Goodbye, Tom Daschle
Well, the Daschle nomination is no more. He's withdrawn his name which is in keeping with the idea that Obama would not actually have to fire him. We're still sorting out details on what happened between Obama's endorsement yesterday and the predictions of the likes of myself and George Stephanopoulos who thought that he'd muscle through it despite being bruised. Were there more tax problems? Did he just grow tired of the scrutiny? Was he asked to withdraw or did he do it of his own volition? We'll know more, I'm sure, as the day goes on.
After Daschle, a few big questions:
1. How many more officials are going to run into the tax buzzsaw. Just spoke to someone who is applying for a senior job in the administration. "If you haven't been preparing for public service your whole life, you're really kind of screwed," said the person. That may be a bit much, but it does raise the question of what tax indiscretion/error is now enough to derail your career in the Obama administration.
2. What's Plan B for HHS and the health care campaign? Remember Daschle was not only supposed to run the largest cabinet agency but also to quarterback health care reform. Will the jobs now be bifurcated?
3. What're the recriminations for Leo Hindery, the New York financier for whom Daschle worked? Did he do anything untoward or was this all Daschle's failure to keep his accounting straight?
4. How badly is Obama tarnished by this both in terms of his competence--two cabinet nominees choke before they reach their confirmation hearings--and his promise of reform.
5. It's No Fun Being Majority Leader. Look what's happened to the last majority leaders in the Senate. Bob Dole quit the post and his senate seat in 1996 and lost badly. Trent Lott got ushered out of office thanks to TPM and others who noted his praise of Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign. Bill Frist was a flameout. Now Daschle's career in public service seems at an end. Makes you not want to run for the leadership.
Paging governor dean for hhs. He would be perfect.
It's better that daschle bailed. All we would hear about would be the bs associated with him. Cut him off and the bs stops.
February 3, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. That said, I'm mad about the fact that he accepted the nomination in the first place with the full knowledge he had this issue.
February 3, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Dean can pass a stricter vetting process than the one that let Daschle slip by, he's the man for the job.
We really dodged a bullet here; if an irresponsibly wealthy, privileged pawn of the insurance industry and unreasoning opponent of single-payer like Daschle had been put in charge of designing our national health care plan, we'd have been paying through the nose for it for decades.
February 3, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree--the more I learned about Daschle's connections, aside from the tax issue, the less I liked him as the person to actually change the healthcare system.
Dean was always the better candidate, but I've heard that Rahm doesn't like him, and we can't offend the poor widdle Wepubwicans.
February 3, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm doesn't like him? Rahm loathes Howard Dean!
Rahm did everything in his power to attack Dean and undermine him as Chairman of the DNC while Rahm was heading up the DCCC. Only problem for Rahm was that everything Dean did was right and successful and just about every call Rahm made was wrong and failed.
For example, it was Rahm's bright idea not to highlight opposition to the war or Republican corruption in 2006 until he finally conceded those were the top issues on voter's minds a couple of weeks before the election. Democrats would have done a whole lot better if Rahm had made better and more liberal choices, but Rahm is a DLC man from the gitgo. The last thing he wants to see is an ascendancy of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
February 3, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it ty. Goodbye and good riddance.
Daschle makes Reid's backbone look almost solid by comparison. However, Obama picked Daschle.
I doubt we can expect someone tailor made like Dean. More likely, even as we speak, HUMANA and its clones are emailing Bharak with their "suggestions" for take2 at the position.
Buckle up.
February 3, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent observations!
February 3, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yeah. Dean's an MD, which would be a big plus in my book.
February 3, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm Emmanuel's not going to want Dean around.
February 3, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Just curious.
February 3, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Emmanuel was very much opposed to Dean becoming chair of the DNC. (Which is one of the things I don't particularly like about Emmanuel. It was Dean who engineered the 50 state strategy, a strategy that was sneered at by DC insiders like Paul Begala and James Carville...and Emmanuel and Shumer get the credit for Dean's work, and neither acknolwedge Dean's value).
February 3, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, but dean did an incredible job at the dnc and emanuel has to acknowledge that one. Also, I think obama likes dean as well. I guess we shall see. It's a "team of rivals" you know.
February 3, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol, ah Michael, you have much to learn, little cricket.
Being successful and proving Emmanuel wrong is about the worst thing you can do to someone, particularly in the Ego-centrentic fast lane that the villagers live in.
Please believe me : Emmanuel HATES Dean. The OP is right : Emmanuel will not allow Dean in the door - period.
Doesn't make either a bad person. It just reflects the political animals both are.
And don't get me wrong. I
February 3, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree that Michael is out to lunch on this one.
Disagree that Rahm *hates* Dean. That's way too strong a characterization. They butted heads when Dean was at the DNC.
But this notion that Rahm will plot against Dean is silly. In order for that to happen, Rahm would have to *care* about Dean. He doesn't. Dean is irrelevant to Rahm. Insiders have been quoted as saying "Rahm never speaks negatively about Dean. He never speaks positively about him either."
If Dean isn't in the administration, it's because Obama doesn't want him there. Period.
February 3, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Emannuel and Schumer did not get credit for Dean's work. They got credit for picking great candidates, raising money for them and running hard-nosed, effective campaigns.
Schumer dragged Claire McCaskill into her senate race kicking and screaming. He ran Hackett out of the OH senate race because he knew he couldn't win state wide. He recruited Kay Hagan from NC and Hagan would not be a US Senator today if Schumer had not run a brilliant anti-Dole campaign. Plenty of similar examples from Rahm in the House.
Dean had one job. He did it well. Rahm and Schumer had others. They did them well.
Dean supporters are either uninformed or insincere when they give Dean all the credit for winning back the Congress.
February 3, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe I gave Dean "all the credit". I think I correctly pointed out that Rahm and Schumer are regularly given credit for the 50 state strategy when, in fact, it was Dean's idea, and the inside DC Democrats thought it was ridiculous.
And nowhere did I say I was a Dean supporter.
February 3, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not calling you a Dean supporter or saying you gave him all the credit.
But there are Dean supporters who say Dean ALONE is responsible for taking back Congress. They give Rahm and Schumer ZERO credit. Winning back Congress was a two-pronged strategy.
Personally, I've never heard *anyone* say Rahm and Schumer were responsible for the 50-state strategy. But maybe I'm not listening well enough.
February 3, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
They were against the 50 state strategy. I remember a fight between dean and rahm in 06 regarding allocating resources. Rahm wanted to concentrate in a handful of districts and dean wanted to go nationwide and party build. Dean won the fight and the argument.
I agree on rahm and shumer doing an awesome job on recruiting candidates, but the 50 state strategy laid the groundwork for obama's success in 2008. I think that has to be acknowledged.
Now I am off to lunch. I just took a break to point something out. Also, I am not a big dean supporter per se, even though I think that he would be perfect for HHS and he did a superb job as the head of the dnc.
February 3, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Claire McCaskill a great candidate? Surely you jest?
February 3, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad. She was an awful candidate. That's why she beat an incumbent senator in a red state.
Next time, we need to pick candidates who get their asses kicked by republicans. We wouldn't want to actually, you know, WIN an election!
February 3, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday you were defending Daschle to the hilt, and now you look like an idiot. Clare McCaskel is an idiot, and Missouri is a purple state that Obama nearly won.
Just the other day she was saying she might not vote for the Stimulus package.
Being an idiot is not a requirement to getting elected.
February 3, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama "nearly" won MO? Ask Gore how many electoral votes you get for *nearly* winning.
My comment was that McCaskill was a good candidate. I never mentioned anything about her as a senator, even though I think she's a good one.
If I look like an idiot today, that means I'm closing in on you. You look like an idiot EVERY DAY!
February 3, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said that Missouri was a "red" state. It's not, unless you're purely talking presidential votes. It's gone back and forth for years between Dem and Repub senators, as well as in previous presidential elections.
Sorry to burst your little all-knowing bubble.
February 3, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: Since when do we label states "red" or "blue" based on their senators?
Find me a map that has the following:
Maine as a red state.
North Dakota as a blue state.
Montana as a blue state.
Oh, that's right. You can't. FAIL!!
February 3, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plenty of media outlets use maps showing "purple" states, as noted above, meaning they can't be classified in simple "red/blue" terms. But I can understand why a simpleton would want to keep things simple.
February 3, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just replying because I wanted to see how narrow my paragraph was going to be!
February 3, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!
February 3, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is what you do when you can't back up your post. Got it!
February 3, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
People talk about "Purple states" or "Swing states" all the time. If you had half a brain you'd realize this, unfortunately all you can muster is a bunch of insults. Normally when people talk about "red" and "blue" states they mean states that never go for the other side.
Furthermore, and I realize this is hard for you to grasp, I reason I brought up Obama's margin in MO had nothing to do with the Electoral College, but the fact that they elected a democratic senator isn't some kind of Miracle or prove that Clare McCaskill is some supercandidate.
You look like an idiot because you flailed around wildly to defend Daschle yesterday, attacked anyone who criticized him, and now he's gone, not because you say stupid stuff.
February 3, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
In what world does Daschle withdrawing make my defense of him idiotic?
I still think he was a good choice. I still think this shit about his taxes is BS. I still think ragging on him for being divorced for out of bounds. I still think Obama did the right thing by sticking by him.
I regret he let the NYT run him off. But there's only so much abuse someone should accept for taking a thankless job with shitty pay.
Now, it's time you got over your crush on me and stop pulling my pigtails for attention. Sorry, you're just not my type. I prefer primates with opposable thumbs and IQs above room temperature.
February 3, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCaskill is actually proving to be a much better Senator than I expected. And why should she vote for the current POS stimulus bill? I don't agree with WHY the GOP thinks it's crap (they seem to want even MORE tax cuts) but I have to agree that the bill is full of junk and not NEARLY enough infrastructure.
February 3, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a matter of fact she was an incredibly weak candidate who barely won in a big Democratic year against a weak Republican candidate. She is barely a Democrat at all and her rotten advice is probalby the reason Obama lost Missouri when he could certainly have carried it. She advised him to campaign in outstate MO where he didn't have a chance in hell as the tally in November proved. He made only one appearance in St. Louis. Perhaps had he not wasted his time in Rush Limbaugh's hometown or in SW MO where there are few Democrats he might have sparked another 5000 people to vote because that's all he lost by. McCaskill is a horrendous corporate tool.
February 3, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This BS shows your ignorance of Missouri and of McCaskill. McCaskill went against conventional wisdom and ran a campaign in the outstate areas of Missouri. If the outstate LOSS (because these areas always go majority Republican) can be kept to 40% for the Democrat, then the metropolitan areas that are reliably Democratic can create the election win. McCaskill proved this to be correct against an incumbent Senator. The campaign folks were supplied by the Schumer folks and came into the state from WDC about 6 weeks before the election.
Obama lost in a very close race because he did not get the outstate numbers up to 40%--instead they hovered below 40%, averaging about 35%. Even with record turnout in the metropolitcan and liberal college areas, this is simply not enough to carry the state. Even so, the loss was close by about 3700 votes.
Clair was co national chair for Obama so it seems he doesn't have a problem with her. And I'm quite happy to have Claire rather than Talent any day of the week.
February 3, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hagan won in spite of herself. She's a step up from Liddy Dole, no doubt, but don't hold your breath on her turning out to be a great progressive Senator from the state of North Carolina.
Hagan declined to enter the race for months, and had to be dragged into it because Chuck and the DC gang couldn't allow a gay man to be the nominee.
February 3, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
After having Jesse Helms as my senator followed by Jesse Helms in a skirt, I'll take Hagan in a heartbeat. At least she's pro-choice and supports stem cell research and believes in evolution.
I'm sure you'd feel real good about Jim Neal being the nominee. Until he lost to Liddy Dole by 20 points. Only one openly gay person has ever been elected to congress in his first term. (Baldwin and Frank have been re-elected.)
Trust me. NC was NOT going to be the first state to send a gay man to the Senate. Remember this is the place that kept sending Helms back.
February 3, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
did you see the preelection poll showing neal winning over dole as well? only dole could have beaten dole by 20!
February 3, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm is just like Daschle. He thinks the purpose of being in government is to whore yourself to the highest bidder when you're out and that it's all just a fun game where you get to manipulate people's lives. He is a cynic of the first order and Dean is just exactly who and what he appears to be. Dean is motivated by wanting to make the country a better place. That is anathema to DC insiders of both parties.
February 3, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And right there you've nailed the reason Dean would be the wrong person to head up the healthcare initiative. Dean has to be able to work in WDC--even if he is invisibly holding his nose to do so.
February 3, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Dean but I see the wisdom in picking someone who has a more moderate profile. (Dean is fairly moderate, but he's about as partisan as you get). We need someone who can sell the plan to Centrists.
I have no idea who else would do it, though.
February 3, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as many of us would like it to happen, I don't see Dean getting the nod. As I've seen noted elsewhere - and perhaps here - he's a lightning rod that will distract from the work at hand. (we won't hear about covering uninsured children, all we'll hear about is "the scream") And he doesn't have the congressional connections that a Daschle would have had.
Of course, perhaps having those "connections" comes with strings attached so it could be that an "outsider" - one who hopefully pays his/her taxes - is a better option.
February 3, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Join the Dean for HHS group on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/dn4kx8
February 3, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard Dean would be the perfect selection as HHS Secretary. Unfortunately, I don't think Obama would be comfortable with his strong personality or the fact that he represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I'll keep my fingers crossed anyway!
February 3, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Obama hates strong personalities. That's why he has Rahm and Hillary and Jim Jones and Gates and Biden around him. They're all such shy wall flowers and "yes" folks.
February 3, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said anything about strong personalities other than you? I was talking about his politics, not his personality. You should read before you emote.
February 3, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad, wrong comment. Sorry for the mistake on the personality thing.
I don't think, however, that Dean's personality is the kind Obama wants around primarily because he would strongly represent a far more liberal position. Everyone else around Obama is a centrist/DLC type Democrat or a Republican.
February 3, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. Good. I was getting read to rip you a new for denying you said what you said!
Dean was a favorite of the netroots but look at his record as governor. He is no more liberal than Obama. He's a progressive, not a blue dog, but this notion that he's an uber-liberal is just silly.
Sometimes we make the mistake of thinking anyone who spoke out against the war was a liberal. Not so. A lot of folks opposed the war because it was just plain stupid! That was the rationale for both Dean and Obama, as well as a lot of republicans.
February 3, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
here's a facebook group for people who want Howard Dean as HHS secretary.
February 3, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can another person be given the position and THAT person hire Daschle as his assistant? Just curious.
It's too bad because Dashcle has a good plans to get health care for all.
February 3, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What're the recriminations for Leo Hindery, the New York financier for whom Daschle worked? Did he do anything untoward or was this all Daschle's failure to keep his accounting straight?"
You mean more "untoward" than pulling a "Ken Lay" at Global Crossings?
February 3, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Hindery story was the one holding the gun on this.
February 3, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mean Lou Pai. Ken Lay went down with the ship. I still wonder how Pai (who took 10x more than anyone else) managed to skate.
February 3, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huge political loss for Obama here. A big hit. GOP and purity test liberals are dancing in the streets - what strange bedfellows politics make.
February 3, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP was in love with Daschel and would have voted for him. Bob Dole was working the phones for him. Why? because they were lobbying partners.
February 3, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you 100% delmoi. Daschle had all the traits we despise in Republicans and some Dems as well, connected to the hilt, compromised 100 times over by corporate slush money.
February 3, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"huge political loss"?
I don't think so. It's a loss, yes, but it's not huge.
And Daschle would have been dogged by questions from the start. Death by a thousand cuts and all.
February 3, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only Cabinet losses that would have been bigger hits would have been State, Defense and AG.
February 3, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you wouldn't include Treasury?
February 3, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're being overly dramatic.
February 3, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just cannot imagine non-dramatic Jonze.
February 3, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like imagining the absence of space.
February 3, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoah, I think my brain just did a flip on that one, CT. Very Taoist (or Yogi Berra--can't decide! ;) ).
February 3, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yogi all the way...
February 3, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite Yogi-ism was when he was talking about a popular restaurant that was all the rage for a time:
February 3, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"95% of the game is half mental"
February 3, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
kewl!
February 3, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOP and purity test liberals are dancing in the streets - what strange bedfellows politics make.
You really have no idea what you're talking about here. It's not a "purity test" to ask for an HHS Secretary who isn't in bed with the industry that he's supposed to reform--or for one who isn't too important to be disqualified for not paying a fairly huge tax bill.
February 3, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
He knew all the players, something that was vital to get this reform passed quickly.
February 3, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what type of "reform" do you think he would have passed?
February 3, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The important question is "WHAT reform?"
Getting legislation passed that simply perpetuates in another form today's practice of letting insurance companies and other middlemen skim 25% off the top of our health care expenditures is not reform; but that's what Daschle would have pushed through.
February 3, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, the republicans absolutly wanted Daschle as HHS, they didn't want this scandal to kill him, they wanted it to live on so they could use it to discredit the whole healcare plan.
February 3, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's probably a lot of truth to that. I also think the "senatorial courtesy" thing came into play a bit - Daschle was one of their own. But while we heard noise from both sides about Daschle, the loudest noises weren't coming from the Senate. I was surprised at how quiet the GOP Senators were on this issue. But I think courtesy only goes so far and I think you're probably right - they would have dogged Daschle and Obama with this until they sunk (or significantly weakened) any Obama/Daschle/Dem healthcare reform effort. Daschle may have been very qualified for this position but I don't think he was uniquely qualified. Better to go with somebody else.
The worst thing about the Geithner and Daschle messes is that it forced the Killefer withdrawal. Now, I know almost nothing about her and I believe the spot she was nominated for was a new one. But her tax oversight was so minor compared to those of Geithner and Daschle...but because of their problems, she had to go as well.
February 3, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
good point!
February 3, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There seems to have been some kind of flaw in the screening process. You would have thought that there was a question about having paid all of your taxes.
February 3, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, do you think that these people told the truth? I doubt it.
February 3, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That, and it seems that half of the picks have no idea what their other hand is doing.
I think the vetters need to get vetted.
February 3, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if the paperwork was not submitted under oath, not telling the truth would be a false statement (18 USC 1001), which is a felony. If the forms were filled out under oath, then you'd have perjury.
February 3, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOOD RIDDANCE SENATOR SLEAZE!!!!
Bwahaha. This is great news! The best way to keep democrats in power over the long term is to not get corrupt. Obama has always been an opponent of corruption, and it's good to see he's not selling himself short here.
The health care debate is going to be one of the most difficult ones and we need a public face on it without the slightest hint of corruption and dirty dealing. And that wasn't daschle.
To all those who defended Daschle on these threads. SUCK IT HAHAHAHAH!
February 3, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrea Mitchell said she spoke to Daschle, and she said he said he decided to withdraw after reading the NYT article. Also, that he wouldn't be the health czar in the White House anymore.
February 3, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt?
When you're wondering about competence, perhaps you should use spellcheck?
How badly is Obama tarnished by this both in terms of his competance
February 3, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice catch...
February 3, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the blogsphere! We don't need no stinkin' spellcheck!
February 3, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very funny and good catch. Do you find cooper's posts somewhat annoying in tone by the way? Just curious.
February 3, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, now that he's opted for the regular use of paragraphs, it's a little easier to swallow.
February 3, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know we would be getting much better coverage if Elana had this story.
February 3, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find his tone juvenile, and he needs an editor to follow him.
February 3, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
*Sniff*...is that "eau de elitist" you're wearing?
February 3, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfamiliar with the concept of an editor?
February 3, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 3, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daschle was an uphill climb because there is very powerful interests that don't want to see healthcare reform. Dean is hyper-partisan and simply will not work, not to mention Rahm Emanuel is not going to let him into the Cabinet let alone with such a lofty post.
February 3, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Why do you think that emanuel won't let him in the cabinet?
2. Hyper-partisan? That might be what is needed at hhs for healthcare reform. I actually don't perceive him as "hyper-partisan." I actually perceive him more of a type to push as hard as he can for something that is good for the country. I don't consider that "hyper-partisan."
February 3, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"very powerful interests that don't want to see healthcare reform" . . . . You mean like Daschle himself?
Daschle was a great pick . . . if your intention was to show that the insurance companies have nothing to fear from an Obama administration. And that is precisely what I think the new President was trying to say.
I don't mind Daschle bowing out. What I DO mind is that my belief that the adults were now going to be running the White House has been shattered. This administration is not proving any more competent than the last one. In fact, when it comes to pure politics, the Bush administration was light years ahead of this one. Of course, their politics were disgusting (and criminal) but you have to admit, at least they were good at it.
February 3, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Get Sarah Bernhard here some smelling salts.
February 3, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daschle was an uphill climb because there is very powerful interests that don't want to see healthcare reform.
Uh yeah, and Daschle worked for those very powerful interests.
February 3, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. All good points, Mr. Cooper, and I appreciate your having made them. Very fortunate to have someone of your caliber here, truly.
2. If you are going to pick a word to misspell, "competence" is once you might try to avoid (the undersigned, of course, being no model of typographic perfection).
3. How about a new pic? That red shirt is not happening for you.
February 3, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now Daschle's career in public service seems at an end. Makes you not want to run for the leadership.
ugh, I'm not liking Matt Cooper on here for reasons I suspected. He's too inside the beltway.
How about, pay your taxes on over 400K worth of free car rides.
Like, this is all inside baseball politics.
If you want to read something interesting on this, read Glenn Greenwald. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/01/daschle/index.html
Cooper should go back to MSM and not infect independent journalism with his Conventional Wisdom observations
February 3, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear! Matt's more interested in enhancing his cozy relationship with the status quo than in real reporting. This is more and more clear every day.
He's wasting his time (and ours) here.
February 3, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the Cooper haters seem to be very noisy on this site, I will go out of my way and do what I normally don't, and say that so far I find I like reading Matt Cooper much more than Josh Marshall, as well as a lot of other stuff published here. I find myself checking out each post he makes and find myself recommending most of them. I like useful insider info, always have, think that's a very important part of what reporting should be. Kudos to Marshall as an editor for bringing him on.
February 3, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Bye and Good riddance!
February 3, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson, Daschle, and Killefer bow out - How many nominees did Bush lose? And Geithner was messy as well.
So much for not making the same mistakes that Clinton made.
February 3, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG! Did Clinton drop out too?
February 3, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim Sasser was never Majority Leader, or Democratic Leader.
February 3, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of "competance," I see that "birfurcated" lost its extra "r", just as I was signing it to comment on it.
February 3, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
MC posits: "How badly is Obama tarnished by this both in terms of his competance--two cabinet nominees choke before they reach their confirmation hearings--and his promise of reform."
I've been hearing a lot of people talking about this situation as though it is an Obama failure. I don't understand why the failure of two nominees (actually I think it's three, isn't it) is Obama's failure. He didn't have anything to do with these people's tax issues and he has tried to deal with it since. If there's any failure, maybe it's setting the bar so high that it becomes difficult to reach. The man has been in office less than a month. Do we really expect reform to happen instantaneously?
February 3, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Hell the only reason this came to light is that after Daschle decided to tell Obama, they insisted that he disclose it. He (Obama) has been above board on all of these matters. The fault lies with Richardson, Daschle and Killefer for not paying their taxes and not disclosing that fact upfront. If a person decides to lie, there's nothing you can do about it without evidence to the contrary.
February 3, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surprised the hell out of me
February 3, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. But big sigh of relief on my end.
February 3, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems need to get on the airwaves and point out the fact it took a lot of courage and integrity to bow out and make note of the loss the U.S. has incurred by loosing such a knowledgeable individual in the area of health care.
The Republicans are trying to start the spin this as Obama starting to loose credibility. This isn't the first time I heard this credibility argument and I'm sure it won't be the last.
Politicians drive me frickin' bonkers, both sides.
February 3, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just Republicans. It's the talking hairdoes on cable news who are pushing the "competence" theme. It was raised yesterday on MSNBC, and I'm sure it will turn into a deluge after this.
The idea of Democrats being proactive when it comes to the media is something they must be allergic to, because pretty much on every issue so far in the new Administration, they've been about a week behind when it comes to responding to the Republican noise machine.
Kent Conrad was asked in all seriousness this morning on CNN whether there was any good in the stimulus bill at all. When that's the starting point, you know they've completely lost the spin war.
February 3, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
i've given up trying to figure out why the democrats are so slow when it comes to the spin war. you'd think that after all this time they'd have figured out that the media readily swallows republican talking points, and try and get out ahead of it from time to time. democrats take every opportunity they have, to make their own lives more difficult; half the time they just look like they're not even trying.
February 3, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats are slow at the spin war because they have an uphill climb. The network media controls the narrative. That means who they book, how they book them, who gets the air time, who can get interrupted and how, and a myriad of other techniques that influence spin.
You think they can suddenly become more aggressive by choice and strategy? Do you somehow think that businesses that invest in advertisement and therefore have an ownership stake in the media will allow any story to gain traction that will undermine their bottom line?
Here's the simple truth:
If a media story makes you angry, there is a 100% chance that you are angry at the wrong thing and your energy is misdirected. Take the TARP program and executive bailouts. Never mind the fact that there was a collusion of banks, credit agencies, and investment firms that created 50 trillion dollars of imaginary wealth. No, mind that a few people are skimming from the top.
I reccomend that you pay close attention to how the media operates, even on weblogs. There is a military industrial color or purpose to all media narratives... and only people who reinforce the narrative, regardless of party, are allowed to express their opinions without being treated as a joke or a traitor.
February 3, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with trying to be "post partisan" is that you can't call your opponents liars, even if they're lying.
February 3, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daschle seemed to make sense for all the usually spouted reasons, but one thing never made sense to me. He and Baccus apparently have loathed each other for years. Given that they would need to work very closely together, why would you think that would work? Combine that with not paying the tax equivalent of more than three years worth of the average American income, and I think someone at the White House finally persuaded Obama to lose this guy. Cant believe it took this long, actually... Dunno about Dean. Does not really seem to fit Obama's MO. It would make me happy, sure, but I don't think it's too likely. Any thoughts on alternative candidates?
February 3, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure about Dean either; it's not that he wouldn't get the job done, but I get the sense that there's some strain between him and someone in the Obama administration. Why else would he step down from the DNC after doing a pretty outstanding job running the organization over the last few years?
February 3, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Phelps for Secretary, HHS!
February 3, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, so we can legalize marijuana?!?
February 3, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If everyone switches to the Phelps Diet it would stimulate the economy.
February 3, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given what he eats after his workouts can you imagine how much Phelps eats after a workout where he's also had a joint right afterwards? Kind of boggles the mind...at least mine. What are we looking at there--oh, 24,000 calories or so?
February 4, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it with these high profile muckety-mucks who can't get their act together when it comes to paying their freakin' taxes?
It's a heck of a lot easier for them to do their due diligence than it is for the WH vetters to find out about that kind of stuff.
First setback for Obama, and entirely avoidable.
(Sigh.) Oh well.
February 3, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe some DC area accounting firm will advertise successfully by the number of successful high-profile political appointee nominees whose taxes they've done.
Maybe aspiring high-profile political appointees will start asking prospective accountants for references of successful high-profile political appointees whose taxes they have done--and demand full disclosure of any high-profile folks who got shot down over problems on returns they did.
February 3, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad--meant to be a reply to Steve S's reply just below...
February 3, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Dashcle's accountant? His job is to give a ruling, and apparently he gave the wrong one when asked. No one in DC will trust him/her again, and deservedly so.
February 3, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad that Daschle is gone. Obama probably took a hit over this but it would have been an even BIGGER hit if Daschle had stayed on and gone through a hearing next Tuesday.
Presidents make mistakes but it how they handle it will determine how big of a hit they get.
Obama could have gone skewered in the mud if this had continue to gone on. Now he takes less of a hit.
February 3, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
White House Press Briefing on shortly.
This should be a hoot.
February 3, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's getting grilled and rightly so. If it;s a new era of responsibility as the Administration is trying to sell it, then why did they have to step-down rather than Obama "firing" them. And why was Obama pushing hard for Daschle even last night, only to have him withdraw today?
February 3, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
probably b/c daschle didn't really step down...he got the sign from the POTUS
February 3, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm relieved to see Daschle go. He should have made the transition team aware of this a long time ago. later, Tom, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
February 3, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with a comment early in this thread- the more I found out about what Daschle has been up to the less enthusiastic I was about the nomination, especially since apart from its substantive demerits it was becoming a huge distraction at a time when that's the last thing Obama needs. Now, would it be too much to hope for a Secretary of HHS who isn't already a wholly-owned subsidiary of the health care - industrial complex? Probably, but I can dream until a new nominee is announced.
February 3, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, Daschle's tax issues don't bother me half as much as Geithner's. I am sorry to see him go.
-Geithner was informed of his liability before electing to ignore it.
-Geithner was reimbursed for his tax obligation.
-Geithner got caught once, and kept silent about the other outstanding obligation.
-Geithner is now in charge of IRS
-Geithner has no recognized public service record, and his competence, which may be real, is merely anecdotal. A lot of questionable policy came out of his group.
-Daschle didn't get money, but a perk from his employer, which he might have refused if he had known the tax consequences. Was the value on his W-2 or 1099 as it should have been?
February 3, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to give my wife credit for this. She notes that by nominating Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle, the IRS has ended up recovering about $175,000 in back taxes, penalties and interest.
It certainly shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that such shenanigans are endemic to our congresscritters of any party at any time. But it does suggest a bold and profitable course for Pres. Obama to take.
Why doesn't Obama simply nominate every single living past or present member of Congress for something? In the ensuing confirmation process, the IRS might well take in enough money to obliterate the National Debt!
February 3, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice! You and your wife should write for Leno.
February 3, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great thought! You know what it makes me think, though? I wonder if any person in America were to have their taxes raked through the way these nominees have had theirs reviewed, how many of us would come out clean with no mistakes on our taxes? If I were a betting woman, I would guess that there are more mistakes or omissions or whatevers on tax filings than we know. It's just that the majority of us aren't wanting to live our lives in the spotlight.
February 3, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how Geithner and Lynn have similar issues, however get confirmed because the Republicans like the nominations, yet the same issues are trumpeted to the point that it sinks Daschle.
The MSM knows who butters their bread as well. Daschle was lampooned by the infotainment talking heads.
February 3, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no fan of Geithner, but the question in my mind was never about taxes per. se. it was about the KIND of compensation that these guys forgot to pay for. Geithner was working a regular job as a contractor for a non-profit (the IMF). He forgot that he was supposed to pay the employee and employer parts of the tax. Who cares? Daschle was getting free limo service from Wallstreet exec and taking millions in "speaking fees" and totally "not lobbying" on behalf of the very companies who have been helping to deny healthcare to millions of Americans for decades!
February 3, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to some comments here, Daschle was the only one capable of reform and it's now dead because he's gone. LOL
February 3, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link to one post that says Daschle is the only one capable of reforming healthcare. Just one.
February 3, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw someone mention on another blog this is the first time taxes have been part of the open vetting process.
Is this true? If so, this should be made known as I had never heard this before.
February 3, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Failure to pay SS withholding for housekeepers, etc... has been the achilles heel for several cycles.
Surely if the vetting process looks at how folks pay taxes for their emploees, their individual returns have also always been part of the process.
No factual basis in my comment just conjecture.
February 3, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
thnx
February 3, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Moore would be a fantastic pick for HHS! His positions on health care and he is a true Washington outsider!
February 3, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe Obama's cutting Daschle loose.
As shady as Dascle's dealings were, the man was charging in with a clear vision for healthcare reform.
February 3, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that Daschle being gone is a blow to healthcare reform but I think if Daschle stayed on I think it may have been harder to get healthcare reform and would have damaged Obama even more.
February 3, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Once Daschle was confirmed, this would be forgotten. I can't blame him for withdrawing, though. Taking a 90% pay cut to have your life picked apart and your motives questioned and called a crook.
This kind of crap is why few people are willing to serve.
February 3, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now he can go back to lobbying for the same industry that he was going to "reform", and he won't have to move into the poorhouse making only a six figure salary instead of a seven figure one.
Really, I hope some of you know that there are lots of excellent candidates who haven't spent their entire careers as beltway insider whores.
Take your blinders off, broaden your horizons.
February 3, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My horizon is plenty broad. That's why I'm a realist, not an ideologue who believes that working with an industury makes you a whore and a sell out.
Keep your purity. I'll take healthcare. Thank you very much!
February 3, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your horizon will always be limited as long as you believe that beltway insiders are the only ones capable of "reforming". As long as the "reformer" is a Democrat, however compromised, you don't even care what the "reform" will be.
February 3, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did I say insiders were the *only one* who could reform the system? Unlike you, my world is not black and white.
And please don't tell me what I care about since you don't have a clue.
February 3, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As opposed to you, who doesn't have a clue about ANYTHING.
February 3, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. He has been preparing for this position for years. Probably the tax mess made his leaving unavoidable, but I don't share the joy of some people here. It is not going to be easy to find replacement. They say Dean, but Dean has been doing politics, not health care policy for years now.
February 3, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, damn, damn! Another good one gone. All because of our messed up tax codes - hell income tax in general. Let anyone in the know about side-stepping IRS cast the first stone - then no one would hold office. This is so disappointing.
I hate all of the acts of 'hateration' going on since Obama took office. All this postering and back-biting. It's all this continuing muck to will continually keep all of us from progress.
I truly hope we can make to the other side of all of this mess - because right now I am sick and tired of being sick and tired with business as usual.
February 3, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hand wringing left wing of the Democratic party isn't very good at governing
Perhaps because they've done so little of it or perhaps they've done so little because they're so bad at it
Chicken/Egg, egg/chicken..same outcome
February 3, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did the left wing of the Democratic Party ever even get near governing? Clinton was a founding member of the DLC. The biggest fuckup in modern Democratic history, Jimmy Carter, was (like Clinton) from the Southern moderate wing of the party and pioneered the deregulation agenda that Reagan later expanded. Daschle was/is a moderate. Harry Reid is well to the right of the party's center.
I really love this kind of comment from people who DO represent the failed wing of the Democratic party- which is in fact the moderates who have controlled it all along.
February 3, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Toodles! Should have had some dececency and left earlier rather than dragging Obama and the Democrats into defending his tax-evading, semi-lobbyist, influence peddling, funded by health care interests ass.
February 3, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's precisely what made Daschle such a strong pick and a perfect illustration of what I was talking about - the self absorbed self righteous left cannot govern
Cue Harry and Louise
February 3, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink