Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:
If Obama wanted Warren, he had to do it. She didn’t have the votes. Presidents do this stuff all the time as a matter of power and prerogative. It does weaken her, however, as she starts as a lame duck.
Frank Askin, professor of law at Rutgers University, said:
Politically speaking, I think he should have nominated her and forced the Republicans to filibuster. Warren is very popular, and I think the Republicans would have quickly backed down.
Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:
I'm not sure why the left is pushing Ms. Warren so heavily: One would think she is the latter day equivalent of Eleanor Roosevelt or La Pasionaria. She is hardly a major public figure, and her views — although no doubt indubitably "progressive" — are not going to make a lot of difference in the larger scheme of things.
I suspect the reason for this newfound enthusiasm is the complete rip-off represented by the Obama administration, at least insofar as the Serious Left is concerned. After all, he filled the coffers of Goldman Sachs and the bankster gang with endless bailouts, he escalated the Afghan war
by extending it into Pakistan and "surging" and he pushed for a healthcare "reform" that is nothing more than a massive subsidy for the insurance industry. This is "hope"? This is "change"? In a pig's eye it is.
So how do the Dems get out their base to the voting booth this crucial election year? Why, throw them a few bones — Ms. Warren, for one, and the fake "withdrawal" from Iraq, for two. And if that doesn't shut them up, well then, to hell with them!
And they didn't even appoint her to head up the new "consumer agency" — but remember, we're supposed to be grateful for whatever crumbs the Washington elites throw our way.
David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, said:
Appointing Harvard professor Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenThe Hill's 12:30 Report If Hillary wins, she should serve one term and move on Warren’s power on the rise MORE to set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a great step. Warren offers the promise of what financial consumers need most - a tough advocate to clean up an industry that has made unfairness and deception its core business model. The appointment appears to give Warren a strong role in the critical and urgent task of establishing the agency, and that is very good for consumers.
At the same time, giving Warren this job does not - and should not - preclude President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaPoll: Clinton outpacing Obama with millennials 5 things the US must do to avoid losing influence in Asia When did Russia become the enemy again? MORE from later nominating her to direct the agency. The White House has suggested that it prefers to have Warren help establish the agency right now rather than become bogged down for months in a confirmation fight. That view is certainly a reasonable, given Senate Republicans' obstruction of so many presidential nominees. But Warren is the right person for the job, and she is confirmable. That means it will be worth fighting to secure her confirmation at a later date. The big banks and their supporters in the Senate would be foolish to oppose her with the American public watching. Warren would emerge from the fight not only confirmed, but even better known and therefore strengthened as a national champion for consumers.