ABC News is reporting that the Obama administration will name Elizabeth Warren to a position that will allow her to serve as interim head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, bypassing the inevitable Republican virtual filibuster.
Why the Democrats continue to allow virtual filibusters rather than forcing actual physical ones remains beyond my limited conception.
But if this report is correct, it is just barely possible that Obama has realized how completely politically screwed his policies have left him, and is in the process of tacking toward his base and away from that part of the electorate that will never accept him no matter how many tax breaks he gives them.
Maybe, just maybe, Obama will manage to pivot from this moment of weakness toward finding his voice on important social issues, and welcoming the hatred of those who suck the lifeblood from society, as generally happens in late-stage empires.
I try to hold onto hope, at least.
If this is some BS "advisory" position with no power, as some accounts are suggesting, it will be worse than if he hadn't appointed her at all. The base will still be angry, maybe even angrier, at the sell-out and cynicism, and the right will still rip her to shreds, say he's appointed a socialist, that it's a fascist takeover of the banks, blah blah blah. President Obama seems to be forever splitting the difference and pleasing nobody.
Posted by: Metzengerstein on September 16, 2010 2:18 PM"Why the Democrats continue to allow virtual filibusters rather than forcing actual physical ones remains beyond my limited conception."
I used to wonder this too, but there is a logic to it. It has to do with quorum calls.
The filibustering party needs to have a single person on duty at all times. The opposing party needs to have enough people present to make a quorum. All the single filibusterer has to do is note the apparent absence of a quorum to trigger a time wasting quorum call that drags the filibuster out as senators are rousted out of beds and offices to meet the call.
And he can do this over and over and over.
This means that a real filibuster is significantly more work for the opposing party than it is for the filibustering party and is the reason that it doesn't happen much.
That said, there are still potent justifications for doing it. One is to control abuse of the filibuster -- after all, a cost-free weapon will always be fired. Another is to force very public, extended devotions of the minority party to very unpopular and extremist positions.
Posted by: pjcamp on September 19, 2010 2:30 PM