Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

E. Warren on Morning Joe was oddly silent when Mika started talking Supreme Court justice

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 07:50 AM
Original message
E. Warren on Morning Joe was oddly silent when Mika started talking Supreme Court justice
Warren! usually, Elizabeth has a lot to say and all of it good, but she just set a half smile on her face and kept quiet, while Mika and Joe started talking her up as the next nominee to the Court. Mika remarked on her silence. Elizabeth just smiled more...

Hmmm, maybe there is more to this rumor than I thought...she may be under REAL consideration by the White House...

Joe was obnoxious, of course, saying "Put her in a black robe!" The jerk.

And BTW, Elizabeth was just wonderful as always, talking about how the banks are backing out of the deal they made when they got the TARP money and not helping the ordinary homeowner keep from foreclosure...What a breath of fresh air in that fetid swamp...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'll never understand why self-respecting democrats watch the vile shit called Morning Joe?
Edited on Wed Apr-14-10 07:56 AM by ShortnFiery
It's a mystery. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. He has guests like Warren on and I can't get enough of her. The reason this self respecting
Dem watches is for guests like HER. I mute or switch to the mindlessness of GMA or just play music when the obnoxious guests go on. I get information also.

Don't worry, I know when to switch them OFF and I'm highly suspicious of any claims any of the regulars make...plus I read as widely as I can in the left wing press and in the NYT and Newsweek...I am always dubious and looking out for RW influences...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. That's one of the few things I can heartily agree with you on. Sing it, sister!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. We read your posts, we watch Morning Joe
And we cover the whole spectrum of Obama Hate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. +1
You might as well watch Bill O'Reilly, but since it is on the "liberal" network it is okay, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burning rain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. In absolute terms, it's a crappy show, but in relative terms it's as good as it gets.
What else is there by way of morning shows? CNN's American Morning is fit only to put viewers back to sleep; Fox & Friends is just a shout-and-holler kidz show; Morning Express is utterly vapid.

Elizabeth Warren would be a genius pick: Republicans are spoiling for a knock-down-drag-out fight over a Supreme Court nominee, and the issues where Warren holds positions unaccetable to them--regulating abusive big finance--are ones where Democrats take the more popular side (unlike, say, some culture war issues where Republicans hold a popular advantage, or where it's a wash). At the same time, Republicans would have to defend their sponsors in big finance, and Democrats could use their unpopular position to beat them. If Warren sharpened the differences by making really tough statements in her hearings, Republicans would likely filibuster, furnishing Democrats with the perfect excuse to confirm her via the nuclear option, thus getting a good justice on the Supreme Court and dealing a fatal blow to the filibuster at the same time. Killing the filibuster is a key goal for progressives, but the scenario in which Democrats kill it has to be carefully chosen--it has to look necessary to the public--not like mere hunger for power. Doing it to get Warren through and subject big finance to serious regulation would obviously be an earnest motive, and in the public interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. I like the way you think, rain!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. I really admire her
and would be very pleased of all the speculation turned out to be correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
5. Last night, on Rachel Maddow's show, all she would say is that she has her nose
in the details of the mortgage crisis and that resolving it is vitally important. I took that to mean that she wouldn't leave that task unless a) it was done b) she was convinced that it would be satisfactorily dealt with by someone else after she left or c) she was convinced that she'd reached a point where she personally couldn't affect the outcome, no matter what she did. I got the impression that she takes the whole mortgage disaster very seriously, but would like to be a Justice. Perhaps if not now, when another opportunity presents itself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
8. Elizabeth Warren is my favorite person in the administration
by miles. I admire her many skills, including her verbal and press abilities. I wish there were about 5 of her, one for each job I'd like her to have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Right now, I'd settle for 2 of her
One to replace Timmy the Elf, and the other to replace $ummers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. oh god YES!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. She's not actually in the administration - was nominated for the tarp panel...
...by Pelosi and Reid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CK_John Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
10. She probably has been told forgetaboutit. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. I didn't believe the hype either but the way she conducted herself this morning
made me think again...but you could be right and she's just being circumspect...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hestia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
13. If the banks do help, then it means that Obama actually won the election. The banks
are doing all of this to try to bring "down" the Obama presidency. Some of us do have a long memory and will not forget this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cilla4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
14. E. Warren - I get it!
Earl Warren..Warren Court...

From Wikipedia:

The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Marking some of the most dramatic changes in judicial power and philosophy in the history of the American judiciary, the Court expanded civil rights and liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways.

Bodes well! Although, I do like her in the financial reg venue...

I LOVE ELIZABETH WARREN!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
15. Warren's my hero. Don't know if we can afford to lose her

from her TARP efforts. She's the only honest voice in the process, near as I can tell. Still, a new "Warren court" could be a great thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I think she would have a few things to say to messrs. alito, roberts, thomas and scalia!
I think they'd be afraid of her! If would be, if I were them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
17. If she is on THE LIST she has to keep her mouth shut. It is not something you campaign for. EVER
I am surprised she was even on TV at all. Probably means she is not on THE LIST.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Well, her report on the TARP stuff was being rolled out today so that's why she was on
Rachel's show yesterday and Morning Joe today. It was perfectly kosher for her to talk about this as it is her "job." She chatted a little more with Rachel on her show -- and maybe got into a little hot water for it since her mouth stayed decidedly closed on the SC thing. Not that she said anything "bad" on Rachel's show, IMO. I dunno what to make of it, but the idea that she could be Obama's nominee just gave me a thrill...I get like that every once and awhile...:7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. It is not even the content of what she saiys or it being her job
It all about even the hint of appearing to campaign for the job. My view is that if she want the job.. she was stupid to go on air. She could have sent a surrogate. Basically, even if she demurs on the SCOUTS stuff, it still gives the WH problems in dealing with the egos involved (Candidates and vetters alike)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Her report is very much "her baby." I think there's a reason she has such a distinct
profile in the press and electronic media...she is a forceful speaker. Sending a surrogate might make people speculate even MORE that she is a SC candidate...but, what do I know :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-10 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
22. I don't think that Elizabeth Warren is interested in serving on the Supreme Court. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rage Inc. Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
25. Hmmmmm
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 12th 2024, 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC