Wednesday, June 04, 2014

Senator Elizabeth Warren - What Next?

Something Senator Warren said earlier this week began a mini-flurry of wonderings regarding a possible presidential run in 2016. I've always admired her style, but in view of current doubts about Senator Sanders' true loyalties, and the fact that Senator Warren voted, along with Bernie Sanders, to confirm David Barron to a seat on the First Circuit Court of the United States, I shall have to give this more thought and caution. I've become wary of placing trust in any politician beholden to the rot-riddled establishment Dem. Party.

Elizabeth Warren's career, presidential potential and natal chart have come up in four archived posts spanning 2010 to 2013 - another look:

Wednesday Women - Elizabeth Warren (11 August 2010)

Elizabeth Warren (20 July 2011)

Elizabeth Warren and 2016   (28 Jan 2013)

Next Exit 2016?  (14 Oct 2013)


mike said...

I doubt that each of us will ever be 100% satisfied with our potential candidates...unless, of course, each of us runs for office and votes for ourselves. It's a matter of lesser evils for me. I'm not in their shoes, so I have no idea what concessions a politician obliges in order to ascertain their own personal interests. Politics is a matter of negotiations and hopefully bipartisan, which infers representing ALL agendas, even those the POTUS may not personally support.

Several years ago, PBS had a special roundtable with leading authorities discussing the qualities of an excellent president. They concluded that the president should not have a personal religion, should have a PhD preferably in one of the science disciplines, and should not be a member of any one political group...I can't remember the other factors.

Warren has some interesting astrological implications that could enhance her appeal. Jupiter will be conjunct her natal Pluto in about a year, which can increase her public profile in a positive way. Transiting North Node will be conj her South Node...usually a time of evaluation and turn-arounds. Uranus will be conj South Node (opposing N Node)...not sure how that will play-out. In the next year or two, Pluto will oppose her Venus, and Saturn will oppose her Mercury and Mars...perhaps a stumble...but there may be time to correct prior to the November 2016 election. has been off the air for over a week now, so I don't have quick access to future astrology to view her transits at that time.

Hillary seems the most likely, but that was the appearance in 2008, too. I tend to believe the voting public is wary of legacy families after the Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr years...but who knows?! I did learn that, even if a candidate should appear on the horizon out of the blue and had tremendous pronouncements of political reform and over-haul of government, we've been there and done that with Obama and every president prior.

I have no idea why David Barron received endorsements from Sanders and Warren...perhaps they will express their rationale sometime soon. I think that Barron represents a one-size-fits-all...he has qualities that would both appeal and repel each side of the political divide. Can't get these appointments confirmed anyway, so time will tell, whether he is appointed.

The Bush administration did much damage with no public or congressional disclosure...remember the special power given the president in wartime, particularly under the "USA PATRIOT Act". It was Obama that first disclosed the use of drones for potential killing of USA citizens. And, as I'm sure you dislike my saying this, Twilight, but does it matter whether we take a USA citizen combatant down with a manned rifle or grenade, or an automated drone? Supposedly, there is a congressional task-force that will be notified just prior to the assault, which makes it "legal" somehow...LOL. Same net result regardless how it's done or who knows...dead is dead.

Two interesting statements:

"Some Republicans say that the White House might not have disclosed all documents related to Barron’s work, and that his writings suggest a desire to use the court for liberal activism."

"...concerns over memos he wrote at the Justice Department defending Mr. Obama’s policy on targeted drone killings. By various accounts, they are not nearly as controversial as, say, the Bush-era “torture memos” were."

Twilight said...

mike ~ Re what constitutes an excellent president? My view : if, as you propose, he/she is going to represent citizens and others of all political shades then he/she ought not to be allied to any political party.

The political system of the USA is diseased, some call it rigged. Probably a bit of both, weak and diseased systems will be easily manipulated.

Politically we're screwed.

But, as I've rattled on before about this - if the two-party charade is the only game in town, and for now it is, what to do?

For me, I'll vote as left as possible and available for all positions on the ballot - apart from the president, which line will be left blank unless the choice there meets my personal requirement. That requirement: no support whatsoever for drone attacks in countries with which the USA is not involved in properly declared war.

As you say, I didn't much like your view about "taking down USA Citizen" - without a trial - what happened to the right to be tried?

Also, the murders of innocents, including children, who happen to have been in the vicinity, have become too numerous to relate, in the process of some supposed, and still wrong "surgical" strike on a suspected terrorist. This is not acceptable under any circumstances - ever.

That's my red line.

mike (again) said...

We can go back to the ricin on the umbrella's sharp end...or plutonium served with tea...or any odd "accidents". Undercover killings have occurred for eons. Yes, a trial is always in order, but for many it was never there, this too over the eons. I perceive use of drones only as a new method of madness. Without a drone, then resort to the older methods, which typically took-out many more innocents, due to the miscalculations of dropping bombs from planes. You may not remember the taking-out of entire neighborhoods that the USA did in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, prior to the drone introduction...this done by dropping bombs from planes at high altitude. But don't get me wrong, I don't condone drones.

This is only the beginning of drone-killing. I reckon it's only a matter of several years before police in some of our larger cities in the USA are using drones to take-out citizens that are on murder sprees or holding hostages. Most cities and states have introduced the words "terrorist threat" into their local, legal parlance and these words can be interpreted as meaning almost any threat made to another person. So, maybe the constitutional, legal mumbo jumbo occurring now for drone-killings of citizen terrorists is actually aimed more within the USA, rather than outside. Just a thought...

Twilight said...

mike (again) ~ The ricin, poison, accidents were, I think more spy/CIA/MI5 related happenings, rather than military, so not really equal for comparison.

The "drones are no worse than previous methods" argument doesn't make things any better, does it? The drone method to me is even more hugely repugnant than traditional bombing, if that were possible, because the bombs are administered by cowardly button-pressers in safe environments with no threat to themselves.

I'm sure back in 2007 to 2009 or so I rattled on about the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq - in much the same way as I complain about drone casualties now.
A quick search brought up this post which explains clearly why I feel possibly more strongly about these issues than most in the USA:

Regarding future uses of drones - the blood runs cold to think of them! You're likely right about this, mike. Powers That Be are getting their ducks in a row in early preparation for what will become inevitable one day: revolution, or rebellion on a large scale.

Twilight said...

mike ~~
Dennis Kucinich said it better than I ever could in an interview in 2012:

... it’s amazing that we’re in an America where we have to defend the rights of Americans to be free from assassination by their own country, to be free from extrajudicial killing by their own government.

I expect that the Obama administration will continue their policies of drone strikes, which have killed hundreds of innocent people and have put to death, through drone strikes, thousands of individuals who were just determined to be combatants, often because they happened to be the wrong age. This is repugnant to morality. It’s morally depraved, this drone strikes. And whether you’re a Democrat or Republican doesn’t matter. This is about what kind of human beings we are.

When partisan politics trumps morality, we are in big trouble. So I had no problem whatsoever in challenging this administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, or any other administration, whenever I felt the—the honor of our country, the heart of our country was at risk.

The drone situation is abominable. By the way, I’m going to have a briefing in Washington on November 16th on the drone policies. We’re going to be bringing some of the top people in the world who have something to say about this and could be considered experts, on civil liberties and other matters.

But our country is changing, you know, and think about this: drones are now being offered and used domestically. How long is it before some local police department uses a drone to intercept and kill a suspect, and when that becomes commonplace? People say, "Oh, well, that can’t happen." Well, it’s happening now overseas, and we’re committing acts of war in other countries without Congress’s knowledge or without Congress’s assent. We’ve got a problem here. And no matter who wins tonight, we still have a problem.

mike (again) said...

Maybe Sanders and Warren are brushing-up on their double-speak skills. Impossible to be an effective politician without the double-talk. They have McCain as an example:

"In true Tim Russert style, Tapper played footage of McCain decrying the deal to exchange five Taliban prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl, who was being held in Afghanistan. He then said, "Senator McCain in February sounded very different when asked by Anderson Cooper about a deal very much like this." Cut to new video of McCain saying that an exchange was something he would "seriously consider" and be open to if it meant that Bergdahl would be returned to America."|responsive|dl7|sec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D484326

Twilight said...

mike (again) ~ Yes, the "Doublespeak for Dummies" section of "How to Be a Politician" comes right after the "How to Kiss Babies and Gladhand People You'd Rather Walk All Over". ;-)

McCain should retire, he passed his sell-by date years ago.