Elizabeth Warren appeared on the White House blog today, explaining her new position as Assistant to the President.
The President asked me, and I enthusiastically agreed, to serve as an Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 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.
President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again for families and creating protections that work not just for the wealthy or connected, but for every American. The new consumer bureau is based on a pretty simple idea: people ought to be able to read their credit card and mortgage contracts and know the deal. They shouldn’t learn about an unfair rule or practice only when it bites them—way too late for them to do anything about it. The new law creates a chance to put a tough cop on the beat and provide real accountability and oversight of the consumer credit market. The time for hiding tricks and traps in the fine print is over. This new bureau is based on the simple idea that if the playing field is level and families can see what’s going on, they will have better tools to make better choices.
If the CFPB can succeed at leveling the playing field, we can go a long way toward repairing a gaping hole in the budgets of millions of families. But nobody has ever thought or argued that the consumer bureau can fix everything. Lost jobs, stagnant incomes, rising costs for college, dwindling retirement savings—there’s a lot of work to be done.
Warren’s Assistant to the Presidency will allow her at least a foot in the door on the rest of that work – a voice for the middle class that doesn’t currently exist. Simon Johnson writes:
Second, the president finally has an adviser who understands the financial sector and who has healthy skepticism about its intentions and actions. As we documented at length in 13 Bankers, too many top policy people — both in this administration and all its recent predecessors — have been overly inclined to accommodate the interests of finance, particularly the big banks. In this regard, putting Ms. Warren directly into the White House with the highest possible level of access is exactly the right thing to do — much better, for example, than making her purely a Treasury appointment.
I simply don’t agree that this forecloses on the option for a more permanent appointment – everyone involved has said that’s on the table down the road. For now, she runs CFPB from the outset.
UPDATE: We’ll see what the announcement brings, but there is a good deal of confusion surrounding Treasury’s ability to stand up the agency based on how the law was drafted. You can interpret it as saying that they have full ability to regulate and write new rules, or that they basically have administrative capability and the transferring powers from separate agencies. There’s probably enough in the way of structural planning to do before rulemaking gets going, but Dodd-Frank didn’t exactly make this easy. Warren makes it pretty clear: her task is to “get the CFPB started.”




189 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Oh, dday, you are a glutton for punishment, bless you.
I had my say last night and am staying away from the Warren issue for the duration, until there is actual evidence of how it is working. But I’ll be reading with a great deal of interest.
It sounds better to me than it did yesterday. Sounds as if the President has agreed to serve as a buffer between Geithner/Summers and Warren. This could be a good thing. Better yet is that the public stands behind her. Good luck, Elizabeth! Something tells me you’ll need it!
This is appeasement until after the elections and then an immediate sellout will follow!!!!
At least it’s a grudging acknowledgement that there are inhabitants of the hinterland outside the confines of Wall Street.
I would remind everyone that a real Public Option was “on the table”, too…until Obama killed it to please Wellpoint, Humana, and Joe Lieberman.
The idea was to simply get Warren picked to head a CFP Bureau that hadn’t been spayed and neutered.
All of the “interim” shit came out in the past few days.
I see this as just more incremental crap from Obama, as he desperately tries to find the price-point for avoiding a firestorm from progressives, while not pissing off the republicans who hold those BIG congressional margins…nor, aggravating all of the american voters/consumers who will be so irate if he inconveniences the Holy See of Wall Street.
I should add: since Warren is so very willing to be Obama’s “centrist” dog-yummy to dangle in front of us in this sorry charade, I’ve lost a lot of respect for her. (I had none left for Obama, to start with…which looks to be putting me squarely in the pot with one hell of a lot of other people who handed a young black man an historical political win, and the opportunity that came with it.)
I suppose that this nebulous “special assistant” position is the best that we, the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, could hope for. But I’d hold out a lot more hope and this appointment might have narrowed my enthusiasm gap had I not seen how Obama treated Dawn Johnsen.
I certainly share the HOPE that Warren can exert some influence inside the WH.
My cynical nature says that this just makes it easier to lock her in a closet and slide a pizza under the door once in a while; a sort of “keep your enemies closer” containment strategy.
It’s called throwing bones to barking dogs.
Another half assed “decision” by the Appeaser.
You’ve done great work on this, David.
Yer gonna wear out that shovel, Davey. :-)
There just seems to be a concerted effort on the part of this administration to refrain from doing what a strong majority of sensible Americans want to be done.Lobbyists and their controlling corporate masters rule while the rest of us have to wait for the crumbs to fall from the table!!!
Nobody doesn’t like Elizabeth Warren. I have the feeling, maybe it’s just that hope again, that the Thugs will mess with her at their peril.
Spot On Tanbark!!
VERY grudging.
Instead of flicking her back and forth in front of progressive noses like she was a bass plug, he should have picked her to head the CFP Bureau, sworn her in on the steps of the stock market, and publicly enjoined her to kick some Wall Street ass.
That was what was called for…and it would have given progressives hope that he just might have understood that his presidency is now hanging in the balance, and that he’s finally decided to confront the republicans and their shit policies. Instead, he’s nickel-and-diming his way along, in the best tradition of political hacks…sawing away on the fiddle, while Rome, and his presidency, burn.
Warren wasn’t going to make or break us, but it was a line in the sand that needed to be drawn, in his face. All he’s done is reach out, stir the sand, and remove the line. Clearly, Warren is happy to help him do it.
Presidential applicants: Next, please!
We had a big battle over this yesterday and I don’t want to revisit that battle. But when asked by the president to serve, one has to make a judgment as to his sincerity — that he will at least listen to you. She has made that judgment and, regardless how it turns out, we should respect her for it. IMHO, of course.
I agree. You can’t make any progress if you don’t make a start and maybe this is the road to getting what we need. I have absolute faith in her integrity.
thanks David
See Ezra Klein yesterday on this also. I don’t at all see how this makes formal appoint of her any more (or less) difficult down the road.
I spent a good chunk of the night a couple past reading the bill and the enabling provisions for formation of the CFPB. Done properly, the contemplation is for sucking in huge swaths of power, almost like a smaller version of the reorganization that formed the DHS, but is a good way. I think Warren will be interested in consolidating this power in an agency that might actually help people; I do not think any of the others involved, whether Geithner, Summers, Obama, Banksters, MOTUs and the agencies the power would be carved out from, will be interested in this at to any real degree at all. As is, Geithner and his Treasury team will have the last word on this, not Warren.
But the thing is, the power Geithner has is vested in the head of CFPB once confirmed or installed by recess appointment, which could have been Warren. That is a HUGE difference that Obama has intentionally and actively worked his ass off to prevent occurring. Today is the first big date, the date Geithner specifies the operative date for transfer of powers from other areas and agencies, which is the date the whole formation will then be calendared off of. It is a huge date. That is one of the main reasons why they strung Warren out till today, so she had no input on that. So Obama Could have named Warren immediately and pushed hard for fast confirmation or recess appointed her so that she had the power to do this right. Instead, he intentionally strung her out and insured that Geithner had all the real authority to not make the CFPB what it ought to be and has, further, insured that Warren never is confirmable in the future (the logistics after the mid-terms will make it impossible). Heckuva job.
It’s possible, but the beauty of it is, she can always appeal to the public. I think they know she has the public’s ear and we are on her side, because she has proved that she is on our side, unwaveringly. More than the Prez or any of his minions have done.
This president has from the start, reached out to the GOPigs on every piece of legislation so far. And what they have done is dismantled every meaningful part of every bill and then proceeded to vote against it.In doing so,what we were left with was watered down ineffective legislation that continued to feed the greedy corporations!
My point being: Everything has to be destroyed and start from scratch!!
I am glad to see that someone speaking for the bottom 98% of Americans now has a position in the White House.
I strongly disagree with you, but will give you credit for admitting that the critics of this are, at a minimum, implicitly denigating Warren’s intelligence and/or integrity. Last night when this was discussed no one would concede this point.
lurking
give it a rest
yes
Thin edge of the wedge better than no wedge at all, I suppose.
“I am confident that I will have the tools I need to get the job done.”
Confidence based on what? Believing what Obama says? The wheels of the presidential bus don’t even touch the ground any more because of all the people who’ve made that mistake. Good luck, Ms. Warren. You’re gonna need it.
o/t
hey eCAHN, you still around ?
want to ask you about something. if you are so inclined, would you mind leaving me your email addy at clarebeatrice@gmail.com
thanks
On the face of it, Warren has some basic disagreements with Geithner. (If she doesn’t, then we’re being played for a bunch of dumbshit libruls, for a fare-you-well…) Now that’s she’s allowed to hang around the door to the Oval Office, is she going to publicly butt heads with her effective boss, Geithner? I wouldn’t bet on it.
I think whatever populist instincts and any agenda for them that she possessed, have just been utterly co-opted.
I have this strange feeling that Rahm Emanuel is reading this thread and others like it, and laughing his ass off.
Or a small wedgy for progressives is far better than the big wedgy we’ve been getting.
Very good insight. But, in order for that to work, it seems that either 1) Warren must be kept in the dark to be thrown under the bus later; or 2) Warren was in on the whole thing, making her as great a thespian as Obama before his election. Or is there a 3) ?
What does it say about the state of things that a consumer advocate has to be driven around in the trunk of the car? Do they have to bring her to Washington D.C. in a sealed train? Is she that scary? Is consumer protection that repugnant?
OK. I’ll now believe that the appointment is real.
Now, it’s up to Warren to play the internal politics that gets done what needs to be done. This is set up for Geithner, Bernanke, and Warren to contend for the President’s ear on the direction of the agency. I think that Warren is up to this political challenge. And I do believe that she is structurally where she wants to be at this time — neither under Geithner’s thumb or Bernanke’s thumb.
I think she will be able to deliver a strong Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. And I think the idea that she’s all of a sudden a sock-puppet for Obama an expression of ODS. But we will see.
“… she can always appeal to the public.”
Do you really think that the WH will tolerate “off the reservation’ messaging?
That was my analysis also after ready the law. Indeed I believe they expect her to resign a few months after the first of the year – and that will be presented as a gift to the new GOP controlled Congress.
what could they do about it?..take away her calculator
Great analysis.
Charge her with sexually harassing Timmeh.
“We should respect her for it.”
Why???
As I said, the entire thrust of our side of the argument was that Obama should simply and unequivocally put her in to head the bureau, with no strings attached, and with her regulatory tools intact and sharp. The incremental shit to water that down started just a few days ago.
Now, Warren has been given a desk and a toy computer, in the White House broom closet. In exchange, it’s nauseatingly obvious that part of the deal is that she publicly lick Obama’s hand.
You can respect her for that if you want to.
My mileage varies.
Bingo !
Call me cynical but with Warren’s appointment and the Dream Act coming just weeks before the elections it looks like a transparent attempt to garner the last minute vote of the progressives for the mid term elections !
If so , at least they know were still here …….. barely .
brain bleach stat
consumers NEED protection
More evidence of PG&E cost-cutting prior to San Bruno explosion
PG&E, the California utility that operates the pipeline that exploded in San Bruno last week, killing at least seven people, failed to perform a scheduled replacement on a near-by pipe, according to a consumer advocacy group. The utility also did not install automatic shut-off valves, which might have significantly reduced the damage and death toll from the explosion.
According to The Utility Reform Network (TURN), in 2007 the company was paid to replace an old section of pipe just north of the ruptured section that caused the explosion. The entire section had been considered “high risk” by the company for many years because of the population density surrounding it and its age—over 60 years old.
The 2007 plan was funded by a customer rate increase approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The project was scheduled to be completed by 2009. Yet despite the high risk, PG&E did not complete the replacement in 2009. Instead, it demanded and received another $5 million, funded by another consumer rate increase. It then put off the pipe’s replacement until 2013.
The $5 million PG&E garnered by charging cash-strapped customers for critical repair work to the San Bruno gas line that was never done is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of millions the company spent to back Proposition 16—an effort to prevent cities and counties from managing their own gas and electricity networks—earlier this year
TRUE DAT!!!!
Amy Allison of KPFA (94.1fm Bay Area) just compared Warren to Van Jones.
Put in a slightly more professional way, part of the deal is that she will respect the decisions he makes. That’s ALWAYS the deal when one works for the president.
Spencer Ackerman has a fresh cross-post available: Petraeus And Obama, The Buddy Comedy
Excellent post! Thanks for saying it so well. You express my concerns perfectly.
sadlyyes and econobuzz, I am sure you would like me to. But, I am not inclined to since my point exposes the flaw in your argument.
Which is:
1] Warren must be appointed as head of the CFPB because her unparalleled experience, intelligence and integrity will allow her to successfully take on the banksters; and
2] Warren has willingly agreed to be a “centrist” dog-yummy to dangle in front of progessives.
Both can’t be true.
Yes, I think there is a 3). And that is Warren has a decent grasp of exactly what I said and much more, but wants to do whatever she can, however she can, and figures anything she can accomplish on the inside is more than she could on the outside. She is probably right about that. But make no mistake, the Obama White House has screwed her royally compared to how this should have gone, and it was craven and intentional. For that, the citizens, “little people” and middle class are getting hosed royally.
Speaking for econobuzz only, I think it’s time for nap.
Warren will never be appointed to be the actual head of CFPB; that ship has sailed and the Obama WH sank it to make sure it never sails back. Anybody who believes this will lead to Warren being the future head of CFPB is a fool.
“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” – Sun-tzu
Yes. If Geithner’s crowd is able to marginalize her and she loses, we’ll know about it. If she is able to fight that off, perhaps via her direct line to the Prez.–which she may have insisted on–we will know that also. And if this whole thing is a charade at her expense, she will leave the Admin., and she’ll say why she’s leaving.
I guess one either believes she has integrity or one doesn’t. I personally think she does, based on past history. If Obama is playing her, or trying to play her, he’s taking a big risk in doing so. All she’ll have to do is pick up a phone to her chosen liberal journalist and blow the whistle.
You’re begging the question: if there were the political will for nomination, why not do it now and simultaneously appoint her interim commissioner?
bmaz:
This is truth, and the only truth that matters.
Who shoved the cactus up your ass this AM, bmaz?
simpleton
Goldman Sucks will have the last word
because she’d be stuck in confirmation hearings until 2011 sometime.
I’m willing to consider a 4.) she still believes what the Obama administration says, at least on some subjects (like some in well-intentioned folks on this thread).
Obama will throw her under the bus like the rest of his progressive supporters as soon as the election in over.
I can’t help but reach the same conclusion- that she has been (is being) screwed. There are just too many examples of this WH dangling a carrot and then yanking it away or otherwise undermining it.
Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt, and maybe Warren will somehow find a way to be effective, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
I see it as a vain (as in ego and vanity) attempt to elicit the progressive vote.
Will this be delivered in a document dump today, or is it an internal document?
Since this is the date the whole formation will be calendered off of, Warren is in the position of having to meet those calendar deadlines. For the time being, Warren gets the power of saying to the Treasury worker bees who are putting the agency together that “The White House wants….” If Geithner or Bernanke disagree, they can take it to the President.
All three of these folks are seasoned players; they won’t let any frathouse tricks be pulled on them. Warren as TARP oversight chair has shown herself to be neither spineless, clueless, nor feckless.
Upthread: “…she can always appeal to the public…”
Not any more, she can’t.
As for Oldgold’s touting her intelligence and integrity, I think that stock just took a big nose-dive.
If she were honorable AND smart, she would have spoken truth to power and said to him:
“Mr. President. At this point, I think you need me more than I need you. If I withdraw from consideration, there is going to be a progressive shitstorm on your head, and it will come as your numbers are tanking; the big congressional majorities you’ve…enjoyed…are about to disappear, and precisely as you are on the verge of becoming the poster boy for a one-legged duck.
Put it this way, Mr. President: I don’t want to have kiss Timothy Geithner’s ass. He’s part of the problem, not the solution. I want that Bureau free and clear of all encumbrances, so that I can do something substantive to get these corporate leeches off the backs of poor and working class americans. I’m not a good “adviser”, but I will be a good head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let’s do it now, while we’ve got the numbers in congress, and don’t worry about a big fight over it. Trust me on this one: the voters will be delighted to see you daring the republicans to trash me in hearings, while un-employment is at 10 percent, and the GOP is pissing and moaning about letting Bush’s tax cuts for the fatcats expire.
Sir, things are about to start happening rather quickly. I’d appreciate it if you would consider all I’ve said and then let me know what your decision is, by the end of the week. If you want my good reputation, but not me, then I’d like to hold a little presser announcing that I’ve withdrawn from consideration to spend more time with my family.
Best to Michelle and the kids, ‘Liz.”
Meanwhile running the agency. Your point is?
You state that as if Geithner and Obama are opposing forces, whereas they actually work hand-in-glove. O and G agree on policy in every area over which G’s office has influence. Not sure what signs you’re seeing that Obama would ever oppose him.
Soon the GOPigs will lay the blame on the UNOINS!!Wait for it!!
BMaz: I think you’re right. We’re standing on the station platform watching the caboose disappear around a curve.
Unfortunately, or hell, maybe fortunately, I think it’s a pretty good metaphor for Obama’s presidency.
Unlike most of the folks here, I’m betting that she will win the agency she wants to set up. After all, she got the law authorizing the set-up of the agency written so that the agency had authorization of strong powers.
Until the first details come out, we are not arguing from reason but from emotion.
Then why hire Warren at all? Why not hire a Geithner puppet and have done with it.
True enough.
Nobody even particularly knows about this from what I have see; probably may not even be announced at all, you will have to look for it if you want to know. Maybe it will get picked up somewhere, but I have not seen it so far. I should probably elaborate that today is the last business day to make the designation, Sunday is the actual last calendar day. If any media pick it up, my guess is it will be Monday morning.
Your glib dismissal of our positions reminds me of the Obama administration. That’s not a dig, but I do take this dialog as evidence that this is a wedge that the admin is trying to drive into the progressives who are currently fairly well united in their opposition to this admin’s triangulation.
yup
You’re seriously asking this? Six weeks out from midterm elections with polls showing a huge GOP advantage in voter enthusiasm?
There is not a chance in hell Warren can get confirmed by the next Congress. It would have been a fight even in this one.
You are arguing that both Obama and Geithner actually wanted a Consumer Finance Protection Bureau with strong powers. Or you are arguing that Obama and Geither don’t get what they want out of the Democratic Congress. It can’t be both.
Aha! Next Friday’s dump.
jeebus,you are the oracle of delphi
No, they wanted a fig leaf over their pro-Wall St. policy orientation.
As an aside, if we believe the rhetoric there’s a whole lot that Obama wants (public option?) that he hasn’t been able to get out of Democratic congress.
You are presuming the composition of the next Congress based on the conventional wisdom. There is still an election yet to have.
The way the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is authorized in the bill is one hell of a fig leaf.
You just don’t believe it’s storming until you’re struck by lightning, huh? You think the Dems are going to add seats to their historic majority? You’re having a laugh.
You guys know the problem?
We want someone we can believe in…and someone who won’t speak a lot of bullshit to try to cover the fact that so much of our government’s agenda, for so many years, has been so bloodily, astronomically expensively, wrong.
A lot of us thought that, at minimun, Obama would make a substantial reduction in that. I don’t feel the least bit guilty for thinking it. We had every reason to be optimistic and hopeful. No one I read or heard expected him to nationalize Exxon-Moble or shut down Wall Street. We just wanted regulations in place (and, ahem, people willing to enforce them…) that would have restricted the excesses that we saw so much of in bush’s 8 years, and really, prior to that, also. Unspinnably, we have not gotten that, and I believe to my marrow, that THAT is why we’re about to get shellacked in November; not because the voters are buying the gibberish about Obama being a socialist.
For me, this dog-and-pony show with Warren is really disheartening. I guess that means I’ve got, or had, some vestigial hope left. Not so much, today.
and i thought i was cynical…….g
You are aware of historic examples of the co-opting of opposition by the passing of unenforceable/non-enforced legislation, no?
I’m not arguing from emotion, but will admit I’m speculating as to what the future holds. My guess is that the Geithner puppet you mention upthread will be installed early next year. And the CFPB will have been neutered. Happens in regulatory bureaus all the time.
Yes, because it is so pathetically transparent. And frankly, nobody is more likely to vote for a democratic senator or house member because the president, who is not up for election, hired Elizabeth Warren. Do you think those in contested races across the country will seize upon this Warren hire in their stump speeches? “Vote for me! The President hired Elizabeth Warren!!”
Somehow I don’t see that happening.
Obama could have made a recess appointment. She is that important but, only to liberals and progressives that the White House has repeatedly made fun of. She is only a prop for this election and then Wall Street will tell Obama to behave himself or else.
imo,Warren would not spur voter turnout,too little too late
okay back to work..bbl
*sighs*
Honestly, I hope you are right. But I do not think you are.
And the line is: vote for Dems, progressives-they care about the small people!
Yeah, I do see that
line of bullshitmessaging being rolled out.The Republican upside is now 51 seats after the election. The Democratic upside is 68 seats. The people have not voted yet; only the pundits have voted. And based on my conversations with my friends, neighbors, family, and coworkers there are not as hardened opinions yet as most folks believe. And being in NC with friends in SC, I have a pretty diverse personal network.
The current polls are basing their models on the last three elections. If there has been a structural or demographic shift in the electorate those polls will not catch it. This is, in my estimation, an election in which no one knows what will happen.
It’s storming all right, but the Democrats are not the only ones who will be struck by lightning.
It will be interesting to see who actually gets the appointment to head the agency. I think that will tell us everything we need to know.
“Then why hire Warren at all?”
Because, if he had straight-up put Warren in as head of the Bureau, it would have given progessives a reason to cut him some slack. Now, a lot of us who remember the HC “reform”, and all of the rest of it, are very supicious of Obama’s incremental “solutions”.
LBJ used carry around his poll numbers in his pocket…at least, until they got so low it was like he was hauling around trouser-turds.
Obama’s a modern president: he tracks thing on his Blackberry. But if anything he’s more into reacting to rises and drops that was LBJ. Which is why they’ve sculpted this little ice-statue appointment for Warren.
She’s in, as an “adviser”, and it will all melt away in due time.
What’s puzzling is that Obama’s presidency is unspinnably doing the same thing, and he’s just camped in the middle of the centrist freeway while it bears down on him like a semi.
Wag, I think the voters are about to deliver the “or else”.
In fact, I think they’re about to deliver just the “else.”
I appreciate your skepticism of polls. They’re not oracles and can be exotically incorrect in their prognostications.
A GIANT gap in voter enthusiasm, however, I’m inclined to believe actually exists. That’s based on my interactions with my fairly diverse personal network (I’m a socialist and my associates tend to be in the same vein, politically, but my family is full of Tea Party supporters).
Was just at Balloon Juice. The Obots there are saying firebaggers aren’t happy with Warren’s appointment because it doesn’t go far enough, and that we are perpetually angry.
Hey, Obot–everyone should be angry at how we are being sold down the river by the corporate state!
Wonder if Bob Cesca will chime in with his centrist bilge.
And, btw, I prefer to be called a shrill leftist. Firebagger sounds moronic.
This should have been the front page post.
I agree with you. But not for the same reason.
Warren would not make a difference in turnout because white progressives in blue states are not key to the turnout in an election. And because most folks who are working for the election of Democrats in seriously contested states are (1) working for a particular candidate that they know and want to win, and (2) not aware of who Elizabeth Warren is or what the CFPB will do. All they know is that a financial industry reform bill passed. And a healthcare reform bill passed that ended exclusions for pre-existing conditions, lifetime and annual limits, and withdrawal of insurance from people who got sick.
Out of curiosity, is dday a member of whatever the current iteration of Journolist is called?
All I’m saying is that the doomsayers are not necessarily right on this. They could be, and that will be known soon enough, either way.
I’m not saying, as bmaz does above, that anyone who disagrees with him on a specific point “is a fool”. All I’m saying is that there is a plausible argument that this is not the disaster some see it to be.
Fair enough, and note that I’m not calling anyone a fool.
Though I do think bmaz’s post is spot on and can completely understand his frustration. I’d say anyone who disagrees with him is an “idealist” or “romantic”…then again, I don’t read the pejorative into “fool” as much as most. (That’s why I’ve got a stick tattooed on my ribs!)
I’ll be positive today and say that the Warren appointment can’t hurt. But then a little voice keeps telling me..”Yeah, but how many times have you been let down.”
One pipe dream of mine would be to see a freeze on all foreclosures. Don’t know if Warren can influence such a policy change. For the Obamamites it seems like a radical move. But perhaps it may come to this–that Obama will be forced to do what’s right–if the economy keeps circling the drain. I can hope, right? I mean, if Obama were smart and wanted to be reelected in 2012 he’d think about the freeze. I know, I know…don’t tell me…
While what you say is true, based on the history of this administration vis a vis the financial industry, it seems unlikely this is anything other than a lame attempt to excite the justifiably unenthusiastic base, and will be yanked away at the earliest opportunity after the election.
I doubt that Warren is in on it, but if she gets ratfucked, I expect to see harsh criticisms coming out of her mouth/pen.
Sometimes it feels like people are having these arguments in a vacuum that ignores all the actions the WH has taken toward Wallstreet and the Big Banks since Obama took office (and before ofcourse, but we are talking about Obama’s WH now).
Every single time there was a choice between favoring the middleclass or Wallstreet, Wallstreet won. Sure Obama’s rhetoric and pretty speeches sound differently, but the policies constantly favor Wallstreet. Most who know anything about Summers and Geithner are not surprised by this.
And now there is even talk that the latest 50 billion dollar infrastructure plan is yet another cleverly branded giveway to Wallstreet.
http://michael-hudson.com/2010/09/that-50-billion-infrastructure-plan/
So from where I sit, the question isnt whether or not this approach to the Warren appointment is designed to help the middleclass or not, but rather how will the sellout or bait&switch ultimately look. A secondary question I agree that is up for debate is whether or not Warren is actively colluding with this sham or if she thinks its her best chance to make meaningful changes while accepting that being used as PR for a Wallstreet beholden WH will part of the price she pays to try.
But to argue or suggest that the Obama WH is at all interested in a strong Consumer Protection Agency that actually lives up to its name and mandate seems absurd.
“…an election in which no one knows what will happen.”
In specific terms, I believe you’re right, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that the democrats are going to lose a lot of congressional seats, and maybe, the house. (The Senate just got tougher for the GOP, with Delaware Barbie producing that 6 point spike for Coons almost overnight, to make a 16 point lead for him.)
But with this president, the degree of loss of congressional seats is almost irrelevant. Is he going to mount the kind of salvage operation we so badly need, with those big democratic majorities cut in half? (If we’re lucky…) Given his track record so far, I think not.
Put it like this; the small changes he’s proposed (for which the GOP is practically accusing him of being Karl Marx.) in foreign policy and domestic, have done practically nothing to improve things. And at this point, his political survival is contingent on inprovement, and FAST improvement. I believe it’s too late.
I think that even if the democrats keep nominal control of both Houses, Obama is about to become a one-term president.
If that is what happens, I will not blame the voters. He was hired to do a job, and he was given the tools to do it. Instead, he chose to sit down and drink beer and fuck off, with the very people who created the miserable situations he inherited.
Now, the process of firing him is about to begin. I can’t fault the voters for doing it.
I don’t think Obama gives a shit about regular people, but he has to look like he does or risk losing in 2012. He’s got a real problem. He’s a right winger who sees bidness as the savior to our problems. Yet, the reality is that it hasn’t worked–this absurd faith in “the markets.” It’s like a religious faith–and that’s ultimately Obama’s Achilles heal. He is dogmatically opposed to anything that seems socialistic. His god is the market, just like all of the US elite.
Those who post/lurk here are political junkies who have some depth of awareness about the “workings” of govt/politics that most citizen-voters do not. I reserve any judgement about Warren’s character or possible lack thereof; I simply don’t know, even after reading much about her. FWIW, I wish her well but remin totally cynical about her ability to do much of anything. Hope I’m wrong.
Agree with a prior post that, punditry & Fox, aside, I don’t think anything’s a “done deal” yet in the coming general election. I doubt that many voters have even heard about Warren, much less will know anything much about this typically Obama-weird appointment to ??? whatever it’s supposed to be. In that regard, imo I don’t see this appointment as doing much of anything to sway even a significant minority of voters in the election.
My “guess” is that it *might* be some kind of sop to the leftie political junkies & pundits who have, with justification, felt very insulted by Obama’s verbal abuses and have spoken/written about it a lot. That’s stricly a guess, but while I watch tv pundits seldom, I have been struck by often the “lefties” sqawk about Rahm’s and Gibbs’ abuse.
So… perhaps a sop to make them/us STFU? Dunno. Possibility. I doubt that this appointment will lead to anything that in any way inures to to the benefit of the “small” people or the country as a whole. Our Wall St. overlords simply will not pemit that to happen. You can take that sentiment to the bank.
What Ann said, David. And still and again thanks for your reporting and coverage.
I know we’re tough on you at times . . . may the scars heal quickly . . ;-)
I guess having Warren finally in and doing SOMEthing is better than nothing.
So I’ll segue a bit and muse, ponder, and continue to fret and worry and despair at a complete and total lack of banking, financial, and Wall St regulation.
Wish they’d fix THAT with a Warren personage. But I want a pony with horn on it’s head, too.
Most likely.
I have gained a little experience over the last year in vote counting on nominations in the Senate. The possibilities for Republican crossovers for Warren are restricted to Charles Grassley (pretty decent shot at Grassley actually), the Maine twins Snowe and Collins and Scott Brown. When the new Congress comes on line in mid January, there are likely to be 47-48 REpublicans in the GOP Senate Caucus. McConnell can maintain a filibuster easily and clearly will. No chance of Warren getting confirmed in the new Congress.
Bingo! We can read the tea leaves and choose to impugn Warren or praise her. It doesn’t really matter. The bottom line is that the “small” peoples’ needs are not going to be “served” by this Admin. The MOTU have made sure who’s needs come first, and it ain’t yours or mine.
Rahm is just waiting for the glue to dry before giving it to you Larue .
Don’t worry .
Wassup Hoss!
Great points to reiterate.
I don’t know if I’ve lost any respect for Warren, MHO is that she was Wellstoned at some point with an ultimatum regarding her health and the health of her family and friends.
So, in that regard she’s only doing what she has to.
They don’t play fair, and history has proven it sufficiently for me to believe it.
Always good to see your fonts hoss, hope yer picking some back there . . .
The public has no input in anything the President or Congress does, so to think we can influence them to listen to her is never going to happen. I fear this is a bullshit cover your ass thing for Obama. Let’s face it Geitner is never going to piss off his bosses on Wall Street, so the dream of a consumer watchdog just got flushed like all the other promises from this President. I am glad he is going to be one termer, another 4 years of Bush is enough.
Once again, have you been reading the news for the past 3 days?
She has publicly stated, and so has Barney Frank, that she doesn’t WANT the long term appointment or the job. Ergo, there will BE no appointment.
Catch up, CO.
Probably not… no matter who wins. Even if the Dems, in a hypothetical universe, won every race and had super-majorities… I seriously doubt Warren would get confirmed. With the T-Partiers standing a good chance of getting in… well, case closed. Done like a dinner.
Fool was maybe a harsh term, I did not mean it as an insult. Maybe fooling or kidding themselves would be more appropriate.
Thanks bmaz, I didn’t know that about Geithner having already pulled it together in that manner.
Your observation seems spot on and typical for this crowd.
Thanks for all that work you did reading the legislation.
Bullshit, I said she had been threatened, like all are when they dare to tred too far from the corporate overlords desires.
For me, the lack of respect you perceive does not exist, only the pressure they put on her.
Do NOT speak for me.
Yep, co-opted is a nice way of saying they had that little chat with her about her health and her future.
If Rahm IS reading this, Fuck You, You Fucking Fuck.
*G*
Yes, #3 is they had the ‘chat’ with her.
Ie; don’t fly in small planes and check the brakes on your car.
The last thing I would ever do is speak for you.
To say that Republicans can win the House is to say that Republicans will keep all of their current seats, win the special election open seats and pick up 40 seats from the Democrats. You have to tell me which 40 seats including the seats open from retirements that the Republicans will take (I can think of 31 I’d wish they take). The GOP is already positioned to lose DE-AL thanks to Delaware Barbie. And it will be kinda hard to paint Democrats running for open seats as being too liberal or too conservative although you can bet the GOP will try to paste on the “too liberal” label.
heh.
They’re just afraid the elastic is about to snap.
I always hesitate to second-guess bmaz, but we need to separate evaluation of Elizabeth Warren’s power over creation of CFPB as an Assistant to the President from the prospects of her confirmation as permanent director of CFPB.
So, I disagree with bmaz on this:
We are in administrative law territory now. Which I know lots about and have experience administering from the inside from my 9-year legal career inside a federal agency back in the dawn of time and from litigating against admin agencies since then in one of my other careers. I’m sure bmaz is a much better and shrewder litigator than I was, but I’m saying administrative law has way more moving parts than appear in a lawsuit over admin agency action.
Under admin law, even though much is delegated to an agency under its organic statute, until an agency actually exists the President always has the “last word.” By appointing Elizabeth Warren as one of his few “Assistants to the President,” Obama can if he wishes ask her to advise him on exactly what he should order Geithner to do in creating CFPB. Nothing done up to date is cast in concrete, carved in stone, written in blood, untouchable by man or god. Obama could order Geithner to exercise his statutory discretion in particular manners. That is the essence of executive branch distribution of power. I did not see anything in the FinReg title creating CFPB which prevents the President from ordering Geithner how to exercise the powers of the Secretary of Treasury under FinReg. Geithner can resist politically but he serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed if he refuses Obama’s orders. Thus, Obama can order Geithner to appoint specific persons to head the many separate statutory offices within the CFPB, allocate specific statutory authorities to those offices, and make specific rules, all in conformity with the advice Obama receives from Elizabeth Warren.
She can be in charge because Obama is in charge.
*G*
THAT was beautifully spoken.
She’s already said she doesn’t WANT the long term job.
Why is everyone ignoring this?
No, he’s just right.
Am I caught up yet, or can you give me another link better than this.
Now that I’ve read thru more comments, I agree in full.
David has been doing tremendous work on covering all of the ups and downs of this process. The process has been complex and strung out with an ever evolving line pitched by the WH. There is ample room for disagreement as to what it all means and how it will play out. I was very deep into the Dawn Johnsen nomination ratfucking, know just how bad it really was, and that, along with so much more from the WH, has caused me to be very jaded. Rightfully so I would argue.
But hey, I honestly hope the believers are right and I am dead ass wrong, because that would be great news for Warren, the CFPB and the country. at worst, I think she will have some positive impact, and that is good; however, it is almost certain it will be nowhere near what could have, and should have, been.
For any so inclined, go read the actual CFPB enabling provisions in the Dodd-Frank Bill. I think you will begin to understand the awesome power that could be in CFPB if it is taken and done right. That power, and the ability to NOT exercise it, stays in Geithner/Treasury hands, and subject to the influence of Banksters, until a CFPB head is confirmed or recess appointed. And that, folks, is exactly why they have refused to nominate or appoint Warren or anybody else. Here is the Dodd-Frank Bill.
The bill is very explicit in that the Treasury Secretary has the power. It is in the bill.
As I said in passing above, whether she can be confirmed as permanent director is completely separate from whether she can actually control formation and policy of the CFPB. If bmaz assumes that Dems will not repeal the filibuster rule in January on formation of the new Senate, then he is probably correct that the GOP could block her confirmation if they control 47 seats. The GOP would not even need three or four traitorous Wall Street stooges among Dem Senators to betray their party and betray the middle class to block her confirmation.
But if GOP controls 47 or more seats in the new Senate, even without winning control they could prevent all further legislative progress. That changes strategy for everything, not just Elizabeth Warren. That means nothing left unfinished in the current Congress including the lame-duck session will ever see the light of day for two years. No more extensions of unemployment benefits, no more job protections for teachers & police, no more improvements or amendments to Health Ins. Reform, no repeal of DADT, no card-check law (EFCA), no nothing that Dems have campaigned on for the last six years.
Thank you.
Keep saying it over and over again PLEASE.
Some folks just don’t ‘get it’ yet.
*G*
I didn’t take it as an insult, but you might check with DDay–we’re in his house. I just think it’s a poor method of argument. good on ya, bmaz.
Right on, hoss.
That is what Barney Frank said. I also know that Warren has, behind the scenes, been campaigning for the CFPB permanent head since before the bill was passed. It is her baby. I think the line she didn’t want it is pure spin. She may not have stayed a full five years, but she wanted the job.
THAT was funny!
Yes, the statute confers initial organization/formation authority upon the Treasury Secretary. And, yes, as you said above, the powers conferred upon the CFPB are awesome & impressive. Geithner does not execute his power in a vacuum. He serves at the President’s pleasure. Obama with Warren beside him in the White House can control how Geithner administers his authority. If Geithner does not like it he can resign. Are you just assuming that Obama wanted to keep Warren under his thumb so she could not openly fight Geithner?
Read it for yourself.
Geezzzzzzzz . . . . .
Fully concur on the amount of work David’s done on ALL issues, as have you.
And yeah, Dawn Johnson hurt us all . . . even those of us who look to YOU and others to sort it all out for us.
I’m jaded, too, but I think that’s pretty well demonstrated.
*G*
And as you say, good luck to all.
Here’s Simon Johnson’s take at Baseline Scenario.
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/09/16/elizabeth-warren-the-right-appointment-at-the-right-time/#more-8043
I believe Obama, to the extent he cares at all, is much more amenable to the Geithner/Summers view. I think the only real involvement Obama will inject is to use his thumb on Warren so that the Geithner,Summers, Rahm view gets its way, not the other way around. I think you can bet the family farm on that.
Assuming you believe your first statement, why exactly does Obama need Warren to control how Geithner administers his authority? Couldnt Obama just fire him if he dissapproves and Geithner refuses to comply with Obama?
First–the argument was not whether she wanted the job or not. The argument made by many has been that this FORECLOSES on the possibility that she can ever get the job. I don’t see that argument as convincing, yet.
Second, she has not flatly refused the job, and the Prez. hasn’t asked her to take the job, as far as we know. If he flat-out asked her to take it, we simply do not know what her answer would be.
I’ll swear I saw an article with Mz. Warren herself saying she didnt’ want the long term job. An interim spot was acceptable to her.
I maintain, regardless of what she or anyone else has said, at SOME point, TPTB/MOTU’s had a little ‘chat’ with her and the rest of this is pure charades for the midterms.
It’s a token to proggy’s, and the retarded left. And it’s a poor token, easily seen thru for being smoke and mirrors.
I fully concur she wanted the job, but I posit she’s been ‘talked’ to. So the interim slot is fine, now. And it’s all part of the royal scam on proggys, who are so hep to it all, this move seems to be STUPIDLY OBVIOUS as being a scam.
Time will tell, as it always does . . . and again, thanks for ALL the work you do, bmaz.
Like bmaz said @145, it is possible Obama does not really care deeply about how the CFPB is structured or how its policies are framed. I would answer your question by adding that I think Obama does not really KNOW what needs to be done OR he does not reallly have time to do it, which is why he hired Elizabeth Warren. She DOES know precisely what needs to be done and how to draft the executive orders and proposed regulations to accomplish what needs to be done, and she will have a staff and budget to do that.
But if bmaz is right, Obama will not allow Warren actually to do anything useful. Which contradicts everything Obama and Warren have said about why he is appointing her and why she is accepting the Assistant to the President job.
I can appreciate you discussing what many others have suggested in these threads about Warren . . . and I concur with your reasoning regarding that.
But that’s not MY posit. My posit is:
1) She wanted the job, all along.
2) Recently, someone had the ‘chat’ with her about small planes and brakes on her car.
3) She, and Barney, come out and begin to suggest she doesn’t want the long term job.
4) And we are where we are at as of yesterday’s announcement of her interim spot.
I wanted much much more for Mz. Warren, I wanted her to save the day. But that’s not the case, and as I keep saying, she’s been ‘spoken’ to.
The rest is kabuki for the elections, and a desperate attempt by MOTU’s in the Dem Nether Regions to placate us effin retards.
Life’s simple, don’t screw it up.
*G*
Sorry if I got testy . . . . my bad.
;-)
I have zero faith in what Obama says. But I also don’t think Warren is that stupid, or gullible. As mentioned before, this all rests on her cred, not his.
Again, this begs the question. What makes you think O would choose her position over that of Geithner should they disagree?
Even if I am correct in my admin law parsing, I do agree with ProgThis that the White House timed Elizabeth Warren’s appointment to be part of this week’s lame “fire up the progressives” spin-cycle. Which they can jam up their ass. Joe Biden played zero role in our campaign to get Obama through the primaries, and has lost everything important argument in the White House. I don’t take orders from Joe Biden. Or anybody in the White House.
That he doesnt know is one of the weakest Obama appologies I have ever heard. Are you suggesting Obama doesnt know what Warren wants to do and yet is appointing her to this new position anyway?
Not having time doesnt really make sense either. If Obama believed what Warren was selling, and you acknowledge Obama knows what that is, he could just order Geithner to implement it. He could even ask Warren later if she thought Geithner was following through on his orders.
But neither of your points explain how Warren increases Obama’s authority over Geithners authority, which was your central claim.
I like what you said.
Well done.
Now, I’m off to fresh FDL fodder to peruse!
Thanks to all for the ‘chat’ heh heh heh heh.
To Sapphires @152, Casual gave my answer to your question “what makes you think O[bama] would choose her position over that of Geithner?”
We believe Elizabeth Warren and we believe in her and we trust her. That’s the whole point of this thread.
Don’t take this personally, but you’re both mistaken and delusional. Now that she’s a formal member of the administration she’s required to defer to the official administration position on things and not speak out unless and until her comments have been pre-approved.
I also agree with Tanbark @5. Very cogent analysis of the situation.
In addition, although Bmaz makes a great point about how Obama hung her out until after Timmy Tax Cheat had set up the CFPB the way he wanted it, the real importance here concerns not the CFPB but the Catfood Commission. Barring her sudden resignation, Warren will be unable to speak out against Congress enacting the Catfood Commission recommendations.
important question. Which I would answer first with a few additional questions: What does an “Assistant to the President” actually do? What is actually required to implement the organization of CFPB?
Borrowing gnome’s phrasing, “If Obama believed what Warren was selling … he could just order Geithner to implement it,” as long as Obama had the detailed paperwork needed to give those orders to Geithner. The President can’t just say “implement Warren’s vision,” under admin law he needs to order Geithner to use specific draft regulations (which Warren has in her head), promulgate specific plain-vanilla financial documents (which Warren has already written), appoint specific persons to head offices (people Warren knows personally from her sustained work in this field), and allocate budget resources to the more important functions (investigations of predatory lenders, audits of banks, enforcement against predators & payday lenders, etc.)
This shit takes full-time attention and staff. Even Elizabeth Warren, the genius that she is, will need the rest of the year to frame the CFPB and recruit its administrators, even assuming Geithner cooperates. It’s not something Obama can just will into being.
I am sooo afraid you’re right.
Remember, the CFPB is going to allocating & spending at least $500 million in its first year of existence. From zero to half a billion for consumer financial protection in a single year.
Rahm Emanuel can kiss my ass.
All because of the O admin’s triangulation.
As for your comment at 141, you once again beg the question.
It doesn’t matter what see says or does. She’s window dressing for these klowns. Useful to try and get a few Progressives and Libruls out that might have other wise stayed home in Nov. They’ll use her pretty face ( weird hairdo though) and then stuff the new agency full of Geitner and Summers cronies a, all Wall st. flunkies and nothing will change. We’ll hear nothing more about her the min. the election ends and the Gopers take back over on the Hill.
Exactly. His is a circular argument. Again, not a dig-analysis.
There it is again. You continue to embed the assumption that somehow poor weak little president Obama doesnt have authority over Geithner, you know, the guy Obama appointed and can fire any time.
Frankly, you seem to believe because you want to believe, and I dont think logic or any argument I make will have any effect on that. You seem both to have faith in Obama by believing this latest PR maneuver as genuine, and yet not faith in Obama suggesting he is too stupid to know what needs to be done or to weak to control the agenda of his own confirmed appointees.
Doublethink much?
Good point on the catfood commission. but for consumer protection, Warren now holds a nuclear weapon, and Obama gave it to her. If they screw with her sufficiently, she can walk away in disgust and say something like:
that would be a huge, massive hit for Obama to take, so close to his own reelection effort.
Thanks to David Dayen for linking to the WH release. I didn’t see anyone comment on the ending of Elizabeth Warren’s statement. Might be a little treacly (precious) for some of us hard-bitten trench fighters, but remember, this is where she came from:
“When she was 16, my grandmother, Hannie Reed, drove a wagon in the Oklahoma land rush. Her mother had died, so she was up front with her little brothers and sisters bouncing around in the back. When I was growing up, she talked about life on the prairie, about marrying my grandfather and making a living building one-room schoolhouses, about getting wiped out in the Great Depression. She was hit with hard challenges throughout her life, but the moral of her stories was always the same: she would solve her problems one at a time by pulling up her socks and getting to work.
It’s time for all of us to pull up our socks and get to work.”
keep reading. you’ll get to @158 eventually. accepting some of bmaz’s conclusions but refuting others doesn’t make my reasoning circular.
your synthesis is missing an element: the administrative law tools necessary to make orders to Geithner effective. Would be pleased to know your suggestions regarding what administrative law to apply.
Wow. Lots of logical fallacies today. This one’s special pleading.
With all due respect, you’re missing the point. She is now part of the administration — in both areas.
I dont think you need one beyond:
Do it or you’re fired.
Yep. You’d think a guy who states…
Fractal:
…would get that.
Your argument proves too much. I am looking for your argument on “administrative law” but you are giving me fiat, which is the opposite of law.
If you were the President, you could accomplish your entire agenda by fiat. You wouldn’t need any Assistants to the President. Why would you even need Cabinet secretaries? There are thousands of capable administrators, regulation drafters, lawyers, accountants, auditors & economists on the govt payroll. As President, you could just call a real big meeting of everybody where you could say “Do it or your’re fired”? Your problems would be solved. Right? “IT” would just happen. Right?
Except, of course, nobody would know what the fuck you are talking about. What is “IT?” Where do I find “IT” written down in a proposed regulation or budget?
That was only useful an argument or two ago. Once it no longer seems to work in the Obama appology, its discarded for a new excuse.
Or in other words, arguing with an Obama appologist involves hearing an endless stream of “What i really meant was…”
Obama can kiss my ass right after Rahm kisses my ass.
You missed the part where I said WH is dreaming if they think appointing Elizabeth Warren to this new job at this late date is going to galvanize the progressives or get us to do whatever the fuck Biden said he wanted us to do in the RM interview. See @153.
You know, if I was President, I would tell people I appointed to ennact my agenda or resign. And if they dont resign, I would fire them, and find someone willing to enact my agenda, and appoint them.
I would assume the American people had voted for me in order to see ennacted the agenda I described as a candidate, and not someone elses who they never voted for.
You know what I wouldnt do via presidential fiat? I wouldnt order the assassination of an American citizen without due process because I actually would attempt to honor my oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States.
If anyone wants to see more of this, there are 704 comments on this over at the Orange Beast:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/17/902684/-Elizabeth-Warren-says:-Pull-up-our-socks
Meanwhile, since David Dayen and bmaz framed this thread in terms of administrative law, I am still looking for some admin law wisdom as opposed to sophomoric rope-a-dope & insult slinging.
Your absolute refusal to admit your assumptions sinks every argument you try to make.
Show me where I slung an insult and I’ll gladly STFU. Pointing out actual forms of logical fallacy in your position is not an insult.
Had the same thought-the guy has the stones to have American citizens assassinated on his whim but he can’t stand up to Geithner? C’mon…
Now you’re making sense.
Although, I couldn’t resist: Obama used his Assistant to the President for National Security to draft that order as a Presidential Finding related to covert operations then executed that order. Obama didn’t “write” the order, that’s what his “Assistants to the President” do, they write the shit.
That’s what administrative law is, writing down the shit you want done. The President doesn’t write the shit, he signs the shit. He doesn’t just declaim and issue fiats, he has his “Assistants to the President” implement his agenda. Along with Cabinet Secretaries.
who said administrative law was logical?
I work with lawyers, but have the day off b/c it’s Yom Kippur this weekend. I’m taking the day off from sophistry. So I’ll agree to disagree and jog on…
video of President appointing Elizabeth Warren, as of roughly 2 hours ago.
check out particularly Obama’s reference at around minute 6:45 of the clip to her new role as “White House adviser.” He did NOT say “Assistant to the President.”
However, MSNBC’s text coverage updated a few minutes ago says specifically that she WILL get the powerful “Assistant” title:
The MSNBC text update does contain this apparently new detail:
Come on, are progressives inherently gullible? Don’t trust any words from this pack of bastards, only tangible actions. This is kabuki, it won’t amount to anything.
You nailed it. More poor Kabuki bullshit.
Holy shit, never thought of that.
Why IS that, she can’t speak out on Catfood?
There is simply absolutely nothing negative about this appointment of Elizabeth Warren as special assistant. Despite the epic levels of fear, paranoia, conspiratorial speculation and wishful negative self-fulfilling prophecy evidenced in this thread nothing stated here really detracts from the net positive of this appointment.
In appointing Elizabeth Warren to this position Obama has chosen to publicly identify himself with her, and that includes not only the positions that she has so wonderfully articulated, but also those who identify themselves with her. Whenever the circle of people with whom the president publicly identifies himself with changes, whether through addition, change, or removal, the respective roles that each of these persons hold in regards to the the president changes. By including Elizabeth Warren in this circle with whom the president chooses to publicly identify himself, Timonthy Geithner’s, Larry Sumner’s and even Rahm Emanuel’s roles will inevitably change. What is expected of them, by the president, and how they are to comport themselves publicly, cannot but change, and change for the better, now that Elizabeth Warren is part of this inner circle.
Now does this mean that her presence is going to automagically make everything hunky dory? Hell no. But the outright pro-Wall Street orientation of Obama’s inner circle will now be checked to some extent by the inclusion of the concerns of countless millions of citizens who are more adequately represented by Elizabeth Warren. This isn’t merely my opinion, this is the inevitable consequence of the various constituencies which are represented by this inner circle around the president and the expectations-all the way up to and including face-saving gestures to which the president commits himself when publicly identifying himself with someone.
The fact is the president has rather substantially changed the constituency to whom he is beholden merely by appointing her. And this is “beholden” in the sense of obligation, not merely in the form of monetary corruption(campaign contrbutions etc.), but that which really counts-the ability to save ones face in front of the public. This is not merely an issue for politicians who claim to have/are held to have integrity. This counts just as much for politicians who only seek to save their face due to vanity(think Nixon). There is never anything trivial about whom the president publicly identifies themselves with, even more so who hold coveted titles like Warren. Nothing of this substance can ever merely be a ruse, for there is nothing virtual about the obligations and expectations under which the identity of a politician functions-these things are there reality of the identity of anyone holding public office. Not even obligations due to things like campaign contributions have as much a hold on politicians as do their public allegiances. People tend to conflate these issues, attributing that which is a function of public association with debts due to campaign contributions, where in reality it is the choices of public association which originate the flow of campaign contributions, because in the first instance campaign contributions are in and of themselves forms of public association.(oh dear god I have to stop otherwise I will end up reverse engineering the rationale for Citizens United, which I adamantly oppose…..)