Elizabeth Warren supposedly wanted what some people are calling President Obama a sellout and a coward for.
I won't call any users out, but a search for Elizabeth Warren will bring you a whole host of diaries with comments praising her and calling the President a coward, saying he fucked up by not doing things their way. But what happens when the subject itself approves of the way she is getting her position, and also wanted it to be that way. Have any of you read the Huffpost article titled: Elizabeth Warren Didn't Want Permanent Appointment To CFPB: Frank. This isn't some unnamed source either, it's Barney "frickin" Frank, who is a friend, admirer and supporter of Ms. Warren. Here's what he had to say.
Elizabeth Warren made it clear to the White House while it was debating her nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that she was not interested in a five-year term to run the agency. Barney Frank, a Warren ally, delivered that message to the White House, he told HuffPost in an interview Thursday.
"She always said she didn't want to be there as a permanent director. Some of the liberals are worried about it. It's almost an insult to Elizabeth. She wouldn't take this if there was the slightest impediment to her doing the job," he said.
Which is exactly what some of the people here have been saying since this hit the blogs. If Elizabeth Warren is so great do you really think she'd accept a meaningless positon that is only for show? That is meant to make progressives happy, but doesn't hold any real power?
A lot of people also believe that she only reports to Geithner, which isn't true, she reports to him, and the President. Which means if she wants to, she can go straight to President Obama whenever she feels.
An administration official said that Warren will be officially named on Friday as an "assistant to the president," the same title that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other top officials hold, as well as a special adviser to the Treasury, overseeing the establishment of the CFPB.
I don't know, if you ask me the President is still a coward for not nominating her to a permanent position where she'd be filibustered to hell for over a year by Republicans and probably even some Democrats like Chris Dodd who oppose her nomination. /s
The administration, however, still has the option to nominate Warren to a permanent position.
Frank said that he was "delighted" by the administration's choice. "I want to give credit to Tim Geithner for working this out. There's absolutely no chance that she will be anything less than fully independent. She wouldn't have taken the job," he said.
The administration's announcement has been greeted with some skepticism in progressive circles, as Frank acknowledged. Bob Kuttner, a co-editor of The American Prospect, was one such skeptic, but as the outlines of her new position become clear, he has embraced it. "This strategy is a win-win, on several grounds. It gives Warren full authority to set up the agency, without having to run the gantlet of confirmation hearings and a likely Republican filibuster," he wrote in a HuffPost blog post Thursday . . ."
Anybody still think Warren is being sidelined? Anybody still think that she won't hold any real power? Or that she is being duped by our bought out President who is a coward? That Timothy Geithner is going to be the one who holds the power over her and she won't be able to do anything about it?
If this doesn't change your mind about this situation, then you can't keep calling the President alone a sellout and a coward, you also have to call Elizabeth Warren that too!
So what say you Daily Kos!?