The Street girds for Warren as consumer czar ("pretty clear that she's going to get the nomination")

[kpete]

Source: New York Post

The Street girds for Warren as consumer czar

By MARK DeCAMBRE

Last Updated: 1:38 AM, September 1, 2010

Wall Street is preparing for a hurricane starting with the letter E, but it's not Earl, it's Elizabeth, as in Warren.

Bankers appear to be resigning themselves to a fate worse than tougher financial regulation: The hard-charging Harvard professor, who oversees TARP funding, seems a near-cinch to be named the nation's consumer watchdog.

"At this point, it seems pretty clear that she's going to get the nomination," said one high-ranking bank official, noting that President Obama, who has been sliding in the polls, could use a Warren nomination as a rallying point.

President Obama — seen here playing golf in Martha’s Vineyard last week — may name Wall Street nemesis Elizabeth Warren the new consumer watchdog during a Senate recess period, avoiding a confirmation hearing for a year.

For now, sources are speculating that President Obama may grant a so-called "recess appointment" for Warren over the coming weeks or months. Congress is currently in recess until after Labor Day; the next such break is after Oct. 8.




Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/the_appointed_one_recess_remorse_WSFTXh8NkeQfC2XUuM0gUP#ixzz0yIP7A0Vf

[DURHAM D]

1. What's the delay?

Do it now.

Everyday Obama reminds me more of Carter. Its the wimp factor.

[No Elephants]

3. IMO, Carter has been very underrated in the U.S.

Call him a wimp? For what?

For patiently getting hostages back without violence, instead of starting a 10 year war?

For urging we wean ourselves from Mideast oil and establishing the DOE for that purpose? For putting solar panels on the WH?

For getting the only lasting peace treaty between Israel and an Arab nation?

Problem was, Raygun undid everything as soon as he could and falsely claimed credit for return of the hostages.

[DURHAM D]

6. For changing the speed limit to 55?

For telling us to turn our thermostats down to "cold enough to hang meat" and wear a cardigan sweater?

He was just generally depressing and ineffective as a leader. He is a better ex-President.

[Raster]

9. That's all you got: cardigan abuse? You may not recall, there was an ENERGY CRISIS at the time...

...it was good advice, and turns out he was right.

[DURHAM D]

12. Hey - I remember it all.

Carter was so bad that I ended up supporting Ted Kennedy in the primary.

[No Elephants]

16. You seem to have swallowed a bunch of memes about 2 great Democrats.

[DURHAM D]

17. You don't need "memes" when you live it.

I worked as a full time volunteer to help elect Carter.

I wanted him to succeed.

Instead he put me to sleep.

[SlimJimmy]

35. Amen, to live it is to understand how bad he really was. (nt)

[unblock]

88. memes are EXACTLY what you swallowed

carter's putting you to sleep?

what, ford was a dynamic speaker? nixon? johnson? kennedy wasn't really even all that dynamic a speaker, although he did have a fantastic speechwriter and therefore had a few great quotes. carter's style was fairly normal at the time and in any event, calm was not thought normally thought of as a failing in a president until reagan came along and political analysis got turned on its head.

had congress been more cooperative, history would have viewed carter vastly differently. had carter won reelection, he would have presided over the recovery that HE was responsible for, having appointed volker, who solved our economic problems practically single-handedly (first by jacking interest rates sky high to squash inflation, then by dropping them to get the economy booming). instead, reagan got in and took credit for a boom that had no basis in fiscal policy or anything else reagan did. in fact, carter would have also presided over the safe return of the hostages as well.

and all this might have been possible had teddy not beaten up on him in the primary. i loves me some kennedys, but i really wish teddy had held off for four years.

carter was a victim of an uncooperative congress, oil shocks under nixon/ford, and hostage negotiations sabotaged by reagan/bush.

but go on and blame it all on him putting you to sleep and wearing a cardigan.

[eShirl]

105. you wanted a motivational speaker

maybe?

[Recursion]

107. Presidents don't really do much

Speaking in a way that gets people to act is pretty much their main gig.

(Edit: No, I'm not saying it's an easy job, or I could do it, or that they're just sitting around. They manage a huge bureaucracy. But their main job is still to communicate.)

[lark]

49. Carter got really bad press

So what? Any Dem will get bad press because the corporate masters want to stay in charge and keep the masses uninformed. Is Obama a muslim, not a citizen, etc. because they print that he is? Is he a socialist? No! The press said Carter was depressing because they wanted Americans to keep burning the fuel, using all the resources possible so the rich corps. could get even richer.

[snot]

82. I'm with you, Raster. Carter was the last Pres. we could trust.

And why are we letting one person turn this into a Carter-bashing thread?

[No Elephants]

11. Dependence on mid East oil is preferable to 55 mph? Riiiiight.

[DURHAM D]

13. That worked out well didn't it? nt

[No Elephants]

15. Blame Carter for what Raygun undid?

[pnwmom]

95. It saved energy. What's wrong with that? n/t

[Kolesar]

22. President Carter was the best at expressing the ethic of resource conservation

He was my favorite president of my lifetime. Obama could overtake him, eventually.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. And today, with oil prices in the stratosphere, where are we keeping

our thermostats? Right where Carter suggested 30 years ago.

Can I get a great big 'duh'?

[nyy1998]

70. DUH

Nicely done.

[mdmc]

75. 1

[JDPriestly]

31. If you want to waste your money on burning fuel in the winter,

turn up the thermostat to summer temperatures and forget the cardigan. It's your money. I have a nice pair of gloves at the side of my computer, and when it gets cold, I put them on. They are thin enough to permit me to turn pages, but they still help keep me warm. And wearing layers of sweaters and socks is common sense.

If you were on Social Security, you would be wearing your old sweaters and socks and gloves in the winter too.

Carter was one of our best presidents. Americans were too stupid and immature to understand his message: grow up and live in reality.

As a result, our jobs have been outsourced and we are an impoverished, over-militarized, increasingly authoritarian society. We missed our chance with Carter.

[urgk]

100. "Americans were too stupid and immature to understand his message."

Absolutely. To paraphrase a comment on this thread, 55 mph is a small price to pay for $1 trillion in war costs and 4,400 American lives.

[daleanime]

58. Reality has a well known liberal biase...

and is often depressing. Would have been more efficient if people had listened to him.O8)

[LisaM]

62. What is wrong with either of those things?

I think the speed limit should be 55 now; it would save a lot of gas (and cars are more fuel efficient at that speed).

[Enthusiast]

76. Were you a Republican during Carter's term?

You are saying exactly what Republicans of the day were saying. Instead of taking energy conservation seriously, as Carter suggested, we threw conservation efforts out the window for the next three decades. And just look at the results of Reagan mocking conservation efforts. This has been a horrible failure when we could have followed Carter's way to success.

[Gman]

80. Yeah well, freepers say the same thing about Carter too

[NBachers]

90. He had his own gaggle of turncoat democrats and saboteurs within the party

And - - - the murkin people had no use for his energy policy. It's the Pig Factor, you know.

[pnwmom]

94. For saying the country should develop solar energy and thereby reduce our consumption

of oil by 25%? Yeah, that Carter. Funny how he thought we should be saving energy. What a doofus.

:sarcasm:

[urgk]

98. Yeah....Carter...What a complete jerk.

And so off base:

"This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them."

How about in the same speech when he said:

"To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you it is an act of patriotism.

Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation's strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives."

He may have been a little dry. And definitely a little preachy. But Jimmy Carter was and is a good man. A quietly great man. And far more forward thinking than Reagan, Clinton, both father and son Bush. He asked us all to sack up and commit to something that would have saved us the lives and money lost in at least one gulf war. If we, as a nation, had listened, we would lead the world in alternative fuels, we would be able to avoid the entanglements of the Middle East and we would have learned that choosing to pull together is sometimes the best use of our freedom to be individuals.

[Raster]

7. Hear! Hear! Carter's "wimp factor" was a disingenuous meme designed to hamstring his Presidency...

...and pave the way for "The Great Bullshit Artist."

[DURHAM D]

10. Carter left a leadership void.

That makes him a wimp.

The nasty Repubs got to fill it up with their own shit.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalLovinLug]

46. Ding ding ding ding

We have another winner (ie.sucker) of the MSM's and talk radio's rewriting of history.

And you must also believe that:
• Nixon was a great President because he opened China
• Reagan was a great President because he freed the hostages, and made America feel good about itself
• Clinton was an immoral President who only had one thing on his mind, which led to Bin Laden's ability to successfully plan 9/11
• Bush Jr. was a great President because he stood up to terrorists that carried out an act on 9/11 that he could never have foreseen, no matter how many reports of al Qaeda's threats came across his desk. Anyways, it was all Clinton's fault.
• Obama's recession is killing jobs in America


Maybe you are confusing empty charisma with thoughtful leadership.

[urgk]

99. He told us what we didn't want to hear. We could use more of that courage.

I'd take it any day over the Yosemite Sam, shoot 'em up, Texas, guns-a-blazin' horse sh*t that pulled us into two un-winnable wars.

Jimmy Carter may have misunderstood or overestimated the strength of character of this nation, but he understood the problem it faced. And he tried to meet it. He didn't fail us, we failed him.

[NewJeffCT]

26. A lot of Carter's ideas were great for the long-term

but, often unsatisfying in our culture of instant gratification. That was part of his problem back in the day.

Plus, the liberal base preferred Ted Kennedy, as Carter was seen by many as too moderate/centrist.

[JDPriestly]

32. Shows how far to the right our party has gone.

I was a Carter supporter, and now I'm considered to be one of the "professional left." I assure you that I am not making any money as a "professional" leftists.

I haven't changed. Our party has changed. And it's a crying shame.

[NewJeffCT]

61. Yes, most of the base now holds Carter up

as a liberal icon.

[mikeburetta]

73. professional left

Yea seams ive not gotten paid to be one ether...hmmm

[DonCoquixote]

64. Gee

sounds like history will repeat. Ah, would have been far better to have Hillary, who would have finished the DLC decapitation of liberals that her hubby started.

[SlimJimmy]

33. Just a note for those that think President Carter

was so great. I voted for him, and then had to live with that decision. Eighteen percent interest on my home loan, Odd even gas lines, stagflation, and (at the time) an unacceptable unemployment rate. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

[NewJeffCT]

67. In defense of Carter on the economy

He was dealing with the fallout from Nixon fucking up the economy - Tricky Dick put in some stopgap measures that paid off with an apparently good economy in 1972 (re-election year...), but left it reeling over the next several years. Ford ran on a platform of W.I.N. in '76 - Whip Inflation Now. We had high inflation pre-Carter and post-Carter. Paul Volcker & Carter bit the bullet on the economy and endured inflation and did right for the long-term, but it cost Carter his chance at re-election in 1980. Carter's job creation record was pretty good as well - better than Reagan's.

We should have had higher inflation the early part of this decade as well - but, Bush & Greenspan elected to fight off inflation to give us the illusion of a good economy in 2004, so Bush could win re-election.

[howmad1]

85. Hey, I voted for Obama also:

And now I have to live his sucking up to republicans, making back door deals with insurance companies and banks, continued spying on american citizens, no repeal on DADT, 10% unemployment, etc., etc., etc.Some of Obama's shit I wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Patiently waiting? He tried using military force, but was unsecessful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

[Plucketeer]

48. All this bickering about Carter. Who cares???

The question I want answered is WHY Elizabeth isn't ALREADY at work, reigning in Wall St.???

Also noted: Arne Dunce'n - the Ronald Reagan of Education Department.

[rpannier]

65. Interesting isn't it?

A post on Elizabeth Warren and 30 of the 1st 63 responses are about Carter

[Plucketeer]

69. Amazing really

Nothing like looking forward.

[RaleighNCDUer]

109. "He" tried military force?

He argued against it from the beginning, but his hawk advisers kept insisting, so he let them draw up a plan, asking "Are you sure it will work?" "Absolutely. It will be another Entebbe."

And it wasn't. It was a complete clusterfuck from the git go. They didn't have the logistics, the training, the capacity to carry it out. We'd have done better to dress up Israelis in US uniforms and rent them for the weekend. They might have pulled it off, and they certainly would not have killed a half dozen of their own doing it.

OTOH, he didn't - as many were suggesting - call for an invasion of Iran, for B52s to flatten Tehran, or any of that other nonsense.

Again, as in so many other aspect of his tenure, he had a clearer vision of what the realities were than those around him had.

[Deep13]

41. He had great ideas.

He seemed to have trouble managing them. Of course that always seems to happen when a POTUS wants to do something big oil doesn't like.

[davidwparker]

77. Right. He was the last (D) President. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

87. I agree. Carter was screwed by Big Oil. Now can we talk about Elizabeth Warren?

I'm saving some red, font size 8 type to print my praises of Obama if he nominates her.

[davidwparker]

112. If this occurs, I will share in your joy!!! A step in the

right direction.

I may even put on one of my Obama/Biden shirts again and go celebrate with some glass of wine and a cheese plate at a nearby restaurant.

[SanchoPanza]

27. August recess.

FinReg was signed on July 21st. The Senate began it's recess on August 9th. It takes more than two and a half weeks to put a nomination on the calendar and get it through committee. Kagan, for instance, was nominated to the Supreme Court on May 10th, but the hearings in the Judiciary Committee didn't begin until June 20th, and that was a relatively speedy process as far as nominations go. More contentious nominations tend to be drawn out even more.

The Senate reconvenes on September 12th. We won't see movement on anything until then.

[JDPriestly]

37. We need to send e-mails to Dodd.

Elizabeth Warren is an intelligent and compassionate listener. I think she would be very fair to Wall Street. In fact, I think she would be the perfect person to act as ambassador for the Obama administration's economic policies. Geithner, Summers and Bernanke are horrible spokespersons for the administration's economic policies.

Wall Street is just completely out of touch with Americans. I don't think that Wall Street understands that Americans of all political persuasions are sick and tired of Wall Street's lies and cheating. And people who normally would not know a think about economics are talking about how we need to end the Fed as we know it.

Things are changing. Elizabeth Warren's popularity is just a symptom of that change. Wall Street gets protected by Americans, but for how long?

[NewJeffCT]

68. A a CT resident, Dodd is usually responsive to emails

but, I have not heard back from him on Warren.

[lark]

47. Don't demean Carter

He actually was an honest man, not a bought tool of the Wall St./military industrial complex. Obama will never be the man Carter was. Can you imagine him building homes for the poor after he retires, no way. He'll be like the rest and suck up consulting fees and give back virtually nothing.

[AllTooEasy]

55. Read the article...

"President Obama ... may name Wall Street nemesis Elizabeth Warren the new consumer watchdog during a Senate recess period, avoiding a confirmation hearing for a year."

She will hold the position for a year before Reps and Blue Dog Dems can hold up her nomination. That will give her time to do a lot of damage to Wall Street's gangster tactics and help the American consumer. By the time of her hearing in a year, the Reps won't have the balls to kick her out.

It's called political strategy, something I know the professional left is clueless about. Nominating her now would mean she will never hold the position.

[Lorien]

92. Bernake was rammed through despite the outcries against him

but none of it is surprising now.

[Rage for Order]

2. Fingers crossed for Ms. Warren to get the appointment

She could make a real difference in this position. I hope this comes to fruition.

[Liberal_in_LA]

34. mine too! She's great

[BrklynLiberal]

4. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[disillusioned73]

5. Get it done...

now is not the time for political triangulation :mad:

[Kingofalldems]

8. I know someone who won't be liking this---oops.

He's a republican trickster---->:shrug:

[Dappleganger]

18. Make it so.

And give her the authority to do some things, not a powerless position.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

20. Not much to add except this;

PLEASE let this be true!

I don't ask for much, but please make this happen President Obama.

[BonnieJW]

21. She will be one of only a handful

of people in DC who are for the people rather than themselves.

[harun]

72. One can literally count them on one hand.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

102. Or one finger...

[Kingofalldems]

23. Kick this big time

[zipplewrath]

24. My only concern

If she gets this through a recess appointment, the senate really don't like them, on both sides of the aisle. It spelled the end of Bolton's chances. I suspect it will kill her's as well. And the senate could hamper anything she was trying to do for at least a year.

[lark]

53. At least she will have a year to do good things

If she goes thru the nomination, she could easily lose. The Repugs would 100% vote against her and would Ben Nelson, or Liarguy vote for her or would they vote to sustain a filibuster? Get her in now!

[perdita9]

25. Anything that scares the bankers into behaving...

...is a good thing. Go, Elizabeth!

[Uncle Joe]

28. I hope she gets it, the people need a strong advocate.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Blackhatjack]

29. Hope She Comes Out Guns Blazing! Let'em Know There's A New Sheriff On The Beat...

No need to tip toe into this morally corrupt morass... She can take her pick of easy targets. Get off to the right start in reining in the most reprehensible practices. Let them squeal .... that will be music to the ears of those who have been subject to the worst abuses.

I am a firm believer in using the power you have to do good, or it will wither away while you wait to use it.

Go Elizabeth! We've got your back.... and Obama's poll numbers will likely take a big jump up!

[JDPriestly]

30. Why the delay? Is Obama waiting for a Republican Congress

so that he can blame her not being appointed on them?

[lark]

54. Hope that supposition is wrong

But it certainly would be par for the course for this administration.

[leftynyc]

36. Not hurting the market

today. It's up over 200 points.

[florida08]

39. absolutely he needs a rallying

Sad that he would use her for that..but as long as we get her..I don't care.

[Deep13]

40. Well, thanks POTUS.

:patriot:

[Dr.Phool]

42. Too bad it's the Murdoch rag reporting it.

I'd love to see Warren get the appointment. She's the best.

But, anything reported in the Post needs to be taken with an enema.

[happyslug]

43. A recess appointment? Why?

Elizabeth Warren has an excellent resume and reputation. This is NOT a top end Cabinet or Judicial post, which the Senate take greater concern with (Especially Judaical appointments, for those are for LIFE). The Senate does NOT reject the vast majority of Presidential executive appointments (as oppose to Judicial appointments) for those appointed can be fired by the President at any time AND leaves office with the President.

Elizabeth Warren should sail through any Senate Confirmation, probably within days for she is well known by most Senators. A recess appointment only makes sense if you want her out by January 2012. Remember Recess appointments can occur ONLY when Congress is out of session AND

Article II, Section 1, Third Paragraph:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

In effect if Elizabeth Warren is given a recess appointment, she is OUT by January 3rd 2012. Is there that much opposition against her from Wall Street? No Senator in his right mind will vote against her (I know they are several GOP Senators who are NEVER in their right mind, but not enough to prevent a vote on her i.e. not enough to filibuster her nomination). I suspect something else is up, opposition to her from Wall Street that people in the Administration are trying to fulfill (i.e. NOT appoint her in the first place, AND get her out as soon as possible if she has to be appointed).

I suspect this is to give her the recess appointment, NEVER make it permanent so the Senate NEVER has to vote for or against her, and then cry Crocodile Tears when she has to be replaced in January 2012. The Senators can claim she was ONLY given an recess appointment so her nomination NEVER came up for a vote and Obama can claim he appointed her but the Senate NEVER approved of her appointment. I suspect if a recess appointment is made there will be a lot of Crocodile teats shed in January 2012.

Wall Street views a recess appointment as not as bad as a PERMANENT appointment for what damage can she do in a year and a quarter? With a Permanent appointment she can be in office for two maybe six years and that is what Wall Street opposes.

Lets see what happens.


Reading up on Recess appointments lead me to reading on what a "Session" was and that what follows from this point on:

Article II, Section 1:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

The terms of the Senate was re-defined in 1933 by the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution:

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January , of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Notice the appointment clause uses the term "Session" not Term. Term is considered two years for both houses, given that the House of Representatives MUST be elected every two years. Session is a narrower time period.

20th Amendment:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am20S2

Since 1940 Congress has only sat in two session per term, roughly the calendar year for each session. Prior to 1940, there was some terms with three sessions. This occurred only twice since the passage of the 20th amendment in 1933:
During the 75th Congress
1st Session Jan. 5, 1937 till Aug. 21, 1937
2nd Session, Nov. 15, 1937 till Dec. 21, 1937 Called by Executive Order
3rd Session Jan. 3, 1938 till June 16, 1938

During the 76th Congress
1st Session, Jan. 3, 1939 till Aug. 5, 1939
2nd Session, Sept. 21, 1939 till Nov. 3, 1939 Called by Executive Order
3rd Session, Jan. 3, 1940 till Jan. 3, 1941

Calling Congress into Session by Executive Order was common before the 20th Amendment for under the Original provisions the Congress elected in November was only constitutional required to convene 14 months AFTER it was elected, i.e. on December 4th of the year FOLLOWING their election. This was changed till January 3rd of the year following the election. This was the same Amendment that changed the President's term from March 4th to January 20th, a minor improvement at best compared to the HUGE improvement from December 4th to January 3rd of the year following the election.

Prior to the 20th Amendment it was common for the President to call Congress into Session to pass laws, or just the Senate into Session to ratify treaties or appointments.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/congresses2.pdf

[msanthrope]

51. excellent and informative post. Thank you!! n/t

[happyslug]

59. I made some minor changes since your posted your reply.

Hopefully I made it easier to read and did NOT make any substantial changes for that was my intentions (Including a few grammar mistakes, While instead of Well for example).

[AllTooEasy]

60. What a stupid post.

If she's nominated now, she will never have the job. You said,

"Is there that much opposition against her from Wall Street? No Senator in his right mind will vote against her"

ABSOLUTLY Yes to the first question, and don't forget about fiscal/cowardly Dems who are in Wall Street's pocket. There are enough of them.

A recess appointment gives her a year to prove herself and help the American people. The strategy is that opposition to her will be less later than now once she has a track record at the post. Even if she is out in 2012, she'll have a year to do things that will be very difficult, if not impossible to undo.

As for "what damage can she do in a year and a quarter?" - you don't know Elizabeth Warren!!!

[happyslug]

63. The tradition with Recess Appointment is they are OUT by January 2012

Now I was addressing why a Recess Appointment NOT a normal appointment. Yes, she can do a lot of damage between now and January 2012, but a lot more by January 2017 (The end of Obama's Second term if he wins re-election in the FALL of 2012). Thus why the talk of a recess appointment?

Recess appointments are traditionally done to appoint a person the President KNOWS the Senate will NOT approve. The President makes the Recess Appointment and the person appointed does the job and then replaced the Second January after he or she is appointed (Second December prior to 1933). Such a person could do the job for two years before having to be replaced, but why do so when a person CAN be confirmed?

A regular appointment for Elizabeth Warren would be better and give her more time to do what she can. She is NOT someone who the Senate will NOT approve (even if they did NOT want her in the job, remember Senators are elected and many voters remember who voted for what). Thus why make a Recess Appointment? Appoint her and have the Senate Confirm her and let her do what she can (She can DO a lot and that is the fear of Wall Street).

If the GOP Senators in the Senate wants to kill her nomination you can use it against the GOP in the 2010 mid term elections AND in the 2012 Elections. Thus I see no down side to a regular nomination from an election point of view, but I see a lot from Wall Street. Thus if Elizabeth Warren is subject to a Recess Appointment something else is up. I suspect that is how much Wall Street opposes her nomination in the first place.

As to her never getting the job, I never said that, I am just wondering why a Recess appointment? Such an appointment makes no sense in this case UNLESS something else is going on (i.e. Obama trying to appease Wall Street).

[quakerboy]

83. How many of Obama's appointee's are held up in limbo right now?

They don't have to vote her down to keep her from holding the office. Im sure they would far rather drag it out as long as possible with the position empty.

[Dr.Phool]

103. If she were nominated now, wouldn't she be out in Jan. 2011?

A recess appointment holds for the current Congress, which ends in the January following the election, when a new Congress is sworn in.

She wouldn't have time to pick out a chair for her office.

[happyslug]

108. Article II, Section 1, clearly states end of the NEXT SESSION of Congress NOT this Session

Article II, Section 1, Third Paragraph:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

As I explained above, a Session is about one year long (Has varied over time, but one year is the norm). You can have recesses during a session, but it is the same session of Congress before and after the recess. Thus the end of the NEXT session of Congress must be BEFORE January 4th 2012, just like this session of Congress must end before January 4th, 2011.

[valerief]

44. Really, really, really? We're not just being teased? Oh, don't make me hope and

get disappointed when someone Alan Simpsonesque is given the position.

[rasputin1952]

45. From everything I've read about this woman, it seems to be...

a perfect fit. She has the intellect, the education and the passion to make some real changes. I can see why Wall Street and the banks would cry in anguish, they would have a muzzle put on them and their feeding frenzy would be curtailed.

Let's hope this gets done quickly...:D

[Raster]

56. Wall Street NEEDS a muzzle. And some obedience training.

[Dr.Phool]

106. LOL!

Dogs don't muzzle and train the master.

We know who wears the pants, and who has the fleas.

[Raster]

111. And while we're at it, I think it's time for the BAD DOG to get neutered.

Wall Street is like an out-of-control dog. He's snapped and bitten so many times that people are afraid of him, which only increases his aggressive tendencies. This puppy needs some re-socialization training to teach it how to positively interact with others around him. And if all else fails... BAD DOG needs to be put out of our misery.

[aquart]

50. Make it so.

What is the point of this shilly-shallying?

[mvd]

52. Come on, Mr. President! A recess appointment..

of her would make me so happy. Time to forget about if the Repukes like her or not.

K&R!

[urgk]

57. This would/will be my proudest moment of the term so far.

I'll be trying not to get too excited until the announcement.

[orbitalman]

66. SCREW the Financial Officials ! n/t

[PassingFair]

71. This one should be a NO BRAINER. She's from Oklahoma for cripe's sake!

If this administration can't market this Genius, it
really means they just don't want her in there.

(I thought the premise of book the Two-Parent Income Trap was ridiculous)
She reminds me of Sandra Day O'Connor.

Warren was born and raised in Hughes County, Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma City where she was a state champion debater at age 16. She married Jim Warren at age 19, and transferred from George Washington University to the University of Houston, where she graduated with a B.S. in 1970.<18> In 1976 she received her J.D. from Rutgers Law—Newark, where she served as an Editor to the Rutgers Law Review and was one of two female summer associates at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft's Wall Street office.<19> After law school, Warren worked from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings for walk in clients.<20> She divorced Warren in 1978, and later married Bruce Mann.

She joined Harvard Law School in 1992 as the Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law. Prior to Harvard, she was the William A. Schnader Professor of Commercial Law at University of Pennsylvania School of Law and also taught at the University of Texas School of Law, University of Houston Law Center, University of Michigan and Rutgers Law School.

....

Warren is married to Bruce Mann, a legal historian and law professor also at Harvard Law School. She has a daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, with whom she has coauthored two books and several articles, and a son, Alexander Warren. She is an ex-Sunday School teacher and cites Methodist John Wesley as an inspiration<24>.

[SoapBox]

74. Yes! And, CONTACT the White House and urge them to support her...

...it sounds good but additional support never hurts!

CONTACT the White House and urge them to support Ms. Warren:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

[tiredtoo]

79. Two things here

First why all the talk about Carter ? AND as far as Elizabeth Warren, consider the source. This is a piece put out by the Post to try to stir up controversy. They want to get the rightys fired up and start their protesting. Must protect Wall Street you know.
Personally I have responded to any and all requests for funds from the Democrats with a short no. Not until Elizabeth Warren gets the position she should get.

[nradisic]

78. Go Elizabeth!

Nominating Elizabeth Warren is one of the best things Obama can do for America. Fuck Wall Street and the banks....Karma is a bitch boys and you can only avoid it so long...Hehehe...

[JerseygirlCT]

81. Like Nike says: Just Do It! nt

[Anakin Skywalker]

84. Yay! Ha Ha Ha! F*ck You, Bankers!

"Bankers appear to be resigning themselves to a fate worse than tougher financial regulation"

:)

[bertman]

86. My understanding is that they are stacking all of the other positions with

pro-Wall Street sycophants who will be able to negate, obstruct, or whittle away at whatever good she might be able to do.

Does anybody really think that the Obama administration is going to appoint someone to a position where they can actually do something to undermine the gains that Wall Street has made in controlling our government and our economy?

Still, I think she is a fierce advocate for the public and should be given more power. How about Timmeh or Larry's job, President Obama?? Isn't it about time for one or both of those Wall Street buttlickers to get the axe? (That is probably the only thing I have ever agreed with that Agent Orange has said)

[AllyCat]

89. Make it so! Please, I need some good political news today.

[Joey Kidd]

91. K&R n/t

[earcandle]

93. Way to go! Easy on her, easy on us, easy on him. End of story. We should learn this can be easy!

Decisiveness is an attribute of leadership.

Go Obama!  We need her.  

[pnwmom]

96. A lot of DUers are going to be very unhappy about this.

That is, those who aren't happy unless they're complaining about Obama.

[Dr.Phool]

104. Maybe in your world.

Warren has solid support from anyone on the left. Why would her appointment make anyone unhappy? It might just give some of us occasion to say Obama did the right thing.

Personally, I'll believe it when I see it. Not the most accurate or reliable source in the world.

[eridani]

97. Might be a good move to put it closer to the election

That would bring more of the dissatisfied left on board.

[kpete]

101. Speculation Grows As Elizabeth Warren Will Not Teach At Harvard This Fall

Speculation Grows As Elizabeth Warren Will Not Teach At Harvard This Fall
Brian Beutler | September 2, 2010, 9:04AM

Word on the street is that Elizabeth Warren has somewhat abruptly decided not to teach at Harvard this fall. "I'm writing to let you know that Professor Jerry Frug will be teaching your Contracts class this term instead of Professor Elizabeth Warren," Harvard law school dean Martha Minow wrote to students on Tuesday, in an e-mail The Washington Post snagged. "Professor Warren regrets that she will not be able to teach you this fall and we regret the last minute change."

The development has already touched off a great deal of speculation about whether Warren has been told she'll get the top job at the consumer financial protection bureau. But in a way this development mirrors the story of Dawn Johnsen -- a progressive favorite, who President Obama initially tapped to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. After she got the nomination, Johnsen uprooted herself from Indiana University only to watch the White House and Senate Democrats decide not to fight for her confirmation.

Progressives with long memories won't be counting their chickens
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/speculation-grows-as-elizabeth-warren-will-not-teach-at-harvard-this-fall.php?ref=fpblg

[FlyByNight]

110. Encouraging

But I'll believe when/if I see it.

:thumbsup: