Politics Plus

This news came as a shock to me, because I cannot imagine the CFPB headed by anyone other than Elizabeth Warren.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Elizabeth Warren is quietly searching [Murdoch delinked] for a permanent head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The hunt suggests that Ms. Warren, a lightning rod for some bankers, might not be selected to lead the bureau, a centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill that passed this summer. Still, many liberal groups will push to get her in the post.

President Barack Obama’s choice could signal how he intends to deal with resurgent Republicans in Congress. The feelers to business groups serve as a reminder that any nominee would likely need support from at least seven Republicans in the Senate to win confirmation.

Among the names being discussed are Iowa’s attorney general, Tom Miller; New York state bank regulator Richard Neiman; and former Office of Thrift Supervision director Ellen Seidman….

The process is at an early stage but could escalate quickly, the people said. A concrete list of candidates hasn’t yet been established, and the White House could dismiss any recommendations made by banking or liberal groups. The decision on a nominee will ultimately be made by Mr. Obama, and could come by March, the people said.

Given Warren’s passion for the new agency and the work she has done thus far to establish it, she’ll hopefully have primary influence with Obama in selecting the permanent head of the agency… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

There is no valid reason to appoint anyone else.  First, the need for at least seven Republicans stated by the WSJ assumes there will be no filibuster reform. Second, if the Senate refuses to confirm any nominee, she continues indefinitely as interim head of it until someone is confirmed to replace her.  Here’s the bottom line.  If Obama replaces her with an accursed DINO who will burrow his nose deep between Bankster cheeks, it will be because that’s what he wants to do, not because it’s what he has to do.

The recent lame duck session if Congress achieved many good things and one horrible one.  Nevertheless, it was so productive that Republicans are hell bent on making sure that they never again lose any portion the fruits gained over two years of extreme obstruction, because Democrats refuse to let them go home.  As a result they want to make the lame duck an extinct species.

The lame duck session of Congress is in the books, with many touts lauding the post-election period of congresspersons actually doing things as the most productive lame duck ever. This sort of glosses over the fact that a lot of the sexier things that passed — the ratification of the START Treaty, health benefits for 9/11 first responders, and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — were wildly popular with the public and should have been considered "no-brainers." Plus, everyone got a tax cut, because this is the last season of Oprah.

Of course, many in the GOP ranks hated all that productivity, because what’s the point of months and months of pointless obstruction if the American people end up seeing what Congress is capable of doing in a few weeks? Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) got very sad about the lame duck session, complaining that "Harry Reid has eaten our lunch." [Faux Noise delinked] And Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) yelped that Reid and Nancy Pelosi have thrown a "pie in the face of the American people." Were the cafeterias not open during the lame duck session, or something?

Credit Rep. Michele Bachmann, at least, for eschewing food metaphors in favor of all-out alarm Faux Noise delinked]:

If you want my real opinion, the lame duck is awful. In my opinion it is unconstitutional. The 20th amendment passed in 1933 was meant to eliminate all future lame duck sessions. Congress didn’t want to see happen what is happening now.

Again, Congress could have prevented this by being more conscientious during the pre-Election Day legislative session. But, whatever! Naturally, now there is a movement afoot to get rid of lame duck sessions altogether. Per Dave Weigel:

Little-noticed over the holiday week: Rep. Lynn Jenkins tweeting this promise.

"I will re-introduce the End the Lame Duck Act to prevent power grabs as we’ve seen at the end of this session."

… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Batshit Bachmann was correct that the intent of the 20th Amendment was to end the lame dick, but she lied about the reasons.  The purpose was not to prevent mas legislation at all.  It was to keep members of Congress who lived in the west from having to spend days on trains returning to DC for a short session, as this was before there were airlines.  Republicans are opposing the duck with a litany of lies, as Rachel Maddow’s Executive Producer, Bill Wolff, and columnist Eugene Robinson discuss.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I agree with Robinson.  This is political theatre.  Republicans love to rile their base with non-issues, so I predict with confidence that the duck will fly again.

Republican policy always seems to depend on numerous thinking errors, misinformed attitudes that result in antisocial behavior.  One common one is the concrete thinking error, the belief all things occur in black or white, that there is no middle ground for compromise.  In my volunteer work, I help prisoners and former prisoners learn  to recognize and avoid a couple dozen of these thinking errors.  People often develop thinking errors as a response to fear.  The Republican leadership recognizes this and bombards their base with lies specifically designed to invoke fear.  Within the human brain is a structure called the amygdala that triggers the fight or flight reaction as a response to fear by dumping a hormone cocktail into the bloodstream, one of whose effects is interference with rational thought.  I have often wondered why Republicans, especially the InsaniTEA wing of the party, seem so vulnerable to the obvious propaganda from the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and Palin, and science just may have an answer.

Political opinions are considered choices, and in Western democracies the right to choose one’s opinions — freedom of conscience — is considered sacrosanct.

But recent studies suggest that our brains and genes may be a major determining factor in the views we hold.

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other "primitive" emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

If the study is confirmed, it could give us the first medical explanation for why conservatives tend to be more receptive to threats of terrorism, for example, than liberals. And it may help to explain why conservatives like to plan based on the worst-case scenario, while liberals tend towards rosier outlooks… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

I have notices that as people learn to recognize and manage the fight or flight response through stress reducing techniques, their political views often shift to the left in the process. I’m not sure how this can help the left in the short term, but at least it does give us some insight to why presenting rational ideas presented to many Republicans can be like talking to a wall.

Way back during the campaign I reported on the claims by her former Campaign Manager that Christine O’Donnell regularly raider her campaign coffers for personal expenses.  Now that the DOJ is investigating her for this, she made her second most significant claim.  When said she was not a witch, I believed her.  She doesn’t even know what witchcraft is.  From what she described, what she dabbled with in high school was Satanism, not witchcraft.  I do not have the same confidence in her current claim that she is innocent, because she seems to be one of those many Republicans who insists on strict piety codes for everyone else, but thinks her own personal righteousness exempts her from following them herself.

Christine O’Donnell, who famously denied that she was a witch, said on Thursday that she was innocent of any financial irregularities connected to her failed campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Speaking on morning talk shows, O’Donnell, who rode a wave a "tea party" movement unhappiness to wrest the Senate nomination from the candidate favored by Delaware’s GOP, rejected accusations that campaign funds were misused. She also blamed liberal political enemies for persecuting her.

"There’s been no impermissible use of campaign funds whatsoever," O’Donnell insisted on ABC.

"You have to look at this whole thug-politic tactic for what it is," she said.

The Associated Press was the first to report that the O’Donnell campaign was being investigated by the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware. In her television appearances, O’Donnell said she learned of the probe from media reports and that she found it strange that she, her staff or her lawyers were never told of the investigation prompted by complaints from the nonpartisan group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington…  [emphasis added]

Inserted from <LA Times>

Hats of to CREW for another job well done!

Rachel Maddow’s Executive Producer, Bill Wolff, comments on how he has parlayed her political career into personal wealth.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

At least we can be thankful that she is not Senator O’Dingbat (R-GA)