Elizabeth Warren Turns The IBM Stock Hit Job On Her Into A Total Fail

During a recent appearance on Current TV, Elizabeth Warren used her ownership of IBM stock to prove once again why there is no comparison between her and Mitt Romney.

Here is the video from Current TV’s The War Room:

When Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren was asked about her stock holdings –specifically IBM — by Jennifer Granholm, she said, “The IBM stock, yes, we own it. I’ve owned it since, it was actually a pretty modest investment made thirty five years ago I think, and the money’s been reinvested. If I were in Congress, I’d sell it in a heartbeat. I don’t think people in Congress ought to own stock in companies where they can influence the outcomes. Other than that, my retirement funds are held in big mutual funds. There’s no way to influence the outcome of any part of that at least not that I know, but the heart of this is about what our public officials should be doing. I don’t think they ought to be trading on insider information, but more importantly, I don’t think they ought to be out there influencing potentially their own pocket books when they’re making decisions on behalf of the public.”

This question stemmed from a piece in HuffPo a few days ago that read more like a hit job on Elizabeth Warren than investigative journalism. Elizabeth Warren never said that she wasn’t rich, but that she wasn’t a wealthy individual with a big stock portfolio. Her statement was not in the same ballpark as Mitt Romney’s claims that he is unemployed too, or that he has feared losing his job.

It may come as a shock to some, but a person can have money and still be a strong advocate for those who have less. The big “bombshell” of the HuffPo story was that Warren owns stock in IBM and is pretty wealthy herself. The difference between Elizabeth Warren and Mitt Romney is honesty. Warren directly stated that she owned the stock and said that she would sell it in a heartbeat. There was no evasiveness in her answer. There was no dodge.

The difference is principles. Elizabeth Warren believes that members of Congress shouldn’t own stock, so is more than willing to sell her own, while Mitt Romney has spent his campaign trying to keep the American people in the dark about his money and how he made it.

In a deft move, Warren turned the IBM stock story into an opportunity to strongly call for an end to insider trading in Congress. Mitt Romney wants to be president, so that he can protect his fellow inside traders.

There is simply no comparison between Elizabeth Warren’s IBM stock and Mitt Romney’s quarter of billion dollars made by killing jobs.

If you’re ready to read more from the unbossed and unbought Politicus team, sign up for our newsletter here!

10 Replies to “Elizabeth Warren Turns The IBM Stock Hit Job On Her Into A Total Fail”

  1. As much as I like and respect Elizabeth Warren, I disagree regarding the holding of stock by congress or government employee. An individual in power may have many options to abuse their power. The ability or desire to have their assets work for them should not be considered any more corrupting than their relationship with staff and others in and outside of their official capacity. Violations of conduct or propriety should be more punitive for the recipient as well as those soliciting or offering conduct or such favors. There are few acts that are truly punitive to the violators of trust. Expulsion and loss of benefits for serious violators may be more provident.

  2. I think she can turn most any argument to dust. She’s one of the most articulate candidates I’ve heard in years. Sure wish I could vote for her.

  3. Interesting and I agree that other violations should be just as important but how can we allow stock no,ders to legislate law that impacts their investments and expect them to be neutral?

  4. I think it is impractical and unfair (my using that word toward really rich people gives me the shivers) to require people to sell their stocks. Most government employees required to give the illusion of impartiality hold their stocks in blind trusts. I could accept that. It is election time, however, and ho-ho!

  5. The revelation that Cantor owned derivatives that “bet” on the nation’s failure to arrive at a budget agreement is evidence Warren may be correct. There is really no such thing as a really blind trust, and even at that the trust, knowing the beneficial owner, will vote it stock in perhaps unsavory ways. But that is better than open holding where the elected official votes his or her own stock.

    We used to have something we called “The dollar-a-year man” (was always a man) who did just that – put things into a blind trust and worked for the nation’s best interests for $1 per year. These were not elected official to be sure, but they were reasonably wealthy and successful people who lent their talents to solving problems. From that came the requirement that elected people do the same while collecting their Congressional salaries. They could get the income, but they could not pick and choose stocks, bonds, etc. or vote on them.

    Makes sense to me. Where did the much-vaunted “sacrifice for your nation’s people and well being” go? Can you see the GOP rolling on the ground laughing if we bring back “Ask not what your country can do for you…” Yeah. Right.

  6. HuffPo reminds me of the Enquirer; a trashy sensationalistic pile of garbage that Arianna Huffington tries to peddle as real journalism! What a joke they are…

  7. The insider traitor bill that Pres. Obama called for is a political game changer.

    Congress can’t vote against it in an election year without raising red flags and handing opponents a killing shot.

    If they vote for it, their income sources and ties to lobbyists become toxic.

    Now Ms. Warren is adding a second front for attacking those who have fattened on our suffering.

    Wall St. influence and bribery through stock options goes away.

    Poor Speaker Boehner. He may actually be called upon to explain inviting Keystone XL to the SOTU.

    Game, set and match – Obama.

    Moral of the story: always bet on the smart guy.

  8. She is among the 1% that are concerned about everyday people. There is a 180-degree difference between Elizabeth Warren, who is actually out to use her position to help people if elected, and selfish robots like Willard Romney who has ruined so many lives in his quest for even more wealth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.