Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Too Good, Too Smart, Too Able for Wall Street Approval
Statement by Ralph Nader on the rejection of Elizabeth Warren by President Barack Obama to be the Director of the new Consumer Financial Regulatory Bureau.
To dump Elizabeth Warren, the most qualified, most motivated and most articulate candidate for the directorship of the Consumer Financial Regulatory Bureau is an act of political cowardliness by President Obama and a boon to anti-consumer Republicans and their corporate paymasters in Wall Street.
Elizabeth Warren apparently is just too good, too smart, and too able to arouse the just concerns of millions of American families about the need to put the law-and-order wood to the corporate criminals, defrauders and reckless speculators with the savings and pensions of millions of Americans.
President Obama should realize that his back-of-the-hand attitude to his liberal and progressive supporters – who sent him to the White House – can have consequences. He believes they have no where to go. But they do. They can stay home in 2012, as so many did in 2010 to the detriment of the Democrats and many Congressional races.
83 Comments so far
Show AllWhy is it that Wall Street has anything to do with her approval?
...not even sure where to start with this
I say this not to be cruel but to express my astonishment at your seeming lack of understanding of our political situation and the corruption thereof. Perhaps you are new both to this forum and to politics in general, neither of which is a crime obviously. I suggest you read and digest here and elsewhere until opinion based upon knowledge express themselves.
Please understand my reluctance to give my own opinions and understanding of the current political dangers. You must be able to form your own opinions, and hopefully they will be knowledge based. Other wise, well, there is always the Tea Party.
I see by your comment further down that you were being facetious......sarcasm lends itself not at all to such a medium as this.
In response to the other replies: Jessia's question is a rhetorical one, though it's not accurate to call it facetious or sarcastic. Jessia is bringing up the point that by rights, Wall St. should NOT have anything to do with Warren's approval.
Thank you for "getting it".
At first blush I thought this a newbie to political forums. When the poster proved, subsequently, to be "rhetorical" I understood that s/he is simply incapable of clear commenting. Surely that cryptic and so easily misunderstood first post is not acceptable to anyone seeking clear dialoguing?
If the poster already knew the answer then the words I used are clearly correct. I only continue this because common grond is so hard to find, as it is for all of us.
Because our representatives pledge allegiance to the Private Estates of America.
I said it before, I'll say it again:
I haven't seen "Trylon" here in a while, but if he's still around I'm sure he'll vicariously inform Warren "You betta off!"
And of course it's no surprise that Warren didn't get this "macht nichts" job after all.
It felt very much like the Dawn Johnsen Story from the get-go-- lots of hopeful buzz from moderate liberals and progressives, while all along Team Obama leaves the object of their adulation twisting slowly in the wind before finally pulling the plug.
The only question now is whether they'll add insult to injury by creating some sort of new ceremonial sinecure to offer Warren, a sort of wonky "Miss Congeniality" award.
Actually, appointment to the Supreme Court would be acceptable.
Now THERE is a good idea -- unfortunately, I cannot imagine the current president appointing to the Court someone he refused to appoint to head the CPA.
I've been thinking about Trylon much in the last several days. I had another reason to go back in the threads over the weekend, and though I had already noted his absence lately, this "nostalgia" reinforced it. I would also like to bring up something else I noted in the past threads.
It was really creepy, for two reasons. First, it "disappeared" her and second, it had me replying to myself, so I feel it makes me look peculiar, to say the least. I have a string of threads of non sequiturs posted that don't directly related to the article. What's going on CD? If you're going to remove comments please leave a place holder like "Remark removed by CD for flagged content" or "Remark removed by CD per author's request" or "Comment removed for State Security purposes" , whatever the deal is. ( Examples are not meant to ascribe motives/behaviors on any specific parties, just given as types of reasons the thread might be broken)
Has anyone else had this experience here on CD? Anyone with some insight on this? Thanks, minnow
PS Come back, Trylon. We miss you and you're missing some great new ably written comments, including OS :-)
Paragraph 2 of above post that was omitted on website end(NOT my comment box):
"At one point, "OK" was in the threads quite a bit. I posted a perhaps somewhat backhanded complement about a particular poem she had written. The sentiment was sincere about the poem but couched in terms that made it clear I hadn't appreciated her positions on many of her other threads or their timbre. I don't want to get into that. What I want to point out is that, now in the archives, the poem that prompted my sole direct address to OK (as far as I know) and her portions of the exchange have disappeared."
This makes this whole thing even creepier now. Regular posters of this time frame might remember this exchange and I would suggest not typing in the full "handle" for posting of the poem's author if you wish the remark to get past the programming. Maybe this is why Trylon left....
Thanks for the compliment, netminnow.
FWIW, I have never been able to come to terms with the practice of "disappearing" comments or commenters without at least the courtesy of a boilerplate notice and explanation.
It seems to me that even from the most harsh, cold-blooded administrative perspective, taking the "trouble" to publicly memorialize deletions and expulsions would provide useful feedback to the rest of the commenters.
In James Herndon's superb "The Way It Spozed to Be", his account of his first year teaching in an urban public elementary school in the late 1950s, he describes a fellow teacher, "Mrs. Z".
Mrs. Z was a genteel elderly Southern woman who never, ever spoke directly to her students. Her communication was limited to speaking to the entire class ("lecturing"), writing on the blackboard, and distributing mimeographed handouts.
Herndon finally privately asked her why she never spoke to individual students. Mrs. Z calmly replied that she had been brought up to believe that one only spoke to ladies and gentlemen-- and since it was obvious that her students were not, and would never be, ladies and gentlemen, she had no intention of ever speaking to them!
When I reflect upon the administrative opacity and idiosyncracies here, I think of Mrs. Z.
PS: I too root for the prickly, hyper-curmudgeonly Commenter Who Shall Not Be Named, and am glad that this commenter has the technical expertise to return at will.
She should oppose Obama in NH Primary, March 2012.
I have great respect for Ralph Nader and I have voted for him, but I disagree about this being an act of "cowardliness" and I am not concerned, as he seems to be, about anything that is detrimental to the democrats.
Anything detrimental to either of the criminally corrupt corporate arms of our supposed "government" would seem to me to be progress.
I was certain that either Elizabeth Warren would be rejected or that the position of director of the CFRB would be so terribly restricted and facetious that she would find little reason to want it.
When candidate Obama and all the rest of the flying monkeys in the castle of the Wicked Witch of the West rushed into the Devoid Office to french kiss with George W. Bush and Henry Paulson in the fall of 2008, so that Wall Street CEO's could continue to masturbate themselves into their own special nirvana, it was their pledge of allegiance to the escalation of wanton debauchery.
So, stop expressing concern for these perverts,
Please.
We should highlight the blatancy of this rejection of responsibility as one more step toward the end of the democrats and the republicans as we KNOW them.
Please take off the gloves Ralph.
"Too Good, Too Smart, Too Able for Wall Street Approval"
As Elisabeth Warren is rejected, so Obama is confirmed as "too bad, too weak, too enabling Wall Street approval".
This seems like a good time to dump Wall Street - dis-invest in America.
I'm a proud member of the OPT-OUT Party- when in doubt BUY NOTHING and ONLY vote 3rd party - if a good progressive doesn't receive my vote I blame them for putting a D in front of their name.
How many more times does the public need to be fucked by this piece of shit corporate whore of a president before they call for his impeachment?
Juding by his approval numbers, I'd say they need to be raped many, MANY more times before they ever do that.
Never underestimate the ignorance of Americans.
He hit me and it felt like a kiss.
I don't know, Rasmussen has Obama suffering from a 54% disapproval among "voters" with 42% strongly disapproving. Here's a summary of recent polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Well, analyze recent events as you will, but I wouldn't put any stock in what Rasmussen says.
They were the only polling outfit to assert that single payer is supported by only 35% of the public, when at least dozen other pollsters found that the other way around (i.e. 65% of the public, consistently). FOX loves Rasmussen figures, along with more than a few lying accountants for the health insurance industry, which should be plenty enough information for truly average Americans.
Besides, even if those figures were correct, I think about 42% of voters voted for McCain and Palin, so that number of "strong disapprovers" would not be a stroke of lightening from the left wing of American theatre.
(And, IOW, I would not follow where that particular group is headed.)
I cited Rasmussen because his is, for reasons you describe, the high end of the disapproval spectrum.
The link has a table of five or six recent polls by a range of pollsters.
My crystal ball says Obama is on the way down and the path is steep.
Yes, disinvest in KORPORATE America. Sell your stock and don't buy from any business that donates to the Korporate Kronies (Rs or Dems). And, yes, stay home if the only 'choice' we have is between Obama or a ruthless, demented Republican Korporate Klown.
As much effort and work that went into various campaigns to get her appointed, I'm TOTALLY frustrated by Obama's decision... at the rate he's going, HE won't get my support in 2012 (and DEFINITELY nobody on the GOP side will either... EVER!).
We desperately need campaign reform laws and some 'fresh meat' in the presidential lineup... a TRUE progressive who's not afraid of challenging the status quo and standing up for "We, the PEOPLE" instead of caving in to the GOPhers and their corporate sidekicks who are undermining everything we stand for!
I'M REALLY PISSED!!!
We had a "TRUE progressive", his name is Dennis Kucinich. Of course, he has no chance, because of that fact.
I would appear you have a convenient memory when it comes to Dennis. You don't remember him caving on the single payer issue? Dennis is just as complicit and colluding as the rest of them.
Reality check: Dennis Kucinich is a good man. His sole mission in Congress is to represent the interests of working people. He’s thoughtful and articulate. The problem is that there are not more like him. Lynn Woolsey for example, nice person that she may be, is not up to the task of staring down the President and holding out for what she wants. I can just tell from watching her on TV that she would cave.
Dennis was left alone for months holding a consistent position. Obama lobbied him hard with the argument that it might come down to one vote and his presidency was on the line. Dennis tried until the end to leave open the door to a government-run plan but Obama would not budge.
http://my.firedoglake.com/bmull/tag/single-payer/
Mr. Kucinich drew a line in the sand. He would not budge. FINALLY, a politician with real guts, taking a real stand. Come hell or high water he would not budge his resolve was firm. He was an oak. It was a bad plan and he absolutely, positively, would NOT vote for it.
Shove it, Dennis. Just shove it and STFU. Go play with your trophy wife.
I would feel differently if he had given any indication at all that he was being dishonest. If he had used the typically wishy washy response regarding this issue then maybe he could be cut some slack for his final "compromise". But he did not. He lied and lied and lied right up until time to vote.
hogwash - unsound and unjust rationale - you would honor the honesty of being dishonest - because you deem it to have been so?
If the tide of political will to champion common causes in Washington were easier your presumptuous and condescending judgement might be more apropos. And regardless of context, only extremists and nut cases are absolute about anything in politics - it's the nature of the beast, otherwise it's certain political suicide. Martyrs may make for interesting stories but they do not win elections nor sway governments.
What? Me Vote? I'm Going To Stay Home And Masturbate. Yes-In-Dee-Dee.
If you were a decent, respectable Amerikan citizen you'd take your ass down to that polling booth and masturbate there, like you're supposed to!
O.S., you are one hilarious poster!
Shades of Mordechai Shiblikov: at times vulgar, but always entertaining!
Bill in Dubuque
Seriously, Ms. Warren is too good for the Raygun-Democrat Barackian O'Ronnieian.
For some unknown reason I've been receiving weekly copies of Bloomberg News. Elizabeth Waren was the cover story complete with bloody tomato splats labeled "Liberal" "Smug" "Bureaucrat" "Entitled" "Arrogant"
This may represent opinions only in certain quarters, but even though the article was rather favorable, the cover picture negates anything said inside.
@Jessia: because Wall Street vetted Obama. He's their man. Big business wouldn't have given him all that campaign money if they didn't know he was safe. All that change rhetoric was just for the low information voters---the vast bulk of the citizenry. Obama held the violin with his left hand but he plays it with his right.
It was a rhetorical question, but yes "weacguy"- understood.
Jessia - I admire the graciousness of your responses - both made and not made.
:>)
I hate to spoil the celebration of Elizabeth Warren as a brilliant angel , but she seems very naiive to me -- and I really don't trust her.
After all, she was willing to let her "baby" (Consumer agency) become swallowed by the Fed (rather than insisting it be fully independent).
She actually said it "didn't matter", which is total nonsense (a lie, basically).
A very large part of the problem we face today is that for far too long, most Americans have trusted the Harvard types (of which Warren is one) to "lead them" and do what is right by them.
What many people STILL do not seem to get is that these Harvard and Yale elites are out for themselves (that's how they got where they are!) -- and have very little in common with you and I, despite claims to the contrary.
Personally, I don't trust Warren any more than I trusted Obama.
PS I actually attended an Ivy league school (Cornell) and left because I could not stand the cutthroat dirtbags (of which there were many).
You do realize that Cornell also happens to be one of the Land Grant universities and plays a vital role in the national university extension system---those are some serious egalitarian roots. Perhaps you were mixing with the wrong crowd?
It seems absolutely wrong, prejudicial, and mostly inane to assert that all Harvard or Yale graduates are corrupt, biased accomplices of an over-bearing 'elite'.
Point of fact, Warren's roots are of the Heartland, and her values still seem securely anchored to those original associations. Others, too, certainly have benefited from their Ivy League educations without sacrifice of working class ideals and sympathies, or have you never heard of, or read, the works of Dr Cornell West.
Peace my little brothers and sisters
and on it continues...
Yes, Elizabeth Warren's roots are in Oklahoma, as are Dr. Cornel West's - --and Woody Guthrie's. There's not much that's good coming out of this state, but when it does, it's VERY good!
"Perhaps you were mixing with the wrong crowd?
Actually, it's hard (if not impossible) to avoid the types I was referring to. They are quite prevalent.
They would (and do) lie, cheat and even sabotage the work of other students to get a better grade.
While I was there, a large portion of an intro computer science class was actually caught cheating on an exam. They worked together rarther than individually and were actually too stupid to realize that it was easy to check for duplicate responses (which the prof did)
These folks don't share much in common with most Americans. Many of them come from privileged upbringings and have been handed pretty much everything in life -- and taught that the ends justifies the means ( as long as they get away with it, of course)
If anything Cornell West is the exception (hardly the rule, at any rate). West actually left Harvard because he was being pressured by Summers (and perhaps others) to conform to the harvard ways, so your example is not a particulalry good one.
I am aware of warren's background, but quite frankly, I'm not convinced that she is anything other than an Obama clone. As I indicated, her defense of the consumer agency has been tepid, at best. Independence is EVERYTHING and where the agency ends up is CRITICAL, despite her claims to the contrary. The fact that it's now part of the Fed means it will always take a back seat to what the chairman says. Those who really CARE about something simply don't make concessions like Warren has done (and Cornell West did NOT do).
Sorry if I have offended your alma mater (Cornell), but that does not change reality.
Until we sever the control that the special interests have on our system-- and find a president who does not concern himself with re-election-- our economy, environment, and quality of life will only worsen. We need a Jesse Ventura or Lee Iococa.
That's it.
Fuck him.
Took you long enough!
This will not be forgotten.
Harvard Law School (HLS) graduate Ralph Nader takes fellow HLS grad Barack Obama to task over his dismissal of the candidacy of Elizabeth Warren, HLS professor.
Well at least they're not Elis, though that's small comfort.
Maybe someone other than Elis and Harvards ought to get a chance, although the last such one was Ronnie Reagan, who like Obama was a ruthless social climber and shameless betrayer.
Obama's 2012 theme music should be Don't Look Back!
"Obama's 2012 theme music should be Don't Look Back!"
:)