Elizabeth Warren is "at best a placeholder". Evidence against her succeeding mounts.

[Better Believe It]

The (Liz) Warren Commission and Financial Reform
By: bmaz
October 3, 2010

Well, how about Elizabeth Warren, surely her placement in the Obama Administration is a giant positive the Democratic activist base can hang their hat on and take to the bank, right? In a word, no. Now, before we go further, I want to make perfectly clear that I admire and respect Warren greatly and probably as much or more than anybody in the public sector today. For that reason, writing the following pains me greatly, but I believe the facts and circumstances warrant honesty about the situation surrounding Liz Warren.

For any so inclined, go read the actual CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) enabling provisions in the the Dodd-Frank Bill. I think you will begin to understand what I am describing as to the awesome power that could be in CFPB if it was taken and done right. That power, and the ability to NOT exercise it, however, because of the Obama White House path, stays vested solely in Geithner/Treasury hands, and subject to the incredibly relentless influence of MOTU Banksters until a CFPB head is confirmed or recess appointed. And that, folks, is exactly why the Obama Administration refused to nominate or appoint Elizabeth Warren to be the actual head of CFPB. There was never a chance.

Warren PR Push Intensifies as Evidence Against Her Succeeding Mounts
By Yves Smith
September 19, 2010

As much as this agency has received a lot of coverage, since Warren has been an effective advocate of aggrieved consumers, this is only a teeny part of financial reform. Even if I am proven wrong, an aggressive consumer agency would have only a limited impact on bank behavior and risks. And it is destined not be be very effective due to how it was set up. Recall it was originally envisaged as an independent body. The banks howled, arguing that they could be subject to conflicting directives (the only likely conflict would in fact be between better treatment of retail customers and their bottom lines).

Friday brought the bizarre combination of a full bore PR push in conjunction with more evidence that Warren’s role was certain to be limited. It isn’t clear whether there was a change in plan or merely a later release of full details, but it emerged Friday that Warren had never planned to take a five year term as head of the agency (!). So the ambiguous nature of her role wasn’t simply, as reported earlier in the week, to avoid a confirmation battle the Administration might lose, but also because she did not want to serve a full term. Accordingly, the Administration announced, Warren would help select the person who would be nominated permanent head of the agency.

Now I have to tell you, this is mighty peculiar. It is now official that Warren is at best a placeholder; she cannot have much impact. She can’t make much in the way of policy or personnel choices; that would encroach on the authority of an incoming director. And even her ability to influence the choice of a nominee is questionable. Her taking the advisory role now assures that the nomination of the permanent director will come after the midterm Congressional elections. Given the virtual certainty of Democratic losses, the odds are high that Team Obama will settle on a “conservative” meaning “won’t ruffle the banking industry” choice, and argue its hands were tied.

So the Obama camp has played this extremely well. They get to avail themselves of the Warren brand, give her a Potemkin role, and use it to push the timetable for nomination of the permanent director out, which give them cover for installing a more compliant choice.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/09/warren-pr-push-intensifies-as-evidence-against-her-succeeding-mounts.html

Limits Emerge for a New Bureau Without a Director
By Sewell Chan
September 30, 2010

The Obama administration is starting to set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but relief for consumers befuddled by the complex disclosures that accompany credit cards, auto loans and mortgages will not come about right away.

Under questioning from senators on Thursday, the deputy Treasury secretary, Neal S. Wolin, acknowledged that regulators would not have substantive power to write rules governing a vast array of consumer loans until a permanent director of the bureau is in place and until July 21, 2011, when responsibilities from seven other federal agencies are transferred to the new bureau.

.... Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, pressed Mr. Wolin, saying: “I think what you’re stating today is there’s absolutely zero ability to make rules as it relates to consumer protection that relate to the financial system.”

Mr. Wolin replied that “there is limited rule-writing authority, but it is constrained until such time as there is a confirmed director.

Finally, Mr. Wolin acknowledged to the senators that “the authority to actually issue a rule that would bind private parties, for example, in the mortgage area is a tough one until such time as there is a confirmed director.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/business/01consumer.html?ref=business

Therein lies the truth the Obama Administration has carefully obscured. They not only denied Elizabeth Warren the post she deserved and the power the country needed in her hands, they co-opted her as cover for frustrating the very purpose of the CFPA. There is no real power for the CFPA, and the true “rule writing” cannot occur, until there is a formal head and because of the bait and switch, Obama and Geithner have indefinitely strung out the time when there will be such a formal head of CFPB.

Elizabeth Warren is completely marginalized and, whatever little authority she does currently have disappears the second a real head of CFPA is confirmed. And do not kid yourself, while confirmation of Warren to head the CFPA would have been possible, even granted it would have been a very tough fight, in the current Congress, it will be impossible with the reduced Senate majority in the coming Congress. Thanks to the conduct of the Administration, there is now no chance whatsoever of Warren ever being confirmed and instead a conservative hack vetted and to the liking of conservative Republicans and Wall Street banksters will be the choice. Mission accomplished.

Please read the full article at:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/10/03/the-warren-commission-and-financial-reform/

[xchrom]

1. Suck it nutmeg & take Fiorina out the door with you. Nt

[RandomThoughts]

2. Mission Accomplished was a theme in a couple movies.

End of Rockie 2, he says that.

And in the movie mars, they say that at end also.


I think there was a push to match that concept in some films, :shrug: haven't spent the time to look into that, but the ending of Rambo 2, is one of the best speeches ever.

Rambo 2 Rambo vs Murdock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii5jR9uC1s0


Great speech here
Trautman: The war, the whole conflict may have been wrong but don't hate your country for it.
Rambo: Hate? I'd die for it.
Trautman: Then what is it you want?
Rambo: I want, what they want, and every other guy who came over here and spilled his guts and gave everything he had, wants! For our country to love us as much as we love it! That's what I want!
Trautman: How will you live, John?
Rambo: Day by day.



This part is pretty deep if you get it.

Trautman: What are you doing? Do you know what the hell you've done?
Murdock: Don't act so innocent, Colonel. You had your suspicions, and if you suspected then you're sort of an accessory aren't ya?
Trautman: Don't ever count me with you and your scum! It was a lie wasn't it? Just like the whole damn war, it was a lie!
Murdock: What are you talking about?
Trautman: That camp... was supposed to be empty. Rambo goes in, a decorated vet, he finds no POWs, the Congress buys it - case closed! And if he happens to get caught, nobody knows he's alive except you and your computers... and you can reprogram that can't you?
Murdock: Who the hell do you think you're talking to, Trautman?
Trautman: A stinkin' bureaucrat who's tryin to cover his ass!
Murdock: No, not just mine Trautman. We're talkin' about a nation here! Besides, it was your hero's fault. Now if your warrior had gone in and done what the hell he was supposed to do, we'd be out of this clean and simple. He was just supposed to take pictures!
Trautman: And if those pictures showed something they would have been... lost... wouldn't they?
Murdock: Oh Trautman, I still don't think you understand what this is all about.
Trautman: The same as it always is! Money! In '72 we were supposed to pay the Cong four-and-a-half billion in war reparations. We reneged, they kept the POWs... and you're doing the same thing all over again.
Murdock: And what the hell would you do, Trautman? Pay blackmail money to ransom our own men and finance the war effort against our allies? What if some burn-out POW shows up on the six o-clock news? What do you want to do... start the war all over again? You wanna bomb Hanoi? You want everybody screaming for armed invasion? Do you honestly think somebody's gonna get up on the floor of the United States Senate, and ask for billions of dollars for a couple of forgotten ghosts?
Trautman: Men, Goddamn it! Men... who fought for their country!
Murdock: That's enough! Trautman, I'm gonna forget this conversation ever took place.
Trautman: You bastard!
Murdock: And if I were you... I'd never make the mistake of bringing this subject up again.
Trautman: Oh you're the one who's making the mistake.
Murdock: Yeah? What mistake?
Trautman: Rambo.



Side note, It never was about money for Rambo. And if you can remove the filters there is really good news in there.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Par for the course with this admin

[pnwmom]

15. Par for the course for FDL. Elizabeth Warren didn't WANT the post.

(See #10 below.) But it's so much more fun to pretend she did!

[FiveGoodMen]

22. Admittedly, I didn't follow this particular story too closesly, but

if she didn't want the post, why didn't she turn it down?

[pnwmom]

23. She didn't want the PERMANENT post. She did want the temporary appointment

she has, in which she's working to set up the agency and helping Obama to choose her successor.

[Radical Activist]

62. Just what I was thinking.

"If Obama does something progressives like, we'll figure out a way to believe that he didn't really mean it."

[elleng]

4. I'll say it 'first.' emptywheel is just plain old empty.

and if we allow the b.s. to co-opt the real news and the real world, we deserve what we get.

Those who just keep on lambasting this administration for failing to do EVERYTHING RIGHT, RIGHT NOW, EVERY TIME are FOOLS. Wake up and join the real world, and allow the rest of us to do so.

[Andy823]

9. I agree.

Honest complaints are one thing, but those who "ONLY" post negative things time after time about the president and his administration need to really find something better to do! I don't agree with everything, but I support the president and know for a fact that we are a millions times better than we would be if a republican were in charge!

[G_j]

17. has anyone pointed out something factually wrong with the articles

or disputed the OP's own comments?
That would be very helpful for others who are reading the thread and trying to learn something.

[Better Believe It]

24. No. And critics won't. They'd rather engage in personal attacks than civil debate.

[G_j]

25. this thread is all attacks

and almost zero rebuttal.

not very educational for those not following this as closely.

[elleng]

26. Its hyperbole, semantics, 'hot air.'

'That power, and the ability to NOT exercise it, however, because of the Obama White House path, stays vested solely in Geithner/Treasury hands, and subject to the incredibly relentless influence of MOTU Banksters until a CFPB head is confirmed or recess appointed. And that, folks, is exactly why the Obama Administration refused to nominate or appoint.'

b.s.

That, folks, is NOT why the admin did not nominate or appoint; they did not 'refuse,' but concluded that there was a way to have Warren begin to work on the goals immediately, and they took that way.

[G_j]

28. ==

thanks, it is helpful to hear people explain themselves!

[Whisp]

55. thats right. For Warren to get to work right away it had to be done this way.

for her to get appointed would mean regular Repuglican assholio obstruction and she didn't want to wait a fucking year to start working.

SHE SAID SHE WANTED IT DONE THIS WAY. - I FUCKING HEARD HER SAY IT WITH MY OWN FUCKING EARS!!!

sorry, elleng, not yelling at you. ;) just flabbergasted at the ... whatever it is. Can;t say it out loud

[elleng]

60. Thanks Whisp; gotcha.

[Andy823]

33. You might read what I said

I said I have no problem with those who disagree, my problem is with posters who NEVER say anything good about the president and the administration, but only post "NEGATIVE" things!

[G_j]

34. yea. I did

again, what is it about adding nothing to the discussion, that you don't understand?

[Whisp]

53. it's all guesswork. look at this quote. what is of substance?

it's just somebody pretending he or she knows something and has secret hired wall flies to overhear conversations. or, just an opinion, that's all. There is nothing nothing nothing resembling a factoid of anything here except the writer has a self important stick up her or his ass.


"""She can’t make much in the way of policy or personnel choices;
====how is this actually pointed out? its just a sentence made out of thin air, it means nothing]

that would encroach on the authority of an incoming director.
====really now? and where did you hear this, care to share who or at least what position your super duper secret inside source is]

And even her ability to influence the choice of a nominee is questionable. Her taking the advisory role now assures that the nomination of the permanent director will come after the midterm Congressional elections. Given the virtual certainty of Democratic losses
====bull fucking shit all over again],

the odds are high that Team Obama will settle on a “conservative” meaning “won’t ruffle the banking industry” choice, and argue its hands were tied.
====same old screed, same old substanceless hooey]


lord tunderin jesus!

[JuniperLea]

50. AMEN!!

FOOLS!

I'm sick of the foolishnes... the stupidity is just amazing. These idiots must believe in magic, because that's what it would take to do what they want done and when.

[scheming daemons]

5. You posted this same subject title two weeks ago... didn't get the reaction you wanted, eh?

So trying again?

[SarahB]

32. That was me.

Seems to be an issue with you getting your facts straight.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[SidDithers]

6. Unrec...

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

13. !

:rofl:

[dionysus]

31. !!!

:spray::spray::spray::spray::spray::spray::spray:

[golddigger]

7. You better believe it!

[NJmaverick]

14. NOT!

[golddigger]

19. Why not.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

10. How convenient for you to forget that she didn't want the post

that was "denied" to her.


She's not marginalized, she's setting up the agency. If you respect her as much as you claim to, you'd give her a chance to prove herself before you bash her and the agency she's working to set up.

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


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.

"She always said she didn't want to be there as a permanent director. Some of the liberals are worried about it. It's almost an insult to Elizabeth. She wouldn't take this if there was the slightest impediment to her doing the job," he said.

[Better Believe It]

18. That very point was in the articles! You didn't read it?

From the post:

"Friday brought the bizarre combination of a full bore PR push in conjunction with more evidence that Warren’s role was certain to be limited. It isn’t clear whether there was a change in plan or merely a later release of full details, but it emerged Friday that Warren had never planned to take a five year term as head of the agency (!). So the ambiguous nature of her role wasn’t simply, as reported earlier in the week, to avoid a confirmation battle the Administration might lose, but also because she did not want to serve a full term. Accordingly, the Administration announced, Warren would help select the person who would be nominated permanent head of the agency."

It appears that you prefer to comment on a post before actually reading it.

Do you also write movie reviews on films you haven't seen?

[pnwmom]

27. The OP apparently didn't read his or her own quotes then,

because s/he also said this, in BOLD lettering.

"Thanks to the conduct of the Administration, there is now no chance whatsoever of Warren ever being confirmed and instead a conservative hack vetted and to the liking of conservative Republicans and Wall Street banksters will be the choice."

Why is the OP blaming OBAMA on the fact that there is no chance that Warren will ever be confirmed when Warren herself ruled out that possibility?

And why does the OP, who claims to respect Warren, assume that Warren will assist Obama in choosing a "conservative hack" to replace her?

[Better Believe It]

30. That's absolutely true. So what's your point?

Had the Obama administration wanted her confirmed to head up the agency for less than five years, which might have been acceptable to Warren, it could have fought for that. We already have resignations from leading Obama administration officials who haven't even served for two years!

History will soon demonstrate how accurate the writers prediction is that President Obama will select yet another Wall Street type to head up the agency, one that is acceptable to Republicans and Wall Street. I have a feeling that should President Obama select a Wall Street tycoon acceptable to Republicans you'll find a way to justify such action.

President Obama certainly hasn't demonstrated any reluctance to appoint other conservative Wall Street operatives to other key administration economic posts. Isn't that right?

[pnwmom]

40. My point is that the OP is just a lot of paranoid bashing of Warren and Obama,

before the new agency has even gotten off of the ground.

Warren had barely been appointed when the bashing began -- and not by the Rethugs, but by so-called progressives. And usually the same ones who claim they love Warren! If they do, they should shut up and wait to see what she accomplishes. There's plenty of time to complain about her later.

[countingbluecars]

11. Unrecommended n/t

[Greyhound]

12. I'm shocked...

[JDPriestly]

16. Elizabeth Warren has a weapon that none of these other guys has

actually two weapons.

The first is her ability to speak to the American people directly. All she has to do is remain independent in her spirit and speak her mind, and the Obama administration will find itself under such pressure that it will give in to her.

The second is her autonomy. She can quite and talk any time she wants. She is, in a sense, a volunteer. I'm sure that she has her eyes open and will keep them open. That's just the kind of strong person that she is.

Elizabeth Warren is plucky and what we need right now is a plucky person to be our eyes and ears in the Obama administration. If she is not treated as she should be, I have no doubt that we will hear about it.

That's just the way plucky people work.

Anyone who read The Price of Loyalty will know what I mean. Elizabeth Warren has not sold her soul to the Obama administration.

[Better Believe It]

21. So why do you think we need a "liberal" mole within the Obama Administration?

You seem to suggest that we can't trust this administration and need someone "inside" to find out what their real intentions and agenda are.

"what we need right now is a plucky person to be our eyes and ears in the Obama administration."

[JDPriestly]

45. Geithner? Summers is out, finally, but who will replace him?

As far as I know not one single Wall Street cheat has been indicted. None of them have lost their homes -- although they created the scheme that brought down the economy.

That is why I think we need a mole in the Obama administration when it comes to the financial services industry.

Obama is a good man, but somewhere something is awfully wrong in this country and his administration is not changing it.

[pnwmom]

41. I agree with you. For people who claim to respect Warren,

there are an awful lot of progressives who suddenly distrust her.

This was so predictable.

[Whisp]

56. I set my egg poacher timer to it.

warren is too progressive Obama will never pick her
and that just proves what a corporatist he is! doesn't it!
He's afraid of someone honest like Elizabeth is.
He's a coward!

Newsflash: warren accepted to special advisory post, reasons being... blah blah it's all here up in the threads

next 18 seconds a hue and cry from the rafters that suddenly warren is suspected and questionable and a decoy or a useless idiot.

ding ding, done

fuck

[Ikonoklast]

20. Straws, grasping at.

SEE: FDL, emptywheel.


Unrec another steaming pantsload.

[27inCali]

35. you nailed it, light on facts heavy of loose conjecture

these people have no facts to attack with, all they have is assumptions and scary sounding maybes.

Sorry folks, the REAl Liberals who have bigger things they care about than being more-anti-establishment-than-thou will base their opinions on meaningful facts, not misleading BS.

[Better Believe It]

38. So what facts in the articles are you disputing?

[Better Believe It]

39. Duplicate Deleted

Deleted

[MineralMan]

29. The wheel is empty because Jane Hamsher is out to lunch.

Unrecommended for editorial administration bashing. Pure speculation from an empty wheel.

[depakid]

54. Guess that goes double for the NY Times and Yves Smith

or anyone else who has a take doesn't toe whatever the party line (or party delusion) might be on any given day.

[jaxx]

37. If she didn't want the permanent job why is fdl screaming she is marginalized?

All this is is one more Obama bashing. People wanted Warren, they got Warren. Now they don't want her because she didn't do it their way.

Mission accomplished? FDL trying to gain back some of the clout they blew and it isn't working.

My gawd, this gives me a headache.

[Better Believe It]

The rumor is she didn't want to serve a full five year term, I don't think she's verified this..

Warren might have agree to a shorter term as head of the agency had it been offered by President Obama.

After all, top administration officials are abandoning ship after serving for less than two years.

Obama could have asked her to set up the agency as director with the option to resign after a few years.

[jaxx]

44. This isn't about Warren, is it?

It's just one more attempt to bash the Obama administration. I gotta laugh because this is a lame attempt....top adm officials 'abandoning ship'. Quit using this woman, she is on the job and will surely make people mad before long so they'll be able to bash her too.

[27inCali]

42. the problem with your argument is that every hypothetical

is based off the assumption that Obama is a two-faced piece of shit.

without that assumption, the whole premise is ridiculous.

But of course, in your mind there is no question that Obama is a total corporate tool. no question.

It's not like I trust him utterly, but that autommatic assumption of his obvious low character which is present in every post you make about him really makes one wonder what is it that motivates you to pursue such over-the-top arguments against him, when there are so many simple, fact-based arguments that you could make criticizing the Administration for what they have actually done as opposed to trying to convince others to freak out over WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE HAPPENING BUT HAVE NO FACTS TO PROVE.

[AtomicKitten]

59. K&R this response.

[SidDithers]

61. +1...

well said.

Sid

[treestar]

43. Of course not

So even when the left gets what it wants it is still not good enough.

Nothing is ever good enough. We get it.

[Better Believe It]

51. "when the left gets what it wants it is still not good enough." For example ....

Strong legislation regulating and controlling Wall Street banksters.

Medicare for All or at least a strong public option.

The withdrawl of all U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

And end to rendition.

And end to government surveillance of legal political activities and defense of our Bill of Rights.

A bold public works and infrastructure projects plan along the lines and scale of the WPA and CPA.

An end to the foreclosures.

No tax on health insurance benefits and no mandatory requirement that individuals buy private health insurance policies.

Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act and repeal of the Taft-Hartley and other anti-labor laws.

Ending DADT in the military.

So which of the above items on the short list did the "left get" that were not good enough?

[treestar]

63. An end to foreclosures?

That would mean the end of mortgages.

Even if the government gave out housing with no mortgages, you'd still have something to complain about.

This holy grail Elizabeth Warren will disappoint you, too.

[depakid]

46. It's not like that wasn't foreseeable...

[scheming daemons]

47. you...and the OP... would have a point if the conjecture in the article was backed up by facts.

...

as it is, it's just another lame-ass "bash Obama" thread.


Now they're throwing Warren under the bus too.

[depakid]

49. Well, that was a quick attack and irrelevant response

Elements of Yves Smith's take on the matter have been bantered around before- and the fact is that once again, Obama backed away from a fight he and the administration needed to have, settling instead for placating the bankster wing and avoiding potential conflict with Republicans that might have drawn a strong contrast between the parties.

It was, suffice it to say- another attempt at a half loaf that looks to have ended with little to no loaf- and rather than enthusing the progressive base, the way the administration behaved only raised more questions.

Quite aside from the policy implications- it was demonstrably poor politics.

[Cal33]

48. I am going to withhold my belief until I actually see it happen.

I also think that if I were in Elizabeth's shoes, I'd have quit under the circumstances
you describe. The very fact that she hasn't quit leaves some grounds for hope. I'll
wait and see.

[Better Believe It]

58. I respect and understand your position. So we shall soon see and hope for the best.

[Whisp]

52. FDL - to file 13

what a bunch of crystal ballic tripe.

[howaboutme]

57. It doesn't get any better than this - when Geithner \ Fed \ Goldman have all the power

It doesn't get any better than when our economy and financial system and consumer interests are controlled by entities that work together like birds of a feather. It's good for the economy and especially good for Wall Street.


edited: has to have