Shamelessly stolen from Jim Newell’s Gawker article, “Will Tough, Awesome Elizabeth Warren Head the New Consumer Protection Agency?”:
… Warren’s voice became more prominent over the last decade for her work studying credit card company abuses and other, suddenly very common financial sector exploitations of the debt-saddled middle class. Her fame and popularity “exploded” (Washington-wise!) after she was appointed to chair the TARP oversight board in 2008, where she’s tried her damnedest and spoken quite candidly in public about Treasury’s shitty disclosure record.
__
Treasury secretary Tim Geithner naturally thinks she is very annoying. He probably doesn’t want her running the new rule-writing financial regulatory authority, because she would very much try to write rules, and “rules” destroy the global financial system.
__
Geithner’s official position is that “believes that Elizabeth Warren is exceptionally well qualified to lead the new bureau,” which seems to fit in with the possible game plan Sen. Chris Dodd hinted at this morning: that she’s great but, you know… Republicans! It would all be the Republicans fault, see?
__
“I think Elizabeth would be a terrific nominee,” Dodd told NPR’s Diane Rehm on Monday. “The question is, ‘Is she confirmable?’ And there’s a serious question about it… “
While we’re all still feeling warm and virtuous about our resistance to the dog-whistle racism of the Tea Partiers, let’s shine a light on the dog-whistle sexism that still percolates through the mucky base of our Acceptable Political Spectrum. Elizabeth Warren, the NYTimes notes, was the “chief conceiver of — and booster for — a new consumer financial protection agency, and has become the most prominent consumer advocate in Washington in many years… As one administration official acknowledged, the prospect of her running the new agency may be an impediment to its creation because of her crusading style, her seemingly visceral loathing of financial services companies and her expansive way of interpreting assignments.”
She may be the best choice to run an effective consumer financial protection agency, but as the Very Serious People (anonymously) ask their Media Village Courtiers: Can “we” afford an effective CFPA? What if she’s mean to the important suit-wearing almost-exclusively-male Masters of the Universe? What if she abuses her vast powers of oversight? What if she turns out to be… The Bad Mommy?
Elizabeth Warren is the mirror image of Sarah Palin: A tough-yet-still-feminine granny from Heartland America(tm) who rose to her current prominence by working hard and using her considerable intellectual abilities, not by winking at the right Right political consultants and transferring beauty-pageant skills to broader media platforms. The barely-coded arguments against her appointment are a measure of how little the nominal Progressive-Left-Center has moved beyond the rightwingers regarding some of the oldest cruelest prejudices of our tribal past.
matoko_chan
i think you mean photo-negative.
:)
General Stuck
I agree the money people and their friends in congress are skeert of Warren because she may be good at actually being serious about curbing business abusing consumers. But I also suspect, if she was a man, they would feel the same way. When it comes to money for the high roller pols and pals, and losing too much of the bottom line, sexism likely comes in second. Not that there isn’t likely some of that as well.
Corner Stone
Why do you hippies fixate on her? As if she’s the only person who could do this job?
Is she really the hill you want to die on?
demimondian
The only problem with the Gawker story is that the claim about Geithner was unsourced, and, apparently, um…not true. That particular zombie lies is a great example of circle jerknalism (the k is silent, of course), but it’s not got anything to do with reality.
Mnemosyne
Who was it that said during the primary that men hated Hillary Clinton because she reminded them of their haranguing first wife?
I’m expecting those guys to come out of the woodwork again if Warren gets nominated.
taylormattd
Don’t believe the absolute garbage posted in that ridiculous HuffPo article that was immediately pimped by the firebaggers. It literally was based on a single (1) anonymous source “with knowledge of Geithner’s views.”
No, really. That’s it.
In response, assistant Treasury Secretary Barr said the report was bullshit to dday:
Nick
Well, if they don’t appoint Elizabeth Warren, then it’s the last straw. I know because Huffington Post said it and you can trust them because they heard from a friend of a friend who assumes Geithner might be opposed to Warren because he knows how Geithner thinks, but never really bothered to ask him for sure.
Nevermind what his deputy said, you can’t trust anyone at Treasury, but a friend who thinks he knows what Geithner might be thinking, that’s a very trustworthy source!
Mnemosyne
@General Stuck:
It’s more that they wouldn’t have an easy handle to hang the criticism on a man like they will with Warren (“shrill” “uptight” “finger-wagging” “schoolmarmish”).
Of course, according to the Republicans and much of the media, the solution to that is to nominate conservative white men to every open position because everyone knows they’re totally unbiased. At least that’s what they told me when Sonia Sotomayor was nominated.
Mnemosyne
@demimondian:
Shh! How are people supposed to get pre-emptively upset with Obama over Warren’s nomination if you go insisting on silly things like “facts” and “evidence”?
arguingwithsignposts
In every interview I’ve heard with Elizabeth Warren, she has come off as competent, intelligent, and she takes no bullshit. I, for one, hope she kicks Geitner’s ass.
Nick
@arguingwithsignposts:
How can she when she’s a corporatist sellout?
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=warren_vs_geithner_cont
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
Release the Warren!
General Stuck
@Mnemosyne: Of course she is going to grate hard with the wingnuts. Likely for the reasons you state, in addition to posing a serious threat to their plutocrat masters. A double whammy, but I don’t think dems fall much into that category, though a few will, no doubt. Dodd is likely right that wingers will block her appointment, so it depends on how much pol capital Obama wants to spend by recess appointing her, or not.
The quotes in the garbage gossip rag Gawker seem false however.
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
Imagine that, an agency leader with “vision.”
Mnemosyne
I do find it fascinating that it’s pretty much open knowledge that Ben Nelson is hoping to tank Warren’s nomination and yet the only thing that (ahem) certain blogs are ranting about is some maybe possible opposition from Geithner that Geithner denies.
Firebaggers, you know when we mock you for concentrating all of your fire on Obama when there are other, more blameworthy people right in front of you who are openly doing the thing that you claim Obama is sneakily doing behind the scenes? Shit like this is why you get mocked. Because apparently it’s not possible that Ben Nelson is an asshole who opposes Warren’s appointment. Nope, it must be that Obama is the one who really opposes it and Nelson is just his stalking horse.
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts:
I’m just tired of liberals like Stuck and Nick whingeing all the time about how this one issue or this one person is the last straw and the most bestest for the situation.
It’s way past time liberals like them get a big full sniff of reality and realize there are several pragmatic choices we could live with.
jeffreyw
Damning with high praise: “Exceptionally well qualified” means damn little. I can hear the unspoken “but…” I’m waiting for: “She is the one we want heading the new agency”.
cleek
@Corner Stone:
this
arguingwithsignposts
@Mnemosyne:
Ben Nelson is rapidly replacing Joe Lieberman as my nominee for biggest asshole in the Senate.
I know, it’s a tight race all the time.
YellowJournalism
Because she will actually do the job, she shouldn’t get the job.
Okay.
Corner Stone
@Mnemosyne:
This. A thousand times this. A googleplex this.
We should tattoo this reverse style on the foreheads of all the worthless firebaggers here.
El Cid
The political and punditarian establishment is still horribly sexist, but I think that professional and intellectual capability by a woman is admired when it’s wielded by a doctrinaire, hard core right winger. American right wingers still speak wistfully of the “Iron Lady” Thatcher. And don’t forget Ayn Rand. Or do, maybe.
arguingwithsignposts
@El Cid:
Okay, so I’ll give you Thatcher. Rand, not so much. Who else you got?
Seriously, Warren kicks ass. I’m amazed the consumer protection agency got this far. And much of it is due to her pushing. (also, she was on The Daily Show and the Colbert Report)
Zifnab
I see that as some epic corporate whoring. But I’m not clearly how you conclude it’s sexist. Are you suggesting that if Elizabeth Warren had been a male anti-bank scam consumer advocate, she wouldn’t be getting slammed for being too Irish or too big city elitist or too Ivy League educated or too friendly with unserious blogging minorities and liberals?
I’m not seeing it. She’s being attacked for her pro-consumer mentality, and the Senate and the Treasury Department isn’t even trying to make it otherwise.
Nick
@Mnemosyne: No, Obama is supposed to use the “bully pulpit” and go to Nebraska (where he as a 42% approval rating) and bash Ben Nelson until he relents, because, you know, it’s not like picking a fight with a President with a 42% approval rating in your state is a popular thing to do.
General Stuck
@Corner Stone:
LOL, bottle worm got you tonight big brain. I don’t need to sniff reality. I Yam reality.
Comrade Luke
Well if she’s not confirmable we’d better find someone else!
How about Lloyd Blankfein?
Martin
I think you’re trying to hard Anne Laurie. I think they’re afraid of her because she’s competent and she’s not only going to go after the guys that fill campaign coffers but the govt. regulators and members of congress that enable them. And there are a lot of Democrats that are threatened by losing their money nozzle.
Jamie
Am I missing something here? Who, other than Annie, has called Warren a “Bad Mommy?”
I mean, I’m all for calling people on their sexist bs. But this post appears to be a lot of conjecture without much meat. In fact, the closest thing I could find to a sexist comment in the entry was Annie’s comment about Palin.
And before everyone jumps on me, I’m no fan of Palin or the right. I’m just saying that maybe this post is a little too much noise and not enough signal.
Comrade Luke
@Corner Stone:
I have yet to find a hill that any “liberal” on this blog wants to die on. No matter how bad it gets, we’re told it’s not the hill we want to die on.
We’re running out of hills.
Zifnab
@Corner Stone:
This isn’t about Elizabeth Warren. This is about the policies that Elizabeth Warren will implement. If you go with “not-Elizabeth-Warren” to head the department you will get either
A) A corporate bank friendly tool not interested in more than superficial regulation
B) Someone the bank friendly Dems and Geitner will protest just as fiercely for some other bullshit reasons.
If we get (A), we’re fucked. If we get (B), we’ll hear you singing the same song next month, “Is Warren-Alternative really the hill you want to die on?”
Here’s a fucking thought. Let’s make Elizabeth Warren the hill we DON’T die on, by offering her our genuine support and weighing heavily on any Senators that drag their feet.
This department is her baby. You will not find a candidate more able or qualified that she. Why on earth would you NOT support her, except to roll over for the bank-friendly Dems and their corporate masters?
General Stuck
@Zifnab:
this makes perfect sense to my pragmatic brain.
Mnemosyne
@Martin:
@Jamie:
I could be wrong, but I think Anne Laurie is predicting how the attacks are going to go, not saying that this is the current line. They can’t really use the Elena Kagan “is-she-or-isn’t-she-gay” line of attack on Warren, so they’re going to go back to the Hillary-style “ballbuster” attacks.
arguingwithsignposts
@Zifnab:
I’m just in it for the co-sign.
arguingwithsignposts
BTW, along with “optics,” can we please kill with fire the phrase “hill to die on” wrt politics? At least on Balloon Juice?
I don’t know that there are many “hills to die on” for the commentariat here. Maybe I’m reading things wrong, but there is a strong pragmatic streak here, and this isn’t the “hill to die on” blog. If you want that, there are plenty of places to go – FDL, Greenwald, GOS, etc.
Mnemosyne
@Zifnab:
Oh, please, like Corner Stone cares about anything but running around screaming OBAMA FAIL! and snarking so poorly that you actually thought he was saying we shouldn’t support Warren.
Corner Stone
@Zifnab:
All the same, there are others we could accept. We don’t even know the parameters of the job or agency yet!
I just find it very un-pragmatic to be making a stink about who must head this department up at this point. Let’s give it a few months and see how the regulators interpret what’s been passed. Then we may be able to find a suitable alternative that won’t get filibustered in the Senate. I prefer to not make the perfect the enemy of the good, and I believe that’s a sensible policy.
Nick
@Zifnab: And when the Senators refused to relent because us, nor the President, have any influence over them since they want nothing more than to position themselves as the enemy of liberals, what happens then?
Oh, right, we accuse Obama of a.) not fighting hard enough, b.) giving in to the demands of his coroporate masters or c.) never intending on getting
JohnsenWarren confirmed and orchestrating the whole plot just to try to convince us he’s on our side while secretly telling Senators to vote no so he looks good.shortstop
Have I missed someone actually making direct or indirect sexist remarks about Warren, or are we just pre-complaining? So far all I’ve seen is people concerned about someone who actually wants reform and oversight, which is not exactly a gender-based issue. I’m not sure how we get from that to Bad Mommy and worrying about terms like “shrill” and “schoolmarmish” being tossed about.
If there’s some girl trash being talked and I’ve missed it, y’all please let me know.
Michael
@Nick:
My personal favorite is the firebagger brilliance of picking off blue dogs from red states, ‘coz it is so much better to have a Rethug voting against you 100% of the time than to have a blue dog voting with you 70% of the time.
Its more pure, you know.
D-Chance.
Hon, Dodd ain’t against her because she’s a “skirt”; he’s against her because HE’s in bed with the credit card industry that she’d corral and re-regulate.
Nick
@Mnemosyne: It’s scary that Corner Stone is making complete sense and thinks he’s joking. Shows just how irrational and divorced from reality he is.
Keith G
Where is the evidence that Obama (or others in the West Wing) want to nominate her?
I hope he does, but I feel he won’t.
jonas
Shorter Chris Dodd: Sure, Warren would be a great candidate, but since my balls, and the balls of a number of my colleagues, are currently missing and being used as mantelpiece decorations in the drinks parlour of a swank Manhattan club for hedge fund managers, I can’t guarantee that we’d actually fight for her nomination.
shortstop
I mean this in a totally friendly fashion, but WHERETHEFUCKYABEEN?!
Mark S.
I’m to the point where I’m surprised when a nominee isn’t somebody who used to work for Goldman Sachs.
Is someone spoofing Corner Stone?
frosty
@Comrade Luke: I’ve been following orders and keeping my powder dry in case this particular hill is the hill we defend to the death. Lotsa dry powder … oh, wait, we should retreat to that hill back there? OK, then, let’s march. And my powder’s still dry.
Nick
@Michael:
But the people of Nebraska really want a true progressive representating them, just ask Senator Scott Kleeb and Congressman Jim Esch.
General Stuck
I would die on this hill, but am busy today. Ask me next week
monkeyboy
I think there are two basic styles of politics which I will call “matrilineal” and “patrilineal” which go back to early humans.
In a matrilineal society people live in family groups descended from female ancestors and male adolescents are kicked out to go find somewhere else to live. In a patrilineal society the groups descend from male ancestors and and female adolescents are traded or stolen from other groups.
Matrilineal societies are focused on taking care of their members, particularly the weaker ones, while patrilineal groups have a kin genetic advantage in warring with other groups.
Many societies combine both styles, sometimes in different ways for different classes. For example the US tends toward patrilineal though one finds that the poorer people often live matrilneally in groups consisting of aunts and grandmothers.
Politically Democrats/liberals/progressives tend to have a matrilineal bent while Republicans/conservatives/Fundamentalists are very patrilineal.
Various cultures have had more institutionalized matrilineality, such a moieties, but as far as I can tell their ruling class (kings, chiefs, nobility) has always been patrilineal.
cat48
Fernholz/Prospect has a post saying that Warren was defending Geithner this weekend which makes HuffPo Diaries over there look pretty stupid.
Corner Stone
@Nick: You fucking hippies. You’re never satisfied with anything. You think somehow Warren is going get past a Senate filibuster? Hell no she can’t!
It just makes sense we should find another candidate that’s more acceptable and can get the votes needed.
But that’s too much for your peabrained liberal self to understand.
I’m in the mood to punch hippies. There, I said it.
Nick
@cat48:
Don’t you know that she is being forced to praise Geithner by the mean old bank-loving administration so she could be considered for a job they’ll never appoint her to?
Seriously, there are people who said this.
Mnemosyne
@shortstop:
I think we’re pre-complaining. At least, I am.
Corner Stone
@Mark S.: Obviously you’re nothing more than a damn dirty hippie as well.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
Which is why we have recess appointments. I’m in the mood to punch hippie-punchers. ;)
Nick
@Corner Stone:
me too
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Corner Stone: And who do you suggest? It’s only fair to ask that because I remember the kvetching over whether Bernanke should get another term as Fed Chief. When those of us that said “B-52” Ben had to go, we were always asked who should replace him. And there was someone qualified for that job who’d kick ass. Stiglitz. Would you rather the job go to some Goldman Sachs flunkie? And yes, that’s a hill to die on, or else what’s the sense of it all. Who else is going to be the advocate she will?
arguingwithsignposts
Also, while I praised Warren above, I should mention that she’s more than willing to toe the line about administration policy. In an earlier interview, (no link, sorry) she played the administration line perfectly, even though it wasn’t what she would have wanted.
Mark S.
@Corner Stone:
What happened to you, man? You used to be cool.
Fucking sellout.
Nick
@Mark S.:
I’m to the point where I’m surprised Huffington Post didn’t just make up a story about them interviewing a Goldman Sachs employee just to
get some ad click revenuemotivate liberalsarguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
BTW, just for the record, who else would you suggest besides Warren?
I don’t know of any obvious names that have been out there defending and promoting this organization from the beginning who’d make sense.
cat48
@Nick:
I have no doubt people think she was forced which makes me want to ask, Is she THAT easy to manipulate? You know, we consumers need someone to stand firm for us! You know?
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@cat48: No it doesn’t. Do you really think that she’s gonna call Geithner names in public that we reserve for Mickey Kaus? She has class. She’ll never disparage Little Timmy in public no matter what they may say about her behind closed doors.
Allison W.
@Keith G:
Where is the evidence that he doesn’t?
Corner Stone
@Comrade Luke:
Well, this certainly isn’t the hill you want to die on either.
There’s a hill about 5 clicks down the administration’s timeline.
Don’t be a dirty hippie like Stuck and Nick, and somehow confuse the perfect with the enemy of the good. Live to organize and fight another day! Ok, maybe not that day either, but certainly a day in the near to medium or maybe long term future we’ll fight for something.
Promise.
Keith G
@Mark S.: DTs
Nick
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle: You know, in the video where Warren praises Geithner that every dumb ass liberal either ignores or dismisses, she points out one very important reason the Consumer Protection Agency survived is that no one made a big issue of it, instead they fought over derivatives and over regulatory authority.
Because, let’s face it, if the liberals want it, it’s just not happening. So if you want Warren, the best chance is not to make her your line in the sand, because then you’ve already lost.
I’m sure there’s someone out there who we can avoid turning into a weapon for conservatives and liberal-hating moderates to drive a wedge between the party and progressives.
Allison W.
@arguingwithsignposts:
So you are saying she doesn’t have a mind of her own because she agreed with or praised the administration?
General Stuck
@Corner Stone: Oh, I get it. This is opposite day. Cool. Obama needs to ram her through like his package on HCR. He needs to take his bully pulpit and skull fuck Mitch Mcconnell and the senate wingnuts with it till they perform Porgy and Bess in A cappella. No mo filibuster then.
Then of course, when all is said and done. It will be time to shower with Rahm.
Allison W.
@Nick:
EXACTLY!!!
Nick
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
You know what Calvin…if she isn’t willing to say what she really feels when placed in a public forum like that, then she doesn’t deserve the job because she clearly can’t be trusted.
Or maybe you’re wrong about Timmy and she really does see him positively. Would this make her a fallen idol in your eyes?
arguingwithsignposts
@Allison W.:
Not at all, but just noting the fact that she fought hard for what she believed in, but when it was obvious that wasn’t going to pass, she fell in line with what she thought *would* pass. Unlike the firebag brigade.
I’m a Warrenbot, fwiw.
Allison W.
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
You talk as if YOU are behind closed doors with Warren and Geithner.
Spill, baby, spill. What do you know?
Nick
@arguingwithsignposts:
then she’s a liar and a phony and she shouldn’t have the job.
arguingwithsignposts
@General Stuck:
This I’d pay money for.
Corner Stone
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
I think Ken Lewis would be a fair nominee. Who knows more about the subject, or more about customer service issues?
And more importantly, I feel we could get him approved with no fight whatsoever, which is the main thing this agency should be cognizant of from its very beginning.
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
Your Hamsher impression is impeccable.
cat48
Everyone does know that O released info saying she & 2 men were being considered, right? It was in the Times/Reuters, etc. One is named Barr & works at Treas & the other has worked for Consumer Protection in the past & his name escapes me. I think he works for admin also,too.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
How can you leave out Lloyd Blankfein or Jamie Dimon? Lewis is a lightweight compared to those masters of the universe.
shortstop
@Mnemosyne: Well, okay, and I don’t mean to pile on Anne Laurie, but I just read her post again, and I’m not finding much solid food in this (nor does it sound like pre-complaining to me):
and
What barely-coded arguments? AL, can you be more specific?
Corner Stone
@Mark S.: “Hey Corner Stone still cool! You pay later, LATER!”
Nick
@arguingwithsignposts: Hamsher would never say such things about Elizabeth Warren. If Warren came out and kissed Geithner and called him a hero of reform, married him and had babies with him and named them Goldman, Bear, Stearns, Morgan and Stanley, she’d say she was under a spell.
Anything to not be wrong.
Keith G
@Allison W.: From a practical point of view, evidence to include (a handful of people) is more noteworthy than evidence to exclude (thousands of people).
That’s probably not satisfying, but you asked.
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
Hamsher signed a letter with Grover Fucking Norquist, so I wouldn’t put *anything* past her at this point.
goatchowder
I don’t see sexism, I see anti-government-ism.
If you replaced the quotes you list as proof of sexism, and put in a male nominee’s name instead, it would fit just as well.
These masters of the universe don’t hate her because she’s female. They hate her because she’s competent and she’s in the government. The masters of the universe want only incompetent, boot-licking lackeys of the Bush variety– regardless of their gender or whatever– in any kind of government job.
In any case, the dog-whistle language I’m seeing is about calling anyone comptent in government some kind of radical soshalist. The right-wing media machine does that to everyone.
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts: They’re still employed. Ken Lewis doesn’t have a way to mosquito fucking bloodsuck money out of us.
Unless his run for Senate is successful.
Ken Lewis for Senate
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
Oh, you’re sneaky.
DFH no.6
I’m following along, even reading the links and everything, then I get to your conclusion:
Upon which I make the puzzed-Scooby-Doo “Huuhh??!!” noise, think, “No, wait… what?” and then re-read it all.
Nope, still don’t get how some thinly-sourced “Tim hates Elizabeth” bullshit (as it seems to me) leads — even if it was true — to a broad-brush “The Left is just about as misogynist as The Right”.
Because, no, not at all. Sure, misogyny (and racism, and other old, cruel prejudices) exists on The Left — The Left being human and all — but there are orders of magnitude in difference compared to such tribal failings on The Right.
On The Left, bigotry in its various forms is an embarrassment, a shame, and something to strive against, even if imperfectly done in actual practice.
On The Right, they are vital sources of power.
Not the same.
cat48
OK, here’s the ones being considered:
MikeF
So Geithner and Warren have both pushed for the creation of the CFPA, they both publicly praise each other – but one anonymous source with “knowledge of Geithner’s views” tells the HuffPo that Tim doesn’t really like Liz after all, and it becomes 100% true conventional wisdom that the biggest whipping boy in the administration is entirely to blame if Warren doesn’t get the nod? Color me just the tiniest bit skeptical.
Corner Stone
@General Stuck:
You liberals are always so violent in your imagery and words. It’s very un-pragmatic to think this way.
ram, package, bully, fuck, perform, capella.
You’re never going to get anything through a Congress dedicated to compromise and negotiation thinking that way.
frosty
@Corner Stone: You think anyone Obama nominates for any position is going to get past a filibuster? It is to laugh.
Might as well start by fighting for the best nominee. There’s plenty of time to backpedal later.
— frosty. DFH since the Summer of Love.
El Cid
@arguingwithsignposts: What do you mean “Rand, not so much”? Good lord, her protege Allan Greenspan was the head of the Federal Reserve for like 500 years. “Objectivism” is talked about is though it’s actually a ‘philosophy’, and Atlas’ Bugs is regularly cited from right wing talk radio to Republicans on the floor of Congress.
Allison W.
Is anyone thinking of what Elizabeth Warren wants? from the video where she praises Geithner, it is apparent that she does not wish to engage in a war with the administration that Liberals are gearing up for. Does she want to be the focus of national attention? Right now no one outside of our bubble knows who she is or even cares. Does she want her personal and family life to come under scrutiny? ’cause you know, if Liberals want her so badly then the Right is sure to voice their faux concern and we know how very destructive they can be.
I am not saying that we should avoid good candidates because of what people might say, but no one seems to care about what Elizabeth Warren wants and what this campaign might do to her personally and professionally.
Find some other way to test Obama’s love for the “base” and leaving unwilling participants out of it.
Jamie
@Mnemosyne:
That strikes me as incredibly counter productive. Why not be upset about things that are actually happening rather than hand wringing over imagined sexism? Not only would that allow you to focus your energies on something that would have an impact, but it also will avoid the possibility that others will assume that you’re not a serious person.
I mean, “pre-complaining” is pretty much exactly what we complain about Fox doing. They make something up “New Black Panthers” then they complain about it like it’s a real thing.
We know it’s disingenuous and childish.
So why are we doing it as well?
Allison W.
@MikeF:
did you see that article about what happens when people are confronted with facts?
Corner Stone
@Comrade Luke:
And what I think you, and everyone here, should be aware of is that both Stuck and Nick have recently self-identified as “liberals”.
So, that should make for some interesting ratfucking times going forward.
General Stuck
@Corner Stone: I will die on any liberal hill, whilst you pick your nose on progressive shit piles.
Keith G
Maybe Obama will pick Elizabeth’s distant cousin, Rick Warren.
After all, Rick was willing to help out Obama at another pivotal time. The optics of conciliation and cooperation would be awesome. Might be a new purpose for Rick’s driven life.
cat48
The only real criticism I’ve actually heard about Warren is that she has no management experience and that could be a problem, but they then decided in the article if they gave her experienced deputies who did, then it would work, no problem.
Only negative thing I’ve heard and if I recall correctly, they said the same thing about Obama and Alter thinks he does a goodjob in this area.
arguingwithsignposts
@El Cid:
I mean in the sense that her “philosophy” is shit, has been shit, always will be shit, and the people who “follow” her don’t understand her premises, which if they did, they’d bolt (e.g., christianity).
Also, Rand is more along the lines of a cult, imho. Her “intellectual” prowess isn’t so strong within mainstream GOP. But that’s just my take. The Iron Lady, OTOH, actually, you know, governed.
Also, still waiting for other examples.
SiubhanDuinne
@arguingwithsignposts:
Yes, please. Along with “low-hanging fruit”? And “getting down in the weeds”?
Alternatively, we could make some Balloon Juice Bingo cards with these phrases and others selected from the Lexicon. First prize is a DIAF mug from Café Press.
And O/T as long as I have your attention: how is Lady Smudge? Haven’t seen her for a while.
Allison W.
What I also don’t like about this is that the Liberal blogosphere will be so biased against the other nominees that they will not present a fair analysis of them. It’s just going to be article after article about how they don’t stack up to Elizabeth Warren.
Not a productive fight folks. not. at. all.
just sayin.
steve
I don’t care so much about the firebaggers. I’d just be happy to get rid of the morons who say ‘this.’ when they mean ‘i agree’ or ‘i agree with this.
After that, once we shoot everyone who says ‘optics’ when they mean ‘appearances’, the place’ll be fit to reside.
arguingwithsignposts
@Allison W.:
I’m betting she has granite countertops.
Corner Stone
@frosty:
I’m sorry but that’s just bullshit. The best way to approach this new agency is to determine what nominee we feel is appropriate and can be passed. We find out where the votes are and then move a candidate into that arena.
In the end, it’s about who we can get approved, not who the best option was.
And afterward we have the double benefit of proclaiming that the candidate that was approved was in fact the best possible candidate that could have possibly gotten through.
You know why? Because it’s the one who was approved!
Pretty simple and elegant when you think about it.
Corner Stone
@General Stuck:
This is the funniest god damned thing i have seen in lo these many nights here Stuck.
You’re claiming the liberal mantle and deriding progressives?
I want to make sure we get this down for posterity.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
With 40 “no” votes pretty much guaranteed, that’s a dicey proposition at best. Hell, I’d go with Krugman if Warren doesn’t fit the bill. Just fuck with them while November is in play.
arguingwithsignposts
@SiubhanDuinne:
Lady Smudge is safe at home after a couple of weeks at the kitty hotel during vacation. She seems to have forgiven me the outrage of having taken her in the car to the vet’s office. I will have a photo soon. thanks for asking.
General Stuck
@Corner Stone:
I though that was what I was doing all along. Sorry for your confusion. Need a bugger rag?
Corner Stone
@General Stuck: The word “liberal” used to be a common epithet. Now that you and Nick are self-identifying as such I’m not sure it actually means a damn thing anymore.
Conservative pundits spent decades turning it into a curse word. Now you and your ilk have spent about 2 weeks polishing it off.
I’m just flabbergasted, I have to admit.
Mnemosyne
@Jamie:
Here’s my argument (and please note it’s mine, not Anne Laurie’s — I’m not sure what hers is). It’s a long one, so bear with me:
The right has gotten a huge amount of mileage from their dogwhistles over the years, and that’s just as true with the misogynist/homophobic dogwhistle as it is with the racist dogwhistle. They use a HUGE number of misogynist/homophobic dogwhistles against Democrats, talking about the “nanny state” or how John Kerry was so “French” (i.e. feminine and thus faggy).
As we’ve seen with Obama, these dogwhistles work fine when they’re not directed against the actual group whose presence is being invoked, but all of the undertones get yanked to the surface when someone from the targeted group is the actual target. That’s why it worked to essentially call white Democrats like Bill Clinton n-lovers but people get upset when they try using the same imagery against Obama — using it against an actual member of the invoked group exposes the dogwhistle for what it really is (sexism or racism).
It’s the same thing with misogynist/homophobic tropes. You can apply them to John Kerry with reasonable subtlety and plausible deniability, but you can’t apply the same tropes to, say, Hillary Clinton without exposing your real message.
So, circling aaaaalll the way back around to the original point, there’s always misogynist/homophobic language and imagery embedded in Republican criticisms of Democratic policies and politicians, but it’s easier to see when they try to use the same language about women that they do about men. It’s worth watching for and pointing out, and I don’t think pointing out what’s actually been there under the surface the whole time is the same thing as manufacturing a controversy.
(Edited to fix a missing phrase.)
SiubhanDuinne
@arguingwithsignposts: Thanks. Feel free to put it up on a later thread if this one starts getting frayed and dusty. Or, you know, multi-post it.
Glad she’s forgiven you.
Jay B.
And naturally, those who think that there was some spontaneous Warren – Geithner story because of a stupid HuffPo story, ignores that Warren actually has a history of being tough on Geithner, one of the few on the left in DC to do so.
Among others. And no, it doesn’t necessarily mean Geithner has any say in the matter at all, pro or con. But they do have a history. And she is hated by the banks.
And yes, accepting that we no longer live in a Representative Democracy, but now live in a Supermajoritarian State, means that she needs 60 votes in order to win. And currently the only Democrat speaking on her behalf is Chris Dodd, who says she won’t have the votes.
My guess now is that her name won’t even be submitted for nomination. Because nothing is more important than preserving the dignity of the Senate.
cat48
Ok, these are the rascals who said she couldn’t be confirmed:
Midnight Marauder
@Jay B.:
I think you are conflating two different issues here. Most people would readily accept the fact that Warren and Geithner have an incredibly acrimonious history. However, that does not all of a sudden make the shoddy front page “journalism” of The Huffington Post substantive or legitimate.
arguingwithsignposts
In the end, while this isn’t a “hill to die on,” it is certainly one worth fighting for.
Nick
@Jay B.: and this of course means they hate each other and couldn’t possibly work together. I mean the same is true of that black dude and blonde-haired gal who both ran for President a few years ago and said mean things about each other. Could you imagine one appointing the other to his/her cabinet? Jeez.
El Cid
Just a note on phrasing: In my opinion, those given to phrases denoting valor and courage such as “a hill I would die on” are only very rarely the people who ever actually place themselves in the position of being on a hill they might die on.
FlipYrWhig
Humor me for a moment. On what basis would Republicans oppose Elizabeth Warren? Sure, maybe they reflexively oppose all nominees for everything. But at some point they have to go public with why, like how Craig Becker was too pro-labor for the labor board or Donald Berwick believes in rationing and is thus unsuitable for being the Medicare administrator or Van Jones is a communist. Stupid bullshit, of course. But what’s the stupid bullshit to fling at Warren? They’ve flung it unavailingly at Sotomayor and Kagan. I just don’t see what they could possibly say. What, she’s too aggressive against banks? She’s a rabid anti-bankist or something?
Nick
@cat48: I don’t think he would do it so soon after Berwick. I don’t know if I would if I knew I could get someone, perhaps someone of her choosing, confirmed in a timely manner.
Mnemosyne
@Midnight Marauder:
It’s the Greenwald method of argumentation: If Fact A is true, then Speculation B about Fact A is automatically true even though I have zero proof for Speculation B because QED, Obamabots! Go cry to Dear Leader!
General Stuck
@Corner Stone: I have always called myself a liberal on this blog. And have made numerous comments that progressives are too chickenshit to use it, so they call themselves progressives instead, when they are really liberal ideologues. There has never been a tiny bit of hesitation and never will for identifying myself as a liberal. And the wingnuts can kiss my ass if they don’t like it. And so can you and the fake progressives for that matter.
Nick
@FlipYrWhig:
drives a wedge between the President and his party and the loudest voices on the left. They don’t need a reason, not as if the media is going to question their motives.
I think before HuffPost opened its mouth, she was a shoo in, but now that the cat is out of the bag that the left voices are drawing a line in the sand with her, she’s the new public option.
Mnemosyne
@Nick:
Don’t forget, Samantha Power was quoted off the record referring to Hillary Clinton as a “monster” so clearly she couldn’t be currently working for the National Security Council with Clinton. These things just aren’t possible!
FlipYrWhig
@Jay B.: Your example of a “clash” is pretty anticlimactic, IMHO.
And Dodd’s thing about not necessarily having the votes sounds like a reference to Douchebag Ben Nelson rather than widespread dissension. Given that she’s a Harvard professor and a clear no-nonsense technocrat rather than an ideologue, I don’t see why New Englanders Snowe/Collins/Brown — who voted for the underlying bill, correct? — would be arrayed against her anyway.
A. Regular
This post is ridiculous. There is nothing in Dodd’s statement that remotely casts Warren the way Anne Laurie characterizes his words.
We’ve seen Democrats say that this or that potential nominee is “not confirmable” many times. It’s a comment about the Republicans, and some of the less-loyal Democrats, not being willing to support her because she’ll make waves.
Anne, I think you may be suffering from “When you’re a hammer…” syndrome on this one.
Nick
@Mnemosyne: Oh God no, and you know what else too? Delaware Senator Joe Biden once said Obama was not qualified to be President and not ready to lead.
Clearly it isn’t possible Obama would ever choose Senator Biden to serve in a prominent role in his administration. They must hate each other.
Nick
@FlipYrWhig:
Snowe’s gotta worry about her right flank, Collins does what Snowe does and Scott Brown is an asshole and they all have one thing in common with the rest of their party and Lieberman, Nelson and Lincoln.
They like to see liberals disappointed and they have no loyalty to their President and his point of view.
FlipYrWhig
@Nick: Right, no, don’t get me wrong; I didn’t mean “Why wouldn’t Republicans back her, considering that she’s awesome?” I meant “What would they _say_ the reason was?” Because at a certain point they always do give a reason, like that Sotomayor was a pro-Latino bigot and Kagan was, um, too much like Thurgood Marshall, or whatever that was. I just can’t even see what the trumped up stupid shit reason would be for opposing Warren.
joe from Lowell
@Corner Stone:
I don’t think she’s the only person who could do this job, although I do think she could do it especially well.
But that’s not the reason I really, really want to see her nominated. I want to see her nominated because We won’t die on this hill.
There is nothing this Democrat would love to see more than a bunch of Republican senators attacking nice, brilliant, polite, passionate, bane of the banksters Elizabeth Warren. It would be a Joe-Barton-apologizing-to-BP-style demonstration of what that party is, and who they represent.
I want Obama to nominate Warren because she’d be great, but even more, because a great, big, public fight over her would be a wonderful thing to behold.
El Cid
@FlipYrWhig:
Maybe one time there was a New Black Panther meeting within a few miles of her Harvard classes.
Mnemosyne
@FlipYrWhig:
Well, other than the fact that they’re irrationally obstructionist assholes.
arguingwithsignposts
But is she a ‘wise latina’?
FlipYrWhig
@Nick: Yeah, but if they just liked being malevolent they could have tanked the FinReg bill itself. They didn’t. I don’t see what it accomplishes to oppose Warren once they’ve already signed off on the idea of the agency that was her brainchild.
joe from Lowell
Scott Brown would never vote for Elizabeth Warren.
Scott Brown goes to work everyday to look out for his big Massachusetts financial industry backers. He sold his vote on financial reform, betraying his party and dooming their Party of No strategy, in order to get a couple of goodies for State Street Bank and Fidelity Investments.
That’s who he is; that’s what he does. They’re going to take care of him when he comes home in January 2013, and in exchange, he is their guy on Capitol Hill.
joe from Lowell
@FlipYrWhig:
I’ve seen it already: Elizabeth Warren is against personal credit, especially for poor people. She’s going to take away your credit cards.
To which I say, “Good luck with that, champ. Bring it on.”
Ailuridae
@General Stuck:
I have no idea why you even bother responding to him.
Jay B.
@Nick:
Really? Maybe that’s why I wrote:
Among others. And no, it doesn’t necessarily mean Geithner has any say in the matter at all, pro or con. But they do have a history. And she is hated by the banks.
Despite your remarkable insight, I was already very well aware that you can work in the same basic business as someone who you don’t like. It happens every day.
But nor is it unusual for DC egos to go quasi-public in order to kneecap those who they don’t like. They know they can feed any anonymous bullshit they like to anyone in town. Thinly-sourced? Of course. Impossible to believe? No. Does it matter? Probably not.
There are already enough other people on the record signaling her utter impossibility as a nominee, including a nominal supporter like Dodd. Given the Dawn Johnsen/OLC fiasco — where the Administration nominated a good and effective critic of DC conventional lawlessness only to be rebuffed twice — I’m just assuming they’ll avoid Warren altogether.
As always though, it comes down to whether that’s acceptable or not that we live in an entirely broken political system.
arguingwithsignposts
@SiubhanDuinne:
Lady Smudge update.
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: I dunno. All three of the New England Republicans seem like they would start out leaning towards Warren and would have to be given a convincing reason to oppose her. Maybe the convincing reason is “wingnuts from back home screaming about her,” but there would have to be some kind of spark to start the screaming. Maybe Brown could have his arm twisted by some big Boston-based financial institutions or something, but I don’t see how it would make more sense for Snowe and Collins to oppose her than to “meh” her right along.
El Cid
@General Stuck: I only tended to use the term ‘progressive’ back when liberal was such a horrible term of derision that pretty much everyone, politicians and others, ran away from it. It pretty much meant the same thing. Though sometimes people meant it to suggest some sort of newer liberal than some stereotype of calcified labor and machine politics liberals. I think the willingness to use the term liberal began to surge back during the ‘fuck you’ stage of tons of Americans getting tired of all the shit thrown their way by the right wing freakoids during the Bush Jr. regime’s first 5 or 6 years.
I think “progressive” is often used by a lot of people today to mean liberal-left but not part of a some powerful and entrenched political establishment, whether or not the formal ideological outlook might be close. On the other hand, sometimes it’s used to suggest one is some sort of dissident grassroots revolutionary.
[On the other hand the Clinton-era Democrat-linked Progressive Policy Institute used the term to suggest a more centrist, pro-business approach than the liberal-labor Democrats from whom the DLC types wished to separate themselves. It was those Clintonian Democrats who explicitly denoted that organization as a “Third Way” think tank, and presumably used the term to separate themselves from “liberals”. So if “progressive” is an objectionable term, someone should also take it up with the DLC.]
Myself, I never exactly know in advance whether the person with whom I’m speaking has even a clue what these many terms might mean, much less the term ‘left’ or ‘leftist’ which would apply to me in the current political spectrum.
Sometimes if it would seem to clear the ground with a first big shock, I’ll say that I’m a way, way, way extreme fringe liberal, or lunatic off-the-edge leftist, and with luck people won’t have to suspect that’s what I am.
It’s even worked with some right wingers because once you start out by admitting you’re self-consciously outside of what they think mainstream, normal politics are, there’s less tension. Or they’re just dicks anyway and are going to be assholes no matter what you say.
Nick
@FlipYrWhig:
“There isn’t anyone else who can do this job except the darling child of the radical left”
end of story.
El Cid
@joe from Lowell: Maybe, but HE DRIVES A TRUCK!
El Cid
@Nick: There’s a radical left in this country pushing for Elizabeth Warren to head a mildly reformist consumer protection agency?
Man, the radical left sure has rolled downhill from their old aspirations of soshullist transformation of the capitalist system.
kay
@FlipYrWhig:
That’s easy. They’re going to say she’ll tie up consumer lending with onerous rules and regs and they’ll scare people into thinking they can’t get that usurious loan they need to buy groceries.
I don’t think it will work. She’s passionate, and she’s wonderful at taking all the moral nonsense out of borrowing and presenting it as a transaction. Two sides. Lender and borrower. I think that might be refreshing and new for people.
One is the customer, by the way, not the supplicant, and the other is selling a product, not reluctantly offering charity to those deadbeat borrowers. Lenders need borrowers just like borrowers need lenders. A transaction.
I think she’s absolutely worth making a big fuss over, because lenders have somehow convinced people that there should be shame and fear and some moral judgment inherent in needing or wanting or paying for credit.
Is there some sort of plan here, to get her past the Senate?
I guess we’d start with Obama nominating her, right?
FlipYrWhig
@joe from Lowell: But if they have their hooks into him that deeply, why couldn’t they have demanded that he say his price was the removal of the financial-product protection agency? I just keep coming back to the idea that once you’ve voted for the bill, there’s little incentive to change course and block a nominee to run the agency the bill you supported created — unless you have a really good story to tell. IMHO this is very different from Dawn Johnsen, because it’s a lot harder to explain why her nomination was important. Then again, I guess it wouldn’t be too far removed from the squabbles over the head of the Transportation Security Agency.
I just keep coming back to the point that even blatant obstructionism has to have some kind of rhetorical basis, even a trumped-up and idiotic one, and I don’t hear that about Warren. The credit card thing you mention, joe, is interesting, but I find opposition on that basis to be far-fetched.
Maybe I’m just blinded by the nonsexual crush I have on Elizabeth Warren.
Midnight Marauder
@FlipYrWhig:
She exists.
General Stuck
@Ailuridae: boredom
FlipYrWhig
@Midnight Marauder: Sure, but when push comes to shove they still have to _pretend_ to have an explanation other than “she exists.” She’s too visible to foot-drag like Johnsen and the TSA people. If they oppose her, they’ll be asked about why, and they’ll have to be able to explain it with a straight face.
Anyway, it seems to me that unlike many other administration nominees, she’d be able to win at least token Republican support. She’s just plain likeable. Which is why I think the notion that she might not have the votes rings false.
Ailuridae
@FlipYrWhig:
I think all three of them would have a very tough time voting against her. Brown and Snowe are up in 2012 and Collins in 2014 and Elizabeth Warren is approaching folk hero status.
Corner Stone
@El Cid:
Yeah, maybe. But they’d fucking die on that hill! Before they were rolled down it!
Fucking hippies are useless.
General Stuck
@El Cid: About all of these terms contain different meanings for individuals one way or another. It is kind of amusing when they are discussed the ensuing disconnect when discussion around them breaks out. But the demonizing of the L word, mostly by Reagan still holds true, however, and you rarely see it used by people of the left on any msm venue. Sad to see really. It’s hard to be a warrior for something when afraid to say out loud it’s name in public.
kay
I liked this:
All the Democratic women should drop out, and endorse Warren.
A couple of them could go on tv and say they’re in the running, even if they’re not, and then endorse Warren :)
Jay B.
Is there some sort of plan here, to get her past the Senate?
There’s always a first time.
IMHO this is very different from Dawn Johnsen, because it’s a lot harder to explain why her nomination was important
Yeah, “she’s against torture — it’s important to define what torture is, what we did and what we should do in the future” is just so confusing. But even though no one really gives a shit about that, the GOP just said she wasn’t “serious enough” to be the OLC and the Democrats either went along with it, or just died.
If the Administration wants to actually have a message going into the midterms beyond “hey, things could be worse”, they could point out that this post, a high profile tribune for those of us who are being railroaded by big finance, is important to keep those banks, those lenders, those vipers honest.
Call me insane, but I think running against the GOP and their corporate masters might, just might, have some resonance — whether or not Warren is approved.
Midnight Marauder
@FlipYrWhig:
You make a very good point that Republicans will be forced to generate some kind of pretend reason for their official opposition to Warren, and I do think this fight will actually be on favorable terrain for Democrats this time (unlike the Dawn Johnsen debacle).
The biggest reason for this is that the Republican Party, as an organization, is in pretty atrocious shape right now. All the way down from their ideas (they do not exists in meaningful form), to their messaging (I’m sorry, what did you say about tax cuts for the wealthy? How’s that brouhaha with the NAACP working out for you?), to their candidates this cycle (stretching from Sharon Angle to the disastrous primary of Rick Barber in Alabama). They are in absolutely rough shape, with no reap hope of getting better. Because of this, I think there are a lot of opportunities for the Obama Administration, the Democratic Party, and sane people all over the country to exploit the fracturing Republican coalition.
And I think a fight over someone like Elizabeth Warren would be another perfect catalyst to keep the cracks in the facade coming.
arguingwithsignposts
@kay:
For the record, Madigan got where she is via good-ole-boy politics. Her dad is king-bee of the Illinois Legislature. I’m sure she’s got some closets that would be cleaned pretty well if she were ever to go after such a post. She’s angling for another term as IL atty gen, too. If she has higher office in mind, she’s waiting for a better environment.
Corner Stone
@Jay B.:
We do not torture.
When are you going to grasp that simple fact you dirty hippie?
Nick
@FlipYrWhig: She’s too radical, the end, no one is gonna question them. No one ever does.
Phoebe
@shortstop: I don’t know the answer to your question but I do believe there is an actual connection between her being female and the likelihood of her doing the actual job.
This is sexist because I’m making generalizations, but I really think that women tend to not go along with stupid male groupthink, peer pressure, etc. Unless they are not too bright, very insecure, and have a crush on a guy [like poor Lyndie England].
This first dawned on me when I saw the Enron documentary. The reporter who thought the Emperor was naked and started asking questions was a woman. She had no special info that others didn’t have, she just looked at the obvious, the numbers, or lack of, and asked the logical. She wasn’t snowed by the image or vulnerable to herd mentality. And when everyone tried to shame her with defensive ridicule she didn’t care. She wasn’t a club member.
And the Enron employee who didn’t go along with it, a woman, of course. By the time they introduced her character, it was so obvious how much masculine insecurity had to do with this crap that I bellowed at the tv, “what were they thinking even hiring a woman?” Of course she’s not going to be down with that program.
Women whose self image is tied up with their attractiveness to men, different story. But Elizabeth Warren? No. She will not get sucked into any circle jerks because they hold no allure for her, and she wouldn’t get invited anyway. She’ll just do her job. And she’s very very smart. They would be fucked.
demimondian
@El Cid: You’re a leftist. I’m a liberal. She’s a progressive.
It’s simple.
El Cid
@Corner Stone: Well, if the radical left hippies rolled too fast down a hill it could really injure or even kill them.
Corner Stone
@El Cid:
Sorry, but from what I’ve been told there aren’t enough left to gain critical mass as they roll.
It’s how I roll, but that’s neither here nor there.
I’m still kind of confused a little, to be honest.
Corner Stone
@Nick:
For one brief shining moment do you realize how stupid you sound?
joe from Lowell
@FlipYrWhig:
You’ve got a point there. There’s a tendency among some to lump together lots of disparate entities together the heading “the financial industry.” I did it myself upthread.
But in fact, State Street Bank isn’t Citigroup, and Fidelity sure as hell isn’t Countrywide.
kay
@arguingwithsignposts:
I sympathize. We had an AG like that, in Ohio. Marc Dann. The Democratic leadership picked him, and he won in a sweep election. Almost immediately he had an embarrassing and pathetic sex scandal that involved charges of sexual harrassment at a pizza party or something, so not even a consensual sex scandal. He was sort of annoying his female subordinates, following them around and such, and they immediately reported the whole sorry tale.
He resigned, and we got an ambitious and brilliant and cold death penalty enthusiast.
Nick
@Corner Stone: Shhh, adults are talking
Corner Stone
@Nick: How would you know you little bitch?
Anybody that talks about “adults” or “grownups” on this blog is a figure worthy of ridicule right off the bat.
You got nothing else.
Nick
@Corner Stone: wow, touchy. Someone needs a nap.
Corner Stone
@Nick: It’s true. Soon as your mom leaves I’m going to take a really good shower then go to sleep.
Yep. I went with a “your mom” joke. Sue me.
Nick
@Corner Stone: LMFAO. Seriously?!?
arguingwithsignposts
@Phoebe:
This is the point at which I admit I think Elizabeth Warren is kinda cute. Hey, if the female BJ commenters can swoon over Rahm, it’s my prerogative.
Jim Newell
@demimondian: What quote is untrue? Is there something I did not source? Or that you take Geithner’s alleged position as anti-Warren as unsourced? It’s pretty well-sourced.
@General Stuck: You too: “false quotes”? Someone made up quotes?
Sgt. Jrod and his Howling Commandos
@Nick:
No they aren’t. Not here, anyway.
Little Dreamer
Well, I’m at least 173 posts into this thread. Anne Laurie and I have been through this “it’s not really sexism” rigamorole before. I’m so glad to see so many pointed it out before I even realized this thread existed.
Anne Laurie, I think the rule for detecting sexism has a certain component, that for something to affectively be considered sexism, it has to have at least two female (or male) candidates who are being treated unfairly because of their gender (otherwise it could just be that the individual poses a threat not due to gender at all – which seems to be the case here, she’s good at her job and Repubs would suffer under her direction), or one person coming out and suggesting that they treat another person differently on purpose due to her (or his) gender. This doesn’t seem to be the case (again). Stop ginning up sexist controversy where none exists. You’ve made this mistake before, I hope you finally learn from this. Your sexism posts always become embarrassing to me as a woman who reads this blog.
::stepping off my soapbox::
General Stuck
@Jim Newell: Hey, I just work here. I was responding to what others here had brought forth. I haven’t read the stories on this, mainly because I don’t care about them.
Corner Stone
@Nick: Yep. Cole just told us all how his dog shits too much and your kindred spirit Stuck just TMI’ed everyone about how his bowel movements have changed.
So…Yo momma’s so stupid, she got fired from the M&M factory for throwing away all the W’s.
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts: Hmmm. You’ve given me something to think about here.
Jim Newell
Also — and I have not read this entire thread so I apologize if these things have been taken care of — but:
1) Republicans hated this from the beginning, and they’re going to call any nominee a Commie, unless it’s Lloyd Blankfein or something. You need someone with a strong background in consumer advocacy for this position. R’s hate consumer advocacy. It’s going to be a shitshow and you might as well nominate the obvious, stellar choice to build faith in the agency from the outset.
2) It’s the first director. Why not take a chance? If it’s shot down, you can play off of that for the politics at least, and then just nominate someone else.
3) You can make a recess appointment.
4) What does it mean for a brand new agency to avoid picking the unequivocal best candidate because you’re scared of whether she’s too good at it?
demimondian
@Jim Newell: Bullshit. It is *allegedly* sourced by one person “who knows Geithner’s thinking”. That’s unsourced.
Jim Newell
And no, I do not think this would be the END OF OBAMA if they didn’t pick her. I just believe — and this is more than “optics”! — that if you’re serious about this agency, getting Warren in there would automatically give it an upper-hand and cement some importance. There are plenty of bankers who’ll want to capture this from the outset. They’re likely to do so unless there’s strong pushback from the beginning.
Jim Newell
@demimondian: But it wasn’t denied!
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/19/elizabeth-warren-vs-timothy-geithner-big-decision-for-obama/
General Stuck
@Jim Newell: I don’t disagree, and I’m an Obot. But her outspokedness does give grist to the wingnut demagogue machine. I hope Obama recess appoints her, but I will not withdraw my support for him over any single appointment. And it is always the case there is more than one person out there that can do this job well.
danimal
There is more than one person that can do this job in a liberal, progressive, leftist, soshalist, lefty left manner. That said, Elizabeth Warren would be a great pick for the consumer agency.
As long as her supporters understand that there is no guarantee she will actually get past the inevitable filibuster, I see no issue with nominating her.
I’ll scream if Obama nominates her and then the lefty liberal progressives blame Obama for failing to get her through the Senate, though. Obama nominates, but the freakin’ Senate gets the votes.
Jim Newell
@General Stuck: I agree with all of your points. I’m just trying to envision another scenario that could turn out better and not involve a pure lackey’s nomination. And Warren’s “outspokenness” is not like, say, Krugman’s, where it’s been very politically infused. In fact, maybe it would help, in the alternate universe where anything helps anyone, that most of her ire’s been directed at a Democratic administration.
Corner Stone
@danimal:
I think we should try to find someone a little more moderate. A little more acceptable overall. It’s clear she will encounter problems and I just don’t think this is the most important fight the Obama admin is looking for.
Nick
@Jim Newell:
“a source familiar with Geithner’s thinking” is pretty well-sourced?
Please tell me you’re not a journalist.
joe from Lowell
Are you kidding? This is exactly the fight the Obama administration is looking for.
This could be Jeff Sessions imitating Ricky Ricardo and Joe Barton apologizing to BP all rolled into one.
I’m having trouble imagining anything I’d like to see more than a gang of Republican DC politicians being mean to a charming, competent, decent, brilliant, lovable nominee while defending scumbag mortgage lenders, credit card ripoffs, and giant financial conglomerates.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
Just curious. How big are those pearls?
joe from Lowell
Oh, and not just being mean to her: obstructing her nomination so it can’t even get an up or down vote.
Not to mention, while Anne Laurie was being a bit silly to read sexism into Chris Dodd’s statement, you can bet that some Red State moron would go into the full “castrating bitch” mode.
Obama would really be missing an opportunity if he didn’t put this nomination forward.
Little Dreamer
::up on soapbox again::
Sorry, I’m not finished.
It would be nice if someone calls something sexist to have actual examples of stated sexism, instead, a quote was placed above suggesting she would do the job in a way that would threaten Repubs (exactly as I suggested earlier).
Three reasons were given why she might not be chosen and none of them were about sexism.
I read this post and the first question that came to my mind was: “So Anne Laurie thinks that if the woman doesn’t automatically win the nomination to this post, that means she was discriminated against?”
That’s like holding a gun to Congress’ head and using REVERSE SEXISM. Claiming that if a person isn’t treated special BECAUSE of their gender, they are being discriminated against. How exactly does that work Anne Laurie?
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
sadly, in the Village, that is what passes for well-sourced. If I were in charge of every news outlet in Washington, I’d ban – outright – the use of unnamed sources for political news (obviously, it is useful for nat. sec. stuff, etc.).
The only way for the Villagers to quit wanking to this stuff is to give them a dose of cold turkey.
Corner Stone
@joe from Lowell: Listen. It’s pretty clear that with a couple Blue Dogs joining in with the R’s in the Senate are going to filibuster Warren. Why would we go through that and subject the admin to a loss of momentum when they are on a roll for a string of very successful legislation.
Show me where the votes for Warren are. Show me how we get to 60 votes for Warren and I’ll be quiet.
The votes just aren’t there.
Lesley
Um, perhaps you mean opposite?
EW is not at all the mirror image of Sarah Palin.
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts:
Sadly, you just do not get it you hippie liberal.
Fighting for things that make a difference in actual peoples’ lives is not the real end goal here.
Just grow up and listen to the pragmatic adults.
We need the result that will garner the votes. We need someone to tell us how we get to 60.
Otherwise you’re just wanking pathetically.
Midnight Marauder
@Corner Stone:
You are just knocking it out of the park tonight.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
Man, your snarkification is too much tonight.
Corner Stone
@Midnight Marauder: I try but I am only one man. One very pragmatic man.
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts: Don’t you mean “pragmatic” ?
Because I do.
Ash Can
@arguingwithsignposts:
@kay:
All nepotism aside, Lisa Madigan actually is very good at what she does. IL could hardly have done better.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
My ultimate form of pragmatism involves finding out a way to put the squeeze on Ben Nelson’s balls so he acts like a democrat.
But E. Warren is a non-issue. It’s not a SCOTUS nominee, which the GOPers haven’t been able to filibuster yet, either. And she’s not Dawn Johnson, either.
So call me a hippie if you like, but the Obama admin. could do worse.
Corner Stone
@arguingwithsignposts: Useless hippie. We need to determine who we can get past the Senate. Full stop.
Anything else is wasteful hippie bullshit and firebagging.
Ailuridae
@Corner Stone:
How would you know you little bitch?
Anybody that talks about “adults” or “grownups” on this blog is a figure worthy of ridicule right off the bat.
You got nothing else.
Misogynistic and stupid. That’s a winning combination.
Mnemosyne
@Jim Newell:
That read like a denial to me. Did I not get my special Journalmalist Decoder Ring in the mail that would allow me to properly interpret that?
Corner Stone
@Ailuridae: Oh, hai! it’s my sad little blog stalker.
Good to see you again little man. Or are you going to lose your shit again and go all internet tough guy and threaten me with assault again?
Because I’m sure you’re really big and tough in RL.
arguingwithsignposts
@Corner Stone:
I say we dig up Ronnie Raygun’s corpse, because that’s the only thing that would satisfy the 40 GOPers in the Senate.
Liberty60
@Corner Stone:
You’re kidding, right?
Suppose we did- suppose they found someone slightly more bankster friendly.
Does anyone really think Jim DeMint will vote yes?
Liberty60
@arguingwithsignposts:
Is Gordon Gekko available?
With some lobbying, we might get Ben Nelson to vote for him.
Ailuridae
@Corner Stone:
You’re a clown. You’re the one with the long sordid history of threatening people on the blog. And generally not knowing what he is writing about but writing a whole lot about it.
Ignorant and Stupid and Misogynistic. No surprise you’re a Texan.
Corner Stone
@Liberty60:
Well, maybe not DeMint or Coburn or those type. But, IMO, it’s pretty important we nail down who Senators Snowe, Collins, Brown and/or Nelson can get behind.
And if that means the candidate has a record in the banking industry I’m not sure why that would be a problem?
Don’t we want someone who can get past the majority in the Senate?
Corner Stone
@Ailuridae: Damn internet tough guy. I’m not sure why you keep stalking me, or threatening me with violence when you have nothing else to say.
Have you been to counseling after you go drinking with Hitchens?
Ailuridae
@Corner Stone:
I’m not the one who just resorted to calling someone a little bitch, now am I?
I tried to actually have an argument with you once but you were too stupid to actually marshal any facts or do anything else except repeatedly stammer the same poorly thought out point over and over again.
You’re stupid. And its pretty obvious to just about everyone who reads your drivel. But you make up for your stupidity with volume and repetition.
General Stuck
@Ailuridae:
For old times sake, an oldie but goodie from our sweetheart corner stone, if you ever wondered what his game is. Two years and still a Hillbot dufus full of piss and vinegar and not a single working brain cell.
Charming little pustule
Phoebe
@arguingwithsignposts: She’s cute, sure, but you can tell it’s not her identity, as in, how she views herself. Unlike, say, Lara whatsherface, that reporter who worships McCrystal.
Anyway, it’s not how they view her, it’s how she views herself that is the indicator of whether or not she will sell out for their approval.
Phoebe
@@Corner Stone: Namecalling doesn’t make a good impression, if a good impression is what you want to make
Look, if she gets torpedoed, then what happens? They look stupid and mean attacking her, as Jim from Lowell pointed out, and he can put in someone else, I mean why compromise from the get go? That’s what I don’t get. I don’t see the pros to that, or the cons to nominating someone who is perfect for the job. Explain this please without calling me a hippie.
Brachiator
I’m not buying it. And I especially don’t buy any argument that begins with accusations of sexism and ends with an image of Warren as The Bad Mommy.
I have been getting email blitzes to sign petitions to get the Obama Administration to nominate Warren. It’s an interesting full court press that just assumes that she is the bestest ever and a must to keep the economy from collapsing.
I reject out of hand this crap about sexism, which is veering close to the insanity of tea baggers that Obama doesn’t care about white people.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about Warren’s gender. I don’t care if she is perceived to be too liberal or too progressive. I am somewhat concerned that some are hot and bothered about her because she has been a strong advocate. I’m looking for an innovative and effective regulator.
And my shining beacon for the type of person I would like to see here or anywhere in the Obama Administration is someone like Frances Perkins, FDR’s Secretary of Labor. My second choice is someone like Joseph Kennedy, who was effective as the head of the SEC because, being somewhat crooked, he understood exactly how his fellow financial crooks operated and could outwit them at their own game.
Oh, and by the way, if Obama really wanted her in, he could do a recess appointment and bypass for a time, Congress.
FlipYrWhig
@Phoebe, @Liberty60, et al : Corner Stone is doing what he thinks is a funny bit where he pretends to act like the way he thinks too many of the regulars around here act: urging pragmatism, circumspection, taking into account how many votes there are for any particular bill or provision of a bill. The problem is that there’s no reason to think that Elizabeth Warren’s nomination should be something that couldn’t find support among ConservaDems or even some of the Republicans who backed the FinReg bill. And also that he’s doing the bit in a way that recalls a big brother hovering over you with a finger in your face saying “I’m not touching you.”
Phoebe
@FlipYrWhig:
I guess that makes it funnier, if it is parody.
DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective
I haven’t read the thread, I really don’t care enough, or have time, but ….
I cannot imagine why anyone would assert sexism in this case. Honestly. It reeks of pure bullshit.
The only explanation I can come up with is that BJ front pagers in general are just phoning this stuff in these days. I take this to be a troll of the readership, right there on a par with pictures of pet ass boils and endless articles about things that don’t matter. I get the impression that the blog is just too much work to really keep up any more, and that any nonsense that can gather 100 comments is going to get typed up and published. I call it roll taking. Write up a grocery list, and the usual suspects will show up and chat over the fence. I can empathize, I have always thought that keeping up a blog was just way too much work for the amount of reward one could get from it. But if this is just to become another form of Facebook, I think it would be more honest to just say so.
Sorry, but that’s my take on it. I’d be glad to find out I was wrong. But I am not holding my breath.
burnspbesq
@Allison W.:
Which will be delightfully reminiscent of the slagging of Kagan for the heinous crime of not being Wood.
burnspbesq
@Jim Newell:
This is the best argument for going to the mattresses over Warren. It also highlights what for me is the significant difference between this situation and the Johnsen fiasco.
Johnsen wasn’t essential, because the Administration slipped Marty Lederman into OLC by hiring him for a job that doesn’t require confirmation. I don’t know about anyone else, but based on his scholarship and his blogging at Balkiinization I would be totally happy with Marty Lederman as acting head of OLC from now until the end of time.
There is no one comparable to Marty Lederman already in place at the consumer protection agency. Its first head has to be someone that can attract and motivate talent and set the tone. No one I know of is better qualified than Warren.
NobodySpecial
@burnspbesq: And delightfully reminicient of the pragmatists who just loved Wood so much they’d refuse to think about pushing anyone for her nomination, even though they thought so much of her. Especially delightful will be the posts wherein they’ll rationalize away everything they love about Warren to defend whomever Obama actually nominates.
shortstop
Although I noted earlier on that I think Anne Laurie’s totally boxing shadows in this post, I find it hard to believe that anyone could have posted this without gagging:
And will I live long enough never to have to read this kind of comment again?
This is not 1975. We are well, well past the point at which one woman’s actions should be able to “embarrass” another.
Little Dreamer
@shortstop:
Fuck off Shortstop. Anne Laurie likes to claim sexism any time she can. She’s done it before. I don’t care WHAT THE FUCK you think about it. Kiss my ass.
What I don’t get is why you give Anne Laurie a pass for making such a fallacious argument. Have you no shame?
Little Dreamer
@shortstop:
Anne Laurie is the woman’s voice on this blog (she is the only female front pager, is she not?), and she likes to be. She chooses these gender arguments on her own. I wouldn’t mind that if she weren’t looking for sexist controversies. This is not the first time she’s claimed sexism when there was no “there” there. Yes, it is embarrassing, because a woman shouldn’t be given special treatment simply because she’s a woman. Women are trying to achieve equality (we aren’t quite there yet), and it’s kind of hard to do when the penstrokes of female voices are commiting logical fallacies while looking for sexist boogiemen.
Now, kindly fuck off!
brantl
I think, because she’s competant and hard-working that she will be hard to get confirmed with the Republicans and the Blue Dicks.
tkogrumpy
I think it’s obvious, the dems should push for Terry Schiavo. the republicans love her, AND she’s a woman, also too.
shortstop
There’s something blindingly obvious you’re not getting. Why don’t you reread this thread and show me where I gave any kind of a “pass” to AL’s argument, as opposed to calling her out on it more than once, and long before you joined in?
For those not mired in false binary constructions, it’s perfectly possible to believe that Anne Laurie sometimes finds sexism where no supportable evidence for it exists, and to simultaneously note that “This isn’t the first time you’ve made this mistake. I hope you’ve learned from it” is a laughably smarmy and hyper-pious remark.
As for “giving special treatment,” as far as I can see you’re the only one here who’s done that, via your very odd assumption that Anne Laurie’s choices somehow say anything about you. We may not yet be at the point at which a woman declaring that someone of her own gender “embarrasses” her is quite as a silly a notion as a man apologizing for all men when one makes a jackass of himself, but it’s been quite a while since prominent women voices have been so isolated that a random blogger can be construed by anyone but the most troglodytic sexist as reflecting on all of womanhood.
Little Dreamer
@shortstop:
shortstop, when you have “masculinists” trying to shape the choices of your gender, call me.
You were very easy on Anne Laurie, and very hard on me for pointing out the fallacies. You gave her a pass. You’re an asshole. Now, I’m done with this conversation, go talk to someone who gives a fuck what you think, I don’t.
shortstop
Little Dreamer, you can do better than that.
(Wait…you can, can’t you?)
I wasn’t, of course, hard on you “for pointing out the fallacies.” I was very specifically hard on you for your inadvertently hilarious “I trust you’ve learned something from this! I said ‘Good day, madam!'”-type huffery and the thoroughly retro ludicrousness of you trying to make this about you and your reputation.
It’s really not that difficult to discern the difference, but oddly enough, I don’t feel that the incredible denseness you’re showing on this point reflects in any way on me or other women. I think they’re your problem alone.
goatchowder
OK, I’ll buy that. It’s like the old technique to decide if what you’re saying is racist or bigoted: substitute “black people” for whatever group you’re generalizing about, and if it sounds horrible like that, then what you’re saying is bigoted.
I guess this kind of goes back to the Lakoff thing about right-wingers taking a “authoritarian daddy” approach to stuff, and deriding any alternative as being “weak” and “female”.
IN GENERAL.
But in this particular case, you’ve got it completely wrong.
The dog-whistle here– “confirmable”– means RADICAL/LEFTIST/SOSHALIST/TERRORIST, not “girlie”. He’s accusing her of being some kind of DFH. It’s not about misogyny, it’s about hippie-punching.