What does the Blocked Cordray Nomination tell us about the Republican Party?

1) Republicans would rather 'play politics' than let the Administration 'assemble their Team' -- as is the normal expectation for a Presidential winner.  George Bush got his Administration Team in due order. Obama, not so much.

What if Senate continues to block Richard Cordray at CFPB?

by Kate Davidson and MJ Lee, politico.com -- May 19, 2013

[...]
The battle over whether to confirm Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may serve as good politics and allow both parties to rile up their bases, but there has been little evidence that the standoff has prevented the agency -- the cornerstone of Democrats’ 2010 Wall Street reform law -- from doing its job.

Since Cordray was installed through a controversial recess appointment in January 2012, the agency has marched through its day-to-day work, including writing highly anticipated, and lobbied, mortgage rules while putting in place programs to supervise banks and other lenders.
[...]

As a recess appointee, Cordray can stay in the job only through the end of this year. But even that timetable will likely not be of much significance. After Cordray departs, the agency will be run by the next in line and there is little reason to think the bureau’s agenda would change at that point.
[...]

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

2) Republican's objection is not with the Nominee Richard Cordray  -- but rather with the Democratic Legislative process itself. This current episode is more about protesting the Dodd-Frank legislation, than it is an objection with the Nominee himself.  They have said as much.

In certain playground arenas this might be called:  "Taking the ball, and running home."

The GOP doesn’t oppose Richard Cordray. It opposes his whole agency.

by Mike Konczal, washingtonpost.com -- May 25, 2013

[...]
The GOP has been quite frank for several years now: their problem isn’t with Cordray, or with any specific candidate. They just don’t want anybody in the office with the CFPB structured the way it currently is under Dodd-Frank.
[...]

Conservatives are in a double bind when it comes to the CFPB. Their argument is that the CFPB “would wield nearly unprecedented powers” and lack “normal, democratic checks.” The CFPB, by their account, represents a major power grab on a scale never before attempted in the history of the regulatory state.

That is clearly wrong. The CFPB is structured to look like all the other banking regulators. Indeed, it is consciously modeled as a consumer-focused version of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). And as we’ll see, the powers that Republicans are arguing are unprecedented are actually the same powers and structures the other banking regulators have. [...] Already it’s bringing accountability to the financial sector on behalf of consumers: It’s gone after illegal or deceptive practices at American Express, Discover, and Capital One and is bringing extensive new regulations to the housing market. It is, as they say, a big deal, and it is now the law of the land.
[...]

Yet the Party of Obstruction will insist, No, it's about the "principle of the thing":

That Consumers now having a small measure of oversight over the Titans of Wall Street, is somehow bad for the economy.