In the long-term, is a strong, smart and competent leader with the right values more influential in the Senate or White House?
If Barack Obama had stayed in the Senate, he would only be in his second term. In the way that JFK had more cultural influence than Ted Kennedy, Obama was undoubtedly a bigger influence in the White House but, as Ted Kennedy certainly had more of a long-term impact on the country than JFK, could Obama ultimately have gotten more done had he stayed in the Senate rather than becoming President at 47?
One lesson of the Obama presidency is that an ambitious executive does not mean much without a friendly or functional congress. Are liberals making a mistake by rallying around the idea of first-term senator Elizabeth Warren for President?
Why Elizabeth Warren Should Stay in the Senate
By Nate Parkhouse
February 8, 2013
Whenever a popular and talented candidate is elected to the Senate, people almost always start chanting and editorializing that they should run for the White House, often as the vice-presidential candidate. Elizabeth Warren, the newly-elected senator from Massachusetts had not even been sworn in before the “Clinton – Warren 2016″ memes began flying around the Internet.
However, what many fail to realize is that Elizabeth Warren is right where she needs to be and where she should stay. Not only does her talent lay in the nuts-and-bolts workings of financial policy, but also, she wields more influence as one of one-hundred rather than door-number-two. A look at history backs this up.
The vice-presidency is almost a constitutional after-thought. In order to force members of the electoral college to come together and cleanly elect a president, the rules mandated that the runner-up would become the veep. Think of the match-ups this would have created in the past decades. Clinton – Dole, Bush – Gore, and Obama – Romney. The founding fathers obviously didn’t put much stock in the office, hoping only that the number-two slot would be filled with someone of statesman character.
Consequently, the veep has two, and only two, legal duties. The first is to step forward if the president dies in office. The second it so cast the deciding vote in a senatorial tie. That’s it. Over the decades, two other roles has evolved. One is to be a force-multiplier for the president, occasionally acting as arm-twister-in-chief. The other is to be the president’s primary confidante. It is also a myth that the road to the White House is through the vice-presidency. The last veep to make it to the big dance was George Bush Sr., in 1988 and he was only there for one term. While not the “pitcher of warm spit,” opined by John Nance Garner, the vice-presidency is scarcely a bastion of power and influence.
Conversely, as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, Elizabeth Warren has the power to be an agent of influence and change. Already, financial and market advocates, such as Dennis M. Kelleher are saying, “Wall Street put hundreds of millions of dollars into defeating Warren, Obama, and financial reform. They went all in. Today they have a much bigger problem.”
The Senate is an elite and powerful legislative body. From the committee system to the filibuster, a single senator can exert a disproportionate amount of influence on legislation. The Senate also has exclusive jurisdiction over treaties and confirmation of officials. With its six-year terms, senators have a longer time to consolidate power and establish their position. Even though Warren represents Massachusetts, the fourteenth most populous state, she wields the same power as California, a state six times the size. Finally, without term limits, a senator can influence legislation for decades.
So, given the out-size advantage of senator, the question should actually be, “Why would anyone want to leave?”
Elizabeth Warren 2016?: Keep Her In The Senate
March 9, 2013
With the simultaneous events of CPAC and the announcement that Hillary Clinton is supportive of marriage equality, there have been the inevitable questions about the next Presidential election. After talking ad nauseam about the Republican Party’s prospects, let’s take a quick look at Team Blue.
The Democrats have one elite challenger in Hilary Clinton and she will be kingmaker (queenmaker?) on who decides to run. In the unlikely event that she demurs on a run, the focus of the Democratic Party will likely be on Joe Biden and Andrew Cuomo both who have numerous flaws. Biden might be very well-known now but his propensity to have his foot surgically removed from his mouth could be a deterrent. Cuomo is very much a modern day “New Democrat” who will likely face some scorn from the left.
Other potential candidates such as Brian Schweitzer, Martin O’Malley, Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar and Deval Patrick lack the immediate star power that would be necessary to mount a serious bid.
So with potential left-wing apathy and a lack of star power in the Democratic Party, where do you turn to? Who would be the most ideal candidate?
Enter Elizabeth Warren, of course.
Warren who has not disappointed the left in her continued attacks on Wall Street bankers and mega corporations continues to be the pre-eminent progressive amongst the netroots. Her presence alongside Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders and Jeff Merkley have been a welcome change for those who grew tired of the continued presence of bankers getting preferential treatment on Capitol Hill.
Naturally, after her defeat of Scott Brown last November, speculation about a 2016 Presidential run has been a pipe dream of many progressives who wish to see a more pragmatic candidate than Hillary or Cuomo. It’s not impossible to defuse either given Warren’s prominence, national political name recognition and her rock star status amongst the most dedicated and fervent party loyalists.
In fact it would be more of a surprise if Warren’s name wasn’t mentioned as one of the top challengers for the Presidency in the next two election cycles.
But should we be expecting or encouraging a national run by the senior senator (technically, yes) from Massachusetts? Would she better off as being on a national ticket (which includes Vice President of course) or should we hope that she stays in the Senate?
Put it this way, if Elizabeth Warren is sitting in the White House in January 2017 (or 2021) it would be a good thing of course. But with the continued gridlocks on Capitol Hill, what good would it serve the public if Warren ceded her Senate seat?
While the Senate is looked down upon for its slow and tedious pace, it is still one of the best ways for a politician to actually help the people. As we’ve seen in her two month term, she already has a penchant for sticking up for the middle class and has been a valued member of the HELP and Banking committees.
Much like Ted Kennedy before her, Warren can stay in the Senate and forge relationships all while gaining seniority and moving up on various committees. She can hone in on Wall Street as she gains more power and the block of her, Sanders, Merkley and Brown could be one of the top alliances in the Senate.
To a lot of people who just see politicians as either national candidates or not, the idea of someone as nationally known as Elizabeth Warren staying put in the Senate is far’fetched. But it’s all about making sure Warren has as much power as possible and her serving as Vice President to a Democratic candidate essentially robs her of any power she could have.
Warren is best as an advocate for the working class, not as a a presiding force over two parties which already has one that has a penchant for manufacturing crisis after crisis.
A President Warren is a very appealing thought to plenty of progressives nationwide but let’s put our priorities in order and just remember that it’s not necessarily about winning elections but about making progress and staying in the Senate is Elizabeth Warren’s best way to help the public more than any President.
The Country's Biggest Union Leader Wants Elizabeth Warren to Be President
He said Warren is "the prototype of a person we would want to be president of the United States."
By Emma Roller
April 16, 2014
Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, America's largest federation of labor unions, may be the most visible union leader in the country. And he's certainly not shy about sharing his political opinions.
In a Reddit "Ask Me Anything" session, one user asked Trumka for his thoughts on Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
"I have met Elizabeth Warren on multiple occasions," Trumka responded. "In my opinion, she is the prototype of a person we would want to be president of the United States. She has a very well-defined set of values and unlike many politicians, she actually sticks by those values and fights to implement them."
"In short," he wrote, "it don't get no better."
This isn't the first time Trumka has touted Warren. He has known her since before her days in the U.S. Senate, and campaigned for her in 2012. "There may be dozens of good reasons for us to vote for her, but it's crazy not to vote for her because she's a woman, or because she's a college professor, or for any other superficial reason," he told Massachusetts union members.
Unfortunately for Trumka, Warren has clearly said she doesn't plan to run for higher office in 2016. "I'm not running for president, and I plan to serve out my term," the senator said at a press conference last December.
Like Warren, Trumka is a huge advocate of financial regulations and Wall Street reforms, in addition to labor rights. In an interview with Salon in 2011, Trumka railed against the U.S. wage gap. "If you look at what happened for the last 30 years, the rich and the well-to-do and the corporations had a party, and working people weren't invited to the party," he said.
During his Reddit AMA, Trumka was also asked what the AFL-CIO plans to do in the face of unions' declining power. "We are working diligently with our progressive friends and allies and strategic partners to change the policies that spawned this flat-wage, immobile economy," he said. Unions have a friend in Warren.
Ready for Warren? Backers launch site
By: Katie Glueck
July 15, 2014
A group encouraging Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president is ramping up, launching a website Tuesday just ahead of the liberal Netroots Nation conference.
Ready for Warren’s site, ready4warren.com, went live after several months of the group pushing its cause on Twitter and Facebook, confirmed Erica Sagrans, one of its leaders.
Some progressives have long hoped that Warren, with her populist, anti-Wall Street credentials, might jump into the 2016 race, something the Massachusetts senator has said she’s ruled out.
“We aren’t wealthy or well-connected,” reads a post on the site. “We don’t have any lobbyists. What we are is a movement of individuals working together who believe that folks like us should have a greater say in the direction of our country. We Are Ready for Elizabeth Warren to run for President in 2016. Warren is the backbone that the Democratic Party too often forgets it needs.”
The Ready for Warren site includes a petition urging Warren to run, and, according to reports, there are plans to generate momentum for the organization at the Netroots gathering this week in Detroit.
Warren spokeswoman Lacey Rose said in an email to POLITICO that the senator “does not support this effort.”
The Ready for Warren label is similar to Ready for Hillary, the organization urging Hillary Clinton to run for president. It reported raising $2.5 million in the second quarter earlier on Tuesday.
A spokesman for Ready for Hillary declined to comment on the new group.
If Barack Obama had stayed in the Senate, he would only be in his second term. In the way that JFK had more cultural influence than Ted Kennedy, Obama was undoubtedly a bigger influence in the White House but, as Ted Kennedy certainly had more of a long-term impact on the country than JFK, could Obama ultimately have gotten more done had he stayed in the Senate rather than becoming President at 47?
One lesson of the Obama presidency is that an ambitious executive does not mean much without a friendly or functional congress. Are liberals making a mistake by rallying around the idea of first-term senator Elizabeth Warren for President?
Why Elizabeth Warren Should Stay in the Senate
By Nate Parkhouse
February 8, 2013
Whenever a popular and talented candidate is elected to the Senate, people almost always start chanting and editorializing that they should run for the White House, often as the vice-presidential candidate. Elizabeth Warren, the newly-elected senator from Massachusetts had not even been sworn in before the “Clinton – Warren 2016″ memes began flying around the Internet.
However, what many fail to realize is that Elizabeth Warren is right where she needs to be and where she should stay. Not only does her talent lay in the nuts-and-bolts workings of financial policy, but also, she wields more influence as one of one-hundred rather than door-number-two. A look at history backs this up.
The vice-presidency is almost a constitutional after-thought. In order to force members of the electoral college to come together and cleanly elect a president, the rules mandated that the runner-up would become the veep. Think of the match-ups this would have created in the past decades. Clinton – Dole, Bush – Gore, and Obama – Romney. The founding fathers obviously didn’t put much stock in the office, hoping only that the number-two slot would be filled with someone of statesman character.
Consequently, the veep has two, and only two, legal duties. The first is to step forward if the president dies in office. The second it so cast the deciding vote in a senatorial tie. That’s it. Over the decades, two other roles has evolved. One is to be a force-multiplier for the president, occasionally acting as arm-twister-in-chief. The other is to be the president’s primary confidante. It is also a myth that the road to the White House is through the vice-presidency. The last veep to make it to the big dance was George Bush Sr., in 1988 and he was only there for one term. While not the “pitcher of warm spit,” opined by John Nance Garner, the vice-presidency is scarcely a bastion of power and influence.
Conversely, as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, Elizabeth Warren has the power to be an agent of influence and change. Already, financial and market advocates, such as Dennis M. Kelleher are saying, “Wall Street put hundreds of millions of dollars into defeating Warren, Obama, and financial reform. They went all in. Today they have a much bigger problem.”
The Senate is an elite and powerful legislative body. From the committee system to the filibuster, a single senator can exert a disproportionate amount of influence on legislation. The Senate also has exclusive jurisdiction over treaties and confirmation of officials. With its six-year terms, senators have a longer time to consolidate power and establish their position. Even though Warren represents Massachusetts, the fourteenth most populous state, she wields the same power as California, a state six times the size. Finally, without term limits, a senator can influence legislation for decades.
So, given the out-size advantage of senator, the question should actually be, “Why would anyone want to leave?”
Elizabeth Warren 2016?: Keep Her In The Senate
March 9, 2013
With the simultaneous events of CPAC and the announcement that Hillary Clinton is supportive of marriage equality, there have been the inevitable questions about the next Presidential election. After talking ad nauseam about the Republican Party’s prospects, let’s take a quick look at Team Blue.
The Democrats have one elite challenger in Hilary Clinton and she will be kingmaker (queenmaker?) on who decides to run. In the unlikely event that she demurs on a run, the focus of the Democratic Party will likely be on Joe Biden and Andrew Cuomo both who have numerous flaws. Biden might be very well-known now but his propensity to have his foot surgically removed from his mouth could be a deterrent. Cuomo is very much a modern day “New Democrat” who will likely face some scorn from the left.
Other potential candidates such as Brian Schweitzer, Martin O’Malley, Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar and Deval Patrick lack the immediate star power that would be necessary to mount a serious bid.
So with potential left-wing apathy and a lack of star power in the Democratic Party, where do you turn to? Who would be the most ideal candidate?
Enter Elizabeth Warren, of course.
Warren who has not disappointed the left in her continued attacks on Wall Street bankers and mega corporations continues to be the pre-eminent progressive amongst the netroots. Her presence alongside Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders and Jeff Merkley have been a welcome change for those who grew tired of the continued presence of bankers getting preferential treatment on Capitol Hill.
Naturally, after her defeat of Scott Brown last November, speculation about a 2016 Presidential run has been a pipe dream of many progressives who wish to see a more pragmatic candidate than Hillary or Cuomo. It’s not impossible to defuse either given Warren’s prominence, national political name recognition and her rock star status amongst the most dedicated and fervent party loyalists.
In fact it would be more of a surprise if Warren’s name wasn’t mentioned as one of the top challengers for the Presidency in the next two election cycles.
But should we be expecting or encouraging a national run by the senior senator (technically, yes) from Massachusetts? Would she better off as being on a national ticket (which includes Vice President of course) or should we hope that she stays in the Senate?
Put it this way, if Elizabeth Warren is sitting in the White House in January 2017 (or 2021) it would be a good thing of course. But with the continued gridlocks on Capitol Hill, what good would it serve the public if Warren ceded her Senate seat?
While the Senate is looked down upon for its slow and tedious pace, it is still one of the best ways for a politician to actually help the people. As we’ve seen in her two month term, she already has a penchant for sticking up for the middle class and has been a valued member of the HELP and Banking committees.
Much like Ted Kennedy before her, Warren can stay in the Senate and forge relationships all while gaining seniority and moving up on various committees. She can hone in on Wall Street as she gains more power and the block of her, Sanders, Merkley and Brown could be one of the top alliances in the Senate.
To a lot of people who just see politicians as either national candidates or not, the idea of someone as nationally known as Elizabeth Warren staying put in the Senate is far’fetched. But it’s all about making sure Warren has as much power as possible and her serving as Vice President to a Democratic candidate essentially robs her of any power she could have.
Warren is best as an advocate for the working class, not as a a presiding force over two parties which already has one that has a penchant for manufacturing crisis after crisis.
A President Warren is a very appealing thought to plenty of progressives nationwide but let’s put our priorities in order and just remember that it’s not necessarily about winning elections but about making progress and staying in the Senate is Elizabeth Warren’s best way to help the public more than any President.
The Country's Biggest Union Leader Wants Elizabeth Warren to Be President
He said Warren is "the prototype of a person we would want to be president of the United States."
By Emma Roller
April 16, 2014
Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, America's largest federation of labor unions, may be the most visible union leader in the country. And he's certainly not shy about sharing his political opinions.
In a Reddit "Ask Me Anything" session, one user asked Trumka for his thoughts on Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
"I have met Elizabeth Warren on multiple occasions," Trumka responded. "In my opinion, she is the prototype of a person we would want to be president of the United States. She has a very well-defined set of values and unlike many politicians, she actually sticks by those values and fights to implement them."
"In short," he wrote, "it don't get no better."
This isn't the first time Trumka has touted Warren. He has known her since before her days in the U.S. Senate, and campaigned for her in 2012. "There may be dozens of good reasons for us to vote for her, but it's crazy not to vote for her because she's a woman, or because she's a college professor, or for any other superficial reason," he told Massachusetts union members.
Unfortunately for Trumka, Warren has clearly said she doesn't plan to run for higher office in 2016. "I'm not running for president, and I plan to serve out my term," the senator said at a press conference last December.
Like Warren, Trumka is a huge advocate of financial regulations and Wall Street reforms, in addition to labor rights. In an interview with Salon in 2011, Trumka railed against the U.S. wage gap. "If you look at what happened for the last 30 years, the rich and the well-to-do and the corporations had a party, and working people weren't invited to the party," he said.
During his Reddit AMA, Trumka was also asked what the AFL-CIO plans to do in the face of unions' declining power. "We are working diligently with our progressive friends and allies and strategic partners to change the policies that spawned this flat-wage, immobile economy," he said. Unions have a friend in Warren.
Ready for Warren? Backers launch site
By: Katie Glueck
July 15, 2014
A group encouraging Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president is ramping up, launching a website Tuesday just ahead of the liberal Netroots Nation conference.
Ready for Warren’s site, ready4warren.com, went live after several months of the group pushing its cause on Twitter and Facebook, confirmed Erica Sagrans, one of its leaders.
Some progressives have long hoped that Warren, with her populist, anti-Wall Street credentials, might jump into the 2016 race, something the Massachusetts senator has said she’s ruled out.
“We aren’t wealthy or well-connected,” reads a post on the site. “We don’t have any lobbyists. What we are is a movement of individuals working together who believe that folks like us should have a greater say in the direction of our country. We Are Ready for Elizabeth Warren to run for President in 2016. Warren is the backbone that the Democratic Party too often forgets it needs.”
The Ready for Warren site includes a petition urging Warren to run, and, according to reports, there are plans to generate momentum for the organization at the Netroots gathering this week in Detroit.
Warren spokeswoman Lacey Rose said in an email to POLITICO that the senator “does not support this effort.”
The Ready for Warren label is similar to Ready for Hillary, the organization urging Hillary Clinton to run for president. It reported raising $2.5 million in the second quarter earlier on Tuesday.
A spokesman for Ready for Hillary declined to comment on the new group.
