White House: Warren a top candidate for agency job

[ProSense]

White House: Warren a top candidate for agency job

WASHINGTON – A top White House official says Elizabeth Warren is "obviously a candidate" to lead a new consumer protection agency.

David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Barack Obama, told reporters on Friday that Warren is a champion for consumers and middle-class families. He said she helped inform the consumer-protection efforts that are part of the giant financial reform bill that Congress sent to Obama on Thursday.

The legislation calls for the creation of a consumer protection agency. Axelrod said Warren is certainly a candidate to lead it, but not the only one.

Warren now heads the Congressional Oversight Panel, which has been a watchdog over the Treasury Department's bank bailout fund.

Obama is expected to sign the bill as early as Wednesday.

[Emeritus]

1. Axelrod vs. Geithner

There have been disagreements before (Rahm vs. Holder re: trial venues, etc.). It's natural to see these disagreements in any administration.

[Enrique]

3. i see no sign Axelrod supports Warren

no sign in this story, anyway.

[phleshdef]

10. Is that why he called her a champion for consumers and middle-class families?

So therefore he doesn't support her?

[Enrique]

12. Geithner would say the same thing

anyone could publicly call Warren the best thing since sliced bread, and fight vigorously against her behind the scenes.

Axelrod might well be be Warren's biggest supporter, who knows, I haven't heard anything. That quote says nothing about whether he is however.

[phleshdef]

14. Doesn't say that he doesn't either. Why even bring it up?

[ProSense]

4. There is

no "Axelrod vs. Geithner"

[Emeritus]

5. A Warren aide goes further, implying Geithner has ALWAYS been against her

"OK, everyone take a deep breath. The news that Tim Geithner, joining several other Obama economic advisers, isn't keen on Elizabeth Warren and might not want her as CFPB head (even though the Bureau was her idea) is hardly breaking news, no matter how big HuffPo's headline is. Says an aide to Warren, "In a way, I'm not sure should be such a surprise to people."

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/07/warren-v-geithner-teapot-tempest

The article itself also explains how Geithner's past actions are at odds with Warren's views.

Indeed, anyone who's followed the work of Warren's Congressional Oversight Panel could tell you that. After all, Warren's public grillings of Geithner have taken on an almost ritual quality—not a month goes by, it seems, without the blunt, Oklahoma-raised Warren bashing Geithner for AIG's backdoor bailouts or the Treasury's botched homeowner relief programs or the failure of megabanks to resume lending again, despite trillions in government assistance. Little wonder Geithner might not like Warren.

[ProSense]

6. So another anonymous source

that isn't likely to know what Geithner is thinking is supposed to trump Geithner's Deputy Secretary's actual statement?

Really?

[T Wolf]

2. If this turns out, like so many before, to be merely a "placate the libs" message,

and he nominates someone whom Timmy prefers, it will trigger a further erosion of Obama's support among (maybe not) his "base."

We'll have to wait and see.

[geek tragedy]

7. And if he nominates her, will it trigger a build up a support amongst

the "Obama is a corporatist sellout" folks?

[Spazito]

13. Nope, not a chance!

The cry will be "The left forced the "corporatist sellout Obama" to nominate her. Watch and see, it will be great fun.

Huffington Post, the paragon of factual reporting it seems, reported this:

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner's views."

and, based on that impeccable source, all is believed without question. Amazing, absolutely amazing.

[impik]

18. Of course not. They'll find someone else who should have been nominated instead of her!

[FrenchieCat]

8. "further" erosion?

How is that possible? :shrug:

Those who would stop supporting the Pres due to this nomination, didn't support him since a long time ago. And plus, for them, it doesn't matter what President Obama does; they ain't coming back, cause they were only there for a nanosecond, and haven't been part of those helping this administration, but rather have been downgrading everything this administration has done and then some, and in effect have greatly assisted in contributing a pessimistic mood on the chances of Democrats maintaining their majorities (by ignoring everything good done by this President, and accentuating what they feel isn't as good)....so waiting and seeing don't mean diddlysquat....cause those who are always unhappy (because they don't live in Sweden) will never be happy with the United States, no matter what. No use in pretending.

[Cant trust em]

9. I would suggest that if he doesn't nominate our chosen person, it's not a betrayal.

I want to see who he picks and what their credentials are. We shouldn't think that all of our hopes and dreams can be met by one person.

[T Wolf]

20. Not ALL, but MORE than he has done so far. Sure, he's better than McCain would have been.

Christ - who would have been worse?

Sure, he's accomplished some good things.

But, on the whole, he has been a major disappointment to those hoping for real progress. Not only with his caving to the cons on practically every issue, major and minor, but in his approach of treating them as honest bargaining partners. Time after time, he has given away the farm before negotiations even start.

The chance for significant progress(iveness) was there, but now it is gone and I fear I will not live to see another opportunity like the one that was given away. So excuse me for not jumping on a bandwagon or do cartwheels for him when he occasionally does well. I expected that. I expected (was fooled into believing in) someone who was going to fight for things that I believe in. I was gullible. I was hopeful.

My inner-hippie came out and was maced, clubbed and jailed back into the isolation of unfulfilled dreams. Maybe those goals were always unrealistic and unachievable. They certainly are beyond our grasp now. If a "landslide" POTUS and a huge margin in the House and almost-sixty "Dem" senators could not / would not end the wars, restore our freedoms, rein in the banksters & Wall Street, deliver real healthcare, promote marriage equality, protect the environment, ... - why should we think that 2010 or 2012 will bring anything different.

As a demographic, more of us have the resources to hunker down and take care of ourselves and ours (like the pukes do). It's up to the newer generations to fight on, cause many of us oldsters are fed up.

[Cant trust em]

21. Actually I was talking about Warren.

She'd be great, but if we don't get her, it's not necessarily a sell out.

[Spazito]

11. I have been utterly fascinated how an article on Huffington Post....

speculating about Geithner's take on the appointment of Ms. Warren, an article without any direct quotes from Geithner, with only this:

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner's views."

was totally and unquestionably believed! I can't help but laugh sometimes.

[Beetwasher]

16. Yeah, This Comment By Axelrod (Named), IMO, Is A MUCH Bigger Indicator

Of the direction the WH is going.

[Spazito]

17. Exactly but it doesn't fit well with the "believe everything negative about...

the Obama administration even if it is gross speculation" crowd so the hyperbolic response to such gross speculation will continue I am sure, lol.

[impik]

15. They shouldn't waste time addressing baseless HuffPost rumors. It6's ridiculous.

[vaberella]

19. It's ridiculous but a lot of the left get their incorrect facts from Huffpo. n/t

[ProSense]

22. More on Warren and other potential candidates

Think Progress

<...>

Last night, it was reported that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is opposed to Warren heading the agency. Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr refuted that notion today, saying “I don’t know where that (report) came from.” “I believe and Secretary Geithner believes that she’s exceptionally well-qualified to run it,” he said.

Whetever Geithner’s personal feelings on the matter, Warren is eminently qualified to lead the CFPB. She explained her philosophy regarding the regulation of consumer products to me during an interview back in May 2009:

We need to think at the product level. All these lousy mortgages got sold, one family at a time. These were crummy mortgages, like selling plastic spoons that have carcinogens in them or toys that put out little children’s eyes. We sold them one product in a time. If we had had just basic safety standards in place from the beginning, then we never would have fed these into the front end of the financial system, where they then would have been bundled up and then sliced into tranches and rated and rebundled and sold and rated again.

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) backed Warren, saying “she is a brilliant advocate. She is sensible. She has a good sense how to operate. She is not some windmill-tilting ideologue.”

Barr himself has also been mentioned as a potential CFPB head, and would be an excellent choice, as he’s been intimately involved with the regulatory reform bill since the beginning. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who was one of the first public officials to try to crack down on subprime lending, has also had her name tossed into the ring, but said that she preferred Warren. “She has long understood the need for such an agency to ensure that another financial crisis doesn’t devastate the futures of millions of hardworking Americans,” Madigan said.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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