Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) Elizabeth Warren came out swinging against both Republicans and fellow Democrats in a fiery speech to an AFL-CIO conference on Wednesday, an address that included some apparent jabs at Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat who some liberals want to draft to run for president, gave a wide-ranging speech in which she claimed headlines about the economy improving dont jibe with the lives of Americans who are struggling with student loans and mortgage payments. She pressed to raise the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 an hour, an idea long pushed by Democrats.

But the speech may have been most notable for what The Wall Street Journal called not-terribly-veiled references to Hillary Clinton and attacks on Bill Clintons record in the White House. Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, though she hasnt yet declared her intention to run. Warren has insisted she isnt running for president.

Heres one line from Warrens speech in which she blasts both parties: Pretty much the whole Republican Party and, if were going to be honest, too many Democrats talked about the evils of big government and called for deregulation. It sounded good, but it was really about tying the hands of regulators and turning loose big banks and giant international corporations to do whatever they wanted to do.

As The Journal points out, part of Hillary Clintons argument is that Bill Clintons presidency presided over the economic growth of the 1990s. And as The Journal notes, Warren was harking back to President Clintons 1996 State of the Union address and its signature line The era of big government is over.

Warren has carefully couched her statements about a presidential run, saying she isnt running now. Her supporters hope her keeping a decision about a run in the present tense means shell run in the future. They were newly energized Wednesday.

Originally posted here:
Capitol Report: Elizabeth Warren doesnt spare Democrats in fiery speech

House Democrats launched the 114th Congress this week almost fully united behind Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as their party leader.

Four centrist Democrats bucked Pelosi in Tuesday's much-watched vote for Speaker, including Reps. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and newcomer Gwen Graham (Fla.).

But 25 Republicans defected against Boehner for the top spot following a very public campaign for more conservative leadership in 114th Congress. And in contrast, Pelosi's near-unanimous support from her troops sends a signal that, while the Democrats may have lost ground at the polls in November, they remain united behind Pelosi and her vision for leading the party out of the minority.

It wasn't always such.

After the Democrats were trampled at the polls in 2010, when they lost 63 seats and control of the House, 20 rank-and-file members declined to back Pelosi in the vote for Speaker.

That number plummeted two years ago, when five Blue Dog Democrats voted for figures other than Pelosi for Speaker.

The lesser defections in recent years is at least partially a reflection of a changing Democratic caucus, as most of the centrist Democrats who voted against Pelosi are no longer in Congress. Indeed, of the five members who bucked Pelosi in 2013, only two Cooper and Lipinski remain on Capitol Hill in the 114th Congress.

Cooper, who had voted two years ago for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, did so again on Tuesday. Lipinski voted for Rep. Peter DeFazio (D), a liberal firebrand from Oregon. Sinema picked Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the civil rights icon. And Graham, who had made it a campaign promise not to support Pelosi for Speaker, voted for Cooper.

At least 18 Democrats were absent from the vote, most of them New Yorkers who were attending Tuesday's funeral for former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (D). The absentees lowered the number of votes Boehner needed to retain his gavel, but in the end didn't ultimately matter since he won 216 votes anyway.

The large show of support for Pelosi could have policy implications, as Boehner's struggles to rally the support of his conservative conference throughout the 112th and 113th Congresses are widely thought to carry over into the 114th a dynamic highlighted by the conservatives' attempted coup on Tuesday.

View post:
Four centrist Democrats buck Pelosi

Almost a year ago, President Obama vowed to use his pen and phone wherever possible to make a difference for middle class Americans, effectively promising to aggressively employ executive action to lift struggling Americans economic prospects in the face of implacable Republican opposition.

But now some liberals are beginning to worry that Obama may fall short in this regard, on an issue where he could perhaps give more of an economic boost to the middle class through unilateral action than on any other front. And if that happens, it could form the basis for another argument among Democrats over the partys economic direction.

The issue in question is how Obama will treat the issue of overtime pay, which is set to flare up next month. Senator Sherrod Brown, a leading member of the partys increasingly emboldened populist wing, tells me: As the party of the middle class and those seeking to join it, Democrats should stop the erosion of overtime pay.

The background: Last spring, Obama directed the Department of Labor to revise the rules that govern which private sector employees get overtime pay as part of the New Deal-era Fair Labor Standards Act. Under current rules, those who make $455 or less a mere $23,660 per year or less qualify for time-and-a-half pay if they work more than 40 hours per week. Many workers over that threshold do not qualify for that protection. That threshold is functionally lower than it has historically been, thanks to inflation: According to the Economic Policy Institute, only 11 percent of salaried workers qualify, which compares with 65 percent back in 1975.

The question is: How high will the Obama administration set the new threshold? The answer will determine how many people will benefit and could amount to differences totaling in the millions of people. Some liberals are pushing Obama to set the threshold at around $51,000 per year, which could mean overtime pay for 47 percent of workers who get salaries. Billionaire Nick Hanauer, who has forthrightly admitted that wealthy capitalists such as himself have been enriched in part by the current low threshold, wants it set even higher, at $69,000 per year.

But now the Huffington Posts Dave Jamieson reports that some of these liberals think the Obama administration is eying a much lower threshold, of around $42,000.

This is where the argument among Democrats could kick in.

Progressive Senators who have already criticized the administration on other economic issues Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Tom Harkin wrote a letter last spring to Obama, applauding his decision to revisit overtime pay.

But in their letter, the liberal Senators also set forth their desired threshold: Around $54,000 per year.

The differences here matter a lot. According to the EPI, raising the threshold from its current level to a sum in the neighborhood of what the liberal Senators want could mean higher overtime pay for at least 2.6 million more people than raising it to $42,000, the amount the Obama administration is supposedly eying.

Original post:
Sargent: The next big fight among Democrats?

The Liberal Democrats denied that the figures showed a drop in morale in the party or a sign of lack of enthusiasm. Photograph: Chris Ison/PA

The Liberal Democrats have still to select their parliamentary candidates in more than half the seats up for grabs in the general election in four months time, leading Labour to claim that Nick Cleggs party is in danger of forfeiting its right to present itself as a national party.

The Liberal Democrats have selected candidates in only 266 of the 631 seats British parties will contest excluding Northern Ireland, where the party does not fight elections.

By contrast Labour has selected candidates for election in 606 seats, Ukip in 358, the Greens in 310 and the Conservatives for 471. The figures have been compiled by the Political Betting website. The Labour MP for Chesterfield, Toby Perkins, claimed the Liberal Democrats were risking a collapse in their share of the vote.

The Liberal Democrats denied that the figures showed a drop in party morale or a sign of lack of enthusiasm.

An official said the party was behind compared with its progress in getting candidates in place in 2010, but that was partly due to the absence of a fixed-term parliament at the last election. There had also been an expectation in 2009 that Gordon Brown would go for an early election, which meant all the parties rushed to get candidates in place, even if many of them were paper candidates.

But Perkins said: Whether the Liberal Democrats get to a full list of candidates we shall see, but the election is a few months off, and it is revealing that when Labour is presenting a national list of candidates, the Liberal Democrats cannot find anyone to represent them in large parts of the country.

Everyone knows it is important to have a candidate in place for some time if you are to build your vote. It shows the extent to which the Liberal Democrats are likely to see their vote collapse to 30 or less seats. Its all a long way from the new politics of 2010 that the Liberal Democrats offered then.

Liberal Democrat HQ said it was for local parties to select candidates from a list of approved candidates, and had not set a deadline by which parties must select.

The last day for the nomination of candidates is 11 working days before the election itself, so parties can find paper candidates at the last minute that in effect mount no campaign, and expect to lose their deposit.

See the original post:
Liberal Democrats yet to select candidates in more than half of seats

Warning Republicans and Democrats are both Guilty!
Important to listen to last few minutes of the video to see how antichrist Francis will still be able to deceive many here in America.

By: FaithGuy

More here:
Warning Republicans and Democrats are both Guilty! - Video