Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  She clearly wanted the job (rolls eyes) (0+ / 0-)

    1) Why would she sit through days of being grilled by Republicans in Congressional hearings if she didn't even want the job?

    2) Why would Obama take all the heat he knew was coming for not nominating her if it wasn't his decision.  He is too politically smart for that.

    There is nothing at all in Warrens comments above that indicate she never wanted the job.

    In fact, there is not one shred of credible evidence she did not want the job, yet people here keep repeating that myth because they refuse to face the fact that Obama cares more about his corporate donors than the voters.

    Dont confuse her graciousness towards Obama or speculation about a possible Senate run with not wanting the job.

    As for Barney Frank, he gets more money from the financial lobby than any other Senator, so he is not credible.

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

    by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:42:59 AM PDT

    •  No, she clearly didn't want the job (6+ / 0-)

      She wanted the job she had. She was willing to do what she had to do in order to create the CFPB, but not be stymied by Congressional hearings getting her nomination stuck in the process.

      And this?

      Why would Obama take all the heat he knew was coming for not nominating her if it wasn't his decision.  He is too politically smart for that.

      You're going to have to translate that into English if you want a response.

      I heard her comments to Andrea Mitchell. Apparently you didn't. There were clearly comments in there that said that she didn't want the job.

      At least 2 users here have stated that they categorically heard her state on TV shows that she didn't want the 5 year appointment. And Barney Frank does have credibility on this issue, and he's told us repeatedly that she didn't want anything but the job she got.

      So, you're totally wrong.

      •  Translation: (0+ / 0-)

        Obama knew that progressives really really wanted to see Warren appointed.  

        So he knew that announcing he was appointing someone else would piss off a lot of Democrats, which it did, and rightfully so.

        IF, as you claim, it was HER decision and not HIS, why wouldn't he just have said that from the beginning?

        I haven't seen or heard what she said on tv, but IF she did in fact say something like that, it was only for the purpose of taking the political heat off Obama.  If that's not the case, why didn't she take her name out a long time ago???

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

        by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:14:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Her name was never IN contention (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan

          She never wanted the job. She wanted to set up the commission, and she did that.

          She wanted to stuff the CFPB full of like-minded people. She did that.

          She wanted to tell Obama who to name as the head. She did that.

          She wanted to be able to walk away after doing all those things. She's doing that.

          It's not "pissing off a lot of Democrats". It's pissing off a few Democrats. Most Democrats don't care. Most who know anything about this acknowledged months ago that she didn't want the position, and so they don't blame Obama for not nominating her!

          It's only those people who believed that Obama wouldn't nominate her because she was too liberal, too progressive, who've been pushing this. They pushed it last spring, when they were certain that he wouldn't name her to be anything. Then when he named her to be special adviser, it was that he wouldn't name someone as progressive as her - that he was too scared to name her - rather than it being that he was too smart to do it because all she wanted to do was form the CFPB, and she didn't need to go through a confirmation process in order for her to do that!

          Obama was smart here. He named someone just as progressive as Elizabeth Warren in naming Rich Cordray. Cordray will have just as tough a time getting past the nomination process as she would have! So, the false meme that Obama was too chicken to name a progressive as head of the CFPB is totally blown, and fools like you are still unwilling to admit it! That's your flaw, not mine.

    •  You can trash Democrats like Frank all you want, (10+ / 0-)

      but the agecy in question was set up by a bill that HE was one of the prime authors of.  What is it about "true progressives" that they spend way more time trashing Dems than GOPers?

      •  Because "True Progressives" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        malharden

        Are the "Real Democrats", don't you know?  They're in the "Democratic Wing" of the Democratic Party, or so I've been told.

        "Jesus, does President Obama start anything on time anymore? It's like being in a club and waiting for Lauryn Hill show to being."- The Rude Pundit live-whiskey blogging Obama's Big Damn Middle East Policy

        by lcj98 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:18:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Dodd-Frank Act (0+ / 0-)

        is a toothless joke.  It was written with the help of the financial lobby and it doesn't do anything to regulate derivatives, prevent another financial disaster, or end too big to fail.

        Of course the CPFB itself is a good thing that came out of that bill, but how effective it is depends largely on who is appointed to head it.  

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

        by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:19:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          malharden, Sophie Amrain, Escamillo
          Of course the CPFB itself is a good thing that came out of that bill, but how effective it is depends largely on who is appointed to head it.  

          Its success depends far more on whether repubs successfully gut the CFPB through lack of funding and/or removing CFPB authority.

          Its success depends on the groundwork already done by Warren and Cordray, and their ability to hire the best and brightest. Both of them have been key in attracting good people to work at CFPB.

          Cordray has excellent qualifications to run CFPB.

          The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -FDR

          by SoCalSal on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:49:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, the idea that ONLY Warren could do it (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Escamillo, SoCalSal, Sharoney, FiredUpInCA

            Is ludicrous! There's virtually never a time when there's only one person who could hold down any job!

            •  The idea is also ultimately self-defeating. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharoney, FiredUpInCA

              If Warren were indeed the ONLY person that could run the agency, and the term as director lasts only 5 years, then at the end of 5 years, Warren would step down, and since ONLY she could run it effectively, the agency would be totally ineffective and useless from then on, forevermore.  So what would be the point of creating the agency at all?  Just for 5 years of consumer protection?

              So yeah, the idea that only Warren could run the agency makes no sense, on multiple levels.

    •  how does appointing Cordray indicate that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalSal, sewaneepat
      Obama cares more about his corporate donors than the voters

      Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

      by SottoVoce on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:33:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not the appointment of Cordray (0+ / 0-)

        that indicates that, it is Obama's refusal to appoint Warren.

        Which is why Im putting my foot down over all this desperate spin that Warren never wanted the job.  She did.  The banks didn't want it.  So Obama bowed to the pressure from the banks.

        How anyone can even argue Obama is doing the right thing with a straight face given Obama's track record of selling out Democrats is beyond me.

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

        by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:50:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you indicated earlier in this thread that (0+ / 0-)

          he bypassed Warren to deliberately piss off Democrats.  I think he wanted an agency head and could see that she definitely wouldn't get confirmed.  One thing is for sure, neither of us knows for sure.  But I am pleased with Cordray, and hope that Warren runs for Senate from Massachusetts.  

          James Allen posted this information on a comment in the fp diary about drafting her:

          Elizabeth Warren’s calendar sure looks like the schedule of a woman considering a Senate bid, or at least someone being courted by power players in Massachusetts and the Senate Democrats’ campaign operation in Washington.
          In recent weeks, Warren has met in person or spoke on the phone with Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, David Axelrod, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Massachusetts Democratic Reps. Barney Frank, Stephen Lynch and John Tierney. The phone call with Murray took place in early June, Roll Call has learned.

          This is heartening news.  I signed the petition to draft her.  Will you?

          Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

          by SottoVoce on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 05:36:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  She didn't want the job (0+ / 0-)

          This ain't rocket science.

          Here's a link to her interview with Rachel Maddow.

          Warren starts at about the 9 minute mark. Her comments about the job start about the 13 minute mark.

          She was asked if she wished that she'd been appointed to be running the agency.

          She gave a very long answer, but ended up saying "Nope". She said that the Republicans made it clear that she would not have been able to run the agency. And because she and Obama recognized that, she didn't want the job! She's willing to step away from the agency for the best of the agency! And that's what she did, and because that's what she wanted, she didn't want the job.

    •  As I mentioned above, (0+ / 0-)

      you are basically calling Warren a liar. And Barney Frank, too. If as you believe she has unshakable integrity and will stand up to anyone, then your premise says in this case she is not behaving that way.

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

      by CoyoteMarti on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:16:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site