Elizabeth Warren: A Few Questions

[vaberella]

This has been bugging me for a while. Does anyone even know if Elizabeth Warren wants the job as the head of the Consumer Financial Regulatory Bureau within the Federal Reserve?

I ask this because she expressly stated that she would only work as the Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for a limited time. She did not want to be there for a long run.

Do we have it on a good authority she even wants it? I have another question. What will people say if it comes out that she does reject this, but this news doesn't filter to the public until much later. Will we sit through another round of disparaging remarks of "change we can believe in" , "this is not change I can believe in", "Obama is a corporatist" <---as the knee jerk responses (and I'm not speaking in anyway specifically about DU---DK is notorious for that sort of attitude and a number of other sites and let me not mention bloggers).

I see a lot of excitement and push for her as the head of this department. But I'm very skeptical that she even wants it. I'm not sure he does. Most people were down his throat when they found out she would be the Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau temporarily.

It wasn't until Warren said in her own words that she wanted this temporarily did people back off. And for all the excitement of Warren as the Secretary currently---I have seen comments of people saying she's being shut up or stifled. I'm like. She's in a new role, that take up more time. If she's being stifled and shut up in the role she's currently in (as some have told me), then how successful will she be in the new role people want for her?

I'm just surprised that Obama's standing for "change we can believe in" is so heavily dependent on Warren. (Expressed in an article.) These goalposts are a bit ridiculous. I'm like if her nomination is so important, how much backlash should be expected if she is not picked. And then when it's further found out she may never have wanted it.

Additionally---will most blame him if this House says no. It was the last House that caused many left leaning lawyers and judges to be knocked out even after a strenuous fight by the Administration for over a year---until the candidate themselves either left because of frustration with the system or because they missed out the chance and have to go through the process again.

But people claim Obama doesn't fight for his candidates. I don't think he is willing to ever put in a candidate he would not go to bat for. I'm just saying if there are people who majority wise say no--would there be more backlash that Obama didn't fight. Or would this also be seen as "change I can't believe in." Once again I just think these goalposts are running away from us here.

[JackRiddler]

1. The kabuki signals allow differing interpretations. To me they look like...

That she wants it, or rather thinks it's the right thing for her to do, but believes she has the best chance if she plays along with the pretense that she doesn't want it, while the administration remains indecisive and doesn't want any fights with The Crazies. Even though this would be the perfect fight to let The Crazies start. Almost beyond doubt she won't be appointed so she's just trying to stick around and influence things long as she can before the boot. However, this precludes her complaining when she has to go, because she's on record pretending she doesn't want it. Given the Obama record on tough appointments (see: Dawn Johnsen) she should allowed herself more room for complaints afterward. Anyway, as far as effectiveness the agency is probably DOA, especially if she's replaced with some Banskter's Milquetoast. As is likely.

[vaberella]

3. I don't see a rush to a decision is mandatory is it?

Obama is well known for looking at the pros and cons of everything before making a final decision. And I doubt "fights with the The Crazies" are really playing into this too much. No one is talking at all about anyone else even being vetted. All I hear is Warren's name, which seems weird to me.

[midnight]

2. I'm not sure what Elizabeth is saying. She seems to be quieter these

days now that she is working on opening up a consumers division within the Federal Reserve. Anyone know the status of this new dept. ?

[flpoljunkie]

4. The R's are trying to kill and/or neuter the CFPB. No nominee will be confirmed in the Senate.

It only takes one Republican to block a nomination. I expect, in any case, President Obama will have to recess appoint Elizabeth Warren--if she wants the job, or someone else, if she doesn't.

[JackRiddler]

5. This is an excellent reason to make a public confrontation of it, preferaby by recess appointment.

But of course that's not the Obama way.

See: Dawn Johnsen.

Of course, Johnsen's positions might be said to be unpopular with much of the voting public.

Warren poses no such risk. If enough people are exposed to her in the course of a controversy, it is likely her views will prevail as wildly popular. Maybe that's the problem.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. It won't matter what happens with this nomination. If she's nominated...

you already know she won't be confirmed. There are already posts suggesting that the president engage in a bloody public battle over this. And for what? The president already knows where the votes are in both houses. There are even some Democrats who would oppose Warren as she is seen as too liberal.

Every group represented under the left's big tent seems to want this president to make red-faced, tantrum like speeches whenever he has to compromise with people who don't agree with him. Don't worry about it, it's just more noise. And, FWIW, I doubt Elizabeth Warren is the only competent person in the country to head up this new division.

[Jakes Progress]

7. Here comes the wind up .... and the pitch....

Strike three. We're all out.