To all my liberal friends, Elizabeth Warren as 'Interim' CFPB Head is a good thing

[no limit]

As many know I never shy away from criticising this administration when they screw over their liberal base as they have done so many times in the past. But the Obama administration appointing Warren as a recess appointment to get past senate confirmation is a very positive step and something I give huge kudos to Obama for. It wasn't long ago many of us thought he wouldn't even appoint her. Now instead of having to wait for senate confirmation which might never happen the president is giving a big finger to the senate republicans and appointing her anyway.

I know sometimes it's tempting to not trust this administration based on their history, but they are doing the right thing in this case. And with Obama giving the finger to senate republicans I would just like to extend that same gesture to Chris Dodd who is coming out against the recess appointment:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN972820100914

I haven't trusted Dodd lately, and this is just another example of why.

[zipplewrath]

1. Why is this the right thing?

I know sometimes it's tempting to not trust this administration based on their history, but they are doing the right thing in this case.

Why is this the right thing, as oppose to exposing the democrats that would oppose her appointment?

[no limit]

2. Because you can have that fight later. The important thing is getting her in first

He might very well loose this fight which would mean she never runs this commission if he didn't do a recess appointment. Atleast for now she will be in charge while corporate whores in the senate (from both parties) try to block a permanent appointment. This way the democrats that are against her will still be exposed without costing her the job.

[zipplewrath]

6. So nothing can change after a year?

So you get her in and she sets some things up, with everyone knowing from day one that she's a lame duck. Then in a year, when the permanent replacement is confirmed, nothing can change and everything will be alright.

And we're suppose to prefer this over a nomination fight because giving up first and surrendering to the opposition is a winning strategy here. And there is no wider consequence of pursuing this "I can't afford to lose" strategy.

[no limit]

7. I just don't understand your problem. Obama didn't say he wouldn't nominate her permenantly

but while the fight in the senate to nominate her goes on she will be head of the consumer protection agency.

Honestly, what is your issue here? You seem to be suggesting he should wait for confirmation which makes no sense to me.

[zipplewrath]

8. You were the one lecturing that we should all see this as a good thing

I'm curious why you would make such a declaration considering all the variables.

I don't particularly see how getting a little early is better than getting it "all" later.

Your point of view seems to be based upon some sort of defeatist assumption that she can't be confirmed at all.

By the by, Dodd doesn't agree with you at all.

[no limit]

10. Not at all and honestly you are being extremely irrational

Obama has 2 choices.

Wait for senate confirmation which might take a long time and not have anyone head the agency.

Or

Wait for senate confirmation which might take a long time but instead do an interm appointment so she can head the agency right away.

If you support Elizabeth Warren for this position I simply don't understand why you would be against the second option. Can you please explain why not appointing her right away and waiting a long time for confirmation would actually be better? Are republicans going to play nicer if he doesn't appoint her right away? I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that.

[zipplewrath]

12. Look, you were the one telling everyone this is a good thing

I'm curious what brought you to such a conclusion considering a few facts

1) It will piss off many senators that they were cut out of the creation process.

2) She will be known as a lame duck practically from day 1.

3) She will potentially only be there a bit over a year, maybe longer, before they'll have to replace her in order to get the funding out of the senate.

4) Her successor can change everything she's done, and may be under some pressure from the senate to do so since they weren't "consulted".

As oppose to:

Sending her appointment to the senate, allowing the process to start, seeing what kind of progress they can get, and making a judgement as the process plays out. Besides potentially getting her in place for the better part of several years, it could smooth things out with the senate some what. It could also expose the democratic senators that would be problematic for her. That in and of itself is useful information.

But you were the expert here so I'm curious what led you to ignore these issues and declare that none of us should be disappointed.

[no limit]

13. So you conclusion is that as long as we play nice with the corporate whores in the senate

they will do the right thing? What an absurd conclusion to make.

Again, if you are coming to the conclusion that she will be a lame duck that means you assume she can't be confirmed. If that's true atleast we'll have her for at minimum a year. Which is a whole lot better than not having her at all.

[zipplewrath]

14. Where the hell did I mention "nice"

Did we "play nice" to get Kagen nominated? You suffer through the process.

I'm suggesting that if you do the interim route, you are making her a lame duck. Same thing happened to Bolton. He had half a chance if he had waited. Once the recess appointment was made, even folks on HIS side of the aisle wouldn't support him.

Shoving her down the throats of the senate could be a great way to make her a lame duck.

[no limit]

15. Your entire post is about being nice. Which totally ignores history and is a bit naive

Bolton did not have a chance at being confirmed in the senate, I think his chances went away when he threw objects at staffers down the hall. What did Bush do? He said fuck the senate, and appointed him anyway using a recess appointment.

Your wording such as "shoving her down the throats of the senate" is wording politicians would use but it means nothing in reality. The senate either supports her or it doesn't. You keep saying she will be a lame duck, that means you don't think she can be confirmed. But the idea that as long as you don't piss off republicans and blue dogs in the senate by doing a recess appointment that it will make a difference is down right laughable. I guess if only the president reached across the isle and sacrificed more of his health bill to get republican votes more of them would have voted for it? (ahahahahahahaha HA!) These are the same people that will hold 98% of americans hostage so the top 2% can get a tax cut.

So I'll ask the question again that you keep ignoring. If she can't be confirmed do you think we should just drop her and pick someone else or should be force her down their throats through a recess appointment? Because I think those corporate whores in the senate you seem so upset about would love the idea that you wait for the process to go through and never actually get her in that position.

[zipplewrath]

16. You presume she can't be confirmed

I'm presuming she can, unless you do an end around the senate. If you do that, you're screwed, and Dodd tried to tell ya as much today. High profile appointments get hearings, and they get votes. If the President elevates this, he can get the votes taken. Whether he can win them is the political calculation.

You can still do an interim appointment if the senate makes it clear she's going nowhere, but it seems like a ridiculous place to start. You're quitting before you ever start.

[no limit]

17. No, you are presuming that. Why would a senator that supports her appointment

not want her to take the job now and run through confirmation later? She will get a hearing and she will get voted on. But we all know how that will go. The republicans and blue dogs will obstruct and delay as long as they can and chances are she might not even get the 60+ votes that are needed.

The argument you are making is that this will hurt the egos of some senators. Tough shit. These people are not 5 year old children, they can deal with it. And if they have a problem with this chances are they wouldn't have supported her anyway once push came to shove.

I don't trust Dodd, I don't give a shit what he says. His claim that congress could defund the agency could only happen if democrats like him allow that to happen. And if the democrats would allow that to happen you don't need a political science degree to know that they wouldn't have supported her nomination anyway.

The president has the right to make this appointment as was written in the law the senate passed. If they didn't like this possibility they shouldn't have put this in the law. Simple as that. And the suggestion some are making that with this interm appointment she can actually stay as long as it takes to get her confirmed. So this might not even be temporary.

[KoKo]

18. As I read it, Dodd was warning Obama that Interim Appointing her might cause defunding of the agency

It was a warning from Dodd not to appoint her as interim. Obama will probably have to heed that since Dodd would know what he was talking about.

[no limit]

19. As I said in the post you responded to that can only happen if democrats such as Dodd

allow that to happen. And if that's true they weren't going to support her for the nomination anyway. So might as well get her in there without the senate if they aren't going to confirm her anyway.

[zipplewrath]

20. Why?

Because they use the confirmation process as leverage for all manner of activities. It is very important to them. Chairman of relavent committees are extremely sensetive to appointments that circumvent their authority. They want these people to have their "stamp of approval". Recess appointments have a terrible record of subsequent approval. For a department being created out of nothing, that first appointment will be seen as very critical and you want the senate on board. Not even giving them a chance would be a mistake.

[no limit]

21. So you are saying it is because of their egos?

Like I said, tough shit. These people are not children, they can deal with it.

The fact is anyone that would not vote for her because of the interm appointment wouldn't have voted for her in the first place. Don't play dumb, you know this as well as I do.

If they didn't want the possibility of an interm appointment they shouldn't have written the law in a way that allows such an appointment.

[zipplewrath]

22. Your assertion is not true historically

Senators who will be favorable to your appointment often will change their position if they are circumvented. And I'm talking about democrats here. There's a reason they're called "100 little presidents". Committee chairman are particularly sensitive to this.

They created the interm feature for exactly what I am suggesting. They want the flexibility to by pass the confirmation process if the minority party is interfering. But they still want to be consulted. It's why Dodd has his panties in a wad. He's getting Warren forced down on him by the general public. The White House usually discusses appointments with key Democrats in the senate. I strongly suspect he had his own ideas about who would get the job.

[no limit]

23. The minority party IS interfering. And maybe Dodd hasn't been consulted because nobody else has?

This is still rumor leaked by an unnamed source. You have no way of knowing if Dodd was going to be confronted or not before the announcement. And you are giving Dodd way too much credit here. He isn't bitching about not being told about this, he is bitching about the interm appointment itself. An appointment that is perfectly legal and meeting the qualifications you yourself just outlined (minority party obstruction).

And if you think he had is own ideas about who he wanted in the job then you are saying he is an outright liar that doesn't deserve any credability. And I actually agree with you, I think he had other ideas. Even if the entire time he was telling the american people he supported Warren. Now when push comes to shove suddenly he has a problem with the process. I call bullshit.

And if senators change their mind on an appointment because they didn't get a say in it they shouldn't be in the senate in the first place. As I keep repeating, these aren't little children. These assholes are running our country. But I don't buy your argument that history disagrees with me. Do you have ANY examples of senators switching their mind after someone was appointed using a recess appointment? I can't think of a single one.

[zipplewrath]

24. Recess appointments rarely ever get confirmed.

It was pointed out that even though the GOP controlled the senate during Bolton's, once he received the recess appointment, even senators on his side weren't going to support him. It's one of the big reasons Presidents avoid recess appointments.

You can decide what a Senator should and should not do, but they tend to have their own ideas.

[no limit]

25. I was asking you for examples. Bolton wasn't going to be confirmed in the first place

which is why Bush had to do a recess appointment.

What specific senators switched after the recess appointment?

[BurtWorm]

3. There's a big difference between 'interim' and 'recess' appointments

Recess appts (vide. John 'the dolt' Bolton) have to either be reappointed or step down at a specific time. Interim appointments are apparently indefinite. Their term ends when--or if--the Senate confirms a replacement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9131614&mesg_id=9131614

[no limit]

4. Thanks, I did not know that. Even better!

[lonestarnot]

5. K & R and HURRY THE FUCK UP!

[mucifer]

9. As far as I can see this is all rumor.

[no limit]

11. Could be. But I'm hopeful it's true. And with people like Dodd giving their 2 cents

it's probably more than just a rumor.