UPDATED: Why do I have to stumble over these truths?
Tune on out if you are sick of me talking about how shitty our congressional delegation is. Still with me? Well I’d like the answer to a few simple questions after you read this:
The St. Louis Today editorial board breaks down what the Republican obstruction of Richard Cordray’s nomination means:
This is one of those confusing process votes that sometimes obscure what’s really at stake. So let’s keep it simple: The effect of this vote is a big win for a financial industry that is desperately trying to avoid being fully accountable to its customers.
It’s a win for opaque language in credit agreements and mortgage documents. It’s a win for jacking up credit rates or taking away your house. It’ll make it easier for debt collectors to hound you. Private student loan lenders will continue to operate in the shadows.
The industry that did so much to bring on the Great Recession continues to fight every effort to rein in its excesses. In this, the industry has no greater ally than the Republican Party.
-via dkos
Great, right? How clear is that? How straightforward and accurate? Now then, why do I have to happen upon stuff like that when we have a congressional delegation that should be bringing us that view of the inside workings of congress? How easy (and true and helpful) would it be for one of the three Democrats that we elected to represent us in Congress to say that the Republican obstruction of Richard Cordray’s nomination was bad for the country?
What do we get instead, but a bunch of “Bipartisanship RULZ!!” public relations nonsense.
UPDATED: I just found this on the Bill Press web site – “Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) will discuss the latest on the payroll tax cut, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau nominee Richard Cordray, and more”
So I guess we’ll get Coons’ take.
Carper was pusillanimous:
Classic Carper – sounds like a Democrat up until the zinger at the end.
This is exactly how Senate conservadems get away with it – by hiding behind the filibuster, they can talk like Democrats and even VOTE like Democrats, confident in the knowledge that the Democratic issue will be defeated by the filibuster.
Come on – does Carper really expect us to believe he supported Cordray, who is the subject of a panicky full-court press by Carper’s donor base?
Unfortunately, the Bill Press Show only offers his show as a paid podcast subscription.
I already buy the Thom Hartmann show podcasts, but I don’t believe Sen. Coons will appear on Thom’s show, because only Sen. Sanders will take calls from audience, that’s a great hour each Friday at noon. http://www.thomhartmann.com/radio/listen-live
I didn’t pay anything. Coons comes in around the 1:38 mark http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/19118748
Obama could do a recess appointment, but that would require leadership and courage.
A1 – you are wrong there. Obama has not been able to do recess appointments due to a technicality, and due to the cravenness of the Republicans.
It seems that according to the Constitution, neither house is allowed to recess without the consent of the other house. And, since last summer, in what is probably an unprecedented move, Boehner has been withholding consent for the Senate to recess. The Senate actually has not recessed for a while now, holding pro-forma sessions over breaks instead, because the House withheld its consent. Usually a nearby junior Senator is asked to preside alone. It used to be Jim Webb, but just ask Chris Coons; he’s been holding down the fort at the Senate for some of those sessions.
If the Senate had been allowed to recess, we’d be looking at Elizabeth Warren in that spot right now.
Anonone never lets facts interfere with a critique of Obama.
However, there is a chance of recess appointments this January, as both Houses adjourn their current sessions and begin a new session. At that instant, Teddy Roosevelt made hundreds of recess appointments when he was faced with a Speaker, Joe Cannon, back then, who refused to recess his House to prevent Roosevelt from making appointments.
Elizabeth Warren not even nominated by Obama. And we’ll see what happens during the next recess, won’t we? Would you bet $10,000 that he makes that appointment?
I think not nominating Warren was (knowing she wouldn’t be confirmed), more about keeping her out of the mud so she could keep her options open for a Senate run. With the window for her Senate run closing, she couldn’t wait for a January recess appointment. I think it worked out pretty well. I’d rather see her in the Senate anyway.