Harry Reid faces what ought to be an easy choice. In January, the Senate majority leader will need to fill two vacant spots on the Senate Banking Committee to replace retiring Democrats. Just by luck, one of the newly elected Democratic senators happens to be a nationally renowned expert on consumer finance, bankruptcy, and the financial industry.
So why is naming Massachusetts Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren to the banking committee even an issue? Heeding the decorum of the Senate, Warren has not publicly said she wants to join the panel, which oversees banks, monetary policy, and other matters. But Wall Street interests hostile to Warren are reportedly lobbying Democrats to keep her off. For many of Warren’s supporters, Reid’s choice is now shaping up as an ideological fight for the soul of the Democratic Party, pitting a populist wing personified by Warren against more Wall Street-friendly Democrats.
Comments
Reid's reasons for wavering on assigning Senator Warren to such a committe are exactly why the public has such little faith in their political leaders. For once, do what's right and disregard the beholdeness or politics that often lead to the incorrect decision.
This comment has been removed.
How about a seat on the Committee on Indian Affairs? She has expertise in that arena as well, right?
Clever, and original.
It's the "Senate Indian affairs committee"
If a person has special knowledge you use it. Period. Anything else is a disregard for the good of the country.
There was a very sad & telling letter in the Cambridge Chronicle this week. The writer (who is now a retired library assistant) shared that Warren refused to stand up for low-income Harvard employees when both Warren & her husband were collecting salaries in excess of 1MILLION.
Regretfully, this may not make any difference to the old ladies and (?) whom ever else who voted for Warren _ but it sends the message that Senator Brown was right.
Warren is all about bravado _ nothing more folks, 'bravado,' and, 'echo chamber.'
Can you explain to me how Warren "refused" to stand up for low-income Harvard employees? Was there a vote on this in some forum that I missed? Was Warren part of an HR committee? Please explain.
Because she's a certified moonbat and the "intellectual foundation" of the Occupy Wall St movement, that's why!