There really is no *HONEST* way to spin the Warren announcement as a bad thing

[scheming daemons]

None.

But that won't stop the FUDmeisters from trying to spread their FUD*.

Elizabeth Warren, we all agree, is a very smart and accomplished woman. She wouldn't accept a job that was only a ceremonial or temporary position. She knows what she is doing. And so does Obama.

This constant attempt to paint Obama as being the enemy of progressivism is getting worn out and tired. It simply doesn't mesh with reality.




* (FUD: fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Normally used of personages or companies that deliberately try to muddle an issue by appealing to people's fears or ignorance. A common tactic of internet trolls.)

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

2. thx capt obvious ;) you notice they're trying really hard though huh?

[Parker CA]

3. K&R!

[pnwmom]

4. But give a DUer an oyster, he'll spit out the grit.

And ignore the pearl.

The negative reaction here was so predictable.

[quiet.american]

5. Love that. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. I'm gonna have to borrow that one. It's funny cuz it's true.

:thumbsup:

[bobburgster]

62. I need to remember that one! n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

71. ah, but the grit....

is at the heart of the pearl, so if you spit out the grit you have spit out the pearl :)

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Spazito]

7. Exactly!

Recommended and a :thumbsup:!

[dkf]

8. How can we make any judgment on this when we aren't sure what this entails?

[scheming daemons]

9. Maybe you can trust Elizabeth Warren's judgement in accepting it?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[yowzayowzayowza]

25. Otoh, stupid aggressive is DINOsour dung. n/t

[dkf]

26. Oh...

[Beetwasher]

13. Because We ARE Sure What It Entails, It's VERY Clear What It Entails

As clear as any thing can be.

"President Barack Obama will appoint Wall Street critic Elizabeth Warren as a special adviser to oversee the creation of a new consumer protection bureau, a Democratic official said Wednesday."

That's what it entails. She will OVERSEE it's CREATION. That's pretty fucking clear. She WILL CREATE IT. FROM SCRATCH. It will bear HER IMPRINT. It will be built to HER SPECIFICATIONS.

Or do you NOW doubt her credibility that she would accept this position under any less terms?

[dkf]

16. I have no pro or con position for now.

I'm standing back and waiting for more info.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Beetwasher]

10. She Actually Has MORE Power As The Interim Director

She's not subject to pressures from a politicized confirmation AND she has no blackout period where she can't comment about and PUBLICIZE the agency.

She can be VERY public and vocal in promoting the agency while she's establishing it, writing the rules, staffing it implementing processes, procedures and protocols.

[Ruby the Liberal]

64. She can't make a move without Geithner's approval

I remain hopeful, but skeptical. I don't trust Dodd & I don't trust Wall Street. I work for Wall Street.

Edit to add - I would quit my job and relocate if it meant an opportunity (given my background) to work for her in getting this set up. In the blink of an eye. I just hope they truly give her the reins and let her do what needs to be done.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

65. She gets to a chance to get public opinion on her side. If she is officially appointed

she will have their support when the hearings start. She's excellent at explaining financial matters in a very relateable way, and she's a ball buster. Put her on The View and Leno and she's won. Any "liberal" criticizing any of this has zero credibility and should be labeled as an official shit stirring troll and shown the pizza IMO.

[Uzybone]

12. honesty is not important to tea/fire baggers.

[Cha]

14. Exactly..give Elizabeth Warren the credit she

deserves. They know what they're doing and thankfully they're doing the leading ..not the internetz.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[snot]

20. Please attack the substance of people's concerns but not the people themselves.

I haven't seen anyone say anything bad about Warren. The fact is that a brand-new, "special advisor" position has been created, which means no one here knows for sure WHAT authority it really does or does not involve -- it's NOT like a governorship, where the hiring, firing, and budgetary powers are well-defined.

There's nothing heinous in asking that those question be answered.

[scheming daemons]

22. You don't trust that Warren asked those questions before she quit Harvard to accept this?

..

[Beetwasher]

27. You're Demeaning Her Character By Suggesting She Would Take Some "Appeasement" Position

You either trust her to do the right thing or you don't. Make up your mind.

[snot]

30. I actually do trust her. Why do you assume there'd be something wrong

with her taking the position even if it were limited? She might feel it was worth trying to do some good there even if with less authority than hoped.

I do not have enough info to be certain what this "special advisory" position entails. We have a broad brush description, and we know she will be under Timothy Geithner.

I'm not attacking her or anyone else, and wish others wouldn't attack fellow DU'ers for asking reasonable questions.

[Beetwasher]

32. Its not broad brush, shes the interim director

Period.

[ProSense]

17. She

left Harvard

Still, it appears that some people think that accepting a Presidential appointment calls into question one's judgment.

[Cha]

23. She's certainly not saying

"blah blah blah" or "zzz"..you know she's serious about this!

[AtomicKitten]

19. K&R

[David Zephyr]

21. I agree. K&R.

Obama has his sea legs now.

[saltpoint]

24. Recommended.

Elizabeth Warren is a terrific choice.

This is a very good thing.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Agree.

[gkhouston]

29. Ceremonial? No. Temporary? She would if she thought she could still accomplish

something... or if she didn't know it was temporary. She's not going to take the position under a false flag, and I've no doubt she'll do her damnedest to accomplish something, and that's all good.

[elleng]

31. Right. And please note how V.P. Biden explained the process to repeal DADT, to Rachel.

Rachel: Why keep kicking people out now while all of this movement is happening towards ending the policy?

BIDEN: Because that is the compromise we basically had to make to get the votes to finally repeal it. In other words, everybody’s looking for, in my view, if I could just wave a wand, it would just be flat repeal. No one else would be able to suspend it. And everyone who was suspended would be able to come back if they wanted to. But the truth of the matter is, we had to build a consensus for this. Working very hard on the telephone. Calling people. And everybody’s looking forward to the orderly elimination of this law. I would prefer it not be orderly. I prefer it just end, boom, done. But that’s why that hasn’t happened. It’s resulted in us getting over 55 votes, I think we’ll get 55 vote, to flat repeal it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9143502

--------

These processes are difficult, complex, and politically sensitive, and we all should darn well expect it, and give the WH credit for doing what its doing.

[no limit]

33. I would take you more seriously if you wanted to have an *HONEST* discussion about this

you don't.

I don't know enough details to make a judgement on this and I'm guessing you don't either. But it's clear you don't want to have a discussion about this because you think this is another example of you vs us. And if "us" don't get in line behind this without first giving it a thought we are some kind of morons that are suckers of internet trolls.

If this position is actually a good one then this is one of the first big moves this president has made for the progressives in this country. So yes, many people are upset he hasn't done more for progressives and rightfully so. You can set up as many straw men as you want about people saying Obama is the enemy of progressives. I don't think anyone ever said that, I think the complaint always was that he simply didn't care about progressives.

[paulk]

34. +1

:thumbsup:

[Lorien]

35. +1000. nt

[Beetwasher]

36. This Is So Hilarious, People Now Want To Redefine What The Head Of An Agency Does

You don't have enough details? She's going to be THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY. What more "details" do you need? People have been moaning and whining and gnashing their teeth for months that they wanted her and ONLY her to have this position. Now she's got it and now people are "Well we don't have enough details about what the position entails blah blah blah".

It's the most pathetic moving of goalposts I've ever seen.

[no limit]

38. What moving of goal posts? Like I said, stop being so disingenuous toward your fellow progressives

because they want to pause and find out what this means, this kind of crap from people like you is pathetic.

I made a post the other day about how great it was that Obama would put Warren as interm head of the agency. But that's not what happened, she was made special advisor to forming the agency. Which might be just as good, or it might not be. I honestly don't know. There are many questions I have about this. Such as:

Does this mean she will run this agency once fully established or is she just responsible for forming it?

How long will this position last?

Why did the white house choose to do this instead of simply making her interm head.

These questions may or may not have been answered, I just found out about this news last night and haven't had time to catch up.

But the suggesting of the OP that if we don't get in line right away we are idiots that internet trolls manipulate is extremely offensive. And you seem to be on the same boat he or she is. Then you wonder why people like me are pissed off at people like you. You don't want to have an honest discussion about this, you want us to fall in line without giving this any thought. I'm sorry, not gonna happen. Because we don't think in terms of what is good for the democrats, we think in terms of what is good for the country. You should do the same.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

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

[bobburgster]

63. I believe the OP might be reacting because of "beaten child syndrome".

When all you ever get is a negative reaction, for pointing out the good that Obama is doing under very trying circumstances, you tend to react quickly. For a long time all we've heard is how Warren needs to be named head of the agency, and that Obama probably won't do it. Maybe that is why he jumped right on what he thought was another negative onslaught.

I do believe you have valid questions about she was made special advisor to forming the agency. I also believe they will be answered, and you will be pleased with the outcome.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. No, not "rightfully so".

Not by a fucking long shot. Not by any reasonable standard whatsoever. No. And the problem is that YOU don't want to have an honest discussion about THAT.

[no limit]

41. You are throwing out a bunch of bullshit. I'm willing to throw out a bunch of facts

But instead of my listing all the disappointments (public option, DODT, torture, GITMO, etc, etc,) why don't you go ahead and list one major thing this president has accomplished for the progressive base?

Don't be generic, such as throwing out "healthcare bill" which most progressives were disappointed with. Be specific.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. THAT is the problem.

Most progressives AREN'T disappointed with the health care bill. Most progressives aren't disappointed with Lily Ledbetter. Most progressives aren't disappointed in saving the auto industry in Detroit. Most progressives aren't disappointed in the financial regulatory reform.

The problem is you take yourself to be "most progressives" when it's really just you, a handful of people on the internet, and a few professional assholes who stir the pot. Obama's approval rating among liberal Democrats is over 85% - kind of makes it difficult to prove your statements in any way, shape, or form that YOU represent anyone other than yourself.

[no limit]

47. So when Obama made a promise that he would veto legislation that didn't have a public option

in an exchange and then broke that promise we had no right to be disappointed? How about when he didn't even bother to ask Lieberman to support a public option? I guess we shouldn't question that either.

The bank reform bill was so weak even wall street came out in support of it. The one good progressive thing that came out of it was the consumer protection agency assuming it would be ran by warren. That is still the hope I have.

Saving the auto industry was a good thing that I supported, you got one, congratulations.

And if you think I'm the only one that thinks this way you will be in for a shock come November.

Again, just a few disappointments off the top of my head:

- Calling liberals that run ads against blue dogs "fucking retarded".
- Gibbs setting up countless strawmen to demonize the "professional left" as he called it
- No fight for public option and breaking promise on that option
- DODT not repealed using executive order
- spying still takes place
- GITMO still not closed
- Torture still happening through rendition
- Speaking of rendition, still around
- Domesting spying still in place
- Giving away 300 billion of stimulus money in tax breaks
- Throwing ACORN under the bus

I could go on, these are just off the top of my head. I was wrong to say Obama didn't do anything to make progressives happy, he did as you showed with the auto bailout and a few other things. But those things are overshadowed by the disappointments.

So me being upset with him as many other progressives are is not unreasonable. It is perfectly reasonable. And for you to pretend otherwise and treat us like idiots for pointing out the obvious does you no good.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. Please cite where he specifically used the word "veto" in relation to the public option.

Volker, the person whom everyone cited as the authority on this issue here on DU, came out in favor of the bill, which included an acceptable version of his own rule.

- Calling liberals that run ads against blue dogs "fucking retarded". Obama didn't do that, heck, it's questionable if Rahm even did that, but you know what? IT WAS RETARDED! Why? Because why run ads against blue dogs that late in the game when you could've run ads, I don't know, to actually support the public option in the public arena in the first place, which would've mitigated against defecting blue dogs!
- Gibbs setting up countless strawmen to demonize the "professional left" as he called it The "professional left" deserve demonization for the bullshit they've pulled.
- No fight for public option and breaking promise on that option Did he fight for the public option by issuing a veto threat or did he not fight for it? You cannot have it both ways! Furthermore, I don't buy that he "promised" a public option in the first place. He promised exchanges and he pushed for a public option. And push for it he did in several Oval Office addresses and in the State of the Union.
- DODT not repealed using executive order Probably the weakest of all your arguments here, as it's in the Defense Authorization bill right now. Nice try though. A temporary executive order would die with his presidency - repeal will last a lot longer.
- spying still takes place So? Every President since the WWII has done it. He never promised otherwise.
- GITMO still not closed Not for a lack of effort. He can't do anything with the people there because no one will accept them. All he can do is keep them there or set them free, which is politically untenable. You can thank Bush for putting him in that position.
- Giving away 300 billion of stimulus money in tax breaks That's the only way it would get passed.


The topics I didn't address I don't agree with the President on either. He isn't flawless, but that's remarkably little and not nearly enough to say that progressives are right in being disappointed (even though they aren't).

And if you think I'm the only one that thinks this way you will be in for a shock come November. Only LaRouchies and Teabaggers think this way, and let me clue you into a little secret - there aren't that many of you LaRouchies. Less than 15% of liberal Democrats think this way, which as a whole group, liberal Democrats only make up about half of the base. Do the math. You are not representative of even liberal Democrats.

[no limit]

56. Nicholas, buddy, you know exactly where he said it. You know how I know that you know?

Because we had this discussion only a few days ago. And once the fact was explained to you we never got a reply from you. Now you are back here a couple days later acting dumb. Do you do this on purpose or is your memory simply that bad?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x434904

The quote:

Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange -- a one-stop-shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest, and choose what's best for your family. And that's why we'll put an end to the worst practices of the insurance industry. No more yearly caps or lifetime caps. No more denying people care because of preexisting conditions. And no more dropping people from a plan when they get too sick. No longer will you be without health insurance, even if you lose your job or change your job.

If he refuses to sign a bill without a public option that might as well be a veto. So you might be right, he didn't say veto. He did say he wouldn't sign it. That turned out to be a lie.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

58. No, I stopped fighting the idiocy.

There's a distinct difference. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=434904&mesg_id=435622

And as I explained in my previous post, that promised the exchanges - which we got - which he wanted to have include the public option. If he were promising the public option, he would have said I will veto any bill without a public option.

HOWEVER - You keep up this idiotic duality, saying he didn't fight for the public option, but threatened a veto if he didn't get one. IT CANNOT BE BOTH!

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[kenfrequed]

70. I work for the healthcare industry.

And while there may be a few bright spots in that legislation, the systemic problems are still there and will continue to grow worse. We needed universal single payer on the Brit model, we would have compromised at least for the public option. We got insurance reform. I am a democrat for the issues, not the personalities.

I hope this odd appointment compromise thing works but it feels a lot like a Clintonesque compromise to me. Time will tell and I am going to try to suck it up and be hopeful for the best but Obama really wouldn't have lost any voter political capital for just recess appointing her.

Hell... I think Obama could step it up and give a speech about getting down to business and getting serious about fixing the country and how the republicans have been the most childish bunch of obstructionist jerks in American history (look it up, its true-as if I have to tell anyone here). I think he should take about a third of the unfilled posts and judges and recess appoint the lot of them with the most progressive candidates he could possibly find.

Then he could tell the senate to get serious about fixing this nation and if they decide to keep blocking, obstructing and fillibustering he could fill another third of them. I think they would get the message and start compromising.

Oh yeah, added bonus, it actually makes the voters aware of the obstructionist bullshit that has been going on and forces the media to report on the unprecedented BS that the repuke minority has been pulling.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

72. Really?

I think they would get the message and start compromising.

I don't know about you, but I haven't seen a single thing about the Republicans that suggests that they will do this if only Obama snaps his fingers. In fact, I'd argue that there's exactly zero evidence exists to suggest that is true. I think you're vastly oversimplifying things.

[kenfrequed]

73. Hmm

The threat that he is going to put the most liberal imaginable appointees in by recess appointment and there wouldn't be a damned thing they could do about it? I dunno, I think they might start acting reasonable.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

74. They did that with Becker on the National Labor Relations Board and now with Warren.

Do they seem any more sensible?

[kenfrequed]

75. They didn't technically do it with Warren

He merely made up an office that was non-confirmable and whose authority has yet to be tested.

As to Becker, yes, you are correct he was an appointment made with 14 others to various boards. The difference is of strategy and communication I think. The White house has done a miserable job with communicating the things it gets right and they still allow the Blue dogs and repukes to push them way far to the right too often.

I think he should do this again and publicize it big time. There should be a big press conference with a 'Getting down to business' speech with rows of appointees standing behind him. They will all get an entire session to do what they have to do to shake up and reform their offices. He can challenge the republicans on how they repeatedly failed the American people and offered only fear, division, and wild extremism.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

76. The only reason I'd really disagree is how much we bitched about that when Bush did it.

We really kind of went off on this behavior when Republicans were in office. Yes, the public has a short memory, and yes, we didn't obstruct nearly as much as they are, but still... it makes me a bit squeamish to put on such a show as you're suggesting when what we're doing is hypocritical. That's just me and I respect a differing point of view on this topic.

[kenfrequed]

77. Oh goodie

We can play by a different rulebook than the republicans and lose. I love that idea!

Seriously there were half a dozen things that we have allowed to slip by that were started by Bush-co but that we haven't put a stop to yet that are grossly unconstitutional but this is what you are squeamish about?

What about those stupid signing statements? Obama's first executive order should have been to make them all null and void and to be merely considered historical documentation of intent and unenforcable? Did he do that? No.

Or what about restoring habeus corpus or doing away with rendition? I was pissed as hell at that and he has yet to speak out against it or sign executive orders doing away with it.

If I have to put up with that crap, I think we can leave our squeamishness at the door for going with a process of recess appointments that, while strange, is technically legal according to the constitution!

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[kenfrequed]

80. Deleted by poster

Rebuttal unneeded.

[Hissyspit]

66. Progressives had to YELL and SCREAM to have any chance at an attempt at getting Warren in.

An we're not sure exactly what this means, but now it gets turned around as an attack on them?

OP Unrec'd. If you really want to celebrate something you think is positive, celebrate it. Don't turn it into a straw man attack.

[killbotfactory]

37. The debbie downer brigade is becoming a bad parody of themselves

There are enough crocodile tears here to fill an olympic swimming pool.

[Steely_Dan]

39. I Am A Vocal Critic...

...of the President and the Administration. However, when they demonstrate that they are acting in the best interest of the people, I will applaud them. In this case, I congratulate the President for this decision. It gives me hope.

[Beetwasher]

44. Of Course, Because Your Honest And So Is Your Criticism!

:thumbsup:

[impik]

45. Honest is rare here

But yea, you're absolutely right. Even Rachel Maddow looked giddy about it last night.

[Beetwasher]

46. Under The Bus With Maddow!

I find it hilarious when people back themselved into corners with bullshit. And yup, it all stems from dishonesty. They start from a position of dishonest crticism so they can't help but eventually be exposed as hypocrites.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Beetwasher]

49. You Don't Read The Articles That Answer Your Questions Becuase It Means You Would No Longer Be Able

To complain.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[tavalon]

52. Huh? It's a great thing

And in this pretty parched time, it's a drink of cool, fresh water.

[vaberella]

53. I'm not surprised by the Obama snide on this board.

However, the continuous degradation of Warren is annoying. They make it seem as though Warren is some naive ingenue who is being swindled by Obama and she's really someone with no power and weak. And going one step further, Warren would submit to such a role---the suggestion there of disgusts me because it insults her integrity. These people want to attack and push the pessimistic angle or try to paint Obama in such a negative light that they actually don't realize they do the same to Warren when they claim to admire her,

[JNelson6563]

54. Amen friend!

So funny to see this thread.....deleted posts? check. Thread-jacking efforts? Check. Hounding of posters with hair-splitting questions? You'd better believe it!

Yes, dear Scheming Daemons, you've hit the trifecta. Well done.

:toast:

Julie

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. +1

:toast:

[ClarkUSA]

55. Indeed. Some people have made it a habit to distort or minimize anything Pres. Obama does. nt

[bobburgster]

61. I wholeheartedly agree with you!

K&R

[DireStrike]

67. I trust Warren on this.

She's honest. If this is some half-measure, she'll say so.

[chunga85]

68. We must voice our support for Ms. Warren.

She will face a determined opposition.

[firedupdem]

69. K&R

[Ignis]

79. Per the Mods, saying other DUers are "spinning" is a personal attack.

the implication that other members are 'spinning' ie- not telling the truth, exactly, is a personal attack.

-- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8966075#8966793