Cal33
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-19-10 08:49 AM
Original message |
In case anyone should still have doubts about Elizabeth Warren's intentions, |
|
she has already hit the ground running in her new position, stating that there will be no more "tricks and traps".
I imagine that Geithner and Summers will be opposed to her advice at least part of the time, and Obama would be the one to make the final decision. This will show whether he's on the side of the consumers or of Wall Street.
I wonder if Obama's having chosen Elizabeth Warren could be a sign of his change in direction where finances are concerned. Would this lead to Geithner and Summers leaving the Administration in the not- too-distant future?
|
leveymg
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-19-10 08:56 AM
Response to Original message |
1. He's had his chance to replace Geithner and Summers. It's a bit late, now, for anything other than |
|
gestures and symbolic politics.
|
Cal33
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-19-10 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. What you say may be true, but is it possible that the November |
|
elections as well as his own elections in 2012 might play a role in Obama's thinking? He might be influenced by the thought that he should be on the side where he could get the most votes.
|
leveymg
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-19-10 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. After the November elections, his options will be even less attractive. The chance was missed |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-19-10 09:26 AM by leveymg
in the early months of the Administration to push through fundamental reforms in banking, tax and corporate oversight.
This duck is already limping. Tell me if I'm wrong . . . I wish I were.
|
Cal33
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-19-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. I have a feeling that Obama's decisions have been greatly |
|
influenced by his preoccupation with the idea of "bipartisanship." I read his first book where he related that he was trying to bring people together when he worked in Chicago's poverty areas for three years between college and going to law school. And he had been very successful at bringing them together in fighting for more benefits for their poverty-stricken areas.
By now I hope he sees that a partnership with the Neocons is not only impossible, it's also positively dangerous! I think he has been lucky that they turned down his offer time and again. It's far safer to have them as open enemies.
Just look at the way they betrayed Linda Tripp. When it became known that she had betrayed Monica Lewinsky, she became an embarrassment to the Neocons. When she lost her job, it would have been so easy for one of the corporations to have given her one, but they wouldn't touch her with a 10-foot pole by then. That's the Neocons' way of saying thanks! If it weren't for Linda Tripp, they would have never been able to attempt to impeach Clinton.
Another example: The Neocons joined the Republican Party. It took them decades, but they worked on the inside, climbed up the ladder, usurped the power of the Republican leaders, ousted them, and took over the party. This was all done very quietly. They were smart enough to keep the Republican name, so that many old-timer Republicans (who are unaware of the above) continue to think they are "voting Republican."
Obama certainly must know that Neocons can't be trusted. Yet he keeps on offering them to join him. Maybe he is confident of being able to out-smart them? But if this idea of "bringing people together" becomes an obsession with him, then his judgment will have gone out the window. Psychopaths cannot be changed, especially when there are large numbers of them working together, reinforcing one another's natural sick personality traits.
He still has two years before his election. I think there is enough time for him to make a real change -- if he is inclined to do so. I hope he does, whatever the reasons behind his decisions may be. After all, he is a politican. He may see that if he wants to win a second term, he'd have to play on the side where he sees the votes are.
|
Junkdrawer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-19-10 08:58 AM
Response to Original message |
2. We all knew Elizabeth Warren's intentions were good.... |
|
It's the odds stacked against her that worries us....
|
Cal33
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-19-10 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. Yes, and I hope that the odds stacked against her could be |
|
reduced because of the elections. Obama might see that being on Warren's side would get him more votes come November 2010, and especially November 2012. Obama is a politician.
|
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-19-10 09:00 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I've never doubted her intentions, its if she's been given the power to bring them to reality. |
Gin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-19-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. wonder if getting some accounting for all the telcom fees charged |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-19-10 10:53 AM by Gin
would be covered....I would like to see what progress has been made with all that money...by now...everyone on the planet should have access with the fees they charge.
It's like the airlines.....fees for everything.
|
Cal33
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-19-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
9. I see what you mean. I also see that playing footsies with |
|
someone as popular as Elizabeh Warren, who is almost looked upon by many as a deeply needed "savior" at at this very time, would be politically suicidal for Obama, if he intends to run for a second term in 2012. He has to give her the authority out of sheer necessity -- even if he shouldn't give a hoot about doing "what is right."
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 09:04 PM
Response to Original message |