Barney Frank: Elizabeth Warren's Opponents Don't Like Her Because She's A Woman

WASHINGTON -- A leading House Democrat said Thursday that some opposition to making Elizabeth Warren head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is because she is a woman.

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said some of the resistance to Warren, a Harvard law professor, is because of a feeling that a woman should not tell bankers what to do.

"Some people almost unconsciously think that for a woman to be in an important position regarding the titans of the financial industry is not appropriate," Frank said at a news conference. He said while that attitude hasn't affected the substance of the debate over Warren, "The tone has been exacerbated."

Asked about his remarks later, he did not name any people or cite any specific instances in which Warren's gender has played a role in her treatment.

At the same news conference, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., also said that when "the other side can't win arguments on their merits – and I would add, especially when they're threatened by an accomplished and articulate woman – that's when they make it personal."

Woolsey provided no specific examples.

The consumer bureau was created by last year's financial overhaul law, which President Barack Obama signed after it passed Congress despite strong Republican opposition. Obama appointed Warren to oversee the organization of the agency, which officially goes into business on July 21, but he has yet to nominate anyone to be its director.

Many Democrats and liberal groups want Obama to nominate Warren to head the bureau.

Warren, credited with originating the idea for the agency, has had a hostile reception from many congressional Republicans who say she lacks a sufficient financial industry background. Republicans would be all but certain to defeat her nomination should it come to a Senate vote.

Asked Thursday about Frank's remarks, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., said most GOP objections are not to Warren herself but to creation of a single director for the agency. He praised her intelligence and commitment to consumer protection and called her a "straight-shooter."

Last month, Senate Republicans led by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., wrote a letter to Obama promising to block any nominee to head the bureau unless some of its powers were watered down, including giving Congress more control over the agency's budget and replacing the director's job with a five-member commission. Shelby is top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.

Asked about Frank's remarks, Shelby spokesman Jonathan Graffeo said, "That's beyond baseless. It's just outright silly."

Frank and Woolsey, along with Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., were among 89 House Democrats who sent Obama a letter Thursday urging him to use his power to appoint Warren temporarily to the job the next time the Senate takes a recess. So-called recess appointments are permitted under the Constitution but last only until the end of next session of the Senate.

Comments

[DLee4144]

10:12 AM on 06/09/2011

They may have some minor problem, personally, with her being a woman. This is especially so because some men are a bit embarassed when a woman is obviously smarter, classier and better informed than they are. But, since they are insisting on the committee meeting on national television where she can showcase the fact that she is smarter, classier and better informed- like light years better informed- than they are, they must have some other reason why they choose to be humiliated by her.
That reason is simply that they are puppets of the Wall Street Plutocrats and are doing their bidding. If the politicians fail to stop Elizabeth Warren from establishing rules that prevent the plutocrats from continuing the sleazy business practices that caused the financial crisis, they will not get funding for their next election from those plutocrats, and the American people will be able to have an election that is based on who has the best idea, not the most money.

[cybersleuth58]

02:46 PM on 06/12/2011

fx2. My thoughts exactly!

[DaveG4]

09:36 AM on 06/03/2011

I don't believe that it's all about her being a woman. That might have a small part in it. But, I think it's mostly because they'd rather have another Goldman Sachs alum at the helm of a Consumer Protection Bureau. You know, someone that's got more of a financial industry background and could lean the Bureau more towards protecting their financial industry buddies and campaign contributors. They'll let us have the facade of a protection bureau, if they can have the control of it.

[Countess]

09:07 AM on 06/03/2011

There is definitely some truth in what Barney Frank has said because many of these republican theocrats have a low opinion of women and believe they not to be trusted with making a decision about their own reproductive health and must become slaves of the state instead.

[southrnlyfe]

08:49 AM on 06/03/2011

Has it ever occurred to Mr. Frank or anyone on the left that those who disagree do so not because of race, sex, ect., but because of policy. They do not disagree with you, Mr. Frank because of you orientation but because they dislike your socialist policies. They do not disagree with President Obama because of the color of his skin, but because they disagree with the direction he is leading this county.
It is extremely rare to hear these types of allegations from the right, but it seems almost a daily occurrence from the left. Instead of name calling, the left should come to the table with ideas that that help the American people, and get this economy back on track.

[DaveG4]

09:43 AM on 06/03/2011

Yes, it has occurred to people on the "left" and the "center". But, it's also occurred to most people that those who toss around the term "socialist" or "socialism" really don't know what it means. They use it as a synonym for "communism" or "fascism", which it is neither. Obama is, in fact, the most centrist president this country has seen in decades and has produced policies that are, in fact, in the best interest for the greater amount of American people. No ones calling anyone any names here, southrnlyfe. I mean, Elizabeth Warren has been called a lot of names, including "liar" by a republican. It's just unfortunate that you probably didn't read that article on any of the "lame-stream media" sites. And, FoxNews.com probably didn't report it as it actually happened, so you didn't get the real facts.

[southrnlyfe]

01:23 PM on 06/03/2011

I sir know exactly what the term socialism means. I do not believe it is the correct course our county should take. For you to believe that Obama is to the center, means you must be living in a different country than myself. Obama has expanded the government to unprecedented levels, and our deficit is now what Clinton's entire budget was. He has no foreign policy, and when he does take a stance, like with Israel, he shows how out of touch with the American public he really is.
"No ones calling anyone any names here, southrnlyf­e."
Did you read the article, Mr. Frank called them sexist. To call someone a liar, is one thing, but to accuse people of being sexist, racist, biggots, ect., that is totally different. In no article that I have read is there any proof that the men who oppose Warren are sexist. And what "other" names was Warren called, because I did not read any?
FYI, I do not watch fox news.

[dorzic]

10:29 AM on 06/03/2011

What we witnessed from the right this week in the hearings on capitol hill was not disagreement, it was vitriol. If, as you say, this is just a matter of policy disagreement, why the vitriol? No, this is more than just policy disagreement.

[southrnlyfe]

12:44 PM on 06/03/2011

Maybe inappropriate, but vitriol? But whatever, my point is just because we disagree does not make me a hateful person. And I can also dislike the person you are and not be a hateful person. Stop throwing accusations around every time somebody disagrees with the left. And show me what makes these men sexist?

[bart4u]

06:18 AM on 06/03/2011

I agree the republicans look a bit stupid with their questions. This woman is strong and will not let them play their little baby games.

[new beginning]

06:08 AM on 06/03/2011

Libs - such as Frank - really overuse the excuse of a person's physical characteristics for dragging them down.

[Rogo99]

05:44 AM on 06/03/2011

Frankly (no pun intended), I think that the R's and TP'ers are "smartist", along with all the other 'ists.

[Adam Davies]

04:41 AM on 06/03/2011

Just like Obama's opponents are just all racist? Or maybe people disagree with their policies, and we should stop playing the race or sex cards as reasons why people are disliked.

[new beginning]

05:59 AM on 06/03/2011

#27

[GoldsteinD]

01:50 AM on 06/03/2011

Bawney Fwank's opponents are homophobic
Obama's opponents are racist
My opponents on this site, are anti-semitic

[NWBrunette]

01:15 AM on 06/03/2011

Nice to see some Dems go on the offensive and call out the repubs on their disgusting, repulsive behavior. Thanks Barney.

[Always Conservative]

12:48 AM on 06/03/2011

When you watch a representative of the left attempt to argue a point, they get one step away from talking points then resort to fall-back position of r.a.cism, s.e.xism or just h8red... It is sad that this is what passes as discourse by our elected officials.

[jaslyn]

01:11 AM on 06/03/2011

and you prefer your party have no oversight so they can continue supporting the ripping off of Americans under full cover. The reason racism, sexism and hatred come up is because they're front and center whenever the GOP says anything.

[Always Conservative]

01:22 AM on 06/03/2011

Really??? Show me where.

[NWBrunette]

01:17 AM on 06/03/2011

That's funny coming from the group of folks who have their lips sucked up so tight to rush's backside they can't speak or think until he's done filling up their noggins with their daily dose of wingnuttery.

[Always Conservative]

01:23 AM on 06/03/2011

The only place i "hear" rush is when the Hupo does a story with corresponding video...

[Andrew Harvey]

12:18 AM on 06/03/2011

If you don't like the Dem's point of view, you're either sexist, homophobic or racist. They're so predictable.

[1hotgolfer]

12:51 AM on 06/03/2011

Yeah, right!! And there's absolutely ZERO documentation/record of ANY sexist, homophobic, or racist behaviors within the Republican party and it's base. Responding as if those vile actions don't exist doesn't make it so...

[Andrew Harvey]

03:57 PM on 06/04/2011

I recall this was an article about financial regulation. Aside from Frank's baseless remark, I fail to see how sexism, homophobia, or racism entered into the discussion.

Did the GOP say: "We're OK with the loan documents, so long as no queers get them" or "Women can get loans, so long as their husband is a co-signer" or "We draw the line at hispanics getting approved for a loan"?

I'd like to know, specifically, what the GOP did to deserve the slanderous remark. By itself. being critical of Ms. Warren does not qualify.

[Don Victor]

12:56 AM on 06/03/2011

maybe if you were not so sexist, homophobic, or racist, it wouldn't bother you.

[bdunlap52]

12:47 PM on 06/03/2011

Wow. So since insults instead of discourse bothers people it makes the insults true?

[JustABriefThought]

11:47 PM on 06/02/2011

Some of the GOP opposition is probably that Warren is female but I think the bulk of it is that the GOP does NOT want consumers (middle class and poor people) protected from ANYTHING that Big Bank and Big Corp can think up to transfer the money from the consumer's account into theirs. Big Bank and Big Corp NEED the money - those darn lobbyists and Congressional elections are so expensive these days!!! (That's why they are not hiring or investing - they are sitting on huge sums to buy seats for the right right wingers in 2012.)

[dragonladywaltham]

11:44 PM on 06/02/2011

Barney, they aren't just sexist.........they are afraid of ANY womamn more intellegent than they are. They just don't realize that there are alot of us. She's in the top 1%.

[Itsbeenalongday]

11:22 PM on 06/02/2011

The republicans don"t want the banks to be held accountable.