Stop Making Lame Excuses As To Why Elizabeth Warren Wasn’t Appointed CFPB Chair - DailyKos

[WillyT]

Stop Making Lame Excuses As To Why Elizabeth Warren Wasn’t Appointed CFPB Chair
by bobswern - DailyKos
SAT JUL 16, 2011 AT 09:48 AM PDT

<snip>

Friday evening (last night), along with the rest of the stories that our elected representatives in Washington hope we’ll miss (there’s a reason why they call it the “Friday night news dump”), we learned that it was all but official that Elizabeth Warren would not be appointed as the chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Frankly, despite the truly lame attempts at excuse-making, spin control and revisionist history currently underway (even within this community), anyone who’s been closely following this story, such as Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith and yours truly, is not surprised.

As Yves notes it in the first paragraph of her post (see a few paragraphs down), from just a few hours ago: “Obama was not willing to ruffle the banks, and Geithner, who is the most powerful Cabinet member, would not stand for it.”(Frankly, you really don’t have to look much farther than this quite succinct sentence. “Supporting” an argument to the contrary by quoting a press release, in the face of inconvenient facts, is quite lame, too, IMHO.)

HERE (“Rep. Barney Frank: Obama is Unwilling to Nominate Warren for CFPB Director”) is a link to a video clip, from earlier in the year, where Barney Frank, the House Financial Services Committee’s ranking Democrat (and former committee chair), tells us that President Obama was unwilling—for quite some time--to nominate Elizabeth Warren as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

HERE (“Raskin and Granholm Under Consideration for CFPB Director”) is a link to one of a myriad of stories, from the Spring, of how the administration was putting forth (i.e.: “floating”) the names of virtually everyone other than Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB.

And, HERE (“Johnson, Krugman, Nocera: Elizabeth Warren Is Getting Thrown Under The Bus”) and HERE (”Economic Truthiness, Implausibility, Deniability and Yves Smith on Elizabeth Warren”) are links to the last two of 17 pieces that I’ve posted within this community on Elizabeth Warren, since early 2009.

<snip>

Much More (w/Links to all articles): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/16/995298/-Stop-Making-Lame-Excuses-As-To-Why-Elizabeth-Warren-Wasn%E2%80%99t-Appointed-CFPB-Chair?via=siderec

:shrug:

[ProSense]

1. Evidently, no one cares what

Elizabeth Warren has to say.

[sabrina 1]

2. Wow, you're fast!! What exactly does that little blue link

which I actually did follow, have to do with the fact that the WH did not use the recess to appoint her? And if the talking point being spread around with nothing to back it up, including your little blue link, was true, why didn't she just tell the President and her supporters who were still gathering signatures for her appointment on Memorial Weekend, that she wasn't interested in the job? She did not, and I don't think E.Warren is the kind of person to waste the time of good people who are supporting her like that.


I think you still have time to edit your comment. Your link has nothing to do with the fact that she was driven out of DC by Wall St. and the Dems refused to fight for her.

[kickysnana]

6. +10

[chill_wind]

9. What it says is she is not talking.

per the little blue link.

As for Warren, her exact future is unclear. While liberal and consumer groups have loudly yelled for President Obama to name her CFPB director, she has been conspicuously mum on both the chance to head the agency and attempts by Senate Democrats to recruit her to run against Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) in 2012.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/171875-warren-consumer-protection-bureau-in-reality-is-much-better-than-the-dream-ever-was?utm_campaign=hillsonthemoney&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[ProSense]

10. Evidently

"What exactly does that little blue link which I actually did follow, have to do with the fact that the WH did not use the recess to appoint her?"

...nothing.

<...>

As for Warren, her exact future is unclear. While liberal and consumer groups have loudly yelled for President Obama to name her CFPB director, she has been conspicuously mum on both the chance to head the agency and attempts by Senate Democrats to recruit her to run against Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) in 2012.

Although the CFPB cannot realize its full power until a director in place, Warren is free to stay on and run the bureau as a special assistant until the Senate confirms -- or the president recess appoints -- an official head.

Everyone seems to have made up her mind for her, and have decided that the President doesn't want to appoint her.

I mean, everyone knows she wants the job. Why would she not want it?

[sabrina 1]

22. Well, I wouldn't say 'everyone' has made up their minds about

her. But some were actually putting words in her mouth as soon as the news that was 'gone' came out last night, and that led people to wonder, 'why would a woman over whose nomination the Republicans and Democrats were battling over the Memorial Day Weekend, Repubs of course pulling every trick they could think of to prevent a Warren appointment while Dems couldn't decide what to do, why would a woman who was the focus of so much time-eating antics on both sides not simply say, 'I DON'T WANT THE JOB'?


I would like to hear from her, but like Brooksley Borne who was also a casualty of Wall St. operatives in a previous Dem Admin, actually some of them still around, when she tried to warn them of a comming economic disaster, her President didn't support her either, allowing his cabinet members to drive her out of town.

So you must understand why the people are a little concerned to see this happening again! To one of the most trusted consumer advocates in the country and with a Dem Admin in charge, again! It is going to raise a lot of questions whether people like it or not.


But one thing we can be sure of regarding Elizabeth Warren, she would NOT waste this President's time if she did not want the job. So, again, why didn't she say so, and tell the rest of us who were busy signin g petitions on her behalf?

Can you explain that? Is she disingenuous in your opinion?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

14. What's "the obvious truth"?

Has Elizabeth Warren indicated that she wants the job?

Everyone apparently knows what's on the President's mind. Any mind reader want to share what's on Warren's?

[Mimosa]

LOL!!!

Sabrina, that's funny. Your points are excellent. Warren certainly does not seem insincere.

[TheWraith]

24. You don't seem to care that she DID NOT WANT THE JOB. Ever.

"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

[sabrina 1]

37. 'if there was the slightest impediment to her job'.

So, what was that impediement?

[TheWraith]

48. None. She never wanted the permanent job.

Again, two sources pointing out that she wanted to set up the agency, and then leave. Which is exactly what she's doing.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[tekisui]

12. People serve at the pleasure of the president. If he wanted to

he would have nominated her and she would have accepted.

[TheWraith]

26. You can't force someone to take a job they don't want. And it would be stupid to try.

Seriously, why exactly is it that people here are convinced that either she wants the job, which she's said she does not, or if it were pushed on her, she would change her mind? Does anyone think that when she as meeting the White House people and discussing with them what her role was going to be, she didn't consider anything or come to a decision she was happy with?

[tekisui]

31. The president asks, you answer. That is how is has always been.

The WH didn't want her.

[TheWraith]

34. No, it's not. Lots of people have refused appointments or said that they would.

Including Paul Krugman.

[former9thward]

13. Your link does not support what you are trying to imply.

She has no quotes in that article about being the director, pro or con.

From the article "As for Warren, her exact future is unclear. While liberal and consumer groups have loudly yelled for President Obama to name her CFPB director, she has been conspicuously mum on both the chance to head the agency and attempts by Senate Democrats to recruit her to run against Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) in 2012."

[ProSense]

16. "She has no quotes in that article about being the director, pro or con."

Obviously, that means she wants the job and the President doesn't want her to have it, right?

The fact is that no one is interested in anything Elizabeth Warren says. She has said a lot about the agency's development over the past several months and much of it has gone ignored.

[TheWraith]

27. "She always said she didn't want to be there as a permanent director."

"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

[girl gone mad]

29. Then you can find us a quote of her actually saying that she "never wanted the job".

[TheWraith]

32. No, you can find me a quote of her saying she wanted it.

All you have is your "gut feeling" that she wanted it, against the public statements relayed by her friend and advocate.

[girl gone mad]

36. The burden of proof is on you since you are making the claim that she said she didn't want the job.

[TheWraith]

40. I already posted the links with two different sources saying she didn't want the job.

Both White House sources and her personal friend Barney Frank. You're ignoring those and insisting that the proof doesn't exist.

[girl gone mad]

45. I want a quote from her.

The White House has its own agenda, with Geithner opposing her from day one. Barney Frank made an offhand statement once, but since that time he has also been lobbying for her to take the position.

[TheWraith]

50. Give me a quote saying that she wanted the job.

You're the one who's claiming certainty against all the evidence. Prove it.

Also, you're wrong. Frank has NOT been lobbying for her to take the position, because he knows she doesn't want it. The "Frank is pushing for a recess appointment" thing is another total and complete myth.

[chill_wind]

61. As for Elizabeth Warren: "Lets Fight!" Barney Frank.

Frank and Woolsey, along with Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., were among 89 House Democrats who sent Obama a letter Thursday urging him to use his power to appoint ***Warren*** temporarily to the job the next time the Senate takes a recess. So-called recess appointments are permitted under the Constitution but last only until the end of next session of the Senate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/barney-frank-elizabeth-warren-gender_n_870520.html

Warren. Not somebody NAMELESS. Elizabeth Warren.


As for Elizabeth Warren? Barney Frank says: “Let’s fight!”
Mar 21, 2011 11:56 EDT

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2011/03/21/as-for-elizabeth-warren-barney-frank-says-lets-fight

Now maybe she wanted it. Maybe she didn't. She herself still hasn't said so today.

But your argument. over and over, about Barney Frank not advocating for her in the end to President Obama is not consistent with further facts.

>>The "Frank is pushing for a recess appointment" thing is another total and complete myth.<<

[sabrina 1]

49. Or, you could explain what Barney Frank meant when he said

she would not want it 'if there was the slightest impediment to her doing the job'. Apparently she DID want it, IF she could do it unimpeded. So, something must have happened to cause her to believe that such an impediment existed.

[TheWraith]

51. No impediment. She said she did not want the permanent job as administrator.

She DID want the temporary job of setting up the agency, which she got.

[sabrina 1]

58. Barney Frank said she did not want it 'if there was any impediment

to her doing the job'. Clearly there is some impediment since as late as Memorial Day Weekend she was still up for the job.

[girl gone mad]

20. Oncce again, you post a reply that has nothing to do with..

the post to which you are responding.

[ProSense]

23. You're mistaken

It has everything to do with Elizabeth Warren.

The fact is that no one is interested in anything Elizabeth Warren says. She has said a lot about the agency's development over the past several months and much of it has gone ignored.

[girl gone mad]

28. I've listened to what she's said and I've watched what she's done..

I've even read what she's written.

That's how I know she wanted the job.

Again, your link was a misdirection.

[TheWraith]

30. So you "know" she wants the job, even though she's said she DOESN'T want the job?

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?


"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

[girl gone mad]

33. I know she never said she didn't want the job.

You apparently refuse to accept that simple fact, which is why you've been spamming the board with the same link over and over again.

[TheWraith]

38. Because some people refuse to acknowledge the fact that she DIDN'T WANT THE JOB.

Simply reading the link and comprehending it would solve the problem.

[girl gone mad]

41. It's not a fact simply because you (or Barney Frank) say so.

[TheWraith]

46. I posted an article with two different sources saying the same thing.

You're ignoring said source and insisting that everyone is lying, because you KNOW she wanted the job. At this point, if she came out and said to a TV camera "I don't want the job and never did," you would claim SHE was forced to lie by Obama.

[sabrina 1]

54. I read the link, and no, it did not solve the problem.

I still cannot find her saying 'I don't want the job'. I see Barney Frank saying she wouldn't want it 'if there was an impediment to her doing the job'. So, what is the impediment that has caused her not to get, or take, we don't really know which, the job?

[TheWraith]

55. "The President and I are committed to the same vision on CFPB..."

"The President and I are committed to the same vision on CFPB, and I am confident that I will have the tools I need to get the job done."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/17/fighting-protect-consumers

Warren's own words, saying that there is no impediment.

[sabrina 1]

64. At that time. They had circumvented the Republicans

and made her appointment temporary which did not require Congress' approval. It was a compromise and had nothing to do with whether or not she wanted it longterm. It was a tactic and a good one as it got things moving and probably pissed of Republicans.

But during the recent battle with Republicans where they treated her with so much disrespect and abuse and people wondered why, it was clear they were determined to drive her away. She held her ground, but it cannot have been easy.

I believe they were sending the message before the president might try to appoint her during the recess, that they were going to make life hell for her if she was appointed. And they may have said so in private for all we know.

The question isn't whether or not the President is or is not to blame. Clearly he tried to get her the job the most expedient way he could back then.

And the issue is not just this, Warren's appointment. The issue is Republicans and how far they will go to get what they want. And the most important question is 'what can be done to stop them'.

That is where people are divided, and Dems were divided even over the Memorial Day Weekend. One faction wants an all out fight with them, the other tends to back off and ends up appeasing them.

I am on the side of an all-out fight no matter how bruising or long it takes until they run to their caves whimpering and whining. Because giving in to them has not worked.

And if the President wants to take them on this way, he will have the full support of the people.

What worries people is why the president doesn't use the power he has to go after them. Maybe he believes it's best for the country not to have a knock down drag out fight with them. But since his way, which is far more civilized, only seems to make them more determined to block all of his nominees and policies, then it seems to me it has become necessary to fight them fiercely and not to give in, ever.

[Gormy Cuss]

67. Perhaps you should read the link again.

Emphasis added:
"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. "

Note that while she wanted the interim appointment the article makes clear that her preference for that position did not preclude her consideration for a permanent appointment. One way of interpreting that is that she didn't want to commit to a permanent role until after the agency was fully formed.

[ProSense]

35. Sorry,

gut instincts, mind reading and rumor trump everything else. Also, Barney Frank is lying!!!!


:rofl:

[girl gone mad]

39. All you have to go on is one single Barney Frank quote that's months old.

Pretty weak, even by your standards.

[ProSense]

42. What

do you have to go on that she wants the job and President Obama is denying her?

[TheWraith]

43. It's "months old" because her stance hasn't changed since the beginning.

If you read the link, you'll notice that this was her plan from the beginning: set up the CFPB, get it running, then leave, because she didn't want to be a Washington administrator for five years.

[girl gone mad]

47. No, that was never her plan. That was the compromise the White House forced on her..

since they weren't willing to fight or take any risk to get her the job, and Geithner didn't want her around.

[TheWraith]

52. Again, you're making things up which are directly contrary to the evidence. nt

[ProSense]

53. "That was the compromise the White House forced on her."

So is she lying here or only saying that because she has to?

[sabrina 1]

57. No, she was not lying. The President appointed her on a temporary

basis to prevent the Republicans from holding up her appointment at that time. She accepted that. That does not mean she 'did not want the job' on a longterm basis, and again, your link does not show that.

He has also asked me to take on the job to get the new CFPB started—right now. The President and I are committed to the same vision on CFPB, and I am confident that I will have the tools I need to get the job done.

'Right now'! That was because she and the president had managed to get around the delaying tactics of the Republicans working for Wall St. by making this temporary appointment which was all he could do at that time to move things along. It was a good move, but says zero about her wanting the job longterm.

So, something happened to make her feel she could not do the job properly. And it may have nothing to do with the WH, so I don't know why you are so on the defensive. We want to know why she was apparently willing up to and after Memorial Day Weekend.

She and we got to see the lengths the Republicans were willing to go to to block her appointment. Democrats were divided about how to handle things that weekend, some wanted to go all out and fight, others did not.

Seems to me it would have had to have been an all out fight and in the end, it was agreed that it wasn't worth it. What we do not know is whether she was willing to join the fight, or whether she agreed to back out of the whole ugly process and go run for the Senate instead.

We just don't know! But we have people here pretending they do. That is the problem. Because they don't.

[ProSense]

59. "That was the compromise the White House forced on her."

The post was a response to that comment.

[sabrina 1]

63. Fair enough, but it was a compromise chosen by the WH

because they did not want to, or feel they could, fight off the Republicans. That is a serious issue don't you think? That even when we have the WH and the Senate, the president cannot get his nominees approved of.

Instead of rushing to defend or attack politicians, how about we talk about those serious issues and what can be done about them?

It helps no one for people to rush to defend one individual or to attack him/her for that matter, when we do NOT have all the facts, but we do know that Republicans are blocking every nominee. And what needs to be figured out is how to beat them at this game.

Then the question arises, 'is it better to appease them by giving up, or to fight them into submission no matter how long it takes so they learn that they CANNOT beat Democrats down every time they throw a temper tantrum.

Watching it all from here, I'm for picking a fight and not quitting until they run away crying because appeasing them sure hasn't worked.

[girl gone mad]

60. Thanks Sabrina.

I don't see her running for the Senate, not after what they just put her through.

[eilen]

56. GGM and Sabrina, I find it telling that this announcement

comes
1. During debt ceiling negotiations
2. After Elizabeth Warren veered off the reservation where she questioned the lack of an investigation by state Attorneys General trying to settle with the banks over foreclosure fraud. I'm bettin' the banks didn't like that and their representatives Geithner and his buddies didn't either (I'm sure Holder was pissed too).

Also, she has been in multiple meetings over the past 6 months with DSCC, some Party people like Axelrod and congress-critters from Mass. regarding running for Senator.

so she could just be a convenient sacrificial lamb and that was probably one of those secrets everyone knew including her.

[sabrina 1]

66. Yes, especially her questioning why there were no investigations

into the foreclosure fraud. Another story that died before it got any traction, was the report from the Senate Bi-Partisan Committee where both Repubs and Dems stated that actual crimes had been committed and that they, Sen. Levin was the Dem and was interviewed a few times, had recommended that investigations begin to the DOJ.

Levin and his Repub counterpart were furious over what they learned over the course of those two years. But then OBL was killed and the media dropped that story.

I think when she was subjected to the abuse she took recently from Republicans she realized how nasty things would get for her if she tried to do her job there.

As for the DSCC, they may have wanted her to go as that is what Wall St. wants and offered her a shot at running for the Senate instead. If I were in her position I might take that also, as standing alone against Wall St, which she essentially would be in heading that agency, could be pretty devastating, the are ruthless people.

[Theo Haffey]

3. Op-ed brough to you by the renowned journalist "bobswern"

Seriously?

[sabrina 1]

7. Did you follow the links to the renowned journalists who have

been watching this story for months now? Bobswern is merely the delivery person, we are capable of following the links s/he provides. And it's not encouraging at all to see how many people respected people were concernede that this is what would happen and the people would be deprived of one of the best and most intelligent consumer advocates in the country.

[WillyT]

8. Said The Renowned Poster "Theo Haffey"

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[Theo Haffey]

69. Criticism against me brought to you by "WillyT"

lol.

[Uncle Joe]

4. I believe she would've been ideal for the job, it's too bad we can't have the best.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT.

[sabrina 1]

5. Wall St was terrified of her, especially Geithner who she eviscerated

in her questioning of him regarding the mortgage crisis and the money set aside to help people stay in their homes, which was not used hardly at all for that purpose. He was very angry that she had the gall to keep demanding answers of HIM, who in his mind, is above being asked what he is doing with the people's money.

She was not wanted by Wall St. and this WH doesn't fight Wall St. for whatever reason.

[Mimosa]

17. Geithner is creepy

He's not quitting any time soon is he?

I got a big kick out of Geithner having been portrayed by handsome actor Billy Crudup in the "Too Big to Fail" whitewash drama. Only in Geithner's dreams could he look as good as Crudup.;)

[sabrina 1]

44. Yes, and for someone who is so inept, and who broke the law

by not paying payroll taxes which he admitted he knew was wrong, he has an awful lot of power over the fiscal affairs of this country.

Lol, maybe he had a say in who would play him?

[Drew Richards]

15. IF she ran against Obama at this point i would vote for her...

[MedicalAdmin]

18. Ooooo. +1

Of course I know another excellent and smart woman, patty Wetterling, who ran against m. Bachmann and was beatike she stole something. America doesn't reward excellence anymore, it rewards grifters.

[chill_wind]

21. And Dawn Johnsen would have been some serious excellence too

at the OLC. We saw how well she was rewarded for her strength (and patience).

[girl gone mad]

19. I hope she does.

[Scurrilous]

62. She would be a shoe-in.

Seriesly.

[Lorien]

72. Me too. In a heartbeat. nt

[indepat]

25. First, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid get thrown under the bus, now

Elizabeth Warren. Who on earth could have seen all these things coming? :patriot:

[bowens43]

65. President jellyfish caves again........

what a pathetic excuse for a president

[amborin]

68. K&R