Someone has their narrative wrong.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner praised Wall Street bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren today, saying she’d be “a very effectively leader” of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. He added, “She is one of the most effective advocates of reform in the country.” -Via Benen.
But the media told me they hated each other and Geithner was trying to block her appointment.
The netroots raised such a stink that Geithner was compelled to say that.
See what happens when we flex our muscles?
That was pretty funny.
You want to know what’s AWESOME?
HuffPo’s headline for this exact same story was “Geithner Refuses to Endorse Warren for CFPB”.
As much as the netroots seems to bitch and moan about how the WH still treats FOX like a news organization…it’s easily just as ridiculous for them to consider HuffPo as a “liberal” website.
Technically, that headline isn’t inaccurate, but it would have been less confusing (or misleading) to say that Geitner, according to the story at HP, hasn’t yet apparently given Obama his recommendation for the post. It isn’t Geitner’s place to publicly “endorse” anyone, a job Obama normally would have as he makes his announcement of the nomination.
Here’s hoping Obama steps up and does the right thing for Warren. If FDR could push for the much more controversial Joe Kennedy to head the new SEC, Obama can surely at least try for the well-respected and pristine Warren, who isn’t nearly as dinged as old Joe was.
Well, as accomplished as Warren is, somehow I doubt she’s nearly as well-connected as Joe Kennedy was.
It’s not really a matter of connections. FDR owed JPK for his enormous help in getting the nom secured in 1932 (when 2/3 of the delegates was the rule and FDR needed Hearst’s backing, which Kennedy helped arrange), and in being Roosevelt’s chief fundraiser in the general. After FDR didn’t name him to Treasury, as some expected, when SEC came along, it looked like a nifty moment for Roosevelt to finally pay back Kennedy.
Obama is not similarly in debt to Warren, but at least nominating her, and genuinely pushing for her confirmation, would do wonders to shore up Obama’s sagging support with the base, would help him look like a principled fighter, and would be a nice clear distinction to present to the voters in November whether she is confirmed or not.
Agreed. It’s the right fight at the right time.
It would also nominate someone to the position who has a proven track record of actually putting consumers first. Should not forget that as well.
The idea that nominating Warren rather than barr or someone else will drive votes seems to me to be totally untethered from reality. Voters are not particularly driven by cabinet appointments, let alone tier 3.
You overstate your case. There are all kinds of downhill consequences of disappointing your base. Obama is getting hurt very badly right now by the media coverage from his base. It gives license to one nasty story after another, it demoralizes and discourages organizing, and it saps the energy and fun out of everything. He needs to give a jolt to his base. Actually, he needs to give several jolts to his base.
that part of “the base” has been declaring itself alienated for 2 years.
Sorry. Boo is right. And besides, no one thought VP picks made a shit’s worth of difference, until The Quittah came along. I read the other day that Cranky McSame’s pick of The Quittah might have cost him two percentage points of the vote.
If Huffpost can possibly devise a misleading, manipulative, sensationalistic headline for any given story, they will never pass up the opportunity.
That’s the headline writer’s job. Write something that will attract eyeballs. All headlines are manipulative, sensationalistic, and misleading. Some are just more crass than others. In today’s journalistic environment, Huffington Post headlines rank somewhere in the middle on crassness.
Some of the nation’s best headline writers work for the New York Post. They’re the ones who came up with this classic about a murder in a strip joint:
“Headless Body In Topless Bar”
At least that’s clever. The Huffpost headlines are never clever, they’re just misleading. I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that with a newspaper, the text is right there, whereas with a news aggregator main page, where’s there’s no room for text, the reader is faced with the question: to click or not to click? I’m no expert on news aggregators of the world, but I find the Huffpost approach to headlines about as manipulative as the National Enquirer (except that the NE usually provides stories to match — true or not) — and inappropriate to the readership (in other words, insulting to such intelligence as the readership is likely to possess).
Ugh, Huffington Post is worthless.
I wish I could just say that Huffington Post is worthless. Unfortunately, I think the function it has marked out for itself, and which it performs more extensively than anyone else, is a very important one. I just don’t think it lives up to its responsibilities. I find it both indispensable and enfuriating.
Indispensable? Do you know that I have never once visited Huffington Post without being steered there by someone else? It’s never been entered into my browser or googled by me or bookmarked. As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t even exist. The last time I remember paying any attention to anything that happened there was during the Iranian elections when I followed links to the coverage there, which was very good.
Evidently not indispensable for you, but it’s about the quickest way to find out what’s going on on any given day, just because of the sheer volume and variety of stories. How you evaluate the coverage and where you go from there is another story. I would imagine you have many other sources. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m, not a big fan of Huffpost, but except for the struggling Buzzflash, I haven’t found anything else doing that.
I hate the Huffpo. Right now they have a banner headline saying that Obama blames the media for the firing of Sherrod when in fact he said that all this results from the 24 hourisation of the media etc, something which is hardly controversial. The man gave an apology and phoned the woman a day after the mistake was made. The guy has dignity and courage and is not afraid to admit when he screwed up. Isn’t that exactly what we want in a leader?
Little acknowledged will also be the fact that Geithner said yesterday that the bush tax cuts on the wealthy are going to expire.
Sounds nice, but it’s hardly a ringing endorsement that Warren should in fact lead that agency (not that it’s Geitner’s place to endorse of course). Some good rhetoric to show the lib base the admin’s good will on the Warren controversy.
Wake me up when Obama himself stands up and says Eliz Warren is clearly the right person at the right time for this job and he’s going to push strongly for her appointment.
I’d give him considerable credit for that, even if it fell short by a vote or two. At least Obama would be trying for the end zone for a change instead of settling for the safe field goal.
I don’t know if they hate each other. They might, they might not, it’s not really my call to make. However, both of them knew the importance of a CFPA, and both fought for one quite strongly.
Politically, Obama has no choice but to nominate Warren. Personally, I think she politicized the hell out of COP, so I’d be wary on that reason alone.
I don’t care if it’s Warren or Barr in the end, really, because politically there’s no better person than Warren. It’s probably who I would choose, just for that reason alone.
Personally, I think she politicized the hell out of COP, so I’d be wary on that reason alone.
How did she do that? By advocating for the consumers instead of the banksters?
Yes. I think she overstepped her mandate in using her chairmanship of the COP as a bully pulpit from which to lecture all within earshot on Recovery from Financial Meltdown 101.
That’s neither here nor there, as I’m still a fan of hers, but I would that the same wouldn’t follow if she headed the CFPA.
I would hope*
I don’t think the “Geithner doesn’t want Warren heading up CFPB” narrative is wrong, but I freely admit that I have no evidence to back that up. I’m speculating.
And I would loooooooove to be wrong about this.
Let me see:
An unnamed source for Shahien Nasiripour and a guy named Froomkin constitute “the media”.
Everyone else is picking it up because of its “cage match” narrative.
But there are a lot of folks who will claim (maybe truthfully) that failure to nominate her means they sit out in November. But some might have been sitting out in November 2008 as well.
I would only give it credence because of Froomkin’s involvement. He was fired from the Post because he made Dear Leader sad. I hate to see him in that mischegas over at HuffPo, but I guess it pays the bills.
Obviously the interesting question is not whether or not he likes her personally. Let’s just say that, considering their respective constituencies, it’s hardly implausible that Geithner would not want her in that position. Besides, we already know that his pick is Michael Barr.
And how is it that we know his pick is Michael Barr?
OK, we don’t literally know this. It’s another one of these plausible assumptions, based on such facts as that Michael Barr is currently Geithner’s Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions, and that he once served as Special Assistant to former Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin. Elizabeth Warren has a mostly academic background as an expert on the economics of middle-class families, and in her work for the Obama administration, she has consistently acted as a watchdog on Treasury.
This assumption about Geithner’s preference for Barr may not be correct, but it is widely shared.
Of course I don’t think this is really Geithner’s call. It’s Obama’s call and I don’t think he would have cultivated Warren to the extent that he has if he hadn’t been planning something like this all along. My view is that Obama has always envisioned a limit to the power of Geithner and Summers, it’s just that he was waiting for the legislation to back that up. And the legislation gives a lot of room to the executive branch to create the new reality. Unless it instead it cements the old reality.
To me financial reform has always been the biggest issue of all for Obama. And like so many others, I have found it maddening and frustrating, especially when I couldn’t see where any change was coming from. Now for the first time people who are not cynical about Obama can see the shape such relief could possibly take. I know the president likes to avoid drama, but although things are still quiet, I see this as the most dramatic moment of the administration so far.
Before you stab someone in the back be sure to say something nice about her.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/3/853552/-Geithners-stunning-success-at-Treasury
And yet, the Manic Progressives will claim that Timmeh only did all that because they yelled at him and called him names.
they don’t even know it happened. They do not give a shit about unions or manufacturing or the working class.
Has AIG paid back anything yet? The Gov’t still owns a majority stake in GM, so Geithner is far from home free.