough questions that would come from a Fox-sponsored town hall audience were she to stand before it.

That’s what presidential candidates — let alone presidents of the United States — should do.

Has Beto waited too long?

Beto O’Rourke’s legion of followers might be witnessing a total eclipse of a political star.

The one-time West Texas congressman who came tantalizingly close to defeating Ted Cruz in the race for the U.S. Senate is now watching on the sidelines as three former congressional colleagues scarf up all the headlines while running for president.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker have become the flavors of the moment. As Politico reports, those on the sidelines are waiting for one or more of them to mess up. Beto might be one of them waiting with bated breath.

I am not yet convinced that Beto O’Rourke is presidential material. He’s a young man. He waged an unconventional, no-consultant, no-polling campaign for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas. He damn near won against a Republican incumbent!

He has nowhere to go but . . . down? Not really.

However, politics is often like baseball, meaning that “timing is everything.” Given the pace of politics in this Internet/social media/ digital age it appears possible that Beto O’Rourke’s window might be closing. He’s not alone, of course. A crowd of other Democrats are being caught flat-footed by the excitement generated already as the 2020 campaign starts to ignite.

Kamala Harris’s announcement was a spectacular event. Elizabeth Warren is seeking to shed the baggage she piled on herself with that DNA test to prove her native American heritage. Cory Booker is seen by some as “too establishment” to suit the base of the Democratic Party.

Does that make Sen. Harris the early frontrunner? Oh, it’s possible, I suppose.

As for Beto O’Rourke, I am thinking he’d better decide quickly whether he’s in . . . or out.

Hey, there’s always 2024!

‘Fair and balanced’? Sure thing

They call themselves the “Fox ‘News’ Channel.” It’s a conservative-leaning cable network that has purported to present the “news” in a “fair and balanced” manner.

Well, check out the caption under the TV image that flashed on the Fox “News” Channel. It parrots the epithet that Donald J. Trump has used to disparage U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who has just announced the formation of an exploratory committee to help her decide to run for president in 2020.

The “Pocahontas” label, of course, is Trump’s way of ridiculing Warren’s contention that she has some Native American blood in her background. The president has decided Warren’s claim is without merit, so he has hung that label on her.

Fox has glommed onto it as well.

Is that how one might define a mainstream “news” network’s “fair and balanced” coverage of a still-developing presidential campaign?

Imagine what political conservatives might think — and say — if CNN or MSNBC broadcast an image of Donald Trump with the caption that read “Cadet Bone Spur,” or “Liar in Chief,” or, well . . . you get the idea.

The Fox “News” Channel simply demonstrates yet again that it is neither “fair” or “balanced.” It serves instead as a de facto presidential mouthpiece.


Sen. Warren joins the fight to unseat Trump

I’m still waiting for the “perfect” or “nearly perfect” candidate to emerge from the Democratic Party crowd to challenge Donald J. Trump for president of the United States.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren doesn’t fit the bill.

Warren announced her plan to form an exploratory committee as a precursor to her announcement of running for POTUS.

Is she a fresh face? Is she someone everyone can trust? Is she authentic? Is she going to bring an outlook that few observers have ever seen or heard?

Warren hardly brings a fresh look to the 2020 campaign. We’ve been seeing and hearing her ever since she joined the U.S. Senate.

Her trustworthiness already has become fodder for those who detest her. I’m not one of those, but I do recognize a wounded politician when I see one.

Her authenticity also is under review, given that ridiculous controversy over whether she has Native American blood coursing through her veins. Trump uses that as a punchline at his rallies. Her decision to roll out her DNA test was a public relations SNAFU.

Her outlook mirrors the Washington climate to which she’s been exposed. She and fellow Sen. Bernie Sanders sing off the same hymnal page: They keep harping about income inequality. I want to hear her foreign policy message.

A Politico story says Warren must battle the ghost of Hillary and persuade those who disliked the 2016 Democratic nominee to fall in love with her.

This must be said as well: Would I vote for her if she wins the Democratic Party nomination and runs against Trump in the fall of 2020? More than likely, yes. Democrats can consider someone much stronger than Elizabeth Warren to challenge Trump . . . assuming The Donald is the GOP nominee, which isn’t a sure thing.

My version of political (near) perfection has yet to present himself or herself to me and the rest of Americans.

Call it a day, Sen. Sanders

I am going to admit that I ain’t feelin’ the Bern.

There’s chatter churning out there that U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who aligns with the Democrats, is considering another presidential run in 2020.

Please! No! Not again!

Sanders sang a one-note aria while running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2016: It centered on income inequality and how the “1 percent is holding the vast majority of wealth” in this country.

I supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy over Bernie Sanders, mainly because I felt uncomfortable with Sanders’s lack of stated understanding of the whole range of foreign and domestic issues that any president confronts.

Now he’s considering another run at it. A Politico story tells how he is setting up a showdown with U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who’s also considering a presidential run in two years.

I’m not yet sure who should get the party’s nomination to challenge Donald Trump for the presidency, assuming he runs for re-election.

Sen. Sanders is nowhere to be found on my list of preferred candidates. It has nothing to do with his acknowledgment of being what he calls a “democratic socialist.” I do agree in part with his view that too few people in this country control too much wealth. I do not believe his notion of providing a free public college/university education for all Americans is even possible, let alone reasonable.

He’s had his run. He came up short in 2016. I still believe the Democratic Party’s best chance at winning the White House rests with someone fresh and new.

Sen. Sanders is neither of those things.

Don’t do it, Bernie.

‘I am totally focused on the Senate’

I love listening to politicians who give these non-denial denials pertaining to their political future.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, offered up the latest example of such a pol’s attempt at rhetorical dodge ball.

Someone asked her if she is considering a run for the presidency in 2020. Her answer was classic: “I am running for the Senate and I am totally focused on being the kind of senator” her constituents expect her to be.

She even put some emphasis on the words “totally focused.” As if that makes it an even more declarative and believable statement.

Sorry, senator. Your so-called “denial” doesn’t work. Skeptics out here heard what you didn’t say, which is that you won’t run for president in 2020.

Trump vs. Warren gets going early!

Donald Trump must believe U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is going to run for president in 2020, and … that she well might be the Democratic Party nominee for the office Trump currently occupies.

He went after Warren in typical Trumpian fashion Thursday at a rally in Great Falls, Mont., calling her by that derisive nickname he has hung on her, “Pocahontas,” owing to her claim of having Native-American heritage in her background.

Trump has been dismissing that for years. He gets lots of laughs from his political rally crowds.

But here’s my observation about the manner that Trump might campaign for re-election. He won’t take the high road. He won’t ride the moral altitude that his high office allows him.

Oh, no! He’s going to return to the insults and the innuendo that energized his base and helped him get elected in 2016. We’re witnessing it again as he rails and rants against potential rivals for his job.

His rally speech in Great Falls flew off the rails — quite naturally.

He said the following, according to The Hill:

“I’m going to get one of those little kits and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage — because her mother said she has high cheekbones, that’s her only evidence,” Trump continued.

“We will take that little kit, we have to do it gently because we’re in the “Me Too” generation, we have to be very gentle,” Trump said mocking the movement that seeks to expose sexual misconduct in media, entertainment and politics.

“We will very gently take that kit and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn’t hit her and injure her arm, even though it only weighs probably 2 oz,” he said.

“And we will say, ‘I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian,” Trump said. “And we’ll see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no but we will hold it for the debates.”

Doesn’t that sound like a man immersed in the dignity of his high office? Of course not! Dignity and decorum are foreign to this guy.

Trump managed to yank spotlight from WWII heroes

Leave it to the inimitable Donald John Trump Sr. to do the seemingly impossible.

Three men — all heroes from World War II — came to the White House recently to be honored for their exploits during the great conflict.

So, what did the president do? With a thoughtless, careless quip he turned attention from the men and those who they represent and turned it onto himself for all the wrong reasons.

He said he “liked” the men who stood with him in the White House. He then chided a member of the U.S. Senate who has said she, too, has Native American heritage in her background. Trump just had to call Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas,” which he has used for years to deride her claim. That’s what the media have been talking about, not about the men who served so heroically.

The men are Code Talkers. They are of Navajo descent. They were deployed as Marines during World War II to communicate battle plans and intelligence in a language the Japanese couldn’t de-code. They were instrumental in several key Pacific Theater battles.

CNN.com published a story chronicling the men’s heroics.

See the story here.

The story notes that the use of Native American tongues in war began in World War I, when Choctaw soldiers spoke to each other to confound the Germans on the other side of the battle lines. But in the period between the world wars, the Germans figured out that language.

The Navajo was more difficult to decipher. As CNN.com noted, it isn’t a written language. Therefore, the enemy was unable to figure what they were listening to when the Navajo Marines were communicating.

They risked their lives. They fought for their country.

Only 13 of the Code Talkers are still living. They all are old men who are suffering the usual ravages of aging.

The president should have known better than to yank the spotlight from those heroes. He should have shown a semblance of class and grace as he welcomed these brave Americans to salute their commitment to their country.

Indeed, if the president understood or appreciated anything about the sacrifice these men paid, he might have seen fit to keep his mouth shut about a political foe.