Excellent article by Joe Nocera, in the NYTimes, on the way that “Consumers [are] Clamoring for a Leader”:
… “We’re Trojan-horsing people with the messaging,” said Bonnie Abaunza, one of the Brigadettes. In addition to Mr. Zimmer, supporters of the Main Street Brigade include the directors James Brooks and Ron Howard as well as other Hollywood celebrities. Its purpose is to back the work of Americans for Financial Reform, a large coalition of organizations pushing for financial reform. The coalition’s Web site lists the subjects it follows, including foreclosure, derivatives and mortgage reform.
__
And, of course, Elizabeth Warren.
[…] __
What struck me… was the bluntness of [Warren’s] language. She used words like “tricks,” “fleece,” and “bribe” to describe the actions of mortgage and credit card lenders. And I think a lot of her appeal stems from that simple fact: she describes abuses — predatory lending, hidden fees, bewildering “disclosures” that hide more than they disclose — in precisely the way most Americans have experienced them. She conveys a powerful sense that she understands what we’ve been through this last decade.
__
Her critics have complained that in her quest to avenge the downtrodden consumer, she could endanger the safety and soundness of banks, by writing rules that would strip them of billions in profits. Her essential position is that if taking advantage of borrowers is necessary to save the banks, then there is something deeply wrong with the banking system in America. The American Bankers Association may not agree with that, but that is unquestionably what most Americans believe. And they are right.
Please go read the whole article. I’ve seen a lot of the classic progressive circular-firing-squad harumphing that if so many people want Elizabeth Warren appointed to head the agency she was largely responsible for starting, there must be something wrong with the idea. Especially if some of the agitators are ‘Hollywood liberals’ who cannot possibly understand what Heartland Americans(tm) want from their government. And besides, if Obama does appoint Warren, his critics will slam him for picking an aging white feminist with a working-class background — the conservatives will say she’s a token, and the activists will say she’s a PUMA. Because those same critics would never, ever object to a white upper-class man from a privileged background, of course…
Sometimes, rarely, the “simple” solution is also the correct solution. I really hope Obama appoints Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau come September, when he’s back from his vacation and we’re all ready to Get Serious again.
Little Boots
I know it’s out of nowhere, but conservatives make me sad. They do.
Little Boots
Unlike Elizabeth Warren, who makes me happy, assuming she makes it past all these ridiculous hurdles.
Violet
Because Republicans and banksters would get their fee fees hurt. Also, shut up, that’s why.
Little Boots
Well said, Violet.
demo woman
OT..Maureen Dowd is an ass with an identity crisis. That is all. Frank Rich’s column is decent though.
Jayackroyd
WTF are you talking about September for? This should be a recess appointment.
Did you not read DDay yesterday?
There is NO explanation for using HAMP to fuck consumers other than they think banks have an inherent right to fuck consumers.
If the administration wants to have any credibility with ordinary Americans, appointing Warren is the first step up a very steep cliff they have thrown themselves over.
Little Boots
Can we find the mean girls who made Maureen Dowd what she is today and kick them in the shins? Would that help?
General Stuck
I agree largely with your post, but would quibble about
I think she terrifies them, and a double grate that she is a feisty outspoken woman. But they would swallow the woman part, I think, but mostly fear her rolling back another Gilded Age they have labored for thirty years to construct, for their plutocrat pals and paymasters.
And who knows about the PUMA’s, Obama just makes them crazy, whatever he does. She obviously is very qualified, but she is not the only person that is. Her blunt talk has provided the wingnuts with ammo to demagogue her as anti bidness. I don’t know how the politics of this demagoguing would shake out, but if Obama nominates her, which is fine by me, I hope he recess appoints her at the same time, this close to an election. The wingnuts will not confirm her, no matter what before, or after the election. So it should all be in one fell swoop.
I know, wishy washy activist spirit on my part. But then I am neither an activist, nor a feminist, and not an “ist” anything, so there you have it.
Violet
@demo woman:
Maureen Dowd needs a daddy. It’s obvious in everything she writes.
Little Boots
She’s not in the club. Obama could pick Condi Rice and they’d be fine. It ain’t race or gender, on this. It’s all about the club. She might upset the apple cart and that’s all they care about.
DougJ
I will definitely read this article. Thanks!
DougJ
@demo woman:
@Violet:
I don’t think that’s it with her. I think it’s narcissistic personality disorder.
Maybe because I know a lot of people like her, I can’t dislike her, as awful as her columns are.
soonergrunt
@demo woman:
Ma’am, that is perhaps the understatement of the day.
demo woman
@DougJ: Dowd’s column basically says that people who think the President’s a Muslim are stupid but he’s stupid because the stupid people think he’s a Muslim. Plus he changed his mind which he didn’t and that shows me that she is stupid because she can’t read a darn speech. Did I miss anything?
joe from Lowell
I would welcome the fight an Elizabeth Warren nomination would engender. People do not like to see politicians whaling away at a respectable, qualified, professional person who’s been nominated. Combined with the transparent shilling for the banksters, and this would be a political goldmine for the Democrats. Picture day after day of Joe Barton apologizing to BP, except instead of looking sad and making a statement, he’s being really, really mean to a cute, fuzzy bunny.
Elizabeth Warren, start practicing your “bearing abuse with immense dignity” look.
DougJ
@demo woman:
Her columns are awful and a disgrace to the Times. I think they should fire her and should have long ago.
But I find her charming at some level.
WereBear (itouch)
@DougJ: If it is narcissistic personality disorder, it’s really really hard to like them, because there’s no there there.
And I gotta love Elizabeth Warren, because she sounds like early Nader, without the late blooming bitterness. And heaven knows consumers need someone, because they’ve had no one, lo these many years.
Honest to Gawdness, right now I could kill thousands of people with a product I knew was defective and dangerous, and NOTHING would happen to me.
Nothing.
KG
@Jayackroyd:
Twenty bucks says that “ordinary Americans” have no idea who Elizabeth Warren is, what the agency that she is going to potentially be appointed to run is, or what said agency is charged with doing. Those who are politically engaged for more than a few weeks an election cycle might know, but I’m willing to wager that “ordinary Americans” know next to nothing about this and really don’t care to know much more.
demo woman
@DougJ: I’m not surprised. You were an “activist” for Eric Massa, right? You don’t need to answer that, but you watch for patterns.
LOL
NobodySpecial
I repeat: This never happens.
First and most important, there are too many Senators who ask how high when the banks say jump on both sides of the aisle.
Second, they’re risk-averse, as they proved with the Kagan/Wood nomination. There was nothing wrong with Wood being nominated, as even ‘pragmatic’ Democrats said. But when push came to shove, they take the ‘safe’ pick every time. So whoever gets nominated will be someone mildly acceptable to the banksters, and you’ll be all over the hippies for not cheering loud enough.
DougJ
@demo woman:
If he could just have come out or kept it in the closet, I’d still be proud to have helped him win, even though he was a back-stabber on health care. Since we make fun of this usage all the time, I deliberately this phraseology: no one could have predicted he would molest his 21 year-old interns.
Ogami Itto
Narcissists often are charming, which is how they get away with so much awful shit.
Alwhite
But if he appoints her that won’t be very bipartisan & will make Little Davie Broader haz a sad.
In the past couple of years it seems Obama wants to make nice with those who hate him & want him to fail. Since they would be unhappy with Warren he might not appoint her so they will stop saying mean things about him & all join hands & sing kumbaya.
It is the right thing to do but it remains to be seen.
DougJ
@KG:
Yes, I think this is a smart analysis. Though I strongly support the nomination of Elizabeth Warren and would even like to start referring to her as “Liz” to make it look like we’re in the know.
Corner Stone
I’m still not sure why we are labeled as “Consumers”. I know that’s the default name of the proposed agency but isn’t it kind of insulting and more than a little misleading?
I’d prefer someone protect my rights as a Citizen but I guess since “consumer” is the best I’ll get…
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@Jayackroyd:
In which case, she’d be in the position until January and then be out with the start of the new Congres, and Obama couldn’t give her another recess appointment.
People seem to act like just making recess appointments is the the answer to all problems, and it really isn’t. Having one really weakens the appointee, both in terms of running an office and in dealing with Congress. Everyone knows you’re just temporary, even by the standard of appointed positions. There are a lot of possible nominees who won’t even take a recess appointment. I definitely think that a recess appointment as the FIRST head of the consumer protection agency is a bad idea.
Corner Stone
@Alwhite:
Nothing to this point has demonstrated he wants Warren either.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@WereBear (itouch):
Ugh. I’d never insult Elizabeth Warren that way. Nader was always a jackass, an egomaniac, and a repetitive liar.
Cacti
@KG:
FTW
Little Boots
“kept it in the closet,” Doug, really? That would be the solution?
FlipYrWhig
Oh, jeezus fucking christ, can we just wait and see if she gets nominated before getting all hot and bothered about the horrible terrible significance of how he didn’t nominate her just like all those other times and I’m still so disillusioned?
cat48
I also hope Obama appoints her because I simply can’t wait to see how all the progressives begging for her to be appointed & bashing Obama for not having done it yet; will find a way to totally discount the action afterwards so they can continue bashing him re: Warren. Now this will certainly require some very clever posturing on their behalf, but I feel certain they are up to the challenge.
I also think she would be excellent in this position.
Corner Stone
@KG: I have no idea either, and I bet EW couldn’t explain it at this point.
What will they do, and how will they affect that action?
No clue.
General Stuck
@FlipYrWhig: One word
Poutrage Foreplay
well, two words.
This is the script, git with program dude.
Yutsano
@FlipYrWhig: THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.
demo woman
I know that there are a lot of qualified people that the President could select but I also know that if he doesn’t select EW, I’ll be disappointed. It might not be a stab in the heart but it will be close.
Little Boots
I hope, and expect, he will appoint her.
But can we not do that other thing where we think one appointment is so awesome that it takes away any other problem we can foresee? Corporate America will remain way too powerful unless a whole of things change.
Corner Stone
The Texans are just getting their ass kicked. Flat out, on all sides of the ball.
Tom Q
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN): “Recess appointment” is to filling positions as “do it through reconciliation” is to passing legislation — the uninformed observer’s idea of how to bypass all that messy Senate voting. These people seem to think there’s an easy way to get everything through, but Obama and Reid are choosing to do it the pain-in-the-ass way for fun.
Corner Stone
I couldn’t care less about EW getting nominated.
Little Boots
@Corner Stone:
Why not?
Corner Stone
Shit. I’m sure this will work out just fine.
Army of diplomats takes the lead in fractious Iraq
Little Boots
Yeah, that I agree with. Just leave already. Stop all this bullshit dancing around with the “diplomatic” mission.
Lynne
“…if taking advantage of borrowers is necessary to save the banks, then there is something deeply wrong with the banking system in America.”
YES! I sure do hope she’s nominated.
Corner Stone
@Little Boots: What will the head of that agency do? How will that agency have any power to affect change? What will be different one year from now if the agency gets everything it wants?
The idea that EW is some panacea that will help or solve what’s going on in society is nonsense. I mean, just look at the name of the agency.
Martin
At this point I don’t think Obama can afford to not appoint her. She may not be as good as everyone has built her up to be (I feel another ‘Obama didn’t solve the world’ progressive whinefest coming up but directed at Warren) but I think this appointment has become a proxy for too much.
I do like her. She’s smart and blunt and honest. A government full of those qualities would be a wonderful thing indeed. I can’t help but like people that are willing to say such things from within government:
Little Boots
@Corner Stone:
Good points all. I want her appointed because I think somebody not in the club has to have some access to Obama, but I am not holding out too much hope, really. And somebody who in any way can hold the bastards accountable, which Tim Geithner will never do, makes me smile. But I do not want to get carried away with this.
Resident Firebagger
Funny, I’ve missed that.
Corner Stone
I really like Chase Daniel. Too bad he’ll never get a shot in the National Football League.
cat48
@Corner Stone:
See you’re getting an early start on this complaint as it’s not scheduled to happen until October 2011. Good for you! This should help downplay the fact that he has drawn down to 50,000 troops from the 144,000 troops in Iraq when he took office.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@Martin:
I agree with all of this, but it’s another spot where you have to decide whether it’s better to have a fight than it is to get someone running the new agency. Warren will not get confirmed. Chris Dodd has signaled as much. Would you rather have a Warren nomination and no head, or have an appointment of someone that can get confirmed?
I have a hard time picking between the two, myself. However, everyone needs to keep in mind that Elizabeth Warren may refuse to be that sort of guinea pig. I would be less than surprised if the reason it’s taking so long to get a nomination is that Obama wants to appoint her, and she refuses to accept it unless there is some indication that she will actually be confirmed.
Being a nominee stuck in limbo is hellish. It can be a career killer.
Corner Stone
Fudge. It’s going to be 110F in H-town tomorrow including index. Ah well.
Omnes Omnibus
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN):
I have been wondering if that might be the case.
joe from Lowell
@KG:
Of course not, and they won’t know until she is nominated and the fight begins, and is covered in the media.
Nobody knew who Clarence Thomas or Sonya Sotomayor were, either, before they were nominated.
Corner Stone
@cat48: As usual, you’re being a douchebag here.
I’m not commenting in any way on troop “drawdown”. Only saying that expecting a core of US based diplomats protected by mercs to solve any issue ongoing in Iraq is more than naive, it’s crazy.
cat48
She met with the Bankster’s lobby last week. Don’t know how that went……went to the WH twice in the last 3 wks…….and lunched with Valerie Jarrett. I don’t know what this may mean but is all I know about her consideration for the position.
Martin
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN): All true. But I don’t think she needs to sit in confirmation limbo for long. Obama should pull out the recess appointment stick in a big way after the election.
kay
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN):
There wouldn’t be any consumer protection law without him.
He was hugely influential on everything from clean water to mine safety. I think he went nuts later, airline deregulation and nuclear power and the Presidential bids, but I imagine “going crazy” is an occupational hazard when you’re so feared by corporate interests (GM) that they’re tapping your phone and attempting to discredit you with a sex scandal.
When Ralph Nader got to DC the situation in the few regulatory agencies that then existed was as it is now: they were captured by the industries they were regulating. He changed the whole landscape for consumers, and that’s just the federal law. He inspired consumer protection state law that people use today.
His record stands. There’s just no contest. He did way more good than harm.
joe from Lowell
@FlipYrWhig:
Or, even, see who the nominee is, before denouncing his choice as a cowardly sell-out?
If some great consumer advocate, liberal-leaning, financial regulator with a great record who isn’t Elizabeth Warren gets the gig, I hope the Professional Left types actually give him or her a fair amount of consideration, and don’t just denounce him or her as a sellout because that was their plan all along.
cat48
@Corner Stone:
I’m more worried about what might happen in October 2010 than guessing what might happen in October 2011. I’m more inclined to take one day at a time. Although that is the current plan for October 2011, nothing is written in stone.
Allison W.
@Little Boots:
Ms. Warren has been a part of Obama’s team since the campaign. Plus he knew her from school. So I don’t know what other club she needs to belong to. He knows her and trusts her.
Corner Stone
@kay:
Hmmmm…sounds familiar somehow.
Allison W.
@KG:
Go big ’cause you would certainly win that bet.
Allison W.
@Alwhite:
So explain why Jane Hamsher types aren’t happy with him?
Glenndacious Greenwaldian
Would one of you O-bots please explain to me why Barack didn’t already announce her appointment six weeks ago? What is this utter bullshit in American discourse/politics which holds that such things have to “wait” for some reason, as though O and the white house crew haven’t known for months who the hell they’re going to appoint?
I suppose I’m exposing myself as hopelessly naive, but fake beltway drama like this, in which we are to imagine that O will return from vacation and everyone will come back to D.C. ready to get “serious” after the August “doldrums” during which as we know all Americans take four weeks off work also, and then O will FINALLY get around to serious discussions with his team about who to nominate and THEN make a decision and an announcement, and THEN the MSM will breathlessly cover the horseshit parade…etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Please explain why this round of smoke and mirrors and time wasting is not further evidence of game playing and false motives on O’s part.
Thank you.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@Martin:
Which, for reasons outlined above, is less than a perfect choice. A recess appointment would mean that she lacks the authority, and the tenure, to really accomplish what needs doing. That’s particularly true of a new agency. No one is going to take it seriously if it’s headed by a recess appointment.
Corner Stone
@Allison W.:
Who? Is this some boogeyman in your darkened closet?
Please show us on the doll where she touched you.
Allison W.
@cat48:
That’s easy! If she doesn’t get a recess appointment within 48 hours of her nomination then the bashing will resume.
MikeJ
@Allison W.: I think the only way to answer you is to quote Winona Ryder in the movie Heathers when her father asks “why do I smoke these things?”
(and of course, substitute “you” and “jane hamsher types.” That is, the line from the movie would not be about you, but instead about the others. )
Yutsano
@Allison W.:
FTFY.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@Glenndacious Greenwaldian:
As I said above, I think the most likely explanation is that Warren won’t accept the nomination under the current circumstances. There’s no way she wants to sit around for months on end without her appointment getting a vote. She can’t get into the agency, and she can’t get anything else done, either.
Omnes Omnibus
@Glenndacious Greenwaldian: For one thing, they may be negotiating with Congress folk to make sure that they can get her through before nominating her. For another, they may have talked with her about it and she might not be sure she wants to accept the nomination. You don’t nominate someone who will say no.
Allison W.
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN):
I’ve thought of this too. I’m sure she’s thinking of her family’s privacy that’s about to be shattered. Especially with the Left gearing up to make her the leader/martyr of their next campaign and whatever the left wants, the right sure as hell will do their best to tear down or demonize. I sure as hell would not want to be in the middle of that war.
General Stuck
@Glenndacious Greenwaldian:
O noes!!!
kay
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN):
That’s from “An Unreasonable Man” which was a PBS documentary in 2006. He’s a tragic figure, not because he was crazy or a “spoiler” (which may be true) but because he was so damn good at his work, and he went so far off track later.
Nader has an incredible legislative record. I think any US President would be pleased with that record after one or two terms, and Nader was never elected. He’s really unique.
arguingwithsignposts
Great, another couple of months of the circular firing squad before the election.
Allison W.
@Glenndacious Greenwaldian:
You seem to think you know exactly what’s going on so why don’t you tell us the deal?
demo woman
I am going to be disappointed if she is not nominated although I do realize there are other qualified folks.
Over time we have all been able to hear EW’s views (unless you live in Wasilla) and that has shaped our feelings. The other place that has shaped my views has been Huff. Post.
Now even though I knew T. Geithner has been in public service all his life, I still thought he worked at Goldman Sacs.
Not sure how that can be but..it was. We are better than fox, folks.
Allison W.
@MikeJ:
where you smoking when you wrote that post?
Allison W.
@Yutsano:
I was being generous, huh?
kay
@Corner Stone:
Nader forced GM to make a public admission and apology before Congress.
I assume the point of the private investigators was to find out if he was gay, because he wasn’t married, so that was the plan: “out” him so the public would stop listening to him. They didn’t find that, so they tried to entrap him with a prostitute.
Allison W.
@Corner Stone:
did I at one time say something to hurt your feelings? Not that I’m sorry if I did, just curious.
Corner Stone
@kay: The point was to use any tactic to discredit who they didn’t want to have a voice.
Obviously, I’m alluding to Assange.
El Cid
Maybe I don’t read particular blogs, but I have never seen progressives arguing that if so many prominent people back Warren that she’s corrupt.
Fuck, I read actual leftist websites — you know, soshullists and whatnot — and that’s not what I see.
I think the circular firing squad is what people want to see.
Sly
@FlipYrWhig:
Polishing halos is hard work, so its best to start early and hope it pays off in the end.
Plus, if all you ever expect is to be disappointed, you’ll probably be disappointed no matter what you get.
Corner Stone
@Allison W.: No, I just think you’re a piece of shit follower who lacks any ability to critically assess situations and independent circumstances.
And people here keep using Hamsher as some kind of bulwark against rationality, or as a mythical boogeyman I’m supposed to recoil from if I want to be taken seriously. Even though no one in actual real life knows who she is and someone like me who spends a bit of their entertainment time online could not care less what she thinks about anything and has not read her op-eds in so long I could not tell you. Like she’s some amalgam of Hitler, Pol Pot and Ceauşescu. She’s nothing and people who reference her seem like sad little confused children to me.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@demo woman: Maybe because he was the head of the NY Fed, the main job of which is to coddle the big banks(like
The Great Vampire Squid… sorry ..Goldman Sachs)Allison W.
@Corner Stone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm81LSKJC2k&feature=player_embedded#
oh sorry, did my question make it seem like I cared what you thought? call me all the names that you want – I actually like it. Really I do.
Alwhite
@Allison W.:
Because he seems to constantly want to make nice with the people who hate him & want him to fail. Meanwhile he seems to want to piss on or ignore the people who busted a hump to get him elected.
Corner Stone
@Allison W.: I shall. Whether you care to bear it or not. Douchebag POS.
Sorry if you’re too much weaksauce to get over.
Allison W.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-21-sherrod-usda_N.htm
Shirley Sherrod to speak with agriculture secretary on Tuesday about her new job offer.
Allison W.
@Alwhite:
Please. I don’t have time for the left’s jealousy issues.
General Stuck
@Alwhite:
LOL, so you think because you helped him get elected that entitles you to expect him to select your pick for government appointments. Sorry, but that’s not how it works. He doesn’t owe you that, your work was to get him in the position to be able to make his appointments, that is the bargain, because the alternative was a republican making his appointments, and the dem alternative was a better one.
You can support a choice, but not claim he disappointed you for not making it, and tying that to your vote and effort. I mean you can, but I and others will mock you for being a self absorbed individual. And that includes all of the hyper entitled proleft.
And I won’t waste my time explaining again the political benefits of appearing to reach out to the opposition. Other than again to point out that independents like that sort of shit, and independents decide elections in this country.
Cacti
The Professional Left wants, nay, needs Obama not to nominate Warren.
Cacti
@General Stuck:
But don’t you know, the Firebaggers and Professional Left got Obama elected all by their lonely selves. They aren’t part of the team, THEY ARE THE TEAM!
Allison W.
@Corner Stone:
care to bare it? weaksauce? douchebag POS? hmmm. wow. pretty lame. that’s all you got?
let me ‘splain sumtin’ to you papi: you are just a username. you don’ t know me and never will. So nothing, absolutely nothing you can type in the allotted space will offend me. So have at it.
kdaug
@Alwhite: OK, I wasn’t going to jump in, but whaaa?
Who, exactly, are the “people” who “got him elected”?
What “people”?
Corner Stone
@Allison W.: You’re too stupid to get most insults so I’ll have to remember to keep it extra simple for you.
It’ll be a challenge in some respects but I’m sure I can accommodate.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@kay: Search through the archives at The Reality Based Community for some of Mark Kleiman’s run ins with Nader over the years. The guy has always been a prima donna with a tenuous connection to the truth; Unsafe at Any Speed is shockingly dishonest in its claims, for instance. He has no concept of the Law of Unintended Consequences, as shown by the fact that a few years ago, he was complaining to someone that car companies no longer make those really convenient little swing windows so that you can get a bit of air without opening the whole thing, apparently completely unaware that is was the laws he pushed that forced car companies to cut every little bit of weight that they possibly could.
I’ve also found that he gets more credit for all of those reforms than he really deserves. It wasn’t a one man crusade.
Alan in SF
@Resident Firebagger:
Anne’s piece is full of “some progressives” without ever naming a single one. I presume there’s a MoDo column that I haven’t read, but other than that, who exactly is she talking about?
Allison W.
@Corner Stone:
wait….wait….nope. nothing.
Alan in SF
@Cacti: We Firebaggers don’t really think Obama should do everything we want; we’d be happy if he just didn’t claim the right to assassinate us.
Corner Stone
Hmmm.
Who exactly are you talking about here -DougJ-, I mean Anne Laurie?
Anne Laurie
@FlipYrWhig:
Because if we don’t speak up now, the excuse after the fact will be, “Well, if you thought she was all that, you should’ve said something sooner.”
This was a good article, and I wanted to share it. I’m not gonna go looking for quotes, but I’ve been sensing a certain double-reverse-insider poison percolating through the gravel of the Media Village — not a direct “No Warren, No Way”, just “Sure, Warren might have been a great choice, but of course she’ll never be nominated, and if she were, she couldn’t be approved, so thank FSM we’re too clued-in to waste our enthusiasm cheerleading for a lost cause.” And the “HuffPo readers are shrill” narrative is used to reinforce this trope — if ‘Arianna’s minions’ are “bristling about an insult that hasn’t happened yet”, to the Very-Clued-In-siders that proves Warren’s nomination isn’t “a hill worth dying on”, amirite?
Warren would be an excellent choice to lead the FCPB. She may not want to go through the aggravation of being approved, and it’s certainly possible that the Rethugs or their Blue Dog enablers would succeed in blocking her appointment. But those of us who believe in her have the right, and maybe even some tiny sliver of obligation, to state our position in advance.
Corner Stone
@Allison W.: Keep waiting hon. I’m sure it’ll come to you. Eventually.
Anne Laurie
@Glenndacious Greenwaldian:
Go troll your own thread, Doug!
toschek
For all you guys want to denounce Hamsher and people like her I think it’s pretty unfair in general. The right has people like Ralph Reed, Gingrich, Pamela fuckin’ Geller and you guys think it’s OK to pick on Hamsher for having principles? She’s left of me to be sure, but I have no idea why she’s seen as some obstacle to a successful first term to the extent she is on “sensible liberal” blogs (no offense John).
If people like her hadn’t mobilized people to push somewhat do you honestly think HCR would have been better? From the looks of that debate he most likely would have rick rolled himself into an even more predictably business friendly compromise for the sake of compromise.
And not to be totally OT — Elizabeth Warren is an awesome person and I don’t get the 1.5 year hold up on getting her nominated and confirmed and/or recess appointment.
Obama should have acted on this last year, we (and she) deserve better.
Corner Stone
@Anne Laurie: This sounds like you’ve been listening to Nick a little too much.
Yutsano
@Anne Laurie:
FTFY. Gawd I wish he would shut up and fucking retire already.
Anne Laurie
@Corner Stone: Jeez, Stone — go put some soothing ointment in your jock and chill, already. People are gonna think you’ve got a grudge to nurse.
Allison W.
@Anne Laurie:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
good night all. I see what looks like a good movie on TCM so I’m gonna watch it.
General Stuck
@Allison W.:
Good night Allison, Anne Laurie, John Boy, you too Jockstone,
Yutsano
@General Stuck: “Could switching to GEICO really save you 15% or more on car insurance? Did the Waltons take too long to say good night?”
(Too lazy to get teh YouTube. You know what I mean.)
Corner Stone
@Anne Laurie: Mmmm…grudges against nurses…
mvr
Nocera and Leonhardt have made the times business pages a really good read over the last couple of years. The business pages require analysis, not just “the Ds say X and the Rs say not X”. And they’ve provided it, and in a way that both actually takes a stand on what the truth is rather than what people say, and also explains how the new facts they are telling us about fit in with other facts we already should know (though we may not). If this kind of reporting were extended to other parts of the paper, we’d really be getting value for money.
Anne Laurie
@mvr: Agree about Nocera… who I first started reading because he was one of the late great Molly Ivins’ friends back in the Texas Observer days.
Phoebe
eh?
I get the impression that the activists all dig her, but apart from that, I don’t know what this means. I thought PUMAs were people who hate Obama because they love Hillary Clinton, even still. Is there some other meaning?
Corner Stone
@Phoebe: No one has successfully explained where and how PUMAs actually exist. But somehow they still seem to serve as a convenient whipping post.
Even when it makes less sense than usual. Let’s just go with it.
FlipYrWhig
@Anne Laurie: I wasn’t responding to the original post, I was responding to the people who line up like it was Black Friday at Best Buy and the doors aren’t yet unlocked and the big thing they’re excited about happening next is… some kind of crushing disappointment that, even before it happens, validates all their other ongoing disappointments.
I love Elizabeth Warren in a way that’s just barely non-sexual and very much want to see her in this role or in whatever other high-profile role she wants more. I think she would easily be a smash hit at the confirmation hearings and win over everyone who remotely cares about policy, not even just liberal policy, just decent, equitable policy. I don’t even think she’s “liberal” on these things, just, like, fair-minded. I feel like if there’s any hesitation it’s in calculating whether a big fight over Elizabeth Warren — a fight that _I would love to see_ and that _Elizabeth Warren would kick ass in_ — is the best use of scarce time and resources. I would argue that it is a very good use of time, because everyone hates banks and bankers, and showing Republicans making spectacles of themselves defending them can only be advantageous politically.
(Here I’m assuming that Chris Dodd is making negative noises not because he feels negative about her but because he thinks Republicans feel overwhelmingly negative about her, which could be mistaken on my part. But I have to think that the so-called moderate Republicans, who include two women who think of themselves as hard-headed common-sense champions, would be easy to sway to Warren’s side — _because she’s Elizabeth Warren_, who is lovable, not some less-charismatic but well-credentialed expert.)
Blogs have a place in rallying behind her, and that’s great, and more of it, please. What I can’t stand is the instant commenter barrage about how it’ll never happen. At one point I called it “auto-erotic Schadenfreude,” because it’s like arousal at the thought that you will yourself be subject to misfortune. That’s what I was venting about. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
FlipYrWhig
@toschek:
Advocating for the public option, cool. Pushing the Halter primary challenge, worth a shot. Kill The Bill, fucking stupid.
More importantly, the constant refrain that the president doesn’t fight hard enough and wants to spite liberals, really damn unhelpful. There’s not much creative explanation required; fundamentally, there aren’t enough liberals in the Democratic caucus to get uncompromisingly liberal policy through both houses. You don’t need to conjure up all these nefarious cloak-and-dagger tales of Rahm and Geithner wooing Obama to the Dark Side. Especially when this “hippie-punching” just-so story gets pushed as The Reason why Democratic poll numbers look lousy, in a way that positions Big Blog as a very important player in the game. “Look at me! I’m a demoralized liberal, and I vote!” [IMHO that was the basis for the Gibbs remark about the ‘professional left.’]
That blogs = left = base equation is seriously faulty, but without it there’s not much reason to pay attention to Hamsher (or, for that matter, Moulitsas). So she pushes it very, very hard, and people keep falling for it.
Anne Laurie
@Phoebe:
There’s a Rebecca West quote: “I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.” There are some people — including a couple on this blog — who yell PUMA! whenever any woman, here or IRL, seems to be expressing an opinion that could be construed as less than totally, abjectly, completely sympathetic to Obama’s every action. If “we” support Warren, it’s not because we think she’s a good choice, it’s because we hate Obama and want to punish him by forcing him to defend ‘one of the coven’, because we are all not-so-secret racists and also old bags with sand in our va-jay-jays.
Some of it is lacking any political memory before the Bush Regency. I was in high school when the “sensible, realistic” Democrats shivved Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Gloria Steinem and the rest of the “femmes” during the hideous 1972 convention, so I’ve spent my entire adult life hearing that we women just need to wait our turn and be patient, but that’s history down the memory hole even for most “progressives”.
A Humble Net Slave
I’m probably being naive, but isn’t waiting until Congress reconvenes and trying to get her elected through that a good move for the Democratic party going into the midterms?
I mean, like it’s been said, most people probably haven’t heard of her. But if she goes through the nomination process, it’s very likely more will before it’s over. And the more people know her story and her positions, the more people are probably going to like her and root for her getting the spot. And those people, what else will they see? They’ll see Republicans fighting to keep her out for the sake of protecting banks. And Americans (with the exception of the Teabaggers if their lack of marching on Wall Street is any indication) are none too fond of banks right now, and that’s putting it extremely lightly.
That’s just my silly little idea though….
Sly
@toschek:
We don’t pick on Hamsher for her principles. We pick on Hamsher for her tactics, but much more so for her ego. Hamsher’s refrain that everything Obama does is intended to disappoint the left reflects a level of self-importance that is nauseating. A portion of the left are starting to act like crazy fucking girlfriends who just know their beloved is cheating on them with someone because hes started to come home five minutes later than usual, and so break’s up with him first to spare themselves the rejection.
And this doesn’t even take into account the liberals who never supported Obama in the first place. Remember, he wasn’t as serious about policy as Clinton and not as authentic (guffaw) as Edwards.
different church-lady
While I agree with what you’ve written, and how Warren frames these things, I don’t think nearly enough attention has been paid to a significant contributor to the problem: the lazy complicity of the American consumer.
Too many people are willing to use their credit card for every $3 purchase because they’re too lazy to go to the bank, or they fall for the rebate scam, or they’ve been seduced by the idiotic propaganda that cash is old fashioned. Too many people pay the ATM fee every time they take out money because they don’t want to find a branch of their own bank. Too many people didn’t do their homework and took out mortgages that were too good to be true. Too many people think mutual funds are the same as savings.
Banks do this shit because we help them get away with it. We don’t need banking reform to protect us from the banks — we need it to protect us from ourselves.
kay
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN):
That seems insanely nit-picky to me, when you consider he’s responsible for seat belts.
I don’t like him. I think he’s a preachy pain in the ass, but he’s almost singly responsible for the movement (and it was a movement) that brought passage of all that law.
He has an amazing record as an activist. No single individual even comes close. That people now delegate him to the trash bin based on his Presidential bids and later activism isn’t just sad, it’s not reality, and it makes me think it’s a deliberate re-writing of history. Because his record is there.
If you ever sue on a consumer claim, you can thank Ralph Nader. There weren’t any statutes to bring that claim before he arrived. They simply didn’t exist. In a sense the concept didn’t exist. Consumers could sue on a common law claim or a contract claim prior to Nader, and it was nearly impossible for an individual to do that, versus a corporation. The whole alphabet soup of federal statutes that lawyers recite on consumer law is all his doing.
Frank
@toschek:
Hamsher went on FoxNews to blast HCR. She showed a petition that she wanted FoxNews viewers to sign to show opposition to the bill. She joined with Grover Norquist to try to kill the bill.
If it had been up to her, this would have been a repeat of 1994 and we would have once again failed to get HCR. I am so glad she does not have enough influence to make a difference.
We have a base in our party. I do not think FDL or dailykos speak for that base. Both blogs represent very minor portions of the base, which is what the HCR debate showed us.
debbie
A similar column from Gretchen Morgenson on another fiscally responsible program opposed by the Republicans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/business/22gret.html?ref=business
joe from Lowell
@Frank:
And let’s not forget, she urged her readers to join forces with the Tea Party in bringing down the Democrats, hilariously calling the astro-turf groups started by Dick Armey and the Koch brothers “anti-corporate.”
Barack Obama is too much of a pro-corporate, centrist sell-out for Hamsher to support – because of her principles, doncha know – but Grover Norquist and the Tea Party are people she has enough in common with to work together. Because of her principles, I guess.
MNPundit
I call bullshit on this. I have not seen or read anyone say this. In fact it is the progressives who have been the driving force pushing her. I know this site hates progressives, but when you say something like this I expect some evidence.
@Anne Laurie: You have seen it percolating? What percolating? That scum Dodd has gone right out and SAID IT. In fact it was essentially his opening statement on Warren.
Brachiator
I got nothing against Warren. She may well be the best person for the job.
But the key thing for me is getting someone in the position who understands how the lenders think and can come up with reasonable regulations that protect consumers. So far, too many progressives are fool of fire, but while they are belting smoke about “tricks,” “fleece” and “bribes,” the industry quietly exploits weaknesses and loopholes in the existing and newly passed laws to up interest rates, raise fees and otherwise keep on doing what they want to do.
Joseph Kennedy was appointed the first head of the SEC even though Ferdinand Pecora had done the work of investigating and exposing the corrupt practices that helped lead to the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Kennedy understood the financiers because he was one of them, understood how they operated and could effectively counter their bad practices.