Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jul 18, 2011 in Business, Economy, Law, Miscellaneous, Politics | 8 comments

Obama Picks Richard Cordray to Head Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

On Saturday, I wrote about this entity and former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray’s role in it. Now we read, on Sunday, that he will head it instead of Elizabeth Warren. From Politico:

President Obama has selected former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to lead the embattled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Obama will make the announcement Monday from the White House. The report first appeared Sunday in the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.

Of course the party who could not possibly care less and has foolhardy confidence in the moral fiber of individuals who run business despite the myriad examples of why that’s really not such a good, blanket idea, says bah-humbug:

Republicans responded to the announcement about Cordray with a reminder that they intend to oppose “any nominee, regardless of party affiliation” unless the White House made a slew of changes to the agency.

Those changes? They have to do with weakening the agency, of course.

Then again, as Politico says, the progressive end of the left-side of the political ideological spectrum acted in a “subdued” manner:

“With her track record of standing up to Wall Street and fighting for consumers, Elizabeth Warren was the best qualified to lead this bureau that she conceived — and we imagine Richard Cordray would agree,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which collected more than 350,000 petition signatures supporting Warren. “That said, Rich Cordray has been a strong ally of Elizabeth Warren’s and we hope he will continue her legacy of holding Wall Street accountable.”

And from Ralph Nader:

But consumer advocate and one-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader called bypassing Warren “an act of political cowardliness by President Obama.”

“Elizabeth Warren apparently is just too good, too smart, too able to arouse the just concerns of millions of American families over the need to put the law-and-order wood to the corporate criminals, defrauders and reckless speculators,” Nader said.

What do you think the endgame is? Warren to run against Scott Brown in the MA U.S. Senate race? It’s not clear that it’s just to avoid a bruising as some suggest, since reports indicate that Republicans remain unhappy. Lots of press just coming out now – more in the morning, no doubt.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 The Moderate Voice
  • DLS

    I had read a few days ago that Warren was going to be rejected for the position to lead the new agency.* I consider this to be a big slap in Warren’s face. It wouldn’t surprise me if she quits.

    * The agency has a silly name, sillier than “Homeland Security.”

  • Allen

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    Naw, we don’t need them. It’s much easier to make money hand over fist when you can cheat the public without any silly government oversight. Honesty is anti-business for crying out loud, don’t you progressives know that?!

  • ShannonLeee

    “an act of political cowardliness by President Obama.”

    I completely agree.

  • DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Managing Editor of TMV, and Columnist

    thanks Jill
    ‘mericans seem to be maybe waking up to punting being sometimes a far-future forward Hail Mary pass that sometimes connects. Watched the HM passes here where I live, from President down, positioning Senatorial race here. It appeared to work, by bypassing one good dem for another more preferred by top guys. Hope for transparency on these moves, ever.

  • acolorado1

    The Republicans right now are actively working to NOT GOVERN and indeed hamstring any step toward effective government – they’ve taken the approach that the only way to save the patient’s arm is to cut his head off.

    The Democrats rarely come up with their own ideas, they just take their cue from everyone (anyone) else. Even when they do find a good idea they are so spineless and afraid of political fallout (incorrectness) that it doesn’t matter – they act more like placeholders than officeholders, and too often a Dem held seat serves the same function as an empty seat.

    So we have one party fighting against America’s best interests for the sake of their wealthy donors and their most extreme voters. Opposite them (hahaha good one, I know) we have a party that ignores America’s interests for the sake of their wealthy donors and the goal of simply holding onto office.

    Either way we’re screwed in this scenario.

  • DLS

    Actually (more truth, besides the silliness of the agency’s name and the danger of overregulation and corruption), Obama is choosing someone else who (at least, to libs and Dems) also has a “good” reputation (for libs and Dems, at least).

    Moreover, the GOP still plans to oppose the substitute, or anyone else Obama offers, unless the agency is made weak enough to satisfy them (the GOP).

    As someone else said on the radio earlier today (far-left talk radio), this looks like a recess appointment if there ever was one.

  • This observation by Elizabeth Warren who was on Wolf Blitzer’s show this evening says it all:

    “Senator Shelby and others who were his allies did not want any consumer agency at all. And if it absolutely was the case politically that there had to be one, they wanted some weak agency that couldn’t get anything done. We had that fight and then we had a straight-up vote on it…That side lost,” Warren asserted.

    “And here we stand, a year later with the minority saying ‘I don’t like how that came out. I think I have the capacity to stick a stick in the spokes, unless the majority will do what the minority wants it to do.’

    “That’s not how democracy works,” she countered.

  • You can read or watch an account of that here starting at 2:!5 in the clip:

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :