# Elizabeth Warren and the Presidency **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 24, 2013, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838 "2013-03-24T19:07:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/201 "2013-04-16T13:17:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Rand Paul is unique in that unlike most Republicans, his libertarianism outweighs his conservatism. Then why is he anti-SSM? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/202 "2013-04-16T13:54:27Z")
He wants to win elections in Kentucky? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/203 "2013-04-16T14:50:28Z")
That’s different. That’s the liberal government trying to force its way into marriage by redefining it and thereby infringing on the religious liberty blah blah blah Jesus… ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/204 "2013-04-16T16:58:00Z")
That is why Libertarianism is a crock. It’s not about ensuring liberty for all, it’s about giving states the liberty to have as barbaric practices as they want because there won’t be any national standards. Libertarians have a BIG problem with the feds decreeing anything “un liberty” but the states doing it are just dandy. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/205 "2013-04-16T17:33:18Z")
There’s lots of kinds of libertarians. The Pauls are first and foremost constitutionalists. And the Constitution limits the power of the federal government, while leaving state power limited only by the Bill of Rights. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/206 "2013-04-17T02:06:05Z")
The Constitution limits state power, too. Check out the supremacy clause. And whence comes the Constitutional authority for the federal government to pass the Defense of Marriage Act? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/207 "2013-04-17T10:09:21Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > To actually change the law, yes the President must do all that you said. That’s not what I, or really Warren is talking about. If Warren thought we just had a problem with our laws it’d make no sense to go after the sheriff instead of the lawmakers. No, Warren is asserting regulators and prosecutors aren’t doing their jobs. Fair enough - I misunderstood what you were saying. > [@](#): > > You are absolutely correct that there are tons of regulatory bodies, but many of them are headed by people who report to the President. Not to mention the Attorney General takes marching orders from the Presidsent directly. The SEC is run by a quasi-independent Presidentially appointed committee sure, but they have no monopoly on investigating banking misdeeds. One of the things Warren has been very vocal about is lack of prosecutions and that is 100% on the President through the AG. When past AGs have wanted to focus on things like civil rights prosecutions or mafia activity none of that was going on without ultimate approval by the President for those initiatives. Warren should be asking why the FBI hasn’t set up a special task force to investigate the banks and why the DoJ isn’t working with that task force to make cases. Acting like the President doesn’t set these initiatives is frankly crazy. Even entities that are supposed to be quite independent of the President, like the Federal Reserve, listen when he talks to them. I have no idea. Perhaps she doesn’t want to alienate her base. Perhaps she’s actually talking to Obama in a less publc forum. Perhaps she feels that she can get more done by shouting directly at the regulators and hopes this will inspire Obama to be more pro-active in this area. Perhaps she’s grandstanding. I repeat: I dunno. But she’s doing more than most. Also, many of the “banking misdeeds” are not actually major felonies which might prompt FBI involvement, but rather playing fast and loose with regulations, the enforcement of which falls to the regulators. You’d have to have a pretty serious case to get the FBI in. I note the [FDIC](http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020793360_fdiclynnwoodxml.html) are in the news at the moment though. > [@adaher](#): > > In fairness to lefties, the Democrats aren’t entirely under the thumb of business interests. It’s a pretty diverse coalition, you’ve got labor stooges, business stooges, squishes who are just trying to stay viable in red districts, and concentrated in the Northeast and some California districts, some genuine principled liberals. What, in this context, is a “squish”? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/208 "2013-04-17T11:52:17Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The Constitution limits state power, too. Check out the supremacy clause. Obviously, in the few areas where the federal government has the power to act, states must submit, much as the federal government must submit where international bodies have the power to act and where it has signed appropriate treaties. > [@](#): > > And whence comes the Constitutional authority for the federal government to pass the Defense of Marriage Act? The federal government does have authority to decide who is an who isn’t eligible for marriage benefits in regards to federal law. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/209 "2013-04-17T11:53:50Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > .What, in this context, is a “squish”? Politicians, mostly from states where their party has a hard time getting elected, who try to split the baby on every issue rather than taking a firm stand. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/210 "2013-04-17T12:56:08Z")
So…people who aren’t dogmatic? I thought the whole “splitting the baby” thing was an example of wisdom? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/211 "2013-04-17T13:32:45Z")
The end result is victory for the right side, the splitting the baby thing was a trick in the Bible. Squishy politicians actually split the baby and call it justice. Or build half a bridge and call it a good compromise between a bridge and no bridge. In the end, it’s not the policy that matters, it’s whether the politician managed to stay viable in his or her next election. There’s always a tension between pleasing your constituents and your party caucus when you represent a state where your party is usually a minority. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/212 "2013-08-02T23:45:13Z")
[Elizabeth Warren](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6rnsLNvXzM) arguing for Glass-Steagall. She _kills_ it, watch the whole thing. I hope she runs, she might be the only Senator that gets it. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/213 "2013-08-03T16:13:56Z")
If she got it, she’d know that Glass Steagall wouldn’t have stopped the financial crisis. At least half of the institutions that went under were never under Glass-Steagall to begin with. This is right up there with her lame student loan suggestion. She’s coming off as a left-wing Michelle Bachmann, ignorant as hell. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/214 "2013-08-03T17:09:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If she got it, she’d know that Glass Steagall wouldn’t have stopped the financial crisis. At least half of the institutions that went under were never under Glass-Steagall to begin with. She already concedes that it wouldn’t have stopped the financial crisis, however, she makes an excellent point that the Glass-Steagall allowed for 50 years without a single bank crash. I also like the point where she gives an emphatic “No” when she was asked whether “boom and bust cycles” should be considered the norm of Wall Street. > [@adaher](#): > > This is right up there with her lame student loan suggestion. She’s coming off as a left-wing Michelle Bachmann, ignorant as hell. It’s obvious from listening to her that Sen. Warren is a very learned individual and is not ignorant of the facts. Look at her questioning of Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner: she knows her shit. To compare her to Michelle Bachmann is just stupid, frankly, in terms of raw intelligence, I’d compare Warren to Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, or Olympia Snow. Easy. It’s a shame you didn’t like her student loan suggestion because it was a good one. Interestingly, there’s another thread on the SDMB about McDonalds jobs - basically, the argument is that people at McDonalds should go to school to get a better education to get a better paying job. The best way to do that is to offer low rates. Unfortunately, we live in a society, where we give corporations more of a benefit (subsidies, low interest rates, etc) than individual citizens. It’s quite a shame. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/215 "2013-08-03T17:38:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Then why is he anti-SSM? No, you heard that wrong, he’s into S&M. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/216 "2013-08-03T21:46:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The federal government does have authority to decide who is an who isn’t eligible for marriage benefits in regards to federal law. This leaves it unclear, then, why Rand Paul is anti-SSM. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/217 "2013-08-04T01:37:53Z")
Warren is a learned woman, but she’s also been stuck in the ivory tower for too long. Reminds me of the last progressive ivory tower leader, Woodrow Wilson, who was arrogant enough to believe that the country could be centrally managed by experts, and who imposed a virtual fascist state during the war. Given that, I’d actually rather have dumb politicians. The academic culture gives people the impression that there are solutions to every problem if only the experts put in charge are smart enough. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/218 "2013-08-04T15:37:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Warren is a learned woman, but she’s also been stuck in the ivory tower for too long. Reminds me of the last progressive ivory tower leader, Woodrow Wilson, who was arrogant enough to believe that the country could be centrally managed by experts, and who imposed a virtual fascist state during the war. > > Given that, I’d actually rather have dumb politicians. The academic culture gives people the impression that there are solutions to every problem if only the experts put in charge are smart enough. :rolleyes: You even showed all how dumb that point was, indeed during the war there are reasons why that was done, gearing your economy in to a war footing was deemed necessary to shorten the war in Europe. After the war, those “fascist” programs did go away. I suspect the dumb politicians of today would tell all to continue shopping and not even gather taxes to finance a war like they did in the past… Oh, wait, Bush the lesser did that very same dumb thing. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-three-best-charts-on-how-clintons-surpluses-became-bush-and-obamas-deficits/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-three-best-charts-on-how-clintons-surpluses-became-bush-and-obamas-deficits/) And as the ozone layer, river contamination by phosphates, acid rain and many other subjects showed, following what the experts advice is common sense and saves us a lot of grief, doing the opposite is indeed following that old saying of: “If you think knowledge is expensive, try ignorance”. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/219 "2013-08-04T19:47:38Z")
I wrote this in the other thread on Hillary but it’s relevant here too: I could easily see someone like Elizabeth Warren beat her in 2016: a) Warren has a major issue: curbing the power of Wall Street, where she has credibility and which excites the Democratic base. Hillary doesn’t have anything comparable. She may not have Iraq as a millstone any more but she doesn’t have any positive issue to fire the base either. b) Just about the only exciting thing about Hillary is becoming the first female president and Warren takes that off the table. c) While Warren is only two years younger than Hillary she is a much fresher political personality. d) Obama showed in 2008 how to create and fund an outsider campaign using modern technology among other things. That playbook is available to Warren and I would bet a lot of his campaign would love to work with her to stop Hillary. At the same time Obama benefited from insiders who wanted to stop the Clintons and many of those people are still around. One more factor that is more intangible is “likability”, more precisely a quality of being comfortable in one’s skin that IMO voters respond to strongly. In their different ways, I think Reagan, Clinton, Bush jr. and Obama had it. Obviously this is a completely subjective quality of the “you know it when you see it” variety, but I think Warren has it while Hillary doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838/220 "2013-08-04T19:53:10Z")
I would vote for Warren over Hillary, although I’m sure Hillary would do a fine job, too, if it went her way. I would vote for Warren over pretty much every one else I can think of. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elizabeth-warren-and-the-presidency/653838.md?page=12)