Karl Rove Attacking Elizabeth Warren

[Lakhota]

Elizabeth Warren Responds To Rove Group’s Ad: ‘Yeah, I’ve Been Fighting Wall Street’ | TPM 2012

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Elizabeth Warren Responds To Rove Group’s Ad: ‘Yeah, I’ve Been Fighting Wall Street’ | TPM 2012

Who cares what that old bat says??? Honestly???

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

people aren't moving into massachusetts in groves, if they were,sure it would affect elections. Brown already beat her, a few thousand New Englanders would have to have a sudden change of mind to switch back to being a democrat. Obama isn't exactly popular in massachusetts.he may have won 4 years ago, but that was because they didnt wanna take a chance with McCain,,,,,,I just don't see how she can win at this point.

 

[Dragon]

Brown already beat her

No he didn't.

 

[rdean]

and where was elizabeth warren when Obama called white cops STUPID during the Cambridge Police debacle that showed Americans Obama's true colors. So much for a President who admires all the races that made America what it was till he took over,,,now Obama's attitude towards whites are,,,,FU WHITE PEOPLE,,,your paying for health care whether yuse people like it or not !!!!

So it IS about race. That's what I thought.

 

[daveman]

Elizabeth Warren Responds To Rove Group’s Ad: ‘Yeah, I’ve Been Fighting Wall Street’ | TPM 2012

She hasn't been fighting it too hard:

The Oct. 24 report also revealed that the family’s financial investments are worth between $3.6 million and $9.6 million, since the disclosure forms only require employees to select a range. That included mutual funds and bonds invested with TIAA-CREF, at least $1 million kept in five savings accounts, and between $100,000 and $250,000 in IBM stock.​

Amazing how rich liberals are given a pass for being rich, innit?

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

and do we all remember the huge crowd Obama attracted when he showed up for one of her rallies? well actually there were more crickets than Obama fans.

 

[del]

i'm not terribly impressed with her nor am i with brown.

all things being equal, i'll vote for someone qwho has actually lived here, and not the blow in, flavor of the month.

i suspect most of the people who live in mass and got pushed aside by bigfoot won't be all that fired up about working for her candidacy.

should be interesting

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

I still see it as a beauty contest,,,take the 2009 election, we had a very handsome man running for senate and a very unnatractive and boring woman. now what would of been the outcome if Brown was a clone of Michael Moore and Warren looked like Sarah Palin?

 

[Dragon]

Amazing how rich liberals are given a pass for being rich, innit?

Since the issue was never "being rich," no.

Got any data on contributions to her campaign from Wall Street? That counts for a lot more than what she, personally, owns. That's what's wrong with the president, for example, in a nutshell.

 

[Political Junky]

Elizabeth Warren Responds To Rove Group’s Ad: ‘Yeah, I’ve Been Fighting Wall Street’ | TPM 2012

Who cares what that old bat says??? Honestly???

Old bat? You watch too much of Fox's floosies.

 

[Lakhota]

Elizabeth Warren is a brilliant and honorable woman who fights for the poor and middle class. I can see why Tea-Tards wouldn't like her.

 

[Political Junky]

Warren was raised in middle class circumstances in the midwest. She educated herself.
Warren was republican. I guess she couldn't take what that party became.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Elizabeth Warren is a brilliant and honorable woman who fights for the poor and middle class. I can see why Tea-Tards wouldn't like her.

Warren has demonstrated that she knows nothing about much in her "The rest of us" rant.

 

[editec]

She's absolutely right about the effect that sending woman to work would have on society in the last 30 years.

The effect that has had on boomer generation families and child rearing hasn't been good.

Incomes went up for married families went up in the aggregate, while men's incomes went DOWN. FYI in the previous 70 years men's incomes were raising.

By 2006, the American families in aggregate put away NOTHING for savings.

Paying off revolving debts (1 in every 7 they made) became a permanent part of their budgets.

What did the American nuclear family spend all their money on?​

Spending......... 1970........today's families (more or less)​

clothes............ 100% ...... 68% (spent less on clothes)​

food................ 100%...... 82% (spent less on food)​

Appliances.....................................52% less​

Cars down .....................................52% MORE (second car so Mom can go to work)​

Electronics ...................................up $300​

Mortgages ........................ ..76% INCREASE (houses increased on average 1 room per house)​

Health Insurance.............. 74% MORE (inflation adjusted dollars)​

Child Care ........................100% INCREASE (new expense previously almost NOBODY used child care!) ​

Note how all the things where the price is going down were optional choices? The American family could do without or substitute cheaper puchases.

Note also that all the stuff that is going UP, were things that they American families HAD to buy?


75% of Families incomes went to paying off things that people absolutely had to have. ERGO, Americans have LESS disposable incomes than the previous generation.



And, as they already had to have a TWO INCOME family, when one of the incomes when down?

They had NO WAY of making up that lost income by sending the woman to work because she was ALREADY working.


Conclusion? The American family in the last thirty years has been losing purchaing power.

They worked longer hours, were better educated, yet they have LOST puchasing power.


Meanwhile? Their kids were basically LATCHKEY kids!!!

 

[daveman]

Amazing how rich liberals are given a pass for being rich, innit?

Since the issue was never "being rich," no.

Really?

Got any data on contributions to her campaign from Wall Street? That counts for a lot more than what she, personally, owns. That's what's wrong with the president, for example, in a nutshell.

It's not campaign contributions. It's the fact that her wealth is being aided and abetted by Wall Street. You know, the very institution she opposes.

But, she's a Democrat, so her hypocrisy is okay.

 

[Dragon]

It's not campaign contributions. It's the fact that her wealth is being aided and abetted by Wall Street.

What the hell does that mean? And you're wrong, it IS campaign contributions. If she's getting them from Wall Street, that's a problem. I don't know if she is or not, which is why I asked.

Not that it's of immediate concern to me as I'm not in Massachusetts anyway, but it may become important down the line -- say in 2016, when Senator Warren is running for president.

 

[Article 15]

Double digit loss for Brown. Book it. Done.

 

[Vaard]

Double digit loss for Brown. Book it. Done.

not seeing it......

i live in mass and brown is pretty poular among all the political wings......

brown may lose, but it will be by razor thin margins.......

 

[Listening]

So?

That's politics and quite frankly any political attack on the wacko Warren is justified in my book

an attack by another wacko though.

How does that average out?

An irrelevant wacko attacks the smart girl? I'm not surprised.

Sorry, but you are irrelevant.

Karl Rove is pretty influential. Not that I like him.