The mainstream media, which includes liberal and conservative news outlets, were successful in convincing a very large segment of Americans, including progressives, that Hillary Clinton was/is a bad person. She was too ambitious, for a woman. She supposedly used foul language. She was protective of her private life. She was a hawk/warmonger. She was extremely careless with classified information, i.e., her email server.
Likewise, the mainstream media is attempting to convince Americans, including progressives, that Elizabeth Warren is a bad person related to her economic worldview. Despite her claim that she is a capitalist, Republicans promote that she is as much of a socialist as Bernie Sanders is.
Are Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren bad for the USA? I have seen nothing that supports that narrative. Probably as a result of her middle-class upbringing, Hillary Rodham was a Republican in her youth. She was indeed a Goldwater girl. However, unlike Goldwater, she always had a heart for inclusiveness and equality. Her public life reflects a history of speaking out on behalf of those who did not have a seat at the table, primarily minorities and females. People who don’t support those who don’t have a seat at the table will naturally find champions of those people, distasteful.
Elizabeth Warren also had a middle-class upbringing and like Hillary Rodham, she was initially a Republican, albeit much longer than Hillary into her adult life. Warren said she was a Republican because she thought the Republican Party supported the market. She changed her mind in 1996 because she thought Republicans supported tilting the playing field in favor of large financial institutions and against middle-class American families.
I recently heard Willie Geist of MSNBC’s The Morning Joe show say that the 2017 World Series title should be taken away from the Houston Astros and given to the Los Angeles Dodgers, because Houston stole pitching signals and used that tactic to win baseball games. I am not sure if Willie was being sarcastic, but I think history might treat the 2016 presidential election in that manner. Officially, Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump. However, a true account of that election would have to include an asterisk to denote that Russia interfered in that election and the Trump campaign at the very least welcomed that interference.
I recently discovered that there is a narrative on the internets that P’taah, the real God of Erra and Terra (Earth) said that had Hillary Clinton become President of The United States, a catastrophic world war would have ensued, and that Donald Trump, although he might appear to be chaotic, was actually the lesser of two evils related to the 2016 American presidential election. I was intrigued by the Billy Meier Story until I read this.
So, is Elizabeth Warren the Hillary Clinton of 2020? Recently, even President Obama came out against Warren. Although he did not name her specifically in his comment about the Democratic Party moving too far to the left and not being practical related to healthcare and some other issues, his comments seemed to be directed at Warren and Sanders. Although Republicans portrayed Obama as the most liberal senator in the Senate during his 2008 general election campaign, those same Republicans as well as moderate Democrats agree with President Obama now related to the Democratic Party being too far to the left.
I think Republicans recognize that they are in trouble by sticking with Donald Trump in 2020, despite their base sticking with Trump. Yes, they can win their primaries by sticking with Trump, but it will be very difficult if not impossible for swing state Republicans to win the general election. So, what can Republicans do in this anti-Trump national environment? The most obvious option is to help moderate Democrats choose the Democratic nominee for president by promoting that moderate Republicans MIGHT support a moderate Democrat, but they will NEVER support a far-left Democrat like Sanders OR Warren. Enter, Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick, a Bain Capital manger who is supported by his good friend President Obama.
What scares small “c” conservatives and moderate Democrats the most about Warren is that she intends to place a wealth tax on wealthy people and she wants to take the profit motive out of healthcare insurance. The mainstream media is promoting the myth that most Americans LOVE their health insurance plans and they don’t want the government to take the private healthcare insurance option away from them, like Warren and Sanders are proposing. The mainstream media neglect to INFORM the public that the private health insurance industry is not healthcare providers, but rather healthcare FUNDERS, for a PROFIT.
There are a few points I would like to see Warren and Sanders address related to the myths the mainstream media is promoting about Medicare-For-All. First, they need to explain in plain terms how they intend to pay for it. Bernie has unequivocally stated that he supports a tax that would replace premiums currently paid to the private health insurance industry, that would be less that what healthcare consumers are currently paying. Warren says she intends to fund Medicare-For-All by imposing a wealth tax on the top one percent of taxpayers, by directing 98 % what employers now spend on employee healthcare insurance to the government, as well as repealing some of the advantages the Trump tax cuts gave to large corporations. However, she proposes not the raise taxes on the middle-class. I think that the willingness of Democrats to establish universal healthcare is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than how they will pay for it. How it will be funded will be debated in Congress and IF Congress in controlled by Democrats, the best plan for Americans will pass and a Democratic president will sign it into law.
Another issue I would like to see Warren and Sanders, and quite frankly the entire Democratic Party address is the FACT that Republicans are currently trying to have the Supreme Court declare that the ACA is unconstitutional. Not just the individual mandate, but the entire program. Why? Because it grants the government the power to require people to purchase a product or service from private entities, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Roberts court already issued this ruling related to the individual mandate in 2012 in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, because the failure to purchase something exceeds Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce. It is difficult to see how the plaintiff will not prevail in this argument. If they do, what is Plan B for Democrats to provide affordable healthcare for Americans? We already know what the Republican plan is. Die quickly!
The other issue to be addressed is pre-existing conditions, and how it can be funded in a private for-profit insurance environment. ALL for-profit businesses are in business primarily to make profits. How can a health insurance company make a profit if it is forced to cover people they know will cost FAR more to cover than they will pay in premiums? From my perspective as a lay-person, I don’t see how this can be done. Although I wholeheartedly support banning pre-existing conditions as a reason for denying health insurance coverage, I don’t believe the private-for-profit health insurance industry can do it economically, even if they wanted to.
So, in the current anti-Trump political environment, should Americans go for what they really want, or should they preserve/conserve the status quo and keep the 99% in economic bondage? Joe Biden and moderate Democrats and now even President Obama seem to suggest sticking with the more comfortable status quo. WHAT SAY YOU?