Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 245: Is ‘Pocahontas’ Warren the new de facto Democrat 2020 leader?

Liz Warren
By now it’s the stuff of legend, speaking of the crowds candidate Donald Trump drew in 2015 and 2016 during the GOP presidential primary campaign (and continued on through the fall).

Everywhere Trump went he needn’t worry about spending advertising money or sending a large advance staff to attract curious folks and devoted fans. Let it be known that Trump was coming to town and thousands of people would seemingly appear out of the woodwork just to see him talk bluntly about Making America Great Again.

His supporters still arrive in droves, of course. Trump is perhaps unique among members of the ultra-exclusive presidential fraternity by regularly holding rallies in various strategic places to keep the fever alive. Almost as soon as he took the oath of office Trump was back on the road speaking in front of packed arenas and other venues large enough to hold his enthusiasts. And that’s not counting the people who couldn’t get in yet still hung around to see the address on giant TV screens in the heat or cold.

Trump regularly cited the size and intensity of his audiences to make the case he was winning the race (despite the polls), both in the party primaries and then for the general election push against Hillary Clinton. There’s little doubt Trump came out ahead of the competition in the “must see” category. Did anyone really get that amped up about hearing Hillary Clinton?

At any rate, one of the 2020 Democrats is starting to draw larger-than-the-others crowds, and the media’s taken notice. Amie Parnes reported at The Hill, “Sen. Elizabeth Warren is making waves with the big crowds that she’s attracting to campaign events across the country.

“The Massachusetts Democrat drew 15,000 people to a presidential campaign event in Seattle on Aug. 25 and 12,000 to an event at Macalester College in St. Paul — her first campaign event in Minnesota — on Aug. 19.

“The crowds have drawn attention to her campaign from Democrats and other members of the media, who see it as a sign she might be gaining momentum in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

Hmpf. Ultra-liberal Seattle and St. Paul (Minnesota) aren’t exactly indicative of the political mood nationwide, but a crowd’s a crowd.

Or it just might be a sign “Pocahontas” is good at churning up leftists and kooks to come see her in places like the flighty, grunge-band loving Pacific northwest. Parnes’ article featured comments from several Democrats-in-the-know who offered words of caution about reading too much into Warren’s audience numbers. She’s yet to draw huge throngs in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, for example. If the bug-eyed granny starts greatly outpacing the others in those early-voting locales, however, watch out.

Nutso socialist Bernie Sanders has also drawn thousands to his rallies in places like San Francisco, California. No shocker there. All someone like “The Bern” needs in Nancy Pelosi’s home territory is a social media shout-out and half the student body at Berkeley jams themselves onto BART trains just to get a glimpse of the 77-year-old who promises to give them free healthcare and swears he’ll pay off their student debt with rich peoples’ money.

Nevertheless, it’s interesting how the Massachusetts senator (Warren) appears to be gaining momentum in the Democrat race. On the surface, her rise doesn’t seem plausible, since “Pocahontas” is probably more nationally famous for claiming to be Native American (which was genetically disproven) than anything specific in her platform. The screechy septuagenarian is largely discounted by conservatives because she’s annoying as h--l and comes off as the cranky and judgmental old great aunt everyone tries to avoid at the Thanksgiving dinner table.

Besides, aren’t Democrats simply repeating their mistakes from 2016? It’s almost spooky to note how similar “Pocahontas” is to Hillary. They’re both about the same age (Clinton was 67 four years ago, and Warren just turned 70 in June), they’re similarly pigeonholed into the old white lady category demographically, both are seen as, for lack of a better word, “bit--y”, and neither offers anything new or hopeful to speak of other than female gender and a typical Democrat giveaway platform.

Both also tout how they’d relentlessly “fight” the old-boy network to make progressive change. Ho hum… wasn’t this what ’16 was all about for Democrats, shattering the so-called “glass ceiling?”

Is there something to “Pocahontas” that we’re missing? It’s true -- conservatives often complain, with good reason, about liberals writing stories and proffering “expert” TV news commentary concerning Republicans and limited-government advocates… what they believe, what they should do, and most of all, who they should vote for. It’s a form of dishonesty that’s pervasive in media, especially since all the major establishment sources are populated with people who identify as liberals and Democrats.

And lord knows if you’re an anti-Trump Republican or conservative (or even if you once called yourself one -- see Rubin, Jennifer) you’re immediately shuttled to the front of the commenting line. Hardly any of these people ever had any credibility, and they certainly don’t have it now. But liberals and Democrats seem to love ‘em, don’t they?

Are conservatives who reject Warren’s crowds in a dismissive way simply returning the favor or actually providing something of value in assessing the attributes and flaws of the Democrat field? Perhaps a comparison is in order.

Until Donald Trump actually started winning GOP delegates he was accused of a number of ignoble things, like he wasn’t really serious about serving as president, that he was just conducting a grand publicity stunt (meant to further the Trump brand), he was hoping to establish his own TV network after he lost, he was running to make sure the Bush family didn’t win again, etc. The list goes on and on. Few took Trump at face value when he swore he was in it to win it and would act as president to help the forgotten Americans by redoing unfair trade pacts and keeping the country out of unnecessary wars.

In contrast, everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, considers Warren a top-tier Democrat candidate who’s 100% serious about her aims to tax the rich into oblivion, turn the U.S. economy over to the environmental lobby (to combat “climate change”), impose “Medicare For All” single-payer healthcare, provide government-funded college and virtually eliminate any semblance of border between America and Mexico.

And with some polls suggesting frontrunner Joe Biden’s gaffe-prone campaign is faltering, Warren is poised to be the next-in-line. It isn’t just her crowd sizes -- she’s the logical second choice for Democrats. The party establishment would never allow Sanders to take the nomination because he can’t prevail in the general election. His brand of socialism wouldn’t draw out the African-American vote in great enough numbers to retake some of the “blue wall” states Clinton surrendered in 2016.

Despite her clearly obvious pandering to minorities, Warren wouldn’t have much problem keeping the Democrat ethnic coalitions together. And as a woman, “Pocahontas” could make a play for the same “moderate” suburban white female vote Hillary wrested away from Trump.

But in the end, she’d be awful. Let’s not forget, Warren’s judicial appointments would make Obama’s look like conservative Constitution-revering originalists by comparison. Would America survive? Hopefully we’ll never find out. “Pocahontas’s” and Bernie’s hope for socialism can’t be realized.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote last week at National Review, “When our schools and colleges do not teach unbiased economics and history, then millions of youth have no idea why the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Japan became wealthy and stable by embracing free-market capitalism and constitutional government. Few learn why naturally rich nations such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela — or entire regions such as Central America, Eastern Europe, or Southeast Asia — have traditionally lagged far behind due to years of destructive central planning, socialist economics, and coerced Communist government.

“The handmaiden of failed socialist regimes has always been ignorance of the past and present. And that is never truer than among today’s American college-degreed (but otherwise economically and historically illiterate) youth.”

As everyone knows, Warren was a law professor in her pre-politics days and no doubt she mixed plenty of liberal propaganda into her lesson plans. She’s not as overt about her socialistic beliefs as Sanders is, yet if she walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, she’s a…

Plus, “Pocahontas” doesn’t come across nearly as ancient as Bernie, she’s got a much better sense of recall than doddering idiot Biden and she’s a more effective liar than Kamala Harris. She’s got a national profile that “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg lacks and though the party elites would clearly prefer a “safe” choice like Uncle Joe, Warren wouldn’t be completely distasteful to them.

She’s also showing a talent for rallying the liberal grassroots. Her anti-corporate message is populist enough to make her attractive to the young and gullible (a vital Democrat voting bloc). And last but not least, she’s a proven and dedicated antagonist to President Trump. People already know she’s full of it on the ethnic thing, so there isn’t much left on the personal level that would be disqualifying.

Warren’s got considerably less baggage than the Clintons, put it that way.

Time will reveal whether Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren’s swelling campaign crowds indicate she’s the new de facto leader of the Democrat presidential primary race. One thing’s for sure -- liberals are taking a long hard look at each of the candidates, unsure of who could best compete with Donald Trump.

Share this