What the blogs are saying about the Daschle fiasco…
Will Bunch, Attytood: And I think more importantly that Obama's selection of Daschle in the first place was a what-the-hell-were-you-thinking moment. I guess you could say the president did accomplish one of his cherished goals in bringing liberals and conservatives together -- since the not-to-be-HHS secretary was a choice that was loathed by both sides, albeit for differing reasons. How ironic that that the big blow against the Daschle pick was a scathing editorial in the so-called liberal New York Times.
Robert Reich’ Blog: In short, many Americans who have worked hard, saved as much as they can, bought a home, obeyed the law, and paid every cent of taxes that were due are beginning to feel like chumps…Meanwhile, people at the top seem to be living far different lives in a different universe…I'm sorry Tom Daschle won't be in the Obama administration. He would have served the public well and with distinction. But the public wants change, real change, big change. There's no tolerance any longer for the way things used to be done.
Dylan Loewe, Huffington Post: By withdrawing his nomination, Daschle is legitimizing the notion that cabinet secretaries should be picked or disqualified based on criterion other than their competence and capacity, their management skills and leadership. Tom Daschle was to be charged with running a massive government bureaucracy. He was to spearhead an effort to bring real, lasting health care reform to a country desperately seeking it. He has unique relationships with the Senators he once led, an unmatched knowledge of legislative strategy and procedure, and was an eye-witness to what went wrong when reform was attempted in 1994. He is exceptionally qualified.
John Dickerson, Slate: Would greater transparency have saved Tom Daschle?...An administration that promises special interests will have no influence should have realized that the $220,000 Tom Daschle received from health care interests may have affected public impressions about how he could perform his job as a regulator of health care…Earlier disclosure might not have saved Tom Daschle's nomination. But late disclosure certainly didn't. And by the administration's own transparency standards, sooner is always better.
Will Bunch, Attytood: And I think more importantly that Obama's selection of Daschle in the first place was a what-the-hell-were-you-thinking moment. I guess you could say the president did accomplish one of his cherished goals in bringing liberals and conservatives together -- since the not-to-be-HHS secretary was a choice that was loathed by both sides, albeit for differing reasons. How ironic that that the big blow against the Daschle pick was a scathing editorial in the so-called liberal New York Times.
Robert Reich’ Blog: In short, many Americans who have worked hard, saved as much as they can, bought a home, obeyed the law, and paid every cent of taxes that were due are beginning to feel like chumps…Meanwhile, people at the top seem to be living far different lives in a different universe…I'm sorry Tom Daschle won't be in the Obama administration. He would have served the public well and with distinction. But the public wants change, real change, big change. There's no tolerance any longer for the way things used to be done.
Dylan Loewe, Huffington Post: By withdrawing his nomination, Daschle is legitimizing the notion that cabinet secretaries should be picked or disqualified based on criterion other than their competence and capacity, their management skills and leadership. Tom Daschle was to be charged with running a massive government bureaucracy. He was to spearhead an effort to bring real, lasting health care reform to a country desperately seeking it. He has unique relationships with the Senators he once led, an unmatched knowledge of legislative strategy and procedure, and was an eye-witness to what went wrong when reform was attempted in 1994. He is exceptionally qualified.
John Dickerson, Slate: Would greater transparency have saved Tom Daschle?...An administration that promises special interests will have no influence should have realized that the $220,000 Tom Daschle received from health care interests may have affected public impressions about how he could perform his job as a regulator of health care…Earlier disclosure might not have saved Tom Daschle's nomination. But late disclosure certainly didn't. And by the administration's own transparency standards, sooner is always better.
Steve Benen, Washington Monthly: Now, it's obviously true that it's better to have a president avoid mistakes, and I'm not suggesting Obama deserves praise for the Daschle breakdown. I do, however, believe it's refreshing to see a president own up to a mistake, candidly and unequivocally, telling the nation that if we're looking for someone to blame for an error, the buck stops with him…I'd forgotten what it sounds like to hear a president say, "I made a mistake," without denying reality and/or blaming someone else.
Hilzoy, Washington Monthly: If you raise people's hopes and then disappoint them, it's much worse than if you had never tried at all…That's why I said that I thought Daschle had to go: because he put all of this at risk. If you want to show that it's possible to expect more of politicians, you cannot begin by acting as though screwing up your taxes is OK, or as though these little six-figure slip-ups are not a big deal, especially when the explanation for the biggest one was basically: I was used to having a car and driver, so I didn't think much of it. You cannot do what I think Obama is trying to do and act as though the rich and well-connected get to live by different rules than the rest of us.
