Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why a Confirmation Fight Would Have Been Good for Warren, Obama and the U.S.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 08:35 PM
Original message
Why a Confirmation Fight Would Have Been Good for Warren, Obama and the U.S.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/why_a_confirmation_battle_would_have_been_good_for_the_country_20110718/?ln

Fearing a tough confirmation fight, the president declined to nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the consumer protection agency she invented. That’s a shame, writes The Boston Globe’s Steven Syre, who argues that the next choice won’t get confirmed either, and at least a nominated Warren “could have done more than anyone to help defend the agency from persistent attacks on its authority and funding.”

Steven Syre in the Boston Globe:

As the nominee, Warren would have been in a position to continue to defend the agency she invented in the earliest months of its existence. She could speak to consumer issues and people would listen. How many people will pay attention when she is writing and speaking from Cambridge at the start of the fall semester?

<...> Remaining in the Washington spotlight, Warren could have done more than anyone to help defend the agency from persistent attacks on its authority and funding. Critics would still like to eliminate the director’s job entirely, handing bureau authority instead to a commission that would presumably do much less, if anything.

More at the link --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. How could it
have been good if she didn't want to have it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You don't know that she didn't want the job.
Her own words indicate that she did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Her words indicate
that she is fine with stepping away. If she wanted to fight, she would have pushed for the job regardless. Her words indicate that may not have been the best thing for the agency.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Please...
If she wanted to fight, she would have pushed for the job regardless.


Don't you think she did? Really?

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. "Don't you think she did? Really?"
Is the eye rolling suppose to convince me she did, but the President told her no way, no job for you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. No, the eye-rolling was a way of marvelling...
...at the brazenness of the spin being put out on the Warren story.

It really is kind of breath-taking.

I mean, Warren worked her butt off, really blazing new trails on this stuff, and you can honestly maintain that she had no interest in the job?

You should watch her interview with Rachel Maddow. She made it pretty clear that she was making a sacrifice of sorts by stepping away.

And, yeah, if the President says, "no job for you," as you put it... well, that's the way it's gonna be.

That doesn't mean she never made her case, nor that Pres. Obama never gave her the opportunity to make her case.

But for you to post repeatedly that "she didn't want the job" is just dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. read the article
that would be a novelty, wouldn't it? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. Even if Cordray is second-best to some, I think the fight is still worth having. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. Save her to run against Scott Brown.
Someone needs to whip Brown's butt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PoliticAverse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. IS there someone that thinks there won't be a confirmation fight over Cordray ? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC