Treasury Makes A Mistake – Claiming They Are Not Blocking Elizabeth Warren

[depakid]

It's one thing to http://baselinescenario.com/2010/07/15/tim-geithner%E2%80%99s-ninth-political-life/">block Elizabeth Warren from heading the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

It's quite another thing to deny in public, for the record, that any such blocking is going on (e.g., http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN715320100716">see this report; Michael Barr apparently said something quite similar today).

There is a strong groundswell of opinion on this issue from the left - http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/petition_warren/?source=hill">see the BoldProgressives petition. But the center also feels strongly that, given everything Treasury has said and done over the past few months, it would be a complete travesty not to put the strongest possible regulator in change of protecting consumers....

This can now go only one of two ways.

1. Elizabeth Warren gets the job. Bridges are mended and the White House regains some political capital. Secretary Geithner is weakened slightly but he'll recover.

2. Someone else gets the job, despite Treasury's claims that Elizabeth Warren was not blocked. The deception in this scenario would be nauseating - and completely blatant. "Everyone was considered on their merits" and "the best candidate won" will convince who exactly?

Despite the growing public reaction, outcome #2 is the most likely and the White House needs to understand this, plain and clear - there will be complete and utter revulsion at its handling of financial regulatory reform both on this specific issue and much more broadly. The administration's position in this area is already weak, its achievements remain minimal, its speaking points are lame, and the patience of even well-inclined people is wearing thin.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17-4

[Rhiannon12866]

1. K&R. There really are no good excuses...

Thanks for posting. :thumbsup:

[napi21]

2. I sent an email to the White House today asking that Elizabeth

Warren be appointed to that seat. PLEASE do the same! I do believeif they get enough people asking for that to happen we will carry more weight than Timmy!

[ProSense]

3. I have an idea:

Let's start a rumor about the administration to spark outrage. When it's denied, let's claim that denying it is a bad move because if the administration doesn't conform to outrage sparked by rumor, it's screwed.

Damn outrage, spin and arrogance in one package.

[depakid]

5. Like that "dispoven" one you and others were crowing about re: Dawn Johnsen

last year.

Oh, wait....

[ProSense]

6. Dawn Johnsen was nominated.

Are you saying the President will nominate Warren and she could face the same fate?

[depakid]

7. They dropped her like a hotcake- just as progressive groups told you they planning on doing

You see, Dr. Johnsen had the integrity to ensure that under her auspices, accountability under the rule of law would have been returned to pre-Bush norms.

Unfortunately, as has been shown time and again for the last 18 months, the administration has no interest in doing that- abuse of power and authority is fine- so long as their administration is the power and authority.

[ProSense]

8. So you don't believe the President will nominate Warren?

Is that your point?

[depakid]

9. We will see- they've painted themselves into a corner, and the stakes are now considerably higher

One thing I do believe is that, like Johnsen, Elizabeth Warren's no lackey.

[ProSense]

10. "they've painted themselves into a corner"

Really?

How did they do that?

[Spazito]

12. Exactly!

It has gone from merely ridiculous to absolutely ridiculous.

[Whisp]

13. ""a strong groundswell of opinion""

:rofl:

remember when most here would laugh during the bush years when the media would do this same shit by sayng 'some people say'?

[elleng]

4. I pray they don't do another 'Brooksley Born.'

[snot]

11. K & R'D.