Obama Eliminates Warren as Consumer Head

[kpete]

Source: Bloomberg

President Barack Obama has chosen a candidate other than Elizabeth Warren as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a person briefed on the matter.

The president’s choice is a person who already works at the consumer agency, the person said today. Obama may make the nomination as soon as next week, another person briefed on the administration’s plans said.

The people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process isn’t public, didn’t give the name of the choice.

Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor, was appointed last fall by Obama to set up the consumer bureau until a director was named. Warren previously was head of the congressional watchdog panel overseeing the bank bailout.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-15/obama-eliminates-warren-as-consumer-head.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

2. Again, Warren has publicly said she DID NOT WANT and WOULD NOT TAKE such an appointment. nt

[brentspeak]

7. So Warren "has publicly said" this, right?

Please provide us here with a direct quote by Warren herself where she clearly stated she did not want the appointment.

Since you claim so emphatically that Warren did publicly state this, it should be an easy matter for you to locate such a direct quote, correct?

Thanks in advance.

[pnwmom]

11. Barney Frank said she told him she didn't want it. Are you calling him a liar? n/r

[brentspeak]

16. Where is Warren't "public statement" on the matter?

The claim by the other poster is that Warren "publicly said" she didn't want the job. That is the pertinent issue, here, not what Barney Frank recollects or thought Warren said.

[pnwmom]

19. The pertinent issue is she doesn't WANT the job.

Unless, as I said, you're calling Barney Frank a liar.

[brentspeak]

33. In that case, it should be an easy matter for you to point us to where she directly said so.

Right?

[pnwmom]

34. No. It would have been impolitic and presumptuous of her to publicly say

she either wanted or didn't want a job she hadn't yet been offered -- which is what the media was trying to get her to do.

She's neither impolitic nor presumptuous and so there has been no such public statement. But she let it be known, through an indirect channel (her friend, Barney Frank) what her wishes were.

Anyone who disputes that is calling Frank a liar.

[brentspeak]

This is an open-ended, no-deadline request for you to locate a direct quote by Warren

where she stated she didn't want the permanent appointment. You have a long as you want or feel you need to find such a statement.

Please get back to us here on the forums when you've found one.

[Ruby the Liberal]

38. I would like to hear this from her myself.

I am a huge fan of Elizabeth Warren and would be very surprised if she didn't want the opportunity to head up the department she envisioned and helped create. Unless she is headed for Timmy Geithner's job or POTUS - either of which would thrill me beyond words.

[pnwmom]

47. Why would she want to leave a secure, prestigious Harvard professorship

in beautiful Cambridge in order to take a "permanent," high-pressured, thankless job (that would no doubt be ended with the next administration) in Washington, D.C.?

Plenty of people would not make that choice.

[Ruby the Liberal]

52. Color me naive

but she strikes me as someone who is in it for the purpose and not the paycheck.

If you aren't with me on that, then think of the book deals.

Full disclosure - I support what she is proposing 110% and have applied for a job at her agency this week. I would crawl over broken glass and hot coals to work for that woman. In any capacity. If indeed this was her choice (not to head it up) then I support her in whatever she chooses to do as I know in my heart and my gut that she will strive to do the right thing for the right reasons.

[No Elephants]

60. If you still want the job, best wishes and fingers crossed.

[Ruby the Liberal]

64. Right now, yes I do and thanks for the well wishes.

This kind of job would be the career to get me hopping out of bed in the morning as opposed to slapping the alarm-snooze every 10 minutes. BUT - Who knows what it will look like in 6 months, or if the agency will still even be there.

I may change my mind once the announcement of which ever Republican du jour is tapped to take her vision and run it into the ground.

(Sorry, just having a bad week. TGIF, right?)

[No Elephants]

You're more than welcome. No apologies necessary. You must be

very disappointed by this news and that is more than understandable.

TGIF to you, too.

[roxiejules]

68. Spared Indignity

I think she was passed over.


via Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-07/elizabeth-warren-s-dream-becomes-a-consumer-bureau-she-may-never-lead.html


"Warren has been uncharacteristically tightlipped about her own ambitions.

In a way, the White House may do her a favor by not nominating her. If the President decides to go with a compromise candidate to appease Republicans, she will be spared the indignity of being tossed aside. She can’t be said to have lost a job she was never offered."

[pnwmom]

69. But that would also argue for her going back to Cambridge,

where she already has a full life, including a husband with his own job at Harvard.

Not everyone is in "it" for the power -- and temporary power is about the only thing the CPA job would offer her beyond what she has at Harvard.

[Ruby the Liberal]

75. What in my post (any of them in regards to Ms Warren) EVER suggested a power motive?

Maybe, just MAYBE, she is trying to do the right thing for the right reason (as repeatedly mentioned).

Downthread, this link was posted: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/obama-still-desperately-seeking-anybody-but-warren-to-head-new-consumer-agency.html

From that link:

The latest public-be-damned ploy by the Obama Administration is the floating the name of Raj Date, a former McKinsey consultant and financial services industry executive currently ensconced in the nascent Consumer Financial Protection, as the possible new head of the agency.

Can't speak for you, but I smell disaster on the horizon on something that SHOULD have been a no-brainer.

[No Elephants]

95. Nothing wrong with a power motive. Nice to have the power to get done

something you've long wanted done.

Beats whining, that's for sure.

[PassingFair]

181. You're wasting your time with that poster....

Why would the little woman WANT to have the HASSLE
of HELPING THE WORKING CLASSES?

Especially when she "already has a husband" and all that stuff...

I am afraid that a large part of the American population will
NEVER understand that virtue is its own reward.

That's a problem.

[No Elephants]

84. The opportunity for public service in a field about which you are passionate is

not nothing. (pardon the double negative). Neither is power and she does not seem averse to that either, although you or I cannot possibly claim to know that one way or the other.

And, Harvard would probably grant a leave of absence and take her back whenever she wishes, as the slot would only add to her prestigious resume.

[Ruby the Liberal]

89. Nailed it

All of this "tenure, tenure" talk is striking me as meaningless. If someone is tenured, it matters not if they go go New Guinea to study fire ants for a few years, sabbaticals in Indonesia and studies the effects of human trafficking, or heads a Government agency. If they are tenured, their job will be waiting for them and they will be in even greater demand in their respective field upon their return.

[TrollBuster9090]

224. I once saw a professor who took nearly a 20 year leave of absence

before the university finally got fed up and yanked his tenure, and gave him Professor Emeritus status. I wouldn't be surprised if Newt Gingrich is still officially on a leave of absence from Tulane.

Not having a job to go back to is a complete NON ISSUE in this discussion. There may be reasons why she does or doesn't want the job, but being worried about her faculty position is not one of them.

[TrollBuster9090]

216. That's a pretty ridiculous statement, isn't it?

If she was averse to getting pummeled and smeared by Republican imps, conservative hit men hired by plutocrats, and geeks from the libertarian flying monkey squad; and if she wasn't interested in leaving a cushy tenured professorship to do some good for the public, why would she have volunteered to spend the last four years doing exactly that?

"Permanent" in Washington means "for a few years." A few years is well within the limits of a leave of absence for a professor. And more importantly, if she really WAS interested in leading a life of well paid leisure, those "consulting" jobs that washington executives get on retirement, sitting on the board of directors for a company one day a month in exchange for seven figures a year in compensation sound more like what she'd be after.

Don't forget, Newt Gingrich started off as a History professor, and after a few years in Washington in a high profile job ended up as the guy with a 2 million dollar "rotating fund" at Tiffany's.

[JackRiddler]

260. Why are you bringing up speculative questions about her motives? You're not in her head.

[pnwmom]

39. What part of the word "NO" in answer to your question do you not understand?

Your post #33: In that case, it should be an easy matter for you to point us to where she directly said so. Right?

My post #34: No. It would have been impolitic and presumptuous of her to publicly say she either wanted or didn't want a job she hadn't yet been offered -- which is what the media was trying to get her to do.

She's neither impolitic nor presumptuous and so there has been no such public statement. But she let it be known, through an indirect channel (her friend, Barney Frank) what her wishes were.

Anyone who disputes that is calling Frank a liar.

[Zorra]

133. First thing I would do would be to let everyone know that I refused the job

in order to exonerate the President of any blame and save everybody wasting their time doing all this fussin' and fightin' over nothing.

Seems to me that this would be the most honest and sensible way to deal with the situation.

[TrollBuster9090]

218. No, anyone who disputes that is not calling Frank a liar.

Any remarks he made could either have been misrepresented, misinterpreted, or taken out of context.

Surely over the last five years you've seen quotes attributed to Frank where he supposedly said:

a) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "financially sound."
b) That he blocked financial reform of Fannie and Freddie (despite being in the minority) and
c) his most famous "quote" that the public option in health care was a trojan horse for single-payer healthcare.

All just distortions of what he actually DID say.

[JackRiddler]

251. No, no, if you don't immediately cheerlead the official line on this, you are killing Barney Frank!!

[TheWraith]

100. Pardon me for forgetting that she was being quoted by Barney Frank.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/warren-didnt-want-permane_n_719932.html

So unless you're going to say he was lying about what his friend told him, or you believe that he wasn't conveying that to the press on her behalf...

[No Elephants]

153. Please see Reply 43.

[TrollBuster9090]

220. The article does NOT say that Frank was quoting her.

A) The article is almost a year old.

B) Frank never says he was quoting her directly, and

C) the most important quote from the article is this one:
"there were extensive and NUANCED discussions with the White House,"

[truth2power]

203. They've already started to skate on this. Notice the red herring? ...

Whether you think Barney Frank is a liar?

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

[trud]

190. Barney Frank

So, you have a link to Barney Frank saying this?

[AikidoSoul]

199. "Anyone who disputes that is calling (Barney) Frank a liar".

PWMOM states: "But she let it be known, through an indirect channel (her friend, Barney Frank) what her wishes were. Anyone who disputes that is calling Frank a liar."

So you are saying that hearsay is not sufficient basis for doubt? The concept of the weaknesses inherent in hearsay is well understood in debate, and is certainly held up in court in thousands of cases. Nobody is calling Barney Frank a liar, but you suggesting it perverts the discussion and makes anyone asking for actual proof as being somehow unfair. The twisting of the argument in this way subverts any honest movement towards the truth.

You also say that Warren would not make a public statement about her not being chosen because "she is not impolitic."

That is absurd. If the opposite of "impolitic", is defined by Webster's as: "politic - marked by artful prudence, expedience, and shrewdness; 'it is neither polite nor politic to get into other people's quarrels' ---

... then tell me please how do you account for WArren's continuous. repeated public statements and dependable behavior of criticizing policies and procedures of Wall Street Bankers and their political allies?

:think:

[No Elephants]

50. Maybe more than one issue is pertinent to the person requesting the link.

TheWraith did post that Warren had made a public statement.

Therefore, a poster is entitled to ask for a link to a public statement made by Warren.

[quiller4]

229. She has actually made several public statements to that effect

probably the clearest was in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee last month. It was broadcast on CSPAN which is quite public.

Essentially she told the committee that she was picked to turn the idea of a consumer protection agency into a reality but that she had zero interest in staying on to direct the agency once it was set up. She said that throughout her career, it is start-up rather than day-to-day administration that she has found rewarding.

[No Elephants]

264. If so, linking one of them should be a lot easier than it would appear from this thread.

[EV_Ares]

71. No but there should be a statement somewhere to the effect she has turned down this

appointment.

[defendandprotect]

132. Probably after she realized it was going to become a meaningless position -- !!!

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JTFrog]

185. Don't waste your time...

It's like trying to talk to a room full of dining room tables.

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

273. So you think she only confided in Rep Franks and let him tell everyone?

You are really desperate. Face facts, Pres Obama dumped Elizabeth Warren because the Republicans told him to.

[gateley]

40. I remember reading it in an article -- maybe NYT? A lengthy

article, anyway, and she said where her heart lies is back at Harvard and teaching. I'm not making that up, but I remember being disappointed when I read it because we ALL want her to lead that agency.

If you recall, the Republicans (read: their financial backers) don't even want such an agency! They were fighting it -- and Warren -- so Obama got around it by having her serve "under" Geithner, who in reality just turned the reigns over to her. It's always been my (disappointed) understanding that all she was willing to do was to help get it set up, hire the right people, then get back to her teaching.

I hope she'll be interviewed about this so she can give a definitive answer since so many people don't seem to believe Barney Frank (or the article, wherever the hell it was).

[No Elephants]

58. How do you know that "in reality" Geithner just "turned the

reigns over to her," as opposed to her serving "under" Geithner? Anything at all to back that up?

You've pretty much said that President Obama intentionally and cynically deceived the Senate and the nation, so you should really have solid proof before saying something that serious.

[gateley]

103. Ooooh, or you're gonna what?

:eyes:

I'll go find the article where I just read it. If that's not good enough, you can go bully the author.

[No Elephants]

105. Huh?

[gateley]

115. Here you go (God forbid you should go look something up

yourself):

/snip The idea quickly was embraced by consumer advocates and the Obama administration, who made it the focal point of the most sweeping rewrite of financial regulations since the Great Depression. They charged that existing federal regulators put bank profits ahead of consumer protection in the years leading up to the subprime market meltdown.

Warren appeared the obvious choice for the agency's powerful director. But strong Republican opposition made the White House nervous that the nomination would be filibustered in the Senate, preventing Warren from playing any role in organizing the agency.

So in September, Obama appointed Warren to dual White House and Treasury advisor positions that did not require Senate confirmation. Under the law, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is responsible for launching the agency and would exercise its authority until a director was confirmed.

Geithner delegated the job to Warren, who has been hiring staff, meeting with bankers and consumer groups and readying the agency for operations. In May, nearly all Republican Senators vowed to block any nominee for the job unless the administration made major changes to the agency's structure, including replacing the director with a five-member bipartisan commission. /snip

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-consumer-bureau-powers-20110716,0,127732.story

And here's the writer's contact infol in case you want to demand proof from him:

jim.puzzanghera @ latimes.com
Twitter: @latimestech
Facebook: latimesbiz

Will there be anything else before I put you on ignore? :hi:

[No Elephants]

146. Wow. Overreact much?

Requesting a link to back up a statement is a common message board occurrence. And no one made you provide it, not that providing one is a big deal anyway.

No clue why a common message board request put you in such a state.

As should be obvious, I look up plenty myself, but whatever.

I also have no clue why posters self-importantly make announcements about ignore, instead of just going ahead and hitting ignore. I very much doubt any grown up cares who anyone else does or does not have on ignore.

Bye now.

[timtom]

175. Are you REALLY gonna put that poster on "Ignore"?

Tsk. Tsk. What if you should happen to agree 95% of the time? They won't be there to support your position, nor you theirs.

[No Elephants]

247. Pssst. Please don't try to talk her out of it.

Thanks much, no elephants.

[xocet]

200. Your Assertion - Your Burden of Proof: I.E., You need to provide the links. You are just lazy.

[No Elephants]

269. Lazy would explain simply refusing provide the link or ignoring my question.

She went to the trouble of providing the link, so maybe s/he had some other agenda as well?

That post is a pretty odd reaction to being asked for a link. Maybe a hundred requests for a link on this thread alone. Not a one of them got a response like that one. I've never seen a response like that to being asked for a link.

I appreciate the confirmation. Thank you.

[EV_Ares]

73. Agree, if she said it in a public statement, why not provide the facts/link.

[marasinghe]

15. here's Ms. Warren saying 'it', on The Daily Show.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-26-2011/exclusive---elizabeth-warren-extended-interview-pt--1?xrs=share_copy

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-26-2011/exclusive---elizabeth-warren-extended-interview-pt--2?xrs=share_copy

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-26-2011/exclusive---elizabeth-warren-extended-interview-pt--3?xrs=share_copy

[brentspeak]

22. She said nothing of the sort during the interview.

The topic was not broached or discussed by either Stewart or Warren.

Why bother posting the links, then?

[fascisthunter]

26. deleted

[marasinghe]

37. you are correct. just reminding people of Elizabeth Warren's own views on this issue.

instead of "Barney Frank said she's not interested" & the rest of the spin, on this latest sellout by the usual parties.

[No Elephants]

62. Bold move. But risky. A lot of posters don't follow links. They just assume the

link leads to something that supports the statement.

[defendandprotect]

248. +1 --

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. Just listened to all 3 clips and I certainly didn't hear it.

Thanks for posting them by the way. LOVE Elizabeth.

So - can you be more specific as to where in this interview she says she doesn't want to run this agency?

[marasinghe]

41. quite the contrary. see post # 37. :) cheers. n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

56. Gotcha and right back atcha.

:toast:

[daleanime]

54. Did I blink....

missed it some how.:shrug:

[Ruby the Liberal]

59. Subtle point was being made that given the opportunity on April 26, 2011 she made no such intimation

I missed it too. :blush:

[theophilus]

149. Prove it. Please. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

231. She's said it again and again and again, but Barney Frank is right.

It's like talking to dining tables - especially when they've got a chance to tear down Obama. I wish they were half as vindictive about doing the same to Republicans. But Obama seems to be able to get their juices flowing as quickly and hotly as he does with the TeaBaggers who also have a desire to believe only the worst about him.

[JackRiddler]

253. No she hasn't. Show where she said it.

So far, no one's even shown where Barney Frank said it, and frankly: I don't think he's a liar, because I don't give a shit what he said.

Show where SHE said it.

[BlueCaliDem]

257. She's recently written the President. She's told Barney Frank.

And you might not give a shit what Barney Franks says, but Warren confided in HIM, not you.

"Elizabeth Warren made it clear to the White House while it was debating her nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that she was not interested in a five-year term to run the agency. Barney Frank, a Warren ally, delivered that message to the White House, he told HuffPost in an interview Thursday. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/warren-didnt-want-permane_n_719932.html

It's been almost a year since this was posted. She has YET to come out and refute it, and she had more than enough time, don't you agree?

She has never denied what Frank has told Huffington Post, and you can bet she would have if what Frank says is untrue. Absent her public denial, I believe Frank. I also believe Elizabeth wants the CFPB up and running as quickly as possible, and she knows Republicans were geared up and fanatical to stall her appointment by any means possible, thereby hoping to stall the CFPB, too.

Getting out of the way for another head of the CFPB can divert the GOP's attention while she works behind the scene.

Unlike you, apparently, she cares more about getting the CFPB, her brainchild, going, rather than being the head of it.

[JackRiddler]

259. There you go again: Barney Frank says (a year ago!) that Warren says...

All her public statements have carefully avoided saying the same thing, interestingly. So many opportunities to pull her name out of consideration, always avoided.

She hasn't denied what hundreds of others have said about her either. DC has been treating her as the likely candidate and anticipating the fight over her. Why didn't she in all this time put an end to the speculation?

She didn't deny what Frank said? So what? She didn't deny what anyone said, either way, as her name continued to circulate for another year!

And you have no more idea about this behind-the-scenes maneuvering a year ago than anyone else.


But all this is peripheral. The attempt to regulate banks was gutted. Dodd-Frank is a joke, it doesn't even go back to the levels of Glass-Steagal or do anything about derivatives, and there's no guarantee anything will be done about ratings agencies either. The CFPB was the one item, and Warren was the one person to lead the fight in a public way, as it must be if a difference was to be made.


Good day to you.

[BlueCaliDem]

271. I hope you've seen The Rachel Maddow Show today with Elizabeth Warren

as special guest. Elizabeth Warren has vehemently stated, that were it NOT for President Obama, there would be NO Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She said that the President had warded off many offers to do away with the CFPB. She wanted to make that crystal clear, that it is BECAUSE President Obama fought hard for the bureau, the CFPB has come to fruition.

I hope the Obama-bashers remember this.

I also hope you now believe what I've written yesterday. It is exactly as I've tried to explain to you yesterday. I wrote:

"She has never denied what Frank has told Huffington Post, and you can bet she would have if what Frank says is untrue. Absent her public denial, I believe Frank. I also believe Elizabeth wants the CFPB up and running as quickly as possible, and she knows Republicans were geared up and fanatical to stall her appointment by any means possible, thereby hoping to stall the CFPB, too.

Getting out of the way for another head of the CFPB can divert the GOP's attention while she works behind the scene.

Unlike you, apparently, she cares more about getting the CFPB, her brainchild, going, rather than being the head of it."

She wants to make it crystal clear, that she could NOT become Director of the CFPB because of THE REPUBLICANS, not President Obama. I hope that'll make you less hostile toward Obama now, and to lay the blame for Ms. Warren not becoming head of the CFPB where it rightfully belongs: the REPUBLICANS.

If you've seen The Rachel Maddow Show today, you would now know I've been right all along, because what I've outlined above, Elizabeth Warren, herself, stated.

[rhett o rick]

274. So she stated on the Rachel Maddow show that she didnt want the position? Or are you assuming that?

You think she only told Rep Frank and let him tell the public? I want whatever you're smokin.

[BlueCaliDem]

275. Just watch the dang show on rebroadcast. Jeezus! You're acting like a

TeaBagger, sticking to your hate for President Obama no matter what.

And because of that, I really don't want what YOU'RE smokin'.

[rhett o rick]

276. I dont hate Pres Obama. And I dont like being called a TEaBagger.

We were told how liberal it was for Pres Obama to appoint Warren. But guess what, that didnt work out. Kinda like the public option didnt work out, or ending the wars or ending Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, domestic spying, or closing Gitmo. Tell me that a TeaBagger wants those. Tell me I want the same as a TeaBAgger. Tell me you dont want those and I will call you a TeaBagger.

There are only two sides and I side with the People.

[No Elephants]

266. Warren is a lawyer. In the law, failure to deny proves nothing.

She does not run around confirming and denying much of anything. She;s not running for election and it;s not her style.

As for Frank, see Reply 43. Plus another post on this thread says he never quoted her, but I don't know that reply number and don;t feel like looking for it.

As for not wanting five years, there's plenty of daylight between the short time Warren served and 5 years. She was given an interim appointment, until the permanent head took over. When did the permanent head take over? Therefore, the timing of her departure is suspect. See Reply 80.

Finally, and most importantly, the agency is FAR from set up.

The ball game in an administrative agency are the rules it lives by and the rules live and die by the rulemaking process. In that process, the "public" (read mostly interested lobbies, will fight to change the first set of rules the agency puts out there. This agency will not be set up until after the final version of rules is in place. As a lawyer and acting interim agency head, Warren knows that very well. (I believe she even referred to rules in the very terse statement she did make after her departure was announced.

ETA: That other Reply about Frank was #220. I just stumbled on it.

[BlueCaliDem]

272. See my Reply # 271. I hope that clears it up for you, and I hope you stop

laying the blame on President Obama, and drop it where it rightfully belongs: the Republicans.

Democrats should NEVER do the GOP's dirty work, no matter how angry, how disappointed, how disillusioned they are with a Democratic pol. Be critical, yes, but be reasonable and rational, too.

[No Elephants]

265. If so, even a dining table should be able to post a link to just one of her statements.

Yet, I've not seen a link yet. Sure are none in your post. Nothing in your post but insults to fellow DUers who think differently than you do. '


Thanks for the divisive post, though, BlueCaliDem.

BTW. Frank said that to a RWer who made a stupid Holocaust remark to him in connection with his support of health care reform. Nice to know you put your fellow DUers in that category--ones to your left, no less, simply because they ask for a link, as do millions of message board posters all over the Internet.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Ahah! I see it.

Brilliant chess move.

Mate in 117.

[marasinghe]

8. yea; the good old quisling-vichy gambit. practice has made it perfect. n/t

[KoKo]

97. Truly Masterful....Which "Dimensional Chess" is he now playing?

What "Level of Dimension?" 13th, 14th...OUTER SPACE? :rofl:

[SSDA]

108. Obama will appoint a wall street banker.

Count on it.

[KoKo]

111. At this point I'd believe he might appoint Grover Norquist...it's become so bizarre with him...

:eyes:

[Enthusiast]

191. Me too.

It has reached the level of insanity.

[defendandprotect]

250. +1000% -- but the gimmick is to convince us that it's we who are insane -- not them -- !!!

:evilgrin: --

[JackRiddler]

252. If he does, there will be those who find justifications for it...

and if you criticize, they will say you hate Obama!

[BlueCaliDem]

230. Um. Nope. He's offering the position of PERMANENT head of the

agency to a person who is already working there.

Ms Warren wanted to set up the agency, but she was NOT interested in a permanent position. All you have to do is do a search, and you'll see it clearly.

Dailykos. Mother Jones. They both have links proving that the ultra-lefties are, once again, jumping to conclusions.

To be clear, ELIZABETH WARREN NEVER WANTED A PERMANENT POSITION AS HEAD OF THE CFPB.

[defendandprotect]

249. +1 --

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Of course it is not Warren

Of course.

[tomp]

180. of course, indeed.

it would be hard to lose betting on obama not doing something progressive. virtually 100% predictable.

[BlueCaliDem]

234. And Obama bashing continues...

Ms Warren has said, repeatedly, that she does NOT want a permanent position at the CFPB. She has written the President personally to tell him so. She has confided in Barney Frank. Mother Jones and DailyKos has reported on this.

She just wanted to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but she never wanted to take a permanent position there.

Per the CBS {scroll down to the fifth segment}:

"Sources say Warren recently made clear that she does not want the permanent job. Why not? Because Republicans - with fierce backing from the financial community - are dead-set against her getting the job. Her nomination would be expected to languish for months and during that time, White House officials say, she would have to cease operating in her interim position. So she has decided, officials say, to set up the CFPB -- and then move on, leaving the job of running it to someone else.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_162-503544.html?keyword=Elizabeth+Warren#ixzz1SJbU5Qye

Republicans want to stall the launch of the CFPB. She KNOWS this. The President knows this. And I've understood this. So, enough with the Blame Obama First! bashing that's been pretty prolific here on DU, especially when the facts easily debunk the baseless bashing, which are specious. At best.

Chill and give President Obama fair credit for allowing her, a LIBERAL, to create the CFPB the way SHE believes it should be. Also, don't forget she's the Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury, and she's these things because President Obama tapped her for those roles.

Feel better now?

[No Elephants]

267. "sources" say? That's the kind of story I see ridiculed here all the time if it says something

Obama, say, for example, not pushing for the public option.

[NYC_SKP]

5. Best wishes to Ms. Warren and I know she'll continue to serve the nation. nt

[JHB]

223. Speculation a Senate run is in the works:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bad-news-warren-out-consumer-head-goo

Elizabeth Warren’s calendar sure looks like the schedule of a woman considering a Senate bid, or at least someone being courted by power players in Massachusetts and the Senate Democrats’ campaign operation in Washington.

In recent weeks, Warren has met in person or spoke on the phone with Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, David Axelrod, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Massachusetts Democratic Reps. Barney Frank, Stephen Lynch and John Tierney. The phone call with Murray took place in early June, Roll Call has learned.

Warren attended a community banking event with Tierney in the Bay State and dined with Schumer, a former DSCC chairman and an aggressive recruiter who remains involved in DSCC activities.

Warren’s May calendar, the most recently available public schedule, shows the Schumer dinner along with the other meetings and discussions.

[fascisthunter]

6. lol... oh man. Can't wait to Read the Spin for This

[KoKo]

98. The Threads BELOW....n/t

[pnwmom]

9. She put HERSELF out of the competition,

according to Barney Frank. But you know better?

[chill_wind]

43. Barney Frank made those comments in September *almost a year ago.*

Elizabeth Warren Didn't Want Permanent Appointment To CFPB: Frank

Frankly, on her behalf, I talked to David Axelrod earlier this year, and I said, 'You know, Elizabeth doesn't want a full five year term. She'd like to set this up,'" said Frank. "She told me that, and I told Axelrod that."

First Posted: 09-16-10 04:06 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/warren-didnt-want-permane_n_719932.html

but he has since (quite recently enough) signed on with 89 other lawmakers urging Obama to use his power to appoint her via recess appointment.

Frank and Woolsey, along with Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., were among 89 House Democrats who sent Obama a letter Thursday urging him to use his power to appoint Warren temporarily to the job the next time the Senate takes a recess. So-called recess appointments are permitted under the Constitution but last only until the end of next session of the Senate.

Barney has been known to say a LOT of things.

Barney Frank: Elizabeth Warren's Opponents Don't Like Her Because She's A Woman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/barney-frank-elizabeth-warren-gender_n_870520.html

As for Elizabeth Warren? Barney Frank says: “Let’s fight!”
Mar 21, 2011 11:56 EDT

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2011/03/21/as-for-elizabeth-warren-barney-frank-says-lets-fight

So maybe she asked him to speak up differently- on her behalf- these months later?

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

87. Oops. there goes that.

[chill_wind]

143. Yes.

But don't expect it to matter. Old refrains die hard!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1403622#1409776

[roxiejules]

110. A Warren nomination would be over Geithner’s dead body

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/07/elizabeth-warren-in-treasury-crosshairs-again-geithner-opposes-her-as-head-of-consumer-financial-services-protection-agency.html

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/08/knives-out-for-elizabeth-warren.html


Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner’s views….

Banksters and their lobbyist allies have been saying loudly and clearly that they are firmly opposed to having Warren head the new consumer agency.

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[monmouth]

10. I believe she is planning to run for the Senate...Nope, no link...n/t

[No Elephants]

32. Rumors are all over the internets, though.

[KoKo]

101. That was SPIN put out there as "Trail Balloon" to see if she'd Opt Out to run for Senate.

She would have no standing, stature and would be so junior she wouldn't qualify for anything but a "backroom committee appointment" without any standing as "Junior Senator."

Instead she hung TOUGH and waited for Obama to stab her in the back. SHE WON...for TRUTH!

[theaocp]

12. One of two options

If she didn't want the job, nothing we say will change that. Otherwise, Obama decided he wouldn't choose her for whatever his reasons and it's just more of the same DC-bubble-encased nonsense. I'm anxious to know who was named and what the Republicans will do (and backstabbing DINOs) to defang the agency. I hope the administration supports it, but I'm not holding my breath. It just smells like more crumbs thrown to the base to fight over. I hope I'm wrong.

[pnwmom]

13. Why would she want to leave a job as a tenured professor in lovely Cambridge

for a high-pressured, thankless job in Washington, D.C.?

[No Elephants]

21. More money, more perks, more prestige, more power and less work.

And pretty much a lifetime job. Other than that, I got nuthin'.

[pnwmom]

25. A lifetime job? She's already got TENURE -- and a whole lot more security

than an appointment at a Consumer Protection Agency that will probably be wiped out of the budget under any Republican administration.

Tenured professor positions at Harvard pay as well as top government jobs -- and also allow professors to earn outside money as a consultant (for which they can earn substantial hourly fees.). And the jobs offer plenty of prestige and perks as well.

Not everyone is driven to acquiring more and more power.

[No Elephants]

46. I was talking about the possibility that she would run for the Senate.

As for the agency job, as has already been posted several times, she's turned it down. So, I didn't see much point in discussing that.

However, the agency is a public service agency, and obviously, she has some attraction to public service. She also has a lot of interest in that field. And D.C. is a power center.

Ask Senators Kennedy and Byrd about lifetime jobs in the Senate.

I understand tenure very well; and I can almost see Harvard from my window (except I'm a lot more familiar with Harvard than Palin was with foreign policy). So, not much need to educate me about any of that, though I appreciate your efforts.

And I never said everyone, or even Warren, was driven by power. So, that straw man can rest in peace now.

The question was why would anyone leave lovely Cambridge for a thankless job in Washington and I gave some possible answers.

Of course, there are also reasons why she might want to stay at Harvard, but that was not the question to which I was responding.

[PassingFair]

182. Some people are driven to do good, though.

You realize this, right?

[KoKo]

104. You are implying that Warren is a SHILL? She wanted the job for Perks? or that she didn't

want the job but preferred perks of Professor? What are you smoking?

[No Elephants]

148. Obviously nothing as strong as what you're smoking.

[freshwest]

166. After that stupid hearing with a GOPher accusing her of being late, she's got better things to do...

Than play in that kiddie sand box the congress has turned into.

[bvar22]

14. Told Ya!

Elizabeth Warren was NEVER going to be allowed anywhere close to position with actual power,
not in THIS administration.

I would much rather have been wrong.





Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

[KoKo]

85. Yes You DID...and it was TRUTH!

some of us knew he'd never allow her out there for Protecting Consumers. She was too popular with the People...and with even Dem Financial Folks (yes...there are a few) Obama with his ego to ever allow her out there. It's all about HIM and how HE runs Government. No REALISTS need apply... :-(

[roxiejules]

131. A loose cannon shooting

..in the direction of the appropriate targets.

What’s not to like?



http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/obama-still-desperately-seeking-anybody-but-warren-to-head-new-consumer-agency.html

[Enthusiast]

193. I would like to be wrong about a bunch of stuff.

Unfortunately.....

[G_j]

17. just what the fucking republicans wanted

Warren under the bus! I feel sick! :puke:

Heard Hartman say today that she was treated like absolute trash by them when they called her as a wittiness (yesterday?)

:puke:

[KittyWampus]

36. This entire thread= DU'ers stating plainly SHE DIDN'T WANT THE JOB. And other DU'ers refusing to

acknowledge that reality.

It's sad, really.

[Ruby the Liberal]

44. "DUers stating plainly" - like we are to take that as the gospel truth?

How about a quote from the woman herself?

[pnwmom]

49. It would have been presumptuous and undiplomatic of her to be making public statements

that she didn't want a job she hadn't even been offered.

Is she presumptuous and undiplomatic? Of course not! So she let her wishes be known through back channels -- her friend Barney Frank. His word's good enough for me. Apparently not for you.

[No Elephants]

99. As one post has indicated, Barney Frank said a lot of things on the subject,

some of which could certainly be interpreted as inconsistent with her not wanting the job.

[JackRiddler]

255. We don't need your spin and projection on what "it would have been." You make a claim?

Either back it up or cash in your cheap bluff.

[chill_wind]

53. Barney Frank said so (a year ago). But then he was pushing for her recess

appointment a month ago. Seems like he and 89 other Democrats didn't get the DU message.

[No Elephants]

102. Meh, we always know more about federal doings than anyone in government.

We're amazing that way.

[chill_wind]

138. :-) Well what we do know is "Barney Frank!" is hardly a useful or infallible argument,

given the rest of his words and actions since.

:hi:

[No Elephants]

151. Well, maybe some of us do.

[tavalon]

225. Well, I don't hold Barney Frank in as high esteem as say,

Bernie Sanders, but he's hardly a bad guy. Nonetheless, all of this so far has been hearsay.

[chill_wind]

242. My point wasn't that Barney's a bad guy.

It's the dissonance of the argument itself. Barney went on to say and do more in regard to the controversy beyond that single old quote, which has been linked here ad nauseam, all of which is quite selectively being ignored.

[No Elephants]

78. not an accurate statement.

Passing that, it was not one group saying one thing and another saying the opposite. It was one group saying one thing and another group asking for proof.

And, of course, there are some posts on the thread that do neither of those things.

[KoKo]

106. No...you are SAD...because she didn't quit until Obama didn't want her anymore...

You are re-writing the truth of it all. But, then...it's what is what it is around here.

[Lorien]

116. Back that statement up with some reliable links. nt

[JackRiddler]

254. This entire thread = some DUers claiming "she didn't want the job" but failing...

to provide any evidence from HER statements in public.

[OHdem10]

18. One more cave.--it has become to be expected.

[gateley]

29. She has said she does not want the job -- do you expect him

to force her?

I was hoping that once she actually got in there and saw how fucked up everything was she'd change her mind and stay, but maybe now she can't get away fast enough!

Seriously, I'm really disappointed, but this isn't a cave on Obama's part. Plenty of those to legitimately charge him with, but this isn't one of them.

[Ruby the Liberal]

45. I'll join the chorus here

You have a link for that quote, sis?

[KoKo]

107. Oh Yeah...where's the link? Give it to us... n/t

[No Elephants]

113. No one seems to be able to prove that she didn't want the job, though.

"Plenty of those to legitimately charge him with, but this isn't one of them."

You'd never guess that from some people's posts.

[KoKo]

124. I see so many posts saying: "she didn't want the job." Yet no direct quotes, current, from her

after she found out "for sure" she wasn't getting it. I'm still waiting.

[Telly Savalas]

176. I see so many posts saying she got fucked over and we were betrayed

but I don't see any links indicating her complaining about the matter.

If this little theory about how things are playing out is true, doesn't that make her complacent? She's been handed a golden opportunity to speak out against the horrible injustices dished out by the White House, but she chooses to remain silent. So now being spineless has become a virtue? I guess so, if it fits into the cookie-cutter narrative about Obama being incapable of doing anything right. Pathetic.

[bitchkitty]

246. Incapable? Or unwilling? n/t

[SemperEadem]

20. if she doesn't want it, then I guess he has to appoint someone else

the climate is just too poisonous--and especially after the treatment she got from that asshole chairman at her last hearing.

[bvar22]

23. I think Joe Lieberman could use a job,

and he fits right in.

[No Elephants]

30. Oh, I'm sure Joe will have his choice of jobs when he leaves the Senate.

If you don't reward someone like Joe handsomely, how will Senators know they can count on you if and when their "former Senator" time comes? Besides, he has so many contacts in both parties.

Don't you worry about Joe. He'll do fine. He has Joementum.

[No Elephants]

24. A signal that she will run for the nomination to challenge Brown?

Setting up the agency and writing the rules is half the battle, if not more.

It would have been nice to have had her around for the entire rulemaking process, but it is what it is.

[Adsos Letter]

27. What Elizabeth Warren said yesterday re; the appointment

SOURCE: CNN(Money)
CNN's Austin Alonzo contributed to this report.

"With a week to go before the new consumer bureau takes off, the White House has yet to appoint its director -- an omission that Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, asked Warren about."

"Warren was careful and succinct, saying that when the director is confirmed and in place and the bureau gets all of its powers, "it will be a very good day.""

LINK: http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/14/news/economy/elizabeth_...

_______________________________

Read in to it what you will.

[Ruby the Liberal]

Congress is still trying to get rid of it via de-funding, de-fanging or altogether dismantling it.

She is likely sick and tired of being drug from committee to committee defending this portion of Dodd-Frank and having her ass handed to her by one partisan freshman after another. Got so bad that one committee member even called out the new congressmen on their treatment of her the other day: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x600138

If they are so afraid of it (and her), then I am 110% behind it with her leading it on top of it all.

[Adsos Letter]

61. Yeah, it was the Republican Chair who was so rude to her, iirc

I simply see it this way: if it's true, as BzaDem pointed out in another thread, that two of the candidates were brought in by Ms. Warren, given broad authority by Ms. Warren, and have her full confidence then I think this could be a very wisem move. It would be akin to cloning her, and allowing her presence to be felt elsewhere...say Congress.

[No Elephants]

120. So, now her replacement will be like having her clone head the agency? Wow.

Did BzaDem happen to post a link or was her post as unsupported as most on this thread?

[No Elephants]

92. Says nothing about her not wanting the job.

[KoKo]

127. That sounds pretty "non-commital" to me. She's giving it to the Pres and not dissing him.

She's being a "good soldier" and "Graceful." Hardly says she didn't want the appointment...but more that she was being graceful that someone else was chosen.

Or, perhaps, you have the mentality that everyone has to act like a Repug...and go after and attack people like the Repugs? :shrug:

[secondwind]

28. We love her here in Massachusetts! Maybe now she can run against our Senator Scott Brown?

It would be an easy Senate seat for Dems to pick up next year! woohoo!

[druidity33]

171. +1000. I'd support her campaign. nt.

[Enthusiast]

194. That would be awesome!

But probably unwelcome by the PTB.

[derby378]

31. Let me guess - Tom Vilsack is looking for new digs?

This is bad. This is really, really bad.

[jwirr]

42. She needs to do what Reich and Krugman do - write her for some

newspaper every week so her views can get out. I am assuming we will get another timmy geitner type in this position. Worthless.

[JDPriestly]

48. This decides it definitively for me.

Obama's administration is corrupt beyond belief.

Horrors! The one good appointment he made, and he isn't begging her to stay on.

So now Pete Peterson, Geithner's mentor, will be selecting the consumer advocate in the government. We are worse off than we were before.

Obama could have named her as a recess appointment.

This is really lame.

[pnwmom]

51. Why should he "beg" her to stay on? Don't you think he has confidence

in the people SHE appointed to their positions in the agency? Don't you think Jennifer Granholm would do a good job?

Barney Frank said she didn't want the permanent position, and who could blame her for that.

[chill_wind]

66. Barney Frank! Barney Frank! PLEASE read post #43. n/t

[pnwmom]

67. Fine, I read it. Now please read this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1500077

[Ruby the Liberal]

76. Have you considered that she might want to leave a legacy?

Think Lincoln and FDR.

I know, this interferes with your concept of the utopia that is being tenured at Harvard and spending the winters in the paradise that is Cambridge, but maybe she is personally motivated by something other than power and/or money?

Right. Thing. Right. Reasons.

That is what my gut has been telling me for the last 4 years of learning about her and watching her. She is motivated by the common good.

I know that may be hard to grasp - she is one of precious few (and likely why most of us are so angry about this). People like her do not come across our paths in this manner very often. Soft spoken, to the point, and ready to take it on the chin to do whats right for the 'little guy' who doesn't have anyone else in his corner.

[chill_wind]

126. Done. And commented. n/t

[roxiejules]

86. Apparently no one told the AFL/CIO that she wasn't interested

when they conducted a campaign just last month to get Obama to appoint her during a recess session:


http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/06/09/urge-obama-to-recess-appoint-warren-to-consumer-bureau/

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/afl-cio-pushes-obama-on-recess-appointement-for-elizabeth-warren.php

[Enthusiast]

195. I signed that AFL/CIO petition.

And it seems like I signed a million others. Never in history have the wishes of the governed been so thoroughly and completely ignored. And there is a reason for this.

If everyone stopped defending Obama in the face of these betrayals we might actually be able to force him to do the right thing. Instead we have a bunch of people insisting we accept anything Obama does as correct whether it is or not. You know, we're privileged to even have him as a president.

[SSDA]

112. Exactly.

Bingo. Even huntsman said he took the job in china because the potus asked him and the nation should come first.

[No Elephants]

123. Well, that and China is a pretty relevant credential for someone with Presidential aspirations.

[Ruby the Liberal]

55. Maybe he'll pick someone better suited like Rahm, Timmeh the Geithner, Rubin or Sommers.

Ann Coulter comes to mind as an appropriate choice.

[No Elephants]

125. Some corporatist is mentioned upthread.

[roxiejules]

57. She might effectively prevent ordinary Americans from being preyed upon

so....former Cap One banker was the leading candidate.




http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/obama-still-desperately-seeking-anybody-but-warren-to-head-new-consumer-agency.html

This jockeying proves yet again how much antipathy both sides have for Warren. And make no mistake about it: the Administration has been clear from the outset that it wants Anybody But Warren in the job.

Her character and mode of operation are deeply threatening to people in power. She refuses to be deterred and has no respect for party line or authority.

Even though to people outside DC, she appears to be moving forward in a deliberate, systematic manner, her refusal to play by Beltway rules, her apparent immunity to bribes and coercion, makes her a deeply destabilizing force. No wonder they want to get rid of her. Not only might she build an effective agency, but her behavior could prove to be contagious.








THANK YOU ELIZABETH WARREN !!!!!!

:applause:

[Ruby the Liberal]

74. That link made my stomach churn.

Thank you to Yves for staying on top of this.

Bleck.

[roxiejules]

77. Warren has been treated like crap

WATCH: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/elizabeth-warren-foreclosure-investigation_n_899659.html?ref=email_share


FULL HEARING: http://www.rnc08.c-span.org/Events/Warren-Defends-CFPB-to-GOP-Lawmakers/10737422855-1/





To restore some basic sanity to the financial system, we need two central changes: fix broken consumer-credit markets and end guarantees for the big players that threaten our entire economic system. If we get those two key parts right, we can still dial the rest of the regulation up and down as needed. But if we don't get those two right, I think the game is over. I hate to sound alarmist, but that's how I feel about this.

- Elizabeth Warren

[Ruby the Liberal]

79. Thanks for the links. I could listen to her for days.

She is a rare breed.

[roxiejules]

82. Me, too

She is smart and honest.

[The Wizard]

63. She was traded for a pile of

Wall Street's ill gotten gains.

[naaman fletcher]

65. time for revolution

There is one person in this country who was going to stop the banks from ripping us off: Warren.

Now Obama has abandoned her.

For shame.

[pnwmom]

70. You don't trust the people at the agency that SHE appointed? n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

81. She appointed the director, under whose lead the agency will function?

[KoKo]

114. It was a "FAKE COMMISSION" to begin with. I give Credit to her for doing what she managed to do...

But, I realize it will all be undone..because Obama Administration never fully backed it to begin with.

It will be a hollow carcass of what it could have been.

[No Elephants]

129. As Al Jolson said at the start of the first talkie, "You ain't heard nuttin' yet." Check out Reply

# 80.

[jaxx]

72. Good. Get the post filled.

[roxiejules]

80. News comes one day after testifying Gov't. agencies are being reckless

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/elizabeth-warren-foreclosure-investigation_n_899659.html?ref=email_share

7/15/11

"Warren's claim lends further credence to the view that the various government agencies are being reckless by negotiating an agreement with the five banks -- the largest mortgage servicers in the country -- that would settle accusations they abused homeowners and broke various laws in exchange for penalties and mortgage relief for struggling borrowers that could reach up to $30 billion.

State and federal prosecutors are pressing to complete a proposed settlement with the five companies even though they've only initiated a limited investigation that hasn't examined the full extent of the alleged wrongdoing, The Huffington Post reported Monday, citing interviews with more than two dozen officials and others familiar with the state and federal probes.

Representatives of Justice, HUD and Treasury all declined to comment."

[No Elephants]

128. Another bank bailout? Is it soup yet?

[KoKo]

83. Well...there we go. Don't listen to Pretty Words Obama Says...Watch what he DOES in Policy.

This is pretty sickening. But, it wasn't unexpected. :-(

[mcollier]

90. WAIT!!!! Pres. Obama appointed Warren

for the post to get it up and running. Wait to see who he nominates as the formal head before rushing to blame without a clue of what the future will be.

[Ruby the Liberal]

93. Link to said nomination?

Thanks in advance.

[mcollier]

119. Not nominated... "appointed" temporarily

http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/elizabeth-warrens-summer-grilling-1695063.story

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which goes live next week, was created by Dodd-Frank, the broad financial reform package Barack Obama signed into law last July. It was Warren, a Harvard Law professor specializing in bankruptcy laws, who first gave the President the idea for this agency charged with protecting consumers from abusive and deceptive financial products, and it was Warren who Obama picked when seeking someone to turn her idea into reality. Warren is currently the agency's temporary custodian, until President Obama nominates, and the Senate confirms, a director.

[Ruby the Liberal]

134. My apologies - I added words that you did not state,

[KoKo]

94. lol's..n/t

[No Elephants]

268. It is not up and running, though. Nor is a permanent head in place Pls. see Reply 266.

[Lorien]

117. Indeed. nt

[KoKo]

88. K&R...because the "SPINNERS" are already out there trashing Warren...

Making up Shit about how "she didn't want the job...she wasn't qualified...she was just an interim...YADDA..YADDA!

FACT IS...OBAMA DIDN'T WANT A STRONG "Consumer Protection Agency." and it was a done deal. WARREN WAS TOO GOOD FOR THEM... She might have "Stirred up Trouble."

VERY SAD...:-(

[roxiejules]

160. The GOP stays in session for fear Obama will appoint her

and we are supposed to believe she never wanted the job?



http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/163635-gop...

5/26/11

Republicans are preventing the Senate from completely adjourning for the Memorial Day recess. Instead, the chamber will come in for three pro-forma sessions over the next 10 days.

Some Republicans feared that Obama would use the recess to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will have broad powers over Wall Street.

[roxiejules]

and then they proceed to lynch her

Why it makes no sense for Warren to leave - 6/1/11


http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/06/01/why-it-makes-no-sense-for-warren-to-leave/


Cohan says that the Warren nomination fight “is not a fight that Obama can win”. But it’s the first principle of any game that you don’t give something up without getting something in return — especially when your opponent is crazy. Unless and until the Republicans show Obama a way that he can get a nominee approved in line with Dodd-Frank’s vision for the agency, it’s a no-brainer that Warren must stay. Otherwise Obama would just be sacrificing a great public servant for no purpose at all.

[midnight]

91. To bad... Elizabeth seems to be someone who understood the pain that the

middle class and poor have had to endure because of being held hostage by the IMF....

[defendandprotect]

137. Warren wouldn't have been permitted to do the job she knows has to be done... too much

coporate pressure on government to let someone like her do an honest job

for the people!!

I'd highly recommend that everyone read Al Gore's Rolling Stone article from

last week or so --

Along with Global Warming threats -- he is describing our government -- without using

the word -- as fascism -- and does a great job on describing our Goebbels' style

corporate press --

Gore makes clear that Congress is under the control of the oil and coal industries --

[and-justice-for-all]

96. I would rather have Obama offer her the job..

and let her turn it down if she really does not want the position.

[alp227]

109. lemme guess, a crony of the Zombie Banks n/t

[ozone_man]

155. Naturally n/t

[harun]

165. They'll be from Banking, Defense or Oil.

[Lorien]

118. K & R

No surprise here. If the GOP wants it Obama is all too happy to oblige.

[No Elephants]

130. I don't assume Obama is doing what the GOP wants. Were Geithner and Summers GOP

picks, or Obama's?

[onehandle]

121. She was Never going to be confirmed. Now she can run against Senator Pink Leather Shorts. nt

[OnyxCollie]

243. Neither could UN Ambassador John Bolton.

Funny how things can happen if the President really wants it to.

[Zorra]

122. I find it disturbing that Mrs. Warren has not yet made a public statement

explaining that she did not want the job.

Wouldn't that be the first logical step she would take in order to avoid unwarranted criticism of the Prez by the many Democrats who really wanted her to be the Consumer Bureau Director?

That's what I would do. I'd immediately call a press conference and explain why I did not want the job and that it was my decision and not the Presidents.

I'm really wondering, given her reputation for forthrightness, honesty and integrity, why she hasn't done so already.

[No Elephants]

135. Wouldn't you expect Obama to say something? As in

she did a fantastic job and he wanted her to stay on but she wanted to get back to her very important work of educating America's youth (or whatever)?

[Zorra]

158. Yeah, that would work for me. nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

141. Thank you.

It is telling that this is her brainchild yet being turned over to *what* for purpose of *what*.

I await her statement on this, and if she truly didn't want to continue to be dragged through the mud, I stand by her.

[defendandprotect]

136. Let's keep in mind what it takes to frighten the hell out of GOP ... someone like Warren -- !!!

Obviously, Warren wasn't going to be permitted to do an honest job --

Warren probably realized that she'd be unable to do the things that truly needed

to be done in situation where corporations have so much sway on government --

HOWEVER -- we should all keep in mind what a house of cards -- KABUKI -- the GOP show is --

and how easily it can be knocked down if we get the right wind machine going!!


Any iota of truth is a threat to the rightwing -- like a pebble shattering a mirror it

brings down their lies --


Keep on tossin' them pebbles!!

[No Elephants]

150. maybe the GOP isn't all she frightened. Check out Reply #80.

[Taft_Bathtub]

139. Obama does not care about ordinary people

He only cares about corporate profits. Hope that helps.

[nobodyspecial]

140. I think Obama should ORDER her to do it

despite the fact she doesn't want to and she should willingly comply because DU demands it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

142. Welcome to DU

[nobodyspecial]

144. Oh noes!

I can read between the lines. You're on to me! I'm really borg.

[Ruby the Liberal]

147. That, or I meant "welcome to DU"

[No Elephants]

152. Well, at least you keep a very low profile!

[U4ikLefty]

217. actually a very "no" profile.

[Tx4obama]

159. LOL :)

Welcome to DU :hi:

[chill_wind]

163. Barney Frank would agree with you

to only a slightly lesser extent. Urging Obama to recess her in. Even though,as it's been insisted, he knows "she doesn't want the job."

[Number23]

233. Exactly! What DU wants, DU SHALL HAVE!!!!

Who cares that she doesn't want the job?

Who cares that Obama temporarily appointed her because he felt that she was the best person and will in all likelihood put in a successor who has her blessing?

Who cares that there is nothing even CLOSE to resembling a genuine conspiracy here? The masses (of DU, all 200 of them) have spoken!!one!1

[FailureToCommunicate]

145. Bad for the country, MAYBE good for Massachusetts...

She may run against Scott Brown's ("Kennedy's") senate seat.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-14/bostonglobe/29774296_1_consumer-financial-protection-bureau-setti-warren-elizabeth-warren

[No Elephants]

154. We'll soon see.

[roxiejules]

156. Note the link says WH squandered opportunity for her nomination

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-14/bostonglobe/29774296_1_consumer-financial-protection-bureau-setti-warren-elizabeth-warren



This should be Obama’s fight. Yet once Republicans cast Warren as anti-business, the president was afraid to play his strongest hand.

“Did (the White House) squander an opportunity to make the Elizabeth Warren nomination a defining battle? Big time,’’ said one Senate Democratic adviser who is close to the Warren drama.

The president “hasn’t been willing to spend the political capital to fight for her,’’ added Theresa Amato, executive director of Citizens Works, a nonprofit consumer protection agency founded by Ralph Nader.

Warren’s supporters are now trying to convert prospective political loss in Washington into a Senate campaign in Massachusetts. On paper, her candidacy would attract women, liberals, and money from both constituencies, locally and nationally.

[No Elephants]

167. Good point. Thank you.

Gee, none of the links on this thread say she didn't want the job or that Obama wanted her to stay.

Maybe when he made an interim appointment, he wanted an interim appointment? Maybe it wasn't one of them that three dimensional chess moves after all?


Jon Stewart, fairly early in Obama's term: "Either he's a Jedi Knight, playing three dimensional chess where we can't see, or this thing {the Presidency} is kicking his ass."

[chill_wind]

157. edit- wrong place

[chill_wind]

161. Names under consideration (Reuters)

(reportedly floated in WSJ)

The names under consideration include former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and Raj Date, an aide to Warren, the Journal said.

Whoever is nominated will likely face a tough road to get installed because of opposition from Republicans, who would like to see structural changes made to the agency.

The White House declined to comment on the Wall Street Journal's report.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/16/us-cfpb-nominee-idUSTRE76F05T20110716

[plumbob]

162. She's simply so much smarter than anyone else in government right

now that just having her around makes it easy to see how many dim types there really are there. In all branches.

[No Elephants]

168. Did you catch Reply 80?

I mean, doesn't an interim appointee usually stay until the permanent person is appointed?

[plumbob]

174. I did. She is the only administration official willing to take the banks to task.

From the link in reply 80:

Warren, a passionate consumer advocate, has long questioned whether the state and federal probes have been comprehensive, according to people familiar with her views. The investigations were launched last year amid news reports that the lenders were at times improperly repossessing borrowers' homes and breaking state laws and federal rules in the process.

But she had not publicly shared that view, which is widelyspread among individuals with direct knowledge of the probes, until the Thursday appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

She's the first senior administration official to publicly question the thoroughness of the investigations led by the Justice Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Treasury Department, Federal Trade Commission, all 50 state attorneys general and more than 30 state bank regulators.

The nation's five largest mortgage firms have saved more than $20 billion since the housing crisis began in 2007 by taking shortcuts in processing troubled borrowers' home loans, according to a confidential presentation prepared for state attorneys general by Warren's agency. That estimate suggests large banks have reaped tremendous benefits from under-serving distressed homeowners, a complaint frequent enough among borrowers that federal regulators have acknowledged the industry has fundamental shortcomings, including a penchant to abuse borrowers, and is in need of reform.



I agree with her 100%, but I'm not really seeing the connection between interim and permanent, except for my observation that she's much too bright for the dim bulbs around her to have around, throwing way too much light and eventually, heat, on the three branches of crony we have now.

[harun]

164. Cave. Don't believe the she didn't want it BS. It was cover.

[Kolesar]

170. slow day in paradise? ... eom

[roxiejules]

178. 'They believe she still wants the job'

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/business/economy/05warren.html - NYT 7/4/11


"People outside the agency who speak often with Ms. Warren say they believe she still wants the job.

Only President Obama can decide if Ms. Warren is his choice for director, and for months he has said nothing about it. Mr. Obama has said he has great respect for Ms. Warren and her advocacy for consumers, but he has appeared unwilling to wage a battle with the Senate to actually nominate her to direct the new bureau."

[harun]

241. Thanks!

[Poll_Blind]

169. You can ALWAYS count on Obama!

:bounce:

PB

[Enthusiast]

196. He's going to cut social security and medicare too.

We can always count on him.

[Hawkowl]

204. But he's better than Palin!!!

And so is a giant steaming pile of dog poo. Doesn't mean I have to vote for any of those choices.

[Enthusiast]

221. Sometimes I wonder if that isn't why

this particular crop of GOP candidates is so utterly repulsive. TPTB are playing one side against the other.

[Hawkowl]

245. A dangerous game

I think you might be on to something. I also think the TPTB are more than a bit unsettled right now with Russian Roulette with the debt ceiling. They may be waking up to the fact that they no longer control the mob of crazies they have whipped into a fury.

So I would expect either a last minute darkhorse Rethuglican candidate, or for them to double down on co-opting the current administration which they seem to be having some large degree of success.

[FlyByNight]

172. Not surprised

However, if Pres. Obama's choice has Prof. Warren's stamp of approval, I'll be OK with that.

Disappointing though. Again.

[bitchkitty]

173. Such a shock.

You know, I will vote for him come election time, because I have no other choice, but Obama is an asshole.

[libmom74]

228. And that right there is our problem.

Obama and the Democratic leadershio know they can continue to be complete assholes and ignore the will of the vast majority of the American people because our other choice is batshit crazy Republicans. If all of the unions and organizations on the left would organize together and stop supporting both corporate right wing parties and start their own Labor Party or Progressive Party, we might actually accomplish something and stop the destruction of our planet and our social safety nets.

[Hotler]

177. Wall St. wins again. I have no hope. I see no future.

[PassingFair]

183. Another bullshit move from this Poseur POTUS.

Betrayals at the highest levels.

They think we are stupid AND blind.

[Enthusiast]

197. Most are.

Stupid and blind, I mean.

[BlueIris]

184. Every time I read a new headline, I think it can't get any worse.

Then the Admin finds a lower place.

Very sad.

[Myrina]

186. Quid pro quo, Dr. Boehner?

:shrug: We know the Pugs didn't want her in the office, and we know POTUS likes to 'negotiate' in a 'bi-partisan fashion' to 'come to a deal' ... so was skipping over her a nod to the GOP for some concession in the debt ceiling/deficit/taxes discussions?

Who knows what deals they're talking about behind closed doors ...

[AikidoSoul]

206. You are right about that. It wouldn't surprise me at all. N/T

[JEB]

187. Elizabeth Warren/Van Jones

sounds like the kind of ticket I would happily vote for.

[Enthusiast]

198. Me too............nt

[abelenkpe]

188. Bummer

Not sure I really trust to do as good a job as she would have.

[graywarrior]

189. I hope she runs against Scotty in MA

[defendandprotect]

192. America would be better off if that HEADLINE was reversed ... !!!

[BadtotheboneBob]

201. Our loss...

... from all I've read about Ms Warren she's one smart lady and would have been a friend to us commoners...

[mvd]

205. Welcome to DU

This will now be a telling appointment. If Warren really didn't want the job, I feel it's because of the lack of support from our own party.

[Honeycombe8]

208. Lack of support? If anything, the broo-ha-ha & wingdinging about her by progressives....

sealed the deal and made it all but impossible to nominate her to that post. Wish the far left would learn the lesson of discreteness. If the progressives go overboard in favor of someone, the right is SURE to go to the mats in preventing that person from becoming an appointee.

But, as the other posters point out, Obama got around it by effectively having her set up and organize the beginnings of the agency. And she has apparently told Barney Frank she had no interest in being the appointed director. Maybe because of the Senate confirmation process. That process is brutal, esp. for non-politicians, who aren't used to being raked over the coals publicly in a personal way.

[U4ikLefty]

219. ever hear of a recess appointment?

never mind...blame the progressives.

[Honeycombe8]

226. Yes, of course....sonny. But it's generally not a good way to go.

It doesn't foster support for the appointee, and makes it difficult to get the job done.

So he went around it. He got her effectively temporarily appointed, without actually appointing her. So she set up the system, the procedures, the organization. And she didn't want the job permanently, so now that she's done the job that the progressives wanted, she goes back to what she wants to do with her life, knowing that she has done a good thing, a good job.

And no messy appointment scandal, her being crucified in the papers and on the floor in Congress, all interfering with her job. And no brutual, messy confirmation hearing. Just getting the job done, and going back to her real job, after she finished.

Sounds like it was a good plan.

As for "blaming" the progressives, there's no blame assigned there. I just mentioned that I thought that anyone would automatically know that if progressives en masse shout from the rooftops that "Obama better damn well appoint her," and what a progressive she is, etc., etc....there is, factually speaking, no way she could ever be confirmed after that. Not while there are that many Republicans in the Senate. It's just a fact. She probably wouldn't have been confirmed, anyway, but think about it...you know a candidate is conservative...but if most of the tea partiers in teh country start shouting about how the Republicans better damn well elect that candidate, and start shouting about how tea-party-favorable she is....that seals that candidate's fate. That candidate is now stamped a tea partier, for better or worse. And the progressives would go to the mat to prevent that candidate from getting elected.

[mvd]

240. That makes no sense to me. It's a very important..

position and as a progressive I am very proud to go to the mat for her. I would have tried anything possible including recess appointment. I just don't agree with the "oh no, it won't work" arguments. Otherwise, we'll get some token "centrist" that doesn't care about consumers that much. Easier doesn't mean better.

[MissDeeds]

213. Yes

She's not a corporate hack. That probably sunk her.

[Turbineguy]

202. Republicans want structural changes in the agency

For one, they need to be certain that it will not protect consumers.

[Bill USA]

207. we MUST find a Democrat to run in 2012. Let Obama be the moderate Republican he so obviously is.

[MissDeeds]

212. Could not agree more

[Evergreen Emerald]

209. another deal with the devil for Obama

perhaps the shift in republican stance on the debt ceiling is the trade.

[MasonJar]

210. The public and consumers lost out. If she said she didn't want the

job, it was probably to save Obama's face, I'd be willing to bet. Why can't he stand for what is right every now and then?

[blackspade]

211. What utter bullshit.

Obama disappoints as usual.

[jwirr]

214. Wonder if she was part of the deal?

[Cherchez la Femme]

215. K & R for perusal later

[NoodleyAppendage]

222. Yet another "chess move" from Captain Capitulation...

I'm calling bullsh*t until someone can point to a DIRECT QUOTE from Elizabeth Warren that she didn't want the job. If she didn't want the job, then why did she stick with the countless hearings and crap from the Repukes. If she was disinterested, then please explain this sort of sadomachochistic behavior.

J

[Faygo Kid]

227. At least it won't be Alan Simpson. I hope.

Phil Gramm?

[TBF]

232. Maybe Les Hinton can do it. nt

[emsimon33]

237. Or Rebekah Brook

[emsimon33]

238. Or Rebekah Brook

[emsimon33]

236. Obama probably has some Republican in mind

Given Obama's record of raising his leg and relieving himself on the American people, he either has a Republican Tea Party member or some toothless wonder to nominate.

[DeSwiss]

239. First Dawn Johnsen, then Goodwin Liu and now Elizabeth Warren.

- Goddamn, what a wimp.....

[OnyxCollie]

244. Add Shirley Sherrod and Van Jones, too.

Better late than never, I guess.

[alarimer]

256. Probably chose some other corporate toady.

From the corporate toady in chief. I hate this guy more and more every day.

[Tx4obama]

258. Obama picked the person that Warren wanted him to pick.

So, now are you going to hate Warren too?

[No Elephants]

263. Sorry to ask, but I just googled and could not find a story about.

his naming a permanent head for the agency. Has he named one?

[Tx4obama]

270. White House announced it Sunday

Article regarding Obama's pick of Cordray
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/17/richard-cordray-cfpb-elizabeth-warren_n_900967.html

Edited to add:
Additional article http://www.alan.com/2011/07/18/obama-to-appoint-richard-cordray-to-head-new-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/

[Doctor_J]

261. That's our leader!

woot!!11! Not one fucking Dem ideal that he'll stand up for

[No Elephants]

262. He stands for re-electing a Democratic President in 2012.

Maybe LBJ or Carter was the last Democratic President who stood for traditional Democratic ideals?

However, I can;t say we were angels before that. Just as the Republicans do now, we loved the "Solid South," which was then overwhelmingly Democratic (or Dixiecrat). Lincoln's oppponent was a Democrat.

Eleanor R. took as much of a stand as a First Lady and former First Lady could, as did Truman, when he integrated the military and Adlai Stevenson, when he ran against Eisenhower. And the Kennedy Bros. and Johnson. And, gradually, the Solid South switched Parties, more quickly after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

(Sorry, I am more procrastinating than replying to you.)