CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 07:50 AM
Original message |
E. Warren on Morning Joe was oddly silent when Mika started talking Supreme Court justice |
|
Warren! usually, Elizabeth has a lot to say and all of it good, but she just set a half smile on her face and kept quiet, while Mika and Joe started talking her up as the next nominee to the Court. Mika remarked on her silence. Elizabeth just smiled more...
Hmmm, maybe there is more to this rumor than I thought...she may be under REAL consideration by the White House...
Joe was obnoxious, of course, saying "Put her in a black robe!" The jerk.
And BTW, Elizabeth was just wonderful as always, talking about how the banks are backing out of the deal they made when they got the TARP money and not helping the ordinary homeowner keep from foreclosure...What a breath of fresh air in that fetid swamp...
|
ShortnFiery
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 07:54 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I'll never understand why self-respecting democrats watch the vile shit called Morning Joe? |
|
Edited on Wed Apr-14-10 07:56 AM by ShortnFiery
It's a mystery. :shrug:
|
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. He has guests like Warren on and I can't get enough of her. The reason this self respecting |
|
Dem watches is for guests like HER. I mute or switch to the mindlessness of GMA or just play music when the obnoxious guests go on. I get information also.
Don't worry, I know when to switch them OFF and I'm highly suspicious of any claims any of the regulars make...plus I read as widely as I can in the left wing press and in the NYT and Newsweek...I am always dubious and looking out for RW influences...
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. That's one of the few things I can heartily agree with you on. Sing it, sister! |
BeyondGeography
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. We read your posts, we watch Morning Joe |
|
And we cover the whole spectrum of Obama Hate.
|
spiritual_gunfighter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
You might as well watch Bill O'Reilly, but since it is on the "liberal" network it is okay, I guess.
|
burning rain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
20. In absolute terms, it's a crappy show, but in relative terms it's as good as it gets. |
|
What else is there by way of morning shows? CNN's American Morning is fit only to put viewers back to sleep; Fox & Friends is just a shout-and-holler kidz show; Morning Express is utterly vapid.
Elizabeth Warren would be a genius pick: Republicans are spoiling for a knock-down-drag-out fight over a Supreme Court nominee, and the issues where Warren holds positions unaccetable to them--regulating abusive big finance--are ones where Democrats take the more popular side (unlike, say, some culture war issues where Republicans hold a popular advantage, or where it's a wash). At the same time, Republicans would have to defend their sponsors in big finance, and Democrats could use their unpopular position to beat them. If Warren sharpened the differences by making really tough statements in her hearings, Republicans would likely filibuster, furnishing Democrats with the perfect excuse to confirm her via the nuclear option, thus getting a good justice on the Supreme Court and dealing a fatal blow to the filibuster at the same time. Killing the filibuster is a key goal for progressives, but the scenario in which Democrats kill it has to be carefully chosen--it has to look necessary to the public--not like mere hunger for power. Doing it to get Warren through and subject big finance to serious regulation would obviously be an earnest motive, and in the public interest.
|
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
24. I like the way you think, rain! |
supernova
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 07:54 AM
Response to Original message |
|
and would be very pleased of all the speculation turned out to be correct.
|
gkhouston
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 08:05 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Last night, on Rachel Maddow's show, all she would say is that she has her nose |
|
in the details of the mortgage crisis and that resolving it is vitally important. I took that to mean that she wouldn't leave that task unless a) it was done b) she was convinced that it would be satisfactorily dealt with by someone else after she left or c) she was convinced that she'd reached a point where she personally couldn't affect the outcome, no matter what she did. I got the impression that she takes the whole mortgage disaster very seriously, but would like to be a Justice. Perhaps if not now, when another opportunity presents itself?
|
Bluenorthwest
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 09:32 AM
Response to Original message |
8. Elizabeth Warren is my favorite person in the administration |
|
by miles. I admire her many skills, including her verbal and press abilities. I wish there were about 5 of her, one for each job I'd like her to have.
|
Sebastian Doyle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Right now, I'd settle for 2 of her |
|
One to replace Timmy the Elf, and the other to replace $ummers.
|
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
polichick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
21. She's not actually in the administration - was nominated for the tarp panel... |
CK_John
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 09:55 AM
Response to Original message |
10. She probably has been told forgetaboutit. n/t |
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
12. I didn't believe the hype either but the way she conducted herself this morning |
|
made me think again...but you could be right and she's just being circumspect...
|
Hestia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 10:14 AM
Response to Original message |
13. If the banks do help, then it means that Obama actually won the election. The banks |
|
are doing all of this to try to bring "down" the Obama presidency. Some of us do have a long memory and will not forget this.
|
cilla4progress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 10:31 AM
Response to Original message |
14. E. Warren - I get it! |
|
Earl Warren..Warren Court...
From Wikipedia:
The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Marking some of the most dramatic changes in judicial power and philosophy in the history of the American judiciary, the Court expanded civil rights and liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways.
Bodes well! Although, I do like her in the financial reg venue...
I LOVE ELIZABETH WARREN!
|
DirkGently
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 10:42 AM
Response to Original message |
15. Warren's my hero. Don't know if we can afford to lose her |
|
from her TARP efforts. She's the only honest voice in the process, near as I can tell. Still, a new "Warren court" could be a great thing.
|
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. I think she would have a few things to say to messrs. alito, roberts, thomas and scalia! |
|
I think they'd be afraid of her! If would be, if I were them!
|
Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 11:42 AM
Response to Original message |
17. If she is on THE LIST she has to keep her mouth shut. It is not something you campaign for. EVER |
|
I am surprised she was even on TV at all. Probably means she is not on THE LIST.
|
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
18. Well, her report on the TARP stuff was being rolled out today so that's why she was on |
|
Rachel's show yesterday and Morning Joe today. It was perfectly kosher for her to talk about this as it is her "job." She chatted a little more with Rachel on her show -- and maybe got into a little hot water for it since her mouth stayed decidedly closed on the SC thing. Not that she said anything "bad" on Rachel's show, IMO. I dunno what to make of it, but the idea that she could be Obama's nominee just gave me a thrill...I get like that every once and awhile...:7
|
Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
19. It is not even the content of what she saiys or it being her job |
|
It all about even the hint of appearing to campaign for the job. My view is that if she want the job.. she was stupid to go on air. She could have sent a surrogate. Basically, even if she demurs on the SCOUTS stuff, it still gives the WH problems in dealing with the egos involved (Candidates and vetters alike)
|
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
23. Her report is very much "her baby." I think there's a reason she has such a distinct |
|
profile in the press and electronic media...she is a forceful speaker. Sending a surrogate might make people speculate even MORE that she is a SC candidate...but, what do I know :shrug:
|
Writer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-14-10 12:27 PM
Response to Original message |
22. I don't think that Elizabeth Warren is interested in serving on the Supreme Court. n/t |
Rage Inc.
(429 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-15-10 02:07 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 15th 2024, 06:14 AM
Response to Original message |