Dan O'Mahony

Dan O'Mahony
Location
Long Beach, California,
Birthday
October 02
Title
West Coast Chairman
Company
pointninenine.com
Bio
Co-Founder and West Coast Chair of the .99 Advocacy Fund and PointNineNine.com, a registered non-profit dedicated to voter mobilization and issues related advocacy on behalf of the financial best interests of 99% of all Americans.

Dan O'Mahony's Links

MY LINKS
Editor’s Pick
DECEMBER 6, 2011 3:59PM

Elizabeth Warren vs Scott Brown, Worlds Collide.

Rate: 20 Flag

 

In the camps and the marches of the Occupy movement they chant “Show me what democracy looks like… This is what democracy looks like!” Its stirring, it’s empowering, and it is purely rhetorical without actual participation in the election process.

In the Senate race between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown the needs, desires and futures of the 99% go toe to toe with Wall Street’s chosen son. The results will matter and they will reflect the fiber and conviction of the electorate for good or ill. This is what democracy looks like.

Current Senator Scott Brown took office in the election that determined who would occupy the seat left vacant by the tragic death of Ted Kennedy. Brown rode into office on a wave of prop driven (lookit my pickup!) misdirection that was almost flawlessly in sync with the faux populism crafted by the billionaire Koch brothers and lifelong beltway gollum Dick Armey. He oozed Tea Party vogue and appealed to the then peaking energies of a movement whose rank and file believed it was re-empowering the electorate not selling it down the river.

You’ve heard the phrase ‘follow the money’. In his bid for re-election one need only examine the telltale narrative that is campaign finance. Four of Brown’s top five donors come from the loftiest heights of the financial sector and the insurance industry. To fund his campaign Liberty Mutual Insurance has kicked in $46,000. Massachusetts Mutual Life has come through with $51,000. Those champions of the people at Goldman Sachs and their related PACS have ponied up $60,500, and the top bidder in the purchase of the young Senator has been FMR Corp. the parent company of Fidelity Investments who clearly believe via their $97,000 contribution that money is speech.

Contrast this backdrop with his opponent.  The consumer advocate and law professor Warren’s campaign has no specific policy regarding PAC money and at the time of my research had received roughly $33,000 from such organizations. That sum represents approximately 1% of her fund raising haul and is composed largely of donations from within her own potential caucus (the PACs of Senators Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York) and groups such as the children’s issue driven KidsPAC and the United Steel Workers Political Action Fund.

The second tier of Scott Brown’s special interest cash (PAC money comprising 13% of his take thus far) consists of corporate titans General Electric and Ford, as well as financial industry heavyweights J.P. Morgan Chase, John Hancock Financial Services, and the international consulting firm Price Waterhouse Coopers. To Senator Brown this is what democracy looks like.

In truth the division between the two goes well beyond the money trail. Warren is credited with providing much of the intellectual foundation for the 99% movement and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She has positioned herself as a door to door, living room politician whose speech championing the honoring of a basic social contract between the super wealthy and the shoulders upon which their empires were built has become legendary.

Brown conversely has opposed a proposed multi-billion dollar tax on banks to recoup bailout money and prescribing of bank executive compensation. On December 12, 2010, the Boston Globe reported that “campaign contributions to [Brown] from the financial industry spiked sharply during a critical three-week period last summer as the fate of the Wall Street regulatory overhaul hung in the balance and Brown used the leverage of his swing vote to win key concessions sought by firms.” Just this month he voted against cloture and an end to the filibuster that would allow the vote on the Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011, which would extend the tax cut for 113 million workers or families and fund the plan by a 3.25 percent surtax on incomes over one million dollars. These decisions make clear what a politician owned and operated by the financial elite actually looks like.

The application of populist outrage is a real thing. An opportunity to bring its power and influence to bear exists today in Massachusetts where the difference between plutocracy and democracy has been drawn clearly in the New England sand.

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I am starting to think getting beat up in 2010 did a lot of good for the Democratic party. Go Elizabeth Warren.
[r] Excellent post, Dan, and very eloquently put! For a while there I thought Elizabeth was in a hapless fog re Obama as he and the Dem money party strung her along with cheap rhetoric as they enabled the corporate cronies. Glad she has a fire in her belly to fight where it counts. She reminds me of Brooksley Born with her strong intelligence and moral conscience taking on the patriarchy. Alan Greenspan patted Born's hand about those derivatives so long ago (as Born did all she could to alert the powers that be under Clinton of the disaster they were creating and would continue to create for the taxpayers) and he told her not to fret about "fraud" ... that it was self-correcting. You look at what Goldman Sachs got for its $1 million campaign contrib. to Obama. Enough evil power to bring down not only our government to a great extent but those of other countries. Scott Brown to a myopic media-led sound bite subliminally vulnerable nation was the "brand" to win, at least initially. Style not substance especially with a craven media. After the Senate's 93 to 7 vote last week enabling indefinite internment of inconvenient citizens the administration and military can covertly deem "terrorists" I feel even more awe at the lack of conscience and empathy of our leadership. 99% of our leadership. And where is the outrage from more than a handful over this grotesque lurch toward further fascism? Write on, man!!! libby
This shows how afraid Corporate America is of Elizabeth Warren and her populist message. This will be the front line of the assault from the 1% in 2012.
Big Warren fan here. That gal has the right stuff! Great post ! We need about ten more like her!
Yep. Elizabeth Warren is honest, well-informed, articulate, and passionate about fighting for the well-being of regular citizens - as such, she's the antithesis of the kind of person the plutocrats want to see on Capitol Hill. Here's hoping she wins in her Senate bid, and after that, who knows, Warren For President in 2016? That works for me.
"The results will matter and they will reflect the fiber and conviction of the electorate for good or ill. This is what democracy looks like."

no, it's what elective oligarchy looks like. you throw ballots instead of spears, but it's still a matter of installing 'the good king' instead of 'the bad king.'

democracy is when the people rule, and in your neighborhood, they don't.
Yep Warren for President in 2016. I like the sound of that.
Bravo! This very succinctly and clearly outlines the divide and what is at stake for Americans. Warren has GOT to win. The Occupy movement can, as you point out, accomplish nothing, if it does not shine a bright light on the problem and the solution. Congrats on the well deserved E.P. R
Thanks, Dan, and commenters. "Y'all" help me keep my morale from totally tanking. "Couldn't agree more" with everything said here so far except for one minor writing style caveat (*). Plus, Dan, having lived not actually _in_ but right next door to Huntington Beach as well as many years in the greater Boston area (and given, now that I live elsewhere, to pathetically heartrending homesicknesses) it also heartens me that a Huntington Beach-er takes this much interest in and does this much study of Massachusetts politics. This isn't "what democracy looks like" but it's something about what an attempted union of geographically extended and in many ways diverse states maybe looks like. But as for who (no, not "whom") we should hope to vote for in a future presidential election, I thought that was settled, wasn't it? Aren't we all for Tink? :-o

R+
Oh, come on! Brown ran against Coakley, who railroaded the Amiraults into jail on a case based on preposterous claims. Then, reluctant to expose herself to possible accusations of being soft on pedophiles, she actively campaigned to keep Gerald Amirault in jail long after no one believed there was a shred of credibility for the crimes for which he was convicted.

The citizens of Massachusetts declined to vote for a Senator who so obviously put her career above what is right, honest and moral.

Frankly, if Jabba the Hutt had run against Martha Coakley, he'd have won, too.
Dan O'Mahoney, your article proves you know nothing about current Massachusetts politics.

Warren is a Champagne Socialist, another Coakley who shuns the ordinary Taxachusetts voter. Her world is Cambridge, Harvard, and Beacon Hill.

And voters here in Massachusetts are sick of it.
As always the comments on OS are providing me much food for thought, most of it positive. I thank all who have chimed in.
That said...
Malusinka, other than in an extremely peripheral sense what does your diatribe about Coakley have to do with my juxtaposition of the financing and agendas between Warren and Brown?
Libertyfreedom1, While I will concede that my west coast grasp of your home state's politics are a bit removed and pulled from investigation not first hand on the ground experience, the use 'Champagne Socialist' and 'Taxachusetts' are nice and catchy buzzwords but a little light on substance and do nothing to convince me of your informed perspective. I learn about nothing but your resentment when I read them. That doesn't really qualify as informatiojn or debate, but uh... have fun.
Also, for what it's worth, given the academic record and financial resources... Harvard and Cambridge would be my world too. I haven't bumped my head hard enough to resent higher education or view knowledge, science, etc. as the trademarks of some detestable elitism.
Well, Dan O'Mahony, it's reality and not resentment.

You should try getting a response from your local representative here in MA...assuming one is a MA resident.

The Dems here in MA represent big money. The people from Harvard/Cambridge, South Shore, the Cape, Milton, Wellesley, etc. who hold the political majority.

It's a cozy arrangement for the Kennedys, Kerry, Frank, Patrick, etc.

On the local level, it means that if you are not one of them, you are nobody.

There ARE intelligent, educated people in MA who do not blindly carry the majority party line.

Barney Frank refers to these constituents as "pieces of furniture," beneath his contempt, and unworthy of public debate.

Would you call this representation?

The reality is that Warren and her Harvard bros have no intention representing non-Dems. Period.
Elizabeth Warren seems to be a decent, intelligent, well-intentioned individual who would champion a progressive agenda in the increasingly conservative world in which we Americans live. As a legislator her voice would be heard…and she would have an impact (probably a minor impact) on bringing progressive legislation up for consideration.

I suspect, however, the congress will move further right after the 2012 election…and, if I am correct that a Republican will win the White House at that time, so will the Judicial Branch. All that bodes very poorly for liberals no matter if someone like Warren wins a state like Massachusetts.

As an aside to your theme, Dan, my guess is that if Elizabeth Warren were elected president of the United States, she would quickly learn that trying to make a significant turn to the left would probably result less positively on the progressive agenda than small, incremental steps in that direction. In fact, simply stemming the move to the right might result in a more positive impact on a progressive agenda.

She would, in other words, have to govern much like Barack Obama has governed and will continue to govern since he was elected president.

That means the left would begin savaging her almost immediately. She would do what she COULD reasonably do…and be accused of being a traitor and a tool of the 1%.

Liberalism is its own worst enemy these days.
A few facts from the ground: Warren makes much more money than Brown, and has a million dollar-plus house in Cambridge. She's taken money from asbestos companies to "consult." She's the architect of financial regulatory reform that has somehow allowed George Soros to exempt itself from its grasp--and Soros has had fundraisers for her. Funny how these things work out.
Dan:

I was objecting to your characterization of Brown, "Brown rode into office on a wave of prop driven . . . misdirection that was almost flawlessly in sync with the faux populism crafted by the billionaire Koch brothers and lifelong beltway gollum Dick Armey. He oozed Tea Party vogue.. ."

My point is that he won, not because of tea-party vogueness, but on the voters' unwillingness to pull a lever for Coakley, whom he was running against.

And that is pretty promising, because the dems who couldn't stomach a vote for Coakley should turn out in force for Warren.
Elizabeth Warren. One can only hope.
If Warren never casts a vote that will be able to reverse the Republican agenda, it will be important to have a progressive voice pointing out the destructive intentions of the rich against the middle class.
I donate to Elizabeth Warren when I can. A departure for me, as I usually support the people running in my state. This election will be too important.

Go, Elizabeth! I hope you clobber Scott Brown.

rated
I like Warren 2016! The woman has a gift of describing to the average person what took place on Wall Street in the name of capitalism, and she can do it without swearing. Remarkable.
Excellent piece, well-researched and authoritative, glad it received an EP. Elizabeth Warren is truly one of our brightest lights. I have enjoyed writing about her in the past and look forward to following this race closely.
Elizabeth Warren's light is bright enough to be seen over here on the left coast. I too sent a little money her way, although I have never donated outside my state except in presidential races. If more like her step up, maybe we can revise our political system before it becomes necessary to revolt. Rated
Elizabeth Warren. That is all.
“The second tier of Scott Brown’s special interest cash (PAC money comprising 13% of his take thus far) consists of corporate titans General Electric and Ford, as well as financial industry heavyweights J.P. Morgan Chase, John Hancock Financial Services, and the international consulting firm Price Waterhouse Coopers. To Senator Brown this is what democracy looks like.”
Dan O'Mahony

Hey Dan....good piece. Yes, that is what democracy looks like, for sure. Just to be helpful, and to show that corporations are not racist, the list below are some of President Obama's top corporate donors.
I think a few, maybe more than a few, also were on the great list you posted for Scott Brown.

BTW, Brown is ahead, not because Elizebeth Warren is such a wonderful candidate. We all know that EVERY democrat candidate is wonderful. She is ahead, in my opinion, because Scott Brown played the Tea Party and than surfaced as a RINO.
When push comes to shove, however, I think the TP, conservative and independents who came out in force for Brown will be back because no one wants to suffer through another Presidential term with Reid not doing his job.
Where is the outcry from the left, from Ed Schultz, Maddow, and the guy who is on at 5:00 P.M. Eastern Kris Maddews that the democrat Senate has not submitted a "budget" in over three years!, and has not submitted over a hundred Bills that past the House to committee.
And the dems have the cahones to call Republicans "the party of no!"

Here is Warren at her best. No class warfare warrior here...


http://www.mediaite.com/online/video-of-elizabeth-warrens-passionate-rebuttal-of-class-warfare-goes-viral/

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232Latham & Watkins $503,29
“The second tier of Scott Brown’s special interest cash (PAC money comprising 13% of his take thus far) consists of corporate titans General Electric and Ford, as well as financial industry heavyweights J.P. Morgan Chase, John Hancock Financial Services, and the international consulting firm Price Waterhouse Coopers. To Senator Brown this is what democracy looks like.”
Dan O'Mahony

Hey Dan....good piece. Yes, that is what democracy looks like, for sure. Just to be helpful, and to show that corporations are not racist, the list below are some of President Obama's top corporate donors.
I think a few, maybe more than a few, also were on the great list you posted for Scott Brown.

BTW, Brown is ahead, not because Elizebeth Warren is such a wonderful candidate. We all know that EVERY democrat candidate is wonderful. She is ahead, in my opinion, because Scott Brown played the Tea Party and than surfaced as a RINO.
When push comes to shove, however, I think the TP, conservative and independents who came out in force for Brown will be back because no one wants to suffer through another Presidential term with Reid not doing his job.
Where is the outcry from the left, from Ed Schultz, Maddow, and the guy who is on at 5:00 P.M. Eastern Kris Maddews that the democrat Senate has not submitted a "budget" in over three years!, and has not submitted over a hundred Bills that past the House to committee.
And the dems have the cahones to call Republicans "the party of no!"

Here is Warren at her best. No class warfare warrior here...


http://www.mediaite.com/online/video-of-elizabeth-warrens-passionate-rebuttal-of-class-warfare-goes-viral/

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232Latham & Watkins $503,29
Dan, sorry to partially disagree with you but I don't think Elizabeth Warren is nearly as sincere as she seems although there is no doubt that she is better than Scott Brown and the extreme Republican Party.

As far as I can see she is another establishment candidate that is doing what it takes to convince the public that she is for reform but she can't be trusted to do more than she has to to appease the public.

What we need is a candidate that truly rises at the grass roots level not one that is propped up by the Obama administration and the corporate media.

This would involve more than just changing Elizabeth Brown but requires educating the public an implementing Election reform that enables the public to make informed decisions.

I just wrote more about this, if you're interested, in Elizabeth Warren as she appears which is a follow up on a previous post about her.

The local papers don't provide much information about the issues so the problem isn't just Elizabeth Warren.