Elizabeth Warren and the long history of conveniently invented leadership titles

[JonLP24]

<snip>

In 2011, Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) were both hoping to be whip after Democrats got demoted to the minority, but Clyburn wasn't going to get the votes. So, realizing it would be useful -- and look good -- to have someone with support among liberals and the Congressional Black Caucus in a leadership position, Pelosi offered him the No. 3 position of assistant Democratic leader. Months later, the specifics of what his title meant still seemed confusing.

When Pelosi first became minority leader in 2002, she appointed Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.) to the "newly created post of assistant minority leader." She was seen as a liberal Democrat, so reaching out to a moderate Southern Democrat seemed prudent. As Spratt said at the time, "By turning to me, Nancy Pelosi is showing her inclusiveness and her commitment to working with the entire Democratic caucus."

Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), whom Pelosi replaced in 2002, loved the "assistant" option of healing fraying parts of the party. In 1999, he nominated Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) to be assistant to the minority leader. At the time, it was becoming increasingly noticeable that Democrats had only men in leadership positions. That newly created position made DeLauro the only elected woman in the entire party's national leadership.

<snip>

And sometimes, leadership positions are created to keep potential rivals at bay. When Rep. Dick Armey (R-Tex.) was trying to get reelected as House majority leader in 1998, he had two people running against him. The one with the best chance of replacing Armey -- Rep. Steve Largent (R-Okla.) -- tried to encourage Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash.) to drop out by offering to make her assistant majority leader. It didn't work, and Armey won.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/13/elizabeth-warren-and-the-long-history-of-conveniently-invented-leadership-titles/

[Cali_Democrat]

1. In other words...it doesn't mean shit...

The real power lies with the majority/minority leaders and the whips.

[Man from Pickens]

4. Had a county do this once

There was a close, bitterly contested race for county chairman - the incumbent won, barely, and immediately appointed his opponent to be the "vice-chairman" as a gesture of reconciliation.

Spoke to said "vice chairman" a year later and asked what his actual role in the system was, he said "I do nothing".

[Javaman]

10. it's like the Co-Producer credit in movies. sounds important but means nothing. nt

[grasswire]

2. I fear this is a trick...

....to marginalize her in some way.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. It's not a trick to marginalize her

It is a trick to make progressives think she has this new awesome role where she will kick ass and take names and get her agenda through.

But in reality she is essentially a powerless lame duck until 2017 at the earliest, just like most of the other senate Dems.

That's the unfortunate result of the election. GOPers now control her banking committee.

[JonLP24]

6. I agree

From what I'm reading, it appears that Reid had a rough meeting so he threw some bones to help remain leader of Senate Democrats

Democratic losses in 2014 made it clear that the voters want change—not just in their individual members, but in the way that the Democratic caucus operates, both Manchin and McCaskill said. "We've all had to make changes in our offices and had some difficult decisions to make," Manchin told reporters. "It can't be personal. Harry Reid's a good man. I just felt—and I was very up-front and forward with everybody—I just felt we needed a leadership change."

Democratic detractors did not have an alternative choice for leader. Manchin said he had asked Reid to delay the election for one week so that they could come up with a standard-bearer, but his request was ignored. "This type of an election, this type of a monumental switch needs time," Manchin said after the vote. "And we should discuss it and debate it. Harry could've made his pitch. If someone else would have come forward, we could have had her pitch."

<snip>

And the inclusion of Tester and Warren into the leadership could help to mend some of the frayed relationships between Reid's current team and the rest of a diverse caucus.

On the Left, Warren's appointment could ease some fears among liberals in the caucus, which will soon be forced to take a vote on the Keystone pipeline. Several members on the Left, including Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, and independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, said that they did not blame Reid for allowing the vote, acknowledging that the bill would come up for a vote sooner or later given the new Republican majority.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/after-calls-for-his-ouster-reid-adds-new-leaders-to-mend-fences-20141113

[Fearless]

7. She doesn't need new powers to do this, she already does it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. It's a pathetic attempt by the "not as bad" wing of the party to pacify the left.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’

Bob Dylan

[silvershadow]

8. The title alone indicates they are scared of her. The Clintonites must be in full gear. nt

[pampango]

9. If she gets co-opted and tones down her liberal positions, that will be bad. Even then,

if she is that easy for the party leadership to control, I would rather find out about it now than after a successful presidential run in 2016 - assuming she decides to run.

IMHO, she has given us no reason to believe that she will tone down her positions and rhetoric - which is why so many of us admire her - so I trust that she will not allow a higher-profile position turn into a negative. I hope I am not wrong.