House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who pushed for Warren to be named the agency’s director, said she was not interested in the long-term appointment. Obama said Warren would “play a pivotal role” in helping him choose the agency’s director.

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs would not rule Warren out as a potential nominee for the position. He said Obama would nominate a director in the next several months.

Obama’s appointment of Warren was cheered by her supporters in Congress and at consumer and liberal groups that had pushed strongly for her to be the agency’s first director.

“This is the boldest step Obama’s taken so far to rein in the big Wall Street banks. And it’s a major victory for grass-roots progressives who rallied for Warren,” the liberal group MoveOn.org said in an e-mail to members titled “Victory!”

But some Republicans in Congress and business groups criticized Obama’s move. They said that the agency, with an annual budget of about $500 million, had broad power, and the confirmation process for the director is one of the only congressional checks.

via Elizabeth Warren | Obama puts Elizabeth Warren in charge of consumer bureau launch – Los Angeles Times.

Warren and the Obama administration were aware her appointment would be blocked by Senate GOP. I am sure she would have liked to have the job, but the point here is that she was able to start the CFPB as a special adviser to the president. Scarborough isn’t hearing any of these facts (start right before the 10m mark):

Obama didn’t nominate Warren because if she had been officially nominated, her nomination would have been blocked by 44 Republicans and 3 to 5 Wall Street friendly, Blue Dog Democrats also known by the title US Senator. . A recess appointment was in order? Well the Senate GOP blocked that too by staying in touch:

 The Senate is technically staying in session – even though senators won’t be doing any business – over next week’s Memorial Day recess because Republicans want to prevent President Obama from making recess appointments, including the possible appointment of Elizabeth Warren to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Congressional Republicans, with the backing of Wall Street, have fiercely opposed the appointment of consumer advocate and Harvard professor Warren to head the commission she helped create. GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) accused Warren of lying this week in one example of the aggressive criticism of Warren from the right.

via Senate GOP blocks possible Elizabeth Warren recess appointment – Political Hotsheet – CBS News.

Senator Chuck Schumer laid out the simple math:

 “Well, the White House dropped consideration of Elizabeth Warren because the Republicans in the Senate said they will not let her pass. Period,” Schumer said. “Even were the President to try a recess appointment, they wouldn’t allow the Senate to recess. So the President was just facing reality when he said that he couldn’t nominate her because she never would have been approved. Forty-four senators I believe signed the letter; 44 Republican senators that wouldn’t allow her to come.”

via Schumer Says Obama ‘Just Facing Reality’ on Warren Nomination | PolitickerNY.

Warren would have been in a holding pattern and all of her work done while interim admin of the CFPB would have not been done. Later, as it was clear Senate conservatives would block Warren’s nomination no matter what, Obama did nominate a good candidate who was elected state wide in a swing state. Ohio AG Rich Cordray was supported by Republican lawmakers from his state. Which means he should be confirmed regardless of the senate’s make up, right? of course not:

Attorneys general from 37 states and U.S. territories urged senators to confirm the nomination of their former colleague, Richard Cordray, to be the first director of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The nomination of Cordray, Ohio’s attorney general from 2009 to 2011, has been stalled in the Senate because of Republican demands for major changes in the structure of the agency. But the attorneys general — including eight Republicans — urged senators to vote for Cordray because he is “both brilliant and balanced.”

“Some of us may disagree with aspects of the Dodd-Frank legislation,” they wrote in a letter Tuesday on the letterhead of the National Assn. of Attorneys General. “But we are united in our belief that Mr. Cordray is very well qualified to carry out the responsibilities of this position.”

One of the Republicans who signed the letter, Utah Atty. Gen. Mark Shurtleff, said it was important to get a director confirmed who could start working with states on mortgages and other key issues.

“We need Rich Cordray in there,” Shurtleff told reporters on a conference call organized by the White House. “He knows us, knows how to work with us.”

The Senate Banking Committee approved Cordray’s nomination this month on a 12-10 party line vote. This spring, nearly all Senate Republicans — enough to keep the nomination from moving forward — publicly vowed to block any nominee to head the agency unless the Obama administration agreed to water down its power by making some key changes.

via Consumer bureau nominee Richard Cordray backed by 37 state AGs – latimes.com.

Congressional Republicans don’t want the Obama Administration to have success. Period. Whether or not Obama’s policies are liberal or not is not the case. He literally has a congress that won’t allow him to fully staff the federal government. The failure of the American people to understand this falls upon media talking heads like Scarborough who drag exposition of their own ideological views in front of the political truth. In this case Scarborough confuses donations with prerogative : Obama has tried to staff the government to execute his strategy. The Republicans won’t let him staff the executive branch as a craven political tactic.

Good news amidst the budget crisis, Libya, Yemen and another Japan quake…

“In selecting Debbie to lead our party, President Obama noted her tenacity, her strength, her fighting spirit and her ability to overcome adversity,” Mr. Biden said. “President Obama expressed great admiration for her as a leader, and he was honored that she accepted this important challenge on behalf of the Democratic Party.”

Ms. Wasserman Schultz is known inside the party for her strong fund-raising abilities, and she represents South Florida, which will be a critical battleground in the 2012 presidential race. She also would become one of the few high-profile women to speak on television on behalf of the president and the party.

via Debbie Wasserman Schultz Picked to Chair D.N.C. – NYTimes.com.

Also, outgoing DNC chair Tim Kaine is  going to run for the seat being vacated by Senator Jim Webb:

DNC Chairman Tim Kaine officially running for Senate | Video Cafe.

 

Road is open to passing repeal of DADT.

It isn’t the president that isn’t sufficiently liberal, it’s the filibuster that is insufficiently progressive.

on to DADT.

The two biggest factors limiting Obama are that the American worker needs immediate help and the 60 member Democratic Senate majority in the 111th Congress is and never has been a 60 vote  liberal/progressive majority on any issue. The reality of the situation makes the concession Obama made in this tax deal understandable. Here is the legislative pattern under the 111th:

• Obama sets the agenda
• House under Speaker Pelosi would promptly pass the legislation
• US Senate under Majority Leader Reid would kill, vote down, water down, pork up, delay or stall the legislation
• Whatever progressive bill that got to his desk, Obama signed

Obama has compromised as much or more to get Blue Dog Democrat votes than Republican votes. That’s  ”pre-negotiating” as some may call it. He has to negotiate to unify his caucus by pulling legislation to the right before he can negotiate with the GOP moderates (eg stimulus) or worse yet, the GOP at large (this tax deal). The Democratic Senate caucus is a few votes to the right of the majority of the Democratic core constituency and even more votes to the right of liberal pundits and activists. One GOP Senator  (typically Collins, Snowe, Brown) was the minimum needed to break filibusters repeatedly with a unified 59 Democrat to 41 Republican majority. Two is the requirement now that the lame duck Democrat to Republican ratio is 58 to 42 (with Sen. Kirk replacing Roland Burris). If any Blue Dog, principled Democrat or DLC Dem opposes Democratic legislation in the Senate, which they always do, Obama and Senate Dems get them back on board or replace their vote with Republicans with concessions towards the right.

According to this reporting in the NY Times, the existence of significant (more than two Democrats voting “No”) Democratic opposition to Obama’s tax plan was evident well prior to last Saturday’s votes on the 250K and 1mil versions.

By that session, according to administration officials, Mr. Obama had decided not to side with those in his administration and among Congressional Democrats who were spoiling to fight Republicans on the Bush-era tax cuts for those with high incomes even though the Democrats appeared to lack the votes in the Senate. Instead, he would test Republicans’ willingness to make concessions for economic stimulus measures and “the Obama tax cuts” for low- and middle-income workers. Then, if Republicans gave him the back of the hand, he would fight.

Mr. Obama was propelled to his decision in part by a Nov. 18 meeting with Democratic Congressional leaders that persuaded him the Democrats were not unified behind a realistic plan for moving forward.

via Tax Compromise Was Aided by Biden and McConnell Talks – NYTimes.com.

Obama maintained his preferred tax plan would repeal the Bush tax cuts for any income over 250K, 500K or even 1mil. Last Saturday’s vote proved he needed more than the three New England GOP senators to support any plan as the Obama Tax Cut plan failed 53 to 36 in the Senate after passing the House. So at this point, seven votes short, the choice became:

• A. Publicly protest Republican opposition to his tax proposal while lobbying Blue Dogs behind the scene while the lame duck expires and a Democratically controlled federal government takes blame for letting taxes spike for all Americans and Unemployment Insurance benefits expire for 2 million Americans
• B. Construct a deal that satisfies more Senators to the right of center (e.g. Republicans) so he could get those UI benefits and middle class tax cuts passed and let Reid and Pelosi possibly force votes of DADT repeal and DREAM act to close out the lame duck

Liberals want Obama to choose option “A”. Maybe the people who lost their unemployment in the middle of December and January would appreciate the fight Obama showed while pounding podiums from the bully pulpit with his shirt sleeves rolled up and begin to dislike Republicans even more. I highly doubt it.

That is why he is upset at liberal idealists. What the liberal bloggers and activists suggest would probably deliver the worst possible outcome for the President and the public. You can’t legislate someone back out of poverty after they have missed over a month of unemployment benefits, lost a car, defaulted on their mortgage and/or have been cutting down on food for their family. This is now or never legislation. The needs are urgent and the inclusion of a full Bush Tax Cut extension is as much for Blue Dogs as it is for GOP senators.

Liberals also are wondering:  ”If Obama is itching to fight from now on, why didn’t he fight for the tax cut deal of choice prior to Election day or earlier this year?”. Well, the same Senators and Representatives saying this tax deal is a travesty in December 2010 requested that this tax cut vote be pushed to December 2010 after mid term elections. There were no votes before November 2nd.

“Everything points to us not voting on it before the election, primarily because the Senate is not going to act,” one senior Democratic House aide said. “While no decisions have been made, I think the likelihood of it occurring before the election is slim to none.”

A significant group of moderate Democrats who are in swing districts have pressed Democratic leaders for a short-term extension of all the of current tax rates, including those for the wealthiest Americans.

Many of these Democrats also would prefer to delay any vote on the issue until after the election. If the House voted for just an extension of tax cuts for those making under $250,000, the aides said, it could give Republicans the ability to argue Democrats voted to hike taxes at a time when the economy remains sluggish.

Several vulnerable House Democrats would rather debate the issue at home and have more time to campaign, as opposed to remaining in Washington and giving the GOP a chance to frame the tax debate, which traditionally favors Republicans.

The message to leaders, one aide to a senior conservative House Democrat said, has been, “Let us go home. If the Senate doesn’t vote on it, we shouldn’t vote on it.”

via Pelosi won’t rule out House tax cut vote – CNN.

Any Obama’s legislation was linked to the question: “can it get 60?”

Why not Reform the filibuster you say? The Democrats couldn’t get the votes to reform the filibuster. Here is video (Courtesy TPMtv) from Morning Joe of Chris Dodd defending the filibuster:

I appreciate the frustration many have with the slow pace of the legislative progress. And I certainly share some of my colleagues’ anger with the repetitive use and abuse of the filibuster. Thus, I can understand the temptation to change the rules that make the Senate so unique—and, simultaneously, so frustrating.

But whether such a temptation is motivated by a noble desire to speed up the legislative process, or by pure political expedience, I believe such changes would be unwise.

via Dodd Delivers Farewell Address to the Senate | U.S. Senator Christopher J. Dodd.

So we get a Senate that is much harder to navigate for a progressive President.

No 60 to close Gitmo:

Democrats have answered by rejecting Obama’s request for money to start the base closure.

“Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States,” declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., at a press conference Tuesday after meeting with other Democratic senators.

Obama had requested the $80 million from the $91 billion war funding bill as part of his promise to close the Guantanamo base by January 2010.

via Democrats on Capitol Hill Rebel Against President Obama’s Guantanamo Bay Plan – ABC News.

No 60 votes for the Public Option in the Health care bill:

The Senate Finance Committee voted against proposals that would create a government-run insurance plan in the committee’s health care overhaul bill.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., proposed apublic option plan designed along the lines of Medicare, where the government would decide unilaterally how much to pay doctors and hospitals for people who choose to enroll in the public plan. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. tweaked it by mandating that the government negotiate rates with health care providers, like a private insurer does, instead of simply mandating them. Schumer had touted this as middle ground that responds to market forces.

But after five hours of debate, both amendments lost. Most Democrats supported Rockefeller’s proposal — with the exception of five — but the votes were not enough to pass either proposals out of the committee.

via Senate Finance Committee Rejects Public Option Proposal in Health Care Bill – ABC News.

No 60 for the Fin Reg bill reforms to be fully funded by fees charged to large banks:

This is where Senator Feingold’s principles come into play. Because he refused to vote for cloture on the Dodd-Frank bill without major revisions, a coalition of 60 liberal votes became impossible. So Senator 61, Scott Brown, became the dealmaker.

[...]

As it turns out, there were real consequences of Feingold forcing Brown into the pivot position. One of the provisions to come out of the House-Senate conference was a levy on large financial firms to pay for the costs of financial regulation. This provision was quickly dubbed a “bank tax”. As a result, Brown, who had supported the earlier Senate version, began to waver. The provision not only ran counter to his ideological opposition to anything resembling a tax increase, but would have been costly to large financial firms in Brown’s home state.

In the aftermath of Byrd’s death, a defection by Brown would necessitate picking up both Democrats who had opposed the original Senate bill, Feingold and Washington’s Maria Cantwell. Cantwell came around, Feingold didn’t, and the bank tax was gone. As a result, $19 billion in costs were shifted from the banks to the taxpayer. Feingold has performed the legislative equivalent of voting for Nader in Florida in the 2000 presidential election: standing on principle only to get an outcome he couldn’t possibly have wanted.

via Nolan McCarty: The Price of Principle.

No 60 votes to Trying terror suspects in civilian courts:

Opponents include Democrats such as Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who was among five lawmakers last week who urged Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse his decision to try Mohammed and other conspirators in civilian courts, and U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who said a local trial would be too disruptive, whether in Manhattan or upstate.

via 9/11 Trial Costs, Political Opposition Disrupt White House Plans.

No 60 votes for Climate Change:

In 1930, U.S. officials stood aside as banks failed; the result was the Great Depression. In 2008, they stood aside as Lehman Brothers imploded; within days, credit markets had frozen and we were staring into the economic abyss.

So it’s crucial to avoid disorderly bank collapses, just as it’s crucial to avoid out-of-control urban fires.

Since the 1930s, we’ve had a standard procedure for dealing with failing banks: the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has the right to seize a bank that’s on the brink, protecting its depositors while cleaning out the stockholders. In the crisis of 2008, however, it became clear that this procedure wasn’t up to dealing with complex modern financial institutions like Lehman or Citigroup.

So proposed reform legislation gives regulators “resolution authority,” which basically means giving them the ability to deal with the likes of Lehman in much the same way that the F.D.I.C. deals with conventional banks. Who could object to that?

Well, Mr. McConnell is trying. His talking points come straight out of a memo Frank Luntz, the Republican political consultant, circulated in January on how to oppose financial reform. “Frankly,” wrote Mr. Luntz, “the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout.” And Mr. McConnell is following those stage directions.

via Op-Ed Columnist – The Fire Next Time – NYTimes.com.

Mitch McConnell’s position makes no sense, and yet he is keeping the troops in line and is opposing regulation that would allow bad Wall Street Banks to fail without pulling our entire economy into a depression. There is no capitalist in the GOP if they don’t support resolution authority. Instead they love corporate welfare. This is a much easier sell than health care, and a populist winner if there was one. Democrats need to push hard on this.

McConnell’s lies at work below:

With the Senate working through an all-night session on a package of changes to the Democrats’ sweeping health care legislation, Republicans early Thursday morning identified parliamentary problems with at least two provisions that will require the measure to be sent back to the House for yet another vote, once the Senate adopts it.

via G.O.P. Forces New House Vote on Package of Health Bill Changes – NYTimes.com.

The GOP called for the check Wednesday night, having had enough of the fight over an extension of unemployment benefits that the party had held up for several weeks.

While the Senate was stuck in parliamentary limbo, some 200,000 people actively looking for work lost their unemployment benefits. The bill extends unemployment benefits for an additional 14 weeks across the country, and in some states with the highest unemployment the extension goes to 20 weeks. More on the bill here.

The extension itself was not controversial and passed 98-0. Getting there, however, was a Herculean parliamentary task that provides insight into just how hard it is to pass even popular legislation in the Senate with a minority party intent on opposing the majority’s agenda step by laborious step.

Earlier Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called for the third cloture vote on the bill to break a GOP filibuster. It passed 97-1. (That would be one Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) as the lone Republican to object in public on this round.)

via GOP Folds On Unemployment Benefits Fight: 14-Week Extension Passes.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here is a complete profile on Coakley’s recent work helping protect consumers from predatory lending and financial products by Tim Fernholz at the American Prospect. Some more facts:

• Pro US AG Torture Investigation as it stands
• Career Prosecutor
• Married to a Police Officer
• Firmly Pro Choice
• Pro Gun Control

Rockefeller has sparred privately with Conrad and Baucus during their Democrat-only Finance Committee meetings about what Rockefeller views as a disregard for measures that would make insurance truly affordable to the poor in West Virginia. But when Rockefeller emerged from those meetings, he tended to deliver only cryptic statements to the media.

On Thursday, however, he stopped putting on a polite face. In a warning shot of sorts, he sent letters to the Government Accountability Office, the National Cooperative Business Association and the Agriculture Department, asking dozens of questions about the history, success rate and legal, regulatory and licensure requirements of cooperatives — questions he said he has yet to receive answers from by the committee.

“I don’t think he is very happy with me, and I regret that,” Rockefeller said of Conrad. “I can’t worry about that.”

via Senate Democrats spar over public plan – Carrie Budoff Brown and Patrick O’Connor – POLITICO.com.

3 Democrats, 3 Republicans guiding health care is not what the American public voted for. No solution should be 50/50 bipartisan with the way the country split the senate 60/40. Since true universal health care is off the table and the real conversation is around a public option, the Republicans have gotten as much as they 40% they deserve. The fact that Baucus and Conrad insist on meeting the GOP on their side of the debate, should not only concern the Obama administration going forward but should make democratic senate leadership seriously consider enacting and making permanent Sen. Tom  Harkin’s proposals for choosing new committee leadership at regular intervals and by other criteria in addition to Senator tenure.