Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Elizabeth Warren Didn't Want Permanent Appointment To CFPB - Barney Frank

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:42 PM
Original message
Elizabeth Warren Didn't Want Permanent Appointment To CFPB - Barney Frank
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 03:43 PM by SidDithers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/warren-didnt-want-permane_n_719932.html

Elizabeth Warren made it clear to the White House while it was debating her nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that she was not interested in a five-year term to run the agency. Barney Frank, a Warren ally, delivered that message to the White House, he told HuffPost in an interview Thursday.

"She always said she didn't want to be there as a permanent director. Some of the liberals are worried about it. It's almost an insult to Elizabeth. She wouldn't take this if there was the slightest impediment to her doing the job," he said.

An administration official said that Warren will be officially named on Friday as an "assistant to the president," the same title that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other top officials hold, as well as a special adviser to the Treasury, overseeing the establishment of the CFPB.

There were extensive and nuanced discussions with the White House, said a source familiar with them, and the interim nomination emerged as her favored choice, as Frank says, but she has still not foreclosed the option of a full nomination or told the administration that she would flatly refuse one.


More at link.

To me, it sounds linke Warren knew what she wanted, and is getting just that.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sounds like Warren isn't sure what she wanted to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. I understand she wants to be the next Senator from Massachusetts
And running against Scott Brown in 2012 would be precluded by a permanent appointment to a full term. So, if she is planning to run for the Senate, accepting the temporary appointment makes a lot of sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight armadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
48. Sign me up to campaign
I would like nothing more than to see Scott Brown (aka the Senator from Fidelity Investments) drive his damn truck back to Weymouth from DC and stay there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. I suspect that E. Warren has too much self-respect
to take anything which doesn't allow her to do the job she believes should be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Agreed...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Where did you dig to unearth that nugget of pure speculation?
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 03:52 PM by ClarkUSA
"Barney Frank, a Warren ally, delivered that message to the White House, he told HuffPost in an interview Thursday.

"She always said she didn't want to be there as a permanent director. Some of the liberals are worried about it. It's almost an insult to Elizabeth. She wouldn't take this if there was the slightest impediment to her doing the job," he said.

An administration official said that Warren will be officially named on Friday as an "assistant to the president," the same title that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other top officials hold, as well as a special adviser to the Treasury, overseeing the establishment of the CFPB.

There were extensive and nuanced discussions with the White House, said a source familiar with them, and the interim nomination emerged as her favored choice, as Frank says, but she has still not foreclosed the option of a full nomination or told the administration that she would flatly refuse one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
33. My opinion...
is based upon reading three of E. Warren's BOOKS, reading interviews as well as television appearances.

My God, it's unbelievable how few people actually read what I wrote correctly.:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. You can't trust Barney Frank on banking issues as far as you can throw him.
This is getting smellier and smellier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Indeed. I don't know the whole story but I damn sure don't trust Barney Frank to tell it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Are you serious?
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
41. As a heart attack.
Frank's a long time ally of the banking cartel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
55. Not saying Barney Frank's the worst; but
Edited on Fri Sep-17-10 01:12 AM by snot
wish I could say better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. So let me get this straight.
She took a job that is going to allow her to be interim director of this new consumer protection agency that she has been specially hired to create, yet you think that she doesn't ACTUALLY want said job because it doesn't allow her to do what she thinks should be done.

Some impressive mental gymnastics right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Some people have made it a habit to distort or minimize anything Obama does. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
32. You're welcome to reread
my post as well, then edit your response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. I read that post differently...
I thought (and think) the poster is saying that she took the job because she's got the freedom to do what she wants, and that if she hadn't been promised that freedom, she wouldn't have taken the job.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
31. Please
do yourself a favor and reread my post. Feel free to edit your response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
59. Classic projection...
"Some impressive mental gymnastics right there."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. No! She Must Be A Chump Who Is Taking An Empty Position With No Teeth Because Otherwise
How can we slam Obama for appointing her exactly as we wanted him to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hey, as long as the lady is getting what SHE wants...
That's all that matters to me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. But I heard it whispered in the forest that it's a bullshit appointment!
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 03:47 PM by Nicholas D Wolfwood
The truth must have gotten mangled among the elms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bernie Sanders was just discussing this on MSNBC.
He said that the president hasn't gone ahead with her appointment because he knows he can't depend on the Senate... :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. If DU acts like normal then Obama gets blamed for the assholes in the Senate and gets no credit for
going around them.

Not all of DU, of course. Just the standard Obama-bashing chorus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I like his going around the Senate.
I find this approach appropriately devious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. That's true, unfortunately...
But Bernie Sanders is pretty popular here, so you'd think that his words would count for something... :shrug: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
11. Enthusiastic K&R, though it comes as no surprise to me as I've felt all
along that if she took the job it would be on her terms or not at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
12. I assume there still need to be implementing regulations
published for review in the Federal Register and also am uncertain about the federal budgeting for the new CFPB agency.

This would be a good idea for a research thread for any new legislation; follow the development of implementing regulations and budgeting.

I tend to think highly of Warren (and economists like Stiglitz, Baker, Krugman, Reich, et al) and negatively of Geithener and Summers.

POTUS Obama is more prone to croneyism than I expected but Warren is somewhat a step away but still Harvard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Yes, 'implementing' regulations are required for any agency to do its business,
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 04:07 PM by elleng
They derive from the authority provided in the 'authorizing' legislation creating the agency. The agency itself then drafts and proposes 'formal' regulations, which are proposed in the Federal Register (for interested public.)

All of this is a big and important task, and she'll be in position to oversee it, WHERE SHE SHOULD BE!

ps, writing regs is a PAIN IN THE NECK, to say the least, and requires 'specialist' reg-writers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #12
56. Thank you for a response that (seems to me is) based on actual observation of actual events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
15. Can someone please show me where she said this originally
or always? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. You nailed it. Barney is lying.
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 03:57 PM by onenote
Give it up already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I'm so sorry your efforts to stop this discussion aren't working.
Better luck next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. yes. I'm trying to stop the discussion. I"m very powerful.Stop. Stop I say.
What, you defy me! Off with your head!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. Please find the link. In ALL the months of discussion - this have NEVER been posited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. I really doubt that she would have come out publically and say that she wouldn't want the job. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
70. There was just a tremendous fight over her appointment.
Were all those people fighting over someone who had said or signalled they didn't want the job?

Not likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Your premise is that she would have said this publically. She didn't.
Edited on Fri Sep-17-10 07:45 PM by Cant trust em
Secondly, her reputation alone would have been enough to spark the fight, even if she privately had told some people that being the full time agency director wasn't high on her list.

Thirdly, I doubt that she would accept this position if she knew it were bullshit. Her reputation is someone who doesn't mind giving tough medicine, which we all appreciate. Taking the position with that reputation would be highly out of character. If she was willing to accept this position without any authority, then we should be questioning that reputation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. No, it isn't. She needn't make a public statement for
the struggle to have occurred, not at all. As soon as word got around that she didn't want the job, they would have moved on. And you assume a great deal about Warren's thinking. She may think that doing something is better than doing nothing. That isn't out of character in any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. We're all making many assumptions about Warren's thinking. Your response does it to.
Edited on Sat Sep-18-10 03:26 PM by Cant trust em
"She may think that doing something is better than doing nothing."

Realistically, I think it's most likely that she was thinking about the trade-offs between being the full-time agency head or doing something else with more flexibility. I don't think that running a federal agency and having to develop budgets, manage staff, develop organizational charts, etc. is everyone's dream job. Particularly coming from academia where you get to run your research in basically whatever way you want, being seen as an agency head might be seen as being shackled. With her current job, she could be writing regulations herself while they find a permanent director. This job could be the best of both worlds.

I think about my last job working at a non-profit in San Francisco. The Executive Director has to deal with organizational development, fundraising, human resources, property management, marketing, etc. While he gives overall direction to the programs, he doesn't see clients or have the most in-depth knowledge of our homeownership program. Being the agency head can mean that you don't spend time doing the wonky program stuff that you really enjoy.

Being that none of us have had first hand conversations with Ms. Warren and we all have to make assumptions, I'll go with the ones that seem to empower her rather than hamstring her. She's smart and determined and I'll trust her judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. No, again. I didn't make any assumptions. I offered an alternative.
And I didn't limit the possible alternatives to the one I offered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. I don't need to get caught into a semantics game.
There are clearly many different ways to slice this and that's the point of this discussion. You have your interpretation and I have mine.

And as I said earlier, I'll choose to trust the fact that Ms. Warren made the right decision for herself and her work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. At this point, I won't believe anything till it comes from Warren or the President.
Not a gawddamned thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
45. Do they have your number? When they call tell them I said hi!.....n/t
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 08:18 PM by POAS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #45
57. This response doesn't make sense
Why does it have to be a phone call? Why can't it be a statement to the press from either Obama or Warren?

We're hearing the story from Barney Frank and he didn't speak to any of us by phone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. Who is the "us" of which you speak?
I guess you needed me to add this :sarcasm:

The problem with this whole line of argument about what should have been said and by whom has nothing to do with the process or the integrity of the people involved and their ability to negotiate in confidentiality.

The only reason this is being brought up is that some people who had no knowledge of what was going on behind closed doors were pontificating as if they had all the knowledge and answers and that now that they are proved to be fools are twisting themselves into knots trying to find solid ground when they are knee deep in quicksand.

The "we should have been told" meme is just one more of the whines by the self important and self righteous in vain attempt to save face. Too little too late.

Since you seem sarcasm challenged, the phone reference is meant to point out the absurdity of that self important argument by carrying it to an extreme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. Us
By meaning the ones that read Barney Frank's statement in the OP including you and me. Anyways I'm not into the history of how other DUers are reacting to this issue.. I can understand though why people would like to hear it directly from Warren as to what the story is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. Well some of "US"
don't expect that we have to have every detail spelled out for us. Nor do some of "US" demand that if we don't get it from the horses mouth then the source must be lying.

You see that is what it boils down to. Barney is close to the situation and Elizabeth Warren. He actually has inside knowledge of what was said and the feeling Warren expressed. He is relating what he knows to be true and those that now insist it will only be believable if it comes straight from Warren herself are calling Barney out to be a liar.

Is it possible that Barney could have misinterpreted something Elizabeth Warren told him? Of course it is. It is also possible and far more likely to have gotten it exactly right. To imply that he is lying however is wholly without merit and is most cases I believe it to be a face saving gesture by those that have been critical of the process and demanding that Warren be given all the power that they themselves have determined they she must have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. That is great
It doesn't have to be that the source is lying but something coming from the horses mouth is very significant when it comes to evidence. To wait for Warren or the person being talked about in any given situation to confirm or deny something is not suggesting the original source is lying. (speaking for myself)

As far as others implying or outright suggesting he is lying take it up with them. I can only speak for myself. I'm not saying Frank is lying until Warren speaks(if she does on this). I'm saying it is very possible he is telling the truth but it would mean more coming from the person he is talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #23
54. +1
I'll wait to hear it from Prof. Warren, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #23
65. That hardly seems open minded
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #23
68. Well, Barack Obama appointed his own economic team
Edited on Fri Sep-17-10 03:21 PM by EFerrari
so he is not a neutral party and Warren has never indicated that she didn't want this job. I assume this talking point is some sort of sop until someone shows that all those weeks ago, it was known that she didn't want all five years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #15
64. Why don't you believe Barney Franks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. It's not really about Barney. Look at the huge fight that was just on
and then explain to me how someone who didn't want the job went through that fight. It doesn't even made sense.

I don't believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
16. SMART, as we know she is!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
26. Sounds like a bunch of intelligent people acting intelligently

but somehow this has to be bad news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
34. why do we have to hear this from Barney?
can we hear it from Elizabeth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. She's intelligent enough not to stir the pot?
Amazing how defensive :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. how is asking a question
defensive?

you lost me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. lol
You'd think I was born yesterday :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. and what am I defending?
I've haven't been very involved in these conversations.
I actually would like to hear Warren describe her own viewpoint, instead of someone else telling me what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #34
63. Why don't you believe Barney Franks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
35. I thought she DIDN'T get an interim appointment because she would not serve as long.
Now she is a "special adviser" and isn't going to serve as long. So what was the problem with the interim appointment again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Thanks for using your BRAIN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. Do you have a quote of her saying that?...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #35
67. That's a good question. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
37. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
43. I had a feeling this may have been the case.
Let her build it and walk to do what she wants. Being tied to this will be extremely stressful.

Regardless, it should be her's if she wants it and if not - let her define the role she wants to play.

I :loveya: Elizabeth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
44. Thanks for posting that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
47. Now, poor Barney has skids on his back as well. Is there anyone left on...
the progressive bus? Two "true progressive" passengers, in one fell swoop. Sorry, Barney & Elizabeth. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #47
69. This may be a new idea for you but it is possible to ask for more imformation
without tossing anyone overboard. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChimpersMcSmirkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #47
72. I think Jane Hamsher is still on it.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
choie Donating Member (899 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
49. "Some of the liberals are worried about it"
Interesting - I thought Barney Frank used to call himself a "liberal"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. I'm sure he still does...
I'm also sure he doesn't count himself as among those liberals wringing their hands with worry about this appointment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
50. Thanks Barney..we've already established it's
an insult!

"She always said she didn't want to be there as a permanent director. Some of the liberals are worried about it. It's almost an insult to Elizabeth. She wouldn't take this if there was the slightest impediment to her doing the job," he said.

Thank you, SidDithers :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
51. Good, good, good
Is it just me or does this sound like the ascendance of Warren and the DEscendance of Rahm Emmanuel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
53. Well there you have it, ta daaaa nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC