Skip to main content

And no, I didn't hear her literally say that, but that's a fair paraphrase of what she said, and what Obama said about her in his press conference today announcing that she set up the new commission but wasn't interested in heading it long term.

I want to hear all those folks who claimed that Obama simply wouldn't appoint her apologize.

She didn't want the job. She didn't ever want the job. Rep Barney Frank told us that. People provided links to her comment, saying that she didn't want the full-time, 5 year commitment. She simply wanted to set up the commission. She was named "special adviser" because that's what she wanted.

And she just completed an interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, talking about how thrilled she is that she gets to go home, away from Washington, back to her regular life.

Consumer groups and many here at DK wanted her to have the role. She clearly didn't.

But somehow, people who want to think the worst about Obama seemingly couldn't believe that this is the way it could possibly be.

When MSNBC posts it, I'll link to the interview with Elizabeth Warren that happened during Andrea Mitchell's afternoon show, mere minutes after Obama's presser about the nomination of Rich Cordray. Mitchell tweeted that

What's next for Elizbeth Warren? Just on show says vacation & will do some thinking on poss sen run.

Here's the link to her interview. And her first question from Andrea? She's asked if she's disappointed that she's not getting the job, and she clearly says no, she's not. She says it's a new chapter for the agency and she couldn't be more proud. She says that she's really looking forward to stepping away from the 14 hour days - that it's time for a vacation. She said that she needs to go home, and she's very happy that she's getting to go home. Those aren't the comments of someone who wanted the job - those are the comments of someone who didn't want the job and is glad that she wasn't tapped for the job!

She didn't want the job. She clearly says that she's pissed off at how Congress is attempting to block the CFPB - why, if she feels that way, would she want to 'encourage' that blockade by putting herself forward as the nominee, rather than someone else?

In a post on whitehouse.gov written by Elizabeth Warren herself, they announced the nomination.

This is a big week for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Today, the President will announce his intent to nominate Richard Cordray to serve as the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On Thursday, the CFPB makes its transition from a start-up to a real, live agency with the authority to write rules and to supervise the activities of America's largest banks.

Rich will be a strong leader for this agency. He has a proven track record of fighting for families during his time as head of the CFPB enforcement division, as Attorney General of Ohio, and throughout his career. He was one of the first senior executives I recruited for the agency, and his hard work and deep commitment make it clear he can make many important contributions in leading it. Rich is smart, he is tough, and he will make a stellar Director. I am very pleased for him and very pleased for the CFPB.

This week is the culmination of two years of hard battles. The President put the consumer agency in his first outline of financial regulatory reform, and he never wavered in his support for it. The agency was declared dead several times, and weak versions and lousy bargains were offered again and again, but he stood fast. When he signed Dodd-Frank into law, creating the new agency, he offered me the chance to stand it up -- something for which I will always be grateful. The fights continued, and again, the President never wavered in his support. In fact, just last week he issued a veto threat if the Republicans try to move the agency's funding to the political process, and I know that in the future he won't allow opponents of reform to succeed in weakening the CFPB.

The agency has stepped out in the right direction. The work is good. But this agency needs to have its full powers right now, and that means we need Rich in place as Director. Today, I'm celebrating -- but I'm not taking my eye off those who want to cripple this agency. We got this agency by fighting, we stood it up by fighting, and, if takes more fighting to keep it strong and independent, then we can do it.

Elizabeth Warren didn't want this job, didn't want to have to fight with the Republicans to get the nomination confirmed.

Barney Frank told us.

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.

"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."

And Obama wanted her to do what she did end up doing, and he knew that she couldn't get past the Republicans obstructionists, and so he appointed her to a role that didn't require that Congress approve that pick, and so it denied them the opportunity to block her! It was a good move - yet another example of Obama doing the right thing, getting the best result he could get, given the actual facts. Obama says that

We can't let politics get in the way of doing the right thing.

In this case, the right thing to do was to appoint her as special adviser to set up the CFPB, allow her to appoint all the members, then pick a chairman from those she installed in the CFPB.

11:44 AM PT: Here's the comments from Obama this morning announcing Cordray's nomination.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

We cut the bureaucracy and put one consumer watchdog in charge, with just one job:  looking out for regular people in the financial system.  Now, this is an idea that I got from Elizabeth Warren, who I first met years ago.  Back then -- this is long before the financial crisis -- Elizabeth was sounding the alarm on predatory lending and the financial pressures on middle-class families.  And in the years since, she’s become perhaps the leading voice in our country on behalf of consumers.  And let’s face it, she’s done it while facing some very tough opposition and drawing a fair amount of heat.  Fortunately, she’s very tough.

And that’s why I asked Elizabeth Warren to set up this new bureau.  Over the past year she has done an extraordinary job.  Already, the agency is starting to do a whole bunch of things that are going to be important for consumers -- making sure loan contracts and credit card terms are simpler and written in plain English.  Already, thanks to the leadership of the bureau, we’re seeing men and women in uniform who are getting more protections against fraud and deception when it comes to financial practices. And as part of her charge, I asked Elizabeth to find the best possible choice for director of the bureau.

Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:51 AM PT: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:52 AM PT: Here's Rachel Maddow's interview with Elizabeth Warren on Monday night where she explained, yet again, that she didn't want the nomination.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

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.

  •  oh Dolly. you know that since the words (19+ / 0-)

    weren't uttered and signed in triplicate in front of the ghost of ted kennedy, this won't be good enough for some people.

    one thing those people and me can agree on though:  I hope she does run for the Senate.

    "I be the first to set off sh*t, last to run." ~Clifford Smith

    by mallyroyal on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:18:06 AM PDT

    •  She sounded open to the possibility (9+ / 0-)

      I listened to her interview with Mitchell. She sounded thrilled to realize that she can back away from the full-time work of setting up the CFPB and have some family time - she talked about taking her grandchild to Legoland!

      But she did nothing to shut down any consideration she might be giving to taking on the Senate job.

      And I'd love to see more women in the Senate and a Democrat represent Massachusetts again, as one should. There's not hardly a more liberal state than Massachusetts, and even a fairly liberal Republican like Scott Brown doesn't cut it for me or most in that state.

      •  wonder why she would be open to a six year (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CoyoteMarti, Joieau

        commitment as senator but not a 5 year commitment as head of the CFPB?

      •  The only time Massachusetts votes consistently (0+ / 0-)

        Democratic is in Presidential elections. Which this won't be.

        There's not hardly a more liberal state than Massachusetts,

        Massachusetts is not a monolith of liberalism. Central MA has a huge Tea Party presence, and the western part of Middlesex County, which is a bastion of white-collar, upper-middle management and CEO types, is solidly Republican. The same goes for the Cape, which is full of grouchy upper-middle-class retirees convinced that the Dems are going to ruin their golden years with their spending.

        even a fairly liberal Republican like Scott Brown doesn't cut it for me or most in that state
        .

        Funny, then, how he managed to win. Overwhelmingly, in some counties.

        "The truth will set you free...but first it'll piss you off." - Gloria Steinem

        by Sharoney on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 03:13:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  LOL! (7+ / 0-)
      Oh Dolly. you know that since the words weren't uttered and signed in triplicate in front of the ghost of ted kennedy, this won't be good enough for some people.

      “The only thing that happens in an instant is destruction... but everything else requires time." - First Lady Michelle Obama

      by FiredUpInCA on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:34:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't get the near deification of this woman (9+ / 0-)

    that I've seen here over the last couple years.

    •  I think Rich Cordray is going to be just as good (12+ / 0-)

      I believe what happened was there was this false meme out there last summer that Obama wouldn't nominate someone that the Republicans would block because he just didn't have the balls to do it - the same kind of criticism we so often read here at DK.

      Reality appears to be that he wanted to get done what he could get done when he could get it done, and that required that he name her a special adviser so that she could actually do the necessary work without having to fight to be approved in Congress.

      But in the meantime, all the people who wanted to make Obama look bad had to deify Warren in order to make Obama look bad. I think that she is a good, effective liberal Democrat who had great intentions here and would make a good Senator too. But I also believe that the deification you cite is more related to making Obama look bad than making her look good, sad to say.

      •  Don't start a Cordray vs Warren battle (0+ / 0-)

        I know Cordray and I admire Warren.  Cordray likes Warren.

        This will get you nothing but lots of donuts.  I'd say it would make you look like a fool, but its probably too late for that.

        "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 02:01:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow, you are lost in the sauce yet again (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sophie Amrain

          I am not starting any battles. I'm showing your side and everyone else how your side lost the battle of trying to claim that Obama was too afraid to nominate a true progressive.

          He wasn't. He didn't nominate Warren because she didn't want the job, and he nominated Warren't hand-picked choice. Obama didn't ever diss Warren, despite the repeated attempts by your group to portray it that way!

          And it'll get me lots of donuts? Better think before you speak, Betty, and look at the results. The fool here, the demonstrable fool? That'd be you.

    •  I Think It's the Deification of Strong, Clear (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mikejay611, sphealey, Joieau, Blueslide

      messaging and fact telling, and unambiguous statements that the financial industry must be restrained immediately.

      That's rare enough to make someone near power look like a goddess in this country.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:57:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  how can that be possible? several mindreaders (15+ / 0-)

    at dkos stated that she was wickedly betrayed by obama...i don't care what she says!

    Kick a "job creator" in the balls today!

    by memofromturner on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:28:20 AM PDT

  •  I just got called a shill (18+ / 0-)

    In the diary of the Joan because I basically said the same thing.  How do you know she wanted the job.  How do you know this isn't her will and maybe she got tired of congressmen calling her liars and wanted to go back to her life, and I got called a shill.

    "I honor the place in you where Spirit lives I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light, of Peace, when you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, then we are One." Namaste friends!

    by Adept2u on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:31:05 AM PDT

    •  Really? (10+ / 0-)

      Some people are so far gone, aren't they?

    •  "the Joan" - lol (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adept2u, Cedwyn, CoyoteMarti

      I'm sorry you were called a "shill" - you're one of my favorite diarists.

      "Tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

      by MartyM on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:42:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I didnt call you a shill (0+ / 0-)

      Just asked if you really believe what you were saying or were getting paid.

      Clearly you are not getting paid lol.

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

      by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:44:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wha? (5+ / 0-)

        So you think asking someone if they believe what they say or are they getting paid is not calling them a shill?  

        Well then allow me to apologize and offer you the opportunity to explain what you meant by the question then.

        "I honor the place in you where Spirit lives I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light, of Peace, when you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, then we are One." Namaste friends!

        by Adept2u on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:50:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Forget it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Giles Goat Boy

          You are not a shill.

          When I checked in today after a long break, I just couldn't believe anyone was actually naive enough to buy all this Obama spin about Warren.  But after further reading, there are a lot of people here that are that naive.

          So I take it back.  You're not a shill.  Just naive.

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

          by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:02:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Naive? (5+ / 0-)

            What are you?  The woman just said that she didn't want the job, and it sounds like she didn't want it because she is considering running for the Senate, and did not ever intend on making a 5 year commitment.  So, what is a person that continues to hold a viewpoint that has been disproved by fact?  

            "I honor the place in you where Spirit lives I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light, of Peace, when you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, then we are One." Namaste friends!

            by Adept2u on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:05:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  She did??? (0+ / 0-)
              The woman just said that she didn't want the job

              Please provide me a link to THAT quote.

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

              by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:07:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  RTFD n/t (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cedwyn, Deep Texan, CoyoteMarti, malharden

                "I honor the place in you where Spirit lives I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light, of Peace, when you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, then we are One." Namaste friends!

                by Adept2u on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:08:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  RTFD and this comment: (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan, CoyoteMarti, malharden

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

                by Cedwyn on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:25:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Andrea Mitchell asked her if she's disappointed (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan, CoyoteMarti, malharden

                that she didn't get the job at the agency that was her baby, and Rich Cordray got it instead.

                She replies

                Ohhhhhh, let's be clear here. I've have a chance see this thing come to life, and Richard Cordray is one of the first people I recruited to be part of the team to stand it up. He's tough, he's smart - it's exactly what we need. It's a new chapter for the consumer agency, and I couldn't be more proud.

                That doesn't sound like someone who wanted the job. That doesn't sound like someone who is upset. That sounds like someone who was able to appoint the person she wanted to name after she got to do the important creation of the CFPB.

                In that same interview she later said that she's incredibly happy that she gets to go home and get away from this fight.

                So yeah, she did say that she didn't want the job. She told that to Obama via Barney Frank last year too.

                •  Fine, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CoyoteMarti

                  You can believe that her saying she is happy with Cordray means she never wanted the job if it makes you feel better.

                  Just because she doesn't sound upset, doesn't mean she didn't want the job.  You are grasping at straws.

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

                  by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:35:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Mitchell asks her if she's disappointed (0+ / 0-)

                    And she says that not only is she not disappointed that she isn't going to head her "baby", but she's thrilled that someone else is, and that's because the one who is being nominated is her hand-picked choice!

                    So, she gets her hand-picked choice, and she's not disappointed that she's not getting the job, and somehow YOU don't think that one can come to the conclusion that she didn't want the job?

                    Really?

                    The person grasping at straws would be you. The folks divorced from reality would be those who've been ignoring the evidence from the very beginning over a year ago.

                    She said that she didn't want the 5 year position before she got the position she did get.

                    She said she simply wanted to have the role to set the thing up before she got the role to set the thing up.

                    In the past year, she's said repeatedly that she didn't want the job.

                    When she didn't get the job, she praised the person she picked as the best person to have gotten the job, and she told us that she's thrilled to not have gotten the job!

                    Really, there's no way to reasonably portray this besides that she didn't want the job.

                  •  Everyone else is grasping at straws??!?! (0+ / 0-)

                    You are unbelievable. There are quotes and citations aplenty in this diary. You Tube clips and interviews spanning months and months.

                    But THOSE people are grasping.

                    Yeah, ok.

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

                    by malharden on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:12:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  quotes of what? (0+ / 0-)

                      NOWHERE in this diary is a quote that says "I never wanted the job," or anything even close to that.

                      All they are, are of her saying, stuff like, Cordray is a great guy.  Ive worked very hard for the CPFB and I am pleased he is going to be doing the job, etc. etc.  

                      This is what is called not biting the hand that feeds you.  It is obvious that she is deliberately avoiding saying anything that would reflect badly on Obama, but it is just as obvious that she wanted the job.

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

                      by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:28:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, it's not obvious she wanted the job (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sharoney

                        In fact, there's no evidence whatsoever that she ever wanted the job.

                        She and Obama realized what was facing them, and neither of them wanted her to go for the job. She didn't want the job because of the circumstances and the outcomes!

                        She told Rachel Maddow this clearly tonight.

                        You're wrong. Totally!

                  •  So you are calling a person (0+ / 0-)

                    of great integrity, who put up with as much crap as anyone in the Administration, who is famous for NOT disseminating (sp?), a liar? Oh. I see.

                    [I really wanted to yell WTF??][oops, I just did]

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

                    by CoyoteMarti on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:13:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  They just don't understand (0+ / 0-)

                    The Game, Lawguy. In the big arena, that's what game you play. She's pretty good at it.

              •  Tonight on MSNBC (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sharoney

                Elizabeth Warren clearly and in-depth explained how she and Obama both realized that the push-back from the Republicans was going to be intense and overwhelming, and so they didn't want to fight that fight.

                So they both determined that she wasn't going to go after that position. She didn't want it, given the circumstances!

                This ain't rocket science.

                Go back now and read the title of my diary.

            •  Adept... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SoCalSal

              Law thinks the president is a Republican, so I won't take much stock into anything he says.

              "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 12:16:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  you really ought to step back a little (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan

            from the personal insults, 101, and get a grip on yourself.  

            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 12:31:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  A distinction without a difference (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mikejay611, Cedwyn

        I swear, don't you understand that?

        He didn't say Lawguy called me a "shill". He didn't quote you, so he never said that you used that particular word.

        But if you suggested that he might be getting paid to push an opinion, that's the very definition of "shill"!

  •  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 ]

  •  In the Rose Garden (5+ / 0-)
    And as part of her charge, I asked Elizabeth to find the best possible choice for director of the bureau.

    And that’s who we found in Richard Cordray. Richard was one of the first people that Elizabeth recruited, and he’s helped stand up the bureau’s enforcement division over the past six months.

    http://www.shallownation.com/...

    “The only thing that happens in an instant is destruction... but everything else requires time." - First Lady Michelle Obama

    by FiredUpInCA on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:43:09 AM PDT

    •  Spin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sphealey
      I asked Elizabeth to find the best possible choice for director of the bureau.

      In Other words, "I was getting wayyy too much heat from my corporate donors, Tim Geithner, and other friends on Wall Street, so I had to back down.  

      But I realized this would not go over well with Democrats, so I let Elizabeth pick someone.  Hopefully this will keep the progressives off my back and I wont have to worry about losing my corporate sponsorship."

      Whew.  Looks at Axelrod.  "Do you think they bought it?"

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

      by Lawguy101 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:52:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh come on. In this town, often, the best person (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sphealey, Cedwyn, Deep Texan

        for the job is yourself, if you want it.  Ask Dick Cheney.

      •  This is an extremely overwrought conjecture (7+ / 0-)
        Using the powers of his new office, [Richard Cordray] took the biggest banks, including Bank of America Corp. (BAC), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Citigroup Inc. (C) and Ally Financial Inc., to court over mortgage servicing practices and losses to state pension funds.

        Now, Cordray, 52, may take on banks on a larger stage. President Barack Obama has chosen Cordray as his nominee to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul.

        Cordray already knows the agency well. After he lost his bid for another term as Ohio attorney general in November, he got a call from Elizabeth Warren, the Obama administration adviser, asking him to head up the bureau’s enforcement work.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/...

        He's Elizabeth's Warren's hand-picked enforcer. He has experience in government and as someone who has successfully taken on unethical practices by banks.

        Progressives who understand that the agency's mission is ultimately more important than conducting a symbolic, sideshow confirmation hearing, support Elizabeth's handpicked enforcer to run the agency.

        “The only thing that happens in an instant is destruction... but everything else requires time." - First Lady Michelle Obama

        by FiredUpInCA on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:14:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  your own spin is really tiresome. eom (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sewaneepat

        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 12:53:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  So your title is incorrect? No quote from Warren (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawguy101, klamothe, mrblifil

    saying "I never wanted the chairmanship"?  I am confused, or this is misleading.  

    Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day. Harry Truman

    by temptxan on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:43:27 AM PDT

    •  Do you know how to show that you're quoting? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn

      You use those things on your keyboard called quotation marks. They're right over on the right, near your "Enter" key.

      And I didn't use them. On purpose. Because I wasn't quoting her - I was paraphrasing her after hearing her interview with Andrea Mitchell.

      My diary is not "misleading". My very first sentence in my diary tells everyone that I am not quoting her, as well as my failure to put that comment into quotes.

      •  No quotes makes it okay to title a post based (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrblifil

        totally on hearsay with a definitive statement?  I hope others take notice, this could be used by all factions,  paraphrase and then infer.  It works.

        Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day. Harry Truman

        by temptxan on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:04:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not "totally based upon hearsay" (0+ / 0-)

          That's your false framing.

          I understand that you're apparently not familiar with paraphrasing. That's your failing, not mine. I accurately paraphrased what she said today and what she's said in the past.

  •  I pretty clearly remember her saying the same (7+ / 0-)

    thing to Bill Mahr on his show in the spring.

    She said she was offered a choice & she chose to set up the CFPC, not run it.

    Don't have the link to the episode & am in the middle of office hours, so can't look for it.

    It's kinda hard to doubt what she herself said on the teevee machine.

    •  Yes, I've seen multiple people make this assertion (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalSal, CoyoteMarti

      But it runs counter to the preconceived notions that people have.

      They want to slam Obama for not having the balls to nominate a true progressive for this role.

      But he did. Have the balls, that is. He circumvented Congress by naming her a special adviser last summer, and he named Warren's hand-picked best candidate for the leadership position! Cordray is going to have a very tough nomination process, just like Warren would have had!

  •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sphealey, sarahdillingham

    Even if she said it, what do you expect her to say?  Maybe, "I wanted it, and Obama should have appointed me."  That's not the way it works, especially if she has plans to run for elective office.

    Wouldn't surprise me if she no longer wanted it after Obama left her twisting in the wind for what seemed like forever until he actually made a decision.

    The one who owes the apology is Obama, for not appointing her.

  •  Besides, Senator Warren has a nice ring to it. (7+ / 0-)

    I could really get used to saying that.

    And if she wants her agency to survive and thrive, she needs to be in the Senate.

  •  Maybe Running For Senator From Mass (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, SoCalSal, Catte Nappe

    Will give her more of a voice and be better for the Nation in general.  Mass needs to get Brown out of there and Warren is a better choice.  Additionally, I'm sure she'll get help from the Kennedy family along with many others.  I have heard that she's talked to Kerry, Axelrod, Frank and a few other Mass Congressmembers about this run.  Think of the good she can do especially if she gets put on the Finance Committee.

    Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it .

    by Rosalie907 on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:36:29 PM PDT

  •  this follows, nearly step by step, (0+ / 0-)

    where i am, in reading "Reconstruction in Arkansas 1862-1874," and amazes me, still, that it's politics before people... first on the big issues, then on those smaller ones, the arguing, the 'framing,' the accusations and obsfucations. but who's to say we haven't always been this way: is it a bug or a feature?

    The Addington perpwalk is the trailhead for accountability in this wound on our national psyche. [...you know: Dick Cheney's "top" lawyer.] --Sachem

    by greenbird on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:56:45 PM PDT

  •  I said she may not really want the job. Really (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sophie Amrain

    doesn't matter to the knee jerkers who seek every imaginable negative about Obama, when they don't know what the hell is going on.

  •  This has been clear from the beginning. She (0+ / 0-)

    made it clear, but accepted the appointment out of loyalty/duty probably with the thought that she could resign before the term is up. She's not crying over events and is sincerely happy that her deputy had been appointed in her stead.

    Further, affiant sayeth not.

    by Gary Norton on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 01:09:06 PM PDT

  •  Elizabeth Warren is a gracious person, (0+ / 0-)

    a friend of the President, and a consummate player at the political gaming that is our government.  Of course she will do nothing to embarrass the President, because she's a class act and politically astute.  Of course she will say kind things about the man she hired, who will probably do a decent job if Obama has what it will take to recess appoint him, and then supports him by vetoing Republican attempts to gut the agency.  

    However, "I don't want to do this for five years" and "I don't want the job" are not the same statement, regardless of how desperately hard you try to argue that they are.  If she had not wanted to do it, she would not have been on the short list for months, as the President would have been the first to know that she didn't want to do it.

    What this boils down to is that the President didn't want to appoint her, for whatever the reason was.  It might have been that he didn't have the desire to fight for her, or that he never wanted her in the first place but kept her hanging through the elections so as to not dump another disappointment on the base when he needed them, or that Tiny Tim demanded someone else on behalf of the Wall Street banks, or ditto Bill Daley, or something else.  Whatever it is, it is not one of his finer moments.

    I just donated to her draft campaign.

    •  Who said that those things ARE the same? (0+ / 0-)

      That's right, no one did.

      She didn't want it. She wasn't ON any short list!

      She told Rachel Maddow that because she and Obama saw what would happen if she were nominated, and the agency was more important to her than her being nominate to run the agency, she didn't want the job!

      It's undeniable, yet you guys keep denying it. You won't let go of your preconceived notions. That's your flaw, not mine!

      •  wrong again (0+ / 0-)

        She was on the shortlist.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

        Also, transcript does not contain "didn't want the job."  So, yes, it is not only deniable, it is simply not true.  Which makes your comment either a delusion or a deliberate falsehood.  (Besides being one more insulting comment in a flood of them.)  The effort to justify absolutely everything the President does, no matter what it is, is not helpful to anything or anyone.  They are ridiculous.  She said she cannot run it, not that she didn't want to, and she sounded like she very much wanted to.  

        Now, since then, what‘s happened is there are folks on Capitol Hill, Republicans in the Senate and the House, they voted against the bill to begin with—to they voted against the agency to begin with. They‘ve introduced bills to try to cut our funding. They‘ve introduced bills to try to make us less independent. They‘ve introduced bills to try to make it so we‘ve got a gummed up structure so we won‘t be able to get anything done. And they have introduced bills to flat out repeal us.
        I want to be clear, the reason I cannot run this agency is because of those people. They‘ve made it perfectly clear they are not going to let this agency go forward if I‘m there—fine. I can step away from this. What I care about is this agency.
        The president has now made his nomination. He‘s a good man, Richard Cordray is—and I think it‘s time to take the fight straight to the Republicans. We need a director in place, that is the law, and we are not, not, not going to let the minority come in and dictate the terms of this agency, rip its arms and legs off before it‘s able to help a single family.
        •  She says that she wasn't on the list (0+ / 0-)

          She says that she can't run the agency, and she and Obama knew that, and so she didn't want the job!

          What she cares about is the agency! Her saying that she stepped away was her saying that she didn't want the job!

          This really isn't difficult to understand.

          And fool, where did I put her comments in quotes?

          Oops, that's right, I didn't. I was paraphrasing what she'd said and what others had said that she'd said. But fool that you are, you somehow think that one can be accused of quoting someone else when they didn't use quotes? Really?

          And it's not an insult if it's true.

          She would have liked to have been able to run it. Since she and Obama knew that she couldn't, she didn't want the nomination.

          I don't want lots of things which, if things were different, I would want! But because things are the way they are, I don't want those things. For example, I'm happy where I live. If things were different, I might want a different house, but given the way things are, I'm perfectly happy to stay where I am - I don't want to move.

          And she didn't want the nomination. It's not like she wanted it, but Obama wouldn't give it to her! She didn't want it because for her, the agency was more important, and she could form it as the special adviser, and hand-pick someone to run it!

          So, my diary is 100% accurate. Get a clue.

        •  Let's give you some examples (0+ / 0-)

          My husband was offered a job a long time ago, but he hated the guy he would have had as a boss.

          As a result, he didn't want the job! Had there been a different boss there, he would have wanted the job, but there wasn't a different boss, and so he didn't want the job!

          One time I was offered a promotion, but it would have meant that I would have had to move, and I didn't want to move, and so I turned down the promotion.

          Did I want a promotion? Of course, but did I want it enough to make me move? Nope. So, when asked, I could have easily said that I didn't want the promotion, since it would have required relocation.

          So, it's totally accurate to say that Elizabeth Warren didn't want the nomination! She understood what the atmosphere was like, and given that, she didn't want the job!

  •  Change the title of your diary (0+ / 0-)

    You're being dishonest.  Its pretty sad the lengths people will go to in defending Obama, especially when its not necessary.

    It sounds as though this is more about you not liking Warren.

    Change the title or I will give it an HR.  Its false.

    "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 01:59:47 PM PDT

    •  No, I won't change the title of the diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sophie Amrain, Sharoney

      It's not dishonest at all, in fact.

      Now, I know that you'd wish that it wasn't accurate, but it is. Every piece of evidence we have tells us that she never wanted the job - she didn't want it last spring/summer, and she didn't want it while she was creating the group (as quotes in this diary document clearly) and she is happy now that she didn't get the job that she never wanted!

      All the evidence tells us that the diary title is 100% accurate.

      And you want to threaten me with an HR? Go ahead. I'd be happy to report that, Betty. Go ahead, make my day.

      I like Warren a lot. I'd have been thrilled if there had been some way to convince to have done what she'd done and then accepted the appointment - but she didn't want it.

      See, you leap to unsustainable conclusions yet again. There's no way to legitimately leap to the conclusion that it sounds like I don't like her! I simply don't like those fools here who denied the evidence we have that she didn't want the job. She told us today, and multiple times in the past, that she didn't want the job. She's happy that her hand-picked guy is getting the nod. She's happy that she gets to leave D.C. soon.

      The title's not false. You're wrong, yet again.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site