Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Surprise! Elizabeth Warren has a husband.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:16 PM
Original message
Surprise! Elizabeth Warren has a husband.
And he's a tenured professor of law at Harvard University, the same University where Warren is a tenured professor.

So if you're upset that she won't be named to head the Consumer Protection Agency, please think about this. Isn't it very possible that her friend Barney Frank is telling the truth?

That she told him that she didn't want to leave her comfortable, tenured, prestigious, well-paying job at Harvard, in lovely Cambridge, Massachusetts, for a high-pressure, thankless job in Washington, D.C. that is likely to be wiped out with the advent of the next Republican administration?

And that she doesn't want to have a commuter marriage and her husband doesn't want to move to Washington?

She told her friend Barney Frank she doesn't want the position. Unless you distrust him, that's all we need to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. Makes sense to me...
She is, after all, a very smart woman.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Smart and sensible, both.
Quality of life means a lot. And I can't believe she'd have a better quality of life if she took that job than if she returns to Cambridge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
31. There's also the rumors of her running for Senate from MA.
Who knows if they're true, but that's the buzz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theophilus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
36. It has been crystal clear from the beginning she doesn't want the job and
would do everything possible to turn it down if offered. She knows that she is better off without the stress! Of course she won't be tapped. She has more important things to do and I hope she succeeds with her dream job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roxiejules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #36
57. Crystal clear?
http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-14/bostonglobe/29774...



This should be Obamas fight. Yet once Republicans cast Warren as anti-business, the president was afraid to play his strongest hand.

Did (the White House) squander an opportunity to make the Elizabeth Warren nomination a defining battle? Big time, said one Senate Democratic adviser who is close to the Warren drama.

The president hasnt been willing to spend the political capital to fight for her, added Theresa Amato, executive director of Citizens Works, a nonprofit consumer protection agency founded by Ralph Nader.

Warrens supporters are now trying to convert prospective political loss in Washington into a Senate campaign in Massachusetts. On paper, her candidacy would attract women, liberals, and money from both constituencies, locally and nationally.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #57
72. + 1000% ~ history is being rewritten in this thread
The president 'hasn't been willing to spend the political capital to fight for her'. Exactly, just see what happened over the Memorial Day Weekend. I posted a link in comment #70. It's a shame, we have lost one of the best possible people to keep Wall St. on their toes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #72
76. You would know, you're doing the rewriting.
And using the same old plot. Obama bad, Obama bad, Obama bad...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mythology Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #57
94. So an unnamed source and somebody close to Ralph Nader who claims something
is better than a named source who we know is actually close to Elizabeth Warren?

Personally I'll take the word of Barney Frank over an unnamed source, especially given the reasons that would compel many to stay in Massachusetts in her position. And given Ralph Nader's antagonistic relationship to the Democratic party, it's not exactly a leap of faith to assume that somebody close to him might not be prone to being honest about the Democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Her 2 years away from the job are almost over.
Thanks pnwmom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. A tenured professorship at an Ivy is about as secure of a job as you can get
They don't give out tenure like candy up there, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. I would doubt the sanity of anyone giving up tenure at Harvard
for a political appt. But I'm grateful that she gave her time and expertise to us in setting up the agency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Me, too. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. Why is it a surprise that she has a husband??
She had a husband when she applied for the job. And if she doesn't want it now, it is only because of the way she was abused in Congress. She should have been installed in a recess appointment to put an end to the abuse she was exposed to by Republicans. But she wasn't, maybe she realizes that this president is not going to go to bat for her and it would make her job impossible if she does not have his backing against say, Timothy Geithner.

Brooksley Borne came to the same realization with Clinton. When his cabinet members, ironically some of the them the same people Obama appointed, treated her abusively for warning them about what she determined, correctly as it turned out, would be a disaster for this country, Clinton did not come to her assistance either.

I would love to see both women in the Senate. But the way good people are treated in DC is why we have so few of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. She never "applied" for the permanent job. She agreed to take the temporary job.
Edited on Fri Jul-15-11 08:28 PM by pnwmom
There is no evidence that she ever intended to do anything more. And Barney Frank says that she didn't want the permanent position. I see no reason not to trust his word on that.

Maybe she actually likes that life of hers in Cambridge. (Who wouldn't?)

I said "surprise" because many DUers are acting as if that's the case -- that of course there's no reason she wouldn't want the job at the CPA. Like a LIFE. With a husband who probably doesn't want to move anymore than she does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. She created the job. She was interested in it to get it off the ground
Why was she treated so badly and why did she not get appointed? Have you been following those hearings?

Why also, did Obama have to be pushed to nominate her? If I were in her position having seen how things really are, I would not want to work in this climate either. I think she realizes whose side this Admin would be on when it came to her discovering any kind of corruption. No point in taking a job when you realize you will not be able to do it.

As for her wanting to 'go home', she may be considering running for the Senate. This woman has many options in life, your opinion of what she wants, and why she wants it, is just that.

Barney Frank watched what happened to her in Congress, it was sickening. If she had been from Goldman Sach, she would have had that job already.

I will wait until SHE tells us why she is giving up, if you don't mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. Yes, she wanted to get it off the ground. And Barney Frank said
that's all she wanted -- to start it up, not to take the permanent position. Why don't you believe him? And what evidence do you have that Obama had to be pushed to nominate her?

If you're waiting for her to tell you why she's doing what she told Barney Frank she intended to do -- then you'll probably be waiting forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #25
41. And why didn't she get to do that??
Because the WH refused to do what Barney Frank advised them to do, make her appointment a recess appointment. Having watched it all happen, he would be no friend to her if he did not agree that she does not need any more abuse especially when the WH made it clear that what Wall St. wanted is what they were going to get and the WH was not going to do anything to stop it.

Frank already said what needed to be done if she was to take the temporary appointment. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) recently called this the worst abuse of the confirmation process Ive ever seen. He added, What it clearly says is that the president will have to make a recess appointment.

But that never happened.

Yes, she wanted to take the position temporarily, and they stopped her, with the help of this WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. You're making shit up again, in your quest to smear Obama. Frank NEVER asked for an appointment.
He was very, very clear that she did not want the job. He made a comment that with the Republicans pledging to block ANY nominee, the Pres would probably have to do a recess appointment. He said nothing about Warren, and did not request a Warren appointment. He was clear that she would not accept the job. Saying anything else is a lie. And yet you're trying to twist it around and create a fictional world where Obama is a Wall Street tool.

Your entire story is bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. Elizabeth Warren was the nominee. Are you denying that?
Frank's advice was that the nominee be appointed in a recess appointment because that was the only way to get around the Republican's plot to weaken that agency before it even began.

The very best person for that job WAS the nominee, to get it off the ground.

Why did the president choose not to appoint her in a recess appointment?

And do not accuse me of having ulterior motives. I say outright what I think. If I think this president is a Wall St. Tool I will not beat around the bush to say so. The truth is I do not know what he is. I do not know why he allows opportunities like this that would benefit the American people, pass him by.

But she was put through hell and it was not necessary, whatever the reason was. And it could have been avoided.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Open your ears and read Frank's own words.
He did NOT, repeat, NOT advocate or request a Warren appointment in any way. He clearly and publicly said she did not want it and would not accept it. He said that to get ANY nominee, a recess appointment would be needed if the Republicans continued to filibuster. He in no way suggested or even hinted that that should be Warren. She took the TEMPORARY job to set up the agency, with the known intent of leaving afterward.

Do you not understand the difference between a temporary job and a permanent one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #58
64. Wrong Again, Bob...
Its not an option to advise and consent, its a duty, Frank told me in a brief interview. OK, it wasnt so much an interview as it was Barney Frank talking to me and then me thanking him for the call. But heres what he said. First, Republicans in the Senate vowed not to allow anyone to be confirmed not just Warren, but anyone unless they got their way on gutting the agency. The natural response was to use the Constitutional power of a recess appointment to navigate beyond this. But now theyre complaining about a recess appointment, Frank said. They caused the problem and now theyre objecting to its solution. Its an incredible spectacle. Ive never seen the Republicans work so hard over anything than to stop this consumer agency.


Link: http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/27/barney-frank-rep... /

And this story is from a month and a half ago, not September 2010 like the HuffPo piece you've been peddling. Now why would Barney Frank say such a thing, if Warren was not still being considered for the position.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #64
74. Again, HE IS NOT ASKING THAT SHE BE APPOINTED.
Please, read through that, and tell me where he references her name. You are creating an imaginary scenario where Frank is demanding her appointment, when he is in fact very clear that he is referring to ANYONE.

Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #58
71. The temporary job was a strategy used by the President
to get around the Republicans promise to block her nomination as head of the agency. See my post #70. She was up for the permanent appointment as late as early this month.

Maybe I'm not the one who doesn't understand what has been going on with this appointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #50
59. Um...
There were extensive and nuanced discussions with the White House, said a source familiar with them, and the interim nomination emerged as her favored choice, as Frank says, but she has still not foreclosed the option of a full nomination or told the administration that she would flatly refuse one.

"Frankly, on her behalf, I talked to David Axelrod earlier this year, and I said, 'You know, Elizabeth doesn't want a full five year term. She'd like to set this up,'" said Frank. "She told me that, and I told Axelrod that."

The administration, however, still has the option to nominate Warren to a permanent position.


Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/warren-didnt-w...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. Thank you for proving my point.
Warren wanted the interim job, not the permanent job. She got exactly what she wanted out of the deal, and now she's going home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. That's Some Selective Reading You've Got There...
:wow:

This is really important to you... wow.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #50
101. incredibly uncalled for and mean-spirited comment. i thought this shit was against the rules.

"You're making shit up again, in your quest to smear Obama", etc etc.

- not only questioning motives, but openly and blatantly slandering the poster. :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roxiejules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #41
67. Funny that the Senate stayed in session so Warren could not be appointed
Guess they didn't hear she never wanted the job.

:sarcasm:




http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/163635-gop...

Republicans are preventing the Senate from completely adjourning for the Memorial Day recess. Instead, the chamber will come in for three pro-forma sessions over the next 10 days.

Some Republicans feared that Obama would use the recess to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will have broad powers over Wall Street.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!
Great Point!!!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #67
75. They stayed in session so NO ONE could be appointed.
Not just to the CFPB, but also to judicial seats. And yes, because they hate Warren and the CFPB. How is that evidence that she wants the job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roxiejules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #75
80. 'They believe she still WANTS the job'
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/business/economy/05wa...


"People outside the agency who speak often with Ms. Warren say they believe she still wants the job.

Only President Obama can decide if Ms. Warren is his choice for director, and for months he has said nothing about it. Mr. Obama has said he has great respect for Ms. Warren and her advocacy for consumers, but he has appeared unwilling to wage a battle with the Senate to actually nominate her to direct the new bureau."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #75
95. Why are you so desperate to push this meme?
Everything, outside of an old offhand comment from Barney Frank, speaks to the notion that Warren was interested and would have accepted the position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #67
89. Yes, amazing that just two weeks ago or so, she forgot to tell
anyone she did not want the job. Also, several liberal groups had rallied a lot of support for her at that time, getting hundreds of thousands of signatures in support of her, but we are being told she ignored all that support and didn't bother to tell them not to waste their energy, because she didn't want the job! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. You are exactly on point
and this family excuse it ALWAYS the excuse given when the person gets no support from the administration. :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. She didn't make a family excuse. I don't speak for her.
She let her feelings be known through her friend Barney Frank. I'm just saying that, unlike many here, I can easily imagine many good reasons why she'd prefer to go back to Cambridge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
66. And You Made It Completely Clear That You Trust Barney Frank...
Over and over...

Look I have no problem with Barney, but this IS politics, and Frank IS a politician.

And sometimes things are not as they seem.

:shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Dragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. But the people need her
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. She was run out of DC. Funny to see this OP attempting to
make it seem that she suddenly got homesick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Wanted To Spend More Time With Her Family
:facepalm:

:banghead:

:shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. She never aimed for this. She was a professor at Harvard,
at the pinnacle of her profession. And she has a family.

Why is it so hard to believe that she was perfectly content with the life she had -- and wanted to get back to it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. She made it clear before she ever went there that she didn't want the permanent position.
Funny so many people here don't believe Barney Frank on this.

And funny to think so many people would think she'd want to leave her tenured position and continue the commuter marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Hmm... Do you have a link for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. I can't believe you haven't seen reports of what Barney Frank said.
Are you disputing him? Or do you really need a link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
37. Funny too that Barney Frank knew what was going on and
stated clearly, while it was still possible, that the President would have to stop the abuse and appoint her in a recess appointment.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) recently called this the worst abuse of the confirmation process Ive ever seen. He added, What it clearly says is that the president will have to make a recess appointment.


Nothing about this is funny. Wall St. won again, and the WH let them do what they promised, hold up the process until she could no longer be appointed, since she did not intend to make it permanent they knew what they had to do and without backing from the WH, she never had a chance, and that is what Frank knows. He knows she was basically driven out and she could not succeed in doing a job without the backing of the WH, which she did not have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. You're making up pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Frank was referring to the refusal to appoint ANYONE to the job, not Warren. Warren was clear on the fact that she would not take the permanent appointment. You're simply making up reasons to blame Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. How ridiculous. Understand something, I don't care about
politicians. I care about this country. If they do a good job I will say so, but I will never again, as I used to do, try to defend any politician when they are not working for the American people if the facts point in that direction.

She was the best person to get this agency off the ground. She was put through hell for weeks by Republicans who would not allow the process to go forward as they promised, until they got what they wanted, an agency so weak that it would be useless. And they smeared Warren every day during the hearings, it was a disgrace. It could have been stopped by a recess appointment, but that didn't happen.

Twist the facts any way you want, but she was willing to take the job to get the agency off the ground, Republicans announced their intentions, there was one way to stop them, and it didn't happen.

We are the losers. Wall St. won again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. You apparently don't care about FACTS, either.
"Twist the facts any way you want, but she was willing to take the job to get the agency off the ground, Republicans announced their intentions, there was one way to stop them, and it didn't happen."

She TOOK that job. She built the agency. And she never had any intention of sticking around. You are desperately trying to turn this into some kind of fictional story where Obama caves to the Republicans. It's crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. Why was she at the hearings taking abuse from Republicans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
32. It's not the OP, it's the word of Barney Frank speaking on behalf of his friend.
Who he made it very clear does not want the job and would not take it if it were offered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Barney Frank wanted a recess appointment for her and said
so before the clock ran out. Which it now has. Why would she want the job now?? She was smeared and abused and called a 'liar' and all of that could have been stopped if the President had simply appointed her as Frank stated.

Senate Republicans have vowed to hold up any nominee to lead the CFPB and say the blockade will not end until changes are made to curb the bureaus authority.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) recently called this the worst abuse of the confirmation process Ive ever seen. He added, What it clearly says is that the president will have to make a recess appointment.


But Wall St. did not want her, and there was no recess appointment. No one in their right mind would that job now especially when she had no backing from this administration.

Barney Frank is right to encourage her not to take it. He watched the entire process and realized it was a lost cause.

Our loss, once again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. ANY nominee to head the CFPB, not Warren. Frank didn't want a Warren appointment.
Because he knew his friend wouldn't take the job. Making up all sorts of reasons to blame Obama, and make it like she wanted the job but couldn't get it, it bullshit. She NEVER wanted the job. Frank made that clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Are you serious? Why was she sitting there taking all that
abuse if she did not want the job?? And who do you think Frank was talking about when he slammed the Republicans for the way they were smearing her and asked for a recess appointment??

Talk about making things up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. He DIDN'T ask for a recess appointment of Warren.
He said, if you bothered to read the text YOU quoted, that the Republicans had said they would stop ANY nominee, requiring the President to make a recess appointment to get someone in charge. He as NOT asking for one for Warren, who had been clear that she did not want it.

She took the crap because she DID take the job of creating and developing the agency. She was equally clear that she did not want the job of running it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. SHE was the nominee, was she not??
HE stated that it would take a recess appointment to get past the abusive tactics of the Republicans. The president chose not to take that advice.

She was considered to be the best person to do that job.

All he had to do was appoint her, but when the opportunity arose, he did not.

You can try to distract from the facts by using semantics, but facts are facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. No, she was not. You don't even know the facts of the situation you're talking about.
She took the TEMPORARY job of creating the agency, which required no Senate confirmation, with the knowledge that she was NOT interested in the permanent job RUNNING the agency. She built it, and she intends to go home. Facts are not "semantics."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #54
70. "Elizabeth Warren Appointment Dangles As Democrats Duck Recess Fight With Republicans"
June 30, 2011:

Elizabeth Warren Appointment Dangles As Democrats Duck Recess Fight With Republicans

In a bid to stop President Obama from making Senate-circumventing appointments while Congress is out -- most notably Consumer Financial Protection Bureau architect Elizabeth Warren -- House Speaker John Boehner is banning his members -- and the Senate -- from going on holiday.


Just weeks ago she was the subject of the Recess battle with Republicans whose goal was to prevent the president from making recess appointments over the Memorial Day weekend, specifically Elizabeth Warren. If she was not interested in the job, she had not said so early this month. Not only that, but Liberal Groups were rallying support for her appointment which she surely knew.

From June 28, 2011:

Liberals push Elizabeth Warren nomination


Its time for President Obama to embrace the clear will of the American people and appoint Elizabeth Warren to stand up for consumers, Green said.

Although Warren is the bureaus chief architect and Democrats first choice to run it, Senate Republicans signaled they would wage a bruising confirmation fight if Obama nominated her. Instead, Obama tapped Warren to get the bureau up and running, and deferred his selection of a nominee.


Whatever the reason, she is now 'going home to spend time with her family'. But to say she 'never wanted the job' is not what we were hearing from her just weeks ago, nor from Barney Frank.

Why did she let this battle take place on her behalf if she had not interest in the job?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #70
77. Which is evidence other people wanted her in the job, not that SHE wanted it.
Keep spinning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roxiejules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #52
73. The GOP and Banksters thought she was headed for appt.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/elizabeth-warren...

We have said for some time Warren was not going to get head the new consumer financial protection agency. Obama was not willing to ruffle the banks, and Geithner, who is is most powerful Cabinet member, would not stand for it). Nevertheless, we are disappointed by this outcome. And it seems a bit churlish for this news to be leaked the day after she ran the gauntlet with the House Oversight Panel.





http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/15/house-gop-pu...


Over the Memorial Day holiday, Republican senators also prevented the Senate from going into a recess, meeting for a few minutes every three days to keep the body from taking a break. That was in response to concerns the president would recess appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #46
83. Yes. He DID. Fact.
post #79.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #42
79. If Frank didn't want a Warren recess appointment THEN WHY DID HE SAY HE DID?
Edited on Sat Jul-16-11 03:06 AM by chill_wind
Along with 89 other Democrats urging Obama to appoint ELIZABETH WARREN.

Frank and Woolsey, along with Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., were among 89 House Democrats who sent Obama a letter Thursday urging him to use his power to appoint Warren temporarily to the job the next time the Senate takes a recess. So-called recess appointments are permitted under the Constitution but last only until the end of next session of the Senate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/barney-frank-e...

June 2011.

Democrats push for Warren to lead consumer agency

(Reuters) - A large block of Democrats in the House of Representatives is urging President Obama to appoint Elizabeth Warren as head of the new consumer agency without Senate approval if Republicans threaten to obstruct her nomination.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-financial-...

And the point is rather well made in that article about the Dems staying in session in no small part on her behalf, whatever else they were concerned about.

It's true that the facts and actions of so many others that wanted her to get the appointment in no way proves one way or another what her wishes were, but the whole blockheaded pushback of "BARNEY FRANK SAID, so STFU" approach has gone beyond absurd.

Barney said a lot of things since last September. Not all of them consistent for someone who supposedly knew her mind. Maybe she wanted it. Maybe she didn't want it. Maybe she was ambivalent and giving mixed signals over time.

But he absolutely DID advocate for her recess appointment. That's the fact!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roxiejules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #79
86. +1

:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. Damn! :-)
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. I've heard that before too...her goal was to get the agency up & running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adsos Letter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. This adds to my belief about the nature of this appointment
If the appointee is someone Ms. Warren initially brought in to the agency (as BzaDem suggested in another thread) gave broad powers to, and is confident in, then putting that person in place is akin to cloning Ms. Warren. This frees her up to apply her weight in some other area (such as Congress, should she choose) or simply return to her life at Harvard.

IF that's the case then I think it a smart move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #10
82. Whoever is appointed will only replace the people
she picked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adsos Letter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #82
103. Apparently not. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. I wish she would make a statement and end the speculation
If she says she made it clear up front she was only interested in setting it up, or that Obama asked her to run it and she declined, I'd be satisfied. I am curious if he ever actually offered her the gig...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Diplomatic people generally don't make statements like that.
And she is highly diplomatic. That's why she made her wishes known through a back channel -- her friend, Barney Frank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. You'd be satisfied...
:rofl:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
PoliticAverse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
22. She was a bargaining chip....
I hope they raised a lot of campaign money from Wall Street.

Now they can appoint a former banker to the position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. To match the rest of the administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
26. Strangely enough being in Washington DC isn't always the preferred job
Some people actually prefer having a life that has nothing to do with government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
27. It does make sense and I don't blame her - but she's the real deal...
Edited on Fri Jul-15-11 08:58 PM by polichick
...so it's our loss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
30. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
34. Then Barney Frank's behavior is rather inexplicable
Edited on Fri Jul-15-11 09:22 PM by chill_wind
and contradictory as a friend in the many months since he was quoted about that (last fall), given that he's been strongly advocating on her behalf since then, up to and including urging Obama last month to recess appoint her. Why would a friend try to set her up to have to refuse to serve her country at the President's behest?

There is no reason to think he wasn't telling the truth at that earlier time. However, any possibility in your mind that there were ever any other conversations between them since he said that last September?

Maybe she wanted the job in March? Maybe she didn't? Maybe Frank was trying to pick a fight with Obama and/or teabaggers both and thought she would make a great political football? You read it and tell me:

As for Elizabeth Warren? Barney Frank says: Lets fight!
Mar 21, 2011 11:56 EDT

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2011/03/21/as-for-eli... /

Perhaps she was ambivalent at best. Perhaps she does indeed have other political or private plans. But your insistence that "Barney Frank said so, so that's that!" doesn't really clarify anything.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #34
69. Exactly. He was always supportive of her heading that agency.
Maybe he now thinks she should run for the Senate. But he was always on board with her running the CFPB. And just weeks ago she was still apparently, interested in the job. Now we are being told she 'never wanted it'. I don't believe Elizabeth Warren is the kind of person to pretend to want a job she didn't want. And I don't believe Barney Frank is the kind of person to support a nomination if he was not sincere about it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nobodyspecial Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
38. So, if Warren herself says she wanted it this way
will all of you be satisfied? I doubt it. I can see it now. "Obama made her say it..." "He asked her not to do it and she's just covering" Perhaps someone will even says she received threats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. She wanted to get the agency she invented up and running.
It's clear you are not aware of what happened here. Wall St. did not want Elizabeth Warren. The Republicans swore to hold up the process until her time ran out, as a temporary head of the Dept. And that is what they did. It was a disgraceful, abusive process.

Senate Republicans have vowed to hold up any nominee to lead the CFPB and say the blockade will not end until changes are made to curb the bureaus authority.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) recently called this the worst abuse of the confirmation process Ive ever seen. He added, What it clearly says is that the president will have to make a recess appointment.


But those words fell on the deaf ears of the WH and the time was used up by Republicans who smeared this woman badly. If she had not wanted the job there is no way she would allowed herself to be abused the way she was week after week.

But without the backing of the WH, it was never going to happen. And after watching what went on, I am surprised she hung in as long as she did.

And this disgraceful episode makes it crystal clear that we will never get good people in DC until someone with the guts to stand up, is in a position to do so.

She was perfect for that job. But once Wall St. decided she was too much of a threat to them, and the WH was not about to buck Wall St. it was never going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #39
55. And she DID that. She took the TEMPORARY job to establish the agency.
She never had any intention or desire to take the PERMANENT job running it. Anything else is simply your invention, to try and blame Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #38
61. that would be nothing but a heart-ache, we never wanna hear her say
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
40. What about running against Scott Brown? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
45. I never thought about it one way or another.
Why should I be surprised about something I've never considered?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
49. If E. Warren was a man I wonder if we'd be having this conversation...
wondering about the family life, etc. Nobody thinks about the man's family life if he's up for a position, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. I'm mystified about why this BREAKING NEWS is relevant to, well, anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cereal Kyller Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
60. What if she didn't have a spouse?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geckosfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
62. If I were in her position, no way would I go. Unless I was really bored
Edited on Fri Jul-15-11 11:12 PM by geckosfeet
with Boston, my well paying tenured teaching position, and the lack of RW a$$dropping running all around town.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
78. What's the "surprise"!! here?
Edited on Sat Jul-16-11 01:54 AM by Bluebear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
81. Notice the Headline doesn't read "Elizabeth Warren Declines Consumer Protection Agency Top Job".
Edited on Sat Jul-16-11 11:16 AM by eilen
"No hard feelings" She stated after recent bruising Congressional Hearings. We have all been working very hard and I must get back to my husband."

Fine with me, seems she is then available for the Top Job at the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
84. Nice post! She has said herself she doesn't want the job. A Huffpo article from September - 2010
also made this clear. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/warren-didnt-w...

I have no idea why so many would doubt that she's not interested. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. :facepalm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roxiejules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #84
87. 7/4/11: She still wants the job
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/business/economy/05wa...


People outside the agency who speak often with Ms. Warren say they believe she still wants the job.

Only President Obama can decide if Ms. Warren is his choice for director, and for months he has said nothing about it. Mr. Obama has said he has great respect for Ms. Warren and her advocacy for consumers, but he has appeared unwilling to wage a battle with the Senate to actually nominate her to direct the new bureau."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #87
93. They believe?
Based on what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. Based on the fact that they "speak often" with Warren.
Or, we could just rely on a single sentence from Congressman Frank, which doesn't even say what Obama's defenders claim it says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roxiejules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. Based on talking to her
7/14/11


Elizabeth Warren is still in the running for the consumer protection job. I hope she gets that job, said Massachusetts Democratic Party chairman John Walsh


Did (the White House) squander an opportunity to make the Elizabeth Warren nomination a defining battle? Big time, said one Senate Democratic adviser who is close to the Warren drama.




http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-14/bostonglobe/29774...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. No!!!1 She doesn't want the job! She has a HUSBAND!!!!1
:cry:

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roxiejules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #99
102. Good one!!


:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #87
104. Do you have a quote where SHE says she wants the job?
I have not seen one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
90. Then I guess the little lady should just stay home and rattle the pots and pans!
Your attempts at force feeding us
this poison are laughable.

Please stop.

Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Whatever her hubby commands.
:eyes:

It will be a cold day in Hell before someone posted "Surprise!(Insert Male Candidate's Name) has a wife." Or that because the wife's job was in a city one hour by air from DC, the husband wouldn't want a commuter marriage. I could go on, but I need to get out the ironing board and starch hubby's shirts.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. Honestly....
I had to get up and leave the room for a while after
opening this thread.

The cognitive dissonance is making my head split.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
98. Unrec - the little woman should be with her hubby in Boston eh?
You've sunk to new lows with this OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. Surprise!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #98
105. I took it to mean that she has a better job/life
outside of Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 02:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC