That Sound You Hear

Is a progressive netroots primal scream as anonymous sources claim Obama has given up trying to get Warren confirmed as the head of the CFPB.

This shows you how out of the loop I am, because I thought we had already gone through this and thought she was running for Senate in Mass.






210 replies
  1. 1
    Neil says:

    Were this bush, this would be a recess appointment

  2. 2
    4tehlulz says:

    Mitt Romney sez Preznits can amend the Constitution; obviously, Obama’s not doing so to dissolve the Senate means he’s didn’t really want Warren to be confirmed.

    Romney/Nader 2012

  3. 3
    General Stuck says:

    I’m all out of outrage at the outrage. Some of these people must not have had enough teat time when they were cherub babies. And now they look at the world, demanding a 24 hour a day feeding from a giant breast to call their own.

  4. 4
    foosion says:

    President Geithner, on behalf of our banking overlords, doesn’t want her. That’s been well known for a long time.

    In any event, the Republicans are never going to allow anyone to be confirmed to the position.

    Obama has the constitutional right to put the Senate into recess and make a recess appointment. He cares too much about the excellent working relation he has with Senate Republicans to hurt their fee fees by doing this.

  5. 5
    scav says:

    Everyone’s in information and crisis overload and getting severely cranky. Neat maps to look at instead here and discussed at the NYTimes here but that’s got the paywall issues.
    Gorgeous maps and with hints of a dataset behind it with all sorts of new quirks and capabilities and silliness and flaws. I could weep.

    If I wasn’t already weeping with laughter somewhere else at Larry Flynt telling off Rupert Murdoch for not having standards.

    So, this is a primal giggle I’m contributing to the scream heard elsewhere.

  6. 6
    Violet says:

    Maybe she’s sick of the crap and asked to be taken out of consideration.

  7. 7
    General Stuck says:

    Ms Warren has been busy setting the agency up, which is a vital task for its future functioning, regardless of who runs it at any given point in time. And is why the wingnuts are so hot and bothered, and demanding a watering down of Warren’s work on the set up.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if she wasn’t in on and agreed to pick another trusted person, that has also been working with the agency during its infancy. To not let herself be the issue, and let the agency do its business out of the pol spotlight. Just a guess on my part, but my take on Warren is that while she is tough and independent minded, she is also a team player more than anything else, and more than progressives can grasp.

  8. 8
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Barry is such a predictable turncoat. I hope Warren tells him to fuck himself.

  9. 9
    Yevgraf says:

    You won’t be laughing when Kucinich/Grayson win next year’s primary and then go on to decimate their opponents in the general…

  10. 10
    jwb says:

    scav: Just install the NoScript extension to Firefox and you can walk right through the Times paywall.

  11. 11
    Marc says:

    The Republicans have made it clear that they would never permit her nomination to come to a vote. They probably won’t let anyone else get confirmed either, of course.

    A recess appointment is only for a year. And the agency needs a budget, which may be a bit of a challenge if there is an agency head appointed via recess that the congress hates with a burning passion.

    Nah, it must be that the evil Obama hates all that is good and pure.

  12. 12
    scav says:

    jwb: well well. stellar security that. Chrome equivalent?

    ETA explicit thanks.

  13. 13
    rob! says:

    Elizabeth Warren is too good for the Senate, in every way.

  14. 14
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Yevgraf: Well, one gentleman’s already lost his seat, and the other one’s about to get redistricted out of his, so they need the work.

    Why create more unemployment in the depths of the recession?

  15. 15
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @ foosion:

    Obama has the constitutional right to put the Senate into recess and make a recess appointment.

    Quoi?

  16. 16
    RossInDetroit says:

    Just install the NoScript extension to Firefox and you can walk right through the Times paywall.

    I’ve heard it’s as easy as deleting everything in the URL to the right of “?”. I’ll be trying that when my trial year is up.
    Because I’m a mooching looter.

  17. 17
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Obama has the constitutional right to put the Senate into recess and make a recess appointment. He cares too much about the excellent working relation he has with Senate Republicans to hurt their fee fees by doing this.

    no, no, no foosion, you misunderstand: Barry is heeeeeelpless in the face of the mean republicans. Except of course, when he isn’t.

  18. 18
    jwb says:

    scav: I’m not sure if there is a Chrome equivalent. I use Chrome as my alternate browser, when I need javascript fully enabled.

    ETA: You can also use this utility to strip away the paywall javascript.

  19. 19
    Dennis SGMM says:

    I’m not surprised; Warren’s confirmation didn’t have a chance in hell with the Republicans. That she would have done a damn’ good job was just one more reason for them to oppose her.

    In the fullness of time a Republican will be elected, or appointed, president. The same gaggle of clowns who are stymieing just about all of Obama’s appointees will again be howling that the president deserves an up-or-down vote on appointments. It’s how they roll.

  20. 20

    >Quoi?

    Yeah, I did a spit-take on that one.

  21. 21
    Allan says:

    Does Warren actually want the job? She’s always tap-danced around that question. When Obama announces his choice, I expect Warren to be the first person to enthusiastically endorse his/her nomination.

  22. 22
    lol says:

    I know the left has built a cult of personality around Warren but Raj Date I think is a better choice in the long-run. Just as progressive and combative but a better manager for the organization.

    Warren excels personal politics and has done alot to convince industry types that the agency is a good idea, which is why they’ve slowly changed from “The CFPB will rape banks!” to “the CFPB needs a director already!” That’s going to serve her well as a candidate.

    But Raj Date once worked for a bank so emogressives are going to ignore his background in consumer protection and freak out.

  23. 23
    Myles says:

    Elizabeth Warren running for Senate in Massachusetts would be a complete disaster for both parties. And it would certainly mean an enormous headache forObama.

  24. 24
    RossInDetroit says:

    Regarding browsers: I use Chrome primarily because it’s faster than FF in this environment. I use FF for some sites where Chrome’s functionality just doesn’t match (Vendio).
    At work I have only IE. Often when reading BJ on IE the page will go all wacky with no line breaks and text running behind the ads yards off the edge of the screen.

  25. 25
    Trollenschlongen says:

    In the fullness of time a Republican will be elected, or appointed, president. The same gaggle of clowns who are stymieing just about all of Obama’s appointees will again be howling that the president deserves an up-or-down vote on appointments. It’s how they roll

    And the ever-accommodating Democrats, ever eager to please as we saw during the Bush years, will happily give it to him or her.

  26. 26
    Dr. Squid says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

    So, yes and no. There, by definition, cannot be a disagreement between both houses with respect to Presidential appointments, so no, he can’t adjourn the Senate just so he can do a recess appointment.

  27. 27
    RalfW says:

    You mean that fundraising scream you hear…
    .
    .
    And this “Maybe she’s sick of the crap and asked to be taken out of consideration” could very well be right, too.

  28. 28
    Dennis SGMM says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Because Kucinich came so close in the last two elections. Or not.

  29. 29
    joes527 says:

    Could someone point me to the primal scream? I probably just don’t hang out at the right blogs. There are a couple of diaries up at the GOS (less than 100 comments each) I’m hearing a primal uncomfortable-clearing-of-the-throat more than a primal scream.

    Or was this all _meant_ to be projection?

    scav

    Ah – it is happening on twitter. No wonder I’m not seeing it. I though that the whole point of twitter was to cement whatever thought is passing through your little brain at the moment for all posterity. And we are looking there for rational thought?

  30. 30
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @ Dr. Squid:

    I know you aren’t agreeing with foosion, but the the authority to adjourn Congress that you cited merely lets the President make the decision on when to adjourn when the House and Senate cannot agree. It allows him to be a tie breaker.

  31. 31
    Shawn in ShowMe says:

    Just install the NoScript extension to Firefox and you can walk right through the Times paywall.

    What’s the difference between using the NoScript extension to disable JavaScript and just disabling JavaScript in the Options menu?

  32. 32
    Menzies says:

    Like Cole said, I thought this was a fait accompli a while ago. I remember it being said that the reason she was placed in charge of setting up the agency was precisely because there was no way in Hell she’d get confirmed to head it once set up.

  33. 33
    TK-421 says:

    I love how Cole and lots of FP’ers:

    1. tell everyone to CALM DOWN about the Obama Admin possibly abandoning someone or something good/progressive because WE DON’T KNOW what’s happening or going to happen.

    2. do a touchdown dance when there’s an indication that the Obama Admin is actually not going to abandon the topic/person du jour, apparently forgetting the core argument in #1. SEE WE TOLD YOU HA HA.

    3. when something wrong happens with the same issue, they forget everything previous and pretend this is a surprise. Yes we are SHOCKED that the Obama Admin reversed itself on a progressive cause celebre! SHOCKED WE TELL YOU because this has never happened before and oh well it will probably never happen again because CTFO HE’S GOT THIS.

    Looking at that process above, have I been referring to the Warren appointment saga, or the debt ceiling circus? You guys know the Obama Admin still doesn’t have a deal, and thus all those worrisome things (e.g. cutting SS, MediCare, Medicaid, etc.) are still possible, right?

  34. 34

    As noted in a thread below, according to mitt romney, the president can do whateverthehellhedamnwellpleases.

  35. 35

    Dr. Squid, I think that sentence means that if the House and Senate should disagree on when they should both adjourn, the President can decide. That’s how I’d parse “…in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment…” in 18th-century syntax.

    Which I guess means that if we had a Senate Majority Leader willing to play hardball, if Boehner wanted to adjourn the House at 9 am on Tuesday, he or she could insist on 9:05. And then Obama could settle the argument.

    And if my aunt had wheels etc.

  36. 36
    Dr. Squid says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    So his power there is even weaker than I thought on first read. At any rate, the assertion that he can adjourn the Senate just to push through a recess appointment is pretty silly. As you suspected.

  37. 37
    jwb says:

    Shawn in ShowMe: I’m not sure with respect to the paywall, except when you turn off javascript in the options menu, you turn it off completely, rendering many sites completely inoperable, whereas NoScript allows you to turn off only certain elements.

  38. 38
    Dave says:

    Jesus Herbert Christ. Really, we’re still arguing about this? Warren was never going to get Senate confirmation and there was growing evidence she didn’t WANT the job. Whomever takes the position will be someone she had a hand in choosing. Add that to the growing buzz about her trying to take down Scott Brown in 2012, which would put her in the Senate and allow her to needle these same asshats that blocked her nomination…this is a bad thing how?

  39. 39
    Felanius Kootea says:

    @General Stuck: It’s not just about her. The Republicans are not willing to confirm *anyone* for that office because they don’t want it to exist, period. Unless of course Obama nominates Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove, and even then, it would be tough because, you know, Obama nominated them.

  40. 40
    scav says:

    joes527 no no no, for once twitter’s an innocent bystander in this. Just standing around bleeting the usual nonsense and making a gorgeous map.

  41. 41
    Kane says:

    It is my understanding that Senate Republicans have been preventing the Senate from recessing in order to halt President Obama’s ability to make temporary recess appointments.

    The Senate goes into “pro forma session” on breaks, and a senator who lives in nearby Virginia or Maryland briefly opens and closes the session on those days, during which no business is conducted but it allows them to block any recess appointments.

  42. 42
    Shawn in ShowMe says:

    I’m not sure with respect to the paywall, except when you turn off javascript in the options menu, you turn it off completely, rendering many sites completely inoperable, whereas NoScript allows you to turn off only certain elements.

    Gotcha, just wanted to make it clear to folk that if all they need to do to get through the paywall is to disable JavaScript, then they can do that manually in whatever browser they happen to use. Then they can turn it back on when they’re done peeking at the pay stuff.

  43. 43
    dmsilev says:

    Obama has the constitutional right to put the Senate into recess and make a recess appointment.

    Handy hint: Obama is not Chancellor of the Galactic Republic. You can tell because he has not once shot lightning bolts from his fingertips. In public, anyway.

  44. 44
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Kane: For better or worse, this is a page from the post-2006 Harry Reid playbook.

  45. 45
    Gravenstone says:

    @Trollenschlongen: Would you quit changing your fucking name, tool? You’re a paragraph unto yourself in the pie filter script at this point.

  46. 46
    scav says:

    So, I attend a primal scream and a thread of low-level hacking breaks out. Makes me wonder if they exchange gardening and knitting tips in Anonymous get-togethers.

  47. 47
    Bob Natas says:

    Obama has given up trying to get Warren confirmed as the head of the CFPB.

    1. That is an … interesting interpretation of the article.

    2. CFPB is like fighting the last war; the next large scale fraud that will generate the next financial crisis is almost certainly well underway by now, but I doubt it will look exactly the same as the scam which has landed us in our current predicament.

    Look: we need something more robust in the US to deal with the scams that we aren’t clever enough to detect from 1-2 years out. Admittedly, I don’t know what form it would take, and I don’t think anyone in the Obama admin knows either.

  48. 48
    drunken hausfrau says:

    GOS says Warren is still IN as possible head of CFPB… I think it’s another case of rumor going out on the progressive blogosphere to make DFHs heads explode so they can’t think properly about other stuff that is happening… stay ZEN cool, people. Have another G&T or Bloody Mary or whatever calms you down.

  49. 49
    beltane says:

    Some peoples primal scream buttons seem to be permanently stuck in the ON position, almost like a broken alarm clock.

    This BooMan piece made me laugh http://www.boomantribune.com/s.....94620/2192
    The freshman teabaggers in the House really are more simpleminded than your average preschooler. May I suggest that instead of shrieking over Obama’s every perceived betrayal, the True Progressives should design a series of coloring books to be distributed to conservative voters, which explain how Randism is bad for them? I think this is the best way to turn the country left.

  50. 50
    slag says:

    If true, this news is very bad indeed. The CFPB was a faint ray of hope, but a ray of hope nonetheless. Without it, we’re pretty much hopeless. Which is, while not surprising, still depressing.

  51. 51
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    You can tell because he has not once shot lightning bolts from his fingertips.

    Dr Dean’s fingernail lightning smashes Horcruxes (Horcri? Horcrcuces?), controls The Force, and cures the heartbreak of psoriasis.

    If only it could win elections.

  52. 52
    Trurl says:

    The only importance of the Warren nomination was that it was arguably the meatiest scrap that the master begrudgingly threw down to his starving hounds. Now that this has been yanked away too, you can hardly blame the pack for whimpering.

    But moving on: Who’s up for the new war in Somalia?

  53. 53
    Kane says:

    Obama to Eliminate Warren as Consumer Head

    Beware of such headlines. The people at Bloomberg and elsewhere know that Warren is a favorite of those on the left, so it’s good for website visits and political spin to portray it as Obama did Warren wrong.

    It’s a better story than reporting that Republicans did all they could to prevent Warren from being appointed, and that they continue to oppose the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

  54. 54
    Danny says:

    I would have preferred “magic progressive nutroots primal scream”. It’s longer.

    Warren would have done a great job though. At least she got to set it up and shape it.

  55. 55
    RossInDetroit says:

    If CFPB can’t do its job without Warren then it’s not a well designed agency. The point of bureaucracy is that the output is not dependent on the identity of workers or leaders. I’d prefer her there but if the tradeoff for the Bureau being set up and funded is someone else has to run it I’ll take that. It’s badly needed and way overdue.

  56. 56
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Would you quit changing your fucking name, tool? You’re a paragraph unto yourself in the pie filter script at this point.

    weak

  57. 57
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Handy hint: Obama is not Chancellor of the Galactic Republic.

    Yeah, we know: O just has no powers whatsoever because the republicans are just so mean and forceful and stuff.

  58. 58
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @slag: The important thing is to get the right foot-soldiers in, establish an institutional culture, and make the organization leader-proof. For good and for ill. Because I’m not sure you get the one without the other.

    Nixon’s tapes are full of obscenity-laced tirades about how various executive departments persisted in doing what they were supposed to do, and failing to do what the White House wanted them to do. And his end-runs around them are what destroyed his administration. Same thing should have brought down Reagan after Iran-Contra.

    I would like any CFPB to follow in that tradition.

  59. 59
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @ Trollenshlongen: The world is not binary. When someone states that the President is not all powerful, it does not mean that they are saying the President has no power. Of course, you knew that and are just being an asshole.

  60. 60
    Anonguest84 says:

    “primal scream” ????
    Link or fuck off.

  61. 61
    Zach says:

    What are the odds that this was actually up to Warren? I wouldn’t want to go through that shit in an election year to wind up not being confirmed anyway because Rand Paul throws a fit or something.

  62. 62
    OzoneR says:

    Were this bush, this would be a recess appointment

    Only if Republicans controlled the Senate because Harry Reid kept the Senate in session indefinitely to prevent any Bush recess appointments.

  63. 63
    Trollenschlongen says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    yeah, stating that O is not the chancellor of the galactic whatever is an asshole way of implying that those of us who want Obama to grow a spine EXPECT him to be all powerful. We do not. We want him to fight back with all the power he can muster, through very creative means as necessary, as the republicans do all the time. As referenced above, they have come up with an asshole way to never adjourn so O “can’t” make recess appointments. Please name one instance in which Obama’s team has been equally creative on the progressive side, to achieve their alleged goals through any means necessary, as do the repubs.

    The Warren non-appointment is just another in a very long list of instances in which Obama whines that “I can’t do it, the republicans are being mean.” How many times before a rational, non-O worshiper concludes one is being played?

    Thank you. I’ll wait.

  64. 64
    Brachiator says:

    GOS says Warren is still IN as possible head of CFPB… I think it’s another case of rumor going out on the progressive blogosphere to make DFHs heads explode so they can’t think properly about other stuff that is happening… stay ZEN cool, people

    I hope that Warren stays, but it is interesting to note that her rumored replacement was one of the few financial people who was not happily riding the financial bubble.

    And the larger problem is that the Republicans are deeply committed to the principle that a Democratic Party president cannot be allowed to govern. As another poster noted, the GOP doesn’t just hate Warren, they oppose the idea of the regulatory agency she would head.

    And the GOP opposition to many of Obama’s appointees is just appalling. The most recent stupidity involves Rand Paul holding up the confirmation of the FBI director even after everyone else in Congress approved the deal.

  65. 65
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @ Trollie:

    How many times before a rational, non-O worshiper concludes one is being played?

    42.

  66. 66
    Marc says:

    Tim: It’s pretty obvious that you hate the people here. Your posts have degenerated into pure, almost incoherent bile. Why bother?

  67. 67

    @jwb:

    no script and NYT

    Wonderful! Thank you very much.

    hee-hee. I love it!

  68. 68
    Marc says:

    @61: The House can also prevent recess appointments by not adjourning; I remember that they did this recently, but don’t know if they’ve actually made it continuous.

  69. 69
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Um, for one thing, wouldn’t calling it “abandoning” Warren imply that Warren still wants to do it? Do we know that?

  70. 70
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Gee, I bet Obama is just kicking himself that he doesn’t have our Tantrum Trolls to guide him. “Something creative”. It’s such an elegant and obvious solution to all our problems!. Why hasn’t it been tried. It’s brilliant!!

  71. 71

    no-script:

    I can now get into the WSJ articles, too.

  72. 72
    ML says:

    Primal scream? How dramatic.

    People are disappointed, sure, but few are surprised. Most Warren supporters (myself included) would have been surprised if Obama had appointed her during a recess, and that’s what it would have taken.

  73. 73
    OzoneR says:

    Um, for one thing, wouldn’t calling it “abandoning” Warren imply that Warren still wants to do it? Do we know that?

    Back in January when she said she didn’t want to go through the process on Bill Maher, so Obama offered her an interim role, I was being told by the emo left that she would do it if Obama asked “out of duty,” so once again, it was Obama’s fault.

    That’s the thing about the left, they will twist themselves into knots trying to play victim, going so far now as to make a stupid claim that Obama himself can force the Senate into recess.

  74. 74
    The Raven says:

    Bloomberg reports that the CFPB head will probably be Raj Date, a former Deutsche Bank investment banking consultant. Sounds remarkably like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department.

    Croak!

  75. 75
    Brachiator says:

    Um, for one thing, wouldn’t calling it “abandoning” Warren imply that Warren still wants to do it? Do we know that?

    There is a brief video interview with Warren at the bottom of the NYT home page. She notes that there are bills pending to kill the agency before it even gets a chance to begin its work.

    She sounds weary, but deeply aware of what needs to be done in the face of huge opposition.

  76. 76
    scav says:

    Linda F. Well, we all know you’re a grown-up — a smart and brave one too — and so can probably handle your new superpowers. Still, Take Care.

  77. 77
    OzoneR says:

    Bloomberg reports that the CFPB head will probably be Raj Date, a former Deutsche Bank investment banking consultant. Sounds remarkably like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department.

    I see you forgot to mention he’s also Elizabeth Warren’s self-chosen deputy.

    Oh that bankster-loving Warren.

  78. 78
  79. 79
    lol says:

    @73:

    Raj Date is the best thing to happen to consumer protection since Elizabeth Warren

    For Wall Street reform advocates, there has been no better resource of thorough, objective research than the work Date produced for Cambridge Winter (on his own dime). But you wouldn’t know any of this from reading the Times story, which portrays Cambridge Winter as some kind of nefarious Wall Street lobbying firm, saying it was “active in the Dodd-Frank debate,” and then noting that Date previously worked for both Capital One and Deutsche Bank.

    Date has indeed had a very successful career in finance, and the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington is a major problem. But Date is not part of that problem. He’s used his first-hand industry expertise to take on the bank lobby directly. He was involved in the Dodd-Frank debate by pushing hard against Wall Street.

    The binary idiocy of emogressives is really quite tiresome.

  80. 80
    eemom says:

    tee hee. I was wondering when this news was gonna catch on here, last night when folks were arguing about Adam whatzis.

  81. 81
    lacp says:

    This is some big surprise? Christ, Yves Smith predicted this months ago.

  82. 82
    MikeJ says:

    @eemom: There was somebody here yesterday trying to stir up poutrage about it and everybody did an admirable job of ignoring it.

  83. 83
    OzoneR says:

    Most Warren supporters (myself included) would have been surprised if Obama had appointed her during a recess, and that’s what it would have taken.

    Since the Senate refuses to go into recess, the whole point is moot

  84. 84
    MazeDancer says:

    Spent some time at the GOS this morning. Learned some useful things. Like this excellent video from a quite nice blog by BlackWaterDog called “the only adult in the room”

    Here’s the vid in the diary http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....8Action%29

    That vid is the President outlining his political philosophy to a group of college kids – from all parties – interested in politics. Extremely instructive and revealing. Also thought provoking and interesting.

    But some of the intra-site trolling at Kos could pass for DIAF attacks on progressives at Red State. (Some of it in that thread.) Beginning to give some credence to the possibility that some “screamers” at GOS are GOP operatives.

    Keeping the progressive base focussed on insider divisions is a good way to cut down on their activism next year. And help the media maintain their “both sides to it” falsehoods while tarnishing – and downplaying – Mr. Obama’s considerable accomplishments. And hiding how much is at stake in keeping the right wing out of the White House.

    Seems like a low effort, good pay-out dirty tricks op to keep running.

    Because it’s so very hard not to feed the trolls. Am resisting. Barely.

  85. 85
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Tim: It’s pretty obvious that you hate the people here. Your posts have degenerated into pure, almost incoherent bile. Why bother?

    Hate? Hmmm…projection much? There are a few other sane commenters left.

    Pure, incoherent bile? Please…

    Cole throws just enough crumbs to the sane among us that I keep hoping he’ll come all the way around. If you think our blogmaster is a complete Obot you haven’t been paying attention. However, he certainly feeds you Barry Trolls all you need to keep your endless threads about 17th dimensional chess going.

    Perhaps unlike you, I don’t seek out only blogs that echo what I already think. That’s your gig.

    Also, too, furthermore, and additionally: Why is it your concern whether or not I comment here? Does even one commenter out of synch with the Obot memes cause you unease?

  86. 86
    Dr. Squid says:

    Oh, fer fuck’s sake, a Nobot actually pretends he’s the Only Sane Man?

  87. 87
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Since the Senate refuses to go into recess, the whole point is moot

    Gosh, how easily our Progressive Warrior President is shut down. One would almost think he doesn’t want to fight.

  88. 88
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Nobot actually pretends he’s the Only Sane Man?

    excellent example of Obot reading comprehension disabilities: I clearly stated there were OTHER sane commenters here, and referred to the sane among us, etc.

    But then, reading actual words as opposed to hearing the voices in your head would disrupt your Obot space time coninuum.

  89. 89
    karen marie says:

    Davis X: Didn’t Bush II “fix” this by getting political appointees in civil service positions in a bunch of agencies?

  90. 90
    eemom says:

    I took a peek over at Lake Batshit. The cultists commenters are down on their knees begging Lady Jane to lead them to Jonestown launch a “primary campaign.”

  91. 91
    Danny says:

    @Trollenschlongen

    Is your name really meant to be understood as “trolling dick”? My german is pretty poor…

  92. 92
    Dr. Squid says:

    @Trollenschlongen: We’ve already established that you’re Too Stupid To Live, Nipplechips, what with your blithely agreeing that Obama can shut down the Senate all by himself. Fuck, you’re too uncreative to even come up with that all by yourself – you had to rely on someone else to make the stoopid assertion, and there you were, Nobot bobblehead at the ready.

  93. 93
    OzoneR says:

    One would almost think he doesn’t want to fight.

    He shouldn’t, since when he does and loses, he gets no credit for it, he just gets told by armchair quarter backers how they wouldn’t done it better.

  94. 94
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    launch a “primary campaign.”

    With Madame Herself as the candidate? Oh, that would be fucking hilarious to watch.

  95. 95
    Dr. Squid says:

    @Danny:

    Actually, I believe that’s German for “raging dipshit”. “Trolling dick” might be something along the lines of “Schwanztroller”.

  96. 96
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Is your name really meant to be understood as “trolling dick”?

    “Humongous Trolling Cock of Reality Amongst the Delusional Obots” is the precise translation but YMMV.

    Since I’ve been “trolling” (AKA disagreeing with Obots) here for five years or so, and it is the favorite lame Obot’s attempted insult, I figured why not own it proudly?

  97. 97
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @karen marie: That was exactly what he was up to at Justice.

  98. 98
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Dr. Squid:

    blah blah blah…do you never tire of backing a milquetoast? Does it never, ever take your notice that millions of people who once enthusiastically backed Obama (I am not one of them; I predicted he would turn quickly and so he did) have turned against him and that maybe just a FEW of them are in earnest and have solid reasons for doing so?

    As I have said here many times, I’m glad he was elected as a visual: the first AA president, given that he and McCain are both douchebags, but that’s about all I can say in his favor.

    Pretty simple: Most people would rather be betrayed by an avowed enemy than by a professed friend. Obama claimed to be their friend. He lied.

  99. 99
    Trollenschlongen says:

    he just gets told by armchair quarter backers how they wouldn’t done it better.

    Here we go again: Is it your contention that only citizens who run for the office of president are allowed to criticize whomever seizes that office?

  100. 100
    Dr. Squid says:

    blah blah blah…do you never tire of backing a milquetSLAP!

    So you’re a racist Nobot without a thought of your own. As I thought.

  101. 101
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Here we go again: Is it your contention that only citizens who run for the office of president are allowed to criticize whomever seizes that office?

    You could come up a critique more substantive (less pathetic) than “do something creative!”

  102. 102
    OzoneR says:

    Is it your contention that only citizens who run for the office of president are allowed to criticize whomever seizes that office?

    that wasn’t my point an you know it. Good day

  103. 103
    The Raven says:

    Lol, #22: you are right and I was wrong. My apologies to Raj Date, as well. Some people in the financial industry have become staunch advocates of reform, and Date seems to be one of them.

    I still have doubts, though. One of the best things about Warren is that she really was an outsider: she does not have ties within the banking industry. Date will be making enemies of former colleagues, just by taking the job. We can only hope he is a strong and ethical man.

  104. 104
    Forsetti says:

    I just love the idiocy underlying the false dichotomy-Either Obama appoints Warren or he is a traitor to progressives. Thinking these are the only two possible options is sheer stupidity and is only overshadowed by apparent abject failure to recognize that it was Obama that brought Warren in to design and set up the agency in the first place.

  105. 105

    @trolling dick:

    Since I’ve been “trolling” (AKA disagreeing with Obots) here for five years or so,

    Just curious how many Obots there were here in 2006?

  106. 106
    OzoneR says:

    One of the best things about Warren is that she really was an outsider: she does not have ties within the banking industry.

    She was a Wall Street lawyer.

  107. 107
    Trollenschlongen says:

    So you’re a racist Nobot

    Oh man…”nobot” I get but I’m really going to have to ask how you justify “racist?” Oh…is it because I wrote that I am glad the U.S. elected an African American president even if he’s a douche? Hmmm…you’ll have to explain how that’s racist.

    Not that it matters to you and ABL whether the term is justified, just that it has power and you get to fling it as you please.

    talk about assholes…

  108. 108
    JPL says:

    Google is your friend trolls. Do some research on your own without depending on blogs. Just an idea.
    We are all obots now.

  109. 109
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Just curious how many Obots there were here in 2006?

    Ah jeez…man, you really nailed me on that one, boy howdee. OK…how about “future Obots and their type?”

  110. 110
    ABL says:

    She was a Wall Street lawyer.

    but she hated every minute of it, thus making her an insider-outsider.

  111. 111
    MikeJ says:

    @OzoneR:

    She was a Wall Street lawyer.

    You lie! She floated up to shore on a shell, perfect in every way! You shall not mock the Warren by implying she is not infallible!

  112. 112
    Danny says:

    @Schlongen:

    Since I’ve been “trolling” (AKA disagreeing with Obots) here for five years or so

    “Shrilling for Bush”?

  113. 113
    Admiral_Komack says:

    Well, at least THE RATFUCKER and her minions are happy…another reason to grift.

  114. 114
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    OK…how about “future Obots and their type?”

    You mean people who aren’t raging antisocial assholes like yourself?

  115. 115
    Trollenschlongen says:

    “Shrilling for Bush”?

    Yeah, that’s it…you got me. Complete Bush lover here.

    Idiot.

    However, this does reveal an Obot meme: No real Progressive could possibly be so disgusted with obama as to openly call him out. Note to the wise: Democrat and Liberal/Progressive stopped being synonymous a long time ago.

  116. 116
    Trollenschlongen says:

    You mean people who aren’t raging antisocial assholes like yourself?

    First of all: Rubber/glue

    Secondly: going with your “antisocial” slur…would it then be accurate to say that your acceptance as a member of the predominant group of obama lovers here is your primary motivation for posting here? That you are interested in being perceived as “part of” the “social” aspect of this blog?

  117. 117
  118. 118
    eemom says:

    She floated up to shore on a shell, perfect in every way!

    lolz.

  119. 119
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Democrat and Liberal/Progressive stopped being synonymous a long time ago.

    Jesus, you just get dumber and dumber.

  120. 120
    The Raven says:

    OzoneR, #106: “[Warren] was a Wall Street lawyer.”

    What is your source for that? Her published CV, PDF, does not show it, nor do her publications (she has been a very busy academic), nor does her Wikipedia bio. By those documents has been an academic since her graduation from the Rutgers School of Law. Wikipedia reports she had a small private practice at the beginning of her career.

    I think you owe her an apology.

  121. 121
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    Rubber/glue

    I’m sorry, you’ve hit your Sad Little Attention Whore response limit for the day. Its a beautiful summer day, and I have far better things to do. Goodbye.

  122. 122
    Danny says:

    @Schlongen

    No need to fly off the handle over an innocent question. Why would you assume I knew anything about your political views five years ago?

    Careful or you’re gonna end up troll-bait on of these days…

  123. 123
    OzoneR says:

    What is your source for that?

    http://www.time.com/time/print.....53,00.html

    two years later went to work as one of two female summer associates at the oldest continuing law firm on Wall Street

  124. 124

    Ragging about appointments, whether by Republicans claiming the nominee is a soshulist or by lefties claiming sell-out, is beyond silly. If there is one thing we can learn from this debt ceiling business is that the president does exactly what he wants to do. The people who work for him do the same.

  125. 125
    different church-lady says:

    Somebody’s ironic stunt-commenting is getting tedious.

    Start your own blog if you want to do spotlight shtick.

  126. 126
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Somebody’s ironic stunt-commenting is getting tedious

    I often wonder to what extent trolls, from whatever side, are serious or just really, really bored and obnoxious, but I spent enough time reading Eschaton threads to know that if this one is a spoof, s/he speaks for a real part of the internet “left”

  127. 127
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Careful or you’re gonna end up troll-bait on of these days…

    Is it possible to be troll bait if one is oneself an accused troll, marked with the scarlet letter T?

  128. 128
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Start your own blog if you want to do spotlight shtick.

    Again: Why is it so important to your clique to rid BJ of non-Obot voices? Does anything but an echo chamber discombobulate you?

  129. 129
    RossInDetroit says:

    Here’s another cure for trollage: stop fixing him lunch and climb out from under his bridge.

  130. 130
    rootless_e says:

    Please name one instance in which Obama’s team has been equally creative on the progressive side, to achieve their alleged goals through any means necessary, as do the repubs.

    Um, how about when he and Frank snuck in the provision to this bill that allowed Warren to set up and manage the agency without Senate approval? The provision that made Chris Dodd mad. I don’t want you to have to look too far.

  131. 131
    rootless_e says:

    Please name one instance in which Obama’s team has been equally creative on the progressive side, to achieve their alleged goals through any means necessary, as do the repubs.

    Um, how about when he and Frank snuck in the provision to this bill that allowed Warren to set up and manage the agency without Senate approval? The provision that made Chris Dodd mad. I don’t want you to have to look too far.

  132. 132
    scav says:

    It’s a slow day RossInDetroit, sorry. One crumb and I’m off.

    TS, Certainly you can be troll bait, I hear they’re often quite tasty especially when they come from a well-marbled and sedentary beast well fed with sandwiches — and the species is certainly cannibalistic. I looked up the secondary definition of your flaunted scarlet T: it Tiresome, see shopworn.

  133. 133
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Um, how about when he and Frank snuck in the provision to this bill that allowed Warren to set up and manage the agency without Senate approval? The provision that made Chris Dodd mad. I don’t want you to have to look too far.

    Oh. OK, that’s a good one. that’s excellent in fact! Can we have a lot more of this alleged sneakiness and ruthlessness please? That would be great.

  134. 134
    RossInDetroit says:

    Hey, I’m all for sport-bickering but arguing with a troll is like spanking a masochist: just not going to have the effect you intend.

  135. 135
    different church-lady says:

    Again: Why is it so important to your clique to rid BJ of non-Obot voices? Does anything but an echo chamber discombobulate you?

    a) Always love it when the unnamed self-identify.

    b) Stop being tedious and I don’t care whether your pro-Obama or against-Obama.

    Unless, or course, tedium is in your contract.

  136. 136
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Hey, I’m all for sport-bickering but arguing with a troll is like spanking a masochist: just not going to have the effect you intend.

    A couple of things: Define troll please. And why are you driven to try to control the discourse of other commenters? Why don’t you just ignore that which you pretend to find uninteresting? Why is it important to you to shut up other people?

  137. 137
    different church-lady says:

    …arguing with a troll is like spanking a masochist: just not going to have the effect you intend.

    As far as part two of that analogy goes, it depends entirely on what effect you intend, no?

  138. 138
    scav says:

    Ross. Just needed a microrant and didn’t feel like shooting the wall — in this instance, it doesn’t have it coming. Am expecting no impact. Bored Bored Bored!

  139. 139
    RossInDetroit says:

    A couple of things: Define troll please. And why are you driven to try to control the discourse of other commenters? Why don’t you just ignore that which you pretend to find uninteresting? Why is it important to you to shut up other people?

    I don’t wanna dance, sailor.

  140. 140
    Trollenschlongen says:

    I don’t wanna dance, sailor.

    Oh yes, you do…but your best move is STFU so it really is best you sit this one out. You’re sadly outmatched.

  141. 141
    Marc says:

    From here on in I’m going to treat Timmy as a republican plant, probably paid for his troubles. I’d ban him. He adds nothing – see Making Light for a good discussion about how allowing screamers to post unmolested destroys actual conversations. Dissent is one thing; 19 posts in a single thread is attempting to shout everyone else down.

  142. 142
    different church-lady says:

    @ Marc:

    see Making Light for a good discussion about how allowing screamers to post unmolested destroys actual conversations.

    I don’t know if this is the blog you refer to, but even if nothing else good comes from BJ today, my finding out about it (even accidentally) puts the day in the win column.

  143. 143
    Danny says:

    @Schlongen

    Is it possible to be troll bait if one is oneself an accused troll, marked with the scarlet letter T?

    Interesting question… Yes, I do believe it’s possible to be both troll and troll bait, but those are not attractive character traits so I’d advise against it.

  144. 144
    scav says:

    SAVED! NTY and some Scotland Yard goodies. Cozy and incestuous relationships. Call in Miss Marple! I think this calls for some tea instead of popcorn.

  145. 145
    Linnaeus says:

    Not surprised or outraged. This was coming for some time. If I’m pissed off about anything, it’s that our would-be neofeudal banking overlords still have enough power to preempt someone like Warren.

  146. 146
    bk says:

    #123 – having been both a summer associate for a Wall Street firm as well as subsequently an associate for the same one, please understand that three months as a summer associate does NOT make one a “Wall Street lawyer”.

  147. 147
    Yutsano says:

    it’s that our would-be neofeudal banking overlords still have enough power to preempt someone like Warren

    Assuming that’s what occurred. The noises from Warren indicated she didn’t really want the job per se, one of the reasons being it would be a more than full time gig and she enjoys being a grandmother too much.

  148. 148
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Dissent is one thing; 19 posts in a single thread is attempting to shout everyone else down

    Flattered that you counted my comments. Awesome. I love you too.

    Now, do all the threads in which I don’t post any comments count against your overall, running total, or somehow not?

    I post comments or reply to others. They reply to me, and me back to them. Why is the number of these comments relevant to how many comments YOU make? Why is it important to you that people who disagree with you be told to STFU?

    Not that it matters, because you’re not interested in reality, but for the record I have never once in my rather longish life voted for a republican. Can’t imagine that I ever will.

    When did Cole announce that BJ was a democratic establishment-only blog, focusing only on the re election and worship and promotion of B. Obama? I missed that announcement.

  149. 149
    Linnaeus says:

    Assuming that’s what occurred. The noises from Warren indicated she didn’t really want the job per se, one of the reasons being it would be a more than full time gig and she enjoys being a grandmother too much.

    Good point. Could be a little of both.

  150. 150
    different church-lady says:

    Furthermore, the kind of jerks who post comments that need to be deleted will infallibly cry “censorship!” when it happens, no matter what O’Reilly and Wales say. Commenters who are smacked down for behaving like jerks are incapable of understanding (or refuse to admit) that it happened because they were rude, not because the rest of us can’t cope with their dazzlingly original opinions.

  151. 151
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Commenters who are smacked down for behaving like jerks are incapable of understanding (or refuse to admit) that it happened because they were rude,

    please…You find my posts “rude” because I disagree with you. There is nothing more or less untoward about the way I express my views than do you Obots, and I am rarely the first to start with the obscene name-calling, which normally starts from your side, as it does in this thread. Your side almost always gets personal first.

    “…the rest of us…” Could you please define? Thanks.

  152. 152
    Yutsano says:

    @Trollenschlongen: No, but you have done a masterful job of making this thread all about you, which is also known as trolling. So congratulations, I guess.

  153. 153
    Marc says:

    @142: Absolutely. They’re brilliant in my view.

  154. 154
    Yutsano says:

    @different church-lady: Holy shit. The actor who played Neville grew into a little hawtie. I didn’t see THAT one coming!

    (PS: How I got there: from the Lodz piece the first link is to how Hermione should rule the Potter universe. There’s a pic of the stars at the premiere on the bottom. Neville is on the far right. WOW!)

  155. 155
    Trollenschlongen says:

    No, but you have done a masterful job of making this thread all about you, which is also known as trolling. So congratulations, I guess.

    No, actually, YOU FOLKS make it about me and whether or not I should be allowed to post, rather than substantively refuting what I have to say.

    Guess you can’t stop yourselves?

  156. 156
    different church-lady says:

    You find my posts…

    Wait… you’re saying you feel the shoe I presented fits your foot?

  157. 157
    NobodySpecial says:

    If the Dem leadership supports her candidacy and doesn’t abandon her for a new Lieberman, this is a plus. More progressives in the Senate are always a plus.

    Yeah, I’d have liked to have seen her run the agency, given how the conventional wisdom was that she was the best person to run the agency (AND there seemed to be, at one point, a weakening of the opposition to her nomination), but that’s gone now, so put her in the Senate where she can do some good.

  158. 158
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Warren doesn’t seem to me to be someone who has the tolerance for unfettered bullshit it takes to run for and serve in Congress.

    She strikes me as much too sensible and focused to tolerate the stupidity inherent to a Senate election campaign.

  159. 159
    The Raven says:

    OzoneR, #123: the full quote is,

    She enrolled in law school at Rutgers and two years later went to work as one of two female summer associates at the oldest continuing law firm on Wall Street. She says, “I still remember one of the partners taking me aside and saying, ‘You know, being a summer associate is all well and good, but take a deep breath. Try to figure out if you think these guys are ever going to make a woman partner.'”

    A summer job while in school with a Wall Street law firm does not make one a “Wall Street Lawyer” with connections to the banking industry.

    I think I get it. This is the pattern:
    BJ commenter: slam at progressive, or person supported by progressive
    Me: I can’t find evidence of that, what’s your source?
    Commenter: out-of-context distorted cite.

    I think you owe the BJ crowd a retraction, and Prof. Warren an apology.

  160. 160
    NobodySpecial says:

    @The Raven: Yeah, well, this is Nick, GOP guy. He never retracts.

  161. 161
    El Cid says:

    Wait — was Warren a “Wall Street Lawyer” (presumably with ties to the banking industry, since maybe there’s at least a couple of traffic court lawyers somewhere near Wall Street) or not?

    And therefore biased or corrupted or ideologically impure (unlike the rest of our economic policy leadership) in favor of such concentrated financial interests?

    And therefore proof that anyone who concludes a potentially positive effect of her leadership in a position like the new agency is stupidly missing this basic analytic truth?

    Because in no way could such an allegation as her being a presumably impure “Wall Street Lawyer” be construed as only being applied to some subset of people who like Warren described as the “primal screamers”.

    Does this connection exist and thus justify eructations about people who think she could offer significantly positive leadership in such areas?

    Or does it not?

    I can’t see any evidence of such outside what would appear to be the most pathetic word games.

    This isn’t a vague question.

    Because if it’s a bunch of horse-shit thrown to smear Warren as a political and policy actor just because it seems the sort of thing which would tease “firebaggers” (using the loose definition which apparently includes anyone not in agreement on some shifting set of opinions and outlooks), then it’s pretty god-damned embarrassing, or should be.

  162. 162
    SBJules says:

    She has been setting up the agency. It will be her vision of the agency. The Republicans have threatened to philibuster her appointment. And according to the L. A. Times, “Obama could overcome the Republican threats by making a so-called recess appoint when the Senate goes on break next month temporarily installing a director until the end of 2012 without a confirmation vote, but that would be a highly controversial move that would rob the new director of a five year term. And Republicans could use procedural tactics to prevent such an appointment by keeping the Senate from technically going into recess.”

  163. 163
    burnspbesq says:

    @Trollenschlongen:

    Just curious: do you have any actual
    beliefs, or is reflexive douchebaggery and weak mockery your entire game?

  164. 164
    Yutsano says:

    @burnspbesq: The worst part of that statement is there may indeed be an answer to it. And I thought Lawyering 101 is never ask a question you don’t know the answer to. Oh wait…

    Did you get my last e-mail?

  165. 165
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Just curious: do you have any actual
    beliefs,

    Hmmm…so because I think Obama is primarily a fraud and liar, it is your conclusion that I hold no beliefs.

    Interesting…in an embecilic sort of way.

    I try to hew close to the worldview of skepticism, in its ORIGINAL meaning. It requires activities you may not be familiar with, such as critical “thinking” and “comparing” and “evaluating.” And concepts such as maintaining independence of thought, and assessing people’s character by the content of their ACTIONS rather than their words.

    You seem much too emotionally attached to one TEAM and its BMOC to have any passing familiarity with those terms and concepts, much like Teabaggers and Right Wingers, but if you are ever interested, you might look them up.

  166. 166
    Bruce S says:

    Maybe I’m a complete idiot, but I thought this question was over and that she was just setting the thing up and didn’t want to go through the bloodletting. If she’s up for a Senate race, she can destroy Little Boy Brown and it’s, frankly, a bigger win to have Elizabeth Warren occupying the Kennedy Chair – in more ways than just being Senator from MA – than to have her heading up an agency that she’s already helped create.

  167. 167
    Bruce S says:

    Incidentally, if the point of a post is that there’s a “netroots primal scream” it might be nice – because I’m not as smart as everyone else and need lots of help in the evidence department – to link to an actual “netroots primal scream” rather than a Bloomberg article.

    Just saying…

  168. 168
    Bruce S says:

    Raven: “I think you owe the BJ crowd a retraction, and Prof. Warren an apology.”

    Will never happen. There’s a faction here that’s as full of shit as the posters on Free Republic – just as cult-like and just as intent on raging against their manufactured enemies list.

  169. 169
    dogwood says:

    Bruce:

    If she’s up for a Senate race, she can destroy Little Boy Brown and it’s, frankly, a bigger win to have Elizabeth Warren occupying the Kennedy Chair –

    Got nothing against Warren, but from her public appearances she strikes me as someone who would be pretty awful on the campaign trail. Right now Brown has high favorables in Mass. I’m pretty sure he’d beat her easily.

  170. 170
    MikeMc says:

    @Trollenschlongen

    Why are you here?

  171. 171
    different church-lady says:

    @169: As a resident of the commonwealth, I can second that some of that. The concept that Brown is a pushover waiting to happen is a dangerous one. I wouldn’t doubt that Warren would give him a much better battle than Coakley did, maybe even could win, but it’s really unrealistic to think it would be a slam dunk.

    Too many people on the interwebs lately going to battle with the reality they wish they had instead of the reality they have.

    EDIT: I don’t know enough about Warren’s demeanor to tell if she’d be a good candidate. I’m limiting my comments to the idea that she’d trounce Brown because he’s weak.

  172. 172
    Bruce S says:

    There are no “slam dunks” in real politics of most states – including MA unless you’re a Kennedy – but Warren is a formidable potential candidate in a relatively “blue” state. Brown is, FWIW, no longer a Tea Party hero and will be forced to run as a moderate in MA. My guess is that, among other things, he’ll be primaried by the crazies before his general candidacy even gets off the ground. The “enthusiasm gap” will favor Warren. She’s also smart as a whip and has a great TeeVee presence, whatever anyone here claims.

  173. 173
    different church-lady says:

    My guess is that, among other things, he’ll be primaried by the crazies before his general candidacy even gets off the ground.

    The buzz about Brown is created by the crazies on the internet, but his votes come from the populist readers of the Herald and listeners of WEEI. I get no sense they are dissatisfied with him. No way in hell the crazies take him out in a primary. For Warren to beat him the Mass. Dems would need massive mobilization.

    Coakley only lost by 5 points (a closeable gap), but that’s offset by the fact that he’s now an incumbent.

  174. 174
    Amir_Khalid says:

    If Elizabeth Warren were the only person in America qualified to head the CFPB, America would be in a very bad way. A trusted deputy with his own strong record of advocating for the consumer seems amply qualified for the job as well. Only if Obama nominated someone else whom Warren declined to endorse would I see a reason for anyone to worry.

    @Trollenschlongen:
    The sneering and condescension in your tone (e.g. quote marks around “thinking” and “comparing” and “evaluating”, as though they were concepts alien to everyone here but you) suggest that you yourself have a profound misunderstanding of skepticism. It requires neither contempt for positions you disagree with, nor rudeness to those who hold them. It does require a willingness to engage other viewpoints in good faith: to hear them out, and to accept them if they are supported by a convincing argument.

    It seems like every exchange with you turns into a fight. Not over the topic at hand, but over you and the lack of manners you flaunt here. Which violates the unwritten etiquette here and pisses everyone the hell off; but that’s what you mean to happen, isn’t it?

    None of us should be surprised, though. You did put the word “troll” in your current nym, and you do behave like a troll. Who can blame the rest of us if we treat you as one?

    All you really want when you come to Balloon Juice is some attention, right? Because, I guess, no one you encounter face-to-face will give you any. Maybe we should all chip in and buy you a teddy bear, so you won’t be lonely.

  175. 175
    Bruce S says:

    I didn’t suggest that the crazies would take Brown out (“before his general candidacy” was the wording of the comment in question), but I’ll not be surprised if he’s primaried by them. Which isn’t a good thing for his prospects in the general. Also, Coakley was one of the worst and laziest campaigners in my memory.

    Also, FWIW, I asked that #168 be deleted and it was refused for some reason.

  176. 176
    MikeMc says:

    @different church-lady:

    You’re right. Brown is no pushover. Coakley was the AG. She was the pick of the Kennedy clan. In theory, she should’ve walked in on that endorsement, alone. That was problem. I don’t think she thought it would be tough.

  177. 177
    MikeMc says:

    How could she fuck up the Curt Schilling thing? At the very least, she should lose an election!

  178. 178
    Yutsano says:

    @MikeMc: Brown was perceived initially as a lightweight no one took seriously. Then he started campaigning. Suddenly he looked a helluva lot better than the stuck-up snob Coakley was showing herself to be. The end result is a Republican Senator from Massachusetts. There is indeed a lesson here.

  179. 179
    Trollenschlongen says:

    @Amir_Khalid

    Which violates the unwritten etiquette here and pisses everyone the hell off;

    hahaha…what the hell blog do you think you’re on?

    Manners? Rudeness? Read thru this thread and get back to me on who always starts the name calling.

    Manners? Rudeness? Read through a few of Cole’s posts.

    You haven’t the standing to lecture me or anyone else, Amir.

    As for why I come here…it’s mainly, I suppose to challenge my amazement at how unrelentingly even people who claim to be progressive adhere to the warm, fuzzy environs of safe echo chambers, regardless of reality; to see tribalism at work. That, and to watch Cole work you Bots like a puppeteer. You’ll note he is almost never in these threads slobbering over Obama’s boot heel like you. No, he’s content to drop a troll post like this one and watch the hits pile up while he hosts a party.

    So, yeah, I’ll keep coming back, if only to piss you off. Because other than when I’m on BJ, there is no joy in my life. None whatsoever. :D

  180. 180
    different church-lady says:

    @ Bruce 175: Thanks for the clarification. I don’t doubt someone will primary him. But his war chest is so big I think he’ll just swat them away.

    @ Mike 176: The problem came from both Coakley being a weak, lazy, and somewhat un-personable candidate, and from people misunderstanding and underestimating Brown’s appeal to the kinds of voters who vote more on personality than politics.

    I’ll also tell you there’s a whole lot of people in this state who voted for Brown simply because he wasn’t the one hand picked by the Kennedy clan. There was a heavy “fuck you, democratic establishment” factor in the mood of that election. And I don’t think it’s entirely gone.

    If Brown had held the Tea Party line the way the caricature said he would, he’d be toast right now. The crazies hate him because he turned out not to be the cartoon they were told he was. But he didn’t win on the crazies. He won on the lunch pail crowd. I’m not sure that dynamic has completely dissipated.

  181. 181
    Amir_Khalid says:

    @Trollenschlongen:
    You have succeeded only in illustrating my point. Let’s move on, shall we, to a potentially more fruitful topic: What kind of teddy bear would you like?

  182. 182
    OzoneR says:

    A summer job while in school with a Wall Street law firm does not make one a “Wall Street Lawyer” with connections to the banking industry.

    Oh really, so what does?

  183. 183
    OzoneR says:

    Will never happen. There’s a faction here that’s as full of shit as the posters on Free Republic – just as cult-like and just as intent on raging against their manufactured enemies list.

    I’m not sorry Elizabeth Warren spent a summer working as a lawyer for Wall Street, but clearly because she’s reached Sainthood, she can get away with that.

    It was only a summer, I guess. Right?

    You people are pathetic.

  184. 184
    Trollenschlongen says:

    What kind of teddy bear would you like?

    Panda. Anatomically correct, please.

    Oh…but because I am a “racist,” as I stand accused upthread, better make that an albino Panda.

  185. 185
    Amir_Khalid says:

    @Trollenschlongen:
    And since the anatomically correct Panda bear would be for the purpose of assuaging your loneliness, would you like a female Panda bear then? Or am I making an unwarranted assumption?

  186. 186
    Corner Stone says:

    @OzoneR:

    I’m not sorry Elizabeth Warren spent a summer working as a lawyer for Wall Street, but clearly because she’s reached Sainthood, she can get away with that.
    __
    It was only a summer, I guess. Right?
    __
    You people are pathetic.

    Ummm…a summer clerk is a 6 week slot interviewing for a firm while you’re still in law school. You haven’t passed the bar yet, and are not licensed to practice.
    It’s essentially an interview to see if you want to work there and if the firm wants to hire you.
    It’s broken into first half and second half. They spend 6 weeks somewhere and 6 weeks elsewhere. Usually. Then go back to law school in the fall.
    You’re a dishonest moron. Why would you try and smear Warren with this completely transparent falsehood?

  187. 187
    Trollenschlongen says:

    You are, indeed making an unwarranted assumption and I am deeply offended.

    A penis, or a “shlong,” is required.

    So, to sum up: An albino, male Panda Bear, whom I shall name Bearack Opanda.

  188. 188
    Trollenschlongen says:

    You are, indeed making an unwarranted assumption and I am deeply offended.

    A “schlong,” is required.

    So, to sum up: An albino, male Panda Bear, whom I shall name Bearack Opanda.

  189. 189
    Marc says:

    The point about Warren is simple, and the Obama haters are missing it. You are seeing your sloppy standards of evidence used as a cautionary example.

  190. 190
    Amir_Khalid says:

    @Trollenschlongen:
    But such an appendage, as part of a soft toy, doesn’t sound like it would be effective for what you seem to have in mind.

  191. 191
    Trollenschlongen says:

    @ Amir:

    lolz

  192. 192
    OzoneR says:

    It’s essentially an interview to see if you want to work there and if the firm wants to hire you.

    Why would she interview at a Wall Street firm is she is so anti-Wall Street?

    Why would you try and smear Warren with this completely transparent falsehood?

    Who is smearing Warren? I don’t have an issue with her working as a Wall Street lawyer. I don’t think it makes her any less of an advocate for consumers. I find it telling that the rest of you do.

  193. 193
    different church-lady says:

    So, to sum up: An albino, male Panda Bear, whom I shall name Bearack Opanda.

    Oh, EFF, man, you’ve been waiting HOURS to spring that one, haven’t you? Hats off.

  194. 194
    burnspbesq says:

    @ Trollenschlongen:

    Thank you for your honest and revealing answer.

    As I suspected, you have nothing.

    I’ll be sure to give your future utterances all the attention they deserve.

  195. 195
    Corner Stone says:

    @OzoneR:

    Who is smearing Warren?

    You tried to. You specifically said she was a “Wall Street lawyer” and used it as an epithet, and a way to demean her.
    Then you were asked for sourcing and you pulled a clerkship out. Now that people who may not know what that means have been informed that it’s 6 weeks or so while in law school in her early twenties, you’re crawfishing like all kinds of hell.
    To sum up, she was not a “wall street lawyer”, so you can go fuck your lying self.

  196. 196
    Trollenschlongen says:

    As I suspected, you have nothing.I’ll be sure to give your future utterances all the attention they deserve.

    Get over your bad self, Burnie.

  197. 197
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    .
    .
    Fortunately, President Obama has turned another Republican victory into a fiercely historic, or fistoric, non-appointment that is sure to help his re-election – which, of course, outweighs all other considerations.
    .
    .

  198. 198
    Corner Stone says:

    I think this BJ thread sums it pretty much up:
    Skeert of the mean lady

  199. 199
    TC says:

    With the RMBS market about to come down, there are far bigger concerns than those many fantasies wrapped up in last year’s legislative folly billed as “the most comprehensive financial reform since the Great Depression.”

  200. 200
    Pseudonym says:

    @Troll: So sorry that Obama turned out not to be your new bicycle. Who would you prefer? What do you think is the best course of action for progressive voters and activists who want to accomplish policy goals, given that there’s not going to be a more progressive candidate running in 2012 who has any chance of winning?

  201. 201
    lol says:

    Corner Stone:

    The point is that if Warren’s resume belonged to anyone else, you wouldn’t be jumping into defend it as being just “a summer internship”.

    But because you’ve built a cult of personality around Warren and decided she’s perfect and the one and only person who can possibly run the CFPB, you pretty much have to.

    Similarly, no one describes Alan Grayson as a “former clerk for Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork” or a “former Telecom Executive”. Or John Edwards, “hedge fund executive”.

    The rules are different for people declared to be True Scotsmen by the Netroots.

  202. 202
    Trollenschlongen says:

    @nym:

    This is so cute:

    What do you think is the best course of action for progressive voters and activists who want to accomplish policy goals…

    you really think you have a meaningful voice in how the U.S. is run, don’t you? hahahahahahaha…

  203. 203
    lol says:

    Also, the other point is that Raj Date was the Netroots new bicycle when he was hired by Elizabeth Warren but strangely seems to have transformed into some monster now that he seems poised to become director.

    Weird. It’s almost as if the Netroots are driven by personality rather than policy or results.

  204. 204
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Weird. It’s almost as if the OBOTS are driven by personality rather than policy or results.

    Fixed that for you.

  205. 205
    Woodrow L. Goode, IV says:

    People wondering why the Teabaggers didn’t snap up the 83% cut / 17% taxes deal– or why they’re still fighting a rearguard action over DADT– need look no further than this.

    The lesson Barack Obama has taught his enemies is “If you go to the wall and refuse to give an inch, I’ll fold.”

    There’s no shame in having a nominee rejected– I can’t remember a single president who hasn’t had a major nominee rejected (or pulled back during after announcement). They use it as a branding tool/fundraiser to show how awful their opponents are.

    But that isn’t something the current occupant of the White House would even consider. So he pulls the nominee back, opponents confirm that they can get him to bite the pillow if they go all-out and the next battle becomes that much harder.

    Every time Obama folds, his next “I’m holding firm on this topic” statement becomes less believable. It’s very similar to how the Clinton Administration handled scandals.

    1. They’d start with a categorical denial and then qualify it a little.
    2. People would dig at that, find some inconsistencies and they’d qualify it more.
    3. Then they’d restate it, with much softer language.

    After two more revisions and maybe a mea culpa, there’d be nothing left of the original claim. It taught the press never to trust the first statement– to keep pressing because they’d eventually have to walk it back.

    Yeah, the Senate is a problematic place, but the more substantive issue is that Obama is a marshmallow. Republicans never give up and that’s why they get so much through.

  206. 206
    Corner Stone says:

    @lol: Firstly, you’re a moron and a bald faced liar.
    Further, I’ve never said anything halo-esque about EW or the stupidly named “Consumers something or other bureau”.
    If there were awards for the 3 most dishonest people commenting on BJ I would nominate you, Nick (in all his guises) and Mnemosyne.
    You consistently lie about easily provable counterfactuals. Like this post.

    And anyone who cares to click on the link for the “Skeert of the mean lady” thread I linked to earlier can see how brutal of a liar you are.

  207. 207
    Corner Stone says:

    Only completely ignorant individuals can continue to castigate someone for a summer clerkship while they were in law school.

  208. 208
    Corner Stone says:

    @lol: Hey. Come on you cocksucker. I’m likely to be up all night so let’s hear some more pathetic bullshit from you, you lying POS.

  209. 209
    Steeplejack says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Right on, you magnificent bastard.

    I remember when you first came to Balloon Juice as a sort of unfocused rabble-rouser, and now you are fighting the good fight. I &#9829 CS.

    ETA: Steep +13, plus I wanted to figure out how to get that heart glyph in there.

  210. 210
    Corner Stone says:

    @Steeplejack: Jet lag got me shortly after that. But I appreciate your glyph support.

Comments are closed.