2016 is still a long ways away, electorally-speaking, but the Presidential sweepstakes are already in progress. And one of the more interesting potential candidates blue-side are Massachusetts’ own Fauxcahontas, Elizabeth Warren. But is Ms. Warren really all that? Maybe not. Excerpt:
The notion that Elizabeth Warren should challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination has been optimistically tossed around in left-wing circles for a while now. Activists at Netroots Nation recently chanted ”Run, Liz, run.” And no doubt, the excitement generated by Warren is a function of her ideological sincerity—a sincerity that’s most obvious when contrasted with Hillary Clinton’s lack of earnestness and pandering.
Still, it seems to me that a lot of people are overestimating the appeal, uniqueness, and popularity of Warren. What’s most enticing about Warren right now is the perception of her, not the reality.
If you’re looking at Fauxcahontas from the right, that perception is somewhat different than that of those encouraging her to run; Elizabeth Warren is just another New England progressive, nothing more, nothing less. Still, it would be roundly entertaining to see her run, and even more so to see her win the Democratic nomination. 
Why?
- She’s a bit to Barack Obama’s left, but without his talent for speechifying – given a teleprompter (President Obama is an absolutely execrable speaker without a script.)
- Like many on the political left, and, sadly, all too many on the right, she is pathetically, completely, irretrievably economically illiterate.
- Her entire academic career is based on a lie – she gained her position at Harvard by claiming minority status, naming a purely fictional Cherokee ancestor. The GOP can and should hang that on her like a cheap leisure suit.
- If she was half as competent as she thinks she is, she’d be twice as competent as she really is; that would make primary debates and Presidential debates really, really entertaining.
The Federalist concludes: She would offer a more honest reflection of Democratic Party’s drift to the far Left on economics. But if anyone believes Democrats have another 2008-Obama on their hands, they haven’t really taken the time to listen to Elizabeth Warren.
Of course, there will be a primary fight, and Democrat voters will get to see Elizabeth Warren in all her amateurish, gaffe-ridden glory – and, almost certainly, will choose someone else. But who? Hillary Clinton, who has more baggage than a Samsonite factory? Daffy old Joe Biden, who can’t open his mouth without something ridiculous coming out?
No matter what happens, it’s going to be an entertaining election cycle. And the GOP will probably only add to the entertainment factor.
not all of them. Not those who are now pushing an unformed, soft-shelled thing like Romney to succeed where a pro has failed.
Hall Forum on April 16, 1967. The President she was speaking of was Lyndon Johnson; the Romney in question was Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney.
Mark Twain once said that history may not repeat, but it often rhymes. Consider once more the rhyming of Johnson’s Presidency and that of Barack Obama: Johnson’s downfall gave us the price-freezing, paranoid Nixon, the bland place-holder Ford, the inept and hapless Carter and finally, when the nation was sick of mediocrities and buffoons, the truly transformative Ronald Reagan. Barack Obama enjoys none of the advantages Johnson had; we are embroiled in a savage battle against radical Islam, the economy is stagnant due to idiotic fiscal and economic policies, and Barack Obama is probably the most inept President since Andrew Johnson. And there does not appear to be a Reagan waiting in the wings.
