Warren eyes Senate seat?

[Recursion]

Source: CNN political ticker

Elizabeth Warren, who is the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is considering a Senate run in Massachusetts against incumbent Republican Sen. Scott Brown.

Officials within the Democratic Party are urging the Massachusetts native and Harvard law professor to take the plunge in hopes she could oust Brown with her own following, ties to the state and political drive.

However, multiple Democratic sources tell CNN that Warren would prefer a recess appointment to run the bureau over a Senate run, action that appears unlikely given some senators have said they would block any nominee for the agency charged with making consumer financial products and services – including applying for mortgages and credit cards – work for Americans.

Some inside the White House would rather she run for office than face the uncertainty of a recess appointment, but said she has avoided discussing the matter openly for fear of polarizing the bureau.

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/24/warren-eyes-senate-seat/

---

Might explain some of the hesitancy to appoint her.

[DJ13]

1. She would be far more effective where she is

Why be 1 in 100 when she can be THE 1 in protecting consumers?

[Recursion]

3. Because "THE 1" has to placate a few thousand competing interests

and can be fired. As a Senator she could speak her mind more freely and not be bound to a Presidential administration.

[w4rma]

4. Senator ranks higher than department head. (nt)

[villager]

2. How can Senators block a recess appointment?

that is, until the length of time in office has expired, and it's time for re-nomination. Or is that what she meant?

[Recursion]

5. I think "the uncertainty" meaning she could get through the recess term...

...and then not be confirmed, at which point the MA race would have come and gone.

[w4rma]

6. They are going to wish they didn't block her appointment when she wins that Senate seat. (nt)

[Angry Dragon]

7. I think it is a stupid idea

[Recursion]

8. She's a little too reminiscent of Coakley for me

I don't want another great wonk who's a bad campaigner running against Brown...

[Dirigo]

10. Sheriff Elizabeth Warren For U.S. Senate Or Head Of Consumer Protection

I think Eliz Warren would serve the country very well in either capacity. Since she created the consumer protection agency why won't the brain dead republicons see the light and simply support President Obama's appointment to head that agency with Ms Warren. Are Republicons so stupid as to resist the president yet again and have Ms Warren run for the senate seat in an attempt to unseat republicon Scott Brown. What it means is if the Republicons think the seat is safe they'll now have to pump untold millions into the race to make sure Brown remains credible against Warren. Money that they would rather direct to other tighter races.

Fight Warren it'll cost you money!

[No Elephants]

34. I worry about the charisma factor.

But, FYI, Martha Coakley is no great wonk.

For example, when asked about her foreign policy credential, she replied that she had visited her sister in Europe several times. (This was well after Palin had become a laughingstock for answering a similar question with being able to see Russia from some parts of her state.)

Coakley's no dim bulb, but she is by far not on a par with Warren in intellect, general savvy or knowledge of one's own field. JMO

[Recursion]

37. She lectured at BU a lot when I was there

At least in the classroom she's very astute.

[CTyankee]

35. While I am lukewarm on her running for the Senate, I don't agree with your

comparison to Coakley. If anything, Warren has an obvious affinity with the people. She is an academic who speaks plainly about abuses to ordinary Americans in our financial system.

I just wouldn't want to see her spending all that time raising money for a campaign and going to rubber chicken dinners. And that seems to be what takes up a lot of Senators time nowadays.

[no limit]

9. What do you mean it explains the hesitancy to appoint her? No it doesn't

it does the exact opposite actually. The article clearly says she wants the appointment but democratic leaders are urging her to run for senate instead so Obama doesn't have to appoint her.

[Recursion]

11. Umm... exactly

They don't want to appoint her because they'd rather have her as a Senator than try and lose a nomination fight in the Senate over her.

[no limit]

13. So they will do something she doesn't want to do because they are scared of the senate?

Gee...I'm glad I voted for a real leader :eyes:

And if that's what you meant by it explains the hesitation then this isn't any breaking news, it has been known for a long time getting her confirmed would be difficult. But that still doesn't explain why this administration won't even try to fight for it.

[Recursion]

14. "Fight"?

Are you suggesting physically beating up Senators would help things?

[no limit]

15. Jesus, you can't be serious.

No, I dont mean Obama should start karate chopping senators. What I mean by fight is appoint her as a recess appointment then get his ass out there and start calling out every asshole in the senate that is blocking her confirmation because they are scared of consumer protections. The president literally has the power to flood the news networks with his message and his people. Any time any of his staff wants to get on TV they can.

All this is also known in some circles as politics, maybe you've heard of it?

[Recursion]

17. Well, I've got no idea what you mean by "fight"

What I mean by fight is appoint her as a recess appointment

Well, recess hasn't started yet, has it?

then get his ass out there and start calling out every asshole in the senate that is blocking her confirmation

So by "fighting" you mean "politically destructive name calling that will make everyone who's not as far left as me dislike Obama".

Sorry, I'm glad he's not "fighting" by your definition.

Non-activists don't like what activists call "fighting". There's a reason DU and FR have the exact same "he won't fight" complaint about our parties' leadership.

[no limit]

18. Are you really having this difficult of a time understanding this?

The recess appointment can be made soon, the senate goes on recess at the end of this week.

Asshole is the term I would use, the president can be nicer. You seem to have only read up to the word asshole and ignored everythign else I posted, why?

Do you dispute the president has the power to get anyone on virtually any news outlet at any time? Do you dispute the president has the ability to drive the national discourse? Would he be inable to highlight the fact people are against her nomination is because they are against consumer protections? Is that such a hard message to spread?

The lenghts you are going to defend this president here is insane. What will you say if he does in fact appoint her? Will you think that is a bad move? For the record, I would applaud him for it.

[Recursion]

19. The bully pulpit

Do you dispute the president has the power to get anyone on virtually any news outlet at any time?

Yes, if you add "to talk about any subject whatsoever". The fact that you don't get that may be a lot of the problem here. Do you have any idea how much tooth-pulling it takes to get the networks to air a non-emergency address?

Do you dispute the president has the ability to drive the national discourse?

Of course he doesn't, and I'm impressed by the extent to which Obama has been able to, which at this point is exceeding Reagan's. (Though the lack of scandals has a lot to do with that, too.)

Would he be inable to highlight the fact people are against her nomination is because they are against consumer protections? Is that such a hard message to spread?

Bingo. It's very difficult to spread substantive messages, which is why he has to pick and choose his subjects and moments. Try a PR job some time.

[no limit]

20. What would you say if he appointed Warren next week?

[Recursion]

22. I'd say "cool"

Though I'd worry the recess appointment would leave her a little hamstrung when dealing with other departments and agencies.

[no limit]

23. So it would be a good move to appoint her?

[Recursion]

24. It could be; few actions in this town are simply "good" or "bad"

On the one hand, she'd do a good job. On the other hand, recess appointments carry a price for the appointee in the OEB pissing matches. On the third hand, an appointee who could get more cooperation from Congress (remember, there's a lot more to this than just the confirmation: how much testimony is she going to be called to give? Will they screw with her funding? etc.) might in the end be more effective at consumer protection even if he isn't as ideologically correct as Warren is; this really isn't a zero-sum game between people and corporations, and one thing I like about Warren is that she seems to see that.

[no limit]

25. So is the answer that you need the president to tell you how to think on this issue?

Or can you make up your own mind based on the facts you just said? There are only 2 choices here, appoint her or not appoint her. Both are not equally good or equally bad. What would you do?

[Recursion]

26. Yes, yes, I know reductionism is fun

Though, as a bit of advice, jabs like that are cuter if they have some basis in what I've written. As I said, a recess appointment has upsides and downsides, though on balance I lean towards doing it.

There are only 2 choices here, appoint her or not appoint her.

No; Obama already did a third option by making her special assistant during its organization, and there might be some other square-the-circle rabbit to pull out of his hat going forward.

Both are not equally good or equally bad.

Well, there's not some scale of good or bad here. Each choice has advantages and costs that cut different ways. My own inclination is that it would be good to give her a recess appointment, but I also recognize the downsides of that.

[no limit]

27. Okay, so we agree. The better option is to appoint her

What third option do you see? To clarify when I say appoint I mean recess appointment then going for the full senate confirmation. Do you have other options in mind for getting her to be in charge of the bureau?

[Recursion]

28. It depends; if there's not a statutory limit on her special assistant appointment...

...I don't see why he has to do anything right now. When the agency is ready to go we can see how Congress looks; for all intents and purposes she's the head right now.

[no limit]

29. Ok, so the better option is now not to appoint her?

The senate isn't going to be any more favorable for atleast another year and a half.

[Recursion]

30. Neither option is particularly great (nt)

[no limit]

32. Oh please

[happyslug]

36. Another way to look at this, is to FORCE Obama to appoint her

Think about it, would Obama and the Massachusetts Democratic Party want Warren as a Senator? By appointing her as head of the Bureau of Consumer Affairs (Or whatever is the exact title), it cuts her out of running for the Senate, but if she is NOT appointed, she is ready, willing and able to run. This forces every other politician in Massachusetts who wants to run for the Senate to either plan to defeat her (and her support from the young is large, given her visits on the Daily Show) and her expertise in economic may make her almost a shoe in. Thus to defeat Warren, every other potential candidate has to work to prevent her from running, i.e. get her the appointment.

I suspect her supported for the Appointment is pulling out the biggest threat they could to Obama and his supporters, i.e. if Warren is NOT appointed, she is the next Democratic Senator from Massachusetts. Worse from Obama's point of view, is she would have enough support within the Senate to basically be able not only to Challenge Obama's leadership on the Economy, but to replace him as the lead "man" as to the Economy. Obama has to weigh this threat to the threat by the GOP over Obama making her his recess appointment to the head of the new Bureau.

[gkhouston]

12. I'm having trouble believing she's interested in a Senate seat.

This sounds like a ploy to get her out of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before she can damage anyone's golden calf.

[no limit]

16. You shouldn't have any trouble. The article said so

She wants to head the CFPB while democratic leaders want her to run for the senate so they don't have to appoint her to that position.

[Fuddnik]

21. Democratic Leaders?

As in:

Jumbo Shrimp?
Military Intelligence?

Please. Anything but a squabble with the dreaded Republicans.

[gkhouston]

31. Yes--so why is the title "Warren eyes Senate seat?" instead of a

"Warren Uninterested in Senate" or "Pols Want Warren Out of CFPB" or even "Warren Stink-eyes Senate Seat"? }(

[No Elephants]

33. Who writes this?

"the agency charged with making consumer financial products and services – including applying for mortgages and credit cards – work for Americans"

That is a ridiculous description of the agency.