The Geithner/Warren Question
In response to reports that Tim Geithner is trying to scotch Elizabeth Warren’s appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (and presumably prefers someone who is sort of willing to overlook the whole “consumer protection” part of the mission), Yglesias and Fernholz point out that the sourcing for the claim is far from airtight.
The real key here, I think, is Tim’s point #1 — it’s Obama’s decision. As Krugman has been fond of pointing out recently (and as we recently discussed without the metaphor with respect to foreign policy), when it comes to appointments the Cossacks work for the czar. Even if the story is right, Obama is free to ignore Geithner’s advice and would have plenty of political support if he chose to pick Warren. So we’ll see if Obama picks Warren, somebody just as good, or somebody not as good, but no matter what the outcome the credit or blame should be directed at the top of the organizational chain. What Geithner thinks about Warren is largely beside the point.
When Obama is out of office, he is out of office forever. We really don’t want ot have to deal with this scumbag Giethner in every Democratic administration ever. So yes, there is plenty of good reason to go after him hammer-and-tongs. Obama may be the guy in charge, but that doesn’t absolve anyone else from guilt.
And really, how often are you loyalists going to pull the “OMG, don’t you know that Reporter X is just making things up?”. That card was played out with when the news of the PHARMA deal hit the fan. Stop pretending that administration sources would go on record disagreeing with Obama.
Nobody’s saying you can’t criticize Geithner — fire away to your heart’s content!
A political reporter in Washington would never make things up.
I found that stories based on a sole, anonymous administration source were quite reliable during the Bush administration – NOT.
Perhaps its your tendency to be a little too trusting towards the administration that explains your sudden gullibility.
Professor Lemieux–What Geithner thinks about Warren is largely beside the point.
Must disagree.
The head of a large organization very seldom makes a key second-level appointment without listening carefully to the views of the first-level person responsible for that area.
That applies equally to presidents, popes, university chancellors, and corporate CEOs.
Being cut out of such a decision would usually be a strong signal that the first-level person is on the way out.
Geithner failed to win a championship last year, and the CFPB has cleared the cap space. Warren’s agent is very close to Obama. I think she’s taking her talents to CFPB.
I’ve been watching too much ESPN lately…..
What Geithner thinks about Warren is largely beside the point.
Well, since Geithner was appointed by the president and apparently enjoys his confidence, his view of Elizabeth Warren also reflects on the president and is not beside the point. In fact, it gives us important clues about Warren’s likelihood of getting the job.
But I totally agree: the buck stops with the President.
I put the chance of Warren getting the gig at about 1 in 10.
Appointing Warren would mean pleasing his base, listening to people who were right rather than wrong, and signal a change in America’s way of doing business. So 1 in 10 sounds right to me.
What Geithner thinks about Warren is largely beside the point.
Perhaps, though I am not convinced that senior advisors do not have an excessive and often negative effect on Obama’s decisions. It is, however, more evidence of his unfitness for his job.
Is this not overestimating the likely impact of the new not-independent consumer protection agency anyway?
Much ado about noting.
On the contrary, this agency, under a powerful and influential leader, one who has her own, if not political base, at least public influence, could well exceed its limitations. Indeed, it’s the perpetual fear of libertarians that all gov’t entities will inevitably do so. If the CFPB is ever to be an effective organization, then it will be because Warren was its initial head with strong backing from Obama.
That said, I see no reason not to go after Geithner for what he (apparently) is saying on the topic. Obama may be predisposed towards Warren, but if Timmeh is in there every day arguing against her, that will have an impact; as pireader says, if TG really argues strongly against Warren and Obama picks her anyway, his power takes a big, immediate hit. Which is fine by me, but presumably not by Obama.
[...] Thе Geithner/Warren Qυеѕtіοn : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
I happen to think that President Ben Nelson made the choice last week when he threw his last-minute filibuster tantrum; thus the rest of this exercise is like the late Charles Shulz sketching in Lucy and a football onto his paper.
[...] The Geithner/Warren Question : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
Gots me some gay coins in my front pocket ;)
[...] The Geithner/Warren Question : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
[...] The Geithner/Warren Question : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
[...] The Geithner/Warren Question : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
Well, I must admit there are some interesting links in the comments. Are your spam shields down, captain?
However, your point of view about Geither is naive in the extreme. Either Geither has a great deal of influence on Obama or they are mind melded.
I tend to think it’s karma that a thread about Tim Geithner should happen to include an ad for big dicks.
Amazing. Why would a corporatist appoint effective oversight of any aspect of his chief enablers ability to loot and pillage? Stop dreaming. You Americans always get the old Tweedledee Dee or Tweedledum choices for president. Add to the fact that over 40 million of you are bat shit crazy enough to vote for Sarah Palin and the Oligarchs have ruled unimpeded since good old D Eisenhower.
[...] The Geithner/Warren Question : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
[...] Thе Geithner/Warren Qυеѕtіοn : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]