RSS Feed MenuRichardson, Geithner, now Daschle – is there a pattern here?
In three cases, President Obama’s nominees have encountered potentially nomination-wrecking problems. Richardson withdrew, Geithner brushed past all objections, and to date anyway Daschle is benefiting from senatorial courtesy.
So: multiple sloppiness on the part of the Obama vetters? Not impossible, but unlikely. Richardson’s issue was common knowledge; Daschle volunteered the information about his tax difficulties.
The Obama administration went ahead anyway – even though Geithner’s and Daschle’s issues were at least as serious as those that blocked the confirmation of Linda Chavez in 2001 and Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood in 1993.
So why is Obama succeeding where Bush and Clinton failed?
It’s not just that President Obama has the votes in the Senate: Clinton and Bush both started with Senate majorities too. (50 votes plus the vice president in Bush’s case.)
It’s not just that he has the press on board: Clinton started with a favorable press too.
What Obama has that Clinton and Bush lacked is the self-confidence that comes from facing a thoroughly defeated opposition.
In 1993 and 2001, it was the administration that wanted to avoid unnecessary fights. This time it is the Senate minority that feels it has to choose its battles carefully. The administration is aware of that weakness, and is taking full advantage of it, not only in confirmations but in major matters like the stimulus.
What is most galling about the situation is that the administration is right. Had Republicans seriously tried to stop the Geithner nomination, they would have done more damage to themselves. Wall Street wanted Geithner confirmed. The financial industry is already pathetically beholden to the Obama administration; a fight over Geithner would only have tinted this important constituency even deeper blue. And the broader American public would almost certainly have backed the new president over senators who would have been accused of playing congressional games during a financial emergency.
What’s the lesson here? It’s this: Popular vote margins matter. On paper, the Republican bloc in the Senate is stronger than it was in 1993. In practice, defying a 52% President Obama is more difficult and dangerous than defying a 42% President Clinton.
When people like me worry about losing the political center, we are worrying precisely about the situation in the Senate today. Probably no campaign on earth could have saved the Republican nominee in 2008. But not all losses are created equal. A narrower loss in November would have real world benefits in February.
We should keep that fact in mind as so many of our fellow Republicans succumb to enthusiasm for a 1964-style Palin kamikaze campaign for 2012.
HollywoodBill // Feb 3, 2009 at 9:57 am
Comrade Chekote–the GOP platform changes are going to come from the grassroots up. Not just empty rhetoric from behind the anonymity of computer keyboards, but what actually wins races. And Steele appears to be willing to roll the dice and give new ideas and outside of the box thinking a fair shake. That’s why Steele’s admission that New England races for Hillary’s old seat and the Governorship of New Jersey are exciting goals. And 2010 has some good opportunities for new ideas, as in the gubernatorial race in California that has only social moderates running on the Republican ticket.
Chekote // Feb 3, 2009 at 10:11 am
HBill. You are right that the changes will come at the grassroots level. Still it would be nice to see actual ideas being posted instead of just general discussions. After losing deep red states like IN and NC and coming within 4% of losing the Dakotas, I can’t believe that there are still people out there saying that focusing only on the base will do the trick.
JJWFromME // Feb 3, 2009 at 10:58 am
“…New England races for Hillary’s old seat and the Governorship of New Jersey are exciting goals. ” Dude–those aren’t New England. Red Sox fans would have your head… ; )
Chekote // Feb 3, 2009 at 11:32 am
Daschle is out! The title should change from Obama’s muscle to Obama’s folly.
dragonlady // Feb 3, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I’m not trying to make this as Sarah Palin debate since 2012 is a long way off. But if Frum wants social conservatives to be open towards moderate candidates, he should display some open mindness towards why they gravitate towards someone like Palin. I’m conservative all the way through (fiscally, national security, socially but I would have voted for any moderate GOPer like Giuliani in the last election). The person most acceptable to the base and moderates should come out as the primary winner with caucus and early voting in states like Iowa, NH, SC, and FL. I’m tired of conservatives candidates being labelled dumb–that is a leftist tactic. Reagan was an amiable dunce, Quayle was dumb, Bush dumber, and of course, Palin the dumbest of them all. I’m just surprised I’m hearing that sort of rhetoric from fellow Republicans (or perhaps they’re posers).
Kaz // Feb 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Daschle and Killefer out. Drip, drip, drip.
HollywoodBill // Feb 3, 2009 at 1:41 pm
David Frum, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan provided valuable and much needed commentary about Palin. It countered the bombast from Rush, Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Not all Republicans are dittoheads and people forget that Reagan brought together the Western state based libertarians with the Southern based social conservatives. Like many coalitions, it had a good run. It appears to be going on fumes right now. It is time for a New Majority. Palin appeals to one segment of the GOP, but most certainly not all. There comes a point when backing certain candidates becomes a bridge too far to cross.
gerrysh // Feb 3, 2009 at 4:24 pm
So, where’s the retraction, Dave?