UnFUCKINGBelievable !!! - 'Obama to Nominate Consumer Bureau Chief Next Week' - WSJ

[WillyT]

Wait... what am I saying... it's TOTALLY believable... it's fucking par for the course!

Obama to Nominate Consumer Bureau Chief Next Week
By Deborah Solomon - WSJ
JULY 15, 2011, 4:48 PM ET

<snip>

The White House is expected to nominate a director to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau next week, according to people familiar with the matter.

The nomination – among the most highly anticipated personnel moves in Washington – would come as the agency officially opens its doors next Thursday. The Treasury Department will transfer power to the CFPB on July 21, one year after the agency was created by the Dodd-Frank financial law.

The administration is not expected to nominate Elizabeth Warren, the popular consumer advocate who has been helping set up the agency as a special adviser to President Barack Obama, these people said.

Among the names being mentioned as potential nominees are Richard Cordray, the former Ohio attorney general who is heading up the CFPB’s enforcement arm, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Raj Date, a top aide to Ms. Warren.

<snip>

More: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/15/obama-to-nominate-consumer-bureau-chief-next-week/

:mad:

:wtf:

:banghead:

:kick:

[JuniperLea]

1. He's going to... he plans on... blah blah blah

I'll reserve agita until he actually does something... but knock yourself out.

[Ken Burch]

6. You would agree, I hope, that anyone other than Elizabeth Warren

would have to be a total corporate lapdog. Certainly that would include anyone described as a "moderate" or anyone with a corporate background.

[qazplm]

9. anyone?

So out of 300 plus million people in this country she's the one? what is she Neo?

I'd love it to be her, but this idea that it HAS to be her or else is ridiculous.

[Ken Burch]

37. Well,anyone that would be acceptable to business at any rate.

n/t.

[qazplm]

66. so then not anyone

this warren worship is just a wee bit over the top.

[Ken Burch]

67. Not so much "Warren worship" as administration distrust

With the sole exception of Hilda Solis, every major administration appointment was of a sellout or a gutless wonder. The progressives who got in in non-Cabinet roles are powerless and irrelevant.

Why should we assume he'd actually appoint anyone who stood for anything THIS time?

That's why you see what you've chosen to read as "Warren worship".

Does this response now make sense to you?

[TheWraith]

11. You would agree, I hope, that anything other than pure Canada spring water is total poison.

Hey, unfounded hyperbole is fun!

[Ken Burch]

44. So you'd trust a "moderate" in the job.

Well, we can assume he'll go with a bland corporate toady. It won't be anyone who ever worked in a PIRG(and people like that are the only ones who COULD be trusted with the job). It'll be someone who gets called a "conciliator"(I.E., a capitulator).

It'll be the Geithner of consumer protection.

[TheWraith]

68. You might as well say "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists!"

Warren has been clear she doesn't want the job and won't take it. Asserting that anyone other than Warren is "a bland corporate toady" is ludicrous black-and-white thinking at it's most obvious. Doubly so considering that the shortlist contains one of her right hand people.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. I don't trust anyone who likes air quotes that much.

Gonna sprain your banjo hand, you are.

[Ken Burch]

82. My point there with the air quotes is that the word "moderate" is a euphemism.

It means "gutless ass-kisser". That's all it's ever meant.

Geithner and Summers are moderates. Case closed on the meaning of that word right there.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Then why would she take herself out of the process to facilitate the creation of the agency?

That's what happened. SHE doesn't think that the agency isn't going to function properly unless she's running it.

[Ken Burch]

43. OK...then she's sacrificed herself just to get it going. That's sad.

We can assume the prez won't appoint anybody who'll actually fight for the consumer. The bland, quiet polite ones never do fight.
I mean, so far, other than Hilda Solis, it's been nothing but mushburgers so far. Not a people's champion in the bunch. No Krugmans, no Robert Reichs, no Jim Hightowers. Nobody anyone will even remember in ten years.

We warned you guys, two years ago, that only progressive appointees can carry out progressive policies. We were proved right. Every centrist in the Cabinet does nothing but fight against us.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Wait... who is "we"? Who are "you guys"?

Look- Warren said herself that she did want her own Congressional (please note the root of the word Congressional, which is Congress) appointment process to distract from the creation of this agency which she has poured her heart and soul into. However you slice it, this is not new news nor is it some grand sudden betrayal by the Obama administration.

I'll wait and see who Obama nominates for this gig. I can't speak for the rest of "us guys", though. :wtf:

[Ken Burch]

81. btw...there's a difference between saying that you don't want a tough confirmation process

to distract from the creation of the agency, on the one hand, and actually not wanting the job on the other.

And that sounds a hell of a lot like something she was told to say.

If whoever's chosen doesn't have a reputation as a militant consumer advocate, how could they be worth a damn? Clearly nobody that ever served on a corporate board could be trusted with the job...or anyone with a Wall Street history.

[jaxx]

32. Absolutely not.

Unless you're saying she's a lapdog too and would recommend someone who wouldn't go along with what she has set up.

[pnwmom]

28. She's always said she didn't want the job. She can't help it,

if no one wants to believe her.

[girl gone mad]

47. She's never said that..

and, in fact, behind the scenes she's been fighting to get the job. This is another consumer backstab/bank blowjob from Obama.

[pnwmom]

53. Barney Frank says she told him that. Who are your sources

telling YOU that "behind the scenes she's been fighting to get the job."

[girl gone mad]

60. You might take a look at..

the many people who flatly rejected the administration's recruiting efforts, on the basis that Warren was the best candidate for the job.

From the Wall Street Journal:

"One concern of some: That accepting would undercut Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor and consumer advocate who is currently a special adviser to the president charged with setting up the bureau. She remains a hugely popular figure among many Democrats and anathema to many Republicans "

Some of these people were working right beside her. Why would they express this specific concern if they knew she wasn't interested in the position?

[pnwmom]

63. That article give no indication of who the "some" are.

And it doesn't say anything about her fighting behind the scenes.

Also, you didn't provide a link to the whole article.

[TheWraith]

2. You mean Liz Warren, who said she DID NOT WANT and WOULD NOT TAKE a permanent appointment?

That Liz Warren?

[Gman]

4. How dare Obama snub the consumers by not appointing Warren???

What facts?

[johnfunk]

8. You mean the next Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren?

Were i from Massachusetts, she'd have my vote.

[TheWraith]

16. She miiiiight be going in that direction.

Rumor has it that she's been meeting with the DSCC people.

[bluestate10]

29. I hope she does. She is a truthful, stand-up person. nt

[No Elephants]

42. Yep. It's all over the internets.

The last time she was registered with a Party, it was Republican. I am crossing my fingers that she has seen the light.

[bluestate10]

55. She fits the profile. Born in red Oklahoma. Rose to a high level of

education. Saw that democrats are interested in furthering society as a whole. Changed her stripes. She may have been a republican at one time, but her heart now is that of a democrat. It is more important to me where one's heart is.

[bluestate10]

26. I am from Massachusetts. She has my vote if she runs. nt

[tammywammy]

19. +1 n/t

[brentspeak]

25. Please provide us a direct quote where Warren said she didn't want the job.

Thanks.

[pnwmom]

30. Please provide one where she said she would even consider the job.

Barney Frank, as you know, was the one who said she didn't want it. I suppose you're calling him a liar.

[NYC_SKP]

33. You would have to ask Barney Frank. There isn't, to my knowledge, a direct quote, but...

there's this:

"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.

"She always said she didn't want to be there as a permanent director. Some of the liberals are worried about it. It's almost an insult to Elizabeth. She wouldn't take this if there was the slightest impediment to her doing the job," he said."

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

:hi:

[brentspeak]

38. That's not good enough

I was aware of Frank's assertion, but it's a very odd assertion. Because for the past two years while Warren has been considered for the job, and during all her public appearances on TV and before Congress, she has not ever stated anything approaching Frank's claim. Not once.

[jaxx]

36. This is as direct as you're going to get.

"Frankly, on her behalf, I talked to David Axelrod earlier this year, and I said, 'You know, Elizabeth doesn't want a full five year term. She'd like to set this up,'" said Frank. "She told me that, and I told Axelrod that."
HuffPo

[girl gone mad]

40. Then I take it to be complete and utter bullshit.

[jaxx]

59. Well that's your right.

Just like it's hers not to want the job.

[girl gone mad]

39. That's an unsubstantiated rumor.

Her closest allies have consistently pushed to get her the job. Why would they be doing so if she didn't want it?

[WillyT]

50. Funny That None Of The Stories So Far Have Mentioned That... Got A Link ???

1) And whatever happened to "If the President asks you to serve, you serve."?

2) And even if it IS true, maybe it's because the they defanged it, it would now be an embarassing position to hold.

3) Do you ever wonder if the MA Senate idea might have come from those who did not want Warren in charge of the CPB? Or at the very least, were not willing to fight for her?

:shrug:

Obama Eliminates Warren as Consumer Head
By Mike Dorning and Carter Dougherty - Bloomberg
Jul 15, 2011 4:41 PM PT

<snip>

President Barack Obama has chosen a candidate other than Elizabeth Warren as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a person briefed on the matter.

The president’s choice is a person who already works at the consumer agency, the person said today. Obama may make the nomination as soon as next week, another person briefed on the administration’s plans said.

The people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process isn’t public, didn’t give the name of the choice.

Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor, was appointed last fall by Obama to set up the consumer bureau until a director was named. Warren previously was head of the congressional watchdog panel overseeing the bank bailout.

<snip>

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-15/obama-eliminates-warren-as-consumer-head.html

*****************************************************************************

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to open without a director
By Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times
July 16, 2011

<snip>

Besides being unable to use its authority to regulate mortgage brokers and other financial firms outside the conventional banking industry, the agency would be denied, at least initially, broad authority to prohibit "unfair, deceptive or abuse acts or practices" or to issue rules requiring better disclosures of the terms of financial products, the inspectors general of the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve determined.

...


Warren appeared the obvious choice for the agency's powerful director. But strong Republican opposition made the White House nervous that the nomination would be filibustered in the Senate, preventing Warren from playing any role in organizing the agency.

So in September, Obama appointed Warren to dual White House and Treasury advisor positions that did not require Senate confirmation. Under the law, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is responsible for launching the agency and would exercise its authority until a director was confirmed.

Geithner delegated the job to Warren, who has been hiring staff, meeting with bankers and consumer groups and readying the agency for operations. In May, nearly all Republican Senators vowed to block any nominee for the job unless the administration made major changes to the agency's structure, including replacing the director with a five-member bipartisan commission.

<snip>

Link: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-consumer-bureau-powers-20110716,0,127732.story

:shrug:

[TheWraith]

71. Here you go.

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

[WillyT]

76. Yeah... I Know... More Mixed Messages...

There were extensive and nuanced discussions with the White House, said a source familiar with them, and the interim nomination emerged as her favored choice, as Frank says, but she has still not foreclosed the option of a full nomination or told the administration that she would flatly refuse one.

"Frankly, on her behalf, I talked to David Axelrod earlier this year, and I said, 'You know, Elizabeth doesn't want a full five year term. She'd like to set this up,'" said Frank. "She told me that, and I told Axelrod that."

The administration, however, still has the option to nominate Warren to a permanent position.

Same article.

But thanks for the link.

:hi:

[Ken Burch]

52. Do you actually have a cite for her saying she wouldn't take a permanent appointment?

And if she did say that, is there any reason that we should the admin didn't force her to say it?

The only reason to not put her in is to give the job to somebody who can't be capable of caring about consumers. That's what appointing a "moderate" with "business experience" would have to mean.

[TheWraith]

73. Okay, take off the tin foil hat.

To paraphrase what her friend Barney Frank said, she doesn't want the appointment, and believing that she's somehow being used or denied in this situation is to believe that she's such an idiot that she would allow herself to be used in that way.

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

[PassingFair]

90. Link to this avowal, please. nt

[MadHound]

3. Two party/same corporate master system of government in operation again.

What, you thought that Obama would actually nominate somebody who puts the welfare of citizens ahead of corporations?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Warren Stupidity]

7. shocked not

there is no fight in this administration, unless they are fighting the left wing of the party.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. She would be hard-pressed to run for Senate for MA from the post. n/a

[babylonsister]

62. +1. Thank you. nt

[WonderGrunion]

12. I think a permanent appointment would hamper her MA senate run

I'd rather have a Liberal Lioness from Massachusetts.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Warren has said she doesn't want the job.

Would it douse your flames if whoever is appointed is someone she recommended?

[girl gone mad]

41. No, she has not said that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

49. Au contraire. Unless you claim Barney Frank is making that up.

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

[girl gone mad]

54. You have one article, which seems to contradict everything else she's said and done..

over the past 3 years.

One must weigh the entirety of the evidence. She has been fighting for this job, and the administration clearly is fighting against her.

Frank has very close alliances to the banks. He is not a neutral party in this.

[ClarkUSA]

14. So what? Warren didn't want a permanent position and may run for MA Senate.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. We've known for a long, long time that it wasn't going to be Elizabeth Warren.

She's been saying as much, for a while. She said she'd rather have the agency up and running than derail it with a protracted fight in congress over her running it.

It's only "WTF" if you haven't been paying attention.

[sasha031]

17. I am disappointed if this is true

maybe she will run for Scott Brown's seat, if that's the case I'll do what I can to help her.

[No Elephants]

20. Couple of things.

1/ Warren's name had been bandied about as a possible rival for Scott Brown's seat. This may be a signal that she indeed will be the one who runs for the Democratic nomination to run against him in the general/

If she's already set up the agency and written the regulations, that's almost half the battle. I wish she could be there for the entire rule approval process, but it is what it is.

2/ I think the Consumer Protection part of that law is mostly around requiring more disclosure. Nothing to be sneezed at whatsoever, to be sure, but not all I had hoped, either.

[sabrina 1]

21. The Republicans trashed Elizabeth Warren in the hearings.

It was despicable to see them lie and smear her the way they did. Any strong leader would simply have stepped in and put a stop to their vicious attacks on her, by appointing her in recess.

If she has decided she doesn't want the position it can only be because of the way she was treated.

I have heard she may consider running for the Senate.

She is far too honest for them and with all that they are hiding, having an honest person looking at what they are doing, scared them so badly they completely lost all sense of decency.

Shameful to see this happen to such a great consumer advocate.

[nashville_brook]

87. she was hung out to dry

[bluestate10]

22. Warren is more valuable helping make policy decisions.

Nominating her would create a distraction that she and the President don't need. I like Warren, she is what every american should be, but I also feel that nominating her for the job in question is not advisable.

[RandySF]

23. I thought Warren was ramping up for a senate race.

[pnwmom]

24. Since she always said she didn't want the permanent job,

this is hardly a surprise.

[girl gone mad]

51. You are repeating something that is false.

[pnwmom]

56. Sorry. I should have said that Barney Frank said she told him she didn't want the job.

Are you calling him a liar?

[jaxx]

27. She doesn't want the job.

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

First Posted: 09-16-10 04:06 PM | Updated: 09-16-10 04:15 PM

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.

"She always said she didn't want to be there as a permanent director. Some of the liberals are worried about it. It's almost an insult to Elizabeth. She wouldn't take this if there was the slightest impediment to her doing the job," he said.

<..> "Frankly, on her behalf, I talked to David Axelrod earlier this year, and I said, 'You know, Elizabeth doesn't want a full five year term. She'd like to set this up,'" said Frank. "She told me that, and I told Axelrod that."

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

[0rganism]

31. "these people said": WTF are THESE PEOPLE?

"according to people familiar with the matter" -- ooh, that explains everything.

Is no one willing to go on record with this information?

That said, I can understand why Elizabeth Warren wouldn't care to deal with the nest of vipers that is the "just say no" senate minority. And we have no reason yet to believe that either or both of the named possibilities wouldn't be at least comparable in ethics, competence, and motivation to Ms. Warren. I'm usually on the other side of the skeptical fence from JuniperLea, but in this case I have to agree with her(?): any outrage about this alleged development is premature at best.

[bluestate10]

35. Those people? Jane Hamsher, maybe? Stirring up shit is her specialty. nt

[RandySF]

34. The Daily Fake Outrage du Jour. n/t

[fascisthunter]

46. "Fake Outrage" - oh brother

[WorseBeforeBetter]

61. LOL...do you understand what "du jour" means? (n/t)

[divvy]

84. Maybe he is not "smarter than them" .... Maybe he is smarter than you

[TheWebHead]

45. it's likely to help partially stave off a capital strike

in the banking and business community ahead of an election year. The demographic that creates jobs and allocates capital detests Warren and their behavior when it comes to their lending and job creation behavior would be negatively impacted were the president to place Warren in the role.

[LiberalAndProud]

48. From the names mentioned, I would hope that Cordray gets it.

Granholm isn't attractive to me, and Raj Date looks like another schill. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but I don't like the looks for his resume.

[The Big Vetolski]

57. If Obama nominates Richard Cordray, I will be impressed.

Very favorably impressed, at that. When Cordray was Ohio Attorney General, he went after corporate fraud and abuse big time. Wall Street would HATE him. He would be at least as aggressive in consumer protection as Elizabeth Warren, maybe more so.

The guy's an attack dog.

[Adsos Letter]

58. What Elizabeth Warren said yesterday re: her possible appointment...

SOURCE: CNN(Money)
CNN's Austin Alonzo contributed to this report.

"With a week to go before the new consumer bureau takes off, the White House has yet to appoint its director -- an omission that Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, asked Warren about."

"Warren was careful and succinct, saying that when the director is confirmed and in place and the bureau gets all of its powers, "it will be a very good day.""

LINK: http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/14/news/economy/elizabeth_warren/index.htm

_______________________________

Read in to it what you will.

[BzaDem]

64. For those who see a "corporatist conspiracy" etc etc, take a look at the names proposed.

Both were HIRED by Warren to run huge parts of the bureau. Both are well known as progressive consumer advocates. Kind of puts a hole in that theory.

[Adsos Letter]

65. Thank you. Her efforts could be used in another area...

such as Congress. Putting in someone she thinks highly of is akin to cloning her.

[tammywammy]

70. +1 n/t

[girl gone mad]

74. None of them can hold a candle to Warren.

Raj Date... seriously? You'd have to be out of your mind to believe he, or any of the other candidates mentioned, would be a comparable substitute.

[nemo137]

77. I was going to say.

I had always thought that Gov. Granholm was thought of pretty well in these parts.

[joshcryer]

69. The Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2016 doesn't want the job?

Color me surprised.

[girl gone mad]

80. 2012, if we're lucky.

[MzNov]

72. this is absolutely unacceptable

but gee, is anyone shocked???

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/15/report-warren-to-be-passed-over-as-nominee-to-head-consumer-bureau/

[Shagbark Hickory]

75. So would this be a temporary position?? Seeing as how the government closes for business on 8/2?

[divvy]

83. Oh, multi-dimmensional chess again?

say bye bye to my vote Barak

[uponit7771]

85. Yes, for the most part Obama has been right...his critics wrong and histeria has been false

...not always but for the most part.

Those who aren't going to vote for Obama now isn't because of something objective

[divvy]

86. Oh for heaven's sake.

I believe that he is SERIOUS about chopping SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is NO multi-dimensional game of chess. It is outright capitulation.

There is NO good reason for any democrat to vote for 4 more years of this.

[bvar22]

88. We don't have long to wait,

and I'll get to put up another "Told You So! post.
I hope I'm wrong, and will be most happy to post an apology,
but I'm confident that the almost perfect Track Record of the Obama Administration will be maintained.

After all the Kabuki plays out,
the NEW agency WILL be run by some Wall Street sycophant who will fit right in with
Geithner, Summers, Holder, and the rest of these anti-LABOR/Anti-Working Class/Anti-Consumer Corporate toadies
whose ONLY concern is assuring their position at the table with the Royalty for the coming New & Improved Gilded Age 2.0

The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85

[fascisthunter]

89. yeah, he'll appoint a corporate protistute

[JDPriestly]

91. I want to hear what Elizabeth Warren says about her experience

serving the Obama administration on this. I hope she will speak openly and honestly.

I think many of us are suspicious of Obama and projecting the worst on him with regard to Warren. I know I am. I would like to be wrong. I'm probably not.

Such is the pessimism of an idealist.

You just know that instead of a pony, you are going to get a sack of manure under the Christmas tree.

I have found a lot of sacks of manure under the Christmas tree in my life, so many that I have learned to turn it into vegetables and flowers.

But, still the stench can be oppressive at times.