Skip to main content

View Diary: Elizabeth Warren - I never wanted the chairmanship (127 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  This diary fails, from the headline on... (9+ / 0-)

      So...

      She was on the short-list at the White House, all along. The "short list" for what, exactly? A good parking space?

      And, the NY Times and a variety of other major MSM outlets all started out their stories over the past 24 hours with the words: "...the White House passed over Elizabeth Warren..."

      It never fails to amaze how some in this community will go out of their way, COMPLETELY into the depths of fiction to attempt to contort facts.

      Mind-boggling and pathetic. Truly.

      It would be quite funny--and, in fact, many other Democratic-leaning blogs mock this place because of diaries just like this--if it wasn't so damn sad.

      You gotta' stop embarrassing yourselves with revisionist crap such as that put forth in this diary.

      And, besides, we have a decent nominee, at the end of the day...but, it's just one day...we'll see just how far Cordray gets...without a recess appointment, it may not be very far, regrettably.

      Meanwhile, this diary is right up there with the "we made a profit on the Wall Street bailouts" meme.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:39:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, they've said that she was passed over (18+ / 0-)

        That's been the meme that's been out there.

        As it turns out, based upon her own comments, she wanted to be passed over.

        You're the one who's failed here, bobswern. There's no revisionism in my diary. What has been bad here at DK is people leaping to unsustainable conclusions. She didn't want the job last summer, and she didn't want the job (or the nomination fight) now either.

        And who said "she was on the short list"? Not me, and not my diary either. Of course she was a potential person for the chairmanship, but she didn't want the job, so she never made it to the short list - only people who want the job get onto the short list.

        Oh, and thanks for showing us that, rather than simply post your thoughts, you felt that you were so special that you could reply to the tip jar and get yourself extra added attention because you're just so special that you deserve it.

        (And yeah, I know that there's no site rule against replying to the tip jar - that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do, just because there's no prohibition on doing it!)

        •  Loyal appointee (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bobswern, MTmarilyn, Catte Nappe

          > As it turns out, based upon her own comments,
          > she wanted to be passed over.

          Personally, I got that impression from the beginning:  she was willing to be the sacrificial point person, but having absorbed that punishment knew that she couldn't and didn't want to try to continue.

          However, one also has to acknowledge (reality-based, right) that any person who is a good at top-level appointed executive politics would say that after not being nominated whether they actually wanted to be nominated or not.  At that level personal feelings no doubt hurt inside but cannot be allowed to affect one's support for the President or other appoint-er.  So these words tell us nothing new.

          sPh

        •  It's over (0+ / 0-)

          Go away. Put a sock in it.  Stop trying to spin this into another flamewar.

          "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

          by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 02:02:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, you're right that it's over (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sophie Amrain

            But it's your side who lost.

            It's your side that has maintained for the last year, contrary to all the available evidence, that Obama was unwilling to name a true progressive to lead the CFPB, when the evidence we have says that Warren didn't want the job

            For example, bobswern cited this video as evidence that Obama was unwilling to nominated Warren - but that's not what Rep Frank even says!

            Frank is asked if she could be confirmed. He says

            Probably not, but I want to try it. I think the President is too unwilling to make the kind of fights that don't necessarily win.

            But that doesn't mean that she wanted the job, and she's told us that she didn't want the job! As such, she never was more than a potential nominee, since she didn't want the job! It's not equivalent to Obama saying that he's unwilling to fight for this appointee!

            And Cordray will face a terrible battle in Congress getting approved. And Obama is submitting his name, and so the false meme that Obama won't do this is destroyed, and Warren herself has repeatedly destroyed the false meme that she wanted the job. She didn't. She's thrilled to be going home soon.

      •  But perhaps she wanted to ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sphealey, bobswern

        spend more time with her family.

        "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

        by Demi Moaned on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:52:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Naw, she's sick of (0+ / 0-)

          D.C. and is delighted to go back home. Where she'll run for Senate, and move to D.C.

          ...

          •  That would be nice, but (0+ / 0-)

            ... the Senate race is far from a slam dunk. Steve Kornacki's analysis over at Salon seems right to me, especially:

            In his 18 months on the job, Brown has skillfully separated himself from his party's national brand and emerged as the most popular politician in Massachusetts. It may be true that his simple presence in the Senate serves to empower conservative Republicans who themselves would be intensely unpopular in Massachusetts and that Brown is mostly a reliable Republican vote. But that's not what most swing voters in Massachusetts apparently see. They like Brown personally, enjoy his style and -- thanks to several high-profile and well-timed breaks with the GOP leadership -- consider him an independent voice, not a Republican drone.

            "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

            by Demi Moaned on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 02:38:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  She is sick, right now, of D.C. (0+ / 0-)

            Hey, you got something right, for once - will wonders never cease.

            But of course, you didn't actually get anything right, since your comment was sarcasm.

      •  No, "Warren appointed to sideline her" was (11+ / 0-)

        a great example of what a FAILED diary looks like.  Oh, it was written by you, BTW, when Warren was appointed to set up the agency.  And that diary implicitly insulted Warren's intelligence and her toughness.  That, after penning a diary implying that Warren was weak and/or clueless, you'd go on demanding that she head up an agency, only adds to the farce of that diary and your follow-up diaries/comments wrt Warren and the Consumer Protection Agency.

        •  Once again, you totally distort MY commentary. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Betty Pinson

          You, and a few others in this community, have a really sad habit of doing that; and not with just yours truly. Then again, when the truth doesn't suffice to build a case, one's options are to either shut-up or distrort. (And, I'm being kind by using the word: "distort.")

          Shouting down someone really doesn't make your case.

          More importantly, the facts work entirely against you. But, by all means, keep shouting.

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:02:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  indeed (12+ / 0-)
            Then again, when the truth doesn't suffice to build a case, one's options are to either shut-up or distrort.

            kinda like how some people distort the situation to present it as obama was somehow shorting warren, who by all accounts didn't want the job long-term?

            http://www.youtube.com/...

            i'm not a washington person; i never really wanted a job here.

            i had this idea for the agency and figured someone else would take care.  i am here to set up agency to start pushing back.

            i don't know the politics, but i don't see this as a compromise at all.  confirmation would have kept me from being able to work on or talk about agency.  or i could not have that title and get to work right now.  i don't care what you call me; let me come work and help.

            http://www.youtube.com/...

            Right off the bat, just answer your friends out there, your allies who are highly suspicious of this temporary Presidential appointment, or that he did it because he just didn't have the backbone to fight for your nomination.

            Warren:  We see completely eye to eye on this consumer agency.  This predates him becoming a Senator and I am convinced he has given me the tools needed to get the job done.

            Under no circumstances would you be the nominee down the road?

            Warren:  Nomination was on the table, but we would have spent a year fighting.  I couldn't talk; I couldn't work.  

            and the "toothless" financial reform bill that got passed?  it created the CFPB and Warren says this of it:

            The president has just signed into law the most powerful financial reforms in three generations.

            My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

            by Cedwyn on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:22:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are better than most (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CoyoteMarti, Joieau

              at spinning, but ultimately it is just spin to pretend she didn't want the job.  

              Again, if she didnt want the job, why did she keep her name in the ring?  

              Why didn't she make the announcement HERSELF that she was withdrawing her name from consideration??

              Maybe it's because she wanted the job.  And of course she did.  The agency was her baby from day one.  Did she relish arguing with corporate legislators over reform?  No.  

              And saying, "The president has just signed into law the most powerful financial reforms in three generations"  is like saying, "The Nets have won more games this year than they have in decades."  

              It is true, but it ain't saying much.  

              "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" -- Von Goethe

              by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:46:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Her name WASN'T in the ring (3+ / 0-)

                That's your preconceived notions making you leap to unsustainable conclusions!

                As her name was never in consideration, there was no need to make some public announcement to tell you fools that her name wasn't in consideration! There was nothing to withdraw if it was never in consideration!

                I swear, you need to stop digging.

              •  who is pretending? (4+ / 0-)

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                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."

                ..."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."

                Again, if she didnt want the job, why did she keep her name in the ring?  

                Why didn't she make the announcement HERSELF that she was withdrawing her name from consideration??

                because it is just about always ill-advised to make such proclamations, as it limits one's options.  it limits one's ability to use a situation for effect.  etc.

                My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

                by Cedwyn on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:51:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, I dont buy it coming from Frank (0+ / 0-)

                  He is just not credible in this situation because he was trying to protect Obama.

                  He knew how popular she was and how bad it would look for Obama if he didn't pick her.  He ALSO knew that the banks were digging their heels in and that Obama would never stand up to them.  

                  She never said she didnt want the job, but she didn't want to embarrass the President either.

                  Clearly Warren is a person who is very good at saying exactly what she means.  When she was asked by Andrea Mitchell whether she was dissappointed, she dodged the question by saying she was very pleased with Cordray.

                  If she never wanted the job, she would have said so at that point.  Her silence in that case says a lot more than what she did say.  

                  Warren is about getting the job done.  That's all she has ever cared about from day one.  The fact that she didn't take the bait and get bogged down in the messy politics of the situation just speaks to her dedication.  

                  That is why she was the best person for the job and that is why Obama screwed up by caving in to corporate pressure by not appointing her.

                  "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" -- Von Goethe

                  by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:09:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  You're believing what you want to believe, (5+ / 0-)

                with far less evidence than Cedwyn and DollyMadison provide.  Indeed you have pretty much zero evidence for your beliefs.  And your belief boils down to calling Warren a spinner and/or a liar.  Keep on trashing her... It shows what "true progressives" are all about.

              •  Have you ever worked at the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cedwyn

                exeutive level of a big organization and/or been involved in major leadership transitions?
                 

                Why didn't she make the announcement HERSELF that she was withdrawing her name from consideration??

                Because when you are voluntarily handing over your co-creation to those who will be running it over the long term, you do it seamlessly and out of the public glare of ad-hoc statements to the ridiculous MSM.

                And there is also a huge difference between the styles, talents and interests of an entrepreneur/founder and those that lead the dream forward. It's why some cultures/tribes recognize the need for War Chiefs and Peace Chiefs. Organizations that don't recognize how to move fairly smoothly between the two suffer and stutter. Just what we need now? I think not.

                There can be no deficit reduction without jobs, no jobs without growth, no growth without investment.

                by CoyoteMarti on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:00:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for including these quotes and links (4+ / 0-)

              What's clear to any thinking human being is that she didn't want the permanent 5 year position nor the fight in Congress to get that title.

          •  Ignore them (0+ / 0-)

            They sound less and less like Obama apologists and more like something else entirely.

            They're not helping Obama or Democrats.

            "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

            by Betty Pinson on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 02:03:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, actually, we are (0+ / 0-)

              Elizabeth Warren herself on MSNBC tonight said that because they (she and Obama) saw the writing on the wall, she didn't want the job. She simply wanted to set up the CFPB.

              Explaining this to the fools you guys have deluded with your nonsense sure does provide value to Obama!

      •  Look at the bright side (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobswern

        He finally made a decision, or at least announced his decision.  After months and months and months and months of indecision.

      •  You're off the porch barking, chasing this bone. (0+ / 0-)

        Somehow, I think this is the one that got away, bob.

        Time to find something else to be outraged about.

        " 'You Rock?!?' (But been through less gravel.) My mystique suggests battle. And, what have You?" -Common

        by malharden on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:06:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This comment fails (0+ / 0-)

        because it's irrelevant. If she didn't want it, she wasn't passed over. Facts are facts, and your insistence on following the "Obama is a hippie puncher" narrative  in the face of the facts just completely distracts from what needs to be done.

        In shirt, you're lying. Good Day.

        If bin Laden owned an oil company, [the GOP would] be wearing long beards and shooting at US troops in Afghanistan.-Geekesque

        by Dr Squid on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:34:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)
        And, the NY Times and a variety of other major MSM outlets all started out their stories over the past 24 hours with the words: "...the White House passed over Elizabeth Warren..."
        It must be true, since we know the major outlets never spin, and especially do not spin in any way that would make something look adversarial. /snark
      •  We did make a profit on the bailouts. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sophie Amrain

        But don't let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Environment (38)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Culture (31)
  • Media (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Education (24)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site