I understand this, I really do:
People on the left are not looking at Obama’s appointments with a jaundiced eye because they think he needs to apply some liberal orthodoxy litmus test. They have legitimate concerns that people like Geitner, Summers and other Rubin acolytes created this mess, and it’s reasonable to ask why they’re being appointed to get us out of it. While some of us want to give Obama a chance to fulfill the promises he campaigned on and work with the staff of his choice in order to do so, we’d have to be a bunch of intellectually dishonest kool-aid swilling freaks to pretend his economics team didn’t have some troublesome baggage.
And after the past eight years, it’s a bit much to stomach someone saying “just shut up and trust me, because I know better.”
At the same time, I just don’t have it in me to get all spastic about things until after the inauguration when his team starts to do things. I guess I am just more patient than others- look what it took for me to finally leave the GOP.
On a related note, Frank Rich’s column yesterday was an absolute must read.
sid
Dear John,
Just remember a lot of the people saying these things are the same ones who have been right for almost a decade now, and were calling you out in your past life which still seems to exact a toll on your brain now and then (this subject being one of them).
They are right, his choices are suspect and not the change he campaigned on, we should speak out to ensure when he is in power that he uses it for the change he promised.
This isn’t about patience, it’s about him bringing in people who helped cause the problem of today.
John Cole
Not sure how what I said and what you said are mutually exclusive, Sid.
Laura W
Krugman seems to be a patient man as well, but is not promising any sweets and flowers quite yet.
Mrs. Peel
They don’t trust him since his blatant flip-flop on FISA. Can’t say I blame them too much. Certain people (besides PUMA’s) have been leery of what Obama actually means to do since the days of his light and fluffy "motherhood, America and a hot lunch for orphans" feel-good speeches. It’s their way of saying "Don’t try to pull anything funny, Stretch. We’ve got our eye on you".
They weren’t thrilled with the choices they had in candidates, but refused to vote for McCain. However, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
His "change" is starting to look like an new item on a Taco Bell menu. It might have a different name and shape, but it’s still the same rice and beans inside.
donovong
Glad to see the patience. Unfortunately, some folks would not be satisfied even if he were to mysteriously conjure the reincarnations of JFK, MLK, Thomas Jefferson and Ghandi to serve on the fucking Cabinet. Just like certain fools who shall remain nameless (Barney Frank) who expect him to be acting like the president that he is not yet.
He could walk on the fucking water, pooping jobs along with the loaves and fishes and some idiots would be criticizing the fact that he got the hem of his magical cloak wet.
gwendy
I don’t think there’s anyway Obama can get the nomination without liberal bloggers and columnists. Clearly, Edwards has this thing sewn up.
Actually, I think it’s good to have an active and forceful liberal base pushing from the left. Obama has always had a stand-offish relationship with them, which many may have forgotten about in the heat of battle. At the end of the day, though, I think the goals are the same but there will be a lot of disagreement about the timing and methods along the way. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t hurt Obama’s feelings too much, but if it gives him the leverage he needs to move left faster on some issues, it’s all to the good.
Eric U.
just going back to the Clinton Administration would be a damn welcome change as far as I’m concerned. Granted, his guys helped start some of the current problems, but I sincerely doubt they would have steered us so far into the ditch. Sure I want something else, but sometimes politics is about compromise.
I agree we have to be a bit noisy. Since the entire media is pushing him to do whatever the republicans want him to do, there has to be a push from the other side.
Balconesfault
The thing that encourages me the most about Obama is that he is selling a rhetoric that government is part of the solution, not part of the problem.
It’s been, what, 30+ years since we’ve heard that from the White House? Even when Clinton was making sure the bureaucracy did their job, he was still running against the idea of Big Government.
I’m willing to give Obama slack, because he’s not just working on solutions – he’s working on how the American people perceive those solutions, and their relationship with the Federal Government. That is key to not just bringing some kind of change, but to making it stick.
The difference between Obama and Bush on appointments, is that we never heard from the Obama Campaign "he doesn’t know much about this but he’ll have really smart people telling him what to do". I think the buck will stop with Barack, and that he’s going to be using his advisors and cabinet members to advise, and not to set policy themselves.
DougJ
On a related note, Frank Rich’s column yesterday was an absolute must read.
It was interesting, but I’m not so sure I agree with it *at all*. In what way are Obama’s appointees anything like McNamara and Bundy? Geithner and Summers haven’t run for anything, but they have served in Treasury and the Fed for years. McNamara and Bundy had never served in government before. And when was the last time we had a Treasury Secretary who was a politician? I the answer is Lloyd Bensten and that was 15 years ago.
Let’s look at the other appointees — Hillary Clinton, who was a Senator for six years, Bill Richardson, who’s been a governor for longer than that, Jim Jones and Shinseki (who, while not politicians, were generals for years). Which one of these is anything like McNamara or McBundy? Can you find me a single example of someone among the appointees who was smart-ass Harvard professor with no political or civil service experience?
Rich’s analysis is really quite a stretch.
4tehlulz
It would be so much better if Obama selected a bunch of baggage-free n00bs to key positions; that way, when they get crushed because they do know the mechanization of DC, Obama can at least say he was pure.
And that is what is important, although personally, I’d have gone with people who know where the bodies are buried, but that’s just me.
J.
I just don’t have it in me to get all spastic about things until after the inauguration when his team starts to do things.
I’m with you John. Let’s cut the guy some slack. Or it could be that my man cold and the Giants AND Jets losses yesterday have made me weak and dulled my otherwise fiery liberal senses.
Btw, while Rich’s column is definitely interesting — even thought-provoking — I don’t know about "must read." I don’t necessarily see Obama and his highly educated team making the same mistakes that JFK and his team did. Again, let us cut the man, and his cabinet, some slack.
gwangung
Remember this. Engrave it in your brain.
Push hard, harder and hardest for your principles. It’ll get used well.
r€nato
I think there is an important change in the dynamic which is being missed here: there is now no need to co-opt Republican positions on deregulation, like there was in the 90s.
At least, I hope that Obama’s nominees understand that and cease with the triangulating bullshit.
The public is completely disenchanted with the GOP way of doing things. They voted them out with extreme prejudice in 2006 and even more so this year.
I am optimistic that Obama’s economic advisors will understand this and act accordingly.
I hope I am not proved incorrect…
Zifnab
None of these guys were saints. And Geitner and Summers aren’t exactly the reincarnations of Adam Smith, here. They’ve got a history of flawed economic viewpoints.
We’re getting better news than another Bush term a la McCain, and for that I’m thankful. And replacing Paulson with someone who isn’t going to pull large numbers out of his ass and toss around billions to corporate cronies would be a definite step forward.
But we don’t want this financial collapse to last any longer than it has to. This isn’t simply about ideological flavors here, we’re not arguing that Obama’s "strawberry" economists aren’t as good as our "pineapple" guys. This is a matter of economic recovery or lingering recession. People wouldn’t oppose Obama’s picks if they thought they’d be able to get the job done the best way possible.
Compromise in this case shouldn’t mean trading a practical solution for the appearance of bipartisanship.
Comrade Jake
@Mrs. Peel:
For the love of Christ, this is so fucking lame. If you folks really thought Obama’s "change" was going to be a lurch to the left, you just weren’t paying attention.
TheHatOnMyCat
DougJ has it right. Rich’s column is not just a stretch, it’s a crock.
It’s as if Broder went on a bender and decided to end it all with one last concern troll outburst.
Comrade Jake
In other news, the SC won’t review the citizenship nonsense. I look forward to Pamela Geller’s head continuing to explode.
gwendy
By the way, Hildebrand’s post decrying the left (which hasn’t been that loud or critical up until he mentioned it) was idiotic. Maybe he wants the media to play up some "nutty liberals are mad at Obama" storyline. Or maybe he’s just being a knob.
4tehlulz
@Comrade Jake: You have to wonder if Clarence Thomas decided to troll these guys for the lulz.
John Cole
For the life of me, I don’t know what you all are talking about re: Rich. I didn’t think the point of his piece was that the Obama team was going to make all the mistakes of the Kennedy clan, I thought his point was that when people today use the phrase the “Best and the Brightest,” they miss the fact that for the most part, they weren’t either.
The Rich piece wasn’t a condemnation of Team Obama or a prediction, it was a cautionary tale, and one that is particularly relevant while we sit around and hear how wonderful all the Obama picks are (which is as silly, IMHO, as all the gasping and moaning about how horrible they are). The original best and the brightest got us into Viet Nam, I remember how the “seasoned vets” of Bush were lauded in 2000- it is something to remember when going forward with Team Obama.
And I thought I was the Obama apologist? Is there any way for you folks to stop yo-yoing from one extreme to the other?
r€nato
when you’re too nutty for Scalia and Thomas and Alito and Roberts…
gwangung
Nope. Nature of the blogosphere. Bipolarism is a virtue here.
TheHatOnMyCat
That was the putative "point." Which, as points go, is pretty weak. I read Halberstam’s book a long time ago and had no trouble figuring out what the title meant.
The fact that the title phrase has morphed says something about the media and their laziness, but I can’t find that it says anything about Obama’s nominations, despite Rich’s tortured hand-wringing about the supposed similarities.
No, like I said, his column was a crock, and DougJ has it exactly right.
PK
I read the Frank Rich column and all I can say is that some people are never happy. We have had the incompetents and the stupids for the last 8 yrs. Now we are supposed to bitch and moan because we have the wonks and the nerds, who may or may not lead us to disaster. Even I, who hated Bush on sight, did not start complaining till he actually started to screw things up. I agree with John on this one. I am sure if we are patient Obama will give us plenty to wring our hands over once he becomes president.
TheHatOnMyCat
Well, maybe you could think twice before nominating Rich’s dumbass column (of yesterday) as a "must read."
The only way it’s a "must read" is if you are doing a class on Broderism and want to use an extreme, near-hilarious example.
cleek
fer fuck’s sake, he’s not even in office yet!
the whiners should at least give him a chance to do something before they start moaning and groaning.
you don’t have to be an apologist to withhold criticism until there’s something to criticize, you only have to be aware of the fact that you can’t predict the future.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
I love the smell of ideological purity in the morning…it smells like….smells like PUMA.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
Then they’d have to get a life. And then they’d start dating and maybe breeding and then….honestly, I can tolerate the bitchin’.
John Cole
Now you are just being an idiot. Rich’s piece nowhere approaches high-Broderism. In fact, one of the central tenets of Broderism is that inside the beltway apparatchiks working together to reach bi-partisan consensus is the only way to go. I quit reading Broder, but I would bet he has the damned pom-poms out over the Obama picks. If anything, the Rich piece is the anti-Broder.
TheHatOnMyCat
(Inside the brain of Obama, a short story) …
"Wow, I picked some really smart, talented people here. Wait a minute, Kennedy’s smart talented people got us into Vietnam. Oh shit! I need a cigarette."
-The End
Just Some Fuckhead
I don’t see any yo-yoing here.
Ash Can
I’ve been a Dem sympathizer since the days of George McGovern, and I feel the same way John does. Maybe it’s because I’m more familiar with Obama’s background. I know what kind of smarts it takes to be a con law prof at the U of Chicago (one of the toughest schools anywhere), I know what it takes to be a successful community organizer here (mad diplomatic skillz; just ask my cousin who’s been in that line of work for years), I know what it takes to have the Chicago Democratic Machine eating out of your hand in record time — on the other hand, maybe I don’t know what that last one takes, because, quite frankly, I’ve never seen anyone but Obama pull it off. Maybe it’s because I’m a stickler for the proper use of the English language, and Obama’s handling of it makes the editor’s heart in me go pitter-patter. Maybe it’s because he ran a campaign that was both smooth and devastatingly successful. Or, most likely, it’s a combination of all of the above that makes me unable to get worked up over his appointees thus far.
I’ve seen nothing, but nothing, in the way of evidence that Obama is being anything but careful and thorough in his decisions. I acknowledge that there’s some "troublesome baggage" sitting around, and I’m not offended by people on the left pointing it out. But I also believe that Obama most likely has already had his bomb-sniffing dogs give those bags the twice-over and found them devoid of ordnance. If Obama proceeds, beginning next month, to obviously contradict what he presented himself to be throughout his campaign, I’ll be up in arms along with everyone else. For now, though, I have a hard time believing he’s either as two-faced as he’d have to be to deliberately perpetuate our current economic morass, or as weak as he’d have to be to allow his appointees to jettison his stated policies in favor of their own. Based on everything I’ve seen so far, I’d have to believe folks such as Geithner, Summers et al. would find themselves in the Oval Office, alone with the prez (and maybe a gleeful Chief of Staff), with the door locked behind them, the phone line cut, and the curtains drawn if they were ever to deviate from the policies Obama charged them with carrying out.
tom.a
I hear a lot of "this isn’t the ‘change’ he campaigned on" but what he did campaign on, was bringing in a diverse group of people who did not necessarily agree with him on the majority of his policies or ideas and that is exactly what he’s doing. We’ll have to wait and see on the change part of it, all these soothsayers who whine that the future isn’t already different are beginning to get annoying.
gwangung
On the other hand, as Ezra Klein points out, a lot of things like withdrawl from Iraq, health care and climate change are being positioned as CENTER MIDDLE positions.
Isn’t that a change?
TheHatOnMyCat
Well, then you should follow Rich’s example, and write us a piece on how "Broderism" really means something different from what people are taking it to mean.
Maybe you could get the thing into NYT as an op-ed? They are clearly in need of good content these days, between Rich, Kristol and Brooks.
Rich’s column is a piece of crap, John. On this point it appears that we are going to have to disagree.
Somebody got out on the wrong side of the futon this morning.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
Then go back to bed and stop being a cock. You can disagree without being an insufferable prick.
blogenfreude
The question is, were any of the economic appointees listening when St. Greenspan admitted his ideas were crap …
TheHatOnMyCat
Kiss my ass, you little pipsqueak.
John Cole
I just explained in the last comment what Broderism would look like, and you ignored it.
Piss off. You are just trolling, and probably trying to see how many threads you can queer this morning.
Comrade Jake
I don’t view the Rich piece as a crock, but I have a hard time appreciating it as "must-read" there Cole. OTOH, who fucking cares?
DougJ
I agreed with that part of the column, but it seemed to me the comparison between the Obama team and the Kennedy team was inapt. And just because "best and brightest" seems ironic when applied to inexperienced but smart fellows like Bundy and McNamara doesn’t mean we should be skeptical when a president goes with sharp career civil servants over political appointees.
The Post has an excellent piece on how career bureaucrats are better at running things than political appointees that may be instructive. This is why I applaud appointments like Holder and Geithner, in particular. And why I would have preferred Holbrooke to Hillary.
jenniebee
I peeked into Galbraith’s book over the weekend, and one of his big prescriptions is that it is necessary to move away from free market absolutism because the free market is a very, very bad tool for planning ahead and planning ahead is something that we’ve been missing for a long time and would help us a lot if we did it. Combine that with Mark Schmitt’s excellent essay, The Audacity of Patience, and the wheels start turning in a very pro-Obama way.
Maybe he isn’t going to deliver the things I’d like America to have in his first term, or even in his Presidency. Even if he doesn’t do that, though, if he lays the groundwork for a three decade swing that shifts the American political center back across the middle and onto the left, he’ll have done more by doing that than he would by using his political capital to shove policy down unwilling throats. And Obama is capable, very capable, of bringing a large coalition of Americans over to the idea that Democrats are the safe default political choice. That’s a paradigm shift we can believe in.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
@TheHatOnMyCat: Yeah, yeah, yeah…internet bravado is cute and all, but really? Pathetic.
TheHatOnMyCat
So, if I disagree with you, I am just trolling?
Really? That’s what you are going with here?
If I disagree with you, I’m trolling?
Are you fucking kidding me?
Cassidy the Racist White Man
No, if you continue to be a shit because no one is agreeing with your disagreeing, that is trolling.
TheHatOnMyCat
You mean, like that story about how you "put your life in danger for your beliefs?" As a standard shutdown for any argument you get into when you start getting in over your head?
That kind of bravado?
cleek
@gwangung:
well, it’s marketing.
and again, he hasn’t done anything yet.
TheHatOnMyCat
I am being a shit because nobody agrees with me?
Really? Is that how it works? So, I was okay up until I polled the responses and found out that "nobody agrees with me," whatever that means, and then if I don’t shut up, I’m a shit?
Or, did I miss something here?
Oops, somebody agreed with me. Am I still a shit? How does this work exacly, Cassidy? And who put you in charge of it?
Cassidy the Racist White Man
Seriously? Is that what you’re resorting too? You are way out of your league man. The really fun part, is that my ego, regarding my career, service, etc. is way too high for peons like you to come close to even touch it.
But if you want to continue with the false courage stuff, what’s next gonna offer to "kick my ass"? Pathetic.
TheHatOnMyCat
It’s your screenplay, dude. You are the one who ran out of gas, for the umpteenth time, and insisted that I tell you when I "put my life in danger for my beliefs." What exactly does that mean? Give me an example, and I assure you, I will give you a proper response.
As for your "ego regarding (your) … service," whatever. You are the one who keeps bringing it up. I’ve never mentioned it, it’s none of my business. If you don’t want to be asked about it, why don’t you stop talking about it?
TheHatOnMyCat
Hadn’t planned on it, but I live in Phoenix, if that’s what you are looking for, just let me know when you are in town, and let’s see what we can work out.
les
It’s not the disagreement, as you would note if you looked. It’s your need to be a dick with anyone who doesn’t worship your pithy wisdom.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
@TheHatOnMyCat: No, I insisted you put your money where your mouth is. You like to make absurd claims that if (name) supports (issue) they’ll go to absurd lengths to defend it. Just by the way you argue, and the phony intellectualism that goes with it, you have never put your self in a position where you have had to live up to the courage of your convictions. You are a phony and a coward. And while I’m sure that you can impress the weak willed and easily manipulated, we both know that you would shit yourself in fear if actually forced to defend your beliefs with courage.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
Pathetic. Internet bravado. I’m sure there’s a weak willed female* who thinks this is cute, but really it’s overdone.
*not a generalization
Genine
I am very progressive, but I have to admit some progressives really piss me off.
Its like nothing is ever good enough for them: Obama is creating a HUGE economic stimulus plan to create jobs and fix our infrastructure, he is working on plans for energy independence. Though the foundation is being laid down now, it looks like the Iraq was will end under his watch. He is making plans for the Gitmo detainees, so that the facility can be closed down. His legal team found, at least, 200 Bush rules he can overturn immediately and more are to come. And it looks like health insurance for everyone will become a reality.
I think all of that is VERY good. Its sure as hell a lot more progress than I’ve seen in my lifetime and though to see in the years immediately following Bush.
But, no. Look at who he hired to get all of that done? It doesn’t matter if he recover economically, get health coverage for all, stop torturing, close Gitmo, and gain energy independence if he had hire people we don’t like to get it done.
Its the ULTIMATE betrayal!
**rolls eyes**
demimondian
@DougJ: I don’t think I agree. Rich is extremely clear that Obama has done exceptionally well with his national security team, and I think I agree. (Then again, what can I say? I’m a pro-defense left winger, so I like a firm and moderately compromizing NatSec and diplomacy team.) I’m not at all enamored of his financial team, and in thinking that they may well lack the intellectual humility to listen to all comers, and, after listening, take their comments seriously, I think that Rich has hit the nail on the head.
TheHatOnMyCat
So, you don’t like my argument, or my style. And therefore, you don’t think I have the courage of my convictions.
And you present this thus: "When have you put your life in danger for your beliefs?"
The topic was capital puishment, which I oppose. So, your assertion seems to me to be, unless I have "put my life in danger for my beliefs" I have no grounds for asserting that your support for capital punishment fails a simple moral test. A point on which reasonable people might disagree, but there it is.
Then, you followed me to another thread and again insisted that I tell when I had "put my life in danger for my beliefs." At that point, I request that you explain what you mean, since quite honestly, I am not familiar with any common use of this phrase, and I don’t live in a day to day world where people are "putting their lives in danger for their beliefs." Nor do I believe that I am under any obligation to "put my life in danger" in order to claim a moral basis for my opposition to capital punishment. My argument stands or falls on its own merits. People can look at it and judge it as they wish.
Again, if you want to give me an example IRL, as they say, of what you mean by "putting your life in danger for your beliefs," then I can give you a proper answer in that context.
Did you have an end game in mind when you decided to hound me across the threads on this thing, Cassidy? Because here we are at the end, if you have an end game, this would be the time to pull it out.
All I have from you is the proof-by-assertion claim that my stance on capital punshment amounts to "phony intellectualism," and that I am required to demonstrate that I have "put my life in danger for my beliefs" in order to compete with you on the subject. Which I will respond to, as soon as I know for sure what you mean by that phrase.
Did I miss anything?
TheHatOnMyCat
Telling you that I wasn’t planning on stooping to your idiotic level of goading, is internet bravado? Whereas, boasting about "putting your life in danger for your beliefs" is not internet bravado?
Do you have Bell & Howell stamped on your forehead? That’s a serious load of projection there, Cassidy.
PK
So Bush had "seasoned vets" in his adiminstration who were lauded as does Obama. Was’nt Dick Cheney supposed to be some kind of a genius as he had had about a hundred yrs of experience!
The problem was not the experience or inexperience of the people in the Bush administration. The real problems were that there was no learning from mistakes, anyone who pointed out errors or went against ideology was marginalized, there was massive corruption of govt agencies and GWB seems to have had no leadership skills .
I don’t know much about Vietnam or the mistakes that led to that war, but I do think that any organization will fail if it is not rational and does not learn from its mistakes. It sounds simple and I really think that it is sometimes that simple. If GWB had not appointed Brownie as head of FEMA, Katrina may not have been screwed up so badly. If Bush or the republicans had any rational understanding of science, they might have figured out that Terri Schivo was dead, and that global warming was real. Maybe if they had looked at the Iraq intelligence reports dispassionately and not through their ideological lenses, republicans would still be in power today.
I don’t know how the next 4yrs of Obama will turn out. His appointment do not matter to me too much. I do know that a lot of people are saying that these are competent experienced people. But what is going to matter at the end of the day will be that if these people mess up or if their plans do not work and things start to go wrong, will Obama be able to change course and point in the right direction again.
Shawn in ShowMe
Another guy that agrees with The Hat about Rich’s article and doesn’t consider his criticism of it trolling. Obviously there’s past grievances here that are coloring people’s opinions.
TheHatOnMyCat
It was a cautionary tale rigged and loaded with spin about the supposed scary things about some nominees. For example, I am supposed to fear a couple of economic team members because they worked with Rubin? And because Robert McNamara turned out to be a lunatic?
Aside from the fact that the whole argument he is making is silly, we already have the statement from Obama himself that pretty much negates this line of reasoning: Obama states that his nominees will be carrying out his policies and implementing his decisions, not theirs.
Kennedy’s administration got truncated by tragedy, we don’t know how that would have worked out. Johnson was, in my estimation, a crazy person when the subject was Vietnam. I don’t see any parallel in this situation to that former one.
TheHatOnMyCat
You are quite correct.
JR
Genine: I am very progressive, but I have to admit some progressives really piss me off. Its like nothing is ever good enough for them
Thank you, "Genuine." You’re concern is noted.
Shinobi
Still beats John McCain.
Genine
Oh, I’m not concerned. Some people just like to complain. To each, their own. I understand where those that are complaining are coming from. But I prefer solutions. If Obama’s team provides solutions, I don’t care what they’re previous positions were. If they don’t do what they need to do, I’ll lead the change against them. But since nothing has happened yet and Obama has not signaled that he is changing his mind or position on the issues, I will be patient and see what happens.
As for getting the agenda across, things are looking good. I consider that progress even if some others don’t.
demimondian
@Genine: I like the new handle, Genuine. You should adopt it…so much more amusing than the one you’ve used here for, what, a year?
Seriously, I’m liking where the agenda looks, and it’s why I’m not whining more. He looks like he’s got a strategy, and I’m thinking that the right will be really unhappy while I do my "concern troll is moderately concerned" act. Still, I hope you understand my concerns — and understand that I think that if I don’t express them, then I’m not doing my job.
Xenos
As a cautionary statement, Rich’s column was fine, although it could have been edited more freely. The essential point is a repudiation of Reagan’s claimed approach to governing, which was to appoint the best people and then get out of their way. Which itself was a welcome tonic to Carter’s approach, which was to hire barely competent cronies and then micromanage everything to incoherence and confusion.
I loved the reference to Tanta at Calculated Risk. She was the insider who saw how rotten the mortgage industry was. She was able to see its silliness as she had never gotten the miseducation that most Harvard MBAs get, and being too ill to work she felt free to denounce it all for the racket it was. That was the true lesson here. I hope Summers, for one, can learn some humility from it.
Shawn in ShowMe
I just think it’s bizarre that after a press conference where Obama clearly states that "the buck stops with me" and he will be setting his own policy, Rich looked at that and said "methinks there’s a danger of Obama not setting his own policy."
liberal
@demimondian:
What’s "pro-defense"? Pro-"pissing the better part of $1T/year down the military-industrial-complex rathole"?
D-Chance.
MUPpets are a hearty, if sometimes skittish, lot…
liberal
@cleek:
I don’t understand this class of comment.
Yes, he’s only the president-elect, but by picking cabinet posts and advisors, he has in fact done something.
demimondian
@Shawn in ShowMe: It’s not whether or not he sets his own policy, it’s whether his climenoles pass all the options on to him, and present them accurately.
liberal
@donovong:
All we’re saying re the economics picks is that many of them are complicit in creating the conditions that led to the current disaster. (Certainly Summers and Rubin.) And for that reason, in our humble opinion, they shouldn’t have been picked.
Shawn in ShowMe
@demimondian
That possibility of aides politicizing the flow of information exists with every presidency. It’s not unique to the upcoming administration.
liberal
@Eric U.:
Agreed.
TheHatOnMyCat
Ah, you said what I was saying, but shorter, and better.
demimondian
@Shawn in ShowMe: No doubt about it. That’s *exactly* why a wide diversity of opinions among a President’s advisers is important.
liberal
@DougJ:
[Emphasis added]
Which wasn’t the point of Rich’s comparison. Which was, rather, that in both cases the subjects were/are very smart people who did very stupid things.
Tsulagi
End of the day only thing that matters is results. If I’m picking a team to do a job, I’d much rather have a smart, capable bastard who will follow my direction than a dumb angel who’d believe their job is to hand out cookies to please everyone.
In that vein, I would have been fine with Hayden staying at CIA or becoming DNI. He’s a smart, capable bastard. You don’t blame the trigger puller.
If Obama thinks he’s picked smart, capable bastards or angels, his call. Country elected him to lead, let him lead. Judge him and his admin by their results. Whining before there are any, or thinking he’s Rushmore worthy already is just bullshit.
JPK
I don’t think the problem is so much about misgivings over Obama and his choices, though that’s in there. The problem is being told to shut up and the feeling that, once again, a la Charlie Brown and Lucy, we are being played for Sister Souljahs in Clinton-style triangulation moves. Me, I’m thrilled that Obama won, and basically trust him, having recognized along about Labor Day that the guy tends to be three or four steps ahead of most of the rest of us. But that doesn’t mean I like being preemptively told to shut up by one of his lieutenants in the Huffington Post. I actually don’t like it at all.
TenguPhule
QOTD.
If the people who caused messes were the only ones who could get us out of them, the GOP would still be in charge.
liberal
@TheHatOnMyCat:
But Summers didn’t just "work with Rubin." Guess you’ve never heard of Brooksley Born.
liberal
@TheHatOnMyCat:
You’re definitely trolling when you just blithely ignore John’s (correct, IMHO) explanation as to why Rich was anti-Broder, not Broder.
Genine
I think its always good for people to express themselves. If someone has complains, whether they are silly are not, they should be aired. (I am not saying your concern is silly.)
But showing concern and shouting words of "betrayal!" and generally losing one’s mind over imagined horrors are two completely different things. I can understand the concern, but some reactions are over-the-top. Of course that op-ed did not help matters.
Summers and Co. did help cause the mess, so I can see the logic where they might know the way to undo what they did. It makes sense to me. I can also see where choosing established people for cabinet and staff positions is good for getting things done. Clinton brought in a whole new crew his first term… and we see that didn’t work so well with getting certain things passed because his people had to learn the Washington game.
Anyway, I am very happy that certain things seem poised for success and that we’re making progress. I celebrate the milestones and look forward to making new ones.
Maybe I shouldn’t have said that some progressives piss me off. Because they actually don’t. Its true that nothing is good enough for some progressives, but that’s their thing- not mine. They think that’s the way to progress and I have other ideas; its all good.
Genine
@JPK:
That I actually agree with. It causes more problems than it solves.
Shawn in ShowMe
If a prominent liberal voice like Paul Krugman was telling us to shut up, I can see how that would be worrisome. But if we’re going to let articles by journeymen like Steve Hildebrand get us bent all out of shape, prepare for a lot of ulcers.
demimondian
@Shawn in ShowMe: If Obama is half the politician he’s shown himself to be, then no such article would be published without an OK from further up.
Does this mean we’re being Sistah Soulja’d? No. But does it mean that we’re being told to sit down and stop rocking the boat? Yup. And I don’t like that.
DougJ
Does this mean we’re being Sistah Soulja’d? No. But does it mean that we’re being told to sit down and stop rocking the boat? Yup. And I don’t like that.
What you mean "us", white man? I think some of the rhetoric from Open Left, for example, has been over the top.
Eyes on the prize, I say: we’re seeing lots of positive signals about health care (see the selection of Tom Daschle) and a big, smart stimulus package (with focus on infrastructure and education). Those are the big issues, as far as I’m concerned. If Obama gets them through, I applaud him. If he doesn’t, I don’t. I haven’t seen a single nomination that worries me as much as the Daschle nomination cheers me.
I do hope we get a solid, aggressive, progressive labor secretary, though.
Turgidson
Understandable to be anxious about some of Obama’s picks.
Less understandable to be utterly convinced that his appointments mean he is a right-wing con man before he’s even signed his first executive order.
His agenda has been out there for public consumption for almost 2 years now. His rhetoric has (mostly) supported that agenda (the FISA cave being the only serious and arguably unforgivable deviation that springs to mind). I expect his cabinet to work hard to enact his agenda, not impose their own.
Also, while I am also skeptical of Summer and Geithner, I think (and hope) they’re both reality-based enough to adjust to current conditions and act prudently. While that doesn’t excuse their earlier wrongness by any stretch, it’s still a damn sight more comforting than the free market fundamentalist freak McCain likely would have appointed.
I have no problem with the idea that Obama should feel pressure from his left flank. I just hope the agitators remember to stop holding their breath and stomping their feet every so often, so as not to pass out. They’ll be needed at certain moments, I have no doubt, and while the histrionics can be annoying and occasionally counterproductive, I’m glad they’re there.
Shawn in ShowMe
Hildebrand was also a bit of a drama queen when people criticized Tom Daschle, who he organized for in 2004. That’s just how the dude operates.
And calling his blog rant on The Huffington Post an "article" that needed approval from on high is giving Hildebrand too much credit. That’s like saying Team Obama signed off on Samantha Power’s interview where she called Hillary a "monster".
TheHatOnMyCat
Okay, by "ignore" you mean "disagree with, and argue about."
So, if I disagree and argue, I’m a troll. If I don’t sit down and shut up when smacked by John, like a good boy, then I’m a "shit" and a "dick."
Got it.
Oh, and the "blithely" was a nice touch. As if I should, what …. quake, or wear a cape?
Get the fuck outta here, man. I post what I want to say. That’s it. Anybody doesn’t like it, I don’t give a crap.
I’m right about the Rich column. John is wrong. Get over it.
demimondian
@Shawn in ShowMe: Hmm. Have you ever worked with corporate communications for a large company? I assure you, even something as small as a blog post is thorougly vetted.
Deborah
I am very progressive, but I have to admit some progressives really piss me off. Genine
I’m an independent and the left’s tendency to be permanently stuck on hand-wringing is one reason I don’t see myself ever registering as a Dem, their agreement with most of my principles not withstanding.
Also agree with the sentiment that hiring a bunch of people to manage the economy who have never been in a position to make economic policy, or in any field hiring a bunch of pure virgins who are completely unsullied by having nothing to do with anything that happened in their field in the last 20 years, would be a recipe for disaster. I’m fond of academia, but a team who can blog eloquent criticism with no hands-on engineers is not my dream team.
rawdawgbuffalo
as long as obama dont reproduce no Smoot-Hawley im good
HyperIon
well, lots of penis-fencing, anyway.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
@TheHatOnMyCat: Nah. I’m just gonna keep poking you until I get bored. You like to make absurd demands of other poster to prove your moral superiority, so I figure I’ll just treat you the same way.
Yeah. You so don’t care that you had to make sure and state it loudly. Seems to me like you Care quite a bit. If you "didn’t care" you’d have stated your disagreement with Cole and moved on, yet here you are.
Blogging in the Wind
FYI John: "queer" is not a verb.
HyperIon
FYI BITW:
this use of "queer" goes way back.
to long before it was used to mean "homosexual".
"don’t queer the pitch"
lots of goggle hits on that one.
terry chay
While McNamara made a lot of errors as Secretary of Defense and many people still fault him (justly) for the lack of contrition regarding Vietnam, it seems hard to place all the blame for the Vietnam War on McNamara’s “charts.”
After all, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the decision to escalate the war was entirely Johnson’s (and Kennedy’s before him) and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that McNamara was against escalation starting in 1966, and had completely renounced his own strategy by 1967. His view was a minority position with respect to both the President and the Joint Chiefs.
I’d have to ask, ignoring the charts dig, what evidence we had that the United States would not be able to win this conflict during the conflict? Seems like almost everyone would have made the same error as McNamara albeit by different means—they wouldn’t have been so obsessed with body count as a strategy.
There is a lot of examples of evidence misrepresented by McNamara, but if we are to fault him for doing that, the same and far worse could be said of Colin Powell in the run up to the Iraq War.
I mention this, because in the case of the Vietnam War, it’s hard to say that Kennedy’s “Best and Brightest” were the cause. We’ll never be able to test the null, but it’s hard to believe that there was anyone saying that we’d have and deserved to lose that war because the very way we entered it was a march of folly.
r€nato
actually, ‘queer’ can be used as a verb and I believe that its use as such predates its use as a derogatory term for a homosexual.
harlana pepper
You have to have some pushback from some people on the things that matter. That’s just the role of the some of the Democratic left. We need them, too. Be patient with them as well. God knows, we could have used some republican pushback against Bush the last 8 years.
Steve S.
It’s not a matter of patience. Those who hold the levers of power have to be watched every minute of every day. Human nature doesn’t magically change because Bush is leaving office.
Each of us who aquiesce to this system, which bestows ridiculous amounts of power to the President, share in the responsibility of letting him know that we’re watching him. Every minute of every day.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
@Ash Can:
You mean if he is not a centrist? Because THAT is what he presented himself to be throughout his campaign.
Some people just don’t realize that.
TheHatOnMyCat
Uh, noted.
Go fuck yourself.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
Queer is not a verb? Really?
Dictionary.com cites queer as a verb:
TheHatOnMyCat
It’s number 7, Circus. I ruined the thread by suggesting that Cole was full of shit WRT Rich’s column.
This act of heresy was roundly bashed and the glow of smartitude that existed over the thread beforehand was lost forever.
Very sad, really. If only I had agreed with Cole If only.
Oh, the humanity.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
We are all human, no matter how great our resume, we can still make mistakes, this is news HOW?
I personally am not going to get upset about Obama choosing people he’d like to work with. Whoever he chooses, he has stated the buck stops with him, so, I will trust him to work with those he wants and if there are any screw ups, he will be the one taking the fall.
You people need to go suck on a bong for a while, or something, just relax and wait til he gets into office, will ya?
TheHatOnMyCat
It’s called Dog Bites Man, CM.
It’s the oldest story on earth. Well, after that Original Sin thing :)
Cassidy the Racist White Man
@TheHatOnMyCat: You really are an unpleasant person. It amazes me that anyone tolerates your company. Let me guess, your kids are just always really busy.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
I enjoy his company quite a lot, actually… which is much more than I could say for you.
Ash Can
@CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII:
No, I mean if he were to perpetuate Bush’s disasters, in this case the economic ones, instead of changing course from them and instilling some sanity and intelligence in the workings of government, in this case its fiscal policy. I know he’s a centrist, and I have no fundamental problem with that. The "center" is a broad area of consensus; in fact this is why Obama won. Nevermind left and right ideology. He was able to strike a chord of sensibility with the majority of voters in this often fractious society precisely because he was not seen as too this or too that. I tend to be a centrist myself about many things — probably not all the same things that Obama is centrist about, which means I’ll likely do my share of grousing as time goes on. The fact is, though, the Obama/Biden Administration is the alternative to the McCain/Palin administration, and not a day goes by that I don’t feel grateful for that simple fact alone.
liberal
@TheHatOnMyCat:
You didn’t "disagree" and "argue" about it; you ignored.
liberal
@Deborah:
What makes you think that there’s no choice other than between people who had a hand bringing about this fiasco, and people who are ivory tower academics?
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
@Ash Can:
You can’t seriously wonder if he would do that. McCain was one of Bush’s sometime friends, Obama accused McCain of being "more of the same" because he would have been. You can’t seriously believe Obama would do that.
I’m speechless, really. There is NO WAY Obama is going to continue to perpetuate Bush’s economic stupidity. While I don’t expect that he has special superpowers that will bring about a complete 180 overnight, I have listened to him enough to know he will NOT be more of the same. You should know this too, or else I would be surprised that you could state that you are thankful that he was a choice in this election.
Note: I’m a firm believer that Obama chose the people he did because they know what secrets lie buried and how to unravel them. Obama is in charge and any fuck-ups will be on his head. I personally think he chose these people because it was necessary to get to the bottom of how to fix the problem.
Cassidy the Racist White Man
Yes we know. Speaks volumes about you.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
Really, and you’re the agreeable one? You’ve gotta be kidding me.