A number of Democrats have proposed changes to the structure of government that they think would help them win, such as lowering the voting age to 16, abolishing the Electoral College, packing the Supreme Court, and changing how Senate seats are allocated. Now, though, some of the Democratic presidential hopefuls are attacking the heart of the matter: what they call an â€œoutdated Constitutionâ€ that sometimes â€œallows Republicans to be elected.â€
â€œThe election of Trump exposed a fundamental flaw in the Constitution,â€ Senator Elizabeth Warren said at a campaign rally. â€œEveryone said Hillary was supposed to win, but she didnâ€™t. And weâ€™re afraid that in the future, maybe Democrats wonâ€™t win again. We can’t allow that.â€
Warren and numerous other Democrats have proposed an amendment to the Constitution that will state that only Democrats are allowed to win elections, a proposal they say will increase election â€œfairness.â€
â€œWhen I think about someone other than a Democrat being elected,â€ said Senator Cory Booker, â€œit makes me so mad.â€ He then raised his fists and shook them, a gesture indicating he was mad. Candidate Beto Oâ€™Rourke also spoke out for the proposed amendment, though all he got out was, â€œItâ€™s a great–â€ before skateboarding into a tree and quickly fleeing the scene of the incident.
This Robert Litan guy it seems deviated from the Party Line, and Strobe Talbott (my old boss at the Yale Daily News) followed Warren’s orders and executed him.
The Wall Street Journal tells the sad story:
President Obama has let Elizabeth Warren veto presidential appointments, and the power rush seems to have gone to her head. Now the Massachusetts Senator has forced the resignation of a Brookings Institution economist because he dared to report that new financial regulations will cost investors.
Robert Litan, a Democrat who has been affiliated with Brookings for decades, is nobodyâ€™s idea of a conservative. And heâ€™s not philosophically opposed to financial regulation. He was among the first to endorse Ms. Warrenâ€™s proposal for an independent agency to protect financial customers. It was a terrible idea that has become worse in its execution. The 2010 Dodd-Frank law created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the rest is overbearing bureaucratic history. But the point is that Mr. Litan was an ally of Ms. Warren before her election to the Senate.
Sheâ€™s not the sentimental type. In July Mr. Litan told the Senate about his research into a Labor Department plan to force investors to move from brokers to fiduciaries. Mr. Litan testified that â€œthe benefits of the rule do not outweigh its costs. In fact, during a future market downturn, we estimate the rule could cost investors as much as $80 billion.â€
He added that â€œthe notion that all retirement investment advisers should be held to a best interest of client standard is not controversial. Itâ€™s the way the Department proposes to implement it, which because of its costs and risks, will lead to many clients going without an adviser, or if they are able to retain one, only at substantially higher costs.â€
Ms. Warren likes the Labor plan because it provides more work for bureaucrats and trial lawyers. So more than two months after the hearing, still unable to rebut Mr. Litanâ€™s economics, she has attempted an assassination of his character. In a letter to Brookings President Strobe Talbott, Ms. Warren accused Mr. Litan of, among other things, â€œvagueâ€ disclosure regarding the funding of his research.
Vague? Hereâ€™s the note about funding that appears on the first page of his prepared testimony, which is available on the Senate website: â€œThe study was supported by the Capital Group, one of the largest mutual fund asset managers in the United States.â€ Did Ms. Warren provide that much clarity in describing her own corporate legal clients prior to her 2012 election?
Brookings is telling reporters that Mr. Litan violated a rule of the think tank. As a non-resident fellow, he was not supposed to be identified as a Brookings scholar when he testified on the Hill. But weâ€™re told that the rule is a recent creation and that when Mr. Litan realized his mistake after the July hearing, he apologizedâ€”and that Brookings didnâ€™t have a problem with it until this weekâ€™s letter from Senator Warren.
Remind us never to share a foxhole with Mr. Talbott. We also wonder how Brookings scholars and donors feel about letting a Democratic Senator bully their institution into stifling independent research. And what is former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke doing at Brookings while heâ€™s also a senior adviser to Citadel, the giant hedge fund?
Politico has seen an advance copy of Elizabeth Warren’s new autobiography (to be released May 13). Warren deals with the accusations, which surfaced during her 2012 Senatorial campaign, that she had falsely claimed American Indian descent in order to benefit from minority status, apparently not by producing evidence of such descent, but rather by describing how badly her feelings were hurt.
Elizabeth Warren was â€œhurtâ€ and â€œangryâ€ about attacks on her family and ancestry in the 2012 Senate race, she writes in a new book, defending at length her characterization of her background as rooted in Native American ancestry. …
[T]he campaign trail turned out to be more brutal than she could ever have expected. Republicans questioned her integrity, her family members were dragged through the mud and her opponent mocked her appearance in a radio interview.
â€œWhat really threw me, though, were the constant attacks from the other side,â€ she writes about the 2012 Senate campaign. â€œI would almost persuade myself that I was starting to get the hang of full-throttle campaigning and then â€” bam! Out of left field, the state Republican Party, or the Brown campaign, or some blogger, would launch a rocket at me.â€
Perhaps the most hurtful and high-profile attack thrown against Warren by Brown had to do with her heritage.
At the height of the 2012 campaign, it was reported that Warren had listed herself as having Native American roots at Harvard University. Soon, there was a â€œfull-blown campaign frenzy,â€ Warren recalls, with Republicans demanding that she prove her Native-American roots and accusing her of getting her job at the elite university by making false claims about her personal background.
Caught off-guard, Warren admits that she â€œfumbledâ€ when reporters first asked her about the controversy.
Things only got worse when the Brown campaign asked whether her parents had lied to their children about her family. â€œHe attacked my dead parents,â€ Warren writes. â€œI was hurt, and I was angry.â€
Brownâ€™s allegation that Warren had used her background to get ahead â€œsimply wasnâ€™t true,â€ she writes. â€œI was stunned by the attacks.â€
Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr
is demanding that the senator put her DNA where her mouth is.
There is only one way to settle once and for all the question of whether the fake Indian is or is not a real Indian.
She needs to take a DNA test.
I dare you, Sen. Warren. It only costs about $200. If you insist, Iâ€™ll pay for it. In fact, Iâ€™ll take one myself. Itâ€™s easy. Just swab the inside of your mouth. Check my photo on the left, Iâ€™ll show you how to do it.
No more of this fact-free nonsense about your â€œhigh cheekbones,â€ or these ridiculous fables about your parents â€œelopingâ€ to escape the racism of the Indian Territory when they actually returned to their hick hometown that same evening for a traditional wedding party.
The only explanation you havenâ€™t trotted out yet is that you instantly knew you were an Indian when you first heard Cher on the AM radio belting out â€œHalf Breed.â€
It would be great publicity for your new 2016 presidential campaign book if you finally come clean. Plus, whatâ€™s the downside, if youâ€™re so positive that you really are an Indian princess?
Read the whole thing.
I bet she’ll decline testing.