Why Even Save Daschle?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:36:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I've never cared for Tom Daschle, on substance or politics, but I know so little about health care that I have hesitated to discuss whether Daschle is a good choice for HHS. But in light of this news, why in heaven's name should President Obama lift a finger for a guy who basically did not tell him the truth:

President Obama’s choice for health secretary, Tom Daschle, was aware as early as last June that he might have to pay back taxes for the use of a car and driver provided by a private equity firm, but did not inform the Obama transition team until weeks after Mr. Obama named him to the health secretary’s post, senior administration officials said Saturday.

(Emphasis supplied.) In my view, that should disqualify him from holding a post in the Obama Administration. But the President is more forgiving apparently -- the Times reports that "Mr. Obama is standing by his nominee." That seems nuts to me.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Open Thread | NH Sen Gregg To Commerce? The Replacement Game >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Why Even Save Daschle? | 157 comments (157 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I agree with you (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by DFLer on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:43:05 AM EST

Moreover, equally troubling form that NYT articles are the sources of his income: more than $300,000 in income from health-related companies

As a politician, Mr. Daschle often struck a populist note, but his financial disclosure report shows that in the last two years, he received $2.1 million from a law firm, Alston & Bird; $2 million in consulting fees from a private equity firm run by a major Democratic fundraiser, Leo Hindery Jr. (which provided him with the car and driver); and at least $220,000 for speeches to health care, pharmaceutical and insurance companies. He also received nearly $100,000 from health-related companies affected by federal regulation.
Mr. Obama has instituted rules requiring former lobbyists in his administration to pledge not to deal with former clients, though he has made exceptions for two nominees, one at the Pentagon and one at the health agency. As a strategic adviser to companies, Mr. Daschle did not have to register as a lobbyist, and is not technically covered by those rules.

Not troubling to me (5.00 / 5) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:43:48 AM EST

But it should be troubling to anyone who believe the sanctimonious BS from Obama on lobbyists during the campaign.

Parent

: 'zactly (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by DFLer on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:07:17 AM EST

Parent
: Even worse (none / 0) (#155)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 10:52:15 AM EST

Is that his wife is his bag man. Any money paid to his lobbyist wife goes right into the Daschle bank account. It makes no difference who she lobbies.

Parent

Let me add that Daschle (5.00 / 10) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:43:07 AM EST

is the poster child for why Obama's and (John Edwards') sanctimonious Bs about lobbyist was so much drivel.

Daschle made as fortune from health care companies, but technically he did not "lobby." but the difference is what? It is total crap and proves that Obama was full of crap during the campaign on this issue.

To be fair. . . (none / 0) (#12)
by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:59:40 AM EST

Edwards never had (and never will have) the chance to see his anti-lobbyist proposals tested. I suspect he would not have been any better than Obama, but we'll never know.

And is it really "sanctimonious BS" if it tricks the rubes into voting for you? Or just good -- if not 100% forthright -- politics?

Parent

It can be good politics (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:01:23 AM EST

AND sanctimonious BS. Hell, it most often is.

On Edwards, I concede your point.

Parent

Straying from the topic (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by koshembos on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:46:50 AM EST

The topic is Daschle in particular and the tax cheaters with prominence. Let's call both Geithner and Daschle what they: tax cheats. Both are not particularly capable people and the right thing to do with both is for the IRS to look into their taxes. Position in any government makes mockery and us the stiffs who pay our taxes and on time.

We are used to see mediocrity rise to CEOs or secretary in the cabinet.

Parent

And they've only been caught (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by jussumbody on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:27:41 AM EST

for the last 3 years. God knows how long they have been cheating before the statutes of limitations ran out. And these are probably the "good" guys in DC.

I think Geithner as head of Treas and IRS is much worse that Daschle. But go ahead, Obama, blow what's left of your cred. Tell us though, what the hell are you gonna do for the next 4 years before you hand it all back to the R's? It seems like you want to hand it all back to them right now.

Parent

: No, I think Daschle is much worse than Geithner, (5.00 / 1) (#134)
by Brownell on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 05:50:58 PM EST

As I read it, Geithner skipped paying $34,000+ of payroll taxes, on an issue that was at that time in dispute. At the time Geithner was an "independent contractor" working for an international agency, there were published sources that said both that independent contractors working for international agencies were and were not liable for payroll taxes. Geithner reportedly consulted a CPA who told him he was not liable, and chose to follow the more generous interpretation. He paid income taxes in full and on time, and when the IRS ruled against him he paid the back taxes and interest.
Daschle's "problem," on the other hand, was that he owed more than $100,000 in income taxes on concealed income in the form of services that he received from health-care interests while he was selling himself as an independent arbiter and health care expert. And he did not pay up in full when the evasion was discovered, and he did not report the tax problem to the Obama staff when he was being vetted. Lots worse.
I won't even go into his spineless record of caving in while the Republicans perfected their all-obstruction-all-the-time technique with the Clinton administration - and then blamed the Clintons for his failures. There really is an inflexible rule of bureaucratic politics that you can NEVER NEVER forgive someone you have f@cked over.

Parent

Sanctimonious BS (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by ricosuave on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:05:51 AM EST

It is sanctimonious BS if you spout it while working with Daschle (and a handful of other lobbyists). And if that doesn't make it BS, when you accept donations from every lobbyist's non-working spouse it makes it BS.

It can be (and probably was) good politics as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. Of course, both the sleazy "good politics" and the kind of cronyism and lobbying that Daschle seems to exhibit here were centerpieces of what Obama pretended to run against.

Parent

: And you accept huge amounts (5.00 / 5) (#51)
by BernieO on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:03:43 AM EST

of money that lobbyists raised from corporate big wigs, then bundled and gave to your campaign. This is where the real influence lies, not in individual contributions from lobbyists.
It would have been terrible politics had the media bothered to tell voters about the deception instead of repeatedly praising him for his "stand" against influence peddling. He also ran ads in my state bragging that he took no money from corporations, something no candidate does because it is illegal. They take the money from the corporate execs instead, which Obama did just as much as the others. Yet the media let this deception slide, too.

Parent

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.. (none / 0) (#149)
by fly on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 08:51:23 AM EST

You win the prise..as do all the rest of the dems around who were screaming this the entire primary!!

Parent

: Obamy used all these guys.. (none / 0) (#150)
by fly on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 08:54:41 AM EST

to get to the big house..he knew darn well that the guys he was using.. he was going to dump..he vetted all these people,..anyone who doesn't believe that I have swamp land in Fl for you..aligators included!!
Welcome to Leo Strauss's New World Order!
No old folks included.

Parent

Announcement from Daschle soon? (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by ricosuave on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:00:37 AM EST

When the president is publicly saying he is sticking by you, and unsourced staffers are saying you are to blame for the problem, it usually means you are about to announce you prefer to spend more time with your family.

I also am announcing, and now (5.00 / 7) (#27)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:23:07 AM EST

that I would prefer that Daschle spend more time with his family. Never liked the guy, either.

Not comfortable with Geithner, but he apparently is good at his work his job (if not the part supervising taxes) and will work well for us. Daschle, I don't see that he ever was that effective for us.

Overall, increasingly uncomfortable with these appointments. Too many Repubs in the Cabinet, too many Dems with disasters in their backgrounds. Not seeing the New Dawn for America -- and definitely not if it includes Daschle.

Parent

I heard Krugman say (5.00 / 6) (#54)
by BernieO on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:06:27 AM EST

(I think in the clip of last Sunday's green room chat on ABC's This Week with George Snuffleupagus) that Geither is one of very few people who have the needed knowledge and expertise to do the job. He agreed that the tax thing was disturbing but still thinks he is needed. I defer to his judgement since Krugman is one of the few in the media who speaks his mind instead of pandering.

Parent

: Yeh, I heard that, too -- and thus (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:20:57 AM EST

I'm willing to give it a try with Geithner, but based only on Krugman's say-so. Nothing and no one else would make me unbend to accept a guy who evades taxes over the IRS, a guy who was part of the problem -- Wall Street -- being part of the solution.
But that's it: Obama gets one bye from me for his Cabinet. And all the Repubs are starting to add up to too many other byes. Daschle, too? Nuh uh.
Not that my opinion matters! Not until the next election, anyway. . . .

Parent

LEt's hope (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:01:40 AM EST

Parent

...spend more time with (none / 0) (#23)
by Fabian on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:18:53 AM EST

your family and "good friends".

I want friends like that!

Parent

If Daschle is out, who will be up (none / 0) (#33)
by Coral on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:37:32 AM EST

for HHS and health reform?

Parent

How sad (5.00 / 6) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:05:51 AM EST

Missing a glorious opportunity to SHOW Americans who are facing ruin that honesty and integrity count again. You can kid about Obama doing something Bushish but in this instance this is very Dubya style and shameful. I doubt I'm the only one sick as hell of liars with stuffed pockets having sway over my life.

Obama appears (none / 0) (#48)
by cal1942 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:01:31 AM EST

to be missing many opportunities.

Aside from that I really wonder if Obama does try to ram Daschle through.

Pete Rouse, Obama's Senate Chief of Staff held the same position with Daschle (I still can't forget the Rouse-Obama-Roberts story) and Daschle was an early Obama backer.

I don't know if there is a personal Daschle-Obama connection but there appears to be some sort of association.

Parent

Daschle (5.00 / 4) (#67)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:23:09 AM EST

essentially picked Obama to run for and be president back before anybody else was really thinking about it. I think it's fairly safe to say that Obama likely wouldn't even have run in 2008 if it weren't for Daschle. He's the little man behind the curtain of Oz.

For background, PBS's Frontline has done some good programs on Obama's career, most recently one called "Dreams of Obama," which aired inauguration night. The transcript should be up on the PBS/Frontline Web site.

Parent

Bingo! (none / 0) (#73)
by santarita on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:44:01 AM EST

HHS is simply the plum that Daschle wanted. Daschle represents a very Washington way of doing things. His support for Obama and the fact that he was a trusted advisor were some of my reasons for not thinking that Obama's rhetoric about change was hollow.

Parent

I have to agree with you. (5.00 / 2) (#125)
by hairspray on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 03:40:58 PM EST

Dashle got the job because he was one of the men behind the curtain. I think Ted Kennedy and a couple of guys in Chicago were also part of the cabal. Is health care that valuable that they would do "this deal?" Remember how Ted said that Hillary was "out" of this deal and soon after Dashle was in? They must have not trusted her on this and what was it? Certainly she was close to Obama's plan although somewhat more comprehensive with her required mandates. Would that have spooked the insurance industry?

Parent

Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#133)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 05:41:00 PM EST

Ted Kennedy had nothing to do with grooming Obama to run for president and his now famous "two-year plan" to do just that.

And if you think Ted Kennedy wanted to get Hillary away from health care reform in order to protect the insurance industry, I'd like to have some of what you're smoking.

Lastly, he never said she was "out" of this or any other deal. She floated the idea of vaulting over more senior people on his committee to be in charge of a critical subcommitee that would shape the policy, and he resisted that for a bunch of reasons, but then wanted her to be in charge of one of the committee task forces.

Ted Kennedy followed his adored but apparently somewhat dim-witted niece Caroline in endorsing and publicly campaigning for Obama during the primaries, but that's all he did. I think that was a mistake, but I understand why he did it, and it had absolutely nothing to do with any animus towards Hillary, never mind some plot to protect the insurance companies.

Gah.

There are plenty of actual villains in our political life. Ted Kennedy ain't one of them. (Does that really need to be said, for God's sake?)

Parent

I don't see Ted Kennedy as (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by hairspray on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 07:42:47 PM EST

wanting to protect the insurance industry. However, he isn't a saint either. He challenged a sitting president (Carter) and took his measly delegates to a fight on the convention floor. As I recall he was pretty meanspirited and probably created enough division in the Democratic party to sour the Carter election. As for telling Hillary she was out, he made absolutely no accomodation to her (which he might have been able to do) in spite of her impressive run he made it clear she needed to get in line. Then he offered her only the insurance portion of the package. And this was only after Obama had offered her the SOS. I also have not forgotten the "dog and pony" show he and the some of the family made to slap Hillary down. In spite of Massachusetts going solidly for Hillary in the primaries, both Kerry and Ted couldn't wait to "publicly" herald Obama as the next coming of ...Jack. As for the animus toward the Clintons, I think his mean spiritedness toward Hillary on the Senate floor on several occasions was pretty obvious.
And finally, while Ted Kennedy is not Chris Dodd and Joe Biden when it comes to special interests, it doesn't preclude him from being in a cabal to push obama forward. I don't know why but your explanation that "Caroline made him do it" is funny!

Parent

And I think you're (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:32:19 PM EST

totally full of it. You're inventing villains to blame things on when there are loads of actual villains who are actually responsible for actual bad acts.

And if you don't know enough about Kennedy family dynamics to understand what I'm talking about with Teddy and Caroline, you don't know much of anything about the Kennedys.

The Carter challenge was, what, 30 years ago? Yeah, that's just relevant as heck.

Most non-right-wingers got over their Kennedy Derangement Syndrome decades ago.

Parent

: Calling me a right winger and (none / 0) (#146)
by hairspray on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 12:34:46 AM EST

full of it are slurs, not debate. I happen to like a number of Kennedy's, I just don't do adoration very well.

Parent

If Obama uses political cred (5.00 / 2) (#76)
by kmblue on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:51:31 AM EST

to save Daschle, I give up. Daschle is not worth it--but the little people Obama made promises too are.

Parent

And what exactly did Obama (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:54:52 AM EST

promise on health care?
Oh darn, I forgot---just go to the website!

Parent

DOA--isn't that what Kerry sd.? (5.00 / 0) (#78)
by oculus on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:04:49 AM EST

Parent

: Today on MTP, Kerry vouched (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by oldpro on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:38:51 PM EST

for Daschle. Big time.

Parent

I was speaking (none / 0) (#84)
by kmblue on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:22:09 AM EST

generally, not just about health care.
But you did make me laugh--bitterly. ;)

Parent

Little People Important? (none / 0) (#113)
by prittfumes on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 01:35:55 PM EST

. . . but the little people Obama made promises too are [important].

To whom?

Parent

The exclusionary rule applies (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Saul on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:19:27 AM EST

So far Obama has said "Lobbyist will not work in my administration, however please exclude these two from your scratch off list"

Then in trying to keep a good image of being a difference politician and president, it ok now to have two guys in important positions who did not pay their taxes. Please make exception for these two.

When he said it was

Shameful

for the CEO's of big corp. using the bailout money to pay themselves bonuses then why does he not use the same rhetoric now since it applies.

All this will come back to haunt you down the road.

Has his high Gallup Poll rating gone down since he took office?

: do remember what Obama did to Max Cleland!! (none / 0) (#151)
by fly on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 09:49:15 AM EST

Remember Obama threw Max Cleland under that over stuffed bus!! See Cleland was a lobbiest for "Veterans!!"
I guess being a non lobbiest who collected $220,000 bucks from the health industry is just aok with the o man!
And screw paying taxes.....as long as you are the man who stood on the senate floor screaming that corporations that didn't pay taxes were Benedict Arnolds!
Oh please..people stop making excuses for all this crap.We all know why the oman nominated Daschle. Daschle threw Hillary away, and the New World Order is right on track.It was just a matter of who was going to control it. The power boys just needed another puppet.

Parent

Vaguely on the subject of Daschle. . . (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:30:11 AM EST

Last week's New Yorker had an interesting piece by Atal Guwunde (from memory) on the evolution of various national health care systems based on conditions in the respective country at the time, and what it may mean in the US. It would be an interesting topic for discussion here if someone cared to front page it.

I know nothng about health care (none / 0) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:41:51 AM EST

I would not even venture to take on the subject. Never have.

Parent

There's a great article in Harper's this month (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by tokin librul on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:04:24 AM EST

Actually, that should go without saying...There are ALWAYS great articles in Harper's EVERY month...

That given, the piece "Sick In The Head: Why America WON'T Get the Health-care System It Needs", by Luke Mitchell. It's not on-line unless y ou're a subscriber. But (as every month) there's one article which repays the purchase price, and this is it for this month.

Parent

: Yes! I thought the article was going (none / 0) (#126)
by hairspray on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 03:46:31 PM EST

to be a rehash of why single payer is better than the mix and match type say, Germany has sucessfully implemented, but no it wasn't. He goes into the American faith in technology to get us out of our health care troubles and points out to the industries that are poised to lead us into the land of the "myth of the machine" Excellent read.

Parent

Glen Greenwald (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by BernieO on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:13:46 AM EST

hammers Dachle for his and his wife's lobbying but does say that part of the reasoning behind this pick is his credibility with the health care industry.

One thing I have heard several times is that insurers are ready to accept cost controls IF we have universal coverage so that they will have more young, healthy people to help cover the costs in the pool. If they are ready to deal I guess Daschle might make some sense, but UGH!

Parent

: I would have credibility with the health care (none / 0) (#152)
by fly on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 09:58:03 AM EST

industry too if I got paid $220,000 bucks to shine their shoes and not pay taxes on the dough..so the little minions throughout the country wouldn't know I was in the bag for them..you would too!!
Oman never planned on having a real National health care plan..wake up people! Stop making excuses for this!
If people had really cared about having National helath care they would have done the nessesary research and they would have known that Oman never planned on implementing a National health care system!..Many of us wrote about it and warned about it screaming from the top of our lungs , only to be screamed down with yes we can..well you now get what you chanted for!
But your new chant should be .."sucker".

Parent

The article. . . (none / 0) (#36)
by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:43:11 AM EST

is really more about the politics-of-the-possible, not about health care policy per se. Interesting read.

Parent

: Just ask yourself... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by lambert on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:02:45 AM EST

... who's defining the possible. Eh?

Parent

Daschle has an unblemished record of (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by pluege on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:31:36 AM EST

incompetence, defeat, and do-nothingness. Good choice [sarcasm] to put in charge of the most difficult measure to get accomplished: universal healthcare. Or is it that Obama, like all his republican bipartisan friends really doesn't want universal healthcare, in which case putting a total incompetent that lies in charge would be a really good way not to get it done while appearing to be for it. Would explain a lot about Obama sticking by Daschle when he should be jettisoned.

: Actually not quite the case (none / 0) (#44)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:51:51 AM EST

As I recall, when he was minority leader, he was much in the news for rolling the Republicans repeatedly. As majority leader, I agree entirely, he was a big fat failure.

Parent
: thank you pluege, You nailed it!! (none / 0) (#153)
by fly on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 10:08:15 AM EST

with this :
quote: "Or is it that Obama, like all his republican bipartisan friends really doesn't want universal healthcare, in which case putting a total incompetent that lies in charge would be a really good way not to get it done while appearing to be for it. Would explain a lot about Obama sticking by Daschle when he should be jettisoned. "
You are getting it,..someone is finally getting it!!

Parent

Daschle's views on health care (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by lambert on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:48:34 AM EST

On health care, Daschle's another gutless Villager who ignores his duty to lead; he admits that single payer is the best system, but won't advocate it because it's not politically feasible [rhymes with weasel]. Where's that old FDR-style "now make me do it" approach? Make it feasible, Tom!

Oh, and Dashcle must be the only person who thinks that the health care system should be run like the financial sytem, with a magic board, like the Fed, in charge; see his book. How's the financial system been working out for us, lately?

Finally, we haven't heard a lot recently about Daschle's astroturf health care parties back in December; here are the questions that should have been asked. We held one, though.

Anyhow, after the buildup with the house parties, I would have expected the administration to hit the ground running, but * crickets *, so I'm tending to agree with the commenters who think that "universal" [translation: Make sure the insurance companies keep getting their cut] health care is on the back burner. But who cares? It's only people's health, and houses, and lives at stake.

: And (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by cal1942 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:13:54 AM EST

It's only people's health, and houses, and lives at stake.
the nation's strength.

Parent

While Daschle owed well over $100,000 to IRS (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by magster on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:56:44 AM EST

Tax Masters negotiated with the IRS so that he only owed $2,400.

: Heh (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:57:33 AM EST

Parent
: not to worry.. (none / 0) (#154)
by fly on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 10:17:13 AM EST

a dollar here, a dollar there..just make sure it is one of the boys that owes it..you can rest assured if it was you or I..well you get the drift, I hope..
This from the man who spoke furious that corporations weren't paying their taxes in the US and were Benedict Arnolds..from the Senate Floor.
You just try getting that negotiated cut in your taxes..go ahead..try..the lawyers will cost you more than you will get "negotiated down" taxes!
I can attest to that when Canada changed their tax code and my hubby was working there and in the US and we got assessed back 10 years in Canada retroactively as hubby was put in a new catagory.
The lawyers cost as much as we had to pay, under the new codes. On both sides of the border!

Parent

Never cared for Daschle, care for him less now (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Angel on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:03:17 AM EST

that this tax business has come out. He needs to tell Obama that he won't take the appointment. How can you trust a guy who has lied to you? I never thought Daschle was the right person for healthcare anyway so I say good riddance.

Daschle was the perfect guy (5.00 / 5) (#55)
by tokin librul on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:06:27 AM EST

because he was safe, weak, gutless, and pliable.

What more can you want?

Exactly@@@ (5.00 / 3) (#59)
by jedimom on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:13:41 AM EST

yes why save him? Why drag down our best shot for UHC with a lobbying, tax evading, rich guy who couldnt be bothered to tell Team Obama he had a tax issue until a MONTH AFTER he was nominated..

no remorse here, and this passing him through just feeds the whole Dems raise taxes but dont pay them BS that is coming form the GOP at their retreat already..

he has no skills we cant get someplace else, jow about Donna Shalala how about Paul Krugman, how about anybody else?

not this guy, frankly I plan to call and call and call to complain about this starting tomorrow morning..

I have had neough of lectures on being responsible when I have worked my axx off my whole life am buried under student loans, my house is down 50% in value and no plan for housing in sigh, I had to pay taxes even though I make less than what Dachle FORGOT to declare in his consulting income...

I just say no, finally the Nancy Reagan slogan is useful for something!!!

: How about Howard Dean? (5.00 / 2) (#85)
by lambert on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:22:19 AM EST

Yeah, why not?
IMSHO, "universal" is code for "preserving the insurance companies' business model with public subsidy." Just saying.

Parent

In sum: Under the bus with him! (5.00 / 6) (#70)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:36:48 AM EST

It seems that's the sentiment here, so if Daschle survives, he must really have the goods on -- who? Rahm Emanuel?

And thanks to all who remind us here that Daschle is a major architect of the Obama phenomenon. So there just would be a lovely justice if he became yet more roadkill on the path to his protege's presidency, joining those under the wheels of the bus he built. At least Daschle, with his lies -- to Dems, even before his lies to Obama -- would deserve the tire tracks on his political corpse.

Just Another... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by mstar57 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:39:17 AM EST

Just another one of Obama's slimy, "piece of sh*t" appointees!! Greenwald gets it exactly right!

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

: Devastating Article... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by santarita on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:53:57 AM EST

thanks for the link.
Daschle's appointment signals that Obama really doesn't want to tackle comprehensive health care reform. And that he is only giving lip service to changing the way Washington works.

Parent
: Thanks for pointing me over (none / 0) (#74)
by dk on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:44:48 AM EST

to this. Greenwald is in rare form here!!

Parent

At least the press secretary is (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by oculus on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:07:34 AM EST

up to the job.

The Press Office can't even answer the phone! (5.00 / 3) (#88)
by lambert on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:30:23 AM EST

See CJR:

t's 3 p.m. and the phone in the White House press secretary's office is ringing. It rings and rings and rings. Eventually, a recorded voice asks callers to leave a message--followed by a second voice saying the voicemail box is full.
After a full week of such calls, a human being answers. But Ben LaBolt immediately bristles when asked to spell his name, refuses to give his job title, and says he is going "off the record" until I stop him to explain that the reporter grants that privilege, not the other way around--a basic journalistic standard that LaBolt seems unaware of. He soon hangs up without even hearing what I called to ask about.
A return call is answered by Priya Singh, who spells her name when asked, but does not know (or will not say) what her job title is and several times describes requests for information about how the Obama administration press office is operating as a "complaint" which she would pass on. She says she is not authorized to comment, though she at one point tells me she is a spokesperson.

Be sure to read the comments. The Obama apologists are all over this one, and there are many hilarious examples. Most of them seem to think that calling the press office is some kind of gotcha.

Parent

That's pretty funny. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:37:24 AM EST

Hey, do you hang out at Orangistan at all?
Are people still head over heels in love with Obama there?

Parent

: I wouldn't know about The Obama 527... (5.00 / 3) (#116)
by lambert on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:26:39 PM EST

... Formerly Known As Daily Kos.
They threw me off during the purge -- I guess for propagating the term "Unity Pony."
Speaking of which, have you gotten your Unity Pony? Mine's still on back order.

Parent

In addition (5.00 / 2) (#80)
by mmc9431 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:07:50 AM EST

In addition to the car and driver mess, I also read this on Plotical Wire:

The report indicates that Daschle's failure to pay more than $101,000 taxes on the car and driver a wealthy friend let him use from 2005 through 2007 is not the only tax issue... Mr. Daschle also didn't report $83,333 in consulting income in 2007."

If that is the case, he needs to step aside now.

: The firm that hired Daschle (none / 0) (#140)
by slr51 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:07:33 PM EST

gave him an erroneous 1099. His accountant did not reconcile each and every check received against the 1099, but assumed that the firm knew what they paid out (that is the amount that the hiring firm is allowed to deduct on their taxes so it's a reasonable assumption).
I've done consulting over the years and have always just filed the 1099 as my total payment from a company. I suspect that is the most common way people handle it.

Parent

Agreed! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by kcdrew on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:32:36 AM EST

Not only did Daschle misrepresent his situation to Pres. Obama and his team, at minimum, if not out-and-out lie to him/them, HE DIDN'T PAY HIS TAXES!

Are our collective standards for representation in government so low that we want to put up with this crap? Are our standards so low that we don't care that first our recommendation for Secretary of the Treasury and then the nomination for the leader of the HHS DON'T PAY THEIR TAXES? TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE RUNNING?

I say heck no and I think most Americans feel the same way.

Throw Daschle out! For that matter, go back and throw Geithner out!

Let's make the statement that we do, in fact, have standards for government accountability and YOU HAVE TO AT LEAST PAY YOUR TAXES AND BE COMPETENT.

This shouldn't be a big debate. Let's clean house. Let's do these things right.

So glad to read this (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by NealB on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:38:14 AM EST

I submitted a message on the Contact Us link of Whitehouse.gov to the same effect earlier this morning when I saw that Daschle basically lied to the transition team (their competence is now seriously questionable too IMHO). His nomination inspired no confidence in the first place; he's untrustworthy to boot. He should take one last free ride back to whatever Dakota he came from and retire.

because (5.00 / 7) (#97)
by Turkana on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:54:55 AM EST

daschle helped him win the critical sd primary!

er... um...

because daschle is an outsider who brings change you can believe in!

er... um...

because daschle was such a successful senate leader, spearheading opposition to bush's crimes and excesses!

er... um...

because daschle brings a refreshingly clean resume, so clear of ties to lobbyists and other corruptive influences!

er... um...

heh (5.00 / 5) (#100)
by andgarden on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:01:03 PM EST

I figured Daschle would be digging a hole for himself after the SD primary loss. I mean, really, that was embarrassing.

Parent

in all fairness (4.33 / 6) (#101)
by Turkana on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:02:15 PM EST

hillary always did well in appalachia...

or something.

Parent

: Heh (5.00 / 3) (#105)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:09:56 PM EST

Parent

I don't even care about the car thing. It's a law (5.00 / 2) (#98)
by tigercourse on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:57:26 AM EST

I've never heard of and seems like alot of money for just being driven around. But the 80,000 or so in undeclared income is another matter.

I;'m pretty surprised (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:09:27 PM EST

people think a car and driver coming from a 3rd party is not taxable income.

When Norm Coleman was getting his apartment in Dc paid for, people seemed to not have a problem understanding it.

Parent

: I think it may be (none / 0) (#141)
by slr51 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:11:48 PM EST

because a car and driver is a very common perk for a corporate top tier salaried employee and is NOT taxable to him/her if the travel is for anything even remotely related to the business.
An apartment is another matter altogether. Part of it might be considered business related - but not the entire living space.

Parent
: He is no better than (none / 0) (#147)
by Amiss on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 02:36:58 AM EST

Blagojevich. Most likely much, much worse and twice as sleazy.

Parent

If the IRS comes knocking on your (5.00 / 4) (#118)
by coast on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:32:16 PM EST

door....It's a law I've never heard of...will not be a sufficient defense. Be prepared to pay the tax, fines and penalty, which I will point out is more than Geithher and Daschel are having to do. Neither paid penalties.

Parent

Let's not forget that Obama's Senate and (5.00 / 2) (#103)
by esmense on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:09:20 PM EST

campaign staff was made up in large part by Daschle's former staffers. Daschle's close association, in fact enmeshment, with the campaign was always the major reason for my concerns about Obama. Especially in terms of health care policy. I don't find Daschle's ties to the health care industry as benign as BTD -- in fact, I suspect Daschle's encouragement and involvement in the Obama challenge to Clinton was corporate health care interests' bid for control, through Daschle, of health care policy. (The reason why, for instance, the first order of business in this administration in terms of health care is turning over billions of dollars to big pharma and others for improvements in health care "technology." That we'll all have our medical records online seems certain, but when and whether we'll all have health care coverage, not so much.)

: More importantly (5.00 / 3) (#108)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:13:38 PM EST

Obama did not think such ties were benign during the campaign.
Rank hypocrisy with the lobbyist schtick.

Parent

Dump Daschle, Designate Dean! (5.00 / 2) (#114)
by Doc Rock on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:24:28 PM EST

Health care reform needs a champion as pure as Galahad, not a tax evader!

Dr. Dean Delivered on Health Care for Vermont! USA next!

: As much as I love Dean (5.00 / 1) (#142)
by slr51 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:12:51 PM EST

he would be a miserable failure interfacing with congress.

Parent

Dump Daschle (5.00 / 1) (#144)
by lentinel on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:36:55 PM EST

Tom Daschle will forever burn in my brain for his frenzy in pushing through Bush's Iraq war resolution. He questioned nothing. He knew nothing. This was his concept of being a leader. I hold him as responsible as anyone for the war in Iraq.

This is the Lieberman-Obama. The one who campaigned for Lieberman. The one who gives a plum job to a worse-than-hack.

Why save Daschle? (4.25 / 4) (#81)
by jbindc on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:07:51 AM EST

Beacause otherwise it will look like Obama's inexperience will catch up with him? This will make 3 cabinet secretary nominees with big problems that should have been caught during a thorough vetting (and then not counting the issues with Lynn).

For the candidate who ran on having superior judgment, this looks like the inmates are running the asylum. And, this is early in the term. Most people, outside his own cult of personality, might start to think "If we can't trust his judgment on proper vetting of his own cabinet, how can we trust him to right-start the economy or further erode foreign relations."

I seem to remember... (5.00 / 3) (#92)
by sj on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:50:21 AM EST

...much fretting about a charitable foundation and conflicts of interest for one cabinet pick. Who was that again? Oh yeah... it was the one that sailed through the vetting and confirmation process.

Parent

Um... (5.00 / 4) (#99)
by jbindc on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:58:16 AM EST

I don't believe they found any - despite what the media tries to portray. No one has been vetted more than Bill and Hillary Clinton I think in the history of this country, so if there was something there - Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann would have been sure to tell us. (Actually, even if there WASN'T anything there, they would have told us there was).

And Bill Clinton didn't not run on his superior judgment or that he would be transparent and return ethics to DC.

See, the Clinton argument doesn't work, because we all knew what we were getting, and we still voted for them anyway because we knew they would fight for the little people. With Obama - who knows?

More evidence of his inexperience...

Parent

My point exactly (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by sj on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:08:11 PM EST

Even if I didn't make it well.

Parent

: You made it quite well (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:11:44 PM EST

Parent
: Sorry (none / 0) (#109)
by jbindc on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:16:51 PM EST

Was reading your comment in conjunction with those of cotton candy and thought it was snark.
My bad.

Parent

I sure hope (none / 0) (#93)
by cotton candy on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:52:31 AM EST

these were the standards that you applied to Bill Clinton's nominees for Cabinet positions when he was President -- and he was a former Governor.

Parent

: Zoe Baird? Kimba Wood? (5.00 / 2) (#106)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:11:16 PM EST

The more important question of course is did we want that standard applied to the nominees of GOP Presidents?
I believe we did.

Parent

Standing by your man. . . (none / 0) (#1)
by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:42:57 AM EST

at least to a point is, I think, a good (read "popular" or indicative of strength) move rather than a bad one. (Bill) Clinton got a lot of flack from all sides for abandoning nominees. I think Obama has absorbed that history.

What happens when "your man" (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:44:29 AM EST

does not stand by you?

Daschle basically lied to Obama.

How does that fit in your analysis?

Parent

The point I was trying to make. . . (none / 0) (#9)
by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:51:55 AM EST

is that standing by the nominee is not about the nominee. It's about how you project strength in public, and giving up on nominees may create the appearance of weakness. If that's what Obama believes, and if he really is cheesed off at Daschle, that puts him in the odd situation of both wanting and not wanting to cut Daschle loose (pure speculation, of course).

As for the details of Daschle's situation, I agree that his keeping from Obama is probably worse than what actually happened. However, I would caution against considering a news report on exactly how things shook out to be an actual, accurate description of what happened.

Finally, something I (not having followed the issue too closely so far) haven't been able to figure out -- how do the taxes on a car and driver for a year or two add up to over $100,000?

Parent

I am fairly confident (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:00:26 AM EST

that the leak came from the Obama team.

I think they are trying to get rid of him personally.

that is a terrible damaging piece of info.

Parent

See diary by nyceve (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by joanneleon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:22:37 AM EST

Link to nyceve dkos diary

She's been in DC and reveals some things said by Steve Hildebrand.

I think you're right, BTD. Hopefully we'll hear of his withdrawal very soon.

Parent

Well (5.00 / 2) (#95)
by Steve M on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:53:26 AM EST

the leak most likely came from someone on the Obama team. But it only takes one to leak.

It's entirely possible that the decision is to keep him, and at least one member of the team was like, "Are you nuts? After he lied to us?" and so they leaked the information to the media to try and sink him.

Hard to say really. There was a pattern established during the campaign where Team Obama would always stick to its guns for 24 or 48 hours to gauge if the controversy would blow over or not. If not, well then, under the bus and all that.

Parent

That may be. (none / 0) (#21)
by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:12:47 AM EST

If they want to get rid of him and make it look like Obama wasn't pushed into it by the media, they could switch the issue from tax failure to personal lack of reliability.

Parent

: If I were Obama (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:35:58 AM EST

on a personal level, that is what would really p*ss me off - that Daschle basically lied to him.

Parent

PS. (none / 0) (#26)
by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:22:37 AM EST

If you're correct then it somewhat invalidates the subject of your post -- they're not trying to save Daschle, but ease him out. Or maybe not "ease". Maybe, like, push.

Parent

My speculation in a comment (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:32:16 AM EST

is not the same as what is actually reported as fact in the story.

Consider this part my Op ed.

Parent

: Some place, some where (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Donna Z on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:40:37 AM EST

I read the exact same speculation---this is an inside power play. The writer fingered the most likely suspect as Rahm. They supported their theory on the basis that Rahm, understanding Daschle's relationship with Obama, would want to shift power away from Daschle to the person who matters...Rahm.
Not caring that this was all link-free speculation, I had to smile. Emanuel doesn't like the base, and I don't like him.

Parent

Remember President Bush? (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Fabian on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:16:13 AM EST

Every time Bush said "So-and-so has my total confidence.", you knew So-and-so was doomed.

The best thing to do is to announce an [internal] investigation and use the results of that investigation as a reason for your decision. It's flimsy but it avoids the appearance of knee jerk reactions of any stripe.

Parent

It was a combination of several (5.00 / 4) (#25)
by coast on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:19:42 AM EST

things. One was failing to report over $255K in income from the free use of a car and driver provided to him by Intermedia Parterns for the years 2005-2007. Second he failed to report over $80K in consulting income from the same company. Note that both of these would be subject to self employment taxes (sound familiar). Finally, he could not sustantiate $15,000 in charitable deductions for the same period.

As I understand it this is not the end of the matter. He also received free travel and entertainment services from several sources and there are more contributions that have yet to be substantiated. So the bill could get higher.

As a CPA, I was totally against Geither's confirmation. How could you allow someone who failed to follow some of the simpler rules for tax compliance, be head of the IRS? I'm still confounded by the notion that he is the only man with the ability to understand our current economic crisis.

The same can be said for Daschel's nomination. Is really the only guy for the job?

I must say that I have always been opposed to growing government. However, Obama seems to have found a method to make it pay for itself. Simply, offer post to those who have failed to properly file previous returns and watch the tax gap shrink.

Parent

NOBODY says (none / 0) (#37)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:44:31 AM EST

"Geithner is the only man with the ability to understand our current economic crisis."

Nobody says that. Nobody says that.

What IS said, accurately, about Geithner is that nobody understands the minute details and dynamics of the problems in our financial system.

Please. The financial system, the economy, Wall Street and the stock market are NOT interchangeable terms. They're interrelated but entirely different parts.

Parent

: You are correct (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by coast on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:51:18 AM EST

since he was there when the problems were created.

Parent

coast, do you know (none / 0) (#64)
by DFLer on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:18:59 AM EST

did Dash fail to pay withholding and fica taxes for the driver or were the driver's wages paid by the other company? I can't tell from the NYT story, as they refer to a failure to pay a Medicare thing.

thanks

Parent

Daschle paid zippo (5.00 / 5) (#119)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:35:26 PM EST

His friend's company paid for car and driver. And please note they were used exclusively for personal use, ferrying Mr & Mrs to dinner parties and shopping trips, etc. Full-time.

Nobody with the IQ of a 6-year-old in this country would genuinely be surprised that that's considered income by the IRS that you have to pay taxes on. Geithner got caught in a genuinely confusing situation, but there's no chance, none, that Daschle didn't know. He just hoped his friend's company would carry the car and driver buried deep in their books and the IRS would never find out he'd had exclusive use of them. That's not a screw-up, that's intentional tax evasion.

How come it's always the people who can easily afford to pay their taxes that do this?

Parent

that's how the rich stay rich (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by DFLer on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:40:07 PM EST

thanks coast for the info

Parent

Coast? (none / 0) (#130)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 05:26:42 PM EST

Parent

: oops (none / 0) (#157)
by DFLer on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:57:36 AM EST

mea culpa g-falc

Parent

Based on the news reports I've read (none / 0) (#115)
by coast on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:24:29 PM EST

the driver was likely paid for by the company. Daschel is in trouble because having a driver would have been a fringe benefit that he should have reported as income.

Parent

car and driver used since 2004 (none / 0) (#112)
by DFLer on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 01:05:30 PM EST

abc

Parent

: Well, to Daschle's (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by KeysDan on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:50:26 PM EST

great credit, the car was American made (Cadillac); do not know about the driver's status.

Parent

BTW (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:45:19 AM EST

How did Hillary Clinton's standing by her man Penn work out? She get a lot of kudos for that?

Parent

Well. . . (none / 0) (#7)
by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:47:53 AM EST

certainly the folks who hated her didn't like her any more than they did. Or, I would argue, any less. Nor was there really any nomination kerfluffle about Penn -- that was a different situation (more akin to Obama's choosing Rahm Emmanuel).

Parent

Don't follow your point (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:50:16 AM EST

Penn has the representing Colombia in free trade lobbying problem and Clinton kept him on.

I did not hear a word of praise for standing by her man. And rightly so. It was the perfect excuse to jettison his sorry ass.

Your reference to Emanuel escapes me.

Parent

Sorry for not being clear. . . (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:56:24 AM EST

(trying to get a project done on Sunday morning while reading Talk Left).

The issue over Penn is a policy issue -- no one suggested he broke any law or committed any violation against an ethics statute. So standing by him was a case of standing by someone who did some policy work that other people objected to. It would be even worse to let someone like that go due to pressure because it makes it seem you don't know your own policies.

That's different from Daschle / Geithner / Zoe Baird, etc. In those cases (in my reading) what's going on is an attempt by the Republicans and the media to "Bork" the nominee. (Of course, a fair minded person outside of politics would consider the merits of each individual case without seeing it as some kind of power stuggle).

Parent

: Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:59:28 AM EST

It was due to a conflict of interest. Penn was serving two masters. It was inexcusable.

Parent

Not comparable (none / 0) (#39)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:47:02 AM EST

Penn gave her very bad advice and continued to give her bad advice. Penn was perceived by almost everybody as an unpleasant and semi-incompetent p*tz, and his missteps were of a part with that.

Not the case at all with Geithner and Daschle.

Parent

Thinking the health care system... (5.00 / 3) (#117)
by lambert on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:29:00 PM EST

... should be run like the financial system isn't bad advice? That's what Daschle advocates in his book.

Parent

: Sounds like Newt Gingrich (none / 0) (#123)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:55:37 PM EST

or John McCain.

Parent
: Non sequitur (none / 0) (#131)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 05:29:44 PM EST

Parent

It's really not clear to me (none / 0) (#122)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:54:07 PM EST

how bad Penn's advice was. All political consultants are loathsome slime in the best of cases; I think political victories are due much more to luck than skill or knowledge.

Parent

Skipping the caucuses (5.00 / 3) (#132)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 05:31:16 PM EST

wasn't bad advice? Projecting steeliness and avoiding any appearance of humanity like the plague wasn't bad advice? Etc.

Parent

What about the advice that Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 06:40:36 PM EST

didn't follow? He wanted her to hit Obama much harder on a host of issues, including the Reverend Wright. Obama played sleazy hardball, but she didn't. If she had taken Penn's advice, maybe she would have won?
Face it, the winning guru is always a genius; the loser a moron.
Personally I find Axelrod the most odious Democratic consultant in memory.

Parent

Hear your argument (5.00 / 2) (#136)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 07:31:35 PM EST

But, any time Hillary said anything negative about Obama, no matter how true, she was slammed for being negative, difficult, willing to win at any cost, etc. Your position probably would have worked with anyone but Hillary. It is ironic to me that Hillary's being Secy of State may have the effect long term (assuming no foreign policy disasters that are wrongly but successfully blamed on her) of changing the discourse on Hillary to one that is far more positive than what we heard during the campaign.

Parent

I'm just saying that it's not clear (none / 0) (#139)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:29:12 PM EST

at all that Penn cost Hillary the nomination---not to me, anyway.

Parent

: I agree (none / 0) (#156)
by BackFromOhio on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 07:30:44 PM EST

He's not single-handedly responsible for the direction the campaign took before the hierarchy was shaken up, nor can he be the only one who did not foresee the effectiveness of the Obama campaign's caucus strategy.
&, as I understand it, all the noise about how most of her outstanding campaign debt is to Mark personally -- not true; owed to his firm & much of it pass through invoices for TV ads, etc., & won't even go to his company.

Parent

And Bill Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by cal1942 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:05:07 AM EST

had one of the cleanest administrations in American history.

I love to say that at any opportunity. It's true and it makes the heads of CDSers explode.

Parent

Bill Clinton got flack (5.00 / 6) (#57)
by BernieO on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:09:31 AM EST

no matter what he did. Had he stood by his nominees he would have been trashed for that too. The right had decided to destroy Clinton no matter what (Lee Atwater had decided in the late 80's that he was the biggest threat Republicans faced and started going after him then) and the media elite was not about to defend a guy they disdained as white trash.

Parent

Interesting personal political dynamic (none / 0) (#45)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:53:53 AM EST

possibility here. If Obama sticks by Daschle, doesn't that hugely diminish the obligation Obama has to him for, essentially, making him president?

Parent

Doncha just love 'exceptions'? (none / 0) (#20)
by tokin librul on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:08:50 AM EST

So far there have been two 'exceptions' to the no-lobbyist rule.

I cannot say Daschle is the Obama equivalent of that wretched, venal, asswipe Billy Tauzin, but he does seem to have more paws and sharper teeth than your average rooster...

Friends, nobody who would pose the faintest scintilla of a challenge to the efficient operation of the status quo will ever get within a MILE of real power...

Obama is no exception...

Daschle on style and substance (none / 0) (#28)
by Donna Z on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:24:47 AM EST

The Daschle flap has brought on a mental-moment of "remember when." When Daschle was majority leader, his first response to bush's crazy ideas was some variation of "this will not stand" quickly followed by "there's nothing we can do but vote yes." Daschle loved him some of those republican senators who he'd never want to offend. When he was appointed to HHS, I expected that his historic pattern would continue during any health care debates; however, I could at least hold out some feeling of optimism that things would be different this time. Well, that hope just flew over the horizon.

If, as I expect, Daschle will be confirmed, he takes the post in much weaker position. Too much political capital being spent on half-a-loaf.

The substance of Daschle has never thrilled me. He's a right-leaning DLC centrist who has never met a progressive idea that he likes. He's classic in his ability to make much sound signifying nothing. Again, while hope was always tempered by the notion that health care reform would be marked by half measures, I'm tuning down my already dampened hopes for a cure to something that will be littered with bad ideas put forth by republicans and the industry masters.

Our goal is now to champion a weak man made weaker who never really "got it" anyway. Am I to believe that out of 300 million citizens there is no one but Tom Daschle to lead this effort? I'm not buying.

Note: with 41 republican senators they are not blinking. I certainly don't agree with them, but I can't help but wonder how the Democrats can continue from Daschle to Reid to tell us without laughing, that they just don't have enough votes. Maybe the Democrats might think about finding a leader with a safe Democratic seat.

Daschle's views on health care (none / 0) (#41)
by lambert on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:48:34 AM EST

Finally, we haven't heard a lot recently about Daschle's astroturf health care parties back in December; here are the questions that should have been asked. We held one, though.

If they are just going to stick the entire country (none / 0) (#56)
by masslib on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:08:19 AM EST

with Romney-Care, why would anyone want it on the front burner? Let's say CA gets a Dem Governor next time, won't he/she sign the twice vetoed single payer bill into law? Given CA has over 10% of the US pop, won't that push the country toward national health care sooner than Romney-Care? Frankly, I think the push for "universal" health insurance is a pre-emptive bail out of the private insurance industry.

Parent

Yep (none / 0) (#87)
by lambert on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:24:37 AM EST

By "universal" they mean "let's preserve the business model."

Probably it tests well in the polling, but that's what it means. More murder by spreadsheet.

Parent

: You said it brother. I have (none / 0) (#94)
by masslib on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:52:33 AM EST

universal health sham here and I still can't afford quality care. Actually, rates have only gone up in MA.

Parent

Forget CA (none / 0) (#124)
by FreakyBeaky on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 03:32:57 PM EST

The budget being in the shape it is in, I don't think a single-payer or a Romney-care proposal has a chance anymore. You could be waiting a while.

Also, either proposal would aggravate our already severe budget crisis. Remember that the system we have here, in which a budget requires a 2/3rds majority in both the state house and senate, effectively guarantees the Republican minority veto power over anything that costs money.

Parent

I don't buy that line of thinking. (5.00 / 2) (#129)
by masslib on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 04:49:42 PM EST

Single payer saves money, not the other way around.

Parent

: Not the point (none / 0) (#145)
by FreakyBeaky on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:33:28 PM EST

It won't save the state government money. I don't think you are going to find much support for expanding the state's budget in any case. Besides which there is the effective Republican budget veto in the legislature.
All I'm saying is, don't look for CA to come riding over the hill like the cavalry to rescue single-payer, or even Romenycare, on the national level. It's not going to happen.

Parent

I"m going to read your links, but (none / 0) (#58)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:12:28 AM EST

you are addressing the question which interests me: what kind of advice was Daschle giving health care companies?

Parent

: A VERY good question n/t (none / 0) (#62)
by cal1942 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:15:36 AM EST

Parent

I think pluege has hit it. (none / 0) (#42)
by Sweet Sue on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 09:49:48 AM EST

Heck of a job, Daschie!

Out, Tom, Out (none / 0) (#63)
by daring grace on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:18:31 AM EST

Knowing he had this tax issue back in June when he also knew he was angling for a seat at the table--and doing NOTHING about it--is stupid. Whatever else it is, (corrupt, arrogant) it's just simply stupid.

We need someone sharper handling the complex problems at HHS.

I hope the speculation is true that Obama is supporting Daschle at the front door while easing him out of power at the back.

I always assumed that (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by dk on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:26:51 AM EST

Daschle's appointment was nothing more than political payback to the Democratic leadership establishment in return for their support of him over Hillary in the primaries. That the HHS position was chosen is not surprising, since substantive healthcare reform is such a low priority for Obama that whoever is placed in the position wouldn't really have a chance to do anything anyway.

Parent

: Given Obama's record of standing (2.00 / 1) (#75)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:51:03 AM EST

up for the defenseless insurance companies against the heartless sick and dying patients in IL, there's no reason to expect the next appointee will be any better.

Parent

I don't see how he stays either (none / 0) (#72)
by andgarden on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:41:23 AM EST

: Maybe he loses his "Secretary" title ... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
by RonK Seattle on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 04:04:59 PM EST

... which requires confirmation, and keeps his "Czar" title, which doesn't.

Parent

Daschle would suck off a corpse for a cheeseburger (none / 0) (#82)
by lambert on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:20:17 AM EST

Matt Taibbi, quoted by Greenwald.

Ouch!

: Sorry, but this is why I hate (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:24:14 AM EST

Taibbi. The guy could overwrite a laundry list.

Parent
: Well, (none / 0) (#83)
by jbindc on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:21:57 AM EST

wouldn't anybody? I mean - for a cheeseburger?
(Yes, I am just kidding)

Parent
: That's just gross (none / 0) (#138)
by Burned on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 07:48:17 PM EST

I have to stop visualizing what I read.

Parent

Sadly, a Member of the Village in Good Standing (none / 0) (#110)
by kaleidescope on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:20:29 PM EST

Glen Greenwald has a great piece up about Daschle. Failing to report income is probably the least offensive aspect of Daschle. Greenwald quotes Matt Taibbi, reporting for Rolling Stone on influence peddling in Congress, who says that Daschle "would suck off a corpse for a cheesburger."

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment