MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Howdy ... fellow dagsters ...
It's been speculated and run over the coals for months and months that Elizabeth Warren was in line for consideration as the Director of the new Consumer Agency.
So ... What's everyone else's take of Warren becoming the special consumer advisor to President Obama?
No ... Obama has not actually placed her name for consideration to head the agency as of yet, but will be naming Ms. Warren as an assistant to the president and special advisor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Take you pick for the story: the WSJ story; or here for the NYT story; or here for the WaPo story. And ...
Don't ovelook trkingmomoe's posted at DagBlog yesterday over here.
Will she help make a differenece?
Or... Too little ... too late?
~OGD~
Comments
Come on now . . .
Jump in and dump your thoughts.
I don't bite here at dagblog like I did @ TPMCafe...
New leaf and all... I'll just Quack! alot...
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Thu, 09/16/2010 - 11:03am
Token liberal. Maybe this will pacify the progs so Rahmbo doesn't call anybody effing whatevers before the election.
I just hope she's strong enough to walk if it turns out she has no real authority.
by TJ on Thu, 09/16/2010 - 1:45pm
Not really impressed myself. Sounds like she's going to play Volker while someone else actually has power (Just driving by, and noticed TPM was dead ... so I can't find the link right now, but scuttlebutt says some lady who's a former Chair of the ABA is handling staffing even as we speak). In all reality, being a special advisory to Timmy Geithner carries as much clout as being the ambassador to Tahiti.
(Hey! We can edit out egregious spelling errors ... long after the fact! cool.)
by kgb999 on Thu, 09/16/2010 - 7:06pm
According to Barney Frank she never wanted to be the permanent director.
Gee, who could've predicted? Where's destor? I'd like to crow a little.
I always had a sneaky suspicion that she didn't really want the directors position, look what happened to Brooksley Borne.
I think it's a good decision, perfect actually. How many people get a job with a direct line to the President and a direct line to the head of the agency. Sounds like she could be a real pain in the ass if she wanted. If she senses political pressure she could easily move outside the tent and start pissing in.
by expat46 on Thu, 09/16/2010 - 11:44pm
Sure Elizabeth Warren would be a spectacular head of this agency. Yet it stands to reason a person in her position would not really want to be heading up such an agency. This weird temporary position they are inventing for her is, I think, fairly suspect. But that's not really all that big a deal. The important issue is who will head this agency and will they be a friend to the consumer or a friend to the greedy, untrustworthy con artists who run the financial industry? Frankly, I have no confidence at all that a President who trusts and relies upon Summers and Geithner will ever appoint anyone whose first loyalty is to the public interest instead of the crooks of Wall Street and their BFF's in the banking industry. You see, there's a fundamental problem impacting all these decisions. If you have Summers and Geithner's perverted viewpoint you think that the interests of the financial industry are the public's interests. And as long as you have that perverse point of view it's doubtful any meaningful reform is likely.
by oleeb on Fri, 09/17/2010 - 12:49am
OK ... I think I've heard this all before . . .
So ... what are YOU going to do? That is, instead of blabbering on and on and back and forth using all these stands to reasons and speculative suspicions and what-ifs and what-nots what are you putting forth that can be done to change this situation?
Paddlin' on . . .
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Fri, 09/17/2010 - 7:34pm
I heard just a blip on national news that she was not going to be nominated and I was PISSED!
Now seeing that she doesn't want it, and will have the advisory position makes me feel better, but between this and the apparent cave on taxes my head is about to explode.
Why don't we all just vote republican and get it over with? Seems like they are in power whether they are the majority or minority party.
by stillidealistic on Fri, 09/17/2010 - 1:13am
Well Stilli I see the scales are falling from your eyes. I completely understand how you feel. The more you watch how this whole flim flam works the more frustrating it becomes.
Democrats promise to do x, y, and z but somehow never can manage to be able to actually do x, y or z. It doesn't take a genius to eventually figure out that the truth is much, if not most, of what they've promised could easily be achieved but the truth is they don't really want to achieve those things at all and just use the opposition of Republicans and blue dogs as a foil.
by oleeb on Fri, 09/17/2010 - 2:50am
oleeb, it's not so much that the scales are falling, it's that I REALLY thought this President had the charisma to get not only the dems united, but bring along a bunch of moderate repubs, as well. But, had I known a bit more about the dem party, I would have realized he had a bigger job ahead of him than I thought.
I have for many years called both parties "republicrats," meaning they are basically all the same. Most of them have advancing their own careers, power, money as their primary concern, and if the people accidentally benefit, that's okay, too. But for some reason (and I cannot for the life of me figure out why) I thought the dems had more concern for just regular folks. Come to find out, that's the talk, but not the walk.
I am to the point now that I don't care whether they have the frickin' votes or not, I want it to go on record who opposed what. Put it up for the damn vote. Whatever it is. And let people stand up and say, yeah, I want to keep the tax breaks for the wealthy, even if it adds another couple of trillion to the national debt. Or yeah, I'm voting for Wall St. and against the people by voting down Elizabeth Warren. Whatever it is. I don't think it makes the President look weak, it makes the congress look weak. Come up with 10 things that MOST rational people should be able to get behind, have the President come out in full battle gear supporting them, and let the little weasels defend why they voted against it.
I am an ardent supporter of the President. I make no excuses for that. In "normal" times, I think he would be an extraordinary President. He has inherited a mess of epic proportions, has been hobbled by a dem congress with less intestinal fortitude than I would have imagined possible, and outright dissed by a minority party that would have screamed bloody murder if "their" President had been treated with the disrespect and lack of civility this one has been treated with (gee, I wonder if his color has anything to do with it?) Given the obstacles he has faced, I think he has accomplished a lot. But I am just pissed his congress hasn't had his back so he could have done more.
by stillidealistic on Fri, 09/17/2010 - 5:17pm
Well Stilli I see the scales are falling from your eyes. I completely understand how you feel. The more you watch how this whole flim flam works the more frustrating it becomes.
Democrats promise to do x, y, and z but somehow never can manage to be able to actually do x, y or z. It doesn't take a genius to eventually figure out that the truth is much, if not most, of what they've promised could easily be achieved but the truth is they don't really want to achieve those things at all and just use the opposition of Republicans and blue dogs as a foil.
by oleeb on Fri, 09/17/2010 - 2:50am
Hmmmmm . . .
That ought to keep someone busy tearing that list apart...
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Fri, 09/17/2010 - 7:43pm
Quackster, you're never, ever going to be able to satisfy the likes of oleeb. No one is. If President Obama could pull Atlantis from the depths and materialize a few dancing hippos in the process, you'd get complaints about some other damned thing.
Bet on that.
I swear, the far left is just as bad as the far right, with the exception of being somewhat less disposed to mindless violence being the one exception. For outright blathering, dimwitted stupidity, they're in a dead heat.
by Austin Train on Fri, 09/17/2010 - 8:34pm
Could you try, just try, to make an argument or build a case, and not do the whole thing about the Left and hippos and unicorns and Atlantis and cotton candy and hissy fits and sun rising in the west and on and on and on?
Apparently you're all peeved about a long long list of people from TPM, but if you hadn't noticed, this is not TPM. And most of the folks you'd have collected on your list of Leftists who must be insulted, aren't here. No Rutabaga, for instance. I know Oleeb's here and that drives you insane, that he's somehow not been crushed by a meteor and eliminated from the Earth, but there you go. Life isn't perfect, we don't all get the flying unicorn we want.
Because in terms of who's moved over here, what is left in terms of mouth-jobs is... frankly... you. So in a pretty much unprovoked setting, you're slapping down comment after comment, across blog after blog, that amount to nothing more than a list of these idiotic insults - unicorns and hissy fits and Atlantis and all this crap.
It's trolling. You're just unprovoked looking for a fight. Give it a rest willya? Do we need to turn DagBlog into the same sort of stupidity we ended up with at TPM? I mean, is there ANY way to make political blogging less enlightening?
by quinn esq on Fri, 09/17/2010 - 9:07pm
Ever go into work on a Monday, the day after your team won the game on Sunday, a win mind you, and there's that guy taking the piss out of that win? Monday morning quarterback, coach shoulda done this or that, or f*cking so-and-so is the worst whatever I've ever seen.
Three yards and a cloud of dust is never pretty but it's progress. For that matter, is it ever good enough? Three f*cking yards?
I saw Jane Hamsher on the TEAvee today and something struck me about her. She's still pissed off about not getting 'the public option'. Holy shit! Talk about holding a grudge. Talk about not ready for the big leagues, move on, shit happens, that's politics, suck it up.
Is it really a good idea, in politics, to wear your grudges on your sleeve? I mean, shouldn't you tuck that bitterness and hate away someplace, save it for the right opportunity? John McCain is the perfect example, look what he did to Jack Abramoff.
Ever been in the huddle, down by 9 in the fourth quarter? Lot's of finger pointing going on, the din can be so loud that you don't know what your supposed to do next. A very interesting dynamic, leaders emerge, the creme rises and because of that, eventually everybody pulls. And that's no shit.
This Is War, I'll pick and chose my foxhole mates when given the chance but everybody pulls now!!
by expat46 on Sat, 09/18/2010 - 1:04am
Ducky: Thank you for this link and this list. I was so taken by I copied it and pasted it on Word with the title: DONE!!
Compare these accomplishments with those of w bush!!
Sometimes it feels like we are just fixing a hole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10vU7Qo-NlU
by Richard Day on Sat, 09/18/2010 - 12:44pm
I like her ducky. I have watched her perform on msnbc several times.
I just like her
by Richard Day on Fri, 09/17/2010 - 7:49pm