Dems Panicking Over Faltering Lizzie Warren Campaign

Posted by on Mar 15, 2012 at 8:59 am
Obamam Consumer Protection

Who knew? Even in Massachusetts the voters don’t like pampered, spoiled, obnoxious hardline Socialists who feel entitled to a Senate seat. Maybe they ought to start vetting their candidates before the coronation.

The White House loves her. Cher loves her. But a lot of Democrats aren’t so wild about Elizabeth Warren’s Senate campaign these days.

The high-powered, fast-running Warren campaign is starting to show some cracks and dings — fueling fresh scuttlebutt of internal dissent in the party.

Sources say some national Democratic officials and unions are unhappy with Warren agreeing to a pact with Republican Scott Brown that could severely limit super PACs and third-party groups from running attack ads.

Brown’s shrewd move to push the pledge comes as a number of polls show his popularity back on the rise in Massachusetts after it had slipped following a series of special-interest-group attack ads.

Outwitted by that doltish, pickup-driving bumpkin? Somehow they haven’t tied Brown to the War on Women yet, so they still have that in their vast arsenal.

“Elizabeth wanted an enforceable agreement keeping out third party ads because she believes it is the right thing to do,” Rubin said. “She is committed to running a strong, grassroots campaign …”

The problem is that Warren’s grassroots campaign hasn’t grown much since she entered the race, raised tons of money and essentially wiped out the rest of the Democratic field. While Warren has held lots of low-key events in safe Democratic enclaves such as Jamaica Plain, she hasn’t yet given any major speeches or announced any eye-catching initiatives.

You know when he campaign began unraveling? When it began.

Tags: , ,

23 Responses to “Dems Panicking Over Faltering Lizzie Warren Campaign”

  1. spepper on 15/15/12 at 9:47 am

    Mitt Romney desperately needs to take note of this race. It’s how a non-conservative Republican (Brown) can win against a SOCIALIST, no matter how greased their skids get from the usual suspect media.

  2. peterike on 15/15/12 at 10:12 am

    Elizabeth Warren is Pol Pot in a fright wig. Far Left academics are very, very dangerous when they enter politics.

  3. Hogarth on 15/15/12 at 10:24 am

    “If the voters of MA elect her, then they deserve exactly what they get!”

    Yes, well, she’s not running for state senate; she’s going to have an impact on all of us. It’s hard for me to be nearly as unconcerned about her prospects.

  4. Diggs on 15/15/12 at 10:39 am

    A “grassroots campaign” built around a hard-Left Harvard professor. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

  5. kcom on 15/15/12 at 10:39 am

    She’s so right, I mean that growing business surely hasn’t paid a dime of taxes since it was founded. Because they’re squatting on land they don’t own, they’ve paid no property taxes. Because their delivery trucks run on good feelings they’ve paid no gas taxes that pay for the roads. Because all their employees are volunteers, they’ve paid no payroll taxes. Because they give away all their products for free, they’ve paid no sales taxes. Because they’ve earned no money from their products, they’ve paid no income taxes. Everybody else in society has paid that business’s taxes up to that point. Now it’s time for them to pay for the things they’ve never paid for as they went along.

    Does that make any sense?

    What she said was actually very, very scary because she apparently has no concept of the idea of liberty and free association and self-government.

    “You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.”

    The proper response to that is that we all shared the cost of building those roads and I moved my goods on the share of the road that I paid for. We all contributed, we all are entitled to use them. If I use them more by running more vehicles then I pay more gas tax and pay for more of them to use.

    This whole idea that “we” were over here building roads and then “you” came over here and freeloaded on them is a bunch of crap. The “rest of us” didn’t pay for them. We all paid for them, each with a tiny little contribution through free association via government. I can use my tiny portion how I see fit and you can use yours how you see fit. You’re not doing me a favor by letting me use something I paid for. And the fact that you think so shows your fundamental lack of understanding of what freedom and self-government means.

  6. Truman North on 15/15/12 at 10:41 am

    Actually, Brown isn’t all that conservative. He’s just to the correct side of Snowe, Collins, et al. Kind of a John McCain in terms of his voting record.

    Which is all you’re going to get out of Massachusetts, unfortunately. (I will personally be working for Sean Bielat in MA-4. He has a chance to win, and he’s a real TEA party conservative.)

    That being said, he has been able to connect to blue-collar, Catholic voters who traditionally vote D, and I suspect he will continue to do so if all the Democrats have to offer is a more shrill and less attractive Hillary Clinton clone.

  7. Blue Hen on 15/15/12 at 10:49 am

    If there’s hope for Taxachooshus waking up, there’s hope (and change) for the rest of us.

  8. constitution First on 15/15/12 at 11:12 am

    After the likes of Kerry, Tsongas (Nicky), Frank, Studds… the people of this little Dogpatch state know they deserve better. We already know what Brown can do for us, and it’s a damn sight more than some Progressive Priestess from snooty Cambridge.

  9. Tulsa Jack on 15/15/12 at 11:29 am

    Warren is a disgrace to American ideals of liberty and justice under law. Clearly another affirmative action fraud, like Obama, her career at Harvard University, in the law school, no less, once again diminishes that once-great institution of higher learning.

    Warren reveals Harvard’s faculty and administration for what they are: a warped, self-selected gang of totalitarian collectivist ideologues. She and her enablers have not the faintest understanding of, much less respect for, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the interests of the American people.

    How any normally intelligent, principled adult could vote to elect this subversive lunatic to the U.S. Senate is beyond me.

  10. MKS on 15/15/12 at 11:38 am

    At what point in history did the self-reliant Massachusetts of Samuel Adams and Henry David Thoreau devolve into a leftist state?

  11. ceebee on 15/15/12 at 11:57 am

    amazing how the drones in the audience just lap it up and clap and giggle with excitement without a single person offering up a boo or hiss at the immature, utter non-sense spewing from her mouth.

  12. Ben on 15/15/12 at 12:01 pm

    Wow, who woulda thought, “I’m a snobby rich woman who is better than you, but I totally understand your needs” wouldn’t work as a campaign attitude?

  13. Neo on 15/15/12 at 12:05 pm

    Some folks just don’t like politicians who sound “like a dictionary that has been struck by lightning”

  14. tom beebe st louis on 15/15/12 at 1:08 pm

    If she wants limits on PACS, she might try this (and I’d like to hear your thoughts too). But I doubt she wants to so limit the union of ecological groups who finance campaigns such as hers. Nevertheless, what do you think?


    (Commentary in {..}, not part of proposed Amendment}

    No candidate for the Presidency or either house of Congress shall accept contributions in cash or in kind from any organization or group of persons for expenses incurred in a campaign for that office. All such contributions shall be made only by individual citizens who shall attest that the funds or other items of value are from their own resources and that they have not received, nor have they been promised, offsetting items of value from any other party in exchange for their contribution. The identity and extent of contributors to such campaigns shall be made public for a period of thirty days from receipt before being employed or used as collateral for a loan by such campaigns. Organizations of any type, {i.e. corporations, unions, gun rights advocates, environmental protection groups, even “Susie’s Flower Shop”, a theoretical small business cited in the Citizen’s United Case,} may, without restriction, expend money to advocate a position on any issue before or likely to come before the electorate insofar as no candidate’s name or description is included in their expressions of advocacy.

    {The intent of the above is to bring “transparency” to campaign financing by removing any group from the process whereby that group may conceal the identity of an individual contributor as well as limiting the influence of such groups or “special interests”. It further prevents an organization from making such contributions when an individual within that organization, such as a union member or corporation stockholder, may oppose the candidate. Considering the large equity position in certain corporations that the federal government has recently taken in response to the economic crises, this is particularly important in excluding such influence. The money from “special interest” groups will then go to promote that for which they exist, their “special interest”. The media will be directed to expositions on the issues facing the electorate, thus enhancing discussion and hopefully understanding of issues, bereft of personalities.}

  15. The Mega Independent on 15/15/12 at 2:08 pm

    He certainly isn’t ideal, but if it wasn’t for Brown, the DREAM Act would have passed in the 2010 lame duck session, and that would have been the end of pretty much everything. It was 59-41 and Brown voted correctly.

  16. NateDogg614 on 15/15/12 at 2:56 pm

    Which is all you’re going to get out of Massachusetts, unfortunately. (I will personally be working for Sean Bielat in MA-4. He has a chance to win, and he’s a real TEA party conservative.)

    Against a Kennedy?? In MA??? I truly wish you the best of luck and hope that Bielat comes out on top.

  17. The Sanity Inspector on 15/15/12 at 4:25 pm

    From six years ago:

    “When egalitarian redistributors make an effort to justify the assumption that the state has the legitimate right to rearrange entitlements to achieve equality, it’s usually in the form of an invocation of the theory that all production is inextricably joint, that is, that all that you have (at least above the barest and meanest possible kind of brute existence) would be impossible without the farmers in the fields growing the crops that nourish you, the cop on the beat protecting you from thieves, and so on, and that none of the inputs into that process could be added or withdrawn. It’s the cop on the beat, i.e., the state, however, that gets the attention, since it’s assumed that the enforcement of claims to wealth and income is what accounts for the fact of your having wealth and income at all, and thus the state, as the sine qua non of that wealth and income, is entitled to dispose of all of it.”
    — Tom Palmer,

  18. Caper29b on 15/15/12 at 7:19 pm

    Lizzie needs some “street” cred in Massachusetts… To get elected she needs to take an intern out and drive off a bridge and leave them in the water while she walks back to her hotel room.

    She’ll have a senate seat in Massachusetts for life!

  19. crypticguise on 15/15/12 at 8:36 pm

    Elizabeth Warren is an economically ignorant, socialist-Marxist ideologue who is an ideal Socialist-Democrat Party Candidate.

    However, there are still many hard-working American Democrats who are finally realizing that their Party has become Socialist-Marxist in its politices and agenda.

    Come back to America, good Democrats! Get rid of the Progressive, Socialist, Marxist politicians in your Party.