iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Republican Opposition To Elizabeth Warren Allows White House To Duck Uncomfortable Questions

Elizabeth Warren

First Posted: 07/18/11 10:10 PM ET Updated: 09/17/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Thanks to united Republican opposition to Elizabeth Warren as the permanent head of the consumer protection agency she dreamed up and shepherded through Congress, the administration is largely able to avoid the uncomfortable discussion about just how much support she had within the White House.

Obama, while often publicly praising Warren, was never committed to nominating her as head of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, people familiar with the internal decision-making process said. There were a variety of factors holding her up, from the administration's perception that she was prone to speaking her mind publicly -- even if her position contrasted with that of the administration’s -- to the intense opposition she generated from Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and from certain parts of the financial services industry.

The internal debate that led to President Barack Obama passing her over as head of the agency, commonly known as the CFPB, pitted one set of advisers -- longtime confidantes Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod -- against the trio of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and current Chief of Staff William Daley.

Jarrett and Axelrod supported Warren, not least because of the impact she’d have on the Democratic Party’s liberal base, sources said. Geithner, Emanuel and Daley opposed the idea because of a variety of factors, both personal and political.

Ultimately, it was Obama’s call. Sources said an anecdote about a 2010 meeting provides clues to Obama’s thinking.

Last summer, during a White House meeting with first-term Senate Democrats, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, asked Obama whether he'd nominate Warren for the role.

Obama held up a half-full glass of water and told him: "That's the problem with you progressives. You see this as half-empty."

Liberals like Sanders had reason to worry. Though Obama, under fire, ultimately picked Warren to lead the consumer agency in the months before it officially opened, bypassing an outright nomination for her to lead the agency for a five-year term, there were signals she’d never get the job.

Last July, the night before a Senate vote on the administration-backed bill to reform financial regulation, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told reporters that he was still unsure how he’d vote and was concerned about who might be named to run the soon-to-be-created consumer unit.

Hearing the news, Emanuel took the temperature of the administration on Warren's nomination and reported back to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that it was cool, according to Senate sources with knowledge of the call.

“We don’t like her either,” the then-White House chief of staff told the Nevada Democrat.

Reid had been a longtime backer of Warren, plucking her from the relative obscurity of the Harvard Law School faculty to name her chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, a bailout watchdog position that has catapulted her to a stardom of sorts. But it’s the president’s job to make nominations, and Reid passed the message onto his leadership team, which passed it on to Democrats who may have been worried about her appointment.

Both the White House and Nelson denied at the time that any assurances were made.

"I’ve heard all the hallway rumors that you’ve heard. But I had no promise of that, didn’t hold my vote out in anticipation of that, not with the White House,” Nelson told The Huffington Post around that time. “Nobody from the White House told me anything like that, but I must say that I’ve heard from a lot of different sources, most of it coming from blogs, that somehow some assurances were made of that kind, but none were made to me directly."

Even though Emanuel left the White House and was replaced by Daley, as far as Elizabeth Warren was concerned, nothing changed.

Daley, a former top executive at JPMorgan Chase, recently told members of Congress that the White House remained cool to the idea of a potential Warren nomination, according to people with direct knowledge of those conversations.

The White House said Daley didn’t oppose a potential Warren nomination.

"Any assertion that the chief of staff opposed Elizabeth Warren in the selection process is simply untrue,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said. “As chief of staff, Mr. Daley may be involved in matters involving the CFPB and is not recused from those matters, but he chose not to participate in the process of selecting a nominee for CFPB director.”

The White House declined to comment on the internal divisions, or on matters regarding Emanuel’s remarks to Reid.

Last year, Geithner expressed opposition to a possible Warren nomination, HuffPost reported at the time, citing a person with knowledge of Geithner's views. Geithner’s position hasn’t changed, sources said.

The Treasury Department declined to comment, though a spokeswoman pointed to Geithner’s statement on Sunday in which he praised Warren for her “outstanding job at standing up this agency” and said she has been a “tremendous asset to us all” over the past several months.

Ultimately, Warren wanted the job, allies said. And near-united opposition from Senate Republicans -- 44 of them signed a letter saying they’d oppose any nominee -- should have made it easier for Obama to nominate her, since the Republicans publicly said they wouldn’t support anyone for the role.

Instead, the Republicans made it easy for the White House to deflect questions about the administration’s lack of support for Warren.

Asked how she squared the administration’s public statements with its private ones, Warren declined.

“I really have to say, I’m just not there. I’m not in the intricacies of the political part of this, and I can’t comment,” Warren said Monday. “The truth is I don’t know anything about it.”

Ryan Grim and Zach Carter contributed to this report.

*****

Shahien Nasiripour is a senior business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 1-917-267-2335.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Thanks to united Republican opposition to Elizabeth Warren as the permanent head of the consumer protection agency she dreamed up and shepherded through Congress, the administration is l...
WASHINGTON -- Thanks to united Republican opposition to Elizabeth Warren as the permanent head of the consumer protection agency she dreamed up and shepherded through Congress, the administration is l...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,078
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (19 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
wizeanne
wizeanne
07:42 AM on 08/19/2011
Looks like Ms Warren was thrown under the bus by this administration. Emanuel's comment to Harry Reid, that they don't like her (Warren), So Emanuel leave and Obama hires Daly a former executive with JP Morgan Chase. And US Treasury's Timmy Geithner certainly doesn't want to be questioned. What corrupt rats, of course the Dems & Reps don't want an honest person like Ms. Warren coming up with accountablity and regulations to stop the corruption.

Another Obama blunder. He had a chance to appoint a person with integrity and blew it. Oh, I forgot there is no Intergrity in Washington, D.C. how could we expect it to change, to many
corporate/banking/wall street croanies to appease. What a shame. Good luck to you Ms. Warren!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mamma Roma
Contrarian and proud of it
10:42 PM on 07/29/2011
Yeah, let's not do something TOO CRAZY like appoint a THRUTH TELLER.

This is unacceptable. The cons column of my pros and cons list on this administration is growing longer. For each pro, there's two cons.

My vagus nerve won't settle down. My stomach's in a knot and I'm waiting for ALL THE SHOES TO DROP AT ONCE> THIS IS JUST WRONG.

I feel I need to listen to my gut and it tells me BOTH SIDES of this argument SUCK and NO ONE is really looking out for THE PEOPLE.

WE"RE DOOMED. We're the HAS BEEN AMERICA neither GREAT nor IDEAL, just a sad con.

Sorry Elizabeth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnnyAce Okeke
GRAND MASTER SEN$Ei {{-_-}}™
01:07 AM on 07/24/2011
Rise of the Professional Left. {{-_-}}
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnnyAce Okeke
GRAND MASTER SEN$Ei {{-_-}}™
01:05 AM on 07/24/2011
It's official. Obama is a Republican. {{-_-}}
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnnyAce Okeke
GRAND MASTER SEN$Ei {{-_-}}™
01:02 AM on 07/24/2011
Elizabeth Warren because she is fighting against the very people who pull Obama's strings. So DUH. {{-_-}}
photo
joni brit
The road to success is always under construction.
06:41 PM on 07/21/2011
in this case, Republicans feared a liberal Democrat, and it's very said. Wish everyone could step away from labeling long enough not to fear putting a brilliant attorney into a position where she could help consumers, especially with the Banks. As soon as I saw Geithner squiriming under her questioning I knew Obama would not nominate her. What's good for Geithner is not good for Main Street, but Main Street doesn't count anymore.
05:16 PM on 07/21/2011
Since you haven't bothered to cite a source, your story is simply not credible. Shame on you.
11:48 AM on 07/21/2011
This is why I won't vote for him. Despite the consequences, the "lesser of two evils" is still evil. After all, Rick Perry has been my governor for a while, guess he'll be my next president. Which really sucks, but he won't be much different from Obama.
photo
mannapat
Truthiness shines a light.
01:29 AM on 07/21/2011
I didn't think I voted for someone RIGHT of center! This country is in so much trouble. The rich corporations really do own congress. Is the anti-trust law still on the books, and just not being enforced? If so, would it take an act of the bought-and-paid-for-congress to stop enforcement of it, or could the justice department just go ahead and make some really big banks a lot smaller?

Notice I don't capitalize congress or justice dept. I will when they deserve respect. I wonder when obama will realize that he'd better start worrying about the people who brought him to the dance, instead of the independents.
02:32 PM on 07/21/2011
What are you talking about the libs just passed a law protecting too big to fail with new regulations to protect the big banks. The banks in this country are controlled by the government and have been since FDR. The banks are told the regulations they must follow to stay in business. The government control the banks. The govt. bailed them out when they got in trouble following govt. regulations. If the banks fail it's because of the govt. regulations. Some people need to know the problem is the government. The Banks are just doing what they are told to do by government regulations and appointed Bureaucrats. .
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
06:46 PM on 07/20/2011
he must have figured out that she wasnt for sale.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nnealj1
Go figure, lost avatar, filled micro-bio....
06:43 PM on 07/20/2011
The problem is that we really need financial reform, and someone to enforce it, and Warren would probably be "too good" for the job, to the Republicans way of thinking. Somehow, after all the problems brought on by deregulating the banking industry over the years, the Republicans never, ever learn much of anything...they certainly don't want "effective" regulation of the financial markets and banking...
Trying to teach Republicans anything other than their inherent and already encrusted beliefs is a true toil of Sisyphus...I certainly don't have the energy or the patience....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IndependentBadger
05:41 PM on 07/20/2011
I guess this is what happens to a country when it bans the Left, and pretends that center-rightists are "socialist". America hasn't had a leftist party of any strength since the 1930's. And it hasn't had a liberal party since the 1980's. The chickens are coming home to roost. When the choice is always a little to the right of last year's menu, this is what you get: a bankrupted country/empire run by two barely distinguishable parties with more allegiance to their funders than their voters. Richard Nixon was more liberal than Obama is. He signed the Clean Air Act, defended unions, ended the Vietnam War, enacted price controls, and supported tax rates for the rich almost twice as high as those tolerated by Barack. We're screwed, until the Democratic party encounters any competition from the left, like it did in 2000.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
whirlybird
Time's a-wastin'!
05:32 AM on 07/21/2011
Couldn't agree more.
photo
DRaymond
Network administrator, voiceovers
02:56 PM on 07/20/2011
I hope that Warren runs for the Senate or Congress and gets on the financial services committee.

Apart from that Obama picked somebody else for a very shrewd reason.  If he picked Warren the fight would be over who he nominated.  By selecting another very strong candidate he lets the debate become over Republicans gutting the agency before it has a chance to even get started.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vardi
Hated by the right wing
02:51 PM on 07/20/2011
Boy does she look pretty mad. She has the finger pointing and looks like she is about ready to get her some.!.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:39 PM on 07/20/2011
oh, but obama is a progressive rofl that's a good one lol