Warren’s history of consulting, fundraising haunts bid to shame Buttigieg

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “wine cave” attack on fellow top-tier Democratic nomination rival Pete Buttigieg grabbed headlines and became the most memorable moment out of last week’s debate.

But the aftermath of the jab over the South Bend mayor’s ritzy Napa fundraiser also illustrates how her escalating feud with Buttigieg has opened her up to charges of hypocrisy. Buttigieg, on stage, pointed to the Massachusetts senator’s own past fundraising in arguing she’s imposing “purity tests” she can’t pass. Critics later seized on a Senate re-election fundraiser she held at a winery in Boston a year-and-a-half-ago — though her campaign rejected the comparison.


Warren’s public pressure over Buttigieg’s consulting work has created a similar conundrum.

As the populist, progressive senator successfully pushed for Buttigieg to release a list of clients from his McKinsey days, he, in turn, applied pressure over the senator’s past legal work in the private sector. That helped spur her own disclosures that revealed she made nearly $2 million in consulting for corporations and financial firms during her years as a law professor at such prestigious schools as Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania.

And while she pushed Buttigieg toward transparency by arguing any potential “conflicts of interest” should be out in the open, Warren has done additional advising work apparently not highlighted by the campaign. Court documents reviewed by Fox News reveal that Warren advised numerous foreign countries on bankruptcy reform during her years as a law professor.

“I have served as an American Adviser to the German Government Task Force on Bankruptcy Reform,” Warren wrote in a legal document submitted in the case Bolin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., where she served as an expert witness nearly two decades ago.

Warren went on to note in the court document detailing her background that she had agreed to “advise the Norwegian Government on proposed consumer and business bankruptcy reforms” and “I have also served as an informal adviser to other governments considering bankruptcy reform in Latin America, Europe, and Asia.”

The case is listed on Warren’s presidential campaign website, in the section highlighting her past legal work. But the paragraphs where she spotlights her past work on behalf of foreign governments are not mentioned.

As the campaign website explains, Warren earned nearly $100,000 while serving as an expert witness in the consumer class-action lawsuit against Sears “over its aggressive debt collection practices….Elizabeth served as an expert witness who testified that Sears’ debt collection practices violated bankruptcy laws. The parties ultimately settled.”

Asked by Fox News about the foreign government advising, Warren spokesman Chris Hayden described this as unpaid work.

“Elizabeth was the nation’s leading expert in bankruptcy and was active in the debate over bankruptcy reform in the United States. As an expert, she occasionally provided advice to other countries looking to make changes to their bankruptcy laws. To our knowledge, she was not paid to provide any of this advice,” he said in a statement Tuesday.

There’s no indication that Warren’s advising work, including for foreign governments, was problematic. But the senator’s deep history of consulting work, as well as her own history of fundraising for her Senate campaigns, has created a challenge as she casts Buttigieg as secretive on those fronts. The Washington Examiner reported recently that Warren, while raising questions about Buttigieg’s McKinsey work, once was involved in hiring the same firm years ago at Harvard.

The Warren campaign in May made public a list of nearly 60 cases – dating back more than 30 years – where the candidate had performed legal work. Earlier this month, the campaign updated the website with new data and information on Warren’s past legal work.

The new list included what Warren campaign spokesperson Kirsten Orthman said was “all the income she earned from each case that we have been able to determine from public records, Elizabeth’s personal records and other sources.”

The move by Warren came after days of repeated attacks by the Buttigieg campaign, which had been relentlessly urging Warren to release her tax returns from before 2008, to give full transparency to the legal work she did for corporate clients similar to the giant corporations she now rails against as she runs for the White House.


At the same time, Warren was hammering Buttigieg over his three-year tenure at consulting firm McKinsey & Company. The firm has been criticized recently for its past work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), authoritarian governments and opioid manufacturers.

Under attack from Warren, Buttigieg released new details on his confidential work at McKinsey. And he reiterated his calls for the consulting firm to release him from a nondisclosure agreement. A few days later McKinsey gave Buttigieg permission to release the names of the clients he served during his tenure with the firm.

The fireworks between the two candidates in December came as Warren saw her poll numbers deteriorate over the past two months in national surveys and — more importantly — in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to hold contests in the primary and caucus presidential nominating calendar. At the same time, Buttigieg – the longest of long-shots when he launched his campaign – surged to top-tier status in polling in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Warren’s also pummeled Buttigieg over his closed-door, top-dollar fundraisers.

Unlike former Vice President Joe Biden, Buttigieg wasn’t opening his fundraisers to press coverage. While her aggressive jabs at Buttigieg were a departure from her past general avoidance of criticizing rivals, attacking corruption in government has been a core message of Warren’s campaign dating back to the launch of her White House bid at the beginning of the year.

“We have other candidates who have decided to finance their campaigns by doing closed-door fundraisers, sucking up to the corporate executives, the millionaires, the billionaires,” she told the crowd at a town hall Sunday in Charleston, S.C. earlier this month, as she targeted Buttigieg.

Warren’s full-court press was successful, as Buttigieg aides eventually announced that the candidate would open fundraisers to reporters and release the names of people raising money for their campaign.


Warren then took her fundraising attacks to Buttigieg to prime time, as the two tangled at last week’s Democratic presidential primary debate in Los Angeles.

As the two faced off on the debate stage, Warren highlighted that Buttigieg recently held a fundraiser “that was held in a wine cave full of crystals and served $900 a bottle wine.”

“Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States,” she stressed.

Firing back, Buttigieg said, “I’m literally the only person on this stage who’s not a millionaire or a billionaire. … This is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass,” Buttigieg added. “Senator, your net worth is 100 times mine.”

“I do not sell access to my time,” Warren responded. “I don’t meet behind closed doors with big-dollar donors.”

Buttigieg counter-attacked, noting that Warren transferred millions of dollars to her presidential campaign that she initially raised at big-bucks fundraisers during her 2018 Senate re-election bid.

“Your presidential campaign right now, as we speak, is funded in part by money you transferred having raised it at those exact same big-ticket fundraisers you now denounce,” Buttigieg stated. “Did it corrupt you, senator? Of course not.”

After the debate, the AP reported that Warren held a fundraiser in June 2018 – as she successfully ran for re-election for a second term in the Senate – at the City Winery Boston. Donors attending the event were entertained by Grammy-winning singer Melissa Etheridge and for those contributing big bucks, there was a VIP photo reception and premium seating as well as souvenir wine bottles – practices Warren attacked Buttigieg over during last week’s debate.

Warren’s campaign, responding to the report, noted that “this event, which occurred before the Presidential campaign, was held at a large public music venue with multiple locations throughout the country, not an exclusive wine cave. Their most expensive bottle of wine is $49. As the invite shows, the minimum to get in was $100. It did not require a maxout donation to attend.”

Pushing back against charges she was being hypocritical, Warren explained that she “saw how the system worked” when she held top-dollar fundraisers she now rails against – and decided that as she runs for the White House she’s “going to do better than that.”

“I have been here almost a year now, and I have sold no access to my time. I have made no special calls to rich people. I haven’t had a single fundraiser behind closed doors,” Warren said Saturday while campaigning in Iowa. “I want to move the system in a better direction, not in a worse direction.”

Despite being forced to explain potential inconsistencies on these fronts, Warren has nevertheless enjoyed a burst of attention over the “wine-cave” attack — and put Buttigieg on his heels, opening him up to additional scrutiny as well.

Axios reported on Sunday that a top Buttiegieg fundraiser reportedly sent to a prospective donor an email saying “if you want to get on the campaign’s radar now…you can use the link below for donations.”

The prospective donor told Axios that the email was “very telling and concerning.” The fundraiser – H.K. Park – is listed on the Buttigieg website as someone who’s raised at least $25,000 for the campaign.

The report of the unusually blunt suggestion could be a rare look at a campaign possibly offering potential donors a way to buy influence with the candidate.

The Buttigieg campaign, though, said the email did not come from them and they did not authorize the language in it.

Tucker Carlson: Elizabeth Warren’s enemies on Wall Street and Big Tech are not really her enemies. Here’s why

One thing we know for sure about Elizabeth Warren, above all else, is that on economic questions, she’s a sincere populist. Warren is deeply distressed by income inequality. She profoundly distrusts Wall Street and Big Tech. She hates monopolies and massive multi-generational concentrations of wealth.

So if you’re a private equity chieftain, for example, or a weed-smoking “trustafarian” living off family money in Jackson Hole, you’ve got to be terrified of Elizabeth Warren.

How could you not be terrified? Listen to her talk:


Sen. Elizabeth Warren, R-Mass. and 2020 presidential candidate: Now they’ve got their fortunes and their money managers and their PR …

And they’re getting richer, faster and faster and faster, and everybody else is getting left behind.

The wealth tax — the two-cent wealth tax. God, I love that wealth tax, right?

I’m not willing to give up and let a handful of monopolists dominate our economy and our democracy. It’s time to fight back.


“Oh, it’s time to fight back against the monopolists who dominate our economy!” Sound familiar? Actually, that’s not too far from what Donald Trump ran on in 2016, back before Paul Ryan and the Ayn Rand people got ahold of his economic program.

But this time around, Elizabeth Warren plans to steal that message — the Trump message really. Warren claims that she is the radical populist here. She is the disruptor.

But is she? Let’s see.

Emily Tisch Sussman is a woke liberal who often appears in cable television to talk about Democratic politics. Nice person, but she is the daughter of two billionaires. So you’d think that Emily Tisch Sussman would hate Elizabeth Warren.

More from Opinion

But she doesn’t. Instead, she demands that you support Elizabeth Warren. or else you’re sexist. Here’s what she said recently:

Emily Tisch Sussman, Democratic activist: I actually heard — overheard — someone saying what I thought was an interesting point: That basically at this point, if you are still supporting [Bernie] Sanders as opposed to Warren, it’s kind of showing your sexism because she has more detailed plans and her plans have evolved.

I thought it was an interesting point. And I think there may be something to it.

Yes, there might be something to it. If you don’t support Warren, you’re a sexist!

Now, keep in mind, you just saw one of the richest people on Planet Earth demanding that you support Elizabeth Warren for president. Surprising, right?

Elizabeth Warren is really just this season’s Hillary Clinton — faithful party robot, stalwart defender of the prerogatives of the establishment.

Well, actually, it turns out that some of Warren’s most fervent supporters are the very people she claims she wants to fight. Well, that’s weird.

So, for example, in the third quarter of this year, Elizabeth Warren raised more money from Silicon Valley, from those “monopolists” she claims to hate, than anybody else running for president.

Spotify’s CEO is an Elizabeth Warren fan; so is Silicon Valley venture capitalist and billionaire Chris Sacca. He has already maxed out to her campaign. Really? The billionaires supporting her?

Then last month, Charlie Gasparino over on Fox Business reported that Elizabeth Warren’s campaign is making overtures to finance moguls on Wall Street seeking contributions —  and some of them are responding.

But wait a second. Why would Elizabeth Warren’s enemies — and these have got to be her enemies, she attacks them all the time on the campaign trail — why would her enemies fund her campaign?


We will give you five seconds to think about it, but the answer, of course, is they’re not really her enemies. They understand that Warren doesn’t really mean what she says. They know that Warren’s populism is a facade and underneath it all, she is really just this season’s Hillary Clinton — faithful party robot, stalwart defender of the prerogatives of the establishment.

That’s what it seems like she really is.

Is she?

Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue from “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Nov. 11, 2019.


Biden’s full-throated attack on Trump seen as double-edged sword

Joe Biden took to Twitter Thursday to declare, “President Trump picked a fight with the wrong guy.”

That’s the same line the former vice president used a day earlier – to a rousing standing ovation – as Biden, for the first time, unequivocally called for the impeachment of Trump.

While the president has been front-and-center in the Ukraine controversy that sparked House Democrats to launch an impeachment inquiry into Trump, Biden’s another key player, and with the impeachment push overshadowing the 2020 White House race, the Democrat has grabbed outsized attention over his rivals for the presidential nomination.


It’s a double-edged sword for the former vice president, with Trump’s allegations against Biden’s own Ukraine connection also in the spotlight.

Biden on Wednesday launched a forceful attack on the president – coming from a candidate who in recent weeks was anything but aggressive in calling for Trump’s impeachment, unlike most of his 2020 rivals.

“We all laughed when he said he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and get away with it. It’s no joke,” Biden emphasized during two speeches in New Hampshire. “He’s shooting holes in the Constitution, and we cannot let him get away with it.”

Biden’s announcement came one day after the White House vowed not to play ball with the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, but it also came as the former vice president lost his polling status as the unrivaled front-runner. Biden’s neck-and-neck with Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts for the top spot in most of the recent national and early-voting-state surveys, although he held a lead in the latest Fox News Poll.


And, Biden was left in the dust in the race for campaign cash, with both Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont each topping him by roughly $10 million in the July-September third quarter of fundraising.

With those setbacks in mind, the unveiling of the more aggressive, in-your-face approach by Biden has been seen as considerably timely.

“It gets his sea legs under him,” noted Larry Rasky, a longtime Biden friend, adviser and fundraiser. “It gives everybody more energy.”

Rasky, who’s not directly involved in Biden’s 2020 campaign, predicted, “it’s definitely going to help fundraising.”

He added that donors “are happy to see Biden taking on the fight with intensity.”

Biden, in his speeches, taunted the president, claiming “he’s afraid of just how badly I will beat him next November.”

Veteran Democratic consultant and communications strategist Lynda Tran noted that such swagger would resonate with voters. She also said the Ukraine controversy put the spotlight on foreign relations, a wheelhouse for the former vice president.

“His remarks yesterday came across as an ‘enough is enough’ call to action and reminder to the American electorate of the fighter and statesman they have long known,” said Tran, who ran communications for the Obama-era grassroots group Organizing for America and was a founding partner of the communications firm 270 Strategies.

The impeachment inquiry was sparked by Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which he asked Zelensky to investigate Biden and his son Hunter over their dealings in the eastern European country. Fueled by whistleblower complaints and a transcript of the call released by the White House, Democrats argued the president was asking a foreign country to interfere in a U.S. election.

Adding to the controversy was the fact that before that phone call, millions in U.S. military aid to Ukraine was put on hold. Despite allegations that Trump was using that money as leverage, Trump has insisted repeatedly that he did nothing wrong. He said there was no “quid pro quo” and on numerous occasions has described his conversation with the Ukrainian leader as “perfect.”


The president and allies instead have tried to put the spotlight on Biden and his son.

Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was vice president. Trump and fellow Republicans have questioned how Biden pushed in 2016 for the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was looking into corruption at the company. The prosecutor – who had faced widespread accusations of overlooking corruption in his own office – later was dismissed.

Biden, defending his actions in Ukraine, said, “there’s no truth to [Trump’s] charges and attacks against me and my son. Zero.”

Biden also accused the president of throwing “lies and distortions and smears” at him and his son, “because he thinks he’ll undermine my candidacy for the nomination as well as the presidency if I am the nominee.”

While the Fox News national poll released Wednesday indicated that a majority said the president should be impeached and removed from office, Biden has faced warning signs of his own.


Thirty-six percent questioned in the survey said they found the Trump allegations against Biden extremely or very troubling. That included 34 percent of independents and even 24 percent of Democrats.

Longtime Republican strategist Colin Reed highlighted that “the discussion involving Ukraine is going to involve a continued focus on why Hunter Biden was being paid $50,000 a month to sit on the board of an energy company with him having absolutely no expertise in that area.”

Reed emphasized, “I think that crony capitalism does not sit well with voters in the center, right or left.”

And, Biden’s increased criticism aimed at the president likely will incite further attacks from Trump.


While the former vice president was speaking in New Hampshire, the president took to Twitter to return fire.

“So pathetic to see Sleepy Joe Biden, who with his son, Hunter, and to the detriment of the American Taxpayer, has ripped off at least two countries for millions of dollars, calling for my impeachment – and I did nothing wrong. Joe’s Failing Campaign gave him no other choice!” Trump wrote.

California to appeal Trump tax return ruling, renew bid to block president from 2020 primary ballot

California’s chief elections officer said Tuesday he will appeal a federal judge’s decision to block a state law that would have required President Trump to submit five years’ worth of his personal income tax returns in order to be included on the state’s 2020 primary ballot in March.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced his plans just hours after U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. issued a written opinion saying the state law likely violates the U.S. Constitution. England Jr., who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, had announced last month he planned to block the law.


“California will appeal this ruling and we will continue to make our thorough, thoughtful argument for stronger financial disclosure requirements for presidential and gubernatorial candidates,” Padilla said in a statement. “Our elected leaders have a legal and moral obligation to be transparent with voters about potential conflicts of interest. This law is fundamental to preserving and protecting American democracy.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, had signed the proposal into law in July. Jesse Melgar, the governor’s spokeswoman, told the Los Angeles Times that Newsom supported an appeal of Tuesday’s ruling, adding: “States have a legal and moral duty to restore public confidence in government and ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards.”

In his 24-page decision, England Jr. said the law violates Trump’s First Amendment right of associating with voters who share his political beliefs. He also noted the California Legislature is controlled by Democrats, who passed a law targeting a Republican president.

“The dangerous precedent set by this act, allowing the controlling party in any state’s legislature to add substantive requirements as a precondition to qualifying for the state’s presidential primary ballot, should concern all candidates alike,” the judge wrote.

“The dangerous precedent set by this act, allowing the controlling party in any state’s legislature to add substantive requirements as a precondition to qualifying for the state’s presidential primary ballot, should concern all candidates alike.”

— U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr.

Trump attorney Jay Sekulow praised the ruling in an interview on “Hannity,” saying the law reflected “an ongoing pattern and practice of trying to basically shred the Constitution.” England Jr.’s ruling affirmed that it was outside the state’s authority to set qualifications for running for president. That power belongs to the Constitution.

Lawyers from state and national Republican parties, who are also defendants in the lawsuit, voiced concerns during last month’s hearing that leaving Trump off the primary ballot would stifle Republican voter turnout at the primaries and, therefore, ensure that fewer GOP candidates make it to the general election.


Under California’s so-called jungle primary system, all candidates, regardless of party, vie for the same elected office and the top two vote-getters move on to the general election. Since it was implemented in California in 2010, this system has often ensured a Democrat-vs.-Democrat general election battle in all but California’s most conservative areas.

California Republican Party Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson called the ruling a victory for voters and their ability to vote for the candidate of their choice. Patterson said in a news release: “This decision rightfully stops the Democrats’ petty politics and their efforts to disenfranchise millions of California voters and suppress Republican voter turnout.”

Fox News’ Andrew O’Reilly and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Joe Biden heaps praise on GOP during Massachusetts fundraiser

Democratic 2020 presidential frontrunner Joe Biden praised Republicans as “decent people” at a Massachusetts fundraiser Saturday while touting his ability to work across the aisle, according to a report.

“There’s an awful lot of really good Republicans out there,” the former vice president told the audience, according to The Hill. “I get in trouble for saying that with Democrats, but the truth of the matter is, every time we ever got in trouble with our administration, remember who got sent up to Capitol Hill to fix it? Me. Because they know I respect the other team.”


He said congressional Republicans ran because they “care about things,” but are afraid to be at odds with President Trump.

“They’re intimidated right now,” he told the audience, The Hill reported.

Biden took heat last fall when The New York Times published a story that said he “stunned Democrats and elated Republicans” three weeks before the midterms by lauding Republican House candidate Fred Upton, R-Mich.

He has also frustrated Democrats in the past by praising former Vice President Dick Cheney and calling Vice President Mike Pence “a decent guy.”


While Biden — considered to be the most moderate of the top-ranked candidates — is largely running on his ability to work with Republicans, more liberal candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris are focused on promoting progressive plans like Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal.

In 1976 speech, Biden said US criminal justice should focus on punishment not rehabilitation

In a 1976 speech in Idaho, then-Sen. Joe Biden said the U.S. criminal justice system should stress punishment rather than rehabilitation — a direct contradiction to his current platform, which focuses on rehabilitation, according to a report.

“Why should we liberals, why should we Democrats, apologize for saying a criminal justice system has implicit in it the idea that a crime should be met with a punishment? What is wrong with that?” the senator from Delaware said at the annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Boise, Idaho, in audio reportedly obtained by the Washington Examiner.

“Why should we liberals, why should we Democrats, apologize for saying a criminal justice system has implicit in it the idea that a crime should be met with a punishment? What is wrong with that?”

— Joe Biden, in 1976 speech


In the speech, Biden also said that liberals claim convicts need to be rehabilitated but there’s a recognition that “We have not found a way to rehabilitate.”

He added if Democrats didn’t get tougher on criminals voters would start to support politicians like Alabama segregationist George Wallace, who was strict on crime.


“When we don’t respond,” he said, according to the Examiner, “we allow men like [Wallace] to run around the nation talking about ‘pointy-headed federal judges’ and about the fact that we need more severe penalties in the government for crime, and people begin to believe him.”

Biden also said that diversity strengthening America is “poppycock,” adding that people “fear differences.”


Biden has faced scrutiny from his 2020 presidential rivals over his support for the 1994 crime bill and other past positions over his decades-long career.

Bill Maher: 2020 Dems just need to ‘come off less crazy’ then Trump — and ‘they’re blowing it!’

Before closing his show Friday night, “Real Time” host Bill Maher urged the 2020 Democrats to “come off less crazy” than President Trump in order to win the 2020 election.

Maher began by describing the “Trump fatigue” that he says Americans are feeling based on polls that say the president “tweets too much” and that he “isn’t presidential.” He also mocked the president, saying his June interview with ABC’s George Stephanopolous drew lower ratings than “Celebrity Family Feud.”


“Fatigue is the best thing we’ve got going for us. The majority of Americans aren’t tired of winning, they’re tired of looking at his fat f—ing face!” Maher told the audience. “It’s hard to beat an incumbent in a good economy. Every incumbent since FDR has won if they avoided a recession leading up to an election year and consumer confidence is sky high. … The voters that Democrats need to win, moderates who have Trump fatigue, will vote against a good economy, I think, just to get back to normalcy, but they won’t trade it away for left-wing extremism.”

“Moderates who have Trump fatigue will vote against a good economy … but they won’t trade it away for left-wing extremism.”

— Bill Maher

The HBO star argued that the upcoming election is about “fatigue” as well as “fear” that Trump pushes onto voters, citing the fear of “socialism,” “open borders,” and “getting rid of private health insurance.”

“All the Democrats have to do to win is to come off less crazy than Trump — and, of course, they’re blowing it!” Maher said. “Coming across as unserious people who are going to take away all your money so migrants from Honduras can go to college for free and get a major in ‘America sucks.’”

Democrats are “coming across as unserious people who are going to take away all your money so migrants from Honduras can go to college for free and get a major in ‘America sucks.’”

— Bill Maher

Maher said that he doesn’t “really” want Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden to be president, but stressed that the former vice president is the “only candidate” who can beat Trump in Ohio.

“He’s like nondairy creamer,” Maher said of Biden. “Nobody loves it, but in a jam, it gets the job done.”


He continued, “It’s the fatigue, stupid! Let’s make it hard for Trump to play on voters’ fears and let the fatigue win the election for us. We’ll get to the revolution, but remember, put on your oxygen mask before assisting your child.”

Frank Luntz says 2020 Dems openly hostile toward ‘those who’ve been successful’

The fight for the “soul of the Democratic Party” is over, pollster Frank Luntz declared Thursday, saying the party’s moderate voices are being drowned out.

“The hostility of these Democratic candidates, most of them, to corporate America, to CEOs, to those who’ve been successful is significant,” Luntz said on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle,” where he shared his perspective on this week’s Democratic presidential debates in Detroit.


During the two night of debates Tuesday and Wednesday, with separate groups of 10 candidates taking the stage each night, the White House hopefuls spoke repeatedly about raising taxes on the wealthy, insurance companies charging “unreasonable prices” and the need to stand up to corporations.

“I say to every CEO who’s watching right now and every corporate executive: They’re after you. They’re blaming you. They’re holding you accountable,” Luntz said.

He added that economic freedom is under attack.


“This is not just about politics,” he said. “This is not just about winning the Democratic nomination. This is about changing the structure of the economy in the United States and they are determined to turn it upside-down.”

MSNBC hosts blast 2020 Dems for ‘attacking’ Obama over Trump: ‘politically stupid and crazy’

Several MSNBC personalities took aim at the 2020 Democrats for leveling several “attacks” at the Obama administration over President Trump.

“Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough took to Twitter and and repeatedly slammed the Democrats for challenging policies under President Obama like Obamacare and immigration.

“Ok. Let me get this straight. Democrats hate Obamacare AND hated his immigration policies? What planet are they from?” Scarborough tweeted. “You know you have extreme ideologues running for president when @BarackObama is a punching bag for being too conservative. [For what it’s worth], President Obama is the only Democrat to twice win a majority of the vote since FDR (and is still hugely popular in the Democratic Party.) Not. Smart.”

He added, “These candidates are attacking Barack Obama’s policy positions more than Donald Trump. That is politically stupid and crazy…. Democrats who think trashing @BarackObama is a political winner, will be the political losers.”

MSNBC host Joy Reid expressed a similar sentiment on her network’s post-debate analysis.

“It was weird for me to watch about 40, almost 40 minutes of primary attacks on the Obama administration’s policies. It was odd,” Reid told the panel, later citing New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s attacks on Obamacare. “So it was an odd strategy to me… It’s almost as if the debate forgot who is president because the attacks on Donald Trump- I don’t remember his name being mentioned that much.”

Former Missouri senator-turned MSNBC commentator Claire McCaskill also called the repeated attacks on the Obama administration the “weirdest thing.”

“The weirdest thing to me which I’m having a hard time with is… is it a smart strategy to attack the Obama administration?” McCaskill asked. “I mean, this is a Democratic president elected twice. I think he’s the only Democrat we’ve had with the margins he’s had since FDR that did that, remains wildly popular in the Democratic Party.”

Axelrod warns Medicare-for-all, immigration proposals unpopular with voters

Former President Obama aide David Axelrod Tuesday warned that many of the proposals endorsed by Democratic presidential candidates disregard many polls that show these positions unpopular.

He noted that polls show large numbers of Americans oppose Medicare-for-all, decriminalizing illegal border crossings and giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants.

“It does seem if you’re running for president that you ought to take into consideration what the country wants,” Axelrod said during CNN’s post-debate analysis.


A majority of the 20 candidates in the debates support some version of Medicare-for-all, which would eliminate private insurance. A majority of voters oppose single-payer, according to a new Marist poll. All 10 candidates raised their hands during the second night of debates last month when asked if they would provide health care for illegal immigrants.


“Do we move forward with these idealized proposals that are going to beg opposition and make it easier for Donald Trump to make his case and win re-election when the stakes are so high?” Axelrod added. “This is what a lot of Democrats are worried about.”