Frank: ‘No one can stop’ Obama from nominating Warren

[kpete]

Source: The Hill


Frank: ‘No one can stop’ Obama from nominating Warren
By Silla Brush - 07/23/10 11:13 AM ET

The Financial Services chairman is leaning on Obama to nominate Warren as head of the new bureau.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is strongly urging President Obama to name Elizabeth Warren as the first head of a consumer financial protection bureau, saying “no one can stop him” from doing so.

.........................

In an interview on MSNBC, Frank defended the president against liberal criticism on a wide range of economic and healthcare issues, but leaned on Obama to nominate Warren.

“And I would say to the president, look, I sympathize with President Obama. He’s been criticized by some of my liberal friends. We didn’t get a public option and we didn’t get the other things we wanted. That wasn’t his fault,” Frank said. “The economic recovery bill, the stimulus — it wasn’t as big as it should have been. That wasn’t his fault. He couldn’t get the votes. But with regard to appointing Elizabeth Warren, that’s his decision. No one can stop him from making it. And I hope he will appoint her.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/110579-frank-qno-one-can-stopq-obama-from-nominating-elizabeth-warren

[Enrique]

1. except maybe for Glenn Beck

:hide:

[gateley]

8. Ouch! Good one. nt

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

2. I'll hold the bets.

:shrug:

[onehandle]

3. That was a great interview. He also praised Bill Clinton for raising the marginal tax rate...

...on the rich, which Republicans said would be a disaster, but led to a balanced budget and great economy.

Barney hit it all out of the park.

Go Elizabeth!

[No Elephants]

4. Maybe I'd rather see Warren free to criticize the agency from the outside than obligated to

defend it from the inside. Not sure.

[gateley]

10. There's always that. But I'm thinking it would be better having her inside

directing the policy than outside criticizing it but not really being able to effect any changes.

[No Elephants]

37. Critics don't bring about change? Ask Sherrod.

As a critic, she has no bounds. She can continue to criticize the legislation, which both empowers the agency and circumscribes its power, the rule making process, the policies of the Fed and timmeh, etc. As agency head, she is limited by all those things, as well as by the decorum of an employee.

I just don't want an appointment to be a way of getting rid of a respected gadfly, a way of disempowering her by "kicking her upstairs." And, when timmeh was reportedly against her, my gut said "kabuki."

As I indicated, though, my feelings are very mixed.

[Cant trust em]

13. That seems like a really strange mindset.

I'd rather have our top choice actually run the agency and then have someone less qualified criticize from the outside.

[No Elephants]

16. Not the least bit strange. Potent critics are often co-opted or

neutralized by making them part of an enterprise.

LBJ: "I'd rather have him inside my tent pissing out than outside pissing in."

Lincoln: Team of Rivals.

Make someone part of something and they'll defend it, even if they should be exposing it. Human.

[Cant trust em]

28. I'd rather have the most qualified person be someone tasked with building something...

rather than criticising the outcome. They keep saying that the first director of CFPB will likely be the person to set the tone for the whole agency and give it its strategic direction. I would prefer for that person to be the thought leader in the field. It seems strange to me to place emphasis on regulation rather than implementation.

That's almost like hiring me to be the chef of a restaurant, but you want the critic to be Anthony Bourdain.

[No Elephants]

32. You already said that.

I don't know about your chef analogy, either. the agency is not going to be truly independent and neither is Warren (in the sense that no one is truly independent of his or her employer). And besides, the agency can do only what the legislation allows.

"That's almost like hiring me to be the chef of a restaurant, but you want the critic to be Anthony Bourdain." No. It's more like having Anthony Bourdain as either the critic or the vegetable washer. In that case, the eating public might be much better served having Bourdain be an honest and courageous critic. But, no offense, the analogy is not a very comparable one, so, please, let's not get hung up on it.

"It seems strange to me to place emphasis on regulation rather than implementation." Sorry, no clue what that means in this context.

And I guess you missed both my expressions of uncertainty as to what I prefer.

I am uncertain bc I would like Warren in the position, but I also understand what LBJ and Honest Abe were up to, namely co-opting or neutralizing potentially powerful critics. BtW, Obama read Goodwin's book on that subject.

[Cant trust em]

34. Maybe I should have used criticism instead of regulation in that context. Wrong word.

I'd rather have someone strong writing the rules than vocal opposition in the outside. If we don't place effective people to implement strong rules in the first place, why should we expect them to change just because someone is trying to hold them accountable from the outside? Seems like that approach would start us out on the wrong foot from the outset. If whoever is going to be put in the position is bound to be captured by it, then why not start off strong?

Funny you mention inappropriate analogies, because I didn't think that your examples made much sense either. I think the LBJ reference would be more appropriate had CFPB not been her brain child in the first place. It would seem that the phrase would be more appropriate if we were talking about putting someone who was actually a critic in that job. As for the team of rivals, I always felt that phrase to mean you bring people into your administration that you disagree with to push you into refining your position into something stronger, not to eliminate them and shut them up.

[Bette Noir]

35. Wrong analogy. Bourdain would be the first to say he wasn't a great chef.

And I'd be the first to say he's a dang good writer. Check out his new book, "Medium Raw."

[Cant trust em]

36. I was wondering who I should use for the chef.

Mario Battali or something? Michael Minna?

I don't really follow the haute cuisine scene.

[sabrina 1]

17. I'd like to see her in the Senate.

So, if she is not nominated maybe she can run for office.

[No Elephants]

33. No matter what, I may write her in for Scott Brown's seat, tho I am not sure if her

service in D.C. legally makes her forfeit her Massachusetts residency.

[sabrina 1]

38. Good idea.

Imagine the exploding heads in not-so-Breitbart's world if she ran and won a Senate seat.

I would love to see Van Jones in the Senate also. He would make a great Senator.

For Congress, maybe Juan Carlos Vera in CA.

That's the way to defeat them. The people they take the time to target are some of the best people we have and often don't realize it.

So let them do the 'dirty' work, it takes time and money to find these great people, no point in spending it if they are willing to do it for us, and then we will take the ball from there .. :-)

[Iowa]

25. No way!

We have far too many weak-kneed, spineless, compromised, self-serving lightweights running our government. This is an opportunity to have a genuine, honest-to-goodness, brilliant, principled person in a position where she will have the authority to actually DO SOMETHING.

[LeFleur1]

41. Absolutely True. nm

[Capt. Jack]

43. No Elephants...Great Post!

I'd like to see her team up with Gretchen Morgenson from the NYT and expose the swindlers from the outside.

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org

[tularetom]

5. Rahm Emanuel can stop him from doing it

Geithner has already been more or less neutralized at least publicly.

But she hasn't been appointed yet has she? So SOMEBODY is stopping him.

And my money is on Emanuel.

And while I'm thinking about it, I'd be willing to bet if you searched Vilsack's phone records you would find a call from Emanuel shortly before Shirley Sherrod's resignation was demanded.

[dmallind]

12. BY which logic someone is stopping him from appointing me, or Jude Law

If he hasn't appointed anyone does that mean someone is stopping him from appointing everyone? Maybe he hasn't got the shortlist yet, or read it yet, or made his mind up yet?

[Iowa]

26. Oh c'mon...

This is a no-brainer. Unless he has been asleep at the wheel, there's no need for a "shortlist" on this one.

[dmallind]

29. It doesn't work like that though. Just because she's well known does not mean she's alone

Surely there are plenty of financially savvy people who could speak up for consumers.

[Oregone]

22. The point is, you can't "excuse" this one away

Frank is throwing it out there for everyone to know, including Obama. At this point, Obama almost doesn't have a choice but to nominate her, and thats a good thing (because liberals are controlling the dialogue and forcing his hand)

[tularetom]

23. I hope you're right

And maybe the whole Sherrod incident has painted Obama even further into a corner.

But we've all been disappointed so many times with this bunch, I don't want to let myself get too optimistic.

[BootinUp]

6. Sounds like he reads DU. lol. nt

[Cant trust em]

7. No one can stop him from nominating her. But someone can stop her confirmation. nt

[dflprincess]

11. He can always make a recess appointment n/t

[Kweli4Real]

24. And maybe, just maybe ...

that's the plan.

We know that the republicans are planning to fight, bitch and moan about anyone tasked to the post , so why not let them bitch and moan after the fact?

[No Elephants]

14. If, after the bailout, Democrats cannot rile up the public over failure to confirm

a head for the financial consumer protection agency, we may as well surrender now and save the tears, energy and money.

[NJmaverick]

9. Absolute best line of the article, Franks nails it

<<<We didn’t get a public option and we didn’t get the other things we wanted. That wasn’t his fault,” Frank said.>>>

[No Elephants]

15. LOL

[ProudDad]

18. Except the cowardice of the Obama Administration

and they've shown before that they are capable of that level of cowardice...

They've never met a Progressive they couldn't eviscerate...

[seattleblue]

19. I wish he would just make the appointment one way or the other.

It seems to me she is just being left to twist in the wind at this point.

[t0dd]

20. "That wasn't his fault"

What about that deal he made with the for-profit hospital lobby to scrap the public option? That wasn't his fault? Or what about the deal with PhRMA to omit drug reimportation from the final bill? Guess that wasn't his fault either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

[Fearless]

21. +1

[yurbud]

27. this would be a good time to finally start tilting progressive so we remember to vote in the fall

[ozone_man]

30. Time for some change we can believe in.

Finally.

[DirkGently]

31. No Warren, no peace!

[rateyes]

39. no public option was his fault. had the votes in reconciliation

he had already negotiated it away. facts are facts.

[tomp]

40. frank is illogical and wrong on so many points.

there are many people who can stop him. frank wants you to think that he means that "technically" no one can appoint other than him. of course, that is true.

but if we know nothing else about obama we know he is influenceable. barney frank doesn't want you to think that. that and that alone is the purpose of frank's comment.

he wants you to think obama is not responsible for the outcomes of his political choices. it's all those other bad politicians who are responsible for obama's failures.

[Uncle Joe]

42. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.