Rachel Maddow--a quick lesson on how to fail in politics without really trying

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:00


Maddow does such a perfect job of explaining the utter political incompetence of the Obama Administration in dealing with Jim DeMint's blocking of the Erroll Southers nomination to head the TSA, that she elevates Howard Feinman's game to perhaps his best perfomance of a lifetime. Rather than his usual cliche-repeating machine shtick, he does a reasonable impression of an historically informed wise man, following Rachel's scathing setup:

Sayeth Rachel:

MADDOW:  Here's a quick lesson in how to fail in politics without really trying.  This is Erroll Southers.  He's a Homeland Security official in Los Angeles, a former FBI agent, a counterterrorism expert, and until today, he was President Obama's nominee to be the new head of the Transportation Security Administration.

Republican senators led by South Carolina's Jim DeMint blocked a vote to confirm Mr. Southers for weeks, alternately citing concerns that he might be in favor of unions at the TSA and calling him out over an FBI censure he received two decades ago for running a background check on his estranged wife's boyfriend.

Today, of course, we learned how the Obama administration ultimately responded to these Republican challenges.  Not by taking a front, doubling down, pushing this nominee through, not by firing back, making the opposition to Mr. Southers more a political liability for those attacking him than an asset, not by using that handy recess appointment trick to put the nominee through, despite Jim DeMint and friends trying to stop it.  But rather, the administration responded by-giving in, and at the same time, whining about how difficult the political opposition had made the climate in Washington.

Paul Rosenberg :: Rachel Maddow--a quick lesson on how to fail in politics without really trying
A statement from Mr. Southers released by the White House said in part, quote, "It is clear that my nomination has become a lightning rod for those who have chosen to push a political agenda at the risk of the safety and the security of the American people.  This partisan climate is unacceptable and I refuse to allow myself to remain part of their dialogue."

So, in other words, to punish them for their bad dialogue, I'm going to let them win.

Think about the overall context here.  Jim DeMint, Senator DeMint, personally blocked a plainly qualified nominee for TSA administrator.  And while that block was underway, someone tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airplane.

And not only did the Obama administration not capitalize on Jim DeMint's horrible political misstep, now they are rewarding Senator DeMint for making it.

Witness Senator DeMint's victory lap today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JIM DEMINT ®, SOUTH CAROLINA:  What I did has turned out to be the right thing, and the White House has a vetting problem, not just with this nominee, but others.  And so I think slowing it down and looking into it a little more was the right thing to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW:  So, why was he passed unanimously out of committee?

It is possible that Mr. Southers was just dead-set on withdrawing himself from consideration and the Obama administration somehow couldn't figure out how to stop him.  But regardless of the precise circumstances surrounding this withdrawal, it is the very embodiment of political weakness.

Sure, one can blame Coakley for running a terrible campaign, and point to how popular Obama remains.  But Obama's teflon ability to avoid paying too much of a personal price for his spectacular political ineptitude does not mean that others aren't paying a heavy price for it.  If you don't believe me, just ask Southers.

Heck, he wasn't even a progressive like Van Jones.  He was fricken lifetime cop.  (And if cops, firefighters and paramedics can be unionized, tell me again, what's the argument against unionizing the TSA?)  But he was Obama's nominee, and that was all the reason that DeMint needed to try to take him down.  And Obama, it seems, never managed to figure that one out.  Not even now. Obama: the first president since the 19th Century who skipped Politics 101.  Cause he was so smart, don'tcha know!


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Cares passionately? (4.00 / 7)
It appears that the only thing Obama cares passionately about is doing nothing and calling it something.  People(Ohio) don't want and won't believe anymore speeches.  If he/they don't deliver, they're all history.   They need to pass health care reform that lowers medicare eligibility to age 50 and then drops by five years each fifth year until it reaches age zero.  No single payer, whatever the hell that means.   "Keep it simple stupid" and get it done by whatever means.    He also needs to throw his Bush/Clinton reruns under the bus.  Why a change candidate would surround himself with Gates, Bernanke, Geithner and Rahm is beyond comprehension.  It's like claiming you changed your socks because you turned them inside out.  What a waste of one year and a ton of energy.


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

When will Obama see that change is NECESSARY? (4.00 / 3)
For heaven's sake, was it all only lip services? Instead of whining, he should wake up and smell the rotten tomatoes! HE CAN'T WIN  UNDER THOSE RULES. Period. If he continus to try, not only the party is doomed at the end of the year, but he will be toast in 2012, too. I thought the guy is smart, but he has to be really dumb not to see that he's on the road to ruin now!

Regardless if he gives a shit about the fate of average Americans (imho, he couldn't care less), it should be in his own damn best interest to decisively change course now! He has to make a VERY BOLD statement in the SOTU speeck on the 27th, or all is lost. He has to make fighting corporatism the centerpiece of his presidency. And that means, kicking all the pro-corporate villagers out, especially Emanuell, but also Geithner and Summers. He has to convince Reid that he will be killed if he doesn't support getting rid of th filibuster. He has to build a coalition in Senate to get rid of the supermajority, starting with Biden, Harkin, Dorgan, Sanders, Burris, Feingold etc.

And after the damn obstacle has been nuked, they have to push popular legislation through, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes: A better healthcare reform, banking regulation, job progams, new laws to reign corporations political influence in, brinign the troops fom Iraq home (wtf are 100000 still doing there, at high costs?) etc etc. He really has to push the accelerator again like it's the first 100 days, and even stonger!

I know the chances are slim that this will happen. But if the Dems don't even try, they're done. Imho it will be worse than 1994. Just extrapolate the trends, they point towards hell!


I don't think you will find an argument here (0.00 / 0)
Just don't believe Obama can fight for people positive political goals, not only because he is opposed to conflict, but also, he isn't a progressive.

That plus the apparent conservative numerical advantage in the senate (more than 51 disregarding party affilation) makeing the filibuster unchangeable, and the slim liberal majority in the house leaves our wishes unaddressed. And perhaps impossible, with this legislature.

You are correct imho about the comming November election defeat. It has the potential, not just of landslide losses, but also to destroy the Democratic party.

But really, if they can't deliver at this juncture, what good are they? The sooner, the better. After the democratic half of the one corporate party is gone, it will be easier to build the peoples party.

Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR


[ Parent ]
"more than 51 disregarding party affilation" Well, imho it's wrong.. (0.00 / 0)
...to see it that way. See, the BlueDogs are most vulnerable, and some of them will see that the only way to save themselves is to pass popular legislation. And they can't do that as long as the filibuster is there! Those folks have to be despeate by now, they are with their backs to the wall, and they have to know that only bold action can give them another term. Imho this makes them more approachable now, and if Obama would join forces with Biden and some Senators (Schumer, Harkin, Feingold, and hopefully Reid and Byrd, too), some would follow their leaders. It would be a close call, sure, but it has to be tried.

[ Parent ]
sounds good to me (0.00 / 0)
Agree it might be possible, but.....

I don't believe Obama will do any such thing. Don't even believe he wants to, not in his true constituants' interest. Or in his political orientation, he is not a progressive.

Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR


[ Parent ]
Yes, it's the horrible lack of leadership that will screw us. (0.00 / 0)
According to reports, the WH drew out of the healthcare debate to "let the dust settle after MA". "let the dust settle"? How long? Until November???

If Obama doesn't get a sense of the burning urgency now, and grows a spine, everything is hopeless...


[ Parent ]
true (0.00 / 0)
Your last paragragh would make a good sig line.

Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR

[ Parent ]
The Fierce Urgency of Whenever (0.00 / 0)
A more general case of his fierce advocacy of gay rights.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Didn't they run the Paul Volcker story this week where you are? (4.00 / 1)
Geithner, along with his (and Econ Advisor Larry Summers) whole orientation towards protecting Wall Street and Goldman Sachs, are no longer standing next to Obama.

The President has cozied up to former Fed chief Paul Volcker whose plan:

restricts banks from making speculative investments that do not benefit their customers. He has argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the financial crisis. The administration also wants to limit the ability of the largest banks to use borrowed money to fund expansion plans. ...

Advocates of Volcker's ideas [which would take us back closer to Glass-Steagall banking/finance policy days following the Great Depression] were delighted. "This is a complete change of policy that was announced today. It's a fundamental shift," said Simon Johnson, a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management. "This is coming from the political side. There are classic signs of major policy changes under pressure . . . but in a new and much more sensible direction."

Industry officials [that's the banks and other finance giants], however, said they were startled and disheartened that Geithner was overruled, in part because they supported the more moderate approach Geithner proposed last year.

That was Thursday's story. Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And today's Post runs an editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

No doubt, the embattled president likes the populist resonance of a plan to "break up" Wall Street. But what about the policy merits? ...

Can you guess the rest of the editorial? -- The Conservatives at the Washington Post find reasons to suggest better derail any change.

And here's another harbinger of change - that the Obama Administration may be getting it that they're doing a lousy job  - David Plouffe, the mastermind behind Obama's successful presidential campaign, will be taking an expanded advisor role to the administration.
http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905


[ Parent ]
Gerithner and Summers still have their job (0.00 / 0)
And, honestly, I hate those stories about who is the new favorite of the king and has his ear! Is this France in the 18th century, or what? Do we want a government leader who is subject to intrigues and asskissing? That's so Versailles!

Apart from this, I really doesn't matter if Obama's sympathy shifts from one lackey to another. He doesn't really act anyway, and will only influence the tenor of his speeches. Take,m for instance, his latest rant about the Supremes. Nice, and very populist, but we all know that no action will come out of it. Obama can't change the constitution after all. I see that as populist grandstanding on a topic where he doesn't have to fear he can be forced to do something.

So, damn, we all know the guy can deliver some fine speeches, but where is the effing action?  


[ Parent ]
DeMint and 41 (4.00 / 1)
DeMint is about as batshit crazy right wing as it gets.  When it matters, he's been with the liberal side exactly 0% of the time during the Obama Presidency.  That puts him with half of the Republican Senators.  Even when it doesn't matter, he comes through a pathetic 2% of the time (all votes from Progressive Punch).  He's right there with Inhofe at the bottom.

If Jim DeMint can kill any bill or appointee on his say so, the US has transformed into 18th century Poland where a single no vote from any legislator could kill anything.  Lest we forget, 18th century Poland was freely and frequently manipulated by the major powers of the day through that mechanism.  France or Prussia or Austria-Hungary simply rented a legislator.  With the Supreme Court decision, substitute Aetna, Citibank, or Exxon. And yes, 187th century Poland very quickly went out of existence.

Screw DeMint.  The one has become mightier than the 59 because any nutjob automatically brings 40 Republicans with him/her.  It makes the CA budget situation look downright collegial.


No one is afraid of Obama (4.00 / 7)
As Bill Moyers put it, "No one is afraid of Obama."

But Obama is afraid of politics. He tries to be a community organizer, asking people "why can't we all get along?" We will see whether he actually fights for the Wall St rhetoric he spouted the other day. The Wall St CEOs reported a while ago that after scolding them in public Obama was very mild-mannered and nice (read deferential, a pushover) at the meeting supposedly held to give them a whipping. Bah!


I don't know. (4.00 / 3)
On the other hand, Obama has stood steadfastly by many of the true shits he has appointed. He is fighting YES!... the f-word, "fighting"... for Bernanke. And it appears we will have to see Geithner booked, prosecuted and convicted before he is fired by Obama. Here  is Geithner undercutting Obama's new found populist persona:

http://www.silobreaker.com/ban...


Your story from silobreaker.com.... (0.00 / 0)
speaks from both sides, saying nothing. It is an attempt at face-saving for Geithner, who is being supplanted in the administration by former Fed chair Paul Volcker.

I believe the glass is half-full approach toward the Paul Volckner news in the Washington Post earlier this week.

I provided links above, in a response to Gray, to the Washington Post stories on this.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905


[ Parent ]
Most discouraging thing I've seen all day: (4.00 / 4)
this headline over at dkos "Obama vows "forceful, bipartisan response" to campaign finance decision"

"Bipartisan?!?"

He still doesn't get it, he still doesn't understand what is going on around him. Even after what should have been the wake-up call of Brown's election, he still thinks he can shmooze his way out of this.

I'm afraid Obama has made the deadliest mistake in politics, he has bought his own hype.

Montani semper liberi


Well, To Be Honest (0.00 / 0)
This is one time he's got a wee bit of reality on his side.

McCain's not a happy camper just now, seeing his most famous legislative accomplishment flushed down the toilet, so Obama's not totally delusional here.

The problem is, Obama has so over-used the word with virtually nothing to show for it, that he's starting to turn it into a negative.  Ordinarily that would be a good thing.  This is the one time when it would not be.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Personally (4.00 / 3)
when I hear the word "bipartisan" all I can see is Charlie Brown, Lucy, and a football.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Good Grief! (0.00 / 0)
Photobucket

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
When I Hear The Word "Bipartisan" (0.00 / 0)
I hear the word "buy-partisan"

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Except, of course (0.00 / 0)
when Obama says "bipartisan", he surely means more than just McCain and Paul, and means fine folks such as DeMint, Boehner and McConnell. What he means by "bipartisan" is, I think, ultimately a respect for power, whether it's necessary and merited or not.

Or, why fight when you can cave?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Sad story of BO (4.00 / 1)
Sad. New kid on block bullied by Republicans. Wimps out: "Can't we all get along, we're all stakeholders, aren't we?" Gets bullied even more. New wimp tactic: talk tough, do nothing, sulk. More bullying. Sad sad sad story.

The Waterloo Administration (4.00 / 2)
Like baseball has the Mendoza Line as benchmark for minimum acceptable performance, in politics there ought to be a Demint Line:

If you're repeatedly losing political arguments and fights with Jim Demint, you have achieved the political equivalent of a Waterloo failure. If Demint is crowing in victory over your defeat, you must wear the Waterloo crown.

As far as I can tell, that crown doesn't bother the President or his people in the slightest...

"The White House obviously has a loser mentality - but America rallies around winners."


Lines, Tangents, Circles (0.00 / 0)
As bad as the losing is, the circular repetition is so much worse.  (See tag line, please!)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
What a huge disappointment (0.00 / 0)
and embarrassment Obama is. The first black president, took the White House from the repubes, and this is how he thanks the country?! How he thanks everyone who came out in droves for him based on his lie of change? I can't take 3 more years of him. As a true progressive I am extremely disgusted by his actions and his smugness.

Extraordinary progressive star in the making

Obama is an anti-Machiavellian in some ways (4.00 / 3)
In that he appears to have turned his famous dictum about how it's better to be feared (and thus respected) than to be loved (and thus be viewed as a pushover) upside down: better to be loved (by those who lack real power, of course, because those who have it could care less about love) than to be feared (by those who have real power, and care less about love).

And I say in some ways because he does appear to be Machiavellian with respect to progressives, whom he's shat on since before even winning the election (FISA, McLurkin, NAFTA). In fact, his entire governing political strategy appears to be to:

1 - Suck up to those with real power (which includes not only powerful industries like finance, insurance and PhRMA, but also GOP and centrist Dem pols, the MIC, big media, and other powerful members of the establishment who can block his agenda).

2 - Stick it to those whom he not only believes cannot hurt him (so long as they're frozen out of the process), but who, if he's seen as sticking it to them, in his mind make him look strong and tough (i.e. progressives).

3 - Put on a show for credulous fools who worship the ground that he walks on, to do his on the ground dirty work for him--which includes sticking it to progressives (as anyone who's spent any time on DKos knows is going on).

Here's the thing, though. He's got it precisely wrong on each and every count. The people whose "love" he's trying to secure (i.e. the establishment) by sucking up to them will never "love" him, but merely use and abuse him to suit their purposes, as they've been doing all along. And the moment they don't need him, they'll discard if not destroy him.

The people whom he's sticking it to--real progressives--could be his best ally if he'd only respect them more and stop trying to make them fear him (which they don't, but they are increasingly despising him).

And the people who now constitute his base--the bots, and yes that is absolutely an apt epithet--are more noise and trouble makers than real assets, sort of Obama's version of the GOP's teabaggers (despite their laughable claim that progressives are the left's teabaggers).

A coward, fool and ultimately sellout. Truly pathetic. Still time to turn it all around, but man, what a horrible first year, politically (and no, Ledbetter and SCHIP do NOT make up for it).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Paul Volcker - just a "populist" photo-op? (0.00 / 0)
Do not make too much of the Paul Volcker moment. A photo-op? No substance?

David Gergen the spinmeister has been urging Obama to recapture public trust by "going after Wall St."  The Volcker show could easily have been just for show, with no real follow up. Gergen also told Obama to accuse the Republicans of being in the pocket of Wall St." That's true, but how explain the countercharge/fact that the top people in Congress getting bribe money (sorry, lobbyist money) from Wall St are leading liberal Democrats, plus, of course, how come Obama's campaign was fueled by Goldman Sachs?

Meanwhile, the new-old spinmeister Plouffe has been called to the Obama bedside to administer his PR medicine. His message: health care reform must pass.

So are we going to see a focus/real fight on jobs and Wall St, or are we going to wade through the swamp of health care reform all of next year too?







Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search