Senator Warren's 'Serious Concerns' About Larry Summers

[MannyGoldstein]

Please save us, Sen. Warren!

Bloomberg: Senator Warren's 'Serious Concerns' About Larry Summers

Senator Elizabeth Warren has told the White House that she won't publicly take a position on Larry Summers as a possible chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, though she privately told administration officials she has "serious concerns" about him as a nominee, according to people familiar with the situation.

Summers's prospects have dimmed over the past week and the Obama administration has come to realize the opposition of a prominent figure such as Warren could deliver a fatal blow, several people said.

...

That might be a miscalculation. Yesterday, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, told the Huffington Post that he would oppose a Summers nomination. Although some economists say Yellen would be a little more liberal on regulation and monetary policy, Summers, with his close involvement in Democratic politics and policies over the past two decades, would raise more suspicion among the Republican Party's right wing base.

White House officials privately have predicted Summers would win Senate confirmation because even if a handful of Democrats defected, the nominee would have sufficient Republican supporters, who would be swayed by financial interests that would back Summers.

[Wilms]

1. She's a HATER!

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Thank you Manny.

Although the Siamese Twins that go by the name Sensible Kitty have assured us this morning that the Administration is just having a little fun with us--we're all overreacting and Summers won't be chosen. I guess the Administration denied the truth of one of their leaks to the Japanese or something like that.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Where's the carrot?

[Autumn]

4. EW is correct. I don't think we need to be saved from this though

I don't believe Summers will be nominated.

[grantcart]

5. Did you mean to say that you don't think he would be confirmed?

[Autumn]

6. I don't think Obama will appoint him.

[arcane1]

7. So the WH predicts he would win because of republican support?

What kind of a "win" is that?

[DFW]

8. Republicans would oppose Summers out of habit

If Obama were to nominate him, they'd oppose him for that reason alone, even though Summers would be by far the best deal they and their financial manipulators could wish for. If that's a reason for Obama to pass Summers over and nominate Yellen instead, it's a piss-poor one, but I'd take it for the sole reason that I vastly prefer to see Yellen in the position than Summers. They both know their stuff, but I think Yellen would be better for the country, and I also think Obama would lessen his "beholden to dark forces" image that he seems to be burdened with in some circles. Summers can always go be a TV talking head and collect money as president of some University somewhere.

[iandhr]

9. Here is a suggestion on Summers

This is the list of the Democratic members of the Banking Committee


Tim Johnson Chairman (D-SD)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Mark R. Warner (D-VA)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Joe Manchin III (D-WV)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)


If you live in Massachusetts, Oregon, or Ohio call your senator to thank them for opposing Summers.

If you live in any other state call the rest of them and ask them to oppose summers.

I know what many of you will say. A lot of them are tools for the banks.

Make the call anyway. If enough people say no they will listen just like on Syria.

[Rebellious Republican]

10. Words well spoken, to the phones I go.

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Thanks for the list.

None of them is one of my current Senators, but I have MT ties, so will write to Tester. It couldn't hurt. I have also written to the White House requesting that Summers not be named. I suggest that all of us do that too.

Here is a recent article from the Guardian that makes a lot of good points that are not at all in Summers' favor. According to the writer (Dean Baker), it's not so much the WH itself, but anonymous well-placed aides/advisors/officials who would like to see Summers named. Baker also charges that the media are not doing their jobs (surprise, surprise!), but rather allowing themselves to be spoonfed by the same interested parties who are promoting Summers, when all reporters have to do is some basic research. See http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/media-acquiescence-larry-summers-supporters

I paraphrased some of his points in my message to the WH. I will do something similar when I write to Jon Tester.