What is the reason for pushing Raj Date over Elizabeth Warren?

[Hutzpa]

I keep seeing threads mentioning articles that are design to persuade public opinion on
the issue being linked to, something really stinks here and I personally think the people
behind this recent maneuver suggesting the Obama administration making a decision on this
matter are being cynical at best or down right despicable at worst.

OK, let's just say maybe Elizabeth Warren wanted this guy, doesn't that say something about her
judgment though, because why would she choose to nominate this guy over herself, what would be
the reason behind this decision from Elizabeth Warren?

Please don't get me wrong, I am in favor of Elizabeth Warren for this position but I'm just
as confused as the rest of you as to why would she nominate an ex bankster to this position.

:shrug:

[midnight]

1. This is the first that I'm reading about this development...

Do you have a link? Thanks.... This is a bit concerning....

[Hutzpa]

3. Link

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/obama-eyes-ex-banker-for-consumer-chief.html

and check out this killer excerpt;

Warren could urge her supporters to endorse his nomination, and his industry experience has been praised by banks that would fall under the bureau’s oversight.

Why should she?

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Because like so many of Obama's nominees, Ms. Warren finds herself

unable to get to confirmation, and has given up? I read a couple of days ago that another one of the president's nominees has asked that his name be withdrawn, in the face of extreme opposition from the right.

[Hutzpa]

4. Just for information only

How many majority members in the committee do you need to nominate an appointee from the Senate?

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Do you mean confirm? The president nominates. To be honest,

I'm not sure if it requires a simple majority (51), or a super majority (60) for confirmation. I'll have to do some googling. Great question, though. :thumbsup:

[Hutzpa]

7. I understand the super majority

but I was referring to Senate Committee responsible for confirmation of appointees, each committee
has about 12 - 14 (I think) members and I wanted to know how many of those members do you need
as a majority to confirm an appointee?

Apology for not being clear.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. Not sure, but I do know that it only takes one Senator to hold up a committee vote.

If he/she places a hold on the nominee, it can't be voted on. One of the Southern senators, either ALA or SC did that with one of the president's other nominees. Normally, when they do that, they want something in exchange. It's a sad system, but it's what we've been dealt.

[Hutzpa]

9. Thanks for that

but Jeez, why can't the Democrats learn to play this dirty game, it seems as if the Republicans
are good at grandstanding while we are good at taking each other down.

Why do democrats feel they have to be the one with dignity while the republicans get away with
dirty acts, I'll never know.

One Senator holding up a vote and democrats all standing by watching republicans holding appointees
as hostages toward the Obama administration, damn!

Pathetic and sad.

[former9thward]

11. Don't worry it works both ways.

Democrats put holds on Bush appointees. Everybody plays the "this dirty game" as you call it.

[frazzled]

6. Elizabeth Warren hired him

Frankly, I know nothing about him (nor probably do most of the posters here).

But here is an article (pro) from alternet. Read also the NYT article (con) they cite in it.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/10/27/raj-date-is-the-best-thing-to-happen-to-consumers-since-elizabeth-warren/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/business/27consume.html?_r=1&ref=business

[flpoljunkie]

10. We have not heard that Elizabeth Warren does not want the job. That's the problem here.

And, until Warren says otherwise, I strongly support her--because she is the best qualified to stand up to Congress and the banks to protect consumers.