Conservative Radio Talk Show Host Glenn Beck took some shots at Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) Wednesday when he compared her “power hungriness” to the the idealism of Woodrow Wilson, who, according to The Miller Center, was “led astray” even away from his own ideals.
From The Blaze:
Of all the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, nobody embodies the spirit, the vision, and the power hungriness of President Woodrow Wilson more than Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
“I watch Elizabeth Warren roll out a new academic progressive plan every week to ‘fix’ America … We have seen this brand of stern academic leftist snobbery before,” Glenn Beck said on Tuesday’s episode of “GlennTV.”
Wilson and Warren both briefly practiced law before becoming college professors. They both wrote “wonky” political books and entered into politics after long academic careers. But that’s just the tip of the similarities-iceberg.
“Both participated in drafting details of proposed legislation,” Glenn continued. “In Wilson’s case … he took and changed and fundamentally transformed — and I would say ruined — the presidency of the United States because Wilson preferred the parliamentary system over America’s constitutional design. He planned to run his presidency like a prime minister. That meant he came up with the legislative plan before taking office … Warren is doing exactly the same thing.”
Glenn went on to note Warren’s “extremely academic approach” to legislation, “just like Wilson.” Along with fellow far-left professors, Warren has come up with detailed plans for specific legislation she plans to pursue as president.
“For example, Warren has a ‘Wealth Tax Plan,” said Glenn. “She promotes this constantly, but it was developed by two Berkeley professors. Her ‘Universal Childcare Plan” was developed with the co-executive director of Georgetown University’s Center on Poverty and Inequality.
“This goes directly to what Wilson believed: There are some people that were born to rule, some people that were born to think, and others that were born to be ruled over. He was in the top two categories. Warren, I believe, believes the same thing.”
And conservatives are not the only ones who feel this way about Ms. Warren.
Check out the remarks from former female democratic senator Claire McCaskill (D-Miss):
As reported by Inside Higher Ed:
As a woman running for president, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democrat, was bound to encounter the likability bias: assert yourself as a man and you’re seen as a boss, yet assert yourself as a woman, and you’re seen as bossy.
But a recent dig to Warren’s likability came from a somewhat unexpected source, at a somewhat unexpected angle. In an interview with MSNBC, former Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, another Democrat, suggested that Warren was struggling with being “in command of the policy” and still being “relatable.”
Then McCaskill defined Warren’s fundamental “challenge” like this: “[F]rankly, sometimes she comes very close to that professor I just wanted to be quiet.”
Inside Higher Ed went on to assert that Sen. Warren comes off “superior”, implying that she really isn’t superior:
Politics, meanwhile, “requires connection with a spectrum of people, not the ones that have self-selected to sit in your classroom. Unlike your students, they don’t have to listen to you, and you have no ability to make them let you finish a thought.”
No matter how educated one is, Nichols added, “voters hate politicians who come across as superior or better educated, or knowing more. That’s just the nature of democracy in the U.S.”
Those are some harsh comments for Warren, especially coming from her own people.
If Warren really believes that some “were born to rule, some people that were born to think, and others that were born to be ruled over,” as Glenn Beck states, then which one is she?
She obviously doesn’t believe that she was born to be ruled over, so which one is she? Is she good at ruling, or thinking?
Leave your thoughts in the comment section below!