That is one politician that I would rally around. She is a fighter and gives a damn about consumers, the poor, working and middle classes. Reminds me of Bernie Sanders.

Yeah, a wave of Dem pols waving goodbye to their seats in congress.

Reminds me of Bernie Sanders.

____________________________________

And Bernie Sanders reminds me of those two old kooks on the Muppets that sit up in the balcony and whine and complain about everything while accomplishing nothing.

Yea for Elizabeth.... count me in. She is the perfect candidate for this seat and the perfect successor to Sen. Edward Kennedy who fought long and hard for the people of Massachusetts and the for workers of America and their families.

She will be a champion for the people. You go girl!

GoGoGo Elizabeth!

And make Dems ~~ women, their spouses and children everywhere proud! So proud of you. So glad to have a voice like yours out there.

FR: Democrats hope to make this a competitive race in a presidential year in a blue state.

Lets just hope Obama campaigns as hard for Warren as he did for Martha Coakley. If so, Brown will win in a rout.

Smart ethical and qualified but a socialist? Come on someone actually compared her to Bernie Sanders who is easily the most radical left senator maybe ever to serve. He is a true socialist and you guys want someone like that? This is the equivalent of putting up someone like Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Swaggert up for GOP senator from your guys perspective. Why would the democrats put up such a radical idealogue against a very moderate centrist GOP popular senator in a liberal state. This is like Sharon Angle against Harry Reid, he was poised for defeat given the voting demographics but the GOP put up a candidate that was much too extreme right for the voters tastes.

C'mon, JoAnna...

You know full well that Warren is a marginally better candidate than Coakley.

Not better enough to beat Senator Brown...

But, still...better.

So, Kirk, you are saying that someone who has the best interests of the consumer at heart as opposed to the best interests of the corporations at heart is your definition of a "Socialist"? You should look up the definition of Socialism. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

Think Progress:

Facing a potential electoral challenge from consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren next year, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) appears to be trying to portray himself as a stronger Wall Street reformer than she, telling NECN this month that he “worked very hard” to ensure the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law:

BROWN: I worked very hard to make sure that banks didn’t act like casinos with our money. So the bill that she was apparently working on, I mean was able to work through as a result of [Warren's] position, you know, I worked on it, I voted on it, I pushed it through. [...] So, who doesn’t want to protect the Middle class? But there’s a big difference between talking and actually doing it.

As the Boston Globe’s Alex Katz notes today of the comments, “By painting himself as a strong supporter of Wall Street reform, Brown appears to be trying to neutralize Warren,” who was a leading advocate of Dodd-Frank and went on to help establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the law created.

Contrary to “push[ing] it through,” Brown dragged his feet on supporting Dodd-Frank and only did so after his demands to water down the bill were met. After his upset election in January 2009, he became the key vote on the bill and leveraged that position to extract big concessions favored by banks, who had given generously to his campaign. First, Brown forced Democrats to strip from the bill a $19 billion bank tax. He also successfully pushed to water down a key reform — the so-called “Volcker rule” — that was aimed at preventing banks from making risky trades with dollars backed by the government. The carve out helped large mutual funds in his state.

In fact, Brown initially opposed the entire Wall Street reform bill and threatened to join the Republican filibuster of the legislation, which would have prevented it from even getting an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Meanwhile, as “Brown and his Senate staff were working both publicly and behind the scenes to scuttle” these reforms, the senator took in $140,000 from financial firms — 400 percent more than the average received by other GOP senators over the same time period — according to the Boston Globe. A ThinkProgress analysis revealed that during his campaign, banks and their allies gave Brown’s campaign huge 11th hour contributions and helped with a significant get-out-the-vote effort. He was also supported by outside groups friendly to Wall Street like the Club for Growth. Overall, the financial industry is Brown’s second largest contributor.

Warren, on the other hand, has devoted her entire career to making the world of finance work better for consumers. She had previously chaired the TARP oversight panel and has a distinguished academic career focusing on these issues. Yet Brown suggests that she’s been merely “talking” while he’s been “actually doing it.”

Well Pat you don't really think that ThinkProgress would ever say anything bad about a liberal... like their far left leaning stance on issues taking us closer to socialism... do you?

Of course, ThinkProgress has been, and will continue to be, fair to Senator Brown.

Why wouldn't they (lol)?

Haven't they always been fair to Senator Brown (rotflmao)?

Heartlight, I have no idea if she really believes in socialism but someone compared her to Bernie Sanders who does. If your basic premise was only what you said that she has the best interest of the consumers rather than corporations, of course there is nothing wrong with that. But lets use a real life example she helped Richard Durbin put into the Dodd Frank language. I think there is definitely a need for certain types of oversight on all types of consumer loans but she is one of those idealogues with no practical experience in the real world. So she helped him craft language in the bill regarding overdraft fees. She was against them thinking they were punishing minorities and the poor (because as many academic masters of the universe, these people have no ability to think for themselves and need her brilliant help). So under the bill banks were prevented from charging overdraft fees on a variety of methods of taking money out of your account where you dont have the money. Instead of finding out the real facts which were that the vast majority or virtually all the fees were being assessed against forgetful people with plenty of money and that poor people actually consider a $35 dollar charge to be something they work very hard to avoid. Well now that the banks no longer can charge those fees, they had to raise the cost of checking accounts, ATM fees, raise minimums that you cant go below in your account so they can keep overdrafts from happening. So the people the law was supposed to help actually are getting hurt from the new law while people who were just careless with their checking accounts can avoid getting penalized for their bad behavior. Move on to mortgages, she thinks that banks and lenders are predatory in terms of lending so she wants to make sure they understand as if people have the IQs of monkeys when they make financial decisions. All it does is make lending more expensive, increases the fees of getting a loan and actually making it less likely that such person will get a loan. She wants to do the same thing with the credit card industry. She thinks everyone is a victim. A long time ago I worked as a young man on a government investigation on a credit card predatory collections case. The AGs of several states were alleging that the credit card bank was potentially illegally going after personal bankrupt holders to get them to sign settlements making them pay minimums on the amounts due even after discharge. Because of the media attention it was quickly settled but in the review of the credit card holders who had an average balance at the time of personal bankruptcy of around $1500. Over 70 percent and it may have been much higher if you went back even a week before filing personal bankruptcy charged an average of $800 dollars on the credit card the day before they filed in order to get a free TV, mattress appliance etc. Dont tell me all these people are victims just as not everyone is dishonest either. To Warren there is no middle ground, they are all victims. If she got her way, she would be a huge job destroyer. There is no doubt that we could use a consumer advocate but she is such an idealogue she actually does more harm than good. We need people in the middle not far extreme right or far radical left. She unfortunately is radical left.

thinkprogress....ha!

Why didn't you just email Warren and ask her what she thought of herself?

Rove tactic #3 - Attack:
Attack the source. Any Liberal website or information source must be marginalized, trivialized and discounted. Let the blogosphere know that Truthout.org, thinkprogress.org, the nation and moveon.org are Liberal rubbish propaganda. Discredit Liberal sources of information whenever possible.

If the truth fits Dennis. Thinkprogress, the nation, and moveon.org are liberal rubbish who have demonstrated continuously they are partisan hacks. Even to the point of disortion....known as lying by the common man.

But what about this?! Don't you think Goebbels would be proud?

http://www.attackwatch.com/

Can you goose step? I bet it comes natural to you.

Love the site's colors, Doug.

Red, white, and black.

Hmmm.

That rings a bell...

Kirk-2957282, dude long post, let's actually look at what you are trying to say.

Well now that the banks no longer can charge those fees, they had to raise the cost of checking accounts, ATM fees, raise minimums that you cant go below in your account so they can keep overdrafts from happening.

So here you are arguing that it would be much better if you to get charged hidden penalties than to have banks compete head to head on the fees on their checking accounts, ATMs, etc. Sounds like the new law is better competition to me, you know that competition thing being the basis of capitalism and all.

Move on to mortgages, she thinks that banks and lenders are predatory in terms of lending so she wants to make sure they understand as if people have the IQs of monkeys when they make financial decisions.

So people with only a high school education should be able to understand an extensively long contract written by someone with a Harvard Law Degree? Again doesn't that go against competition, why can't they put the important interest rates in a schedule with big bold letters and compete with other financial institutions on the basis of how low their rates are. I'm fairly well educated and may not get trapped by a mortgage contract but I'd still like them to be easier to understand rather than harder.

To Warren there is no middle ground, they are all victims. If she got her way, she would be a huge job destroyer.

I really don't see how making financial contracts easier to understand is a job killer. If anything easier to understand financial contracts will bring more confidence to the financial sector and will allow consumers to better analyze what contracts will give them lower interest rates. Lower interest rates means they get more money in their pocket and therefore are less likely to go into foreclosure. Less foreclosures=stable housing prices= more consumer confidence to purchase goods and services=more jobs!!!

Cliff, if it were that easy and simple I would agree with you. These werent hidden fees and I dont think anyone with half a brain thinks they can write a check for more than they have in their account and not get charged for it right? It was a do gooder law that didnt jive with reality and the unintended consequences as usually the case actually made it worse. And if you think there is competition with banks regarding fees for checking accounts for the low to middle income families, you arent paying any attention. As for simpler language, again if that is all that it was I dont have an issue, but we arent talking about explaining how interest rates work, we are talking about standard provisions that make it harder for banks to get their money back, arbitration proceedings etc that make it more difficult and costly for banks to lend in the first place which then reduces lending and less jobs. You realize that BofA's layoffs are just the start as Dodd Frank makes certain parts of bank business less profitable, they just get rid of it. As usual, congress passes laws to address past sins and never gets it right and the unintended consequences are dramatic. Warren wants to continue down that path.

Copying and saving Bob's post so I can send it back to him in spades.

Its a bet, ray.....but more than likely you will be in mourning after the GOP landslide in Nov 2012.

“The pressures on middle-class families are worse than ever, but it is the big corporations that get their way in Washington,” Warren said..."

TRANSLATION from Liberal speak to English: "pressures on middle class" = bailouts for UNIONS

"big corporations that get their way" = more regulations on businesses.

What's wrong with Brown?

sucks; but realistically, they would have never approved her. Look where they are on even basic judicial nominees.

truly appalling how they sit and fiddle,...

The people of MA would be well served by Ms Warren.

Better President? Obama will absolutely crush Romney or Perry, the others never had a chance to get the nomination. Of course you probably thought Bush was a good President, he catered to his rich friends just as Perry does. Greedy. At least the Dems lean toward the little man. I didn't notice but a very few minorities in the audience at the debate, what a shame. Americans will not vote for another drugstore cowboy Governor from Texas.

Terri, Even Blacks are worse off now than when Obama took office. It's appalling the way his policies and anti-business rhetoric are damaging this country. Look what Obama's minions at the NLRB are doing to Boeing for trying to start a Dreamliner factory in South Carolina instead of South Korea. Amazing a company who isnt moving jobs over seas get's sued by the Obama administration because they want to score points with union backers. We desperatley need a new President. If you don't like what the Republicans are putting up let's pick a better Democrat than Obama. We can't afford to vote for the best of the worst in this economy.....

"Of course you probably thought Bush was a good President, he catered to his rich friends just as Perry does. Greedy. "

Terri, did you happen to notice Jeff Immelt ( GE's CEO/ Obama's"jobs czar") sitting with Mrs.Obama the night of the President's speech? Do you happen to know that GE sent a whole jobs division to China? Who's "catering to his rich friends" now? Terri, put the kool aid down, you're drunk enough.

Let's vote for a better President in 2012!

I would, but then you'd complain that Warren doesn't have enough Senate experience to run the country. ;)

Experience will not help Warren in this case. You would have to change her views. But her lack of business experience would certainly not help this country out of the recession....

You are right Kirk, he should have some better understanding of economics.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60209.html

Meanwhile, from late 2007 through the end of June 2009, the U.S. economy contracted 5.1 percent, new estimates from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis show. The previous estimate had been that the economy shrunk by 4.1 percent during that same time period.

Obama's stimulus was 700 billion dollars, the US GDP in 2009 was 15 trillion dollars. Do the math 700/15,000 = 4.6% stimulus. 5.1%>4.6% so clearly the stimulus was too small just to reverse the economic hole we were in not to mention grow the economy enough to add jobs for the increase in population.

Also, the private sector is irrelevant in macroeconomic discussions.

Question: If peanut butter Company A does better than peanut butter Company B and Company A hires 1,000 workers and Company B lays off 1,000 workers, how many new jobs are added to the economy?

Answer: 0

That is about a lame an excuse as one can get.

So......did Obama sell himself? Or does he get a pass? Who is he beholden to?

Those last three questions were rhetorical. Everyone knows nthe answers.

Anyone got a reason why Brown shouldn't be re-elected?

Yes.... Elizabeth Warren.

Anyone got a reason why Obama shouldn't be re-elected?

Didn't think so.

Are you saying she'd have to dumb down her message to garner your vote?

Tough,...

I prefer the thinking crowd over the reactionary crowd ANY day!