Obama Concedes Defeat on Daschle while Republicans Declare Victory on Judd Gregg and Daschle's Downfall
During the battle over John Bolton's Senate confirmation to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations, a post that Bolton ultimately achieved through presidential recess appointment rather than by Senate vote, I noticed a peculiar difference between leading Democrats and leading Republicans.
On the Sunday morning talk shows, leading Democrats kept saying that while they weren't big John Bolton fans, ultimately the President would win the fight over the confirmation of America's leading pugnacious nationalist. At various times during the 21-month long struggle, then Senator Joseph Biden, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Richard Durbin, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and Senator Patrick Leahy all said on political shows that Bolton would get confirmed. To his credit, Durbin actually withdrew his statement and issued a release through this blog commending those working hard to stop Bolton's confirmation.
Dems were conceding before they needed to -- and the Republicans, through the entire battle, were declaring victory even though there was dissension in their own ranks and they were losing the confirmation war.
Obama seems to be replicating the pattern -- conceding defeat on Tom Daschle, one of the people most responsible for actually creating the Obama political machine -- and on the very same day yielding a senior cabinet position at the Department of Commerce not to a leading business official or Democratic Congressman or Governor -- but rather giving it to Judd Gregg who voted 14 years ago to abolish the Commerce Department.
People will be parsing for some time Tom Daschle's missteps with his taxes, and why he wasn't vetted more by the Obama team, and whether Rahm Emanuel was part of the game knifing Daschle from behind, and what the political upper crust in Washington sees as "normal" when they leave office -- but what this was mostly about was the opposing team taking down one of Obama's most important chess pieces.
This was all about Obama, about humbling him, about dividing progressives over whether to support or oppose Daschle.
What we see are two interesting things. First, we see that the divisions between the political franchises inside the Obama camp are fraught with tension and anger now. Many of Daschle's camp are quite furious with Obama's chief of staff.
And the Republican opposition, which has appeared of late to be weak and inchoate. . .isn't.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
I wish it wasn't the case, but let's face it: Republicans are tough and Democrats are weak. Democrats are afraid to fight.
Obama is well within his rights to demagogue the Republicans on the stimulus bill. He should point out the obvious: Republicans are more concerned with perpetuating trickle-down Reaganism, the policies which have destroyed the economic security of the middle class, even though those polcies are directly responsible for the economic crisis we face.
The Republicans have forfeited any claim as to having the average Americans best interests in mind. Why Obama inssist on giving these saboteurs of the common good any voice in national affairs is infuriating.
February 3, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a defeat for the Democrats. Daschle proved unfit, done in by his misjudgment in not revealing the tax matter (and it wasn't a trivial one like Geithner's) during or before the vetting process.
I am relieved. As soon as I heard Obama say he was 100% behind Daschle I wondered if his walking papers hadn't just come off the printer. He's hardly the only one who can do the job. Will Dr. Howard Dean take it? Will it be offered?
February 3, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dean probably won't be offered the job. If he is, it will be with Rahm and much of the Democratic establishment kicking and screaming.
Unless, of course, they learn that he's taken $200,000 from health industry businesses. That will help his case and establish some competence:)
As far as Leahy, he could snap his fingers and create something like the Church Committee on Assasinations, to look into the lead up to war, but I don't see any hint that he has the character to do anything like that.
February 3, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clemons has this one wrong on both scores in his title.
The Daschle nomination was not something worth fighting about. There's a difference between fighting on governing principle and fighting on ideological principle.
Under normal circumstances, Geithner would have been dead in the water, too. I mean, we're going to put a guy in charge of the Treasury who can't even get his own taxes right - even after being notified of the problem once by the IRS?
But notice the difference between Obama's language with Geithner and his language with Daschle. Obama made it VERY clear that not only did he want Geithner, but he couldn't afford any other pick. Geithner WAS the "short list," in its entirety.
Obama took no such steps with Daschle. Yes, he expressed support for him, but he never once drew that line in the sand that he did with Geithner.
It's not about winning every fight. It's about knowing when it's worth fighting.
As for Gregg, why would the Republicans celebrate? They basically ran around like chickens with their heads cut off when the news came out. Now, they've got a replacement Senator who, from all reports, is more like Olympia Snowe than Kay Bailey Hutchison. And, she has agreed not to run for re-election, in a state that has officially turned blue. Democrats would much rather run for an open seat than one with Gregg in it.
February 3, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the spin you present.
February 3, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that you think the above is spin is rather telling. What you see as messaging is what I've been saying on here for a while.
Daschle, as it turns out, was a mistake. His dropping out doesn't hurt Obama - in fact, the longer Daschle stayed *in*, the more it hurt.
As for Judd Gregg, how is it a loss for Obama to get the guy he wants at Commerce? (And please spare me the "Republican replacement" argument. There was no way Senate Republicans - Gregg included - were going to remain quiet while Gov. Lynch appointed away their only legislative tool.)
February 3, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"rather telling" -- What does it tell you, since you bring it up?
Maybe you should detune your sarcasm detector a bit?
February 3, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You used the word "spin", not me. But, since you're unwilling to clarify that yourself, I suppose I'll have to share what it implies to me (and, I suspect, to most readers).
When you say I presented "spin", that strongly implies that I don't really believe what I'm saying, and that it's simply some sort of either wishful thinking or deliberate messaging, rather than an honest opinion. It gives the deliberate impression that I'm being dishonest in an attempt to sway opinion.
The word has an inherently negative connotation. It's why most people who use it do so in the manner of, say, Eric Wattree (his TPM blog series is titled "Beneath The Spin") or Bill O'Reilly ("The O'Reilly Factor" is often called "The No-Spin Zone" - mostly by wingers, but that's not the point).
You may not like what I wrote, and that's fine. You'll have plenty of company on this board and elsewhere, and that bothers me not in the least. Implying dishonesty, though - which seems to be what you intentionally did - tells me I can have no further discourse with you.
February 3, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that is your spin on "spin", but I didn't ask about that.
Any unnecessary implications you make up from what I post are entirely your own doing here.
btw -- A fair synonym for 'spin' would be 'slant' here. Does that spin change your spin on 'spin' as I used it?
February 4, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"whether Rahm Emanuel was part of the game knifing Daschle from behind"
"Many of Daschle's camp are quite furious with Obama's chief of staff. "
Let's see THAT story fleshed out, TPM!
February 3, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Randi Rhodes mentioned on her show today... She would like to know who is 'leaking' all this tax information?
The scandals do seem to be surfacing and attaching themselves to 'certain' [oh traitor?] candidates. And now some people are angry at Rahm? Rahm the total professional accused of being a big mouth?
Those boys! But wait, which one out of those boys has been 'allegedly' known to rat on other Democrats to both the media and the otherside...?
Ouch. Fast forward to today in Huffingtonpost:
Or, more to the point "who's his informant"?
Plus, today Josh Marshall gives us bad boy Stephanopulous "tut tut" snipe.
God would I like to see inside the Clintons skeleton closet kept nicely under lock and key by these guys.
Somehow I don't think this little gossip group, as Rachel Maddox would say: "they're just not that into you"
Obama ran such a tight ship during the primary, just look what happens when you bring the Clinton team in! Can't say he wasn't warned.
February 3, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politico Article Link: Power, politics, gossip on daily call.
and the
TPMCAFE MJR: Carville/Woodward Link
February 3, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh, right. Daschle revealed just how weak he really is...so he's gone, done in by his own decision to not seek the post.
I was wrong about Daschle. Perhaps the fire in his belly is completely gone with his last election defeat.
Don't know. But I certainly don't view this as a defeat by Obama. I suspect there was a big push for Daschle and now that's gone by the wayside.
The rest of you can ponder the mysteries of all this; I'm interested in who will be heading up healthcare reform and would like opinions addressing that.
Thanks.
February 3, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daschle didn't get knifed from behind. He dropped a knife on his own foot. Boo hoo.
Davos parties, Washington parties, Hollywood parties, Wall Street bonuses, Beltway freebies: this whole culture of greedy indulgence, exploitation and taking has to end.
This is one of the things people actually elected Obama to do. Everyone outside Washington gets this.
February 3, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely put.
February 3, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone outside Washington gets this.
I wonder where Clemons works and lives.
"They're . . . the Washington insiders who have served on the Hill or in an administration and then gone on to pocket millions as lobbyists for the same companies they once regulated or subsidized. To the American who's outside the power centers -- the places of entitlement and I'll-scratch-your-back-while-you-scratch-mine deal making -- the entire system seems rotten." Robert Reich
Seems, [sir]! nay it is; I know not "seems."
February 3, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. This is about Democratic penchant for personal corruption. When the central figure in tax writing policy cheats (Rangel), then the Treasury head cheats (Geithner), and the man in charge of most of federal spending cheats (Daschle), there is no other conclusion than central figures of federal finance are all . And this doesn't even address Daschle's lobbyist wife!
One can rail against the Bush administration, but their failures can be described as overzealous pursuit of protecting the citizenry. The Democrats, on the other hand, are in overzealous pursuit of protecting their pocketbooks with tax evasion. Worse the Dem establishment is willing to protect thes people, making them accomplices.
What a gross display of hypocritical fraud and political privilege. You should be thanking Rahm for backing away from the abyss.
February 3, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!
"One can rail against the Bush administration, but their failures can be described as overzealous pursuit of protecting the citizenry."
As I read that sentence I thought it was going to read:
One can rail against the Bush administration, but their failures can be described as overzealous pursuit of laissez-faire.
We're talking economics here, not FISA and criminal misadventures in Iraq etc. Cox, Donaldson, Greenspan, and Paulson NEVER were even close to zealous in favor of protecting real people or our money.
February 3, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 3, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three words for you, dipshit: K Street Project.
While individual Democrats may have ethics issues, at least they never tried to institutionalize pay-for-play politics like your scumbag Republican Party.
And here's a few more words for you: STFU. Republicans accusing Democrats of endemic is the height of hypocrisy.
February 3, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say this for the Bush administration, they never for one minute forgot that their goal was to drive home their agenda as swiftly and ruthlessly as possible.
Democrats can't even find their agenda. If they could, they wouldn't need 3 Republicans in the cabinet to help facilitate their focus group.
February 3, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taking lessons from the Bush Maladministration on how to build a better mousetrap? I'll pass.
February 3, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Learn from your enemies, too.
February 3, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lesson I take from Bush Maladministration ethics goes as follows.
(1) Study how they did things.
(2) Do not repeat any of the methods in (1).
(3) When in doubt, reread (2) and repeat.
February 3, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, we need to make up our mind here. Is this a great victory for Progressive and populist Democrats as the comments on Dr. Reich's post seem to believe or is the is a yet another great victory for those Evil but oh so much better at politics than us Republicans? Somebody help me out, because I'm really confused.
Oh, and if the answer is "all of the above," I think maybe that's got to be taken as a pretty good sign that the noble populists and "Progressives" need to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and figure out which side they're on.
February 3, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just so confused. I thought I was on the Democratic side but Gregg and his replacement are Republicans. I think it's you Blue Dogs who can't ever figure out what side you are on.
February 3, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a whipped topping and a floor wax.
February 3, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daschle was the wrong person in the first place. The public wants single payer public health care. Obama is offering improved access to crappy health insurance. Daschle needed to go down as the first step to getting the right program.
February 3, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can we leverage this opportunity, Marquis?
February 3, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The public doesn't want single payer health care.
The Obama administration has very little chance now of even getting its more limited program.
Good God almighty
February 3, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if the "public" knew what single payer was, it wouldn't matter.
With the economic collapse and even if Democrats are able to avoid self-immolation in time to pass a recovery package, the chances of passing any health care reform are very slight indeed.
The political will, skill and policy window simply won't be there when the time comes
That's the real Daschle tragedy
Polling Data
Do you favour or oppose a single payer National Health Insurance Plan overseen by the federal government?
Favour
29%
Oppose
39%
Not sure
31%
Source: Rasmussen Reports
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,000 American adults, conducted from Mar. 30 to Mar. 31, 2008. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
Polling Data
Do you favour or oppose a single payer national health plan overseen by the federal government?
Favour
33%
Oppose
42%
Not sure
25%
How serious are the nation's health insurance problems?
Very serious
66%
Somewhat serious
24%
Not very serious
6%
Not at all serious
1%
Not sure
3%
Source: Rasmussen Reports
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 800 likely American voters, conducted on Feb. 7 and Feb. 8, 2007. Margin of error is 4 per cent.
February 3, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your data belie your claim. 90% think there is a serious problem. 60% don't reject single payer, and that was about a year ago.
If 2-3 plans are presented side by side, an informed debate could progress. "do nothing" is out because of the 90%. So that leaves
Single payer
The Obama plan
Other
February 3, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was all about Obama, about humbling him, about dividing progressives over whether to support or oppose Daschle.
Indeed.
Been Dean screaming this all day around here. God save us from Democrats channeling Ann Coulter.
Too many progressives too self-absorbed to realize the GOP has just gutted health care reform
February 3, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How sorry is the "progressive left?
A chortling (giggling) Rachael Madow thinks this is no more signficant than Kimba Woods or Zoe Baird
That sorry
February 3, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when did Tom Daschle become the great hero who is going to save the health care system? What did Daschle ever save when he was a weak majority leader in the Senate? He did an awesome job on Iraq, huh?
With all due respect to Steve's upset friends inside the Daschle "franchise", Obama will pick a new guy or gal, possibly much more dynamic and less lobbyist-laden than Daschle, and within a few days nobody will even remember this. Mr. Mountain, let me introduce you to Mr. Molehill.
February 3, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good thing that Dashle is out. I hope it was Obama himself who forced him to fall on his sword. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/01/daschle/
So far, frankly, it seems that Obama has massively underestimated just what a bunch of nasty malevolent pricks and scumbags he's dealing with on the Republican side, and, frankly, on the establishmentarian Democratic side.
The long knives are out for this president and no matter how much he compromises, there are forces that are determined to sabotage him (and/or co-opt him, which is tantamount to the same thing) from all "sides".
His whole candidacy was "off script". From the POV of the systematically (legally!!!) corrupt establishment, Obama must be co-opted or destroyed.
"Team of rivals" made some sense for Lincoln at that time and in that context. It's turning out to be a mistake here and now. (maybe some of these folks have read the book too ;-)
Neither the Democratic nor the Republican establishments want to really work with Obama beyond the level of lip service....and the more Obama tries to be "just one of the boys" by caving in....the worse it will eventually be for Obama and for the United States.
The political establishment in the USA is indeed non partisan. It's a morally and ethically legally corrupt pay to play system that has infected our politics and our policy from root to branch.
Obama is still the president and he still has the power to change course. He still has the power to hire and fire. He needs to use those powers.
It's only been a few weeks; but the trajectory that we're now on leads to a failed presidency and a complete mess for ordinary Americans who aren't already in the category of being rich and powerful.
Obama must come to realize that his best interests and hopes are served by working with and *leading* the actual PEOPLE of the United States. They/we actually *believed* that stuff about change.
Obama can start recovering this presidency by appointing someone like Robert Reich or even Howard Dean to HHS. As for Judd Gregg, he should be told to take a hike by the Democrats in congress, if not by Obama himself......that appointment is a complete blunder by any standard.
The best hope I have is for Obama to announce a change of direction in his upcoming SOU address in which he calls upon the people to help him fight for real systemic/radical change.
"Radical" is not a dirty word. This country's dis-ease go down to the roots of the legally (!!!) corrupt system and so must the cure.
If Obama actually came out in public as being for radical/substantial/systemic reforms of the legalized corruption that has become our government AND our "private sector"
he would have 90% of the country behind him (his email list would quadruple :-)....but the call for reform needs to be for real; not just more of the same old poll driven bullshit.
There is not much of a "middle way" here. The problems we face are too severe and too profound. Obama will either be a one term failure (in which case America is even more screwed than it is now) or he will rise to the occasion and become, over the next eight years, the transformative leader most of us voted for.
February 4, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say I agree...That's why we call them "Republicrats." Obama is a breath of fresh air for us because he made us believe again in America as we know she can be. The very idea that the "people"
could get thrown under the bus on this is repulsive to me. I want congress to either follow him, or get out of the way. I've had enough dirty politics to last a lifetime.
February 4, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those nasty and malevolent repubs, how DARE they demand such an illustrious socialist as Daschle obey the law and pay taxes.
Don't these stupid repubs know the democrat aristocracy is above the law?
February 4, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hmmmm . . .
It's baaaaackkk . . .
~OGD~
February 4, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. A post that actually creates in me the impulse to defend Rahm Emanuel. So classic that Clemons chooses someone like Daschle as the place where we should make our stand.
How about President Obama and the Democratic leadership actually get out and make the case to the American people for what the recovery/stimulus package will DO, instead of fetishizing "bipartisanship" and protecting your genial, overcompensated friends who have already sold out to the financial industry that's taking this country down?
February 4, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
@John McC SF:
What a sorry state this country is in if the only hope of achieving a slice-of-the-loaf public insurance pool as a maybe-someday-thin-end-of-the-wedge way to get to truly public universal health care is for an AHIP-approved corporate whore like Tom Daschle to use his vacant, genial gravitas to ensure the continuing parasitic drag of the insurance-dominated, employer-dependent joke of a "health care" system we now enjoy.
February 4, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink