You’d think that the woman and the hour would have met.
Well, that was a remarkably silly little Elizabeth Warren 2016 boomlet while it lasted:
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been on the warpath against banks since going to Washington, but when it comes to launching a war against Syria, she and other liberal Massachusetts Democrats suddenly don’t have much to say.
Warren, known for her outspoken stances, has turned timid on one of the most important issues a U.S. senator will ever face — whether to put American troops in another military conflict.
Asked to say whether she approves launching a strike against Syria, Warren’s press office — which churns out releases regularly on financial industry abuses — did not get back to the Herald.
Let me explain. Right now the Democrats have two primary ‘choices’ for their 2016 nominee: Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. They both have several things in common: both will be very old for the job (Biden, extremely so); both have a history of neurological incidents; and both are joined to the hip to this administration in both domestic and foreign policy. That last part is perhaps the most important, because right Barack Obama seems determined to duplicate George W Bush’s approval-ratings arc all the way down into the silent darkness*. This is not good news for anybody who works for the administration.
Presumably, if you’re a liberal and willing to admit to the above then you’d be looking for an alternative, right? – And while Elizabeth Warren would be a wonderfully awful candidate for the general election she’d be a good one for the primary; she’s younger than both, has no poor medical history that I’m aware of, and can claim to have been betrayed by the Obama administration. Seriously, this Syria thing was her breakout moment; the perfect time to announce her adamant refusal to support putting troops in that country, a call for a new progressive foreign policy, yadda yadda, rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb. Because somebody’s going to bank hard Left in the Democratic primary, and it isn’t going to be either Biden or Clinton.
And apparently it’s not going be Elizabeth Warren, either. She’d rather talk about evil bankers, which… well, nobody really cares about, even in the Democratic party. I’m sorry, but people don’t; if they did then the Occupy movement wouldn’t have imploded like… I don’t have a good simile, here: or, rather, I can’t think of one that includes feces (a substance that was an apparently absolutely obligatory part of the Occupy movement). Anyway, bad reflexes on Warren’s part; which is a shame. I love it when the Democratic party puts its faith in politicians from Massachusetts**.
(H/T: Instapundit)
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: I don’t know what the heck we’re supposed to do in, about, for, or with Syria. At this point it’s all about picking which bad ending you hate the least.
*The oddly melancholy part? Barack Obama will have nothing to show for it. At least George W. Bush spent his political capital to save a heck of a lot of people.
**To be fair, the Democrats loved it when we did the same thing last year. Which just goes to show, really.
Heartbreak.
Serving as Al’Quida’s air force doesn’t strike me as a particularly good option. The best option would be the one involving the mutual extermination of both side’s by each other’s hand. Traditionally a difficult thing to achieve.
Except for the fact that they might end up killing a lot of innocent Syrians in the process. IF we get involved, it should be to restore order via killing as many of both sides as possible, with as little civilian and U.S. Casualties as possible.
Instead Obama will launch and airstrike, miss a military target and instead kill a bunch of innocent civilians.
Worse — he will prolong the fighting, and provide incentive for both sides to attack third parties.
Calvin Coolidge was the last politician from Massachusetts to win a majority of the Popular vote, not even JFK can claim that.
The dream ticket would be Warren/Welch 2016. Two white, old, new England socialists. or Warren/Shumlin, OR Warren/Chafee.
Explosive growth in the regulatory state, 2 (and perhaps more) supreme court placements, long term damage to the concepts of limited government and rule of law, poisening the racial politics for years to come… I think he’s got a lot to show for time so far… and we have 3 more years of it.
Skipping out on explaining the need for hostilities in Syria to the American people. Probably because there simply is no good explanation other than he doesn’t want to look completely ineffectual to other world leaders with his red line comment.
If Obama would just put on his Nobel Peace Prize and ride his unicorn into no-man’s land between the opposing forces, I am sure that they would put down their arms and laugh themselves to death. I don’t have a clue if that doesn’t work except for the deep feeling that we should not leave boots on the ground as targets.