Saturday, February 22, 2020

Warren's Attack On Bloomberg Was Unfair And Malicious

Elizabeth Warren seems to be making an all-out effort to make herself the most annoying person in the Democratic Presidential race. She created the negative image of a desperate attack dog during the Wednesday night debate in Las Vegas. Before that, I held a rather neutral view of her. This may be a case of the more you know about someone the less you like them. Warren may have forgotten that these debates are as much about demeanor, temperament, self-control, and disciple than about what a candidate believes or policies they might want to pursue.

Warren Is Pushing Hard With A Lot to Prove
Apparently, Warren felt the need to be aggressive to show voters she’s primed to take on the man in the White House. Following the debate former Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, who is remaining neutral in the primary, told The Daily Beast, “I thought Elizabeth Warren was on fire last night,” Reid went on to say,“ I guess somebody finally told her she had to do something rather than try to get along.” Warren took this tact after she had a huge slip in the polls leaving Klobuchar to ascend in her place. The problem is how she grabbed such attention, coming across as nasty is not a great quality and either is being unfair.

A big part of Warren's debate performance centered on what some people see as her evisceration of her rival former mayor of New York, Mike Bloomberg. Warren plummeted the New York billionaire several times and while she may have exited her followers she did little to give viewers an inkling that she is the person that can bring America together and heal our political divide. This was a theme she had been test-running in recent weeks as she promised she is the best suited to unite the fractured Democratic Party. Her attacks during the debate make it appear she has abandoned this approach. 

Several times during the evening I felt a desperate Warren was trying to hang her hat on the idea we need a woman in the White House, to be more specific, in charge of it. If I was convinced women politicians had a record superior to the miserable males they have replaced I would have been swayed, however, I see them as equally flawed. This means her gambit came across as playing the "sex card."  As a voter, I find this as pathetic as flaunting the race card or dealing from the bottom of the deck.

Bloomberg Has Money And Is Competent 
Mike Bloomberg has been under the spotlight of public scrutiny far longer than Warren and is still standing. He has made efforts to address stop and frisk, not paying more in taxes, and even being too rich. Bloomberg also reflects current concerns over growing inequality and climate change. While pointing her finger at him and demanding more transparency on things like sexual harassment complaints at his many companies, his taxes, and more Warren seems to have forgotten her own transgressions. It seems a bit self-righteous and  hypocritical of her to simply brush aside her past overzealous claims of an Indian heritage and being a minority to advance her career.

Some questions exist when it comes to Warren's judgment and just how wed she is to her principles. One example is after she publicly denounced the decision of “any Democratic candidate” to “reverse course and endorse the use of unlimited contributions from the wealthy” she has done just that. While in Las Vegas on Thursday. Warren did a 180 on the super PAC issue when she said; “It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.” This was all part of her saying I will now take the money.

Politics is a strange and bizarre game. If someone apologizes for a past error in judgment it is often not good enough, declared to be pandering, or seen as a show of weakness. On the other hand, the refusal to do a mea culpa can give the impression the person is a pompous ass. In truth, the flaws in policies such as stop and frisk often become apparent only after the program is implemented. Warren may not know it but her idea to make a boatload of money available for people to start new businesses while sounding good will result in massive defaults. One of the things Warren may soon learn is that by winning a debate with venomous and unfair attacks you can deeply wound your image.

I'm not a fan of Bloomberg and this should not be considered an endorsement but at least he has proven himself competent. He has run both a massive company as well as one of America's largest cities for over a decade, few politicians come to the table with such a resume of experience. It should also be pointed out, whether we agree with him or not, he does put his money where his mouth is and has given away a great deal of money to promote what he believes in. Warren, on the other hand, has proven flawed to where the saying, "don't throw stones if you live in a glass house" may apply. Most Americans have little desire to replace Trump with a hypocritical nasty woman that has a loose relationship with the truth and flip-flops on key issues.


  1. I'd invite you to share your opinion of Bloomberg with any New Yorker who has been under his jurisdiction. If you want a president who thinks he knows what's best for you, so much so that that "his way" becomes mandatory... for you, not him, then he's your man...

    As for Warren, well, she's gotta do something to deflect attention from all of her lies, and there's no better way to do that than to shine a truthful light on someone else's shortcomings...

  2. American voters don't elect someone who reminds them of their annoying grade school teacher, ex-wife or condescending, morally-preening preacher. Especially when they are a known liar. She will not be elected president, nor will she be the Dem nominee. Not even Democrat voters are THAT dumb.