Tweet
Elizabeth Warren
There was no way Elizabeth Warren was ever going to be the permanent director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The banks didn’t want her.
President Barack Obama has chosen a candidate other than Elizabeth Warren as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a person briefed on the matter.
[]
The bureau’s director requires confirmation by the Senate. After 44 Republican senators announced in May that they wouldn’t vote to approve any candidate to run the bureau without changes in its structure, analysts said the White House might have to resort to a temporary appointment during a congressional recess.
Everybody knew the Republicans wouldn’t vote for Warren from the outset. Obama could have appointed her as the director when the agency was created, so the “60 vote” excuse was a charade. Remember the reasons given by the White House at the time to explain why he didn’t?
The concern stressed by officials in the White House is that Warren would not be allowed to be the public face of the agency or to testify before Congress if under the virtual cone of silence of a Presidential nominee. This allows the agency to begin without delay. But down the road, she could still serve in the interim capacity while nominated for the position, and that’s frankly where this can go.
Of course the only thing “down the road” was the can that the President likes to kick in his favorite metaphor. It allowed him to give her the boot when things had cooled down a bit, and the issue was out of the headlines. From a political perspective, now is a smart time to do it, because the debt ceiling battle will consume everything in its wake.
And so Elizabeth Warren’s tenure at the CFPB ends in a Friday night news dump.
The bright side (if there is a bright side) is that Warren will be able to speak more freely if she’s not the head of the agency, and we could use some adults in the conversation right now. A giant manufactured debt ceiling crisis is being used to force Shock Doctrine austerity on the country. I hope somebody will ask her how she’d handle things if she was President.
What do you think Elizabeth Warren would do about the debt ceiling showdown if she was in Obama’s shoes right now?
Update: Dday has more: The agency transfers to the Fed on July 21, and without a Director at the helm, it loses the ability to regulate non-bank financial institutions like payday lenders and mortgage brokers.” Since the GOP probably won’t approve anyone for the position, the only hope would have been for Obama to make a recess appointment. Looks like the banks will get what they want.
152 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Don’t tease us Jane, PLEASE tell us FDL is going to run a primary candidate. The safety net cuts the President is now INSISTING upon have got to be the last straw.
I nominate Warren/Hamsher or Hamsher/Warren for 2012 anybody second that.
I’d like Grayson/Warren but for some reason Mr. Grayson is convinced that Florida deserves his undivided attention.
Warren would do as she always does; explain the situation in clear unambiguous definite terms, thereby engaging the public. Boobus Americanus is not so dumb that it does not respond to someone who knows how to explain the issues without all the bullshit posturing.
Not budge past the position of clean vote on an amount that would cover the ceiling until mid 2013. No hostages.
Do the same in 2013 too, after all, the US Chamber has spoken: “lift it, dummies.”
If he was President Bush, based on his policies, I would have long ago called President Obama a piece of shit.
I’m flattered but I don’t hate my worst enemy enough to saddle them with that. Besides the dogs would be PISSED if I had to be out of the house that much. Katie does the most haughty sneeze of disapproval you’ve ever seen. And then she turns her back on you and sits, then looks over her shoulder to make sure you see it.
That state is the key to 2012 if O cuts SS and Medicare kiss Florida goodbye for Him. I believe that Grayson thinks he can do more in Congress. I don’t think Grayson would win the Presidency IMO. He would be a target for all the unbridled money. Maybe in 2016.
I get it, Obamas trying to make himself unelectable
Whos going to head the protection bureau…Dimon? …Oh god, Geithner will be out of a job soon so thats where he’s headed -_-
I think you’re right. She’d accept the McConnell deal and take responsibility for lifting the debt ceiling on her own.
Which is why McConnell never would have offered it to her.
Every time I think Obama can’t get any worse. He gets WORSE. Grayson and Grijalva. Lets talk to them now. We will put pressure on them to run now!
Thank God. She’s one of us now. If she wants to, she can show the utter hypocrisy of this administration when it comes to doing anything to help people to negotiate with banks, credit card companies, and Wall Street.
Raj Date, according to Bloomberg.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/06/09/raj-date-floated-as-cfpb-head/
His name was floated on June 9, so this has been in the works for a while.
Well then keep doing what your doing because I think you are making a difference and I am proud to be a member of your group.
Pretty much anything would be an improvement.
Good answer.
Well, there is that.
Mornin’, Jane, pups
Crooks & Liars thinks she’s gonna run for the Senate in Mass.
No doubt she’ll be telling tales out of school now. Why not?
If she runs for the Senate and wins and Sanders wins in VT we’ll have at least 2 in that befouled chamber that aren’t afraid of anybody.
Grijalva’s a bamboo politician. Bends with the wind.
That was my second thought. The first was “okay the charade is over. Will this be enough to get people to wake up to what’s going on?”
Actually it was my third thought. The second was “nah.”
That’s exactly what’s happening, and it’s a crime of great magnitude.
I am writing in Howard Dean.
As for Elizabeth Warren, who wants to be a punching bag for President Milquetoast.
Dean’s just another fuckin’ neoliberal.
W4B;
I’d say that’s a very important bright side, her voice since the time she was first mentioned as nominee has been rather subdued, I hope she now feels free to resume her clear-eyed analysis, and candid criticism of our predatory, and kleptocratic financial sector.
I’d go so far as to speculate that the most important effect of her candidacy has been the way in which it put her on the sideline and muted her voice.
It’s almost as if Obama nominated her so as to turn down the volume on our very best source of truthful, user-friendly analysis concerning our ‘financial crisis’.
The successful consumer advocate Ralph Nader never worked for the government either, although later on he tried to.
Wow. The US is done. There aren’t words to express what a traitorous nightmare Obama is.
What blows my mind is that they’ve completely ignored the consequences in countries where it’s already been tried: Chile, Argentina, Poland, Russia.
Being exceptionalists, however, they think it’ll be different here, that they can make it work.
I may just vote socialist next year. It won’t accomplish much, but I will be able to sleep at night. Seems the people are going to lose in 2012 no matter who actually wins.
Raj Date in on record on the need to abolish FannieMae & Freddie Mac and use a “market based solution”.
He seems to believe that the “Credit Decisioning Process” in Fannie and Freddie is broken. (Probably is given the use of Decision as a verb).
He rightly points out that the Option A and Interest Only loan programs increased risk, without addressing who created these very risky loan programs, and uses the losses cause by the programs as the reasons to demolish Fannie & Freddie, ignoring in the process that Fannie & Freddie worked well for 60 years before these stupid loans were invented.
Behind the covers appears the corruption that seems to have grown greatly under the Bush administration, in that politics was used to create loan programs (stupid loan programs) by political pressure, probably to cover up the dismal economic performance under the supply side on steroids policies. From this perspective he is correct, it appears that the politics corrupted prudent underwriting standards.
To repeat, he ignores the root cause, does not explain why Fannie & Freddie worked well until corrupted and does not call out the corruption.
Here’s the paper.
That would be really stupid. Brown is incredibly popular. Of course the DSCC is trying to recruit her. It’s a suicide run, it would tie up everyone’s energies in a pointless race and sideline Warren from criticizing anyone but the Republicans for the foreseeable future.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/24/elizabeth_warren_scott_brown
They tried in May, no doubt hoping to lure her into resigning so Obama wouldn’t have to take the hit for replacing her. When she didn’t bite, they floated Raj Date in June to inoculate him so now they can say it’s “old news” in a Friday night news dump.
I read this story earlier in the puffpo:
Elizabeth Warren: Government Hasn’t Sufficiently Probed Foreclosure Abuses
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/elizabeth-warren-foreclosure-investigation_n_899659.html
And then she gets laid off later today. Coincidence?
Z
Warren for Mass. Senate. My donation check is written.
That’s the weird thing. Why do they cut her loose now? She was pretty effectively muzzled where she was. And it’s not like they want/need the CFPB to do anything.
Just like what has been happening ever since Reagan in 1980.
Some sticklers might say since Nov of 1963.
But many of us are no longer making believe, so that’s progress I suppose.
Is it possible to write-in a presidential candidate? That may be the only way I’ll find myself at the voting booth in 2012.
I am sorry that I rushed to my first thought and did not answer your question. The bottom line for me is that someone, somewhere oppose the “Greed” which underlies the Debt Ceiling false crisis and then demands a WPA program for people like me who have been ‘forgotten’ in their rush to cashier our middle class.
I hadn’t seen that. Thanks. You’re right. Have to adjust me thinking accordingly. Hate it when good ideas turn out to be shitty.
And take the case directly to the people — not bargain behind closed doors with the enemy against the interests of those who elected her.
I am changing my voter registration from Democrat to Independent. I can no longer sit by and watch the President and his party screw the nation and the middle class, simply so he can try nd get re-elected.
Why in the world would you not promote ELizabeth Warren???? She understands working and middle class issues more than anyone, and knows how to connect with everyday people.
I am done with the Democratic Party.
Maybe we can hope for Ms. Warren to be even more public and strident, ala Jared Bernstein, now that she’s going to be cut loose officially?
Or is Obama going to keep her on the payroll somewhere, keeping her to some degree on a leash?
Always.
do they REALLY have to play all these games to get anything done? Really? if all the apologists are explaining that Obama can’t get everything we want and only can work one piece at a time, why wouldn’t he, if he is liberal, progressive, or working for the people AT ALL, just have recessed-appointed Warren at any of the opportunities he’s had. There are no excuses for failing this.
They ran that trial balloon up a couple of months ago. It was not well received. Warren is not a person to be easily bought off.
Note to Elizabeth: For months after listening to you speak online about the decimation of the middle class, I carried in my wallet a small bookmark with notes about what you said. Whenever I met anyone who would listen I would take out my talking points and tell them how the price of houses, cars, health insurance had vastly exceeded our capacity to pay for them with our shrinking salaries. Thank you for delivering that message to the people.
Look, the Republicans are going to run the country even if the Democrats win so what do we have to lose? If we can’t defeat the Republicans, let’s defeat the Democrats. Maybe the only way a 3rd party or new movement can gain traction is to first weaken one of the other parties.
The Obamabots are committing a grand self-deception by believing that Obama is “liberal, progressive, or working for mthe people at all.” He isn’t. He’s working for the moneyed interests, and very effectively.
Maybe she should announce her candidacy for Pres representing the New Democratic Party.
Right – good policy = good politics.
When you have the voters and the polling wind at your back, and you communicate that linkage constantly, what Congress could defy you?
Establishment DC is doing the opposite, and I don’t think they realize the unintended consequences that are going to face all of them.
I don’t know if that’s a good move for her.
March 31: Democratic poll shows Scott Brown is unbeatable, crushing all opponents with a 73% approval rating.
May 24: Democrats urge Elizabeth Warren to give up her effort to win confirmation as the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and instead to run for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.
I’m sure she understood what that meant. Her response at the time:
If she couldn’t figure out what that was all about, she’s not as smart as we think she is. Clearly she got it.
Well, that’s one of the mysteries isn’t it?
We call them the MOTU, but their machinations are sort of spastic sometimes, which puts the lie to the illusion of ‘decisive’ leadership.
It may be the down-stream effects of all the lying.
If you tell too many lies, and have a different set of lies for each audience, you find yourself making decisions that threaten one or more of your various mythologies.
That would be really stupid. Brown is incredibly popular.
That’s not what my family (except for my Republican brother – yeah they happen even in the best families) thinks. Their opinion seems to be that Brown is a weasel. I moved to WA a few years back, so my opinion doesn’t count.
I’m with you TomThumb. I hope she does speak out. The participation of everyone in this giant farce is a crisis in itself — there are no leaders who are willing to take the heat for being the voice of reason.
So now she can speak out! So what? That’s supposed to be consolation?
The Beltway is just that, one that screens out dissident messages. Inside it’s ear evil, speak evil and call it good.
It must be good. They are all good people. Good people do not speak evil. Therefore, what they say is never evil.
Hah, I moved from MA to WA when I was a little kid. What a culture shock.
I’m sure that Warren would be popular with many people (certainly here). The problem is, an incumbent with a 73% approval rating is going to be really hard to beat.
Grayson, Sanders, Kucinich, Sherrod Brown, Jane Hamsher; sure none of them would win, but they would start the process of retaking the party, and the progressive nominees in the future will ALWAYS require a track record, which Obama didn’t possess. More importantly, a primary candidate would be the voice of truth and common sense, which will be entirely absent in a Obama vs the Dummy pres campaign.
I think I’ll write in the Dalai Lama for any federal race.
Note the “if there is one.” I hope she speaks out, but it’s hardly consolation for what was little more than a cheap piece of political theater that manipulated everyone involved.
It’s just all so cynical.
is not the currect Congress defying just such a wind on the defict, the wars, and what, just about everything?
I agree good politics never seems to contain good policy.
I’ve been meaning to do a post on Grayson’s announcement that he will run again. I should ask him what he would do if he were President in the current debt ceiling battle. That would give it an interesting angle.
Thanks, KilgourTrout.
I’ve been waiting for a post on this since last night when bloomberg then Raw Story broke this.
It pretty much explains why she went rogue here,
http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/07/15/elizabeth-warren-calls-mortgage-abuse-probes-insufficient/
I always felt that O would eventually throw her under the bus, and he used the cacophony of this debt ceiling bullshit to do it.
It may be a bit of meat to throw to boner and mcconnell.
She would act to investigate it. The corruption is demonstrated, enhanced and institutionalized. They lost my vote when they didn’t install her long ago. This just confirms there is only one party in DC. Goodnight and good luck.
I always thought there was a lower level than cynical, that one can be “cured” of it. But no, the level is -∞.
Yes, it’s important, and it makes a difference.
Elizabeth Warren’s voice had a very sharp impact in the reletively short time that she was making un-fettered commentary on the root causes of the decline in the well-being of America’s middle-class.
She did far more in a couple short years, to inform the masses as to the reasons for their fading economic prospects, than Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, or Paul Krugman, for that matter have done in their entire careers.
That “poll” link was to an op ed about the “poll”. Where is the poll? Frankly I no not know one democrat or independent (admittedly I do not know any tea party independents) in Mass that think Brown is “unbeatable” I know many that dislike The BIg Zero and dislike those supposed democrats that support the lying bastard but at a recent gathering at a party in Brookline I found not one person that would support Brown but many that would support a viable alternative.
Of course the gathering was primarily of academics, intellectuals and medical people that may not be representative of the “average” voter.
As for the supposed 73%…bullshit.
That’s three strikes, Mr. President.
Actions speak louder… and now she’s denied action. They couldn’t allow it.She’s “Dave” and Obama is “HAL” in 2001. Except HAL actually went out on his own. Obama is following the program directly.
Grayson/McKinney?
ok so according to Dday’s update President Bank got exactly what the banks wanted him to do.
The working class is happy to second the motion.
OK then Jane. Who do you recommend?
I wonder when she’ll smell the tide going out and resign as “Assistant to the President”. I thought it was a made up job in the first place to keep Obama LLC critics quite.
Oh, please….
Tell me you’re not serious. Grayson couldn’t even win his own district. There is not going to be a successful primary of Obama and attempting to do so is a fools errand.
To steal a line from Brad Delong,
Obama is worse than you can possibly believe,
even taking into account that he’s worse than you can possibly believe.
I agree. We should be working to get progressives elected to Congress and locally.
SD! They are the smartest people in the bubble!
x4!
Money, I guess. They don’t think they have enough banked from the banksters for 2012.
Yep, like the entire Faux Proggy Caucus . . . PROVEN bamboo, too. Their records speak for them selves . . . LeSigh.
So thin they wouldn’t even make for a good water pipe . . .
heh, I’ve got 13 kittehs here, each of whom is smarter than any of these people.
Only one thing wrong with this bright eyed scenario.
The MSM will not have her on air . . . . ergo, no traction with the masses except for us usual dfh unwashed masses.
This is excellent news.
Warren had no power in her interim position, and Obama and his banker owners would never approve of anything she would have done as Director, so it was clear from the outset she was never going to be nominated, confirmed, or recess appointed. (Another Obama “the check’s in the mail” – or perhaps that should be updated to “the Social Security check’s not in the mail.”)
Warren has far more chance of doing good on the outside of the Obama regime. She can finally be the voice for the public that Obama wanted so much to be silenced.
Let’s encourage her to explain to the public what’s really going on. If she no longer holds back and is just fully herself, America may finally have found a voice that motivates the public to truly act.
Look for her on KO.
Yep. Change party affiliation, vote for anything but the two asshat orgs . . . n then duck n cover . . . it’s gonna get lots uglier it seems, barring some kind of miracle or mama nature intervention (which won’t be pleasant for anyone).
Yeah . . . again, only the choir will hear it . . . better n nuttin, I guess.
It’s gettin ugly on all fronts . . . can’t imagine what’s ahead in the next 2-5 years at this rate . . . nothing pleasant, that’s for sure.
Great catch, thanks . . . all planned out long ago . . .
I don’t want Warren to run for office – at least, not now. She would be bogged down in politics and tied to a party. Her voice would best represent our views if she is on the outside.
*G*
Interesting. Unless there’s a piece in the diaries there’s nothing at DKos about this, or it’s buried somewhere in one of the front page posts.
For myself, I’m not sure electoral politics are where we should be putting our efforts in the future period. As I’ve mentioned before, Diane Wilson’s book salon had a big impact on me. I asked her what her most successful tactic had been recently, and she responded:
I am coming increasingly to believe that focusing on systemic changes to the electoral system, and going after corporations directly, may be a more effective place to focus our time and resources.
I’m not sure it makes sense to pressure people who are merely the pawns of big business, since we can never hope to outspend big corporations and that is the deciding factor in elections in the current environment.
I hope Warren speaks up because I hope her voice will bring some sanity to the debate, and provide a guide star for real progressives (as opposed to the neoliberals currently trying to appropriate the word). But this kind of action, again from Diane Wilson, is the kind of thing that is inspiring movements around the world right now:
We need a movement. We don’t have one. And just like everyone else, I’m trying to figure out how we get there. I certainly don’t pretend to know the answer, but I think there may be better paths than playing in a rigged game.
Sign me up.
Been askin’ myself why I keep at this game after all these years with little or no result.
Gandhi said there were many paths to God. Gotta be more than one path to get to where we want to be.
I’m in agreement, Jane. The political system has always been riddled with graft & corruption, but we’re at some kind of tipping point right now – esp with the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United. Voters should continue to vote and possibly voting third party is one way to “show up” and register your feelings/interests/values/whathaveyou.
Not sure how one engages directly with the mega-corps and their mega-rich & mega-well-connected CEOs, who tend to resemble more and more their Oligarch comrades in the former USSR – mafia dons, everyone of ‘em. Corrupt, greedy beyond belief, nothing is ever enough, and grind the serfs under the bootheel to make ‘em squeal.
Not so long ago, there was a time in the USA where corporations paid more tribute/fealty to the notion of supporting the nation to make USA “strong” and “secure.” But that went out the window before 9/11, and since the events of 9/11, corporations have taken advantage of an extremely gullible and fearful populace to *avoid* insofar as possible doing anything remotely resembling a “duty” to the country, much less the serf populace.
No big surprise about Warren. Her putative nomination was nothing more than some kind of sop, plus keeping her close to keep her muzzled, etc.
How to engage directly with corporations seems, at least, logical. It’s clear that the bought-off hack-shills in Dee Cee could care less about anything beyond the noses on their faces and the payola in their pockets. And electing some newbie so-called “progressive” person means little. They all tend to be bought off and/or forced to comply (Air Force One comes swiftly to me) and brought to heel, whether they want to or not.
We got to hit the corporations where it hurts. What about state initiatives to to constitutionally define corporations as non-persons and their specific non-person rights?
You noticed that, huh.
;)
States would run into conflicts with SCOTUS rulings to the contrary.
Nothing on the Huffington Post on the betrayal of Elizabeth Warren by Mr. “Hope and Change” this morning. As the late George Frazier of the Boston Globe would write: “Disgusting!”
What’s up with MSNBC? Their on-air commentators just roll on their backs and let President Obama rub their tummies. Lawrence O’Donnell can be scathing about politicians’ misdeeds, but he sounds like the worst Democratic hack and spin doctors disgusting the debt ceiling crisis.
I live in Massachusetts and I don’t know how popular Senator Brown is. I don’t think he is unbeatable. He recently voted against a Clean Air bill (screw you, you poor slobs who live in the congested cities) and a steady stream of negative ads linking him to anti-union activities of the Koen (sic) brothers, Gov. Walker of Wisconsin, and assorted flacks for Big Business might do the trick.
I voted for Obama and I am so disgusted with him. Is Alexander Cockburn recognized at this blog, but he described President Clinton and President Obama as two of the most unprincipled and amoral politicians chosen to lead the Democratic Party. I have reached the point where Obama appears on television and I change the channel.
I hope a protest candidate appear at the Democratic Convention in 2012. I would like to see Russ Finegold appear as a protest candidate.
They always have something about something at DK. Today we discover that Obama is weak and easily bullied by Republicans with backbones. Except, the lefties with backbones, get blamed too. This latest example of Obama lack of loyalty to the Base will be a rallying cry for Kossacks, “Obama dumped Warren because Republicans have successful hissy fit.”
For Obama, Warren was a distraction because she might object to the Bipartisany corruption.
The headline at Daily Bizarro World Kos is: BREAKING: Obama NOT Eliminating Elizabeth Warren as Consumer Protection Agency Head
doesn’t amending a constitution supersede SCOTUS rulings? Wouldn’t it be better to start framing a discussion as the people vs. corporations? Who could convince anyone that corporations should be regarded as people? I know there are dupes, but not that many. Wouldn’t this be a start?
Like I said, one of the diaries.
Shorter version:
Leaavvvvvve Obama alllooooone.
Assholes.
Yep, what do you get if you win right now? The privilege of being lied to by someone you like?
As to how to get in their faces, again, Diane Wilson:
I encourage everyone to read the whole salon, including her comments. The point is, she is doing here what people were doing in Egypt and Tunisia. And she’s having success.
I also look at Dan Choi and what he and the GetEqual folks did on DADT. They were not afraid to apply serious political heat to those in charge of decision making. That becomes harder to do if you’re dealing with someone you really like and support, which is why the left has been so fractured, because people really like Obama. It’s easier to rally people to pressure someone they oppose, which is why it was so much more consolidated under Bush.
Anyway, I just don’t feel like I’ve seen value from the people we helped get elected for all those years that merits all the effort we put into it. They’re either ineffective against the system, or they sell out. So my conclusion is that there may be better places to put our energy.
The Regressives would sue based on the grounds that the state constitution cannot trump SCOTUS rulings since their rulings are supposedly only concerned with the US Constitution. IANAL, but they’d do something like that.
I’ve heard Diane on the Women’s Show on WMNF a few times. She’s some kinda dynamo.
Man that is some serious denial. Again, Elizabeth Warren, when asked if she wanted to run for the MA Senate seat:
It must be a full-time job for someone to invent these weird and convoluted excuses for why up is down.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could have been a strong agency advocate for citizens. Instead, the “idea” was used to appease everyone that something was actually being done to rein in the financial institutions. I knew the moment that it wasn’t an independent agency where it was going…no where. The President would NEVER put in place someone who would anger the bankers. If we want to see stability, not just here, but globally, bankers and economists from other countries will need to get a moral backbone and see the repercussions from the lack of real financial regulations. Our government is too corrupted by people such as Barack Obama and a sold out Congress to rein this problem in.
Probably more a function of the weekend crew. I’m sure the leak went to a friendly outlet (Bloomberg) that would be happy about the news, and present it in a favorable light.
I’m a Paulista and I believe we (Paulistas) have a movement. When Jay Leno asked Ron Paul why his supporters loved him so much, Paul gave the *perfect* response. He said it was not about him (the messenger). It was about the message. That’s one of the reasons that I love him. Because it’s not about him.
I offer that a movement requires a leader who is:
1) a proven true-believer
2) more about the message and less about the self-aggrandizement.
The unfortunate reality is that in our 24/7 news cycle, those who excel are usually more interested in the self-aggrandizement… than in the message.
My sense is that Feingold and Sanders could lead a movement. They are true believers with a proven record. And they strike me as being far more interested in impacting the world, rather than in having people love them.
No argument from me. I will be writing in, in 2012.
George Washington and Cincinnatus were both offered dictatorial powers, yet both refused the offer and went home.
IMO, that’s what you need for a movement. Someone who is generally not interested in running for office, but is compelled to do so because things are so wrong. So if you ever went for it, I think you’d be a great candidate!
She’s not a politician. I cannot see her running a campaign.
Why doesn’t one of them run? I agree with you and hope there is a primary challenge or 3rd. party. But I don’t see it in 2012 maybe I’m wrong. :(
What can a President do when your watchdog is a fierce advocate? Obama’s strategery is get another kinder and gentler dog… Jane how fierce are your dogs?
Does Kos revise history? I hope not. Or is it just the same old hide-rec wars? But we do have yet another Kos Bizarro World dispute. Stop Making Lame Excuses As To Why Elizabeth Warren Wasn’t Appointed CFPB Chair
I would vote for him but I hear he is going to run for Gov. of Wisconsin when they recall Scott Walker.
Have no fear, Marcos will eventually come out and say how good the decision is for Obama. Marcos is a blind faith believer.
Well, the handwriting was on the wall for this so I am not surprised.
Obama will indeed be able to hammer the middle class harder than W ever did.
Lucky us.
Still don’t understand where he thinks his legacy will end up. He’s steaming full speed past Herbert Hoover as hapless due to beliefs and well on his way to malevolent destroyer of America:
Third world America = Obama
Just when you thought Obama couldn’t screw up anything else… He really is pathetic.
The last thing an agency which is supposed to act as an consumer advocate needs is a “banking insider” to run it. Yet, once again, that is what we get. ALL of our government agencies should be run by consumer advocates, not “insiders” from big business. This is what happens when you have neo-conservative (Bush) and neo-liberal (Obama) policies which place business interests above the people.
Time of the week for the bad news dump …
Coincidence?
From earlier in the day:
Elizabeth Warren: Government Hasn’t Sufficiently Probed Foreclosure Abuses
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/elizabeth-warren-foreclosure-investigation_n_899659.html
And then later that day:
Obama Eliminates Warren as Consumer Head
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-15/obama-eliminates-warren-as-consumer-head.html
Z
Get a rope!
How about a ‘shadow government?’ Learn from the Yemenis (and Diane Wilson).
July 16, 2011
Here’s the pitch:
* Given that the non-changing Demopublican governments are unresponsive to the need of the citizens, and
* given that the care and feeding of U.S. politicians is basically just another overhead expense of U.S. corporations, and
* given that 63% of the citizens believe that the country is going in the wrong direction (RCP ave.), and
* given that 73% (RCP) disapprove of a Congress that is basically non-functional, then
* a democratically-elected, non-corporate financed ‘shadow government’ is necessary to formulate and publicize policies that actually make sense.
So why not try a third party? A third party is most important, in my opinion, because it can broadcast an alternative message. Progressives have lost the persuasion campaign and are in desperate need of getting an alternative viewpoint into politics. A third party can do that. Reforming the Democrats simply drowns progressive positions in noise the moment the Dems start manufacturing their consent through PR machines. Progressives want to be able to vote for a position they believe in even if they end up being spoilers. Indeed, I think a lot of liberals actually savor the role of spoiling the Democrats’ idiotic leadership.
The Democratic party was “reformed” over 30 years ago with the Reagan Democrats which then continued with the neo-liberal corporates under Clinton and now Obama. Do we have 30 years to “reform” the Democratic party to the “peoples party”. No. Could we even “reform” the captured Democratic party now that monied interests completely run the show. No. The only thing people have going for them is a party to represent citizens first and to find new ways of getting that message out. The only way I see that happening at this point is through a new, independent party that captures citizens who believe in unions and the right to stand up for your beliefs, who believe in justice for ALL, who believe a strong middle class is important to our society…not just the few.
ANYONE who makes excuses for not making Elizabeth Warren the Head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (an idea which SHE promoted in the first place), has lost any future credibility. We can go over all the typical talking points now by the Democrats such as “you aren’t facing reality”, etc. but Obama could have found ways IF wanted to…he didn’t.
Like it.
I have been very lazy today and wasted the afternoon on the internet and checked the Huffington Post and the non-selection of Elizabeth Warren has not yet appeared on HuPo’s Front Page. A post about the legal troubles of Shaq O’Neil has appeared, but nothing about the travesty of Ms. Warren’s non appointment as the chief of an authority she created.
I don’t know if this is a media blackout or some Obama fanatic editor sitting on a big story.
If the establishment Republicans somehow hoodwink the Tea Partyiers and nominate Romney or Huntsman, Obama is finished in 2012. Sometimes, I think that Obama will refuse the Democratic Presidential nomination, like Coolidge turned down the Republican nomination in 1928 because Obama knows the “You-know-what” is about to hit the fan. And join Clinton on the corporations’ gravy train for protection their interests.
It is so disgusting. The Republican Party think that the American public are sheep to be sheared by their contributors and the Democratic Party has been brought by corporate interests and Wall Street seem to agree with their meaning of government.
She is a nice smart woman, my own take on her over the past couple a years is just that, but as much as all the “thoroughly Modern Millies” might like to wish it… ( and mind you, this, if we are reduced to a cult of personality, as a way forward, to escape the clutches of a cabal of the worlds technicratic kleptocratic sociopathocratic,) then it had better be a fire eating demigod at the helm. Nice won’t do.
How would she stand up any better than any other, what could she bring to the fight? It would be that she would have support of course from the likes of thoughtful progressives, and old school rational conservatives, but the war on now is beyond that paradigm, it is a drive to raid what’s left and put an end to bottom up interfearence… “self government” Next stop Plantation America, under unknown (uncelebrated ) corporate rulers. And they kill horses. They don’t take prisoners.
What would she do if president now? I think it would be a version of Obama… or “Bush 4 redux in skirts.” Now what has she been up to for these months? being trained for the job…. ? If she didn’t know she was being sidelined, why not? What was the quid pro quo to get her to stay benched like that, well I figure, she’s being vetted for a run, but it will only fly if she has the right attitude. She might have been attending a prestigeous finishing school for presidential candidate candidates.
If Jesus Christ came back and tried to take over, they wouldn’t let him in the door. He’d have to break some eggs to get any traction.
“I am coming increasingly to believe that focusing on systemic changes to the electoral system, and going after corporations directly, may be a more effective place to focus our time and resources.”
Yes, yes, yes. For eight years I kept hearing, “if only we can unseat Bush…” And I said, unseat him with WHAT? He was a symptom of a problem, the absolute rot of American electoral politics (and partly of the American brain).
Warren for President. Someone for President. For fuck’s sake, let’s get going on this.
OK, OK, I see what you’re saying…
Barack Obama, the voice of the people, as long as the “people” are rich white guys who run banks and corporations.
Does anyone still have the chutzpah to draw comparisons between Obama and Martin Luther King or FDR? For those that can, there’s a job waiting for you at News International, which is rapidly running out of executives willing to lie to Parliament.
I dont want Obama reelected… or any corrupt Democrat or corrupt Republcan elected.
I want someone who represents the American people elected.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would make a great team… but only if Elizabeth Warren would renounce her affiliation with the corrupt Democratic party and run as an Independent [not affiliated with any political party].
Anyone who continues to associate themselves with one of the two corrupt political parties has NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER.
Yes, President Obama compares himself to Abraham Lincoln. Obama compares the Civil War to the phony war on terror. And Obama compares ending Slavery to stealing Social Security for Peter Peterson.
I hear you. As I was editing my initial post my internet connection suddenly went down. What I was adding to my first post was that I really didn’t think there was time to reform the Democrats. As far as I’m concerned, the netroots already are a de facto third party. It’s time for that movement to find a way to coalesce and step into actual politics. They’ve effectively become an alternative media voice, a small one, but one that does influence a lot of people. Now it’s simply a matter of taking the netroots into the political realm. The problem is that most of the leaders in the netroots itself don’t want to lead. They’re happy just to collect an income as bloggers and leave it at that, in short, they’re too conservative. Marcy Wheeler shouldn’t be leaving FDL to find a path to MsNBC or the Washington Post, she should be starting a political campaign.
Someone named “The Power To Unelect” was on the main thread raising hell about it… a couple of hours ago.
Very interesting exchange.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/The_Power_To_Unelect/debt-ceiling-crisis-deficit_n_900630_97568546.html
I did something I rarely do anymore, namely visited Huffington Post and the link you provided. What can you say but the level of delusion made by those commenting is sad to read. It was once an interesting place to read posts, but the Obamabots and paid posters from the political parties (both Democratic and Republican) ruined the website. Too bad.
Given that the entire electoral process has been corporately corrupted, I like the idea of a shadow government. In fact, I like the idea of a shadow electoral process, done the old fashioned way a la the Wellstone bus, a shadow election on the same lines as those UN scenarios high schools used to do (I guess that’s old fashioned now as well.) No claim to legitimacy as far as a replacement for what we supposedly have now, but a clear and present alternative for those of us who cannot bear even to vote any longer, but who still want to have our say. Maybe paper ballots and purple fingers. Maybe put wheels on ‘The Audacity of Hope’ and tour the country.
Anything but the vise we are presently in. I would vote in that system. I would support that system. Even if it has no hope of replacing the current trainwreck. We could have a bunch of lovely candidates, go right back to the original capitol too. An educational demonstration of public desire.
Okay, it’s impractible; it would be shut down or hacked. Ah, but someone will have a better idea, and it will happen. I have faith in our creative young people. They are learning; they will build that better mousetrap.
I am very fond of Elizabeth Warren. She and Ralph Nader, that’s my dream team.
wouldn’t work out, methinks…He is a Zionist, she is pro Palestine. I think McKinney and Nader.
The problem with a third party is that the entire electoral/election apparatus has been hijacked by the corporatist Demopublicans, down to the state levels. Read Nader’s ‘Crashing The Party’ on how the electoral process has been fashioned for the two majors. And of course they get the big bucks which brings the MSM in line. Most of the billions that are raised goes toward advertising b/c the corporations have also hijacked the ‘public’ airwaves.
But not the internet, yet.
Therefore any effective movement has to be outside the box (a la Diane Wilson), an inexpensive, high-quality PR exercise that would be at the same time outlandish and sensible, one that would capture the imagination of the citizens and cause them to react in the ‘American street’ to say: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me. Why isn’t my elected representative talking the same way, instead of hurling mudballs at his opponent?
That’s why I suggest a shadow government.
Nice work sticking up for Elizabeth Warren, Jane. As well, thank you for all that you do to help us defend against President Benedict Hoover Obama and his rabid Kabuki dance partners in the Republican Party as they attempt to consummate their long-standing assaults on Medicare and Social Security, about the only two reasons working people have for needing a Democratic Party in the first place. The more I watch President Obama negotiating with himself before capitulating to the Republican “hostage takers,” the more he reminds me of Cleavon Little as Sheriff Bart in Mel Brooks’ classic “Blazing Saddles.” I have in mind the scene in which the black Sheriff Bart rides into the all-white town only to find the enraged townsfolk pointing their guns at him and threatening to blow his black head off. His clever ploy to escape: point his own gun at his own head and take himself hostage first.
…
[the Johnsons load their guns and point them at Bart. Bart then points his own pistol at his head]
Bart: [low voice] Hold it! Next man makes a move, the nigger gets it!
Olson Johnson: Hold it, men. He’s not bluffing.
Dr. Sam Johnson: Listen to him, men. He’s just crazy enough to do it!
Bart: [low voice] Drop it! Or I swear I’ll blow this nigger’s head all over this town!
Bart: [high-pitched voice] Oh, lo’dy, lo’d, he’s desp’it! Do what he sayyyy, do what he sayyyy!
[Townspeople drop their guns. Bart jams the gun into his neck and drags himself through the crowd towards the station]
Harriet Johnson: Isn’t anybody going to help that poor man?
Dr. Sam Johnson: Hush, Harriet! That’s a sure way to get him killed!
Bart: [high-pitched voice] Oooh! He’p me, he’p me! Somebody he’p me! He’p me! He’p me! He’p me!
Bart: [low voice] Shut up!
[Bart places his hand over his own mouth, then drags himself through the door into his office]
Bart: Ooh, baby, you are so talented!
[looks into the camera]
Bart: And they are so *dumb*!
–
I swear, Mel Brooks had this Sheriff Bart Obama character, not to mention the gullible American townsfolk, nailed to perfection thirty seven years ago.
You and Jane supply the sensibility for the movement, Don, and I’ll help supply the outlandish verse. Or, at least I would try to do so.
Unfortunately for the “outlandish” business, I just tried to use a scene from the Mel Brooks movie “Blazing Saddles” as a useful illustration of President Obama negotiating with himself (before capitulating to the Republican mob) — only to have this site’s taboo-word-police software delete the movie dialogue where the black Sheriff Bart points his own gun at his own head, taking himself hostage while saying something to the effect that if anyone should attempt to interfere with his own self-abduction, then the “N”-word would get it. I still think that this scene says it all about Sheriff Bart Obama, But the effect just doesn’t come through in pablum-speak paraphrase.
Bottom line: I don’t think America has what it takes to deal with either sensibility or outlandishness. As Gore Vidal said of my cringing countrymen, “Americans are among the most easily frightened people on earth.” How true. Americans have even developed mindless computer software algorithms to shield themselves from having to deal with certain vernacular words in their proper context. What browbeaten babies.
Someone did suggest to me that we have a shadow convention in 2012. It’s been done before. Not a bad idea.
speakingupnow…
I agree.
Plus… that site made a deal with the devil… often times the majority of “hits” are coming from paid shills… so they are loathe to do anything about it.
With that said I believe that untimately the paid shills and Obamabots will ultimately cause way more harm than good. No one likes people who cant think for themselves and the fact that the partys feel the need to hire propagandists and shills proves the weakness of their position. Remember how we all felt about Bushbots? We need to continue to take these frauds on.
I believe the American people are waking up… one person at a time. Untimately the propaganda will fail.
I came to this site because it had a reputation of being a place where there were far fewer paid shills and where you could take on Obamabots and paid shills… in a fair fight. So far it has proven to be that.
Primary there. Will keep an eye on that here in The City Beautiful. For now, I’ll try to keep an eye on Sarah palin’s movie opening. Soon. Or maybe it did. Really smart. Same time as the last Harry Potter. In Orlando. Where we have an entire part of Universal dedicated to Harry Potter and the movie opened in 20 theatres at Universal alone. But mI’ll watch the Grayson-Demmings primary.
Like it.
Very good points. Start voting with your dollars, go direct to the power centers, the pawns/politicians are mostly sociopaths looking for a gov job with good pay and pension.
Let me give you an example: My family buys our cell phone service from CREDO WIRELESS, out of San Francisco. They’ve donated 65 million dollars to progressive causes over the years. Write a check to AT&T every month ? You gotta be kidding. Anyway, my two year renewal came up and their offer to my family is a monthly reduction of 10 bucks off the bill, or 24 coupons sent monthly for Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. Ever heard of a reduction on your phone bill ? A web site to identify the good companies and highlight the fascists would be a great web site to use.
Ron Paul had a shadow convention, Rally for the Republic, in 2008. If I recall correctly, it had a better turnout than the GOP convention. And it’s easier to find *stars* to attend for your team!
Hasn’t Matt Damon turned on The Big 0? I’m sure there are other closeted stars & pols who would be willing to speak at a convention of progressives. And Bernie loves to point out how he’s *not* a Dem. So he and Russ would probably be onboard.
Organizing it would be crazy, but you could probably get some serious donations… and you could create principled jobs, albeit temporary. But whoever makes it happen will probably be skooped up in a second by future *principled* candidates.
I think it’s a great idea.
Btw, I think you ARE the perfect candidate. Why? Because you don’t want it.
Thank you for stating this publicly.
An efficiently-organized “movement” always seems to be the missing link that’s needed to transform the desired objectives of a large number of diverse people into reality (particularly when, as now, the institution designed for that purpose – in this case, our well-organized Legislative Branch of government – is filled with incumbents who can ignore the people who elected them with relative impunity, because of the corruption of the election process by money and Party).
But sometimes that necessary organization may come about more or less spontaneously, in sudden response to proposed, and widely-reported, actions instinctively perceived as unjust or unwise by most Americans – like Congress openly favoring global corporate profits over American jobs, or like the President’s current, cynical attack on Social Security, which comes after the federal government has been relying for years on the dedicated income stream of regressive Social Security taxes to fund anything and everything but the well-being of the people who have been contributing that money to the federal government for their retirement. In such a case of ‘spontaneous self-organization,’ it would be more a question of being ready to harness, in a productive way, at least some of that spontaneous desire to achieve a specific objective, than of needing to build a new organization from scratch (a much more daunting task, it seems to me).
But there’s no reason to put all the eggs in one basket. As SouthernDragon says @ 89: “Gotta be more than one path to get to where we want to be.” Testing multiple different approaches simultaneously seems like a good idea, if only to see what works and what doesn’t, as does building on momentum created by others, wherever possible, to help in these efforts. [Take what the media - which, when it wants to, can quickly reach every corner of the nation - will actually cover, and use that coverage to pivot and get your related message out from that starting point, etc.]
How many people “like and support” Members of Congress today? They are amazingly insulated from public accountability inside the Capitol, with most of the media attention on the president. I’ve long thought that the sort of work that Mike Stark briefly did for FDL (and which I’m grateful to see that you’re personally planning to try again this Tuesday), in questioning Members of Congress for the record with video camera in tow, point-blank, has powerful ramifications far beyond the investment made, when smartly targeted ["Chairman Conrad, why have you refused to submit a budget proposal to the Senate Budget Committee this year, as required by law?"]. It takes talent and guts, and an informed questioner, at the right time, to get the best bang for the buck, but when it works, it really works in the age of YouTube (think, for example, of the informed, revealing hallway questioning of Alan Simpson by one lonely activist, patiently parked outside the closed-door Catfood Commission meetings, previously featured by FDL).
Because I highly value a democratically-operated, public federal legislature whose members have reason to fear the voters, I have no trouble deciding where I’d like to see reform energy focused at the federal level, as my comments/posts have presumably made clear. There is no question – as Eli, for one, has voiced with his usual incisive clarity and perception at FDL – that a vital, needed reform is to require that federal elections for public office be funded (at least mostly) without private money – which means, it appears inevitable, some sort of Constitutional Amendment. Well, a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment is now forging ahead through the preliminary stages in Congress, thanks to the efforts of some dedicated freshmen incumbents, so this seems like a very opportune time for good government types to be demanding that the Balanced Budget Amendment get a floor vote in exchange for Congress likewise receiving a chance to vote on a Constitutional Amendment designed to reform the corrupt campaign-finance system. If we had even a few people in Congress truly representing us, we could do some leveraging of existing publicity to promote our own Amending agenda.
But, more to the point, the reason for the lack of returned “value” from people in Congress who are clearly entrenched in, and beholden to, the top-down Party system – no matter their “progressive” credentials – is, to me, clear and unsurprising, if deplorable. And I don’t believe that Americans should simply surrender to that corrupt Party-driven system, but that we should instead fight hard to dismantle/reform it. Because over the long term, what are we, without a functional, ethical federal Congress that conducts itself as an independent, co-equal branch of government? [That is, when the Good Emperor that so many now seem to be yearning for, in place of Obama, is finally elected, for a maximum of eight years, what should our representatives in Congress do then? Kneel down and kiss his or her feet? Should they think for themselves, or simply obey orders? How would finally getting a Good Man or a Good Woman in the presidency restore self-government, or revive the hollowed-out, hiding-out U.S. Congress??]
A crucial prerequisite to fighting against the corrupt Party system is to recognize it for what it is – and to understand how and why Party members in Congress play a part in public that they have no intention of fulfilling when the backroom Party chips are down, and Party loyalty is privately held over their heads as the first and last duty of a Member of Congress.
[For example - TimWhite makes good points above @ 104, but to pick on part of his comment, I am absolutely confident from their past behavior that neither Russ Feingold nor Bernie Sanders is prepared to challenge the Party system, contrary to Tim's impression. Sanders goes so far as to pretend to belong to neither Party - but, of course, Sanders is in fact an integral member of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, and his highly-partisan rhetoric shows it. And you should hear Sanders publicly and pathetically plead with the President to do this, or to do that, in the name of all that's holy (see the current Sanders letter/petition on his website: "Mr. President, please, please..."). Sanders pleads with the Executive Branch (on a subject about which he is obviously passionate) rather than - as Sanders is well-positioned to do - using his power as a Senator and member of the Budget Committee to fight Harry Reid's corrupt operation of the Senate, and to work with someone like Bob Corker to force the Senate to do its job, instead of waiting on the President to give Sanders and the Senate their marching orders. On a related note, I've heard Senators praising the Senate for its recent unexpected passage of a repeal of ethanol subsidies (as part of a bill that, however, went nowhere). But that amendment vote only came about because Tom Coburn angered Party leadership, and thus some of his petty-minded colleagues, by forcing a vote on his ethanol-subsidy repeal amendment - which Harry Reid was blocking from floor consideration. Because of that extra, seemingly-unpopular effort by Coburn, it developed that powerful Democrats like Dianne Feinstein agreed with Coburn on the substance of his amendment. So - although Democrats refused to vote with Coburn ("filibustered," to use their Party's favorite, misleading rhetorical label for what they did), simply because of the way that Coburn forced a floor vote (by filing a cloture motion, as Democrats constantly do) - a couple of days later a "bipartisan" repeal amendment co-sponsored by Feinstein and Coburn suddenly emerged instead, was quickly given a hearing and vote on the floor, and passed by a large margin. But none of that would have happened without Coburn's original dogged efforts to challenge the Majority Leader's corrupt operation of the Senate, by standing up for his prerogatives as a Senator. Yet how many Senators have acknowledged Coburn's important move to re-empower individual Senators, or have thanked Coburn for taking personal heat to help the Senate make progress on that issue?]
If we (like Beltway-media stenographers) take it as a given, and as our unspoken premise, that Party loyalty – not loyalty or principled allegiance to stated Party policy or platform, but simply perverted loyalty to Party personalities, powerbrokers, or face-saving – should always come first for Congressional incumbents (just because it presently does come first), we lose before we begin when lobbying Members of Congress, or supporting Party-aligned candidates for Congressional office. That’s part of what I’ve been trying to demonstrate with comments like this one.
Since, like TimWhite, I prefer to focus on substance (and structure, or process) before personalities (e.g., that one undiscovered Good Man/Woman temporarily holding the presidency will be or can be the solution to our problems), I’ll readily endorse and make use of timely, sound sentiments from Senators like Jeff Sessions – a definite partisan with whom I don’t often agree, and much of whose past behavior indeed belies his present words – when he gets it right, however disingenuously. And it’s heartening to note that the same thing that Jeff Sessions has been saying on the Senate floor for weeks has now been said in an excellent guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal by a retired federal appellate judge and former OMB assistant general counsel (who has the politically-unfortunate name of “Michael McConnell” – I know little about him, but his editorial speaks for itself).
To my mind there’s valuable momentum and a clear opening here to challenge – on grounds of fundamental principle (open government, legal duty, separation of powers, democratic self-government) with positive political potential (a more just and wise federal budget than is now on the President’s backroom table) – the present, unconscionable subservience of Senate Democrats to the President. And it’s an opening that the cowardly Kent Conrad, for one, may well be privately hoping that outsiders will exploit, to help him save his more-rational budget outline (no Social Security tampering) from the Democratic Party deep-sixing that it’s been given. Here’s Professor McConnell Thursday (again, he’s not to be confused with Booz Allen’s ex-Spy-in-Chief for Bush):
of both parties…
There are moments in time when great change can happen. With Obama’s election, I had hoped for a return to peace and an end to — as Obummer said — Bush’s failed economic policies. Instead, we got Bush on steroids.
But America’s situation hasn’t improved. It’s gotten worse. So I believe that the thirst for change has only grown stronger in the past 30 months.
I say go for it!
Btw, with respect to Bernie… I tend to agree.
I think it was the Patriot Act where Rand Paul showed that a lone Senator — not 40 — can still use their archeic rules to gum up the Senate.
Bernie is a Senator. I’m not an expert, but I follow this stuff enough to conclude he could be doing more.
You may also want to try to get one *good* wo/man elected to the Senate. If you can take a page from the Rand Paul playbook and fund just one candidate who is not owned by the corporatocracy, then maybe that one Senator would be able to move mountains? It’d have to be a known quantity though. Someone that the grassroots will trust to stand his/her ground when Harry tries to pull an LBJ. Maybe try to win a primary in a blue state? My state is CT. Chris Murphy is the front runner, but he’s a party guy. If you found a true-believing Nutmegger, you may be able to win the primary and take the general. Or maybe you could take out Wall Street Chuck in NY?
The sad thing is that you already got to 60, including a bunch of freshmen… yet none of them stood up against the system. They all fall in line. So maybe this suggestion is worthless…
“Good, bad, or indifferent” of character, if a Senator pledges to, and actually consistently does, publicly challenge Party leadership when it goes astray, particularly, and of most far-reaching importance, when that leadership tries to prevent the Senate (its public Chamber and committee rooms) from being the workplace of Senators that it’s designed to be, I believe such a Senator would indeed “be able to move mountains.” [And, without the need to sacrifice on principle, it could well be a current incumbent and member of one of the two Parties, like Rand Paul, rather than someone not yet elected to office, like Elizabeth Warren.] Note though, that if we don’t keep our eye on the (mostly-hidden) ball – how a candidate elected to Congressional office will react to private Party dictates (contrary or unrelated to policy/platform) when they inevitably come – but focus only on a candidate’s public positions on the policies of the moment, we’re likely to be spinning our wheels in futility. We need to be aware of, and focus on, that underlying Party power structure, and how it operates behind the scenes to control the actions of its members inside Congress.
As the Coburn effort to simply have his ethanol amendment heard on the floor helped demonstrate, pampered, accountability-shielded incumbents – who have grown accustomed to “the way things are” in the Senate today – think that it is rightfully up to Party leadership alone as to what the Senate works on, and when. They have irresponsibly ‘washed their hands’ of the business of the Senate, by ceding much of the power of their high public office to a private Party organization. Yet – unlike the situation in the House, where highly-partisan rules now dominate – most of the Senate’s existing (non-partisan, egalitarian) rules and precedents remain arrayed against such a dangerous, childish trust in Party parent figures, and I think Senators have unquestionably let the ceding of their collective responsibility for the work schedule and output of the Senate go way too far in the opposite, top-down, Party-dictated direction.
Given the national media’s inability or unwillingness to explain how or why the Senate is now operated by a few Party bosses from the back rooms, such principled public resistance from even a single Senator can force a way through that lack of coverage and start to expose the Party myths disguising the reality of the Senate’s idled status. And Rand Paul did indeed commendably start to do just that on the unreformed PATRIOT Act renewal deal – a deal designed by both Party leaders to prevent any committee consideration or floor amending in a deliberate, last-minute rush to passage – which in the end only a few Senators publicly challenged, Paul most passionately, and at personal cost, by resisting the corrupt backroom leadership of both Parties.
Hamsher and Warren are not in the same league. One has the courage of her convictions and the other is a paid spokesmodel. We already have one of those as president.
Thanks. And while I pretty much viewed the Senate that way, I couldn’t explain anywhere near as artfully as you.
It reminds me of my own experience. When I was first elected (Nov 2003) to my local Council (Cheshire CT), it was a 5-4 R majority (taken from a 6-3 D majority). I recall so vividly being told that “seniority” matters! Being me, I ignored them and did my own thing, much to the leadership’s dismay.
By the time the election was approaching (Oct 05) I had a fairly decent understanding of our rules of order. And I knew there was a reason that I had a “seat at the table.” So I used it in an effort to demand good government.
The leadership was furious, but I didn’t care. I knew what I had done was right and I’m grateful that the voters saw it. Not only did the 5-4 R majority flip to a 5-4 D majority (not my intention), but I was the only R to win my district (every other Council, BOE, Zoning, etc. went Dem).
I’m confident the same principle applies to the US Senate that applies to a local Council. The main difference is that Council seat can be won with shoe leather. A US Senate seat requires money.
I’m confident the money and reelection is the main reason that most Senators follow his marching orders. And therein lies the best part of Rand Paul. It was grassroots fundraising that he knows will be there for him in 2016. So whether or not that is a consideration for him, he need not be concerned.
Of course there are other concerns, like Harry or Mitch sticking it to you with various procedural hurdles, etc. But I’m thinking we can overcome that when Jane is elected to the Senate. And although she won’t have a parliamentarian on her staff… she would have Powwow! And in a very public way — on FDL — you can explain to Jane (and the whole world) what measures she can take to stick it right back at Harry!
What do you think? You can *personally* take the war to Harry!
I think it’s a great idea… I just hope you’re not on Harry’s staff… that could prove problematic… haha…
Of course the only thing “down the road” was the can that the President likes to kick in his favorite metaphor.
Yes, weak can.
Bravo on your local government service, Tim, and for doing the job you were elected to do, despite peer pressure to knuckle under to the will of controlling colleagues.
Well said. As far as I’m concerned, you’re speaking from relevant, valuable, and uncommon experience, when discussing what is and isn’t possible for a member of a legislative body like the U.S. Senate. Not to mention speaking like someone with a democratic faith in the ability of people to wisely self-govern, when given the facts they need by an open government and a responsible media.
Thank you for sharing your experience, and please keep drawing that parallel – it’s important for Americans to hear that our federal legislature is designed to play the same fundamental role as any other democratic legislative body, never mind how the two national Parties and their media boosters have been allowed to corrupt it to serve the few at the expense of the many.