Daschle withdraws

The progressive movement is caught. Some are becoming villagized, some work for the inside. Many do not work for the inside, and are being bullied to support everything Obama does no matter how awful it is. The mantra of the DLC is "vote for us, serfs, or it is so much the worse for you." The arrogance of these insiders knows almost no bounds. As far as they are concerned everyone must work, for free, to keep the asses in nice chairs.

Dachle's withdrawal shows the pure stupidity of the insiders position. Obama has been screwing up more or less since he got power. While he has done several little things right, over all his agenda is not a progressive agenda. While he has done several little things right, his big appointments have gone to other centrists - and several have been knocked out because of failures of Obama's own political apparatus. It's up to his people to spin his mistakes, that's their job. For those of us who are not ever going to work for Obama, or get one dime from the Village, it's in our best interest to tell the truth, and make our own living. Having watched more than a dozen people die, or spiral into debt, after fighting for the cause for little or no money, this isn't a matter of nice trustafarians who want to make the world a bit better, and we are not in the boom days of the late 1990's when people could afford to have politics as a hobby. The insiders are demand that people destroy their lives, in support of an agenda which, while better than the agenda McCain would have pursued, is not a particularly good agenda, and does not lead to a better future.

We have returned to Old Politics. Old Politics is media, top-down, and micro-politics. That means that Obama sits at the top of a pyramid, and all of the benefits flow to a very small circle of people, with only a few groups that he must have the support of getting large slices of that pie. People working for that pyramid have to do what they are told. That is how it is: if you are wearing the Team Obama jersey, they you fill your blocking assignment. For people working for micro-political interests, the rules are not that much different. It is necessary, even with Obama is screwing up, to keep in line, voice opinions from the inside. But in the end, you dance with the one that brings you: if your organization needs something that Obama can back with the stroke of a pen, then it is your job to make sure that his pen stays stroked. While there can be defections on very large issues that are matters of survival, in general, what Obama wants, you want - because without his executive fiat, your micro-group, and the donations that pay your salary, are gone.

However, these same realities cut against those who are not part of the Presidential Pyramid, or working for a group willing to sell out the rest of the world for their one issue. Backing Obama, when he is wrong, is pure cost. Obama gets the credit, the micro-groups get their checks, and the backer has sold out for nothing. Being a whore is the world's oldest profession, but not getting paid means you are a slut. And sluts are even lower on the scale than whores.

For this reason Dachle's withdrawal should be a lesson. Whence the people who were going to brave the fire for Daschle, when Daschle himself has pulled out. For those on the outside the push must be more intense: back Obama strongly where he is right, but oppose just as strenuously when he is right wing, or just plain wrong. Since Obama is not a progressive, there is no percentage in progressives spending one dime of money, or one minute of effort, mincing words, spinning or covering, unless the specific project is one of importance. Thus, because the stimulus bill is a necessary one, it is worth making phone calls and demonstrating that there is a constituency for liberal government. It's a bad bill, but it could be made into a worse bill.

However, on things such as "entitlement reform," or TARP II, Obama is on his own. He wants support he has to pay for it, because these actions are not worthy of progressive support. It is not the job of people not on the payroll to make up for mistakes made to put high priced consultants - and Daschle is a high priced consultant - into government jobs, when those same high priced consultants could not pay more in taxes than most people earn, and could not deign to hire an accountant with the money flowing into their coffers.

Within the progressive movement there is a break down of discourse, because those on the inside, or those villagizing, see the rest of the movement as being their chattel slaves - people who should be willing to sacrifice their lives in order to advance the careers of the insiders themselves. This means that this wave of the progressive movement is becoming compromised, and the very basis of its existence eroded. This is part of the general falling away from a high moment when there was a broad consensus for dramatic action, which has now ebbed into a return of the domination of the Suburban Industrial Complex. Housing, health care, finance, and war are its occupations, and the rest of the country is going to be in debt slavery for a generation to keep their occupations, in many senses, going.

The reason for opposing this is simple: it will fail. The reason for opposing if you are not getting right this moment a paycheck is simple: you will personally lose everything you have for the good of people who do not care enough for the good of the people.

I will have to write this many, many, many times, because the evidence is there, but it will take some time for the low information high confirmation voters to see it. There will be a great deal of self-spinning. Partly because the conclusion: Obama's failure means far more economic hardship for no gain whatever, is a very bitter pill. But right now we have a huge fraction of GDP misallocated, and Obama is doing next to nothing about it, and indeed, has firmly said he will not do anything about it.

That means that our current crisis will turn to poor recovery, and then to a deeper and more dire one later when the partisan pendulum swings from Democrat to Republican.

Stirling Newberry February 3, 2009 - 2:44pm

Stirling Newberry's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Miscellany )

in general, you are correct

but not much percentage in the meta message

pick the key particulars, and hammer common sense

that is a drumbeat we can believe in

jwp February 3, 2009 - 3:18pm

still confused...

I will have to write this many, many, many times, because the evidence is there

Really? The "evidence is there?" Your anti-Obama posts have been pretty thin on the facts and evidence... its a bunch of conspiracy theories, and attempts to read Obama's intentions based on two weeks at the helm.

It's possible you are correct. If you need to rant for therapeutic reasons, have at it. But in order to appease the skeptics, you might need to produce some hard evidence.

"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." -- Mark Twain

--
http://bexhuff.com
Of COURSE you can trust the US Government! Just ask the Indians.

bex February 3, 2009 - 8:39pm

There you go again

Lying about everything.

Why do you lie? Because it feels good? Because you aren't good enough to get paid for it.

Stirling Newberry February 3, 2009 - 9:47pm

That is seriously out of line, Stirling.

- eom

"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch February 3, 2009 - 11:27pm

time for the Gong , I think

or some head-bagging for spiteful scholars.....

_{I feel the American worker has been sacrificed to the capitalist idols in the ancient Mayan fashion. - Sue Lamb, NYT reader}

nymole February 4, 2009 - 1:35am

Sorry the facts out are out line

The commenter materially mis-states fact.

Stirling Newberry February 4, 2009 - 9:49am

Non-sequitur.

You're an editor, and as such you're well aware that insulting personal comments towards longstanding fellow Agonists are out of line.

"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch February 4, 2009 - 11:52am

that's not my goal...

Stirling: I like your posts. I've liked them for a long time. I'm just genuinely confused by your recent rants. They seem insightful, and I concede you might be right, but your posts recently seem light on articulable facts.

Please note, I'm NOT trying to be a concern troll. I'm just a skeptic.

--
http://bexhuff.com
Of COURSE you can trust the US Government! Just ask the Indians.

bex February 4, 2009 - 1:17am

Let me break this down for you

At every step along the way Obama's proposals during the campaign were on the right of the Democratic pool of candidates. Health care and stimulus in particular.

In particular last year when Congress was considering a stimulus bill, Obama's was the smallest and his advisors doubted we were in a recession at all, and certainly didn't think we needed much in the way of a stimlus bill. Even Hillary was farther to the left.

Then there is Obama's whipping for TARP I. This was not a liberal bill, and the results were precisely as predicted: the money went down various holes and is not coming back. Banks have used TARP I money to pay huge bonuses, and to nominally buy up foreclosed houses that they have.

Then there is Obama's defense budget. It's not a liberal position either.

Then there is the appointees on the economic side. The only progressive economist, is an aide to Senator Joe Biden. The rest are Wall Street neo-liberals.

Obama's stimulus bill design was too small, based on the raw numbers, and based almost as much on ineffective tax cuts. This precompromised bill has been shredded in the Senate, as the right wing smelled blood in the water on "spending."

Obama's moves such as closing Gitmo were, in fact, quite limited. Obama has defended "rendition" for example.

The sum, for those watching substance rather than media political porn is that Obama ran as a center/center-right candidate. As a result he won primarily in conservative and small states. There were exceptions to this, but that was the core of his support: conservative caucus goers. It was a strange coalition: liberal white progressives unhappy with Hillary, plus African Americans, plus conservative/blue dog democrats.

I've gone over all of this before. And no, I haven't been ranting, I've just been telling the truth directly to a country, and obviously a readership, that isn't ready to wake up and realize what was obvious before the election: that this economic crisis is going to pass without any form of effective restructuring of the American economy, and that Barack Obama is part of the problem. By being small and incrementalist, he now will have those small steps gutted, and left with nothing but:

Bail out the bankers.
Build up the military.
Slash entitlements.
Clean Coal and Ethanol for "energy independence."

Does this look like a liberal platform to you? Obama's key advisors: Daschle, Rahm and others are not, and never have been, liberals or progressives. Summers is a liberal, but not a progressive - there being a distinction.

Since conservatism is only going to get us farther into disaster, centrism, whose mantra is to capitulate to conservative outrage to get "enough" passed, will, and in fact already has, failed.

Those are what the numbers say. They can't be made to say anything else without willful self-manipulation. Fortunately for the cushy lobbyist and banker jobs, there are bus loads of progressives willing to attack their own for saying the obvious that the new boss is a smarter, kinder and more African American version of the old boss. The Village has decided that Bush's policies were absolutely right, it is just his execution that was wrong, and that all they need to do is try again with a better management team.

It is over people. You've lost, and I am sorry that you don't want to hear that. I've been very, very, very clear. I have objective metrics of exactly how very clear I've been. If you are confused, it is because you are confused, not because I have been confusing.

Stirling Newberry February 4, 2009 - 10:01am

I'm sayin, who thought Obama was a progressive?

I'm confused because you keep fighting a straw man: the educated liberal who needs to "wake up" because Obama isn't a liberal.

What liberal blogs were swooning over Obama because he was a "progressive"? The progressives wanted Edwards, and sided with Obama because he was better than Hillary. You keep ranting about people being "fooled" by Obama's centrism, but I don't see any evidence of him ever hiding his intentions, so I see nothing unusual about him picking moderates, republicans, and villagers for key posts.

For christ sake, how many times did the media mention his philosophy of "a team of rivals?"

The right have been labeling him as a scary liberal to yank people towards their psychotically bad ideas... but Obama is and always has been a center candidate... perhaps center-right when it comes to economic policies. So what?

Did you really think the first black president would be a liberal?

I disagree with Obama on multiple points. I gave him $50 a while back, but yanked my financial support because of his vote on retroactive immunity for the telcoms. Nevertheless, I voted for him because he seemed to be the best candidate. He also has fewer direct ties to lobbyists, and gets most of his cash from the teeming millions... which means that the typical Washington rules about pay-to-play will no longer carry as much weight. Not zero weight, but certainly much less weight...

I see absolutely no evidence that he hid his intentions during the campaign... and anybody who paid attention should not be surprised by his cabinet posts, nor his actions.

--
http://bexhuff.com
Of COURSE you can trust the US Government! Just ask the Indians.

bex February 4, 2009 - 11:11am

Edwards??

Edwards??!!

Here I thought it was Dennis Kucinich, whom I was and still am for, which must be the origin of my misperception -rose-colored glasses and all I suppose. But seriously, the only word for Edwards I ever heard was here, and that left me scratching my head. A lot.

Let us puhleeese have some supportive words for Dennis.

Zuma February 4, 2009 - 10:00pm

Never liked Daschle ...

Glad he's gone.

creativelcro February 3, 2009 - 3:54pm

No kidding

It was inept politics to grab a shit-encrusted member of the corrupt old guard to lead the department where arguably there are the most public bonus points to be won. If Obama wants to get some genuine health care reform (and this is far from a safe assumption), then he should have picked a DHHS secretary with charisma, perceived integrity, and a popular agenda. Daschle? No, no, and no. Why would anybody think he was a good choice?

chalo February 3, 2009 - 4:39pm

In fact

Is there any compelling reason that a physician couldn't be nominated to HHS? I know that actual doctors are approaching public school teachers in the esteem of the Overlords -- I read a more-or-less open memo last year wherein a notoriously profitable hospital franchise referred to its on-staff docs as "fungible" and "expendable" -- but honestly, what the hell? Didn't somebody mention "change" a million times a week a few months ago?

The percentage of physicians in the astronaut program is comparable to that of lawyers in Capitol politics, for the love of St. Luke. And show me a doctor in a space suit and I'll show you a person with at least one other advanced degree. They're clever people. They can haul spy satellites into orbit behind the wheel of a trillion dollar UPS truck, but they can't be trusted with, you know, health, and human services generally, on a national level?

I knew the choice was between a dog turd sandwich and a dog turd sandwich laced with blowfish toxin, back in November, but I'm still appalled at the total seamlessness with which business as usual has been handed off.

Edit - oops, this should be in reply to Chalo's comment. The original post is, of course, spot on. I give it until August before large numbers of "Yeah, we could've" people start denying they ever even voted for #44, kind of like Nixon.

Lupo the Butcher February 3, 2009 - 5:12pm

It was Dean's fifty state strategy that turned things around big

Anyone heard of Howard Dean lately?

tjfxh February 3, 2009 - 6:14pm

other sites made valid points...

Seems the general concern was that Daschle, being an 'Establishment Dem' would lack the backbone to deal with the Insurance Industry and Lobby, and fight for the necessary legislation Citizens need.

That point I see, and have seen, nothing to rebut.

Might Dean make a good SecHHS? Yeah, I believe he has the balls to stand up to the Industry *and* Congress. My concern, though, isn't really with Dean, but with Rahm, and Rahm's famous prickly nature.... CW is that Emanuel and Dean won't play nice together in an Obama Cabinet....

As for the 'Corrupt Establishment'...unless you have a neutron bomb, complaining about the corruption in government is only gonna raise your blood pressure, and nothing else. We need to out-organise, out-raise, and out-maneuver those who stand in teh way of our agenda--that's how we'll win. And even then, victory would come in small increments.

Change the world--no, really..go for it. just remember they have you outnumbered, so butting heads will only get you a headache. Time to get sneaky....

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

justadood February 3, 2009 - 6:03pm

A financial crisis

Is better than a neutron bomb. We are going to get another one, because there is absolutely nothing backing all of the backing of paper. When we are again faced with recourse, things will unravel.

So enjoy the expansion, as bad as it is, that is coming, because the recession next will be much worse.

Stirling Newberry February 3, 2009 - 9:49pm

Rahm v. Howie

Great, decisions of national import are being made because of a dick-sizing contest.

I like Dean, I canvassed for him in Iowa in 5F weather and gave him $1,000, and I think he'd be great in HHS after an initial learning curve of how Congrefs works (that would have been Daschle's advantage). Rahm can go pound sand.

forty2 February 4, 2009 - 12:37am

Accountancy and accountablity

when those same high priced consultants could not pay more in taxes than most people earn, and could not deign to hire an accountant with the money flowing into their coffers.

Rule: No one in political life who does his or her own taxes is credible.

tjfxh February 3, 2009 - 6:12pm

The only part I have any disagreement with

is the piece about a poor recovery. I'm not sure there will be any recovery until at least some of these issues are fixed. Especially with a failed (and expense) military surge into Afghanistan, that might chew up any recovery money before we see a dime.

zot23 February 3, 2009 - 6:53pm

When dems are falling over themselves

to point out how Obama is raising defense spending.

I think you can check bloated and wasteful defense budgets of on the list.

Stirling Newberry February 3, 2009 - 9:50pm

That's the thing

We're going nowhere until we come to some sort of decision on unwinding the empire (oops, "Defense") -- or the decision is made for us. Until then, we're like a guy drowning in a suit of armor.

http://harvardclassicsproject.blogspot.com

Delicious Pundit February 4, 2009 - 2:27am

I've been reading your diaries...

for quite awhile now, and I have to tell you, Stirling, that you are right on target my friend!! I read many columns on the blogs every single day, and most are filled with Obama apologists and surrogates. Congratulations! You're FAR AND ABOVE any of them!! Thanks and please continue the good work!!

ProgressiveDem February 3, 2009 - 7:57pm

A lesson learned...I hope!

Barack Obama was in the Senate for 4 years, though the last two were spent essentially campaigning for the Presidency. So, I'm sure he took into consideration that Senate Democrats - despite huge private reservations - waved through, as an example, John Bolton and Alberto Gonzales, when they were sent up by Bush for approval, despite enormous "negatives". And, naturally, when HE became president, he expected HIS nominees would be as well waved through by Republicans in the same manner, and as well be given basically a pass by the media. Well, Timothy Geithner managed to beat the clock, and win an approval; however, Tom Daschle was unlucky to be a couple of weeks behind, with the same IRS "issues": unpaid taxes (all his non-lobbist lobbying on behalf of the health industry was never an issue, as that was just bidness as usual). However, Obama got too far behind the curve, let events and politics overtake what he (and presumably Rahm Emanuel and staff) thought could be containable, and now is taking a long, hot shower washing all the shit out of his hair. The so-called "take-home lesson" here, I would hope, is, "you have a mandate, bloody well act upon it, and steamroller the opposition if necessary". If Obama thought that Tom Daschle had the qualities necessary for sorting out health reform (despite his past associations), then he should have had his back. When FDR felt that the SCOTUS was hindering his programs, he tried "court-packing", which failed, but that never deterred him from pushing through his agenda, with somewhat more finesse, but without serious compromise. If one aspires to leadership, then there is a time to be faithful to one's "vision" and make the hard choices, come what may. What is the point of high approval ratings, a healthy reserve of "political capital", a majority in both houses of Congress, if a president is too timid to play the bully, if necessary? Mr Nice Guys always finish last, as Leo Durocher once remarked.

_{“les Etats-unis, c’est le seul pays à être passé de la préhistoire à la décadence sans jamais connaitre la civilisation…”...Georges Clemenceau}

barrisj redux February 3, 2009 - 11:05pm

The Tax Issue

is a screen. There wasn't enough of a drum beat. The probability is that there was another shoe to drop. The other problem is that Daschle knew months ago.

Stirling Newberry February 3, 2009 - 11:18pm

The point is that Bush could have sent up ANYBODY...

who wasn't either a convicted child molester or under indictment for "crimes against nature", and still gotten approval. Whatever "shoe" may have yet dropped re: Daschle, it in no way could have been as much of a political embarrassment as the Bush wankers approved by the Senate these past several years.

_{“les Etats-unis, c’est le seul pays à être passé de la préhistoire à la décadence sans jamais connaitre la civilisation…”...Georges Clemenceau}

barrisj redux February 3, 2009 - 11:26pm

Gregg

Can one of you smart people 'splain why only Judd Gregg is capable of running Commerce, a department he once wanted to abolish?

I think this is a bigger fuckup than Daschle if Obama pussies out on Gregg's bullshit condition of a GOP replacement. There must be someone else.

forty2 February 4, 2009 - 12:40am

But so he has...

Lies, Half-truths and Contradictions: Judd Gregg, partisan post-partisan

SFGate Politics Blog, By Joe Garofoli, February 3

Sen. Judd Gregg -- perhaps the new Commerce secretary -- may have just set a land speed record for a debut in our anals of Lies, Half-Truths and Contradictions. Dude nailed one Tuesday in his acceptance speech.

In accepting the nomination Tuesday, the New Hampshire Republican said: "And I also want to thank the governor of New Hampshire for his courtesy and courage in being willing to make this possible through the agreement that we have relative to my successor in the Senate."

OK, but moments earlier, Gregg said: "This is not a time for partisanship."

But Gregg wouldn't have become Commerce czar without a GUARANTEE that his Senate successor would also be a Republican, just like him. Isn't that a bit, oh, "partisan"? We pull out the yellow flag of CON-TRA-DICTION!!!!

Let's leave the beat-down to Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, who gives Gregg a nice backhand in his "congratulatory note." Said Russ:

"I congratulate Sen. Gregg on his nomination to be the next secretary of Commerce," Feingold said. "He is well-qualified for this position.

"But the apparent behind-the-scenes deal-making that went on to determine who will fill Sen. Gregg's vacancy is alarmingly undemocratic. Once again, Americans will be represented in the Senate for nearly two years by someone they had no hand in electing. ..

_{They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.}

Raja February 4, 2009 - 12:58am

Third Obama cabinet nominee withdraws name

Reuters, By Jeremy Pelofsky & Ross Colvin, February 12

WASHINGTON - Republican Senator Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination as Commerce secretary on Thursday in an embarrassing setback to President Barack Obama's efforts to bridge party differences in his fight against recession.

Gregg said he pulled out because of "irresolvable" differences over policy issues, including the $789 billion economic stimulus package that has so far drawn support from only a handful of Republican lawmakers.

A clearly annoyed White House said in a terse statement it regretted that Gregg withdrew after he had pursued the job.

"He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace and move forward with the President's agenda," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

_{They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.}

Raja February 12, 2009 - 9:45pm

And while Stirling's tone

is not my cup of hemlock, I see where Yves Smith is also getting plenty pissed.

http://harvardclassicsproject.blogspot.com

Delicious Pundit February 4, 2009 - 2:52am

if we can get you to write as often as Stirling

you'll end up sounding just like him. We did it to Ian Welsh too!
It's just the frustration of trying to make people understand, that's all.
thanks for the link, I hadn't been to her site for a while; the banksters' comments get a little tedious, especially when they don't recognize that they are banksters, such as we all are in the US and England. I guess it's just part of the process.

oh dude, the Updike poem is absolutely great, but don't you wonder if your politics infect your critiques? or is that a given? I'm curious, given that you appear to be British(I can't imagine an American comedy writer identifying as a Tory and dissing the Scottish), yet you're digging through American course work, which must have a different slant, seeing as we kinda gave the finger to the mother country 200+ years ago. But the perspective must be helpful in comedy writing. I really liked NewsRadio, I still catch it in reruns sometimes. And I have friends that religiously tape "How I met your mother" aka "doogie howser is gay!"

dk February 4, 2009 - 8:00am

The "frustration of trying to make people understand"

is certainly one way of putting it. Of course, that presupposes that the problem is really that a person's analysis is synonymous with objective truth - which of course it isn't, since an argument can be tightly reasoned and compelling and still be incorrect.

Another way to express what you just said would be "the frustration of attempting to persuade and failing". Dealing with the emotions arising from that is simply a daily part of being a human in a world full of other humans.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the framing. This analysis is interesting and cogent and well-reasoned, but what it is is a mental construct - it's "map", not "terrain". It's as good and as accurate as the data chosen to feed it. It's certainly worth reading and thinking about and considering carefully, whether or not I am persuaded by it.

"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch February 4, 2009 - 11:45am

huh?

eom

dk February 4, 2009 - 7:35pm

LOL.

Oh well, it made sense to me.

"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch February 4, 2009 - 9:51pm

you know the pisser?

I spent 2 hours trying to type a reply to you, only to find that "grunting" was the shortest distance between two minds.

dk February 4, 2009 - 10:20pm

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Create new account

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

Daschle withdraws

Comment viewing options

Premium Advertising

Our Friends

Agonist Page on FaceBook

Agonist Facebook Activity