Overboard
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
It isn’t always reliable, but the rule I follow is that if an administration has done something to bother David Broder it has probably done something right or at least something smart. Regarding the Daschle mess, Broder writes:
Even when the White House belatedly learned of Daschle’s tax troubles, it misjudged the political fallout. Despite the glaring contradiction between Obama’s proclaimed ethical standards and Daschle’s lucrative expense-account life that led to his tax underpayment, Obama said he “absolutely” stood by his choice. One day later, he accepted Daschle’s withdrawal. This is a blow to Obama’s credibility that will not be easily forgotten.
Of all the things to criticize about Obama’s mistakes in the first few weeks, this seems the strangest one to hold up as damaging. Arguably, appointing Daschle or failing to investigate Daschle’s tax problems and insurance industry connections was the major blunder; quickly climbing down from support for the nominee was not. At what point did Obama’s habit of dropping inconvenient political allies and associates start to be seen as damaging to his credibility by establishment pundits. No matter how close to Obama they have been, friends and allies are thrown overboard with the greatest of ease after having issued ringing declarations of fidelity and everlasting bonds of trust. Remember “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community” or “I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother”? The disowning followed a little later. Granted, it wasn’t the next day, but it is the same idea. After the Philadelphia speech where he made those remarks, in which he defended his membership at Trinity, it took all of a couple months for him to cut his ties with the church, too, after it had become just a little too embarrassing. Power says something offensive about his opponent? She is banished for the remainder of the campaign, and has returned to his camp only much later.
Now that Daschle, one of his patrons and long-time supporters, had become a millstone around his neck, he casts him away, and in this case the decision to drop him was obviously the right and smart move under the circumstances. This is how the man operates: when what is useful to his advancement at one point becomes a burden, he abandons it after a display of support to make it seem as if the abandonment is reluctant. It seems to be very politically effective, as Obama’s continued rise demonstrates. His fans will read this as a very hostile criticism, but it seems to me that it is just a description. After the last administration, when corrupt or incompetent officials had to be pried out of their positions with tremendous public pressure and criticism, and then only after some catastrophic failure on their watch, it is a welcome change to have a President who will throw his people to the wolves almost immediately.
The people who should be most upset by the Cabinet troubles are probably progressives, especially those interested in seeing some major health care legislation in the 111th Congress. Daschle was one of the few Cabinet selections whom progressives found unobjectionable, and some were even enthused by the choice, so it may be a sign of the administration’s priorities that he was made into the sacrificial offering while Geithner, whose competence and judgement in his last post are questionable at best, was kept on. Faced with comparable scandals, the relative centrist with Goldman Sachs ties stays on and the relative progressive health care advocate is dropped. Guardians of the status quo ought to be well pleased, which makes Broder’s complaints all the more strange.
Filed under: politics
Your measure of Obama has been fairly apt, but your assessments of political expedience are getting to be a bit caricatured here. (1) Obama tossed Rev Wright overboard when Wright didn’t extend the same familial defensiveness to Obama when he went public with his indignant criticism directed at Obama. The dissolution of that alliance is all on Wright. (2) Power made herself a target against a target hungry opponent. I’m not convinced this sort of maneuver is unique to Obama. Furthermore, when that episode went down, the first thing I thought was that Obama and Power still knew she would be in the Administration if he was elected. (3) I’m baffled by the arguments that Obama shouldn’t be dinged for Daschle since he held up to his professed standard. The way I recall it, Obama toed the line for Daschle, much like he did for Wright. It was Daschle that pulled the plug. You (and others) seem to have this one completely backwards.
I have to agree with dougie on all points. You can discard every account that blatantly contradicts your position, but you start to become some kind of weird conspiracy theorist.
I just want to say, especially about the Wright thing, in the weeks leading up to Obama’s speech and in the months after his speech, before he finally cut his ties with Wright, he continued to defend the man. His defense of Wright in the speech was but one instance. It was only after Wright kicked dirt in his face that he finally broke. So, let’s recap: near 20 years of loyalty to Wright as his pastor… Months and months of indescribable political turmoil when Obama’s whole future was on the line, before a final, painful break. To cast that as some sort of self-serving expediency when the very public record of what happened shows *constancy* is really in bad taste.
Powers removed herself from the campaign when she saw there was an uproar, but I understand that was a joint decision. Daschle pulled out, and it seemed like a genuine surprise to everyone, including Obama. Since Daschle’s brother is extremely ill with brain cancer, I think it’s fair to argue that Daschle may be too emotionally frail to fight, looking for an excuse to get out of his commitment, or both.
There’s a point when “realism” crosses into repugnant cynicism. No matter what public statements are made to the contrary, you know what REALLY happened, right? This is pretty disappointing lack of realism from a realist.
I’m not offended by the inference, I’m just not sure it’s accurate in this case. Is it really the case that Obama threw Daschle overboard? My impression is that Daschle himself surprised Obama, and realizing that he was facing a more serious opposition that he expect, he just suddenly withdrew. Daschle is the ultimate insider, and he knows how the game is played better than Obama even, and the sense I got is that Daschle read the papers monday morning, phoned some friends, and realized the best thing to do was get out fast, before this got drawn out any further. I don’t even think he was primarily considering the effect it might have on Obama, but on his own future in Washington. So who knows, maybe Obama would have thrown him under the bus anyway, but I don’t think he even got the chance. But it’s way hilarious how idiots like Broder manage to pick out the least important aspect of this kind of thing to emphasize. They really don’t care about anything but process. Substance makes their eyes glaze over.
I don’t think Daschle “surprised” Obama, but I agree it was very likely a joint decision. Daschle’s future would be more harmed as a strategic advisor by a bad confirmation process than by bowing out. I wager one of Obama’s advisors called him to talk about how things looked, probably suggesting they didn’t seem to look good. Daschle probably said, “It’s not going to happen”; and they agreed to pull the plug to their mutual benefit.
As for Wright, conrad and the rest are too generous. Obama defended Wright until he was past the primaries with large pluralities of black voters (i.e., “Super Tuesday” and Virginia.) Then he took the opportunity offered by Wright’s (characteristically) buffoonish, self-aggrandizing performance at the Press Club to kick him to the curb. The notion that he would’ve continued to embrace Wright as he moved into the primaries dominated by ethnic white voters and Latinos is too silly to consider.
I don’t think it’s much of a criticism of Obama to point out that he’s a calculating politician who doesn’t allow sentiment or ideology to impair his ambitions (or “goals” if you prefer.) After 8 years of looney tunes, even as a right-winger, I think it’s a welcome change.
Geithner was confirmed without much fuss; on the heels of that confirmation, with second cabinet appointee having dubious tax issues, this time for fat-cat stuff that’s read meat for hungry populist pundits, it was clear that Daschle was going to be in for some serious grilling. It would have been extremely expensive politically to get him confirmed. I think that, not the political leanings of the appointee, was the key difference. Though I believe the insight that progressives, in general, will be disappointed with Obama’s policy appointments and policy positions in general is correct. He may not be the triangulator in chief, but I expect that his approach to governing will be much more of the center-left style used by Bill Clinton than the pure progressive approach favored by the left (and anticipated by many of his critics from the right during the campaign).
I’m also pleased to see that Obama is not sentimental in getting rid of, or allowing to resign, people who fail to perform well or to do what is right. After the disastrous consequences of Bush’s tendencies to stand by his advisors regardless of their incompetence or malfeasance, this does seem to be change we can believe in. Assuming he now finds people who are both qualified to do the work and meet ethical standards. One wonders how hard it will be to find people meeting both of these requirements.