Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 09:46:22 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83029 Posts in 2258 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left  (Read 42954 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #500 on: July 30, 2014, 05:35:45 PM »

But can she afford birth control?
Sandra Fluke is trying desperately to carve political career out of being the face of "millennials who want free stuff," so she's running for California's state Senate. It isn't going well. Despite being the most easily recognizable candidate, Fluke floundered in June's open primary, where she carried just 19.4% of the vote in a turnout described as "embarrassingly low."  That was enough to give her a weak second place finish.  Unfortunately for her, it was probably not enough to bring substantial donors to the table.
Ms. Fluke is now the single largest contributor to her own Senate campaign.
From the Washington Examiner:
Fluke donated $12,000 to her campaign and $4,826.27 in non-monetary contributions. While $16,826.27 may not sound like a lot, Fluke also loaned her campaign $100,000.
Where does a 2012 law school grad working as a social justice attorney get a loan that size? Her campaign never responded to a Washington Examiner inquiry, so we’re left to speculate.
Perhaps the loan was in part secured by the family of Fluke’s husband, Adam Mutterperl. In 2012, Fluke married Mutterperl, an amateur stand-up comic and son of big-time Democratic donor William Mutterperl.
This is not a good sign.  It could be an indicator that external support is less than stellar and, combined with Fluke's poor performance in the primaries, could portend trouble in the general election.
Also troubling? It looks like her family is propping up the numbers in order to keep up appearances....
As a family, the Mutterperls have given Fluke $20,500. Fluke’s own family has donated $9,600 to her campaign (her mother gave one donation as Betty and one as Elizabeth).
In total, Fluke has raised $416,185.28, according to disclosure forms. With one-third of that total coming from her family, it appears the campaign is trying to pump up its donation totals to appear stronger than it actually is.
Now, a family donating to a campaign is not surprising or unusual but the percentage of overall funds coming from Fluke's inner circle should raise red flags.
Currently, Fluke's campaign has raised more cash than Ben Allen, but Allen may still still be in a stronger position. First of all, he's considered a potent candidate with deepconnections in the district. He's given his campaign a $50,000 loan, and his parents have each donated $4,100. If you remove his family and his loan from the equation, he's raised $330,141 - slightly more than Fluke, who stands at $278,859.
And according to the Associated Press, the Examiner's numbers represent a "rosy" estimate.  In reality, things are probably a bit worse:
“Allen has raised at least $443,388, including more than $50,000 from his law firm, Richardson & Patel LLP, while Fluke has raised about $500,000, including $175,000 from her own loans and contributions, according to campaign finance reports."
That would mean that Allen has funded just over 10% of his campaign, while Fluke is footing the bill to the tune of about 35%.
That's bad news for a campaign, but it's great news for someone who - just a few years ago - was claiming that $15 a month for birth control was  a bridge too far....
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #501 on: August 09, 2014, 11:06:40 PM »

We must teach our children to be the NICEST on the planet.  We are all so nice and thoughtful and understanding.   That is the most important thing.  We all love one another NOW, right NOW....

I never realized how many people are promoting this crap.  It must be the internet juggernaut.   Where did all this liberal crap come from?   That and millions coming here who don't believe in America anymore.

*******Readin’, Writin’, and Social Justice Agitatin’

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 8, 2014 07:57 AM

Readin’, Writin’, and Social Justice Agitatin’
by Michelle Malkin

It’s back-to-school season across the country. But in an increasing number of districts, “back to school” doesn’t mean back to learning. Under the reign of social justice indoctrinators, academics are secondary to political agitation. Activism trumps achievement.

In Massachusetts, the John J. Duggan Middle School will open on August 25 with a new name and mission. It is now a “social justice magnet school.” As a hiring advertisement for teachers explained earlier this year, the emphasis will be on “helping students develop the necessary skills to analyze and synthesize information and to generate empathy by looking at multiple sides of important issues facing the world, be that hunger, water quality, racial barriers, child labor or imbalance of power.”

Concise writing, as you can see, is not on the social justice pedagogues’ agenda.

Oh, and forget about memorizing times tables or mastering the scientific method. The new principal says the school’s primary job is teaching “fairness.” Duggan Middle School’s junior lobbying factory is “serious about creating 21st century global citizens, and it begins with understanding who we are as members of each of those communities.”

The ultimate goal of these social justice prep schools: creating left-wing political advocates.

At the Crescent Heights Social Justice Magnet School in Los Angeles, children will work on “action projects” tied to the “United Nations Millennium Development Goals.” Students will spend the academic year transforming into “agents of change.” Yes, they will learn language arts. But basic reading and writing are only a focus of the magnet school, the founders explain, because “we want our students to recognize injustice in their world or the world at large and be able to fully express their outrage, their plan of attack, their progress in this endeavor.”

In Chicago, Ground Zero for social justice brainwashing, the Social Justice High School (SOJO), follows a similar mission. Activist teachers openly foster identity politics and systematically undermine individualism. Their specialties: “struggle and sacrifice.” SOJO’s mission statement sounds like a pot-addled Oberlin College freshman’s — er, freshperson’s — Sociology 101 term paper:

“Through collective community power, we commit to a conscious effort to overcome the intended historical obstacles that have been designed to disempower and divide our communities.”

At the Paulo Freire Social Justice Charter School, also in Massachusetts, students won’t learn math. They’ll be taught “social justice math.” (Freire was a Brazilian leftist who wrote a social justice teacher’s Bible called “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.”)

His acolytes explain the push for radicalization of math: “Math is an instrument for detailing social justice issues and developing critical consciousness.” In the hands of progressive teachers, math “becomes an analytic tool to bring awareness to important world issues.”

In other words: One plus one equals “That’s unfair!”

New York City schools have been infested for years with city-funded math teachers who “train students in seeing social problems from a radical anticapitalist perspective,” as City Journal’s Sol Stern reported. As I’ve noted previously, the “Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers” guide rejects traditional white male patriarchal methods of teaching computation and statistics in favor of politically correct number-crunching.

Out: Algebraic equations, geometric proofs and advanced calculus.

In: “Racial profiling, unemployment rate calculation, the war in Iraq, environmental racism, globalization, wealth distribution and poverty, wheelchair ramps, urban density, HIV/AIDS, deconstructing Barbie, junk food advertising to children, and lotteries.”

State education codes mandate value neutrality in the classroom. But in schools of “social justice,” every academic subject is a means to a “progressive” (anti-American, pro-collectivist, redistributive) ideological end. The radical transformation of K-12 classrooms into leftist agitation labs is embedded in the mission of countless teachers colleges and universities, which require social justice training or offer special certification in its indoctrination techniques.

These teaching institutions are pumping out generations of educators who cast themselves as leaders against “social struggle” — instead of facilitators of intellectual inquiry. Passing the most rigorous student standards in the world won’t amount to squat as long as the overseers of public education exploit government schools as community organizing vehicles for captive tots, tweens and teens.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #502 on: August 11, 2014, 12:15:20 PM »

Pres. Obama and the Dems are trying to keep multinational corporations in America by passing laws, issuing executive orders and deeming things to be law retroactively, instead of competing with other countries and economies on a level playing field based on business climate, regulations, taxers etc.  Witness firms like Walgreen and Minnesota's Medtronic dying to leave.

I wrote last year or so that California cannot solve its fiscal problems by raising tax rates - unless it bars the exits.

Minnesota's Governor is fighting the migration-out problem by attempting to levying state tax against the snowbirds even if they are gone for most of the year.

Glenn Beck noted in this context that the Berlin Wall was built and armed to keep people in, not to protect a border from outsiders as we think of it.

Is that what this country has come to - under liberal-fascist rule?  Really?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #503 on: August 11, 2014, 01:21:28 PM »

Unless we fight and win, then yes.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #504 on: August 23, 2014, 02:57:31 PM »

Talk like a socialist while living like a capitalist raking in the dough:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113760/meet-amber-mostyn-wendy-daviss-most-powerful-political-patron
« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 05:47:47 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #505 on: August 26, 2014, 08:07:20 AM »

Dan Rather on war against Islamic murderers, unless you would send your own son or daughter, shut up.

Why doesn't that same logic apply to the 99% always wanting to keep raising taxes on the 1%?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #506 on: August 26, 2014, 09:05:05 AM »

The logic of the point is not without merit.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #507 on: August 26, 2014, 01:37:26 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/25/leftists-hamas-and-nazis/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #508 on: September 03, 2014, 02:35:20 PM »

http://www.justfourguys.com/1400-girls-are-raped-in-rotherham-and-feminists-dont-care/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #509 on: September 14, 2014, 10:29:59 PM »

This is aimed at Paul Krugman but applies to all of the hypocritical left.  How is it that they believe that hiking the cost of fossil fuels will kill energy use, but deny that an artificially high minimum wage law kills jobs or that high marginal tax rates kill off economic activity and job creating investment?  It seems to me you can have it one way or you can pretend to have it the other, but you can't have it both ways.

« Last Edit: September 15, 2014, 08:22:13 AM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #510 on: September 15, 2014, 05:17:41 AM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387877/democrats-push-criminalize-dissent-kevin-d-williamson
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #511 on: September 15, 2014, 06:43:12 AM »

Good one Doug.

GM please post that in the First Amendment thread on the SCH forum as well-- that is a keeper.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #512 on: September 19, 2014, 10:47:49 PM »

Now everyone has a "right" to "free" child care and paid leave!!   Did anyone catch John Kerry advising Code Pink that one of the reasons they should support BamBam's going after ISIS is because they don't offer their members free health care?   

********
 
Joe Biden: 'The NFL Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet'Speaking at a conference Friday, the vice president was equal measures somber and feisty.
BY EMMA ROLLER

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz introduces Vice President Joe Biden at the DNC's Women's Leadership Forum on Sept. 19, 2014 in Washington.(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
September 19, 2014 In the bowels of the Marriott Marquis in downtown Washington, Joe Biden was yelling.

The vice president was there to speak at the Democratic National Committee's annual Women's Leadership Conference, and he was fired up. Hillary Clinton and President Obama will address the crowd Friday afternoon.

In the run-up to its leadership conference, the DNC has faced somewhat of a leadership crisis of its own. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has faced flack from members of her party over the past two weeks for two recent PR blunders. On Friday she took the stage to introduce Biden, who has made a couple gaffes of his own recently.


In an otherwise warmly received speech, Biden did make one apparent slip, when he oddly praised a former Republican senator, Bob Packwood, who was accused of sexual harassment and ultimately resigned. Biden called Packwood "the type of Republican I miss," then continued his speech against sexual assault.



There was no apparent love lost for Biden and Wasserman Schultz—at least in the crowd. Wasserman Schultz called Biden a "national treasure" for his work on domestic violence, including his sponsorship of the Violence Against Women Act, which President Clinton signed into law 20 years ago. She also admitted to sporting a "Biden for President" button on her backpack when she was in college.

Biden in turn called Wasserman Schultz his "little sister," and praised her for her work as chairwoman. "I've never seen anybody work as hard and as tirelessly as Debbie has," he told the crowd.

Both addressed domestic violence in the scope of Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice, whom the National Football League suspended indefinitely after TMZ uncovered footage of Rice assaulting his then-fiancée in an elevator.

Biden name-dropped Cynthia Hogan, one of his former aides on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who was recently hired as the NFL's senior vice president for public policy and government affairs.

"The NFL ain't seen nothin' yet," Biden said. "They have no idea what they just bought onto." Also on Friday morning, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reportedly asked his staff to look into the military's relationship with the NFL.

BIDEN: 'THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY JUST BOUGHT ONTO"

DON'T MISS TODAY'S TOP STORIES
“The day's action in one quick read."Stacy, Director of CommunicationsSign up form for the newsletter

Biden touted the success of the Violence Against Women Act, saying there has been a 64 percent drop in domestic violence between 1993 and 2010.

"Success will come when the societal attitude changes and not a single woman in America asks herself the question, 'What did I do?' " he said. Then, in a theatrical staccato: "Never. Never. Never is it the woman's fault!"

Biden also used the speech to introduce a new PR campaign by the White House to encourage young men to speak out against sexual assault on college campuses. The new campaign, called It's On Us, will try to shift the burden of combating rape culture from women to men. The Justice Department will also award $6 million in grants to 18 colleges "to develop comprehensive campus sexual-assault prevention and response programs."

"We have to reach out and engage young men, because the vast majority are decent," Biden said.

Then—after finishing a speech about domestic violence to a predominantly female audience—Biden derided the idea of "women's issues." The state of America's middle class, Biden said, is the most important women's issue. His speech echoed similar comments Hillary Clinton made Thursday, in which she pushed for paid leave and universal child care, along with passing the Paycheck Fairness Act.

"You can't have a conversation about economic growth if women aren't fully participating in the economy," Biden said. "It's not just about equity, it's about economic growth for everyone."

But no speech would be complete without a bit of campaign puffery, especially now that lawmakers in Congress have mutually decided to skip out on work to campaign for the next two months. Biden ended his speech by mentioning female senators facing tough reelection bids—Jeanne Shaheen, Mary Landrieu, and Kay Hagan—and reassuring the crowd, "They're gonna win, by the way."

He also praised two female gubernatorial candidates who face uphill battles against Republicans—Wisconsin's Mary Burke, and Texas's Wendy Davis, who is polling around 12 points behind her Republican opponent, Greg Abbott.

"If you have an extra dollar, give it to Wendy Davis," Biden said. "She's going to win that race."

The audience's applause drowned out the scoffs coming from the press gallery.


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #513 on: September 23, 2014, 09:08:40 AM »

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/22/die-at-75-emanuel-obamacare-death-cult

It is a bad sign that Obamacare's architect thinks you have no value past 75.  65 really, he just gives you a 10 year cushion.
Logged
MikeT
Power User
***
Posts: 89


« Reply #514 on: October 03, 2014, 12:42:05 PM »

Found this to be a really good article...

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2014/09/21/the-top-three-reasons-why-liberals-hate-conservatives/
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 04:05:50 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #515 on: October 03, 2014, 02:25:20 PM »


Yes.  Very insightful!

One quote:
“Conservatives believe what they see; liberals see what they believe.”

The over-riding theme of Utopianism is right on the money.  Who knew that aiming all kinds of new taxes and regulations at the rich would in fact make the rich richer and all the rest of us worse off?  It's like trying to restrict blood flow through the heart to get better circulation in the extremities.  It doesn't work that way.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #516 on: October 08, 2014, 11:46:59 AM »



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/10/07/piers-morgan-slams-obama-what-hell-he-doing
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #517 on: October 08, 2014, 06:37:17 PM »

Piers Morgan Leon Panetta; all these liberal s are the same.  Where were they before?  Only now they are slamming the Delusional One.   They are full of crock.

Panetta is really a self serving scumbag.  This guy belonged to a one world government organization when he was Congressman.  Who does the think he is kidding?

He looks and sounds like a cheap fraud now.   

Nothing to cheer about these damn liberals calling out Obamster now.

Every f'n one of them will be front and center to shove Hillary down our throats.  She is just as liberal as any of them.  To further their God darn causes.

Go back to Britain Morgan.   
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


But
« Reply #518 on: October 09, 2014, 09:52:09 AM »

will the left criticize him on domestic policy?  The few whispers on that note are criticisms to the tune that he is NOT liberal enough!!! shocked

*****"Morning Joe': Panetta, Elite Dems 'Holding Back' on What They Really Think of Obama

'Morning Joe' on Dems Attitude Toward Obama, 10/9/14




On Thursday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” host Joe Scarborough and newly minted Bloomberg TV host Mark Halperin discussed opinion behind the scene of President Barack Obama within the Democratic Party ranks.

According to Scarborough, there are parallels to be drawn between Obama in 2014 and then-President George W. Bush in 2006.

“Listen, there are going to be a lot of Democrats on the campaign trail that are going to be hypocrites, that are going to do what Hillary Clinton did by saying, ‘Well gee, if he only listened to me on Syria, dandelions would be spreading across northern Iraq and eastern Syria,’” Scarborough said. “That said, Mark Halperin, at some point, Barack Obama is going to have to face the fact that he is alone and isolated in Washington, D.C. every bit as much, or I would say more than George W. Bush in 2006. I commented at the time that Republicans in 2006 would come to me in green rooms and talk about how absolutely horrific George W. Bush was in the White House, what a terrible leader he was and then the red light would come on and they wouldn't say anything. Of course, I would so i was hated. I was a disloyal Benedict Arnold Republican for saying on air what they would never say on air. It’s such a carbon copy of that now where Democratic senators, senior Democratic senators trashing Barack Obama up and down when the red light is not on. Red light comes on, they're muted. Only difference between Leon Panetta and 80 percent of Democrats in Washington I’ve talked to is Leon Panetta is actually saying it while the camera light is on. What are your experiences?

Halperin pointed out it wasn’t just Leon Panetta, who reveals some of his dissatisfaction with Obama in his memoir, and other Washington, D.C. Democratic Party elites, but Hollywood Democrats as well.

Partial transcript as follows:

HALPERIN: Well Ron Fournier is exactly right. What Panetta is saying what you hear from Washington Democrats, but Hollywood Democrats. The president is going out to do a fundraiser tonight. I talked to prominent people in Hollywood. Almost all of them, strong supporters of the president, feel disappointed for one reason or another. Either all the elites in the Democratic Party, or the vast majority of them, are right or the president and his team are right and I think we'll learn over the next two years and history will record, you know, Panetta says the president is more like a law professor than a passionate leader. I know that Robert [Gibbs] and others hear these things too but they largely dismiss them as not being relevant or being wrong. I think the judgment will be made if he can lead this coalition, if he can deal with the aftermath of the midterms, he can have a good final two years of his presidency but elite opinion is strongly against him on all these same issues.

THOMAS ROBERTS: Let's not forget Panetta is getting paid and the more that he goes out there to hawk a book –

HALPERIN: He’s not that kind of guy. 

ROBERTS: He doesn't want to sell a book?

HALPERIN: He does.

ROBERTS: And doesn't want to have close ties to Hillary Clinton if she runs for president?

HALPERIN: The fact of the matter is in his book and on his book tour, he’s held back on what he really think.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: That’s holding back?

HALPERIN: He does
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #519 on: October 23, 2014, 08:20:54 AM »

We may be a little discouraged right now but the left is unraveling.

1. They told us a strong economy was no good because of the inequality in it.  They took the strength, growth and velocity out of the economy and inequality worsened - especially for targeted Democratic constituent groups.

2. They can't win without winning a big margin with the women's vote so they invented the Republican war on women.  Sen. Mark (Uterus) Udall is the poster boy, attacking Cory Gardner on birth control that has been legal in 50 states since Griswald. 1965.  Gardner took the air out of it with his support for making it available over-the-counter.

3.  They can't win without black vote.  So their candidates all beg blacks to vote for them, in support of Obama, but he is so unpopular in their state that they won't say whether they themselves ever voted for him!  (Is there a better example anywhere of cognitive dissonance?)

4.  They can't win without the Hispanic vote and they get it only by promising amnesty based immigration reform.  Small problem:  They had the House, Presidency and 60 votes in the Senate and did NOTHING on this front.  The President clarified on Univision by explaining that there are some things the President can not do alone.  He further clarified that he can do it alone.  At the end of the summer.  No, after the election.  But if he can do it alone, why give him the House or the Senate too?  On those races they could vote their economic interests.

5.  Back to no one respecting women other than the left and the left says most women don't know if they've been raped.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-09-26/news/bs-ed-rape-statistics-20140928_1_22-percent-13-percent-30-percent

6.  And now David Corn of Mother Jones says Minorities "May Not Even Know That They're Not Being Allowed To Vote"!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/22/david_corn_minorities_may_not_even_know_that_theyre_not_being_allowed_to_vote.html

Meanwhile Republicans think women are big girls now and treat blacks and minorities as equals, unneeding of special attention.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 08:25:48 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #520 on: October 23, 2014, 12:44:16 PM »

Once people admit Hillary isn't running, maybe Faux-cahontas can get her own thread...

I would like to rip her lack of substance separately, but for now these pieces seem to expose her rotten hypocrisy.

Elizabeth Warren’s silence was Fidelity’s gain

By Joan Vennochi  | GLOBE COLUMNIST   OCTOBER 23, 2014

ACCORDING TO Senator Elizabeth Warren, the political system is rigged to help Wall Street. For that, she blames Republicans, lobbyists, and President Obama.

Yet, Warren is not entirely immune from the urge to help powerful financial interests — at least when they are local.


As reported by the Globe’s Christopher Rowland, Boston-based Fidelity Investments was able to water down new rules proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission that were aimed at regulating the mutual fund industry in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

The SEC wanted to impose a new liquidity standard on mutual funds, and replace a fixed $1 share price with a more accurate “floating” share price. But by the end of an aggressive Fidelity lobbying campaign, the capital requirements were eliminated and the “floating” share price applied only to funds that serve large, institutional investors.

“The lobbying pressure was relentless,” Sheila Bair, former chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and now head of the nonprofit watchdog group Systemic Risk Council, told the Globe. “It is a good example of how the narrow interest of the industry prevails in this debate.”

Given her populist image, it would be more in character for Warren to fight such a narrow industry interest. In this case, she did not. When Fidelity’s top executive, Abigail P. Johnson, personally lobbied the SEC in 2012, Warren stayed out of the fight. At the time, Warren was running for Senate against incumbent Republican Scott Brown, whose biggest source of funding came from Fidelity employees, according to a news report by the Globe’s Beth Healy.

While it made political sense to avoid antagonizing the mutual fund giant, Warren’s silence was Fidelity’s gain.

As the lobbying battle dragged on into 2014, Warren and Ed Markey — now both representing Massachusetts in the Senate — objected, through their staffs, to proposals that Fidelity didn’t like. They didn’t cite industry complaints; they cited concerns of local politicians. A compromise was reached, which, according to Rowland’s reporting, favored the mutual fund industry.

In a statement to the Globe, Warren’s office said the SEC rules were “an important first step” and stressed a need to “balance the risks that money market funds can pose to the economy against the need to maintain money market funds as an important investment alternative.”

Compromise is not a crime. It’s a natural part of politics. But when compromise comes down on the side of powerful financial interests, that’s exactly the kind of politics Warren is said to be fighting. And she’s taking that fight to the national stage.

“The game is rigged and the Republicans rigged it,” she said recently in Minnesota. “Republicans believe this country should work for those who are rich, those who are powerful, those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers,” she said in Colorado.

She doesn’t leave Democrats off the hook either. In an interview with Salon, she said of Obama, when “the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street . . . Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education . . . ”

Pronouncements like that keep Warren’s name in the mix of potential White House candidates, which she insists is of no interest to her. Yet the super-liberal wing of the Democratic Party revels in the Wall Street-rigging gospel according to Warren, and sees her as an alternative to Hillary Clinton.

But as the back story on Fidelity shows, ideological purity is hard to sustain in the real world of politics — especially in the real world of local politics.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/22/elizabeth-warren-fight-when-financial-interests-are-local-warren-doesn-always-fight-them/DkghG96OG60w9IZm1H1dhM/story.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/10/18/with-aggressive-strategy-fidelity-fought-washington-over-money-market-funds-and-won/3ZbsOGsb9rfMuPpx2wx58H/story.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2014/04/23/warren-should-more-candid/xlHHBZNv8Fn5HSEC53OqhN/story.html


« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 01:01:32 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!