Is Elizabeth Warren qualified to create an agency from scratch?

[NJmaverick]

You know one thing I learned from studying history and management is that not every brilliant person is suited for every role. Elizabeth Warren is no doubt a brilliant woman who holds the sort of views that we liberals agree with. As such, it's quite natural that we (myself included) would think that she would be an excellent choice to head the new consumer protection agency. Now having heard President Obama's remarks on this issue, it sounds like she is not the front runner for the position. That lead me to wonder why. Now it's possible (since this is all speculation) that she was the victim of various political maneuvering. Yet when I consider the matter further I look at what this task invovles. What you are going to see happen is an agency is going to be created from scratch. That's is a manager's ultimate challenge. There is so much logistics involved in such a task. You have to create an organizational structure, hire the right people, find a place to operate, develop relationships with businesses, consumer groups, Congress and other agencies. You are going to have to develop a refined mission statement, roles and job descriptions of each employee and department.
The person that founds such an agency should have a solid background running and managing government agencies (preferable some of these being regulatory). When I look at Ms Warren's background, I don't see that sort of experience. In fact based on her experience, I could see her being quickly overwhelmed. Perhaps the President is correct in having her work and help guide the creation of the agency, while letting someone else do the heavy managerial lifting required.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[VMI Dem]

3. No, that poster is not a liberal.

[jefferson_dem]

5. Are you?

All I see from you are snarky criticisms of this Democratic President, his policies, and his administration. In the real world, that would be the anti-thesis of "liberal".

[Exilednight]

64. A Democrat does not a liberal make, and thus far ..........

Obama's achievements are off the mark of liberals.

[Zavulon]

85. In the real world, then,.

a liberal is someone who approves of everything Obama does and never complains about anything coming from the administration?

If so, then all I have to do to be a liberal is to applaud the troop surge in Afghanistan, not closing Gitmo, the green light to offshore drilling, the Republican "go enrich insurance companies or we'll fine your ass into oblivion" sellout health "care" "plan?"

Failure to approve of (or at least silently tolerate) those things would be the "anti-thesis if 'liberal'," correct?

Nothing pisses me off more than people expressing their own opinions on a message board rather than marching in lockstep like those cool Republicans do with their politicians. Good thing we have you to enlighten us. :sarcasm:

[jaxx]

11. What is a liberal to you?

I'd be interested to know.

[POAS]

69. Seems your question is considered

rhetorical.

[NJmaverick]

19. I will repeat my point, you should stop pretending to be the keeper of party purity

and start being more realistic

[paulk]

25. don't you mean "pragmatic"?

[NJmaverick]

26. No I think the rift is better described by realists (people who are often older

and more experienced in management, politics and governments) and wishful thinkers (those with good hearts but lacking in the understanding as to what can and can't be done and how to best get things done).

[pmorlan1]

79. I'm 54...is that old enough to disagree with you?

<No I think the rift is better described by realists (people who are often older
Posted by NJmaverick

and more experienced in management, politics and governments) and wishful thinkers (those with good hearts but lacking in the understanding as to what can and can't be done and how to best get things done).>




I thought your comment was very condescending. It actually reminds me of how women were treated when I was growing up. There, there dear...why don't you leave management and politics to the grown ups and not worry your pretty little head over it. Maybe you were one of those "realists" who were making those type of comments, eh?

[Ignis]

96. Oh, but you're *never* old/experienced/smart enough to win against an...

appeal to authority. That's precisely why it's such a ridiculous fallacy: the user can slide the scale to suit his needs moment-by-moment.

But then, looking at the way the difference of ideas has been framed above--"realists" O8) vs. "wishful thinkers" :dunce:--you can't expect a lot, can you? :D

Hang in there. :hi:

[laughingliberal]

104. +1 nt

[dflprincess]

98. In other words, the rift is between those who

"dream things that never were and say 'why not?'" and those of you who "see things as they are" and say "Nothing we can do - and if you disagree you must want Palin to be president."

RFK wouldn't get very far these days, would he?

[SkyDaddy7]

110. EXCELLENT POINT!!

I am beginning to wonder if "SOME" of my fellow Liberals want a Party that looks like the GOP...That refuses to work with anyone that does not agree 100% with their world view. A Party that would force it's members to sign a "Purity Letter" or get stripped of any funding that they would otherwise get. A Party that would allow Americans to continue suffering until they get a bill through congress that is 100% in line with their narrow world view.

That is very scary politics for a democracy! IMHO!

Yes, I want almost everything my fellow Liberals want but I know it does not happen over night and some things have to be done in stages. Especially in a country that has been told over and over for the past 30yrs across all forms of media that Liberals are doing the work of SATAN! This mind set is not changed in 18 months!

[treestar]

57. Have you ever met a real conservative?

You know, of the type who calls Obama a socialist? You're just doing the same thing people on the far right do.

[SunsetDreams]

6. OMG LOL Is this the new thing around here?

I've seen it multiple times over the last several days.
I don't agree with something said poster says, so I say "OMG Elevens!!! You are not a Liberal"
Some of you think that you hold the definition for what a liberal is.
I got news for you, not all liberals are the same, and think exactly alike!
Imagine that, uniqueness among liberals.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[SunsetDreams]

13. you might have a point, if I didnt address it.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[boppers]

84. True scotsman.

It's a popular, if broken, logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[jaxx]

10. Yep, he's a liberal.

Liberals are hard to come by, they're being called centrists today by the unknowing. Liberals are what made this country good for the people. Liberals have been around for a long time, and they know what works and what is just plain bravado and splash. You might reconsider your ideals.

[paulk]

14. LOL

yep, and "centrists" are now being called fascist right wing fundies by the "unknowing"....

[jaxx]

16. Seems to me that the unknowing have a real problem with themselves.

Maybe they need to bone up on liberals. The meaning has been twisted into my way or the highway. That's not liberalism.

[SunsetDreams]

17. + 100000000

[paulk]

24. twisted by who?

Your posts here just seem like more of the same attacks on liberalism that have been practiced for years by the RW, and now by the "New Democrats/DLC/Obama administration" all who have, btw, gone out of their way to define themselves as not liberal.

"my way or the highway"

you are trying to tie liberalism and liberals to the far left - like I said, just like the RW.

[jaxx]

29. Don't you dare compare me to the right wing.

That dog don't hunt. Maybe you ought to look up liberalism and find out what it means because you're 100% wrong.

[paulk]

35. "liberal" has a meaning

especially in context, and especially in the context of the Obama administration and it's choice for head of the consumer Protection Bureau.

your attempts to join liberalism to the far left are the same exact attempts that the RW has been making for the last 30 years. Pretty damn successfully, too. If the shoe fits, wear it, "Jaxx"...

[jaxx]

41. Look at that, another one item agenda.

You have proved my point. You have no idea what liberalism is...what a pity.

[paulk]

44. and now you trot out another talking point

the one item agenda!

you are consistent, I'll give you that...

[jaxx]

48. Not a talking point at all.

It refers to the comment "the Obama administration and it's choice for head of the consumer Protection Bureau" which has nothing to do with the conversation.

I am consistent, I am a liberal. We stand on our principles.

[treestar]

59. It means one who is fine with capitalism but believes in government

regulation and some government programs to relieve capitalism's excesses.

It does not mean socialist. It does not mean Obama-basher. It means what it means.

[SunsetDreams]

37. I think your hyperbole has just stepped out of bounds

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[SunsetDreams]

46. The BOG???

lmaoooo I could say something here in the reverse, but I won't.

I think I maybe posted in the Barack Obama Group one time, and that was ages ago. Nice try though, really.:eyes:

Back to why I think your hyperbole is out of bounds:

I really shouldn't have to explain it, especially on a Democratic Site. But alas, since you don't get it, I will.

You are dangerously close to accusing a Democrat, of using RW tactics, therefore they must be RW. Is that what you mean when you put quotation marks around centrist?

Then a post below, you tell a DU member, if the shoe fits, wear it.

[paulk]

52. go ahead and say it!

I'm a member of another website!

Several, in fact!

Is there a rule against that?

Noting that someone is using a right wing "tactic" is not the same as saying they are right wing. I thought you learned that in debate 101?

[SunsetDreams]

55. You are? OMG that is not what I was going to say

I still stand by what I said, and I can still see you don't get it.

:rofl:

[dionysus]

68. it's a guilty conscience thing.

[paulk]

73. and here comes the usual crew!

do you ever have anything to contribute but snark, dionysus?

[QC]

90. No. n/t

[SunsetDreams]

62. Since you stated that, I can't help but have a question

I don't know what website you are referring to, but here is my question:

The Barack Obama Group is Pro Obama. Right?
Since I stated "I could say something in reverse", does that mean the website you belong to is Anti Obama?

That's a serious question.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[SunsetDreams]

75. ok got you,

I'm sure you understand why I asked that. Because the reverse of pro is anti.

Thank you for clarifying :)

[paulk]

87. you're welcome

I wonder what rule my posts violated...

I really do - and I know I'm not alone.

The climate of fear and paranoia on this site just keeps growing and growing.

[dionysus]

67. tell that pack of losers I said "hi", esp Freddie!

:hi:

[NJmaverick]

28. I have seen people twist the compassion of liberalism and turn it into a desire

to destroy

[jaxx]

30. That's true.

But we liberals are tough and we know.

[NJmaverick]

31. We liberals are compassionate and draw the line at people

who are more focused on destroying companies (and ruining the lives of people working for them or invested in them) rather than helping people

[paulk]

38. see post #24

[NJmaverick]

20. I think you need to take a more realistic position

what I see as realistic possibilities you see as centrist positions.

[paulk]

27. you mean the reality that Wall Street doesn't want Elizibeth

Warren to head the Consumer Protection Bureau and that Obama does what Wall Street says?

[SunsetDreams]

32. 1st part is reality, 2nd part hyperbole

"and that Obama does what Wall Street says"

[paulk]

36. Geithner, Summers, Bernanke

will we add Michael Barr to that list?

[SunsetDreams]

42. ...

:think:
:evilgrin:

You still don't get it.

[paulk]

45. no, really - make an argument

back up your points.

[SunsetDreams]

47. You leave no room, it's hard to make a argument with conjecture.

[treestar]

60. It's all about people, not about qualifications

You only want Warren because "Wall Street" does not want her - maybe you are making Geithner the spokesman for "Wall Street."

[paulk]

76. so you know what I'm thinking?

LOL!

You don't think Warren is qualified? The bureau was her idea...

and I'm hardly the only person who thinks Geithner is a spokesman for "Wall Street".

[NJmaverick]

33. Please read my original OP, I have already explained the entire situation

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

50. I think for myself. I consider the facts, weigh it against my life experience and training

and come to conclusions.

[66 dmhlt]

54. Factor these in when reaching you conclusion:

"As Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel monitoring the Treasury's conduct of the bank bailout, Warren has demonstrated a keen ability to cut through the political bramble to uncover whether the TARP program is operating in the best interests of the American taxpayer. In making the case for the establishment of the CFPB--a notion originated by Professor Warren herself--she has become known as a passionate advocate for regular Americans.

"Moreover, Professor Warren is not opposed to business; she is opposed to the unsustainable business models that have endangered our nation. The Great Recession should be ample evidence that reckless, anti-consumer lending is bad for business. American businesses will benefit from a Warren appointment, knowing that there will be a regulatory force in Washington putting the engine of our economy--the American consumer--first."
(Emphasis added)

Source:
http://www.demos.org/updates/PWFinReg_July20_10.html

Nobody does a better job than Elizabeth Warren, the primary advocate and champion of the CFPA, of explaining it (and here she is on The Daily Show explaining the need for financial reform as a whole and what it’s up against).

Source:
http://www.faireconomy.org/issues/responsible_wealth/whither_the_cfpa

[w4rma]

72. neo-liberal? (nt)

[NJmaverick]

18. Well you can pretend to be the keeper of party purity, but that doesn't make it so

You need to be far more realistic

[treestar]

56. Hilarious, everything is a defining moment and a last straw

So much drama over every single thing; every appointment, every bill, every low level decision. The M$M is directing you.

[dionysus]

71. no, i don't think it's the MSM, or even the greenwald types. once you have predetermined

that you're going to hate whatever decision is made, it's easy to go from there...

[spoony]

82. It isn't evident in his posts, so he has to announce it frequently

To be fair, he may actually think he's a liberal.

[Enrique]

2. it depends

if Obama chooses her, she's brilliant and perfect for the role. If Obama passes her over, it must be because she sucks. :sarcasm:

[hulka38]

8. Right, whatever he decides to do by definition is the right thing.

It's so simple and you get fewer headaches. I don't know why more liberals don't get it.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

21. Now those comments completely contradict the point I made

You need to consider the reality of the situation, and not just focus on how you wish things to be.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Wasn't that the argument used against Obama for president?

You might have a point ...

[Windy]

9. I don't know, based upon his record of accomplishments despite the congress

He's doing ok by me

[NJmaverick]

22. Yes, but in the President's case he has far more experience

and we have already seen after 18 months of record setting achievement, that argument was mistaken.

[treestar]

63. President is a different thing

A political office is not just a "job."

[laughingliberal]

105. It was, I think. Something about a phone ringing at 3AM. I found it disgusting.

I find all swiftboating of qualified candidates for positions disgusting.

[SunsetDreams]

7. NJMaverick, I think

this is a very reasoned, and thoughtful post. It really made me think about this in a different light.
You make a great point here, I love Elizabeth Warren, and I would love to see her in the job. They need someone, who has all the qualifications for that position. I'm happy to know that she will be helping in some capacity, if she doesn't get the nod.

[NJmaverick]

23. Thank you

:hi:

[SunsetDreams]

34. You are welcome :)

:hi:

[DrToast]

39. Maybe, maybe not. But here's the thing

She invented the damn thing. She should have the chance to implement it because she understands the issues better than anyone.

[NJmaverick]

51. The inventor of the idea is not always the best choice to implement it

that's why there are engineers. The scientists that discover and invent hand off their ideas to engineers that turn those ideas into reality.

[DrToast]

53. Did you miss the part where I said, "Maybe, maybe not"?

*

[IndianaGreen]

49. The DLC wants an industry insider in charge

People like Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Salazar, Vilsack, et al, are the sort of industry servants the DLC wants in key government positions.

The Plutocratic System

Boiled down, U.S. politics under today’s mature capitalism are not about the welfare of the demos (i.e., the people) as envisioned in classical notions of democracy, but rather about which party can best deliver profitability to investors and corporations. There are continuing debates between those who simply want to slash labor costs, taxes, and regulations for the rich, and those who want to do some of that but also use some regulation and government spending to encourage higher wages and demand-driven growth. Both sides, however, accept that making the economy profitable for the owning class is the sine qua non of successful administration. Within these constraints, there are occasional important political fights and periodic bones to throw to the electorate. But, in times of economic stagnation, the bones get smaller and even disappear. What passes for genuine political debate often tends to be irrelevant gibberish and blatant manipulation on side issues, or inconsequential nitpicking on minutiae. The big stuff is off the table. The system is democratic in theory, plutocratic (rule by the rich) in content.

The hollowness of democracy in today’s capitalism is evident in the blatant corruption of governance at all levels in the United States, and the non-accountability of all the major players. The corruption we are discussing is not about politicians getting inordinately great seats at the World Series, but the degeneration of the system and the dominance of a culture of greed that is now pervasive and institutionalized, contaminating all aspects of life. The manner in which, during the current Great Recession, the dominant institutions and investors were able to coalesce and demand hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars in public money as a blank check to the largest banks—and then shamelessly disperse multimillion-dollar bonuses to individuals at the apex of those very same corporations now on the public dole—was a striking reminder of the limits of self-government in our political economy. When the Masters of the Universe, as those atop the economic system have been called, need money, when they need bail-outs, when they need the full power of the state, there is no time for debate or inquiry or deliberation. There is no time for the setting of conditions. There is only time to give them exactly what they want. Or else! Egged on by the news media, all responsible people fall in line or face ostracism. As for education and the social services that mark the good society, well, they have to wait in line and hope something is left after the capitalist master is fed. In stagnant times, it is a long wait.

Capitalism, the Absurd System
A View from the United States

Robert W. McChesney and John Bellamy Foster

http://monthlyreview.org/100601mcchesney-foster.php

[treestar]

61. Wouldn't the whole thing collapse if they just picked a man off the street to handle it?

"Industry insiders" are people who worked on things and got experience so they will know what they are doing.

Maybe we can have a People's Republic and see how that goes.

[IndianaGreen]

65. Like all those oil experts we had at Mineral Management Service, and Salazar at Interior Dept.

How BP, MMS Ignored Spill Warning Signs

— By Kate Sheppard
| Tue Jun. 1, 2010 11:30 AM PDT

New documents released over the weekend to the New York Times show that both BP and federal regulators at the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service had plenty of warning that the drilling operation at the Macondo well site was plauged with problems—dating as far back as June 2009. But despite known issues with the well and the blowout preventers, the operation continued until the April 20 blast.

One document reveals that on June 22, 2009, BP engineers noted concerns that the metal casing the company wanted to use on the well could collapse under high pressure. BP used the casing anyway, after overriding its own design and safety standards. Other documents released this week reveal that the company knew that there was "unlikely to be a successful cement job" on the site and that the casing would be "unable to fulfill M.M.S. regulations."

BP also knew that there were problems with the blowout preventer, or BOP, which was supposed to shut off the well in the event of an emergency. The BOP clearly failed to function following the explosion of the well, which has now spewed oil into the Gulf for 43 days. As the documents note, the BOP was found to be leaking fluids on at least three occasions prior to the blast, which would impair its ability to function. But because of the other known problems with the well casing—drilling mud falling into the well, sudden gas releases, and loss of "well control"—the company asked federal regulators at the Minerals Management Service to delay a mandatory test of the BOP.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/06/bp-mms-ignored-warning-signs

[treestar]

99. There are always screw ups in the world, at every level

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be worse with inexperienced people handling things.

[laughingliberal]

106. Warren is hardly a 'man off the street.' She knows the terrain.

The objection to her is her advocacy for consumers over corporations.

[bvar22]

66. Getting "Out-In-Front" with the damage control...

for when President Obama appoints another Corporate Fox to regulate the People's Hen House?
Sounds sensible to me.
After all, that has been the pattern so far.

Emanuel
Summers
Vilsack
Holder
Salazar
....Warren just wouldn't fit in on the Obama Team.
The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

[NJmaverick]

78. Your post sounds like wishful thinking rather than a realistic assessment

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[ibegurpard]

95. It would appear so

[laughingliberal]

107. Yep. nt

[w4rma]

70. She just created one from scratch. Fully designed it, too. Involved in the entire process. (nt)

[Spazito]

77. Interesting question....

It really depends on whether one sees the qualifications being related to having come up through the bureaucracy or the qualifications being understanding the larger framework, in this instance that of the new Consumer Financial Branch, and what is needed for it to work in the manner intended.

After reading President Obama's comments regarding Ms. Warren, those being:

"I actually brought in Elizabeth Warren to help design proposals for consumer protection. She is, I think, a wonderful voice making a very simple point, which is, if you've got a set of rules and standards in place to make sure your toaster doesn't blow up in your face, you should have some rules and regulations to make sure your credit card or mortgage doesn't blow up in your face."

It is clear Ms. Warren has been actively engaged in mapping out the framework from what I read in the President's remarks.

After reading Ms. Warren's biography on the Congressional Oversite Panel's website which has the following:

"Professor Elizabeth Warren is the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard University. She has written eight books and more than a hundred scholarly articles dealing with credit and economic stress. Her latest two books, The Two-Income Trap and All Your Worth, were both on national best seller lists. She has been principal investigator on empirical studies funded by the National Science Foundation and more than a dozen private foundations. Warren was the Chief Adviser to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, and she was appointed as the first academic member of the Federal Judicial Education Committee. She currently serves as a member of the Commission on Economic Inclusion established by the FDIC. She also serves on the steering committees of the Tobin Project and the National Bankruptcy Conference. The National Law Journal has repeatedly named Professor Warren as one of the Fifty Most Influential Women Attorneys in America, and SmartMoney Magazine recently designated her one of the SmartMoney 30 for 2008. She was also one of eight law professors to be named on the Leading Lawyers in America list compiled by Law Dragon."

I believe she is eminently qualified to head the new agency. In my mind, it is of utmost importance for the head of such an agency to completely understand the need for such an agency, intimate knowledge of the framework that has been set up in the legislation and what is needed to be done within the framework. Ms. Warren's past and present experiences and knowledge certainly addresses what I see as critical to the appointment.

The head of a new agency would, I assume, appoint a top bureaucrat to oversee the 'nuts and bolts' aspect of the agency which would allow the head of the agency to continue to focus on the big picture. Having a visionary heading such an agency would be a positive, imo, rather than a negative. Ms. Warren, imo, has both the vision and intimate knowledge and experience to be an excellent head of the New Consumer Finance Branch.

Edited to correct typo.

[Cha]

80. Of course..there's so many elements to

matching up the right person to any job.

[Imperfect]

81. Well, Krugman and Barney Frank want her to be appointed

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/for-elizabeth-warren/
http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Business/20100724/13347846/Barney-Frank-Elizabeth-Warren-Should-Head-CFPB-By.htm

Pretty darn good endorsements if you ask me. I also believe Geithner said she was excellent or something.

[dionysus]

83. i don't see why not. but what do i know...

[johnaries]

86. I agree. I think she has the right vision and she should help set

the direction and goals, but we do need people with the experience to do the "heavy lifting", as you say.

[Skidmore]

88. There are a whole lot of Wall Street types that WERE trained for management

and who ran the nation into the ground. I'd rather have someone with a sense of integrity and who is honest. BTW, she also is very knowledgeble in financial systems. To understand systems, you need to know something about management.

What are you worried about? Does it affect your job if she were to be appointed?

[boston bean]

89. Rick Warren AOK, Elizabeth Warren to brilliant. Whatever......

:spray:

Where do you pull this shit out from?

[Lorien]

91. Now you have officially moved to the Right of many Right Wingers that I know

here in the South. Why does this not surprise me?

Warren is more qualified to head the agency than anyone else, period. She has the support of just about every true Dem in Washington. There simply is no better choice.

[BzaDem]

93. While I understand your argument, there is nothing preventing her from hiring an operating officer

with lots of experience in building up agencies.

This job more than most will require someone who is zeolous about protecting the consumer. She is very experienced at the policymaking level. Her academic work is superb, and her role in investigating TARP has shown she is a strong advocate for the consumer and a strong skeptic of big banks.

Having someone who is dedicated to the mission of the agency with great expertise in the policy areas the agency covers is not only important in its own right. Having someone like Warran will attract lots of talent to work for her, and a talent-rich environment will attract even more talant. She is very well respected in this area. On the other hand, having a less well known and less zeolous advocate might hurt their ability to attract good employees to work for the agency.

As for the nuts and bolts of building up the agency, she can delegate much of that to a more experienced operating officer. This gives us the best of both worlds: someone experienced at actually running day-to-day operations and building up an agency, with Warren to set the overarching vision, strategy, and policy direction of the agency. The operating officer would of course report to Warren.

[pmorlan1]

94. BINGO

Thanks for the well reasoned post.

[dionysus]

97. brilliantly put

[laughingliberal]

108. +10,000 nt

[sabrina 1]

100. Yes, Elizabeth Warren is qualified.

If Geithner, tax cheat and Wall St. insider is qualified for HIS job, then the standards have been set. And Elizabeth Warren is far, far above those standards. As far as I know, Elizabeth Warren is probably the very best person for this job.

[Jakes Progress]

101. More qualified than anyone in the administration now

to set up and run this agency. This administration needs her so much now, it should be sending flowers and recruiting daily. They certainly need her more than she needs them.

[CreekDog]

102. if I apply your standard, then how can I listen to an EMT

to give me an opinion on this which I can rely on?

your standard, not mine, sorry. :shrug:

[grantcart]

103. A rare disagreement with my good friend.

in 2005 Norway, the world's 5th largest exporter of petroleum searched for a new leader to guide the government and the people in what to do with the country's tremendous oil reserves and its pension fund, the largest in Europe despite Norway only having 5 million population.

Each family now has a share of more than $ 60,000 worth in the pension fund.

So who did they look for?

An administrator, economist, petrochemical executive, accountant?

No they hired Henrik Syse, a professional philosopher.

The reason? He was a professional questioner, they employed him to raise questions.

Warren has shown the same qualities in the media and before the Senate.

She can hire the paper pushers and the administrators to keep order and the paper flow going.

Warren would be a brilliant choice, she has a real world grasp of what is happening to real people in the real world and that would be an outstanding foundation for the agency which she has almost single created.

[vaberella]

109. Well it was her idea, considering what Obama said.

So it was her brain child. She could be or might not be qualified for it either way. I think people assume when you think of something you might be uniquely qualified for the position when in reality you might hire someone else to run it since your ability might not be up to par. In this case those she seems up to par and even by Obama's words is up for it---but I think he wants to keep his options open if they want to use Elizabeth for something else later.