RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Intro: "President Barack Obama has chosen a candidate other than Elizabeth Warren as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a person briefed on the matter."

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head Elizabeth Warren testifies on Capitol Hill before the House Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit subcommittee. (photo: Harry Hamburg/AP)
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head Elizabeth Warren testifies on Capitol Hill before the House Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit subcommittee. (photo: Harry Hamburg/AP)

Bloomberg Reports: Obama Eliminates Elizabeth Warren

By Mike Dorning and Carter Dougherty, Bloomberg News

16 July 11


Bloomberg is reporting that President Obama has eliminated Elizabeth Warren as a candidate to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The story has not been confirmed by the White House. The sources are "persons" and the information at this writing has not been verified. Due to the gravity of the confirmation decision, and our readers' interest in the story, we have decided to publish the article while we wait for further confirmation. -- CW/RSN


resident Barack Obama has chosen a candidate other than Elizabeth Warren as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a person briefed on the matter.

The president's choice is a person who already works at the consumer agency, the person said today. Obama may make the nomination as soon as next week, another person briefed on the administration's plans said.

The people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process isn't public, didn't give the name of the choice.

Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor, was appointed last fall by Obama to set up the consumer bureau until a director was named. Warren previously was head of the congressional watchdog panel overseeing the bank bailout.

Raj Date, a top deputy to Warren at the consumer bureau, was on a short list of candidates to become director, Bloomberg News reported last month, citing a person briefed on the process.

The consumer bureau, which is to begin formal operations on July 21, was established by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory overhaul to fill what lawmakers said was a gap in oversight of products whose abuse contributed to the 2008 credit crisis, including mortgages and credit cards.

The bureau's director requires confirmation by the Senate. After 44 Republican senators announced in May that they wouldn't vote to approve any candidate to run the bureau without changes in its structure, analysts said the White House might have to resort to a temporary appointment during a congressional recess. Sixty of the 100 senators are effectively required to vote for a nomination due to procedural rules.

Consumer bureau spokeswoman Jen Howard declined to comment, as did Jen Psaki, a White House spokeswoman. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+116 # camus11 2011-07-16 10:12
If this is true, it is yet more evidence that Obama is a gutless wonder with the spine and convictions of a jellyfish. NoBama in 2012.
+21 # Jackie Bolles 2011-07-16 10:29
...and the alternative is....?
+90 # Ryan Langemeyer 2011-07-16 10:46
The alternative is a sane government led by a fearless President, neither of which we have now.
-58 # noitall 2011-07-16 11:31
You've got that right. No other choice! Coincidentally, Nader says that he won't consider running. Think there will be many non-voters? Bring this boat down, vote for Bachmann. "The people get the government they deserve" Great sports fans, lousy citizens.
+66 # jerryball 2011-07-16 12:20
noitall: I don't think Sister Pure Bachman is the answer. We're not a church-state .... yet!
+43 # bigkahuna671 2011-07-16 12:25
Sorry, noitall, but Nader is the reason we're in the mess we're in. If he had stayed out of it in 2000, Bush wouldn't have been elected and there'd have been some sanity in the White House. Unfortunately, Nader let his expansive ego get in the way of common sense and the Bush, followed by a lack of leadership that allowed the economy to go down the toilet! Don't even mention Nader again, he's as big an ogre as Bush/Cheney.
+41 # ponca77 2011-07-16 13:14
Blaming Nader is getting to be pretty thin, even if it were true that his candidacy put GWB into office. It did not. The Supreme Court and the Gore campaign - which failed to carry Gore's home state - did that by forbidding a tally of votes covered by the Gore appeal, and by Gore declining to ask for a recount of all Florida votes. Al Gore did not have a right to the Nader votes. Those who voted for Nader voted for what they wanted. Isn't that nearer the democratic ideal than the either-or setup that prevails?
+5 # lark3650 2011-07-17 08:55
I agree!!!!
+45 # PGreen 2011-07-16 13:20
I recommend that you read the Truthdig, Chris Hedges, article on the motivations for Nader's candidacy before you criticize him so vehemently. Our national problems are primarily systemic rather than Administrative; it may not help much to simply put in a Democratic Administration if the system isn't changed. Obama was once viewed as the anti-Bush, yet he has continued many of the Republican policies of his predecessor. Hedges quotes Phil Berrigan: "If elections were that effective, they would be illegal." It will likely take more than an election to get us out of the hole we've been digging for the last 30 years.
+4 # lark3650 2011-07-17 08:56
Brilliant article by Chris Hedges!
-14 # joel 2011-07-16 14:31
Bush was not elected in 2000. Gore was too craven, and corrupt, just like O'bummer, to even try to fight the criminal compromising of the election. Nader is honest and hard working and has done more for this nation than "I invented the internet so we could have global warming" Gore, who did nothing to prevent rampaging through forests when he actually had power... or the vile and feckless Obama, Bush III, to all you just waking up.
+33 # Pancho 2011-07-16 16:52
Spare us.

The "D"s allowed to disenfranchise 50,000 mostly African-America ns, in Florida and 2000. That was done by Kathy Harris and Jeb Bush.

They allowed the "R"s to stop the vote count with tactics such as the Congressional aides "Brooks Brothers" riot.

The Bush/Reagan hacks on the Supreme Court prevented the count from continuing.

Dave McReynolds got enough votes in Florida in 2000 to change the results of the race.

If progressive voters hadn't been so alienated by some of the Clinton/Gore stunts, particularly the passage of NAFTA and 85% incarceration legislation, they wouldn't have cast so many protest votes.

If progressives hadn't been put off by Gore's choice of Lieberman, they wouldn't have cast protest votes.

If all those Jews in Dade County hadn't mistakenly voted for Nazi-sympathize r Pat Buchanan, Gore would have been president.

If those ballots where voters had checked Gore/Lieberman and then written in the names had been counted, Gore would have won. The "D"s let them get away with it.

Blaming it on Nader is just plain stupid.

Not just stupid...infant ile.
+14 # mcartri 2011-07-16 17:36
First, Gore won in 2000. Unless Nader was one of the 5-Black Robed fascists that appointed Bush emperor, he's irrelevant. The myth Nader cost Gore has been debunked numerous times. That some are too lazy to study it in depth, is their problem. Just Google "Did Nader cost Gore the 2000 election." 534-votes is what Bush "won" by. Every third party got more than that. They all cost Gore the election? 12% of registered Florida Democrats voted for Bush. Democrats cost Gore the election? Gore would have won outright if he had carried HIS OWN state. He did not. Gore cost Gore the election? Gore clearly won the popular vote. The Electoral College cost Gore the election? Look who Gore chose as VP-Good old Joe Liarman. That really helped. Gore made an ass out of himself in the debate. Way to go, Al. Bottom line:Scapegoats didn't beat Gore. Gore beat Gore.
+8 # rf 2011-07-17 05:23
You're a fool if you think it would have maade a difference. The Democrats have been feeding us to the wolves as fast as the Republicans. Clinton is as or more responsible for the banking ripoff as bush. I'll be voting anything but Dem. this round...they can't act like this and get my vote. If it has to get worse before it gets be it.
+11 # lark3650 2011-07-17 08:54
Sorry, I disagree, bigkahuna671. Ralph Nader has been a champion for the American people throughout his entire life, always fighting for what was morally right. Al Gore didn't even carry his own state of Tennessee in the 2000 election! Jeb Bush was the governor of Florida at the time....please! That is how Bush won!
+3 # Andrea 2011-07-17 21:46
You mean to say that collusion in the courts is not the reason Bush stole the election? That's a new one.

As for the economy, regulations have been weakening since Reagan and Clinton had a part in it too.
-2 # Andrea 2011-07-17 21:44
Do YOU deserve that sort of government with Bachmann as the head?
+20 # Doctoretty 2011-07-16 12:15
Nor will you have with the Republicans in control.
+1 # rf 2011-07-17 05:27
At least we'll be getting what was voted for...even if it is f#*ked up with a Republican! I'm voting Communist...tim e...or anything else.
-81 # Mary Evans 2011-07-16 12:03
Ron Paul is the only nearly sane and surely honest alternative I can think of (even though I've never voted for a Republican candidate).
+27 # ponca77 2011-07-16 13:16
I suggest that you think about Senator Sherrod Brown: progressive, devoid of the Obama slickness, able as an orator and in debate, able to call things by their real names.
+23 # AML 2011-07-16 14:19
Don't forget, Ron Paul raised a racist, and thinks women can't decide for themselves about their reproductive issues. He is a true believer.
+10 # ShamanX 2011-07-16 19:02
If I understand correctly, Ron Paul is not looking for a federal ban on abortion... He wants it out of the federal arena altogether and in the jurisdiction of the states.

Pro Life / Pro Choice has done nothing but contribute to a big smoke and mirrors mis-direction game in federal two-party politics.
+4 # rf 2011-07-16 12:10
anyone...if I'm going to get pro-business Republican policies...then I would rather vote republican. I'll be voting Green, Communist, Socialist, Ralph Naderist...anyt hing but another pretender from the Democratic party that acts like they represent me and then stick it in my back! If things havve to get even worse before they get be it.
+81 # Cailleach 2011-07-16 12:52
Elizabeth Warren for president!
+41 # Wiley 2011-07-16 14:43
Bernie Sanders is the alternative... OR Dennis Kucinich
+18 # mcartri 2011-07-16 17:49
Bernie already announced it is NOT running for POTUS. He forced a shut down of a web site attempting to draft him. I love Bernie & Dennis. As with Howard Dean, the MSM & Military-Indust rial Complex will never allow a peace candidate near the top of either major party ticket.
+12 # rtrues54 2011-07-16 15:05
Quoting Jackie Bolles:
...and the alternative is....?

We get a Democrat WITH GUTS to fight Obama for the DEm Nomination. The Repubs. have NO CHANCE of winning in 2012. If we get Bernie Sanders or someone who will actually FIGHT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, WE will still win the presidency in 2012. What the HELL is wrong with progressives? We HAVE to FIGHT AT LEAST AS HARD as the ReTHUGS fight. We have been PUSHED WAY TOO FAR to the Right.
+1 # lawNOrder 2011-07-17 22:07
So fight to put Dems in the HOUSE/SENATE and in the Governors offices. You really think taking Bernie Sanders from the Congress will improve the laws that are being drafted? He considers himself an independent, and as such IS UNELECTABLE. You lose Bernie Sanders and NO one is going to craft laws even close to what you think you want. No one is going to push the debate back away from right wing appeasement. Minority Dems, will not vote for Bernie, they will just stay home, as they can hear all the hate from the right and the abandonment from the left. There are 'hispanics', asians, young people and other people of color who will follow this pettiness and STAY home, sending their own message as they are used to being overlooked by both the left and the right. Your REAL job is to put lawmakers in office and KEEP them there for the next 30 years, no matter who the POTUS may be.
+10 # Progressive Patriot 2011-07-17 03:22
How about a _REAL_ Progressive Democrat. Like Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, or Al Franken?

Oh hell, I'll do the job if you guys really want me to ... ;-})
0 # Lowell Stanley 2011-07-19 16:37
Yes, that is a good question, however, I wonder how long we must go to the polls and hold our nose as we punch our choice.
+15 # Amir 2011-07-16 10:49
Jellyfish can sting. Hard. And then, the Repugnants have Snow White (Bachmann) and the 7 Dwarfs arrayed against him, so his odds of winning may not be that bad.
+45 # noitall 2011-07-16 11:32
What's the odds of the American People winning?!!
+33 # Carolyn Steinhoff 2011-07-16 11:03
I'm not especially politically astute, but what if the new appointee is similar to Warren in his or her perspective, and Obama knows that, with a temporary appointment, he will only need 60 senators to approve the person, instead of 100, and that could mean that he will have a better chance of getting the person approved, and gain more time, thereby doing an end-run around those 44 Republicans?
+42 # Pat Tibbs 2011-07-16 11:33
Carolyn, he would not need 100 votes for Warren. He would need 60 and it would be difficult to get in this political climate. Still I wish he would try. Of course the candidate has to agree to enduring a grueling, combative confirmation process and Warren may just not be interested in being abused any further.
+1 # LeeBlack 2011-07-17 09:57
If the new appointee is similar to Warren in perspective and intelligence the Republicans will challenge that candidate also.
The Republicans will not accept anyone who challenges their view of the world.
+55 # Skayjoh 2011-07-16 11:33
If Elizabeth Warren runs for the senate, it may be a win-win, considering how impossible the Republican's make everything.
+15 # gary felder 2011-07-16 12:19
We have seen his performance so far ;for what sound reason do you think this would be more reasoned than his past. This Prez fears a fight he just rolls over again and again.
+5 # Merschrod 2011-07-16 12:29
God point Carolyn - I agree, let's see who the alternative is. (no 100 votes needed), but let's not get all bent out of shape - let's see who the person is who may replace E. WArren.
+26 # Moondancer 2011-07-16 11:03
No, it is yet more evidence that someone else is running the show. Obama is just a figurehead. We haven't elected a president in our lifetimes!
+12 # jerryball 2011-07-16 12:11
Moondancer: Eureka! You have given another reason why Obama is neither a Democrat, nor a Republican. It doesn't matter who is in the Presidency because they all are dance to another tune than the rest of us, Dem-bones or Re-pugs. The question is who? From fiducial data it seems to be the same dancemaster that Reagan, and the two Bushes had. Clinton? He seemed to have another dance card altogether and who the hell could figure that man out?
+20 # Doctoretty 2011-07-16 12:13
Don't be stupid. Would you be better off with McCain? Or worse, one of the Republican know-nothings that want to run against him? I liked her for it, but no one is irreplaceable. We don't know yet that the person he appoints will not be just as good.
+4 # Hors-D-whores 2011-07-17 00:44
Before everybody starts throwing sling shots, why don't we wait to find out for sure. If the reckless, government destroying Republicons refuse to confirm Warren, or probably anyone that will hold their cronies accountable, just think the position the president is in!
What if maybe, this will allow Warren to make the decision to run for Senator, as has been opined? Instead of making the president's job harder by saying things like we won't vote if he doesn't do exactly what we think he should do, or could do, why aren't you, or we storming down the doors of the effing bastards that are Boehner, McConnell, Cantor and the entire TeaParty whackos?
+3 # ap 2011-07-17 00:48
It is those who listened to that thinking that gave the House to the Tea-vangelists. NoBama - that's a right wing catch-phrase - you must be another Koch-bot? You certainly serve their ends.

There is talk she is being recruited to run against Scott Brown.
+1 # Amir 2011-07-17 07:17
So Far I haven't read any other publications who've said this other than Bloomberg; are we "rushing to judgment" on this?
-1 # Pickwicky 2011-07-17 11:50
And, Camus, you know all the factors in the President's decision. Who are you trying to kid? And what side are you on?
+33 # paulrevere 2011-07-16 10:28
I am sooooo...sigh.

I have worked with and for the Dem Party in my state for the past 7 years. I am done...
+9 # Amir 2011-07-16 10:51
And then, this isn't the first time a Democratic president didn't stand behind his woman after nominating her for a position...
+46 # Regina 2011-07-16 10:37
What a revolting development! What a craven concession. I guess Obama will keep joining them, since he won't act to beat them. And they will beat him into the failure they demand. In our next election, let's elect Democrats, not DINOs, Blue Dogs, Yellow Bellies, Cerise Cravens, or any other variety of "bipartisan" wimps.
+40 # Ryan Langemeyer 2011-07-16 10:48
Sorry Regina, your vote doesn't matter any more. It's "to the streets" like in Egypt and Syria or nothing.
+37 # sark 2011-07-16 11:22
Ryan, you are on to something when you say that your vote does not matter any more. I would encourage all to do a search and look at sites like handcountedpape rballots, bradblog, truthisall, freepress, electiondefense alliance for information concerning election integrity. I have taken to the streets many times over the past 40+ years and am tired of having social, economic and environmental justice causes defeated because of very questionable election results.
+13 # ResplendentQuetzal 2011-07-16 15:29
Yes. And be sure to check out Black Box Voting - an amazing organization, and Beverly Harris has done very impressive & essential work on Electronic Voting Machines, who owns the companies that make them, has documented hacking of the software. A big, smart focus for action is to demand verifiable, trackable, transparent - i.e., not black box - voting.
+21 # Digusted 2011-07-16 11:59
Yes . . . take to the streets like Egypt, Tunisa, Wisconsin.
+6 # rtrues54 2011-07-16 15:10
Quoting Ryan Langemeyer:
Sorry Regina, your vote doesn't matter any more. It's "to the streets" like in Egypt and Syria or nothing.

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!!!! A REVOLUTION is the ONLY SALVATION left for America!!!
+1 # Amir 2011-07-17 07:23
I went to a "Progressive" discussion about what has to be done to stimulate the masses into action and make them (us?) aware of what's going on. Their ideas of what do do and what to communicate were so boring that it would be a hopeless task. The Repugnants on the other hand know how to grab the attention of their audiences. I think what is needed is CARNIVAL! Something celebratory and affirmative.
+8 # noitall 2011-07-16 11:59
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The "Democtratic Party" has nothing and will not sprout. "Party" representing the People is an illusion, a thin mist blurring the fruits of a Coup de'Etat. 9-11?, JFK Assination?, Pearl Harbor? Which one could it have been, or were they all, phases, steps? The fruits and proof of the Coups is the state of the People in the "land of the free, home of the brave". Who are the Evil Nasties? Those with the most money and those treasonous People they buy.

If "we" the "Democrats" win, they'll either act exactly like Obama, bush, Clinton, etc. or they'll slip in the tub on a bar of soap (as will their next generation). Not a difficult choice to make by anyone...even you. If they believed only one thing in their Bible, the thing about GREED, this would be a different world. While I'm on it, (the Bible, Religions,etc.) with all of them putting humans above all other life and things, including the Earth Mother, where else would we be in such a short time in this country's history? Greedy?, want riches? You're the Steward, its all there for you. Protect and enjoy or rape and hoard, its your choice. I rest my case, seems as though we only have the Rape and Hoard Party option again this year. R&HP 1 or R&HP 2, Sorry, I guess you'll just have to wait another 4 years.
-3 # Timaloha 2011-07-16 13:30
I'd be very happy if the next president acted exactly like Clinton.
+11 # Timaloha 2011-07-16 13:40
So Warren doesn't get the commission and you're all ready to throw in the towel on Obama? You're willing to waste your vote and maybe allow Romney or Bachmann to become your chief executive officer? Really? Did you consider that maybe Warren is perfectly all right with this? That maybe this is a strategic move to free her up to run against and oust Scott Brown here in Massachusetts? She would NEVER be approved by the reps and a recess appointment is an anti-Obama campaign ad that writes itself. If another well-qualified appointee gets confirmed and Warren beats Brown then we're looking at another masterful political chess maneuver by Obama.
+41 # Robert Edgar 2011-07-16 10:40
No. This should not be. Warren should have this job. If this proves to be true, there are two fewer people in Obama's administration that I trust: Warren, who would be out, and Obama, for not standing behind her.
+24 # Pat Tibbs 2011-07-16 11:35
I'm calling the White House to register my disgust at this act. I urge you to call too: 202-456-1111.
+51 # rbedgar 2011-07-16 10:46
Warren personifies someone who consumers trust. I trust her more than Obama. If he sells her out, I can no longer trust him to support my needs. I'd like to, as the rest of the water is so poisoned. But I can't. Come on, Obama. Stand.
+27 # Pat Tibbs 2011-07-16 11:36
It's possible that Warren just didn't want to endure any further abuse at the hands of ignorant, ideologues on the Republican side of the aisle. And make not mistake: she would surely be severely abused in the confirmation process. Still I want the White House to know that I'm displeased with this act so I'm calling them to register my opinion. You can to. The number is 202-456-1111.
+11 # eosheawyatt 2011-07-16 10:47
Obama is a loathsome gargoyle. To listen to the mainstream press this week you would think he has been the leader we have been looking for. No. He is the leader the Republicans are looking for. He is a lying creep. When do we tell the Democrats to just get lost?
-8 # exotica 2011-07-16 12:48
I WANT Obama to lose----assassi n-in-chief----e xtraordinary renditioner---m ilitary tribunaler---un declared war-maker, 1,2,3,4----inde finite preventive detentioner---w all-streeter's little mascot (Cornell West ought to know) ---giver-awayer to HMO's and Big Pharma---domest ic spyer---whistle -blower persecutor, e.g. Private Manning--- airport feeler-upper--- tax break giver to billionaires--- SS and Medicare threatener ---mountain top remover--BP cover upper---deep water drilling permitter---our -nuclear-plants -are-safe-liar- ---- But such a pretty face and such nice manners, and such a sweet family and best of all, looks great primping himself on a putting green, the vile little suck-up flimflam Chicago pol poseur. In short, Odious the Potus.
+39 # Hyman Kuritz 2011-07-16 10:49
Iam saddened as much as revolted by the President;s abadonment of Ms Warren It has been clear beyond any doubt that Obama prefers "inside" politics rather tan using his power as President to go to the country to lay on the line what is going on. Even if he lost a battle here and there he could create a very different atosphere that would place the Republicans on the defensive.
+1 # lawNOrder 2011-07-17 21:31
The Republicans on the defensive? What planet have YOU been on? What 'power' does POTUS have other than to nominate? Congress will not CONFIRM, so Obama has already suffered losses as he is the one that nominated Warren. I read this tripe and wonder how you all can be so fairweather supporters, Oh, you really NEVER were supporters. Give POTUS a 'progressive' House and a clear MAJORITY in the Senate and then judge the man. Name ONE other POTUS that the other party has said, publicly and repeatedly, We WANT HIM TO FAIL!! Congress has held up MOST of Obama's appointments and here we are HALFWAY through his term. Warren is one of MANY casualties, yet he DID get Kagan on the SCOTUS. The hair-pulling over Warren is overblown considering how much resistance this Administration has endured. You want a stronger Obama? Support him, and PUT Progressives in Congress. The Tea Party did, what the.... is wrong with you?
+37 # Kenneth Humphrey 2011-07-16 10:49
No, forget Democrats except for the few reps worthy of support.The political process is futile. Let's build a mass progressive coalition movement outside the two corporate party system. Only with strength can we force change within the political process.
+4 # rtrues54 2011-07-16 15:19
Quoting Kenneth Humphrey:
No, forget Democrats except for the few reps worthy of support.The political process is futile. Let's build a mass progressive coalition movement outside the two corporate party system. Only with strength can we force change within the political process.

Quoting Digusted:
Yes . . . take to the streets like Egypt, Tunisa, Wisconsin.

+6 # Virginia 2011-07-16 18:21
A third party will be difficult to sustain - but we can "take back" or "take over" the Dems in the primaries. The candidates from all over the country in every election need to be united on the same platform - REFORM, RECONSTRUCT, REBUILD... honesty, integrity and guts! Oh yes, and RE-REGULATE the banks! YES, We Can!
+20 # Clarice Hearne 2011-07-16 10:51
I'm waiting for confirmation without much hope. But there's no surprise here. Obama throws us under the bus again!
+2 # lawNOrder 2011-07-17 21:34
Wait, did Warren NOMINATE herself? Congress won't confirm her, maybe if you are under a BUS, you might look at who drove it over you, REPUBLICANTS! Your DENIAL of facts is worthy of Rupert Murdoch programming....
+19 # tomo 2011-07-16 10:54
This clears some cognitive dissonance I've been wrestling with: Why would Obama who is a transparently dishonest human being be working with Elizabeth Warren who is a transparently honest human being? Solution: He isn't.
+1 # Activista 2011-07-16 15:38
Wonder the same in mirror logic - why ANY transparently honest human being would work with/for Obama?
BTW - name me ONE there who we can call ethical/princip al?
+32 # jon 2011-07-16 10:54
Another capitulation....

I can count the number of real Democrats holding national office on one hand.

We have a two-headed, one party system in Amerika, today. Our Founding Fathers are all spinning in their graves.
+30 # Bill Clements 2011-07-16 11:03
Wow! Obama continues to disappoint. This is huge for me personally. Someone please tell me why it was necessary for him to throw Warren under the bus? Why was a recess appointment abandoned? It gets increasingly difficult for me to stand in support of this president. The split between Obama the candidate and Obama the president feels about as wide these days as the Grand Canyon.
+24 # Pat Tibbs 2011-07-16 11:41
Bill, in order to make a recess appointment the Congress has to recess. Speaker Boehner is holding the House in session through a parliamentary maneuver in order to prevent him from making this recess appointment.

Still I am calling the White House to register my displeasure with his refusal to appoint her and fight for her confirmation.

I have assumed that she is willing to go through a brutal, abusive confirmation process at the hands of ignorant ideologues.
+8 # karenvista 2011-07-16 17:51
Quoting Pat Tibbs:
Bill, in order to make a recess appointment the Congress has to recess. Speaker Boehner is holding the House in session through a parliamentary maneuver in order to prevent him from making this recess appointment.

Actually there is another way that he could appoint her, but he won't. The President has the power under section 4 of the 14th. Amendment to adjourn congress whenever they can't agree on a time that they both will recess. He could adjourn them and appoint Elizabeth Warren, but he would think that wasn't "bipartisan" enough.
+3 # lawNOrder 2011-07-17 21:37
You all seem to forget the Repubs have already threatened to 'defund' the Agency if she is running it. Am I reading a FAUX NEWS blog here? SO, appoint Warren and she won't have enough funding, and legislative support tp actually DO the job.
+5 # noitall 2011-07-16 12:01
No feces, Bill.
+22 # Straits 2011-07-16 11:06
Yes, this is disappointing, but as many have pointed out, it is entirely in character. If you read the man's books before he announced his candidacy for president, he told us all that he was at least as pragmatic as the Clintons...that almost nothing is off the table if he sees an opportunity to resolve the issue of the day.

I still can't help but wonder what his presidency would have been like if he would had some blockers. The idea of the president being the head of the party seems to have been thrown out right after the ballots closed in 2008. Instead of the president setting the agenda, Democrats in congress have taken turns opposing him on every issue under the sun. It seems like most of the other elected democrats are happy to collect the money he can bring in, but still have no problem screaming as vociferously as tea party folk when they think "distance" is to their benefit.

He has made some regrettable choices, but his hands have been tied by his own team.
+21 # tomo 2011-07-16 11:46
Straits: This is an interesting analysis. It stimulates discussion and reflection--so I am grateful to you for it. It just seems to me it won't hold water. Obama himself, unaided by Congress, made his biggest mistakes: 1) the decision to make Geithner the Secretary of the Treasury, 2) the decision for a "surge" in Afghanistan. On their own, these two decisions have done more to damage America than anything that has been "forced" on Obama.
+2 # lawNOrder 2011-07-17 21:49
Candidate Obama pledged to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan to find OBL and destroy Al-Qaida; he has done this AND drawn down the troops in Iraq and starting bringing them home from Afghanistan. As far as Geithner, who else was 'volunteering' to be Sec. of Treasury that could actually get confirmed? Did the Senate call Geithners' removal after hearings, pledge support for any other Dem that had the pedigree to take over? POTUS also left Gates in place also, wasn't that a big deal too? Progressives FAILED to give Obama clear majorities, didn't get anyone elected to governorships, and now 'snipe' from the cheap seats. DADT, Kagan, fair pay, OBL gone, Health care reform, credit reform, Wall Street reform, all done on this watch, WHY is it not all perfect? Progressives had a 'list' but where are the lawmakers?!!
+12 # ponca77 2011-07-16 13:31
Without pressure from the congress, Obama decreed no investigations and no trials of Bush administration figures complicit in torture. He opened new war fronts in Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen. He went far beyond Bush in the pursuit of whistleblowers. He betrayed voters who believed, on the basis of recorded declarations, that he favored a single payer health care system. In all things he has revealed himself as a favored instrument of the governing class, and congressional pressure has had nothing to do with it.
-72 # berry pciker 2011-07-16 11:10
this is OK. She was not qualified.
+34 # Archie1954 2011-07-16 11:11
Why would he choose the only person that Americans are sure would have their best interests at heart? It's much easier to give in to the rapacious and corrupt Republicans and put a stooge in place as director so the corporations will know they can continue to operate in the same egregious manner as always.
+45 # Gootarama 2011-07-16 11:11
Is anybody shocked by this?? Not only is this woman emminently qualified for the position, she's the one who created the department. Of course the Pugs will not confirm her, they even closed the opportunity for Obama to push through a recess appointment. Don't blame BO for this one's the party of "NO" again. I would have liked to see him nominate her and watch all the righties cast their ballots exposing themselves as the party controlled by big money interests.
Maybe she'll run as a progressive against Scott Brown in the 2012 senatorial race in MA. She's too good to sit on the sidelines.....( replace Geithner???)
+14 # Pat Tibbs 2011-07-16 11:43
I agree with you and am calling the White House to urge POTUS to do just that. I urge you to call to: 202-456-1111.
+2 # Jen 2011-07-16 13:07
Phone number for comments only good Monday thru Friday....go figure
+15 # in deo veritas 2011-07-16 11:58
Any replacement for Giethner would be great. We also have to get rid of Bernanke as he is even a greater idiot or crook as Greenspan. The proposition of getting another bailout will bring on an unimaginable disaster and must be crushed. Same to a plan to print more worthless paper!
-1 # conniejo 2011-07-18 07:30
Elizabeth Warren for Democratic presidential nominee. How about a write-in campaign in the Democratic primary?
+35 # dean carrier 2011-07-16 11:16
This country continues to reject the best and brightest in favor of dumb and dumber.
+18 # Zev Guber 2011-07-16 11:19
This is most disturbing, for once again the President is demonstrably acting against the values and actions he espoused.

Iranian protests, giving up on the Pubic Option on Health Care. tax cuts for the wealthy, Pursing Tom Drake -- a real patriot who spoke out, becoming a patsy for compromise with the Republicans that want to destroy him, and now this?

And who else is there to vote for? I'd say that until there is a deep and wide outrage it will be business usual in DC politics.

+34 # tonenotvolume 2011-07-16 11:30
I hope Obama got something very, very important for this capitulation. Elizabeth Warren would have been our white knight against the greed of corporations and Wall Street.
+42 # HarryP 2011-07-16 11:33
On Thursday, Elizabeth Warren criticized the Obama administration for not going after banks engaged in illegal foreclosures; the next day, she’s toast. Apparently the job of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is not to protect the borrower from abusive lenders, but to protect the banks against the wrath of the likes of Elizabeth Warren. Way to go!
+5 # adickinson 2011-07-16 11:36
I don't know much about her, but are we really satisfied with the bank bailout and the outcomes of that whole mess? Maybe there is someone who will truly stand up for consumers. We have to keep hope alive, or we are our own worst enemy.
+25 # AngryMan 2011-07-16 11:39
If accurate, this would be a stunning turn of events. EW was extremely well qualified. I guess that is the problem ... our leadership won't allow actually competent people in positions where the theft would be easily uncovered and the thieves exposed. Whatever happened to fighting for what is right? "Heck of a job, Brownie" is a phrase that still haunts me.
+21 # William Bjornson 2011-07-16 11:42

Nominate her and THEY will come (us, the voters).

And, if we don't come and obama loses because of the division, what have we lost? A liar. A political fantasy wrapped in bullshiat and deceptive coloration. The same people who brought us Afghanistan and Iraq and STILL wish to bring us Iran. Who wish to take all we have and make us economic serfs?

If we got one of those flatout repub nutjobs, would we be worse off? Not at all. We would be that much closer to simply 'removing' ALL of them. They WILL persist and they WILL awake the "sleeping bear" and THEIR legacy will be a new America and a fresh perspective on 'freedom' and what it takes to maintain it against psychopathic Greed.

We must take back ALL they have stolen from us and show them what the American People do to vermin who would OWN us. It's delousing time People, SADDLE UP!!!



Whaddya think? Do We, as a People, still have some surprises for the parasites? I believe in US, do you?
-11 # Allen L Roland 2011-07-16 12:37

I like it and have long felt that she would be an ideal candidate for national office. A pairing with Ron Paul would touch a national chord with disenchanted Democrats, Progressives, Independents as well as conservative Republicans.
-8 # ponca77 2011-07-16 13:32
Best idea yet!
+29 # Shirley in Berkeley 2011-07-16 11:46
Elizabeth Warren is the only person I trust to tell it like it is. Give her some power and she could really mess up the fat cat agenda. Obama knows that, and once again, he doesn't want to step on any toes, except ours. Will he ever fight for anything that's worth it?
+13 # SandyCook 2011-07-16 11:50
Why not wait for the announcement? Why presume the worst, regardless of your current fears and dissatisfaction?

Perhaps Ms Warren is not ready to go for a 15 month temporary appointment, when a Senate-approved appointment would be for 5 years.

Or, perhaps she has been persuaded to run for the Senate -- let's hope!

In any event, why do we progressives grab every opportunity to hang this president out to dry, and do it on every rumor?

Shame on us!
-10 # tcatt57 2011-07-16 12:05
Obama is the GOP's Trojan horse. Start with FISA betrayal his first week in office and look at his total Gobalist agenda. Obama is Bush on steroids, we must unite those who still believe in our Constitution and will end the Federal Reserve. Get Kucinich-Feingo ld to endorse RON PAUL. OBAMA is a traitor, fascist murderer. Murdered Kadafi's 2 year old grandchild, his wife, 2 houseworkers, besides the thousands of innocent civilians in Pakistan in your name America! Wake up America!
+4 # SouthBrun 2011-07-16 12:07
How many skins can one snake shed? His seem endless. He could do a Bush type appointment while Congress is out of session.
+27 # resiliencyinworkplace 2011-07-16 12:11
Every time I have heard E.W. speak I have been impressed. She is a person who speaks her values and beliefs and lets the cards fall where they may. Too honest and too high integrity for Washington and the Obama administration. I told friends that the administration wouldn't be able to take advantage of the craziness coming from the right and this is another example. They have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory again.Norway is looking more appealing every day.
+17 # jwb110 2011-07-16 12:16
Elizabeth Warren may be more effective outside of the Gov't. Not having a position given to her by a Democratic President and not running for office would cast her in the role of someone having no ax to grind. If the Dems or the White House wants to rally the troops they should put her on speaking engagements the length and breadth of the nation. The truth being just what happened with no spin.
+4 # ResplendentQuetzal 2011-07-16 15:42
This is a great idea!
+8 # mcartri 2011-07-16 17:44
Warren should run for MA US Senator. The GOP will likely keep House. We need every possible seat we can get in Senate to keep it Democratic. If Romney wins & the HILL is GOP controlled, we are even more doomed. Only the Senate filibuster can atop the Nihilist Party. Every Dem Senate seat is really valuable in 2013.
+4 # Syd 2011-07-16 12:17
Having a single director heading the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wasn't going to be accepted by the opponents of this idea regardless of who is picked. They want it to be led by a five member bipartisan commission.
If Obama went along with this alternative
and picked Warren among three more others like her to make up this board I think that would be acceptable.
+16 # ZFox 2011-07-16 12:18
If this is true, it is a TERRIBLE development. I am only getting more and more angry with Obama.

Now if Obama will appoint Warren to the Supreme Court when one of the conservative justices retire, then Obama may win back some of what he has taken away from all of us who worked so hard for his 2008 election - something I certainly wouldn't do now.
+3 # Digusted 2011-07-16 12:22
Take to the streets in DC Oct. 6, 2011. Sign the pledge. You don't have to do civil resistance if circumstances don't allow you to. Give up on the Dems . . . they are becoming too much like the Repugs.
+6 # Zetta Bracher 2011-07-16 12:34
I think it is time for another candidate. One who does not lie to us. One who is not afraid of corporations, and one who headed the DNC and got Democrats elected in 2008. Of course that is Howard Dean. Obama may have millions but he does not have hearts.
+12 # John in Amherst 2011-07-16 12:40
The silver lining: This would free her to run for Scott Brown's senate seat.
+17 # EGH 2011-07-16 12:43
I am as disappointed to hear that Elizabeth Warren has not been chosen for this most important position. I daresay, I am quite hurt at what seems to be a capitulation. However, I will exercise some caution by not rushing to a conclusion without first hearing the rationale. There are too many unknowns. The first is, 'Is this a strategic retreat with the full concurrence of Ms. Warren?'. Maybe she suggested this course of action in light of distraction that would have resulted from the stormy confirmation hearings. Nevertheless, we must let President Obama know that a satisfactory explanation is expected.
+5 # Malik Grohse 2011-07-16 13:13
I'm through trying to defend Mr. Obama. It is so very sad. But remember, the USA is a government in name only. The megacorporation s are our real rulers. But it's all good isn't it? God bless exceptionalist American "free" (sic.) enterprize!
+6 # bobert1041 2011-07-16 13:13
NO BAMA IN 2012???? Who you gonna pick? Some RepubliCON?
You think things suck now just wait until a RepubliCON gets in the White House with a split Congress, both Senate and House.
Crickey people! Get a grip! It is terrible to vote for the better of two evils, but a RepubliCON????? !!!! OoooohNoooooo!
+7 # Mike H 2011-07-16 13:13
Obama kept Bernanke & Geithner, and now he drops Elizabeth Warren! We have a burgeoning plutocracy & worsening economy & jobs profile, so Obama just lost my vote. He's more interested in political posturing than solving America's problems.
+12 # Robert H Pflanz 2011-07-16 13:23
I have written the White House protesting this news, if true. Everybody needs to send an email to protest him caving again.
+19 # MainStreetMentor 2011-07-16 13:30
Oh, Mr. President. The person that you should have abandoned is not Elizabeth Warren, but Tim Geithner, the Poster Child for Goldman-Sachs and the sycophant of Wall Street. The American common man loses ... again ... due to your poor judgement based on what the conservatives might think.
+12 # Procyon_Lotor 2011-07-16 13:38
What I can not and never will understand is how the repugs can stay in office by telling their constituents "Vote for me! I torpedoed that nasty Elizabeth Warren who, as you will remember, forced the banking industry to play fair with the middle class." How does that work? It's like cutting your own throat to make sure you don't swallow poison.
+6 # LstNailinDaCoffin 2011-07-16 13:38
I don't know which disgusts me more at this point. President Worthless or his crowd of sycophants who will defend EVEN this betrayal if it is indeed true. They'll even elaborate on why it was such an astute political move on barry's part.
I swear obamabots live to defend any and all of barry's capitulations no matter what. Obamabots are the other side of the coin to the people who voted for bush twice. Both are people who vote for image over policy. Both are utterly brainwashed by bandwagonning & the lesser of 2 evils propaganda.
Well quess what? The lesser of 2 evils is STILL evil and your one vote won't change the election either way so you might as well vote for your actual interests and someone who will actually defend them... a revolutionary concept nowadays.
Or don't.. and keep getting what you got. For myself I'll be proud to 'throw away my vote' and only vote for candidates I actually believe in (Feingold, Gravel, Grayson, Sanders, and a few others) even if I have to write them in. At least I'll be able to look myself in the mirror on November 7th of 2012 with a clear conscience.
+8 # Leslie Evans 2011-07-16 14:03
Before you go off the deep end and vote for a Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann or some other Republican, think Supreme Court. Whoever wins the White House in 2012 will be selecting two more justices as two retire. If a Republican is elected, we will be the United Corporations of America and there will no longer be justice for all. It is really bad now but just wait!
+6 # wwway 2011-07-16 16:26
Actually those who vote for Republicans WANT a United corporations of America because they've been promised jobs. Chickens for Col. Sanders!
+5 # Virginia 2011-07-16 18:09
There are still Primary Elections - right? Wouldn't that be a first?! A message from your own party to go home or sit on the bench for the rest of the game!
+8 # Elliot Hoffman 2011-07-16 14:18
So, lots of (justifiably)an gry folks here. Just because Obama is demonstrating spinelessness, no courage, just because he is selling the American people down the river? What do you expect with an ignorant, spineless citizenry that follows the life and events of a Sarah Painlin and a Michele Bachmann?

So, what do we do with our collective anger besides write these comments? Does action come to mind or is it just more bitching and moaning?

If it's action, say so. If action is not your cup of "tea", I guess you'll just keep on. Remember, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is called "insanity."

+5 # Virginia 2011-07-16 18:07
It appears to me that those that are calling the shots have placed Obama in the position as well as the unlikely Republican candidates and then they can blame the Democrats for all the stupid stuff Obama does while they steal the country blind and takes us down the tubes.

Time to run someone else in the primaries and beat him right out of the running. Let them spend their money - we go house to house and gather the votes on integrity and protecting American Democracy.
+5 # Wiley 2011-07-16 14:54
you're wrong, BIGKAHUNA...Nad er is NOT responsible for the 2000 election... it was the fault the lazy, stupid, uninformed american electorate. Nader was running as a third party candidate...som ething we sorely need in this duopoly IS a third party.
+1 # m 2011-07-16 15:38
.. AND... a Fourth... AND.... a Fifth.... AND... a Sixth.... AND...
+2 # m 2011-07-16 14:57
The '''CAVER IN CHIEF''' has once again '''ORATED''' his latest '''CAVED-IN''' Decision.
+8 # Weelflyer 2011-07-16 15:14
Did you see how Obama left Liz swinging in the wind in that hearing? One of the Repugs asked why Eric Holder wasn't there to help her. Good question. Just why have there been no criminal convictions? There she was holding up the fort all by her lonesome. What a Gal. And what an absolute loser that Obama guy has been since day one.

Only ONE choice left: an AMERICAN SPRING.......Th ink Wisconsin.
-1 # monotypemaker 2011-07-16 15:17
I wholeheartedly agree with several of the later posters (EGH, John in Am., Syd, jwb110, sandycook). Why do progressives think the solution is to trash the most important member of our own team, even before knowing what is really going on?? Ever occur to you guys that our incredible President just might know something that you don't know? Not talking IQ here, but he is in a position to see the forest as well as the trees. Let's not catch the simple-minded bug of the Tea Partiers that is suffocating our Nation. Yes--heels need to be dug in from here on out, as our President is doing. Dems need to keep on being the adults in the room. I am extremely disappointed in the progressives who fail to see the organized tidal wave that President Obama has been up against. Who else among us could survive this? I give him huge credit. Just try to fathom where we'd be if Palin or McCain were in charge. We wouldn't be talking about our passed Affordable Health Care bill,nor how fast to exit from the wars, for starters. I humbly request that you passionate progressives stop for a second and think of that alternative. If you care about our country sincerely, look at the long term strategy. Maybe he has a better place for such a valuable team player as Warren. Maybe she is in full agreement and is relieved to not have to face the bully schmucks in the GOP.
+7 # PGreen 2011-07-16 17:14
Ultimately, it is the policies themselves which count. Obama's presidential record is questionable. He has continued several immoral Bush policies which reveal no apparent connection with party politics; he was not doing them to win favors. It is possible that he is attempting to placate military interests within his administration, but for what reason other than his own ethos? Journalist Jeremy Scahill recently revealed that Obama continues to support CIA sponsored "secret prisons," financed by our government, but located in other countries (Somalia, in this case). As Glenn Greenwald discusses, there are many questionable legalities. (The existence of these prisons has been ignored by the establishment media, so it has little popular impact.)

GIven Obama's questionable policies in office, I believe your argument comes down to finding him the lesser of two evils. If so, I agree with you. Nevertheless, two questions remains that I pose to those who adopt this argument: What policy/politica l line would Obama have to cross for you to no longer support him? (This is akin to asking if you would vote for Gingrich if the alternative was Cheney.) And if he did cross it, would you then vote Republican? I sympathize with your concerns, but I find 3rd part candidates looking more appealing every day.
+3 # MainStreetMentor 2011-07-16 15:46
It IS possible the President has his eye on another opening in which Elizabeth Warren's talents and intelligence could be applied, as he might desire. But the point is moot - for it is the American Consumer that needed her expertise and irreplaceable ability to condense legalese into English everyone can understand. It is the American Consumer who needed Elizabeth Warren - and the President has violated the expectation of a degree of relief from the onslaught of Wall Street for middle-class Americans. Many will see this action as another "slap-in-the-fa ce" to the betterment of Democracy.
+2 # NickMan 2011-07-16 15:54
We've come to a pretty pass. We can't expect anything from Obama but capitulations and "compromises" and cave-ins. Yet we can't vote for the other side, either. I think there's a term for this untenable condition. I just can't come up with it right now.
0 # Sally G 2011-07-16 21:49
Quoting NickMan:
We've come to a pretty pass. We can't expect anything from Obama but capitulations and "compromises" and cave-ins. Yet we can't vote for the other side, either. I think there's a term for this untenable condition. I just can't come up with it right now.

Between a rock and a hard place? On the horns of a dilemma?
+4 # Heartbeatt 2011-07-16 16:06
I can hardly believe it.
The whole world wonders, is Obama what he presented himself to be before becoming President, or is he just another man who lost his shadow on the way up?
+11 # 2011-07-16 16:09
First Social Security is "on the table" for budget cuts and now Elizabeth Warren isn't going to be apponted on the next recess! Did Obama decide not to run in 2012 and forget to tell us?

+5 # wwway 2011-07-16 16:21
So after all her hard work Warren may be out and the rules dumbed down anyway? I don't know where else to invest, save or get credit knowing that I could be swindled at any time by some scheme or other that's legal for insiders.
+1 # Progressive Patriot 2011-07-17 03:14
Venezuela? Brazil? Argentina?
+5 # DPM 2011-07-16 17:02
Just the headline makes me sick enough to make this comment before I read the article. Replace Obama. Not with a Republican! But with someone. Sanders? This is the FINAL straw!
+2 # Progressive Patriot 2011-07-17 03:12
How about Alan Grayson?
+5 # Virginia 2011-07-16 17:11
He isn't just going to be taking heat from his party - we're going to revoke his card! Take this to the streets... Let America decide.
+2 # jtjohnson 2011-07-16 17:14
Obama rejects Eliz Warren as dir of Consumer Financ Protect Bureau! That's my tipping point: let's call in Hillary from the bullpen. (Maybe she has some balls.)
-1 # Virginia 2011-07-16 18:00
Oh yeah - I just came off the fence!
-1 # Sally G 2011-07-16 21:50
Ms. Whitewater? No, thanks.
0 # SharonToji 2011-07-17 20:18
A very progressive activist asked me the other day if I thought if Hillary could win, if she ran. I actually think she might very well win in a landslide. The Clintons know how to fight. And, it's my understanding that she is quite a bit more progressive than Bill on a number of issues -- and argued strongly against the trade agreements while First Lady. She knows how an administration works, and she knows how Congress works, as well. But I would doubt very much she would run, unless Obama steps down, and he will never do that. The ego is much too large, and the ambition matches it. (And if you don't have both ego and ambition, you will never run, anyway -- so that's not a criticism.) I know a lot of people who wonder what would have happened with her in the White House -- but you can't turn back the clock. Running against a sitting president is not going to work. No, we have to take to the streets in large numbers to show both President Obama and Congress that they must listen to our need for jobs, and for standing up for the middle class and working class against the rich and powerful.
+4 # Virginia 2011-07-16 17:28
Elizabeth Warren should run for President - she'd make a much better and she's already got my family's vote!
+7 # VSweet 2011-07-16 17:55
This article is not confirmed and only speculation. It is the Republicans who grilled and mistreated Ms. Warren before the committee. They will not support her, but the people of the Nation do!
+5 # bbaldwin 2011-07-16 18:19
This can all be put in a nutshell - the dumbing down of America... if you want change -
Work for change if you want to sit in front of your computer and rant and rave... then you are not doing anything for this country. Get off you duffs and DO SOMETHING.
+2 # bobby t. 2011-07-16 19:00
you pick the fights that you can win without losing too much. i loved warren, and would love to see her in congress, but it is not to be. obama can't win every fight without having the army in back of him. public opinion sometimes counts, but votes in congress count more. he doessn't have the votes.
the guy who made the dumb remark about the jews in dade county better check his history. i was the democractic whip in southern broward cuunty, and we got out ninety nine percent of the registered voters, easily beating every other county in the entire country. check it out..the mess up happened in palm beach county where there was a "butterfly" ballot that was approved by a democratic staff up there. i can not make an accusation online, but it was either stupidity, or something else. the ballot made it that the democratic candidate, gore, was third and not second as he should have been. it was a very easy mistake to make, and the guy who talked to that issue may have made that mistake, too. it was an assumtion that gore was second on the ballot which he is supposed to be. you can 't get a revote, and the supreme court gave it to bush. where did gore stop fighting? he did all he could, but gave away the election by playing it safe.
+1 # Sally G 2011-07-16 21:52
Watch “Recount”; excellent explanation. I practically forgot I was watching actors.
0 # Rita Walpole Ague 2011-07-17 13:22
Did you ever view the documentary "The Uncounted"? The software consultant/expe rt hired (by you know who in Florida in 2000) to 'fix' the election was ready, willing and courageously able to testify. But, no big suprise, no investigation has ever followed, either during the Bushwhacked years, or now during this Oh Bomb Ah disappointing and then some presidential letdown.

Please, real McCoy progressives with the background/expe rience/knowhow, run for office in 2012 while simultaneously giving all supporters the warning that mass election fraud and disenfranchisem ent is not the m.o., with the G.O.P. nearly totally taken over greed and power addicted villainaires, and the Dems. heavily infiltrated, with more than just a few fake Dems.

Time for us to wake up, take off the blinders, and.....

+3 # bobby t. 2011-07-16 19:02
there also were many dirty tricks played in state. don't forget that his brother was the governor then, and that jeb is probably going to run for president and he will have a good chance. we are in trouble again. these boys play hardball.....
+3 # Patricia Chang 2011-07-16 23:41
I cannot tolerate a backstabber. That kind of person is a scumbag, a piece of work, a blot on the face of the earth. Obama has stabbed so many backs, he looks like a serialstabber. The war, human rights and the rape of the environment are among the many reasons I simply cannot vote for him. He lacks honesty and integrity. So do the Rethuglicans. However, I know what they are going to do. They will cause a major meltdown. Maybe we need one to awaken all of the Sheeple, the apathetic, and the people who live in the state of denial. Perhaps we have to scrape the bottom, before we can rebuild. I do agree with Virginia that we need to support someone other than Obama. Remember, Lyndon Johnson's numbers were so bad that he stepped down. If Obama cannot make the unemployment numbers look better, (and he refuses to do what would accomplish that), and he makes big cuts in Social Security and Medicare, he can kiss his elitist patootie goodbye. He could not be elected dogcatcher. He does NOT care about the well-being of the average citizen. He has proven that again and again. If this house of cards is going to collapse, and it will, better to get it over with than think a self-serving, disingenuous narcissist will save us.
+3 # Glenn Fieldman 2011-07-17 00:47
If this story is true, it's devastating--bu t not surprising. Obama really has become "O'Bummer," as somebody said above. But even if somebody with more cojones, like Elizabeth Warren, were to be President, she'd find herself blocked at every turn. We tend to personalize things too much, I think--we ought to keep our eye on the ball, which is the SYSTEM. First and foremost, it's the private campaign contributions and lobbying permitted in this system that buy most of our elected officials away from us. That's what we should hit the streets about. Finding "the candidate that can't be bought" may seem appealing until we realize that MOST of them can be. A mass movement demanding changes in the rules seems a lot more promising to me than yet another quest for the righteous candidate.
+1 # larry mac 2011-07-17 01:47
Warren is the best qualified person for the new consumer agency. Until I see otherwise, in black and white, I'll keep my disappointment in check.
+4 # hankbob 2011-07-17 02:06
Elizabeth Warren is the best none. Anyone that thinks O'bummer is crafting a pretentious political ploy to foil the repugs by appointing someone else besides Liz Warren has been living in a hope bubble for the last 3 years. Obama has been directed to appoint a toolbox for the bankster elite because Larry Summers and the oligarchy he represents wants him to dump Elizabeth Warren and anyone else that has her brand of smarts and courage..
+3 # hankbob 2011-07-17 02:22
Virginia said....Elizabe th Warren for President...sou nds good...maybe she'll break up the big banks like Teddy Roosevelt did. Or tell the international bankers to get the hell outta the US like Andrew Jackson did. Incredible feats from courageous Presidents.
+1 # Progressive Patriot 2011-07-17 03:09
It would appear that Obama is letting the ReTHUGliklans run his administration ... _again_.
+3 # dupagedeb 2011-07-17 06:47
There is one reason why we the people should NEVER elect another Republican President...SCO TUS!
0 # dupagedem 2011-07-17 07:07
As long as Republican Party continues to consider interests of contributors over interests of constituents, we cannot elect Republicans. The primary reason to keep a Democrat in the White House: SCOTUS
+3 # randy Prine 2011-07-17 09:26
I thought I was voting for FDR and instead got GWB IV
+1 # Texas Aggie 2011-07-17 21:43
It wasn't W we got. It was Neville Chamberlain. The only way he can redeem himself now is, when his candidate is rejected by the republican senators, who have said that they will reject any candidate including Jesus until they get what they want in budget cuts, is to then appoint Dr. Warren as acting director until the republicans get their act together.
+1 # shortonfaith 2011-07-17 22:04
Many court appointments were made by Bush & buddies all over the US. Has Obama worked the same kind of magic? Has he questioned any of Bush's appointment? Is he looking into or prosecuting anyone? If he's not against it, he's for it. He always brings knives to gun fights while continuing & strengthening Bush's invasion of privacy laws. Why? Soon every email & comment made on any board will be compiled in your file @ Motherland Security. They have a cell @ a concentration camp waiting for each of you radicals. Haven't you heard? Prison labor is back & working quite well for American Corporations today in the USA. You can either be on the inside or outside so, which side are you making plans for? It works so well in China that all the politicians are keeping their mouths shut & not talking about it. Hear anyone fighting this, anywhere? What does that tell you? It against all laws of the land & one of the main reasons we split from England in the first place. It tells you you better stop texting & get into the streets before they roll the tanks all over Washington Square. Not getting Warren is the least of your worries.
-1 # gayfor 2011-07-18 07:35
If you are thinking about voting for a republican then you deserve the country you get. As progressives we need unity and more than just words we need action. I feel that Obama has a reason for not appointing Warren and can use her skills elsewhere and keep her under the rep radar. Progressives do or die!!
0 # Canuckon the sidelin 2011-07-19 00:41
Republicans want to control all women matters, all social benefits,senior s and veterans to much trouble, and this will continue until they realize they have killed the Golden Goose. Democrats are so namby-pamby that their backbones seem non existent.China is going to call in their loans and there you are, gone like Texas tumble weeds in a blue norther!I'm sorry for you neighbors,but due to you Tea party people your bed is made, sleep in it, lumps and all.
0 # wrodwell 2011-07-20 15:18
Michelle Bachman seems to be on a lot of people's minds lately and I'm thinking maybe that's not such a bad thing. If one is of the opinion that the country is half way down the toilet anyway, then I can't think of a better presidential candidate to take us down the rest of the way than Michelle Bachman. Rather than pretend we have "choices" at the ballot box, which we really don't have anymore thanks to FauxBama, let's just focus on doing all we can to officially turn America into the world's largest 3rd world country - it's the least we can do to help out the super rich and Wall Street. By voting for Bachman and/or any of the other oafish Republican cretins that seem to abound in Washington and elsewhere, we'd finally have the momentum we need to roll the snow ball all the way to Hell.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.