TPMDC
Dodd: No Recess Appointment For Warren, Who Still May Not Be Confirmable
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Share
Send to a friend!
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd cast more doubts this afternoon about whether Elizabeth Warren could garner enough votes to head the newly created consumer financial protection bureau, one day after White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called her "very confirmable."
"I don't know, that's the question, how does he know that?" Dodd said in response to a question from TPMDC on his way in to the Democrats' weekly policy lunch.
"She's qualified, no question about that. The question is whether she's confirmable," Dodd added. "The issue is [if] you can't confirm somebody, if you go six or seven months without someone in that job, you've got a problem."
Progressives have been strongly pressuring the Obama administration to appoint Warren ever since the Wall Street reform bill passed in Congress. Some have argued that she be given a recess appointment if a minority of senators block her confirmation. Dodd objects to that idea.
"I think that would be a huge mistake," Dodd said, in response to a question from TPMDC. "Recess appointments. No, no, no."
"I think those are, you know, Republicans used to do it, I think that's a mistake," Dodd added. "Except in the most extreme circumstances where you need someone because of an emergency pending, but as a routine matter, I think it's a fundamental mistake."
Dodd's chief concern, he said, is swiftness. If the agency isn't set up quickly with credible leadership, it will be vulnerable to GOP attacks.
"You've heard the Republicans talking about repealing this bill," Dodd said. "One of the first efforts they'd need would be to repeal this agency. If it's not set up and running, the case against it becomes easier. So you want an established entity, as quickly as you can, with credible leadership. And if you don't have that then you leave it vulnerable to the attacks. They will try to get rid of this agency, I promise you, when I'm gone. So having someone there that's established this, getting it moving in the right direction, is very, very important, or you could lose it."
Comments (228) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
PollyJunkie
July 27, 2010 1:55 PM
Senator Dodd will be ex-senator Dodd come January. Who cares what he thinks?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
July 27, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to PollyJunkie
You saved me some typing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
July 27, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to PollyJunkie
...not only that, but his reasoning makes no sense.
"Obama shouldn't use a recess appointment unless it's really important to get someone in the position. It's also really important we get someone into this position. Therefore, Obama should NOT use a recess appointment."
It's good to know that the crack folks at TPM caught this really blatent contridiction and asked him about it...
...oh...
...wait...
...nevermind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
July 27, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
Yeah, that's totally f**ked up. Amazing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
datora
July 27, 2010 4:11 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
Shame on TalkingPointsMemo, and shame on Brian Beutler especially, for not asking the instantaneous follow-up questions:
"Since there is no question that she is qualified, what exactly, in your opinion, are the specific roadblocks that make Ms. Warren unconfirmable?"
"What would it take to get such a qualified candidate confirmed rapidly?"
What ..? You're afraid that the lame duck Senator might cut off your privileged access for asking non-faux noise approved softballs?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 27, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to datora
this crook dodd, who has been ripping off us americans for years, had no chance of being re-elected. he and barney frank are the two people in america most responsible for the current mess and, by the way, this financial reform law that was just passed is not the answer either. it is dodd's last slap at us. for once, i agree with most comments posted, which should give most of you reason enough to rethink your stand. haha, another politician disgraced, 534 to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
July 27, 2010 5:26 PM in reply to jjdjjd
You're daft. How is Barney Frank responsible for creating the current recession, rather than the irrsponsible fiscal policies pursued by George W. Bush and enacted by the formerly Republican-controlled Congress?
Somewhere, a lonely teabag is missing its owner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 27, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to Donald from Hawaii
daft you say, eh? read up on frank, especially his role in fannie and freddie giving unqualified people home loans, which, as i assume you know is the primary reason for the recession. bush, who is a dolt, can't be defended either[on a number of issues].why do you commies always think that if i don't like the democrat i must like the republican? effing idiots, all of you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GnomeChompsky
July 27, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to jjdjjd
uhh...I don't think that poor people are the ones responsible for the shitty economy. Last time I checked, the people giving out the loans new that those people weren't good for them, but they went ahead and lent anyway because there was a quick buck to be made. You asshat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 27, 2010 6:45 PM in reply to GnomeChompsky
read article in the WSJ, june 25, 2009. no the poor people are not responsible, they were taken advantage of, we all know that. but fannie and freddie,at frank's insistence backed the loans. and who is the asshat now? effing read you jerk, frank's boyfriend was in charge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Syncrofly
July 28, 2010 1:53 AM in reply to jjdjjd
We've had plenty of housing corrections and worse without ever being on the brink of global collapse. The issue that put us in recession is not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was the unregulated, under capitalized banks having to cover their asses on a shitload of collateralized debt that had been traded in secret and blended with secret proprietary bank math. When prices fell, no one knew the potential loss on their balance sheet. As a result it sucked all of the liquidity out of all our markets, most notably commercial lending. The idea that poor credit to home borrowers is the cause is pure conveinent fallacy oft-repeated by the cold hearted bastards who transparently are grinding their tired axe of anything that looks favorable for the poor. Even though in this case, its merely the co-signer on credit losses help by a separate entity.
Home lending is merely the spark, on the tender that the banks had been growing for over a decade.
This has to be the most extensively covered financial event of the last 50 years, and I can't believe the GOP talking points are this resilient.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 28, 2010 7:56 AM in reply to Syncrofly
the 'tender' as you put it, was put in place by frank in 1991.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 27, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to GnomeChompsky
the boyfirnds name was herb moses, look it up. asshat. jeez, know what you're talking about before posting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 27, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to jjdjjd
F&F had nothing to do with Countrywide lowering their underwriting standards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 27, 2010 8:11 PM in reply to expat46
but frank did, and so did dodd. the mortgages that countrywide was issueing, includinf the sweetheart one to dodd, wee all backed by fannie and freedie, as are 97% of all mortgages in america. this is like talking to little kids, have some idea of what you are talking about before posting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 27, 2010 9:21 PM in reply to jjdjjd
Frank and Dodd pressured Countrywide to lower their underwriting standards???
This may come as a surprise but you may not be the smartest person commenting here.
Stop being so condescending and calling people names.
Stop getting all of your information from Rupert Murdoch approved sources.
Keep an open mind a do a little research.
Start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 27, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to expat46
i was called names 1st. dodd and frank, by being either the ranking or majority leaders on the house and senate BANKING commitees, got preferential treatment by all banks that wanted their mortgages backed by fannie and freddie. dodd got a sweetheart mortgage for his country estate in ireland, and frank got his boyfriend a job at fannie. if fannie and freddie don't back up mortgages the banks don't lend the money. jeez. is this site made up of only idiots that haven't read a paper or watched television in the past 3 years? if you ever had a clue of what frank did you would be astonished. like i said, read the article, june 25,2009, wall street journal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 27, 2010 10:16 PM in reply to jjdjjd
Again with the name calling and condescension. Jeez! In your reply you call everyone here an idiot and tell me I don't have a clue. "He did it first" is an excuse I would expect from a third grader so please grow up and stop with the attacks.
I understand that the WSJ editorial board has an agenda. They are always, always, for less regulation and lower taxes, damn the consequences. We have a shared responsibility to understand the root causes of the 2007-2010 financial crisis, without political blinders.
I'm not defending Chris Dodd's sweetheart loans or Barney Frank's boyfriend but if you think those two things caused the financial meltdown then you're sadly mistaken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 27, 2010 11:11 PM in reply to expat46
it was not the wall st.journals editorial board that wrote the article, so i can tell you didn't even bother to check the article. just shows that your mind is closed on the issue. i don't care what you think, but no two men have more responsibility , franks culpability goes back to 1991, read the article, check other sources, enlighten yourself. as for dodd, well he's not so bright, and thats his story, and he's sticking to it. yes there is enough blame to go around, but at least 50% goes to frank and dodd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 28, 2010 12:10 AM in reply to jjdjjd
Do you have a link to this article?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 28, 2010 5:56 AM in reply to expat46
just type in 'barney frank' and WALL STREET JOUNAL' june 25, 2009.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
July 28, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to jjdjjd
You may wish to read this article from 2008 in which Michael Oxley, a Republican who served on the banking committee with Frank, absolves Barney and places the blame squarely on "ideologues" in the White House and Senate. Oxley echos Frank when he says that they attempted to impose stricter regulations, were able to get it past the House but were stopped in the Senate by those who wanted to privatize the whole thing and were opposed to more regulation.
http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2008/Sep/28/ar_news_092808_story8.asp?d=092808_story8,2008,Sep,28&c=nn
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 28, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to worthy9
and you believe it? remember, franks boyfriend is running fannie, a,png other things, franks has lousy taste in men. remember the one running the 'escort' ring out of franks house? well he did less damage then the one running fannie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
July 28, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to jjdjjd
If you don't believe it, you can look at the record of House bills. The story matches up completely.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1427
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Syncrofly
July 28, 2010 1:59 AM in reply to jjdjjd
I can't believe I'm replying to you twice.
Dodd and Frank's loans, when backed by Freddie and Fannie are rolled up into large traunches of mortgages.... normally well into the billions, which are then bought by banks and other broker dealers, and in the precrisis world generally blended them into more exotic derivatives..... that anyone on the Freddie or Fannie side said boo to a lender like country wide is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. The the CEO of countrywide is smart enough to give every legislator a break on a home loan is shrewd, and legal, politics. Blame your unfettered commercial titan if you must also cast stones at the political beneficiaries.... these are likely the same bozo's you want to make sure don't have to deal with all that bureaucratic read tape.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 28, 2010 8:05 AM in reply to Syncrofly
we all know about the bundling, the fact remains there would have been nothing to bundle had fannie and freddie not backed sub-prime mortages which were given out by the insistence of dodd and frank. as frank said about giving mortages to unqualified buyers[ and i quote], 'lets roll the dice' and they rolled the dice. craps came up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 28, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to jjdjjd
If you insist on being rude at least know what you're talking about. First off, you know nothing about the mortgage business. Freddy and Fanny DO NOT deal in sub-prime loans as you state. How stupid are you! They deal, and have in the past,in conforming conventional loans, also know as "A paper" loans. Sub-prime loans, or "B/C loans" originate from banks, mortgage companies and investors.
And no, you don't know about the bundling -
"..the fact remains there would have been nothing to bundle had fannie and freddie not backed sub-prime mortages...
Bullshit! F & F had NOTHING to do with bundling. Private Investors would buy up mortgages, mostly sub-prime from banks and mortgage companies, bring them to a GS who would design investment vehicles, bring them to a Moodys where they would evaluated against historical mortgage data, that had little relevance, given a AAA rating and back we go to GS where they were set up in structured finance tranches (12 classes) from AAA to Ba1 paper and sold to new investors. That's the simple version.
Dodd may be guilty of a sweetheart deal, and probably is, considering his recent reputation but remember, if you're going to be a complete asshole, AT LEAST know what the fuck you are talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
July 28, 2010 10:39 AM in reply to Syncrofly
Suncro,
you're talking to your "dining room table."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 28, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to JohnW1141
you're an idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
July 27, 2010 9:59 PM in reply to expat46
oh, and just because murdoch bought the WSG a few years ago, it is still the most respected financial daily in the world, and by the way the best selling daily paper in america. yes, even liberal ceo's make it a point to read it, every day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ewilliams
July 27, 2010 7:42 PM in reply to jjdjjd
Dodd is a crook, no question. He can't run into the arms of his banker buddies fast enough. He watered down this bill so much it's practically toothless to demonstrate what a great lobbyist he will be. As far as the cause of this recession/depression, look no further than the destruction of our manufacturing base and the lost income tax revenues as we sent most all of our manufacturing jobs overseas. The resulting redistribution of wealth will indeed lead to the destruction of this nation. We need to reinstate tariffs and blow up GATT and WTO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
July 27, 2010 10:08 PM in reply to Ewilliams
Actually, most of the manufacturing jobs have been vanishing not because they have been going over seas but because we now have machines to do the work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cjop
July 27, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to jjdjjd
The primary reason for this recession? Try this on. We don't add value to anything. That's all done in low wage countries. Has been for years. Even Henry Ford knew that you had to pay high enough wages so workers could buy your products. So how do we create wealth now? By creating bogus paper to trade to people like you. The housing fiasco was but one part of this Wall Street scheme. Both parties are complicit in this. So everyone should just chill with the Republicans/Democrats did it death match. Neither party gives a shit about you and I. Congress and the WH is owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate interests. Dodd's a phony. He knows that Ms. Warren stands between him and his next job working for the banking industry. The worst part is that as bad as Dodd is his replacement, Tim Johnson, is 100 times worse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
July 28, 2010 2:21 AM in reply to jjdjjd
You asshat. Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with this. It was the derivatives, collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps. These derivatives, now worth pennies on the dollar, were bought up by the Fed at full price not to stabilize the housing market but to make sure that the people who bet against homeowners got their winnings.
Take youe wingnut talking points and shove them, you asshat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RVGrandpa
July 28, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to jjdjjd
Why is it that everyone you disagree with is a "commie"? You are acting like a dick
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bwindrip
July 28, 2010 7:35 AM in reply to Donald from Hawaii
As an openly gay congressman, Barney Frank is an easy target. I work with a guy who blames him for everything from the financial crisis to our current heat wave.
It would be so refreshing to hear him and the other rednecks I try to engage just say, "I just can't get over the fact that the US has a (black/gay) (president/congressman).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 5:18 PM in reply to datora
TPM has cashiered its Bush-era cred for DNC access. It's hypnotized by RNC talking points and easy targets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MsMolly
July 27, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to datora
Good questions. I'd add another: If speed is of the essence, and Warren is qualified, why not a recess appointment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
paultaiwan2003
July 28, 2010 9:33 AM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
That's the first thought I had after reading the article. Didn't Brian catch it? If he did, why didn't he point out the contradiction?
C'mon, guys. Do a follow-up!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
July 27, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to PollyJunkie
I sent that bastard some money about two weeks before he announced he wouldn't be running again. I wonder if I can get a refund?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
datora
July 27, 2010 3:57 PM in reply to expat46
Yes, you can.
Contact his office and tell them you were contributing to his re-election campaign and, now that he declines to run, you consider his acceptance of said contribution to be fraudulent. Of course, document it.
If he refuses to return the money, immediately, send all relevant documents to a few choice news organizations. Even if you don't get your money back, the entertainment value should be more than worth it.
;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas1
July 27, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to PollyJunkie
he is the lamest of ducks and nees to get in-line.
Obama should tell him to get the nomination thru the committee and shut the hell up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nick
July 27, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to PollyJunkie
Dodd has been in the pockets of crooked Bankers for years just look at his sleaze deal with Country Wide. The Senate when it had balls took care of his father who also was sleazy and they should have taken care of this guy instead of giving him and that creep from the Dakota's
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Godwhacker
July 27, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to PollyJunkie
January can't come soon enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fname
July 27, 2010 4:08 PM in reply to PollyJunkie
Yup yup. The man is an idiot, he proved himself incapable of exercising independent judgment when the credit bubble imploded, and helped donate tens of billions to Wall St. banks as he was totally reliant on them for solutions. He took naked kickbacks from subprime borrowers and is likely the Democrat singly most responsible for the subprime morass and the trillion-dollar TARP & associated giveaways.
He can't leave Washington too soon. He's not even the best senator from Connecticut.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 27, 2010 5:13 PM in reply to PollyJunkie
Do we have to explain it to you Polly girl?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hrebendorf
July 27, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to PollyJunkie
He understands the process. YOU should care what he thinks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Grumpy Demo
July 27, 2010 8:16 PM in reply to PollyJunkie
Exactingly, Dodd is a Dead Man walking.
Who cares what he thinks?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CJ
July 28, 2010 10:31 AM in reply to PollyJunkie
The front-page headline should read: "Dodd Throws Cold Water on Democratic Base"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
July 28, 2010 10:42 AM in reply to PollyJunkie
When I heard Dodd was retiring I wondered if he would give a parting gift to the public or to the banks. The bankers don't like Warren, Dodd's taking care of the banks
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheThirdMan
July 27, 2010 2:01 PM
He wants to be head of the agency. Clear as day. He needs a job soon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to TheThirdMan
He needs a $175K/year job? LMAO!
He's head of the Senate Banking Committee and can write his ticket with any lobbyist or any financial firm on Wall Street for $3-5 million/year.
Stupid much?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheThirdMan
July 27, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to FreeRider
If he is only in it for the money why has he been in the senate for so long. It may be news to you, but some people have a conscience.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to TheThirdMan
Conscience has nothing to do with it. Dodd is leaving the senate; he has plenty of options and doesn't need a measly little regulatory job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Resistance
July 27, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to FreeRider
STUPID MUCH?
The best place besides on his knees, for the banking industry would be a regulator.
Who are the lobbyist trying to sway?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
July 27, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to TheThirdMan
Dodds has the morals of a snake and has been the "ringer" for bank scum for years!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiesPrevail
July 27, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to madmatt
Yup. A morally-bankrupt, shameless whore fellating his Wall Street masters until the very end.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
July 27, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to TheThirdMan
It is Dodd's job to get the votes! call him on it 1.800.828.0498!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsfox
July 27, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to TheThirdMan
You know I hadn't thought of this scenario. And in truth it doesn't sound all that far fetched.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 27, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to TheThirdMan
That's it...He's already shilling for his future Fail Street bosses...
LOSER
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave
July 27, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to TheThirdMan
I think Dodd is far less confirmable than Warren. It doesn't matter. The Republicans will block ANY nomination so it's irrelevant who Obama nominates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
July 27, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to Dave
exactly. so recess appoint warren and then do it again if necessary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave
July 27, 2010 10:15 PM in reply to rwc
If she is a recess appointment and does the job well she may be harder to block next time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
July 27, 2010 2:04 PM
Dodd, shilling for his bankster buddies to the very last.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MobiusKlein
July 27, 2010 2:05 PM
Dodd sounds like more of a problem than a help. Why can't the Senate get their stuff together and confirm somebody if it's so important? But not so important that it's an emergency, requiring a recess appt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 27, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to MobiusKlein
I never heard of any "emergency" requirement for recess appointments. I think Dodd forgot he's still a Senator and not a lobbyist for the "banking community" -- yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestatedon
July 27, 2010 2:06 PM
"Dodd's chief concern, he said, is swiftness."
Bullshit. If his chief concern was swiftness, he'd be 100% in favor of a recess appointment.
Like so many DC Dems, he's still laboring under the delusion that if Obama just picks the right person, the Rethugs will happily vote for that person and all is sweetness and light. How many times do these idiots have to learn the lesson that GOPers are going to fight tooth and nail against ANY of Obama's nominees? That there is simply no pleasing them?
I'm sure Dodd is a wonderful man in private and a great father and husband and all that, but as a politician in today's environment, he's clueless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 27, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to bluestatedon
You are not cynical enough.
Dodd is beholden to the bankers of Wall Street. He's not worried about finding the perfect candidate to please Republicans. He's worried that Warren would have too much power and would do the job required of her. It's much easier to blame the Republicans than admit the simple truth: a lot of Democrats don't want to see Warren appointed. They prefer the status quo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
July 27, 2010 8:30 PM in reply to Rick
Dodd is representing Connecticut, which is loaded with finance industry folks who carried off big bundles during the fat, dumb and happy years prior to 2007. Those folks also have lots of money now, and donate heavily to political campaigns to try to keep the money flowing into their bank accounts. That is why Dodd is carrying water for them. It is also a big factor in Lieberman acting as he does.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 27, 2010 9:04 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Not really. But thanks for playing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 27, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to bluestatedon
O should appoint her today....
Recess appoint her during this upcoming lame ass break these no working jerks are taking (House not included).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
July 27, 2010 2:07 PM
Who is he to say? Shame on him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 27, 2010 2:07 PM
So the economic meltdown and ensuring it doesn't happen again doesn't rise to the level of "extreme circumstances" senator? No he isn't looking to head the agency he is looking for a job in the private sector that Warren would be overseeing. My senior senator is becoming an embarassment...he used to be a liberal lion, now he is just a corporate lapdog.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to Libertine
>>So the economic meltdown and ensuring it doesn't happen again doesn't rise to the level of "extreme circumstances" senator? >>
You firebaggers have been claiming that there was no meltdown, TARP was just a windfall for the "banksters" and this bill is a bankers wet dream.
Why do you care what happens now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 27, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to FreeRider
Because I don't want to see more windfalls for the banks oh intentionally dense one...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to Libertine
But, oh stupid one, how will this bill, this agency and Warren stop any of that since--according to you--the president, Geithner, the administration, the legislation are all crooks on the side of the bankers?
Why are you foaming at the mouth to have worthless legislation written by crooks to benefit the "banksters" enacted?
LMAO! You firebaggers are a joke. Your mission is to trash everything that comes from this administration as wrong and corrupt--until it looks like it might not happen. Then you start begging and pleading for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 27, 2010 2:23 PM in reply to FreeRider
You idiot by enforcing the new laws. Or is putting someone competent in place to enforce what they just had passed too much to ask from this administration? Actually knowing your MO you seem to think asking anything of them is unreasonable so I can imagine what your vacuous driveling ad hominem suck up to Obama reply will be...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 27, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to Libertine
No you don't get it. The only way you can want the administration to hire effective people is if you believe that everything Obama thinks, says or does is the right thing. I'm surprised it took me so long to get that. It's just obvious.
Free Ride can't see any nuance like "the bill could have been better but it's better than what we had so... getting the best people to implement it might bridge the gap."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to destor23
Revisionist history!
You firebaggers didn't say "the bill could be better." You called it a piece of shit written by the "banksters." You claimed it did nothing to address the problem.
There is no nuance with firebaggers. You didn't get everything you wanted in the bill so you trashed it as worthless shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 27, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to FreeRider
I guess because I'm not what you call a firebagger, I didn't say what you said I did. I have always said that the bill was an improvement on the regulatory regime that preceded it.
Naturally, I believed and believe that the banks had too much influence on the process and ultimately a corrupting effect but that doesn't mean it's not better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
July 27, 2010 5:11 PM in reply to destor23
Well, I guess that's what you get for butting into a conversation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 27, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to hunter
You Fauxgressives are something else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
July 27, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to FreeRider
thats because it is worthless shit, some small salvagable aspect might survive...sort of like the door whatshername floats on at the end of titanic...the bill being the titanic
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to madmatt
Typical firebagger thinking: make someone out to be a larger-than-life superhero able to leap tall buildings and right everything that's wrong in the world in the blink of an eye. And when they turn out to be human, trash them as a corrupt sell-out.
If Warren gets this job, you retarded firebaggers' love affair with her will be over by Thanksgiving.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 27, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to destor23
Touché
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to Libertine
What new laws? You've been claiming that the new laws were bullshit and corrupt written by and for the "banksters". Why on earth would you want to enact corrupt laws that benefit the "banksters"?
Firebagger stupidity! LMAO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 27, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to FreeRider
Are you criticizing dear leader? But I'll lay you a bet that the new consumer protection post will be filled by someone who worked at Goldman or one of the other investment banks...because they will be the only one who will be "confirmable". What a scam...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 27, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to Libertine
Yup, scam is the right word.
I've seen this play before, under the Bush administration; if you don't really want an organization to be effective, put an industry insider in charge of regulating the industry they came from and will return to.
We may see some posturing to nominate Warren and, without any support from the White house, lose, but Obama won't do a recess appointment because he's a closet Republican and does not want someone effective in charge of consumer protection.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 27, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to condew
Sorry I wasn't ignoring you but like a petulant child freerider demanded my full attention.
Yeah, well, the centrists in charge share a lot in common with people who ran the previous administration...especially a shared love of neoliberal economics. Just as long the wealthy are catered to everything will be alright, right? That is what both sides try to tell us but a funny thing is the facts don't back that claim up...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 27, 2010 6:08 PM in reply to Libertine
There's something about FreeRide that isn't quite right. If FreeRide is an Obama supporter as it purports to be, it is doing a pretty good job of alienating and potential support Obama may need. So I suspect FreeRide is a right-wing provocateur.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to condew
You're just pissed because I called you out for being the attention-seeking whore you are.
You trash the president and think everyone should try to persuade you that you are wrong. Nobody cares what you think, you feckless pussy.
Support the president. Don't support the president. It doesn't make one iota of difference. He doesn't need you and neither does the party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to Libertine
If it's a scam why are you whining like a little girl?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 27, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to FreeRider
Correction...I am discussing things calmly, analyzing likely outcomes, intermixed with the requisite insulting of you, while you are the one acting like the hysterical petulant child.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to Libertine
LMAO! You are firebagger retard who sees everything in black and white and are incapable of discussion or calmness.
You're doing what you always do--whining like a little girl!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 27, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to FreeRider
Thanks for making my point again. Have a nice day moron.
:)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
July 27, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to FreeRider
God, you're an idiotic little child.
"Oh, yeah? Well, you're a firebagger, that's what you are! A poopy-headed firebagger, Mister Firebagger!"
For somebody who spends so much time licking his own balls you sure spend a lot of time calling other people names. Well, one name - firebagger!!!.
Putrid little child.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 5:04 PM in reply to EastWest
Loser firebagging troll asswipe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
July 27, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to FreeRider
Like I said....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 27, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to Libertine
Libertine, you kicking ass again?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 27, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Who me? Nawwww...I'm a nice guy and a pacifist at heart. But then again if someone swings at me first I am not averse at swinging back.
:)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 27, 2010 8:44 PM in reply to Libertine
don't feed the freebagger
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spam
July 27, 2010 11:23 PM in reply to Bwakfat
On behalf of those who generally support the President and his agenda, but are not reflexively hostile vulgar assholes, I wish to apologize to those who more frequently criticize the President, but are not reflexively hostile vulgar assholes, for FreeBaser.
Now, back to the yelling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 27, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to FreeRider
When the Progressives are complaining, everything is still relatively alright, they are still engaged and the situation is workable. It's when they stop complaining that Obama can kiss his ... second term goodbye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 5:07 PM in reply to condew
If Obama was depending on "progressives" like you (aka firebaggers), he'd be shit out of luck. He doesn't need you fucking retarded losers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 27, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to FreeRider
Since many elections turn on 1%, he may well be out of luck. Of course, with obnoxious supporters like you working to alienate any marginal support, it goes without saying that he won't be getting a second term.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 7:43 PM in reply to condew
HAHAHAHAHA!!! You're such a gutless, chickenshit loser! You've been trashing Obama in the most vile terms since he was elected so don't try to blame me or any other poster for alienating you.
You were born alienated, you firebagging shit breath assclown!
You want someone to beg you to support the president so that you can respond by more trashing of the president. Whenever someone says "the president deserves support because of X, Y or Z" you firebaggers respond with "he's a whore, corporate shill, republican sell-out traitor who gave away everything, blah, blah, blah."
Fuck you. Take your whining, carping bullshit and shove it up your firebagging ass!
You're not needed or wanted in the Democratic party or as a supporter of this president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiesPrevail
July 27, 2010 7:14 PM in reply to FreeRider
Wow. That's just a moronic statement. Idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 27, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yeah, see... cuz if you think that the banks ripped off the taxpayers with the TARP program you obviously have no interest in making sure there's a strong figure at the head of the new agency that's meant to regulate bank customer relationships.
It's like basic logic.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
All men are Socrates.
Thanks, Free Ride!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
July 27, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to destor23
Perfect response.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to destor23
You've been saying this new legislation is bullshit. You've been saying this administration is bullshit. You've been saying that Geithner (who will be Warren's direct boss) is corrupt and committed fraud.
Now, you're claiming that this bullshit legislation pushed by this bullshit "corporatist" administration to be overseen by corrupt and fraudulent Geithner can save the day if they pick Warren to head it.
I'm sure that makes sense in firebagger world but to sane people--not so much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
July 27, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to FreeRider
Just because someone told you that, it doesn't make it true. After all, they may not be sane either.
Get your meds adjusted.
Really.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 27, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to FreeRider
FreeRider is 1000% percent right. And if you didn't say the bill was complete shit then his remarks don't apply to you. However, all up and down the liberal blogosphere plenty of people were saying the bill was shit.
I really hate when people pretend they don't know what's being said on the very blogs that they visit and comment on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 27, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Except that the position here is comical. I'll go ahead and pretend that I thought the financial reform bill was 100% bad. Let's also add that I thought the previous regs were 100% bad (we're pretending here, I think neither thing). Is it your conclusion that, because I disagree with the two regulatory regimes being debated that I should have had no opinion about who should head the Treasury, FDIC, and SEC since... I dunno, the repeal of Glass-Steagall?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to destor23
If you believe the bill and the regulation are 100% bad, WHY DO YOU CARE WHO IS IN CHARGE????????!!!!!!!
It's like demanding that Jeff Gordon or Jimmy Johnson be put behind the wheel of a '75 Gremlin that's up on blocks!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
July 27, 2010 10:46 PM in reply to FreeRider
Jeff . . . Jimmy . . . who?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 27, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'd be really happy to see Obama show me I'm wrong. But he won't; he'll appoint an industry insider, probably someone "formerly" of Goldman Sachs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to condew
Yeah, right! LMAO! There's nothing Obama can do that would make you happy.
If he appoints Warren you'll dismiss it as a worthless gesture and "throwing a bone to the base." You've already laid the predicate for making whatever he does a "betrayal."
You firebaggers are retards in search of a grievance. You revel is victimhood and self-pity and when you can't find it, you invent it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 27, 2010 3:15 PM in reply to FreeRider
Again, because I know you read too fast, I was only saying hypothetically, since I don't think the bill is trash.
Even if I did, however, it would matter. Let's say I say something like: "The SEC is useless at fighting fraud."
You'd say, "So you don't mind if I put Bernie Madoff in charge of it?"
Well... of course I'd mind. I might think the SEC is useless but that doesn't mean that having a criminal in charge couldn't make it worse!
Conversely, I might think putting a bright and strong thinker like Dean Baker in charge of the SEC could do some good despite the agency's weaknesses. His heart and mind would be in the right place and that could count for a lot.
Then there's my position where I say something like (stick with me here, doggy): "I wish that financial reform bill had more teeth to it, but the right person could really do some good." In that case I have some hope and some complaints and so who gets the job is ultimately the most important factor at this point in the debate.
Get it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 27, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to FreeRider
Actually, the betrayal has already happened, what we are talking about is a chance to make amends.
While I continue to complain, Obama still has a chance; I'm still paying attention, still looking for a reason to support him. If the Obama administration contiunues as it has, in another few months I will stop complaining. That will be the sign that Obama has lost my support and cannot win it back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to condew
Obama doesn't need to make amends to you worthless pussies. Keep complaining; keep lying; keep threatening. You don't matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 27, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to FreeRider
Are you trying to help Obama, or trying to nail his coffin shut?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 7:51 PM in reply to condew
You've made it clear that you don't support the president. So if losing your vote nails his coffin shut, it was shut a long time ago.
That's a big "if". You're not needed or wanted. Now, fuck off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
July 28, 2010 2:28 AM in reply to FreeRider
Oh, just shove it, you kool-aid-drinking obamabot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 28, 2010 8:19 AM in reply to expatjourno2
Fuck off, you firebagging asswipe! Obama doesn't need you or any of the anti-Obamabots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justaJ0e
July 27, 2010 2:08 PM
Senator Dud.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scarce
July 27, 2010 2:08 PM
Bill Clinton made several controversial recess appointments among the 140 he made while in office. It's not just a "Republicans do it" sort of thing.
Dodd's reluctance on Warren is troubling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
greylox
July 27, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to Scarce
**What's troubling about it. It's perfectly in line with his kid gloves treatment of an industry he's supposed to help regulate. Screw Senator Doddering.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dotkommissar
July 27, 2010 2:09 PM
The head of CFPB does not need to be confirmed by the Senate, according to the bill. Can we please get that piece of the puzzle included in the reporting please?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to dotkommissar
If they said it on HP, it must be true!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
July 27, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to dotkommissar
I believe you're wrong about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd-Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Title_X_-_Bureau_of_Consumer_Financial_Protection
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 27, 2010 2:09 PM
So Dodd's take is that this absolutely has to happen fast or the whole thing will fall apart catastrophically.
But it's not an emergency.
Uh...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JosephP
July 27, 2010 2:10 PM
Senator Dodd in a poker game: "If you play that card, I will have to fold."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftist Pinko
July 27, 2010 2:10 PM
Surprise, surprise. Slimy bank dog Dodd doesn't want Warren. Go figure. Maybe hed prefer another ex-Goldman Sachs executive instead?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Altgeld
July 27, 2010 2:14 PM
I wonder if Dodd will get a job working with banks or insurance companies when he leaves the Senate? His views on financial regulation are closer to Senator Shelby's than Elizabeth Warren's. Dodd is a smart man. He looks hapless only if you assume that he supports effective regulation of the financial industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
July 27, 2010 2:17 PM
Craven cowardice and submission - yet another Democrat with no spine.
Thank goodness he will be gone in a matter of months.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
July 27, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to GayIthacan
It is not a question of IF as much as it is a question of which bank corporate board and which insurance corporate board he has lined up.
He is not a coward, and he does have a spine. It is wholly owned by corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 27, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to GayIthacan
Agreed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JosephP
July 27, 2010 2:17 PM
In fact it's been obvious that Dodd has had his foot on the brake of real financial reform from the beginning. He fought against putting this new CFPB agency outside the jurisdiction of the Fed; he fought against a complete full audit of the Fed; he fought against any real restrictions against derivatives trading; etc.
And now he is trying to sabotage any chance that a real reformer like Elizabeth Warren will oversee this Board
Dodd simply wanted a bill called "Financial Reform" without actually doing anything that the Finance companies would not like. This is simply because he doesn't want to upset his future employer---when he retires of course he will accept a job on some financial company board and get rich.
I'm sick of sellout Corpora-Dems like Dodd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sean
July 27, 2010 2:21 PM
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pete Bilderback
July 27, 2010 2:27 PM
"Dodd's chief concern, he said, is swiftness. If the agency isn't set up quickly with credible leadership, it will be vulnerable to GOP attacks."
A pretty strong argument in favor of making a recess appointment, no?
It seems to me that if time is of the essence here, as Dodd suggests, that the Republican plan would involve throwing as many procedural hurdles as they can in the way of any candidate's confirmation. So why not just recess appoint Warren?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EdA
July 27, 2010 2:28 PM
What stronger endorsement can there be than the opposition of Chris Dodd and Timothy Geithner?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas1
July 27, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to EdA
+1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
July 27, 2010 2:29 PM
In all that blibber-blabber, did Dodd give any real reason why Warren shouldn't be head? Have any of them?
I think they just hate the idea of strong, smart woman monitoring their playground.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
July 27, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to Phoebe Fay
So you chalk it up to misogyny?
I just chalk it up to the fact that the President is a center right pol who does not give a shit about the base of his party he was elected to represent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
July 27, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to rbeats
Oh, I don't think it's all about misogyny. It's mostly about the powers-that-be not wanting consumer's to have a real advocate. But I suspect misogyny plays into their opposition. Wall Street is still a big ass boy's club. And so's most of Washington, for that matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
July 27, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to Phoebe Fay
+1, to infinity, and beyond.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 27, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to Phoebe Fay
strong smart woman - have to admit, that would be hard to take.
And if I had their egos, it would be torture.
Like you're descriptions - "blibber-blabber" and what was that one last week - "spaghetti monster"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dadzilla
July 27, 2010 2:36 PM
Frankly I don't give a hoot on Dodd's opinion of her chances... Elizabeth Warren is well qualified and seems to be the only player in the room without agenda other than the public interest. She has wide public support and trust, the Administration would be fools to pass her up for this vital start of the agency. If the republican's want a fight, let's oblige them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tgh86
July 27, 2010 2:36 PM
Elizabeth Warren: unanimous approval from rank and file Dems. Overwhelming praise from independents. But, no let's just have Emanuel and Geithner find some corporate lackey because I can't handle Dick Shelby making a mean face at me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
July 27, 2010 2:37 PM
'No, no, no,' a recess appointment wouldn't maintain the status quo for Mr. Dodd. Must always go by all the rules, especially those which he created for the big banking cartel to control all the money. Can't wait till this old sh*t shuffles off to one of their board rooms and cements his legacy as a corporate shill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
July 27, 2010 2:38 PM
Heh, Dodd has always been a mindless shill for his big business backers. It comes from being from his homestate. He's got a barcode on him somewhere no doubt. He's been trying to sabotage this from the beginning.
This is the single best reason I think of to nominate Warren.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
July 27, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to MNPundit
The guy was in the Peace Corps, the Reserves and has served CT since 1981 in the Senate. The guy was key on Family and Medical Leave, expanding Head Start and on children's healthcare. Sure, his motivations on the financial industry have been rightly criticized, but he was as influential as anyone in actually getting the bill called the "most sweeping financial reform since the Depression" through Congress.
Call him what you want, but the reality is a bit more complicated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
July 27, 2010 4:01 PM in reply to Dorn76
And he did a lot to water that bill down to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
July 27, 2010 2:39 PM
The only thing Dodd is concerned about is not "swiftness," but protecting the Wall Street folks for whom he's going to be working in a few months. And frankly, I don't give a rip if Dodd thinks a recess appointment is a bad idea. The Republicans have made every vote a 60-vote requirement. Ok, fine; recess appointments. They were so bad about it that Harry Reid was forced to keep the Senate "in session" over 3-day weekends.
If Bush can appoint a right-wing anti-intellectual hack like John Bolton to be US Ambassador through a recess appointment, Obama can certainly appoint someone everyone agrees is eminently qualified and will do a good job. Sometimes, yup, I'm forced to admit that the ends do justify the means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maxdemon
July 27, 2010 2:41 PM
Ask the friggin' question! Senator Dodd, does she have your vote? Put him on the spot, if he say "yes" then ask why he isn't willing to fight for her, if he says "no" well you have your answer right there don't you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 28, 2010 5:52 PM in reply to Maxdemon
How refreshingly straightforward. I agree, that's how journalism should be practiced. Unfortunately, TPM is more concerned with access these days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
July 27, 2010 2:44 PM
Gibbs: Warren is Obam's choice, you betcha!
Dodd on the phone an hour later: Yes Mr. President I will take the fall for pissing off your base, again, since I am not running for re-election...
Dodd to reporters next day: I don't think Warren can make it...
Gibbs tomorrow: Well we will just try and work on this bipartisan thing but you know its kinda of tuff. Give us break man!
And the merry go round goes round and round...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 27, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to rbeats
"base": it's all about us, us, us, us, us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
July 27, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Good to see the banking lobby represented in the comments section at TPM.
What's your salary?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 3:13 PM in reply to rbeats
Good to see the teabaggers represented in the comments of TPM. What's your salary?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
July 27, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to FreeRider
Do you have any grasp on reality?
I'm arguing for better consumer protection and you call me a teabagger?
Wow, earth to FreeRider, earth to FreeRider, anybody home?
wow...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 27, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to rbeats
Free Ride doesn't think that people should criticize Obama from the left either. Anyone who isn't 100% down with the program is the enemy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 5:12 PM in reply to rbeats
Teabagger, Firebagger. Two sides of the same diseased coin. You're just a lying punk-ass hater. You're not arguing FOR anything because you are never FOR anything. You only know how to be AGAINST everything.
Here's a hint: When you spend two years trashing the president as corrupt and a republican, nobody gives a shit what you want. You don't matter!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
July 27, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to FreeRider
I suppose the next logical response is:
"Good to see the Obama Administration represented in the comments of TPM. What's your salary?"
But, can we let a little reality in? Ain't none of us good enough at this to get paid for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 27, 2010 8:51 PM in reply to cwnidog
Someone ought to tell President Obama to get with the Freebagger program.
LoL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 28, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to rbeats
Reminds me of the single payer/public option bait and switch.
'No, sorry, single payer advocates have not been invited to the table, how about this shiny object, instead: a public option to keep private insurers honest!'
A few months later: 'Well, the public option is just one of many good ideas that could be part of this bill, but it's not essential.' Weasel words.
Nope, good policy doesn't really enter into it. The President just won't swing for the fences because, ultimately, he's a Clintonian triangulator, more interested in movement and change for its own sake than change that contributes to the general welfare. As long as he can claim a 'W', rake in more campaign contributions, hang onto power and retire in comfort, it's all the same to him. No fire in the belly, no desire to be anything more than a placeholder Senator in the White House with veto power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
July 27, 2010 2:45 PM
Add this to the list of cases where the Democrats hand veto authority to Republicans. And the country loses.
Just shoot me!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
webhoster00
July 27, 2010 2:49 PM
Recess Appointment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kstone
July 27, 2010 2:56 PM
"She's qualified, no question about that. The question is whether she's confirmable," Dodd added.
Meaning? Corporate flacks don't like her? She doesn't speak well? What does he mean?
Warren has already proven she can play oversight hardball with Wall Street, which is what is needed in this CONSUMER PROTECTION position. I hope Obama doesn't bail out on this. I don't see one true public servant in his cabinet or among his top appointees. Most are recycling from the Clinton and Bush cabinets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 27, 2010 2:57 PM
I hope people remember that those who have gotten recess appointments lingered for a while before Obama used that option. So I'm sure I won't see people demanding that she get a recess appointment 2 minutes after she gets nominated, right? Assuming she gets nominated of course.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bearpaw
July 27, 2010 3:02 PM
His wife's friends from when she worked for AIG care, plus whichever financial corporation will give him a lucrative make-work job after he retires from the Senate ... that's who.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xultar
July 27, 2010 3:11 PM
Why would anyone listen to his crooked a__ anyway? He received special treatment for loans from subprime criminal lenders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 3:20 PM in reply to xultar
Getting a point off your interest rate is not illegal.
The investigation concluded that (a) many people got a lower interest rate and (b) Dodd wasn't even aware that he had received a preferential rate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 28, 2010 12:57 AM in reply to FreeRider
Bullshit. Sold mortgages for the past eight years. Sorry Freerider, on this one you don't know what you're talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
July 27, 2010 3:12 PM
Dodd isn't running for re-election because it is doubtful he could win this time. The people of Conn. are onto him. It appears they caught on before the rest of us. Just another DEM willing to cave at the first bump in the road. Why is a DEM with grit the exception in this Party?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
July 27, 2010 3:14 PM
suck that bank cock dodd, we know your looking for a new job YOU SCUMBAG!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
leftyloosey
July 27, 2010 3:27 PM
What authority over recess appointments has Dodd, over Obama's?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Model271
July 27, 2010 3:33 PM
"They will try to get rid of this agency, I promise you, when I'm gone"
Dodd-O, the only question is whether you will be helping them, or not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
July 27, 2010 3:37 PM
The only way they can repeal the agency is if there are 60 votes to repeal it and there won't be 60 votes.
I don't know what Dodd is talking about but it appears that the Obama administration is warming to Warren so who gives a crap what Dodd says.
The main question is who is Dodd protecting?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
July 27, 2010 3:42 PM in reply to Maritza
After that, I'd hope they'd need 67 to override the veto.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SleepinJeezus
July 27, 2010 3:38 PM
Dodd stands in the way of getting Warren appointed to the position? Gee, can't say I didn't see THAT coming!.
Whenever Dodd (or Obama or any of these other asshats) say "they can't get the votes" on what might otherwise seem to be a sensible and highly popular item, you can take it to the bank (ahem!) that they actually mean their owners won't allow it. (See the Public Option in HCR; the wholly independent Financial Consumer Protection Agency; etc.)
These crooks don't even try to hide the strings attached to themselves anymore as they play out the roles the corporate puppet-masters lay out for them. And yet, the mainstream media (and, yes, TPM!) sticks with the script provided them as well and simply reports it as an "inconvenient political reality."
Wake up, people. We need to get our government back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
July 27, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to SleepinJeezus
Careful now, if you keep articulating reality like that, you'll have the firebagger injunction hurled your way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 27, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to SleepinJeezus
It's nothing but a shell game that has worked very well for them on any number of issues from healthcare, to climate change legislation to Elizabeth Warren. Somehow there's always one or more people standing in the way of progress and no power under the sun can be used to move them. Dodd is just carrying water for the White House in deep sixing Warren's nomination since he isn't running for re-election and he'll be needing a job from either Obama or Wall Street come next January.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alan in SF
July 27, 2010 3:51 PM
At least Dodd has a really good reason why a recess appointment is impossible: "Because."
He would have been more convincing if he had simply cited the section of the Constitution that forbids recess appointments to be used for progressives.
Will my comment get banned if I conclude with a hearty, "Fuck you, Sen. Dodd, and the DSCC you rode in on" ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
consumetheconsumer
July 27, 2010 3:55 PM
no recess appointments for "routine matters" and the appointment of a new consumer protection watchdog equals a routine matter . . . really, that's the line they're taking?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
flounder
July 27, 2010 3:55 PM
Doesn't the bill allow for an interim director to be appointed by the President that is allowed to serve until the Senate gets its act together and confirms a director?
Obama could appoint Warren as interim tomorrow and then a few months down the road (when the sky hasn't fallen), ask the Senate to confirm her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
July 27, 2010 4:09 PM
Personally, I don't much care if she's confirmable or not. She appears to be the best person for the job, and there is a recess coming up. JUST DO IT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cosliberal
July 27, 2010 4:12 PM
Dodd is about to become ex-Senator Dodd because his ties to and corrupt relationship with the big Wall Street banks was finally exposed. Who cares what he thinks? And, if Obama has any hope of ever getting his base back, he needs to appoint Warren, and fight for her....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
parisblues
July 27, 2010 4:22 PM
When it comes to effective political (as opposed to policy) strategy, Democrats need to learn to ask themselves one crucial question: WWGWBD?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TrivTriv
July 27, 2010 4:32 PM
Is it me, or does Dodd look like a fat Roger Sterling from "Mad Men"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jlover
July 27, 2010 4:34 PM
warren tells it like it is.....that's the main reason dodd does not want her....bankers don't like the truth to be told.....the big international and national bankers are behind 90% of the problems are economy is having....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
July 27, 2010 4:37 PM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
July 27, 2010 4:38 PM
krugman:
I have to say, I don’t get the administration waffling on Elizabeth Warren at all.
Leave aside the merits of appointing Warren, which are considerable, and think about the politics. At this point, not appointing Warren would be seen by the base as a slap in the face, and would seriously dampen enthusiasm going into the midterms. And Democrats need every bit of enthusiasm they can muster to avoid a Republican takeover of the House.
Given that, it’s crazy to vacillate. Maybe Tim Geithner doesn’t like Warren. Maybe Rahm Emanuel finds her hard to deal with. (I’m speculating here, not speaking from any inside knowledge.) How can such things count compared with the catastrophic effect of a GOP victory on the White House?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kctex
July 27, 2010 4:39 PM
I think Chris Dodd wants the job for himself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 27, 2010 4:52 PM
I remember how much liberals liked him in the '08 primaries....I guess it's easy to be liberal when you know you're not going to get elected. He's a great actor, fooled a lot of people. If it isn't Warren look for Dems to get really creamed in Nov, after the Sherrod fiasco it would probably sap what's left of the base's enthusiasm. My guess is it won't be Warren.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
July 27, 2010 4:59 PM
Dodd, you have just won yourself a primary and if progressives willing, you will be out of a job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 27, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to Ironcomments
Dodd is retiring, you retarded firebagger. Try to keep up!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
July 27, 2010 5:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
I caught that, just as I posted it, too quick on the enter button, I guess. But hey you got to use "firebagger" on someone +1 for you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
July 27, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to Ironcomments
Actually, if you do a quick count you'll find that Dildo Doggins there has used "firebagger" at least 14 times in just this thread alone.
Mommy and Daddy must not've gotten a sitter today. Our boy feels all ooky and important talking smack with the grown-ups.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 27, 2010 5:08 PM
Mr. Dodd is already working as a bankster lobbyist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rhytonen
July 27, 2010 5:21 PM
Dodd needs to be ignored as the Irrelevant he is.
Recess-appoint Warren
- and BTW, get on with NUKING rule 22 so we can pass the STRONG Public Option, thus fixing the broken health care non-reform bill and silencing ITS credible detractors.
We have a Financial "Reform" bill to fix, as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
verite
July 27, 2010 5:22 PM
If recess appointments were good enough to get dastardly John Bolton in his position, certainly they should be used for productive appointments such as Ms Warren. What a huge disappointment Sen Dodd has become.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
July 27, 2010 5:34 PM
The unabashed gentlemen from Connecticut, Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman, together constitute the Joe Isuzu caucus of the United States Senate, and have shown us that indeed some people are capable of almost anything, once they've jettisoned enough of their own oft-stated moral principles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jchaus
July 27, 2010 5:45 PM
How soon until Dodd is a high paid lobbyist? For hire to the highest bidder? Which by definition is Wall Street?
After all, access is everything!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrtmbrnmn
July 27, 2010 5:59 PM
obviously this bog irish drunk hasn't finalized his wall street lobbyist contract yet. sounds like he's still working his ticket. still auditioning. what a shite!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sniffit
July 27, 2010 6:16 PM
2 + 2. Whoever else thought her name would be bandied about to solely to stroke the progressives' off...and that she would then be blocked and not really nominated...well, here we go. Dodd isn't running for re-election, so he can take one for the team and be the big baddy that blocked the progressives' darling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
July 27, 2010 6:29 PM
Jezuzz. MAKE THE OBSTRUCTION THE ISSUE!!!! This should be easy to figure out, by anyone but a freakin' Senator.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cacamp
July 27, 2010 7:09 PM
Dodd intends to cash in after he retires so he's already working the other side. Just think of the millions it would cost him to piss off the banks right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PushMe-PullYou
July 27, 2010 7:12 PM
Elizabeth Warren is probably the ideal candidate for this job. For that reason alone, she will probably not get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
des
July 27, 2010 7:13 PM
My opinion of Sen. Dodd has dramatically dropped in the past few months. His retirement from the Senate should free him from any need to curry favor with anyone; in or out of the Senate. Dodd's statement about reserving recess appointments for "emergencies", then immediately saying that the reforms will be doomed if a head isn't appointed quickly, shows a greater than usual senatorial lack of coherence - especially for someone without an "R" behind his name.
In view of the Republicans' stalling tactics on ALL nominees, I would suggest that the administration immediately use recess appointments on every remaining nominee. Once a week, fifteen or twenty nominess receive their appointments.
The President can even make a speech for the first group, explaining that he will continue the recess appointments until the nominees he sends to the Senate are voted on. He could also announce that every person receiving a recess appointment will have their names re-submitted to the Senate immediately upon the commencement of the next Congress, thus allowing the Senate to vote.
As the campaign season is getting closer and closer, the President could even use the Republicans' fake outrage over the appointments to accentuate their hypocrisy, something many voters are, amazingly enough, probably not aware of. (damn prepositions!) Through all this the administration will need to continually stress that these appointments are being made in this way solely because the nominees are not even being allowed an UP OR DOWN VOTE! Even if the hearer doesn't recall the exact circumstances of its being used, they will most likely remember that it was important that such votes not be blocked.
I read once that, when citing an opponent's words, it's best to find a way to turn them back against him. Works for me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
July 27, 2010 8:06 PM in reply to des
What you speak of requires bold and refreshing leadership and vision of the future. Last time that was around in Congress was in the 60's I think.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
July 27, 2010 11:46 PM in reply to des
Once a week, fifteen or twenty nominess receive their appointments.
I don't think that the Senate recesses quite that frequently (not that you can tell by the amount of work getting done), but otherwise a peach of an idea.
And make sure to rub the R's faces in it, pointing out that the vacancies need to be filled and enough is e-fucking-nough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpmoldfuzz
July 27, 2010 7:32 PM
Senator Dodd may be trolling for statesmanship. While I agree that a recess appointment of Warren is a poor political move, she should go through the confirmation process. If the GOP stonewall her appointment, that is the time to make the recess appointment and let the GOP stew in their venom. After all, Warren is popular among the voters, especially those who took a beating as a result of the Wall street mugging.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
July 27, 2010 7:46 PM
I am so damn sick and tired of Democrats playing doormat to the Republicans - especially when other people pay the cost. These wimpy Democrats are ruling class elitists, millionaires.
Dodd got caught with his hand in the Countrywide Financial cookie jar and he's going to sit there and make sure we have a lapdog for a watchdog on Wall Street?
Democrats are frauds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madprogressive
July 27, 2010 8:52 PM
Dodd is against the Warren appointment because he doesn't want to have to go up against her when he gets his cushy job working for one of these crooked and corrupt companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
July 27, 2010 10:45 PM
If Dodd thinks it a bad idea, then it's likely a good one. Can't wait till this bankrolled old sh*t shuffles off the Congressional stage - intos the board room of the big banks he served so well - and cements his senate legacy as a corporate shill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eclecticbrotha
July 27, 2010 10:56 PM
Sen. Chris Dodd, ladies and gentleman
LAMEST.
DUCK.
EVARRRR!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texar
July 27, 2010 11:06 PM
Ole Chris is getting a head start on his FULL TIME lobbying gig for the financial industry. He knows full well that Warren would be a formidable bureau head and he'd rather have a more "establishment friendly" figure to deal with.
The more things change...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmb50
July 27, 2010 11:42 PM
Dodd is fucking turkey necked coward and king pussy in the Senate. He makes Harry Reid look strong. I am so sick of the democrats controlling everything in Washington and saying they cant get it done. The republicans would get it done. Republicans got everything with wanted without near the numbers the democrats have and without caving into people on their team
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
quoyle
July 28, 2010 12:01 AM
If Dodd would get off his sorry pathetic ass and work to get her confirmed instead of mouthing off about how unlikely it is, she'd have a better chance. Can't wait til he's gone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Buck
July 28, 2010 12:21 AM
Dodd will probably be working for a large bank come February 2011.
His logic is poor in any case. The Republicans hate this agency and want to kill it (as does Ben Nelson), so why shouldn't they filibuster any nominee unless the Republicans themselves get to pick the person?
The main problem with a recess appointment, as I understand it, is that it only lasts through the current Congress, so a recess appointment would expire in January 2011.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 28, 2010 3:51 AM
Dodd, the banking industry's butt-boy objects ... who cares?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Druthers
July 28, 2010 8:05 AM
Who is the friendliest, Dodd, Schumer or Lieberman, to grifters? Ye shall know a grifter by his deeds!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theginn
July 28, 2010 9:03 AM
"I think that's a mistake," "Except in the most extreme circumstances where you need someone because of an emergency pending, but as a routine matter, I think it's a fundamental mistake."
Dodd's chief concern, he said, is swiftness. "If the agency isn't set up quickly with credible leadership, it will be vulnerable to GOP attacks."
Am I missing something here, or did Dodd give the best reason why Obama should make a recess appointment if the weak-ass Senate adds confirming Warren to the long list of things it can't get done?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lamonth
July 28, 2010 10:23 AM
due to mr obama listening to relics like mr dodd are why i will not lift a finger to support mr obama and his re-election. mr obama has deferred to listening to the establishment at every turn during his presidency versus looking to change the establishment. mr obama talks a good game, but his actions are totally different.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Paul
July 28, 2010 2:02 PM
Elizabeth Warren was instrumental in developing the consumer protection agency. She is extremely committed to this effort to help balance the playing field. She should be appointed asap so that she can get to work!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shag11
July 29, 2010 9:00 PM
Dodd has no credibility on this issue. He got a sweetheart deal on his mortgage, he's probably hoping to make millions working for
one of the financial firms on Wall Street. For those reasons, he doesn't want someone as tough as Warren on that job, cause Wall Street doesn't want her there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 30, 2010 9:52 AM
For the record: Bad mortgages added fuel to the fire, but they weren't the fire, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were responsible for about 25% of the bad mortgages; the rest were from private wheeler-dealers.
Financial regulations in place since the 1930s began to be gutted in 1994 with the Contract on America and Clinton's acquiescence. That's where the real problem lies.
The top 1% richest people in America have approximately 40% of the wealth of this country; the top 10% have approximately 70% of the wealth. And they're doing everything possible to hold onto it.
That leaves 90% of us to split up the remaining 30%. As the cliche goes: "you do the math." So keep reading the Wall Street Journal; it's their paper, and we can keep up with their nefarious doings.
In the meantime, although I hate to disagree with Senator Dodd (who has spent his career working hard for us common people) let's get Warren appointed now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?