Fear Factor: What's Keeping the President From Picking the Best Person to Protect Consumers?

[WillyT]

Fear Factor: What's Keeping the President From Picking the Best Person to Protect Consumers?
Arianna Huffington
Posted: July 27, 2010 05:27 PM

<snip>

On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs lauded Elizabeth Warren as "a terrific candidate" to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: "I don't think any criticism in any way by anybody would disqualify her."

So why isn't the White House rushing to nominate her for the position? In a word: fear.

The same fear-based approach that caused the administration to throw Shirley Sherrod under the bus before her name had even been uttered on Fox News is once again rearing its head in the decision-making process over Warren.

This time, it's not the ire of Glenn Beck that has Team Obama's backbone turning to mush -- it's the fear of angering the bankers by appointing a consumer advocate who might actually advocate for consumers (the same consumers who, in their role as taxpayers, have spent hundreds of billions bailing the bankers out).

According to the National Journal, the banking industry "privately grumbles that Warren would be their least favorite candidate to head the agency." Or, as Floyd Norris put it in the New York Times, "whether or not she is named to run the bureau may depend on how willing the president is to anger the banks."

Warren is far and away the best person for the position. Picking her is a no-brainer. For many high-level positions, such as a Supreme Court justice, a president will often say he's looking for the "best candidate" when, in fact, there isn't one "best candidate." But this is that rare occasion when there truly is a single best candidate. When it comes to heading the Consumer Bureau, there is Elizabeth Warren -- and there is everybody else.

...

So which way will Obama go? If he makes his decision on the merits, Elizabeth Warren will be the first head of the Consumer Bureau. If he makes his decision out of fear, she won't be. For guidance, he should listen carefully to these words:

All too often -- our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens -- fell silent... if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes.

That was Barack Obama in May of last year, talking about the Bush administration's approach to national security in the wake of 9/11. As he finds himself in a different kind of "season of fear," will he use his insights as a guide to his decision?

Appointing Elizabeth Warren will demonstrate that the detour his administration took to Feartown with Shirley Sherrod was a lesson learned.

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/fear-factor-whats-keeping_b_661256.html

:shrug:

:kick:

[IndianaGreen]

1. Who says the people's interest comes first?

Didn't the Administration push for and support the ban on the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada in order to protect a deal made with PhRMA? Obviously the people don't count!

[Oregone]

2. Assuming they even want her

[laughingliberal]

3. President Obama's reluctance to anger the bankster's has been the #1 detriment to turning this...

mess around. Time to show some courage.

[AnArmyVeteran]

4. He needs to STOP giving in to the enemies of the people.

I wonder if Obama is looking at his 'What would Bush do?' manual to figure out who to pick. I'm getting sick of him selling us out to corrupt corporations.

[Raster]

5. it's bipartisan, three-dimensional chess designed to keep the power dry.

And, oh yeah: "it's just one song and a two-minute prayer."

[johnaries]

6. Pure speculation, without any basis. Obama always takes time

to make informed decisions. Nothing is a "no-brainer". Warren certainly has the vision, but she doesn't have the management experience and skills needed to create an entire department from scratch. If she did try, it would probably be ineffective and eventually corruption would seep in.

I would like to see her in a leadership position where she can hepl guide the direction and goals, but appoint people who have the skills and experience to make it an effective department.

And where is the best place to find people with the needed skills and experience? Why, in the industry itself, of course!

At which point many here will throw Warren under the bus.

[WillyT]

8. Um... You Forgot The Sarcasm Thingy...

:shrug:

[Lorien]

15. "Obama always takes time"?

Not when it comes to war funding or bankster bailouts. He's had more than enough time. My friends are losing their homes NOW because the banks won't even SPEAK with them. They are out of time!

[Individualist]

7. Fear has nothing to do with it.

DLC has always given corporations precedence over consumers.

[DailyGrind51]

11. "Dump Liberals for Corporations" is REALLY what DLC stands for!

[nashville_brook]

12. well done.

[blindpig]

9. Producers n/t

[laughingliberal]

10. K & R nt

[OHdem10]

13. Wall Street pays the piper and they choose their dance partners.

Can you imagine Gamblers who would want a straight arrow heading
any organization which can have an effect on them?

They want a "Fox" to guard the hen house.

[wuvuj]

14. Obama has at the most maybe 6 years or so...

...to do much at all to improve things for the consumer...before the GOP puts in a another non-regulating regulator into that position....and makes it ineffective.

So what will he do? He will put in an almost non-regulating regulator so as not to offend the bankers and the GOP....making the position almost effective.

Obama is keeping hope alive by forcing people to keep hoping he actually does something hopeful?