I probably should have clarified that my concern was over her effectiveness rather than any political maneuvering behind her appointment as interim director. The previous poster commented on the politics of it.
I'm still trying to decide how I feel about the position she was given. On the one hand, getting a Dem favored nomination would be extremely tough. On the other, there is such widespread support in the media and across the country for Warren. She has a much better shot than any other candidate that Dems could put forward.
Could the opposition have withstood this public support? How much influence would corporate interests have given the high-level of scrutiny and current level of distrust against big business?
I see how it's a temporary solution, but it may weaken the CFPB during the most crucial time in it's development. On the other hand, potentially losing Warren and thereby delaying any forward movement may hurt more. I'm still a bit on the fence, but I'll have to refrain from speculating until we see the fruits of Warren's vision. Hopefully the fruits are delicious for us consumers and kryptonite to parasitic financial interests. :)
Definitely some food for thought. Her choice in all of this changes everything. I guess I'm not 100% educated about the specific roles that the position of Director would entail. Or if the interim Director/advisor would have a much more limited capacity. If she has most of the freedom that she needs to accomplish change and "find a Director", I'm happy with the decision made. Whether or not she fills the role herself may very well be up to her as in the Cheney nomination.
She is definitely the woman for the job, but something about me resents all of the caution. I'm doing my best to be reasonable about it, but I'm kind of tired with the theme of trying to not cause waves, especially when there is support on many levels behind Warren. I guess I just desperately want Obama to take a solid stance on *something* and this is one of the most important somethings that he's been in the position to change.
Appointments are giving the same power and authority as nominated positions but it's temporary and not fully 'official'. They do have a tendecy of becoming permanent by getting their claws into the job and making them necessary so when the nomination comes around they get the nod.
I think the 'not making waves' is because the Senate has flilibustered 5 justices in needed positions that is effecting our judicial system and it is had been done for over a year.
I think Obama wanted to get her in as soon as possible and could not risk a year without her in any position basically waiting at home for the confirmation of the nomination when an appointment puts her and the agency directly to work and to start to get rid of these predator lenders and get a way to stop the foreclosures by looking at what the lenders are doing.
I'm still trying to decide how I feel about the position she was given. On the one hand, getting a Dem favored nomination would be extremely tough. On the other, there is such widespread support in the media and across the country for Warren. She has a much better shot than any other candidate that Dems could put forward.
Could the opposition have withstood this public support? How much influence would corporate interests have given the high-level of scrutiny and current level of distrust against big business?
I see how it's a temporary solution, but it may weaken the CFPB during the most crucial time in it's development. On the other hand, potentially losing Warren and thereby delaying any forward movement may hurt more. I'm still a bit on the fence, but I'll have to refrain from speculating until we see the fruits of Warren's vision. Hopefully the fruits are delicious for us consumers and kryptonite to parasitic financial interests. :)
Reply
Barney Frank is saying that she didn't want the permanent position anyway. And now she is tasked with finded the permanent head.
In this way...could she be more powerful in this position in making sure the agency is strong and off to a good start?
Reply
She is definitely the woman for the job, but something about me resents all of the caution. I'm doing my best to be reasonable about it, but I'm kind of tired with the theme of trying to not cause waves, especially when there is support on many levels behind Warren. I guess I just desperately want Obama to take a solid stance on *something* and this is one of the most important somethings that he's been in the position to change.
Reply
I think the 'not making waves' is because the Senate has flilibustered 5 justices in needed positions that is effecting our judicial system and it is had been done for over a year.
I think Obama wanted to get her in as soon as possible and could not risk a year without her in any position basically waiting at home for the confirmation of the nomination when an appointment puts her and the agency directly to work and to start to get rid of these predator lenders and get a way to stop the foreclosures by looking at what the lenders are doing.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment