How Barack Obama Could Appoint Elizabeth Warren, and Why He Won't

Under the Dodd-Frank bill, there is a provision that allows Timothy Geithner to appoint a head to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until such time as the Senate approves a nominee:

According to the bill's language, the Treasury Secretary has sole authority to build the new agency before it's ultimately transferred to the Federal Reserve. That includes anointing a person to head the effort on his behalf, and under his authority. The interim head would serve until the President's nominee is confirmed by the Senate.

That person could be Elizabeth Warren.

And the legislation doesn't appear to contain a deadline for a Presidential nomination, experts say, which means Warren could start the agency from scratch, put her people in, begin cracking down on predatory and abusive lenders, and initiate a culture that would put consumers' interests above those of the nation's most powerful financial institutions.

What is interesting here is that this is not a recess appointment, and so is not subject to the limitations, such as the requirement that their appointment expires at the end of the current Congress in January, 2010.

Theoretically, if Warren were appointed, she could serve for decades without Senatoriual approval.

So, Warren could be appointed, and be on the job, tomorrow, and the only way to remove her would be for the Republicans not to filibuster her in the Senate, and hope that she is defeated by 51 votes on the floor, which won't happen, because any Democrat who votes against her has the party base campaigning against him or her in the next election cycle.

So, why don't I think that Obama will do this? Because in so doing, he would energize the Democratic Party base, who would then come out and vote for Democrats in 2010:

Within hours and possibly minutes I expect the president will name Elizabeth Warren to lead the new consumer protection agency, and if he does, the Democratic base will erupt and turn out to vote in far greater numbers than any current poll suggests.^*

The thing is that I believe that there are two dominant schools of thought in the White House:

• Those who believe that appealing the the base will always be a net loser in terms of elections. (Rahm)
• Those who actively hate the Democratic Party base, which they see as irrational, unrealistic, a part of the hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington, and terrifying to the fictitious middle of the road voters in off year elections. (Barack Obama)

Basically, in order for such an act to be taken, the core philosophies of the power centers in the White House have to be repudiated by the people who hold them.

This won't happen, because even if these decisions help the party, they diminish the power of Emanuel and Obama's philosophies within the party, which makes it a sort of perverse manifestation of the Iron Law of Institutions, (on edit see this Google link, because one of the purity asshole brigade at Wikipedia deleted the link) which states that, "the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself."

^*I would note that the author is already wrong, having posted this on Thursday, September 9, and we have had no announcement.