President Obama Prepares to Sort of Appoint Elizabeth Warren to Something:

[Better Believe It]

Obama Prepares to Sort of Appoint Elizabeth Warren to Something
By John Nichols
September 16, 2010


.... in case anyone thought Obama was starting to "get" that America wants a president who will stand up to the economic royalists and do the right thing, White House insiders indicated Wednesday night that he has decided against appointing Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Instead, Obama is expected to appoint the hero of reformers to an advisory post where she will report to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Congress placed the bureau's powers within the Treasury Department until such time as a permanent director is appointed and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term. But Geithner has never been seen as an advocate for the agency. And, despite the complimentary public statements regarding Warren by the Treasury Secretary, it has been broadly suggested that he has been a behind-the-scenes opponent of her appointment.

Warren should not be reporting to Geithner, whose subservience to Wall Street has done severe damage to the administration's ability not just to the correct the course of the economy but to crystallize financial issues that continue to play an essential role in our politics.

The president could have appointed Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and dared the Senate to reject a woman who has become the face of the fight to hold big banks, credit card companies and speculators to account. If Republicans threatened to block her appointment, they would have clarified the question of which party is working for Wall Street and which party is on the side of Main Street.

Or, if he really feared a filibuster would have prevented Warren from getting to the vital work of creating a muscular consumer protection agency, Obama could have made a recess appointment and put her in the position immediately. His critics would surely have screamed about Obama moving too aggressively to, um, protect consumers from being ripped off by Wall Street profiteers -- a complaint that the president and his party would have been wise to invite.

Instead, by making Warren an "assistant," Obama runs away from the fight—and gives up another chance to clarify the economic battle lines not just of the fall campaign but of his presidency.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/154807/obama-prepares-sort-appoint-elizabeth-warren-something

[dmallind]

1. That corporatist bankster Bernie Sanders thinks it's a great move. Typical. NT

[Better Believe It]

9. He's not a "corporatist bankster". He's just mistaken on this.

Sen. Bernie Sanders praised the appointment of a "tough and brilliant advocate," CNN reported. "The American people are tired of being ripped off by large banks and financial institutions," Sanders said in The Washington Post.

Warren and Wall Street "All you have to know about Elizabeth is that all of Wall Street doesn't want her to get that position. Based on that fact alone she is eminently qualified," Sanders told Los Angeles radio host Patt Morrison on KPCC-FM.

Well, she hasn't been appointed to that position yet and I believe will probably not be since President Obama doesn't want a fight with Republicans on this matter.

[MineralMan]

19. Bob and Weave. Bob and Weave.

It works for a while, but eventually, a punch gets through, you know.

[Beetwasher]

22. Yes, Becuase YOU Know More Than HIM On The Subject!!!

And Directors of federal agencies are notorious for being figureheads with no responsibilities. :rofl:

You've moved the goalposts so far, you're cornered. Either Obama did good by appointing her to the position you've all been screaming for him to do, or she's some chump for taking a tothless role. Take your pick! :rofl:

[Moosepoop]

28. Why haven't you included this line from the article in your OP?

Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of Warren's strongest Senate supporters, applauded Obama's decision, which he said effectively makes her the agency's temporary head.

Doesn't quite fit your narrative?

[MineralMan]

30. Ah....er....umm...well, the OP could only post a four-paragraph

excerpt, you know. Copyright and all that. You weren't supposed to click the link. :rofl:

[sabrina 1]

82. Maybe you didn't click the link yourself? Looks like that quote is not in the

link. Kneejerk reactions without reading are never a good thing as you so enthusiastically pointed out yourself! Just saying ~

However, THIS quote is actually from the link:

White House aides say that Warren will also report to Obama—as a presidential assistant—and that she will play a significant role in helping to create the consumer agency that is supposed to make real the promises made in the vague financial regulatory overhaul legislation passed earlier this year. Perhaps that will be the case. And it is can certainly be hoped that Warren is on track for the actual appointment that Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and others are urging him to make.

"While this is good news for American families, it is my hope that President Obama will nominate Warren to a permanent position to head up the CFPB. She is more than deserving of the job and the Senate should have the opportunity to confirm one of the nation's strongest consumer advocates," says Merkley.

So the question remains, why is he not appointing her? Is this being done just to appease the 'left' right before the election? That is the question that needs to be answered BEFORE the election.

[chimpymustgo]

33. "...effectively makes her the agency's temporary head." That's pretty effing convoluted you know.

Why not just APPOINT her - and take this "fight on a silver platter" to the Repubs???

Why not a RECESS appointment. Even INTERIM.

But ADVISOR? Under Bankster Geithner???

"effectively makes her the agency's temporary head."

Sounds like a steaming pile to me.

[MineralMan]

35. Well, something sounds like a steaming pile...that's for sure.

I nominate the Nation Blogger quoted in the OP. Can I get a show of hands?

[Moosepoop]

39. Here's one! :)

:thumbsup:

[sabrina 1]

100. I name those who never clicked the link

then chastized others for not doing so! Not naming any names or anything :rofl:

[EFerrari]

45. It does. But, I'd like to see what she says about it.

If it is a steaming pile, she might not take it. :shrug:

[arcane1]

40. Where is that line?

I've read the Nation piece twice and don't see it :(

[Moosepoop]

59. Whoops, you're right!

It's not from the article in the OP, it's from one of the many other "Elizabeth Warren" articles linked to in one of the many other "Elizabeth Warren" threads going on.

It's from here: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-elizabeth-warren-20100916,0,1170513.story

Mea culpa... I had more than one article open on my PC and quoted from the wrong one.

My apology to BetterBelieveIt, the line I quoted wasn't in his OP. But I'm more than happy to include it in this thread. :)

[karynnj]

60. Bernie Sanders knows and understands Washington (and likely everything else) far better than Nichols

Nichols is progressive and liberal and a decent writer, but he is not good on accuracy or fact checking. He consistently will write what he thinks someone is doing, without looking to see what was done or the person's record. As such, though I will often agree with him, I really would NEVER use something he wrote as proof of anything - he has been wrong far too often.

[JNelson6563]

24. lolz

:toast:

[bobbolink]

56. LOL!!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::crazy::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Skink]

2. Timmy's out buying a paper shreader right about now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Tim Geithner? The guy who recommended Warren for the job?

Looks like you're getting your anti-Obama rhetoric all jumbled up.

[sabrina 1]

101. Geithner hates Warren. He was nearly in tears after she questioned

him and simply would not let him off the hook. Geithner wants her gone. But, there is an election coming up and they have to throw a few crumbs to the left, and Geithner can put his hatred aside until after the election. He's being pragmatic! :eyes:

[Uzybone]

3. wahhhh

I know anything positive for this admin = bad news to you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. This is amusing.

The only reason the dead enders rallied behind Warren is because they thought Obama wouldn't appoint her, not because they actually cared about her.

Now that they've been proven wrong (for the umpteenth time), they're throwing her under the bus.

Psychologists call this the "bargaining" stage of grieving.

[MineralMan]

5. Unrecced for uncommented anti-Obama post.

[chimpymustgo]

36. It's an anti "do something for the people" post, too.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

7. try harder. you're phoning it in, you can do better!

[Aramchek]

10. She'll have much more influence in her new position than you ever will.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. That's undefined.

You can't divide by zero.

[MineralMan]

15. Fatal Divide by Zero Error. Program Will Now Terminate!

[Ignis]

61. OOH, sick burn, dude!

:eyes:

It's lovely to see DUers celebrating just how little influence the average American has over our own country's economy. Empathy, democratic principles, and progressive values--who needs that crap, anyway?

[Aramchek]

77. so, you don't think she'll do a good job? or what?

[Ignis]

89. What does my opinion matter? I'm not influential enough to count.

I think Warren should head the CFPB, for what it's worth.

I'm not a huge fan of recess appointments, because they perpetuate the RW myth of authoritarian Big Government that's run by "Washington insiders" and thus distanced from the voice and concerns of the "little people / main street." But if that's the only way Warren will be appointed--which I doubt--then so be it, because the good she'll do in that position outweighs the negative polling hit we might suffer from Independents.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

104. Revenge, victimization, self-righteousness. The critics around here aren't exactly sparkling

examples of progressive ideals.

[Ignis]

105. That shouldn't give anyone a free pass on breaking the rules.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

-- http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

But apparently the rules have been changed, and the rules page simply hasn't been updated yet. :shrug:

[DevonRex]

11. Seems to me that Obama is doing an end-run around Chris Dodd

who won't be a Senator pretty soon. Dodd has opposed Warren's nomination quite vocally from the start. By doing this interim appt, allowing Warren to set up the agency, Dodd's blatherings have been made irrelevant.

It's one thing to take on the right. It's quite another to have a Democratic Senator leading the fight against Warren. Now Dodd is out of the equation altogether.

[pinboy3niner]

13. +1

Dodd was a big obstacle, and your end-run scenario makes perfect sense.

[DevonRex]

17. Thank you. I had expected most folks on DU to realize this since

it's just common sense. That ass who writes for the Nation? He either lacks common sense (or any sense at all) or he's just trying to create controversy. After all, controversy and fear attract more readers. Kind of like flypaper.

[Better Believe It]

14. "Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ....

a director is confirmed".



Warren to head launch of financial protection bureau
Elizabeth Warren, who leads the panel overseeing the federal bank bailout, will take an advisor's role to the Treasury secretary that does not require Senate confirmation, sources say.
By Jim Puzzanghera and Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times
September 16, 2010

Reporting from Washington — President Obama, sidestepping a possibly heated confirmation battle, will appoint Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren as a special advisor to the Treasury Department to launch the government's powerful new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to two Democratic officials familiar with the decision.

Obama has been concerned that Warren would not be confirmed.

Under the financial reform law, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner would head the agency until a director is confirmed. By appointing Warren as a special advisor to Geithner, a position that does not require Senate confirmation, she could be designated to get the agency running.

By Sunday, Geithner must announce the date that consumer protection powers from other regulatory agencies will be transferred to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The law gives the Treasury secretary six months to two years from the bill's enactment in July to get the agency operational.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-elizabeth-warren-20100916,0,1170513.story

[MineralMan]

16. Y'all keep on trying, there. Eventually, you'll get one of these right.

When You Fail, Try Again. Advice from my father.

[Better Believe It]

18. Timothy F. Geithner will be the agency director until the Senate confirms.

If you dispute that, please present some credible information and link(s) please.

Thank you.

[MineralMan]

23. There is no agency yet. That's what Warren is going to be doing...

setting up the organization of that agency. Once that's done, she'll be appointed. Right now, confirmation is probably impossible, so she's coming in the kitchen door and will be cooking up some great stuff.

You're just bobbing and weaving here. You've gotta keep away from that left hook, you know.

[Better Believe It]

31. Why do you think her Senate confirmation is more likely after the Republicans win more Senate seats

in the November elections? Unless, of course, you believe Democrats will gain more Senate seats after the election.

I'm still waiting for anyone to provide credible links indicating that Geithner will not head the agency until a director is confirmed by the Senate.

Anyone?

[MineralMan]

34. Is that the outcome you're hoping for? More GOP Senate seats?

Sure seems like it sometime. That'd fix Obama good, wouldn't it. That also seems to be the outcome you're hoping for, based on what I've read here.

Still waiting for credible links from you, BBI...

[Beetwasher]

25. No, She's The Director, And The Agency Reports To Geithner

Big difference. She's Interim Director, get over it.

The move allows her to act as an interim head of the CFPBand will enable her to begin setting up the agency immediately and prevent the GOP from filibustering her nomination. Warren could serve until President Barack Obama nominates a permanent director to serve the five-year term -- a nomination he's not required to make for some time. Obama also could nominate her as the permanent director in the near future, a prospect that has been discussed among top aides, according to a person familiar with White House deliberations. Warren formally will be named as a special adviser reporting directly to Obama, and serving in a similar capacity to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, later this week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/white-house-taps-warren_n_715291.html

[MineralMan]

29. But...but...a blogger at the Nation says something else.

Who to believe? Who to believe? Wait...one's generally opposed to the Obama Administration. Let's post that one, shall we?

[Better Believe It]

No. Two Washington Post writers say something else. Read the article.

It's always good to actually read articles before one comments on them.

If the financial "reform" law doesn't place Geithner in charge of the agency until a director is confirmed by the Senate I'd like to read that information.

Please post that info along with credible links.

OK?

Thanks.

[MineralMan]

44. Geitner is in charge of Treasury. This new organization falls

under his purview. Elizabeth Warren will be organizing the agency. Do you suppose Geitner is going to micromanage this? Really? As long as the agency will be under Treasury, Geitner will be in overall charge, even with a confirmed appointment. For pete's sake! Are there any other realities you'd like for me to explain to you? I'll be happy to help.

[EFerrari]

41. A blogger at The Nation? Do you not know who Johnn Nichols is?

He's one of the very best reporters in the business. Good grief.

[MineralMan]

46. At The Nation, he is a blogger. Look at the URL in the link.

The Nation identifies him as a blogger, as well. Good grief!

[chimpymustgo]

49. You're betraying a frightening ignorance.

[MineralMan]

51. Am I now? Really? This is not reporting. It is an editorial, expressing

the writers opinion. As such, it is a blog entry, fully identified as such. It is commentary, not reporting. There is a difference, you know. The ignorance is not mine, I fear.

[EFerrari]

53. John Nichols is a respected journalist, whatever side he is working.

Yes, the ignorance is yours.

[karynnj]

65. He is respected by many on the left, but he also has a tendency

to go with what he thinks should be the case, not what is. He has been pretty consistently cynical about Obama.

But to show his biases and his lack of concern with facts), in 2004 once Dean, who he supported, was out, he wrote a piece suggesting Edwards was the best remaining candidate. Fair enough, but early in the piece, he states that Edwards is Far better than Kerry on the environment. Now, there are many primary opinions and you can agree or disagree - but Kerry had a 3 decade record as an environmentalist with a 96% LCV rating - Edwards, had no appreciable record and a LCV in the 60s. If this were a comment between friends, or even a comment on a talk show, this would have been no big deal, but I expect more on a piece one publishes in a reputable magazine. This was either incompetence or dishonesty.

[sabrina 1]

102. How could you be a Progressive Democrat and not know this 'blogger'?

'The writer'? That would be like a rightwinger calling Rush Limbaugh 'the anchor'.

If you do not know who he is and how respected he is, and his opinions, then the ignorance is indeed yours, I fear.

[EFerrari]

52. John Nichols practically invented political blogging.

LOL. He's not just another "blogger at The Nation" and he works across venues, not only on the net.

[LiberalAndProud]

48. This is not an example of good journalism.

"in case anyone thought Obama was starting to "get" that America wants a president who will stand up to the economic royalists and do the right thing, "


This is not unbiased journalism, this is jingoism at its worst. Because he happens to agree with your world view, you call him "one of the best". Let me just say, he's no where near Walter Cronkite's league.

[MineralMan]

50. However good a reporter he may be, in this blog entry for

The Nation, he is writing editorial content, not reporting. It is an opinion piece in a blog. It should have been posted in Editorials here. It was not. He is wrong. Dead wrong. But, his mewlings are good fodder for the anti-Obama folks, I suppose. And so, here the blog appears.

[EFerrari]

55. Attacking John Nichols is not a counter argument.

Neither is attacking other posters to this forum.

[karynnj]

67. No he is NOT

He is far more an opinion writer than a reporter - and having read the Nation for years - even subscribing, until I unsubscriber due to Nichols and a few others who simply did not fact check things they wrote as facts. This bothered me.

Incidently, it bothered me MORE because I often AGREED. I hated it because I never wanted to pass on things that were not true, which meant that I was afraid to use any FACT he claimed without checking the accuracy.

[EFerrari]

83. John Nichols is one of the founders of the Free Press.

He may be doing more editorial writing today but his background is journalism, not hot air. In fact, Bill Moyers had him and Robert McChesney on repeatedly to discuss the state of the American Media.

[karynnj]

98. All I am going by is things I have seen written by him

Also, as I said, I am more distressed to find that something I believe - because I read it - is not true. My view of him is that he does not want to be a journalist reporting facts - wherever they may go, but is an advocate for things he believes in. The example I cited (intentionally not involving Obama) is one example. It is very likely that he strongly disliked Kerry or resented that he had won many of the people Nichols thought should have supported Dean. He likely chose Edwards then more by process of elimination. But the article was patently dishonest - where the environment was just the most obviously, flagrantly untrue thing said.

I KNOW Nichols has genuine bonifides as a far left (or left) journalist. That is likely why Bill Moyers invited him. That does not change the fact that there are things he writes - where facts are cited and they can not be backed up. ( facts are not opinions )

[Beetwasher]

20. You've Moved The Goalposts So Far, You're Cornered!!!

You either have to admit Obama done good by appointing her Interim Director, or imply Warren must be some sort of chump for taking a toothless, meaningless position.

Which is it? It can be both and there's really no middle ground here. :rofl:

[MineralMan]

26. And if he appointed her directly, the whine would be about what

took so long. There's always a way to turn good news into anti-Obama rhetoric. And where there's a way to do that, someone will. Viz: This thread.

Somewhere, on some "'progressive' right" website, there are talking points being promulgated.

[Better Believe It]

32. That would be terrific! So you don't favor her appointment as director because

you think someone would "whine" that it took too long.

That to me is a pretty lame excuse for opposing her appointment.

[MineralMan]

37. You appear to have misunderstood me, my dear DU friend.

I want Warren in place, setting up this agency. I don't want any delays. I don't want a long confirmation fight. I want her to go right to work. And that's what's about to happen. First you want Warren, then you don't, unless it's on your precise terms. Reality, my dear BBI, reality. Look into it. I wonder if you really want Warren in that position at all. Maybe you'd like a nice confirmation war that ended in her withdrawal. Is that it? Sorry...that's not in the cards.

[Better Believe It]

57. So you don't think Obama should nominate her to direct the agency because he can't get the votes?

That's Senator Dodd's position.

[MineralMan]

66. Here's another clue. Soon, there will be a new Congress. There will

also be a period while that new congress is not in session. The President can then make a recess appointment. There are all sorts of tricks a clever President can play on an uncooperative Congress. That may be one of them. You can look up recess appointments on Google. You'll probably understand better from that than from any explanation I might give.

[bobbolink]

58. "my dear DU friend"

Talk about a steaming pile.........

[MineralMan]

62. And you're my dear DU friend, too.

Steaming pile or otherwise...

[bobbolink]

73. LOL

What's that saying... "With friends like him, ........"

I pick people as friends who are kind and thoughtful.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[bobbolink]

74. It bbrings to mind the old story of The Warm Fuzzy Tale.

People who mistake Cold Pricklies for Warm Fuzzies, and it causes the spine to shrivel.

[Ignis]

75. Indeed it does.

:thumbsup:

Speaking of which, that tale always makes me think of Alan Watts' lecture regarding Prickles and Goo; have you seen/heard it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM

[bobbolink]

84. Thanks, that's cute.

But, the Cold Pricklies in the story are a lot more destructive...

[Ignis]

95. You'll get no argument from me on that.

But apparently, there's no point in continuing our discussion, because I'm not allowed to criticize the word choice, style, etc. of other DUers.

:shrug:

One rule for the Important People, another rule for the rest of us. So it goes.

[Ignis]

96. Please do NOT criticize that poster's diction. It's not allowed on DU.

I didn't know that, either--and I can't find it in the published DU rules--but it's apparently the case. :shrug:

[Better Believe It]

76. President Obama only needs 51 votes to get her confirmed. You're claiming he's unable to do that?

Now please .... please don't being up the old, lame and tired "pretend" the Republicans are filibusting excuse for inaction and capitulation.

As you understand, Senate Democrats led by Senator Reid can easily overcome such bogus filibusters by using Senate Rule 22 to force an authentic filibuster or the Constititional Option to prevent a filibuster from even starting!

[MineralMan]

81. What would be the point of stopping all work in Congress for

that real filibuster? It's so easy to do what the President is doing, then make the nomination later. In fact, if the Senate Repbublicans want to filibuster then, she'll stay in her job anyhow. I know this is complicated, but it's OK. President Obama's all over it. You can relax.

[LiberalAndProud]

86. There are a myriad ways to block an appointment.

Please don't pretend to be ignorant about this, BBI. If you aren't aware that *one* *anononymous* Senator can place a secret hold on an appointee, then you haven't been paying attention.

[Scurrilous]

21. My principles tell me to unrecc this thread.

:thumbsdown:

[Individualist]

27. K&R

[quiet.american]

38. Such predictable hogwash from the professional left.

Forget that Obama and Warren have been not only professional colleagues, but long-time friends, and that Obama had extensive conversations with her as the best way to move forward on this matter.

Forget that the Republicans wouldn't have merely filibustered her - they would have smeared her in a Bill-Ayers-ACORN-type way, and tried to link every Democratic candidate in the country to that smear right before the mid-term elections.

Forget about those things.

Because Obama did not get Warren in the door exactly the way Nichols, a reporter for the Nation, thinks he should have, it's as good an excuse as any to go on the attack about Obama's character.

Just ridiculous.

[lillypaddle]

42. I call BS

unrec.

[OregonBlue]

43. This move allows Warren to speak out. If formally nominated she could not. I think this was a

brilliant move by Obama and a total run around of Chris Dodd and the RepubliCONS. It also allows her to begin serving immediately. How can that be bad? Are people just looking for a reason to criticize Obama or is there a real concern here? I think we all know the answer to that.

[MineralMan]

47. "Are people just looking for a reason to criticize Obama "

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Don Pardo, tell our lucky guest what he has won...

[EFerrari]

54. The objection seems to be that while there was a run around Dodd

she's still basically reporting to Wall Street.

I am interested in seeing what she thinks of this arrangement because she seems to be a person who has a great deal of integrity.

[MineralMan]

64. I believe she has accepted the position. That should make her

thoughts about it fairly obvious, I'd think.

[EFerrari]

80. You seem to "believe" a lot of things that I would need to verify. n/t

[OregonBlue]

90. Various news reports said she met with Obama prior to all of this and that she is not only a friend

of his, she has known him for years. I can't believe that if they are old friends and met about this very issue, she is not in agreement regarding this appointment.

[MineralMan]

99. Knock yourself out on that.

There's an announcement coming. You may have read about it right here on DU. I know I did.

[CBR]

69. People are always looking for a reason. Going on 2 years, 3 months now. nt

[Better Believe It]

68. So who do DU'ers think Obama will nominate to become the agency director?

It's becoming obvious that it won't be Elizabeth Warren.

President Obama doesn't want a fight with Republicans on such an appointment now or even during a lame duck session of the Senate. Nothing real new about that.

And assuming the Republicans pick up seats in the Senate, the Obama administration will make a stronger and more believable argument next year argument that the Senate votes simply aren't there to stop a "pretend" Republican filibuster against Warren's nomination as the director of the agency. Time to surrender to Republicans once again!

[MineralMan]

70. Recess appointment during the first recess off the next session

of Congress. Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.

[Better Believe It]

72. Why not a recess appointment now before more Republicans are in the Senate?

I think we all expect the Republicans to increase their numbers in the Senate after the November election.

[MineralMan]

78. Recess appointments only last until the end of the current session

of Congress, you see. By making one at the beginning of a session, the appointment stands for a year. Making one now would only stand until January. Like I said, Googling recess appointments will explain this often-used strategy in a simple way for you. Google is great. I use it all the time to learn new things about the technicalities of government. I highly recommend it.

[MineralMan]

87. And I don't predict elections, so I don't have the same expectations

you seem to enjoy so much.

[BlueCheese]

71. It could be good or bad...

I certainly understand why people who have been repeatedly disillusioned by Obama naturally see this as a capitulation.

Warren will be like a Vice President. Whether she has any real power will be up to her boss, who will be Timothy Geithner. She could be a non-entity like Dan Quayle (only much smarter), a strong player like Al Gore, or (unlikely) de-facto puppeteer like Dick Cheney. We'll have to follow this closely to see what happens. I don't doubt that Warren has good intentions and will do everything she can--the question is how much the others will let her.

I still don't understand what would have been wrong with a recess appointment. When Congress' term is up, then another recess appointment. I also don't understand why we have to worry about the opposition when we have 59 senators. If we can't even appoint the people we want under these circumstances, what on earth can we do?

[MineralMan]

79. And who is it, again, who's Timothy Geithner's boss?

I forget...:shrug:

[BlueCheese]

91. The one who appointed him.

If Obama disagreed with Geithner's policies and actions, you'd think something would have changed by now, right?

[Better Believe It]

94. That's an easy one. Wall Street.

[yurbud]

85. ''Geithner, whose subservience to Wall Street has done severe damage''

That about sums it up.

Having Geithner, Summers, and Rubin in charge of reforming and regulating Wall Street is like making Al Capone the head of the FBI.

[scheming daemons]

88. And yet another OP that thinks Warren is an idiot or a sellout

I think more highly of her than that.

[SidDithers]

92. Unrec...

Sid

[Spazito]

93. Given Ms. Warren's credentials, experience coupled with the fact that...

she has left Harvard where she was scheduled to teach in September, does ANYONE think Ms. Warren is a woman who would take a position that was not fully satisfactory to her? Would give up her position at Harvard for "half a loaf" as some have described the position she is being asked, by the President, to fill? Really?!

Ms. Warren's bio:

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.

http://cop.senate.gov/about/bio-warren.cfm

Articles about Ms. Warren leaving her Harvard position:


Elizabeth Warren Won't Be Returning To Harvard, Sparking Speculation About Her Future

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/elizabeth-warren-wont-be-_n_703648.html

Warren fuels speculation by dropping class

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090106733.html

[earth mom]

97. Warren SHOULD NOT be reporting to Geithner! That's for damn sure!

If people don't see this as a very shrewd political move by Obama & Co, they are NOT paying attention! :grr:

Fingers crossed that at the very least, Warren exposes Geithner for the total tool that he is! :evilgrin:

[Zenlitened]

103. Agreed:

His critics would surely have screamed about Obama moving too aggressively to, um, protect consumers from being ripped off by Wall Street profiteers -- a complaint that the president and his party would have been wise to invite.

But that would be oh so terribly political and theatrical, I suppose.

Galvanizing battles that place one side clearly on the side of voters and the other clearly opposed... we must avoid these opportunit-- er, dreadful episodes at all costs.

:eyes:

[spanone]

106. bull

[Better Believe It]

107. So who do you think President Obama will pick to direct the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

Now that we know Elizabeth Warren "doesn't want the job"?

Like I was saying ....

[Spazito]

109. Where did you see Ms. Warren didn't want the job? n/t

[Better Believe It]

110. Here

Elizabeth Warren Didn't Want Permanent Appointment To CFPB: Frank

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.

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

[Spazito]

111. Thanks! I see there is a thread on DU discussing this...

You might want to ask your question there as well, it might be helpful to the discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x445049

[Bluebear]

108. 'Geithner, whose subservience to Wall Street has done severe damage'

You said it.