Yes, Barack Obama's nomination of Tom Daschle was a serious mistake. And continuing to back him even after his tax-dodging was made public made it even worse for the rookie president.But add to those fumbles the tax-dodging of still other Obama nominees and you've got the kind of fiasco that would almost surely sink a president into press disrespect, endless ridicule by late night comedians and a deep dip in the public opinion polls.
But then again, we're not talking about a mere mortal here. We're talking about Barack Obama.
And so, despite the bad start to his presidency, the mainstream press continues not merely to back The Great Hope but to adore him. For instance, Obama's face is everywhere: Super Bowl coverage, a gang of magazine covers, news programs, and so many T-shirts and other merchandise that the White House lawyers are trying to protect the "Obama brand."
But there is some evidence that there may be a few journalists (and repentant voters) who are coming out of the Obama trance. For example, the Daschle business may represent more than a blip on the screen. After all, it highlighted the intriguing fact that tax-dodging is becoming a bit of a hallmark for Democrats (Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Tim Geithner, Al Franken, Charlie Rangel, et al). Amanda Carpenter reviews this trend and asks, "How many Democrats will be allowed to get away with it before it becomes a story?"
Maybe it is becoming a story, Amanda. Some MSM editors finally drew the line with the Daschle affair. The San Francisco Chronicle pushed for Daschle to step aside, "Does anyone important in Washington pay taxes? Or is that civic duty - like jury duty or serving in the military - now something that only the "little people" in America, those without deep pockets and connections, do? Tom Daschle is the latest Obama appointee to make the American middle class feel like suckers."
The New York Times editors did the same. "In both the Geithner and Daschle cases, the failure to pay taxes is attributed to unintentional oversights. But Mr. Daschle is one oversight case too many. The American tax system depends heavily on voluntary compliance. It would send a terrible message to the public if we ignore the failure of yet another high-level nominee to comply with the tax laws."
Now the motive behind both of the editorials in these liberal newspapers was most likely the protection of Barack Obama. ("Look, Mr. President, we can only do so much to cover your tail. You keep making these kind of bonehead plays and folks are going to get wise.") But still, the mere fact that Obama forced them into the awkward position of going public in opposing one of their own kind (that is, a big-government, pro-abortion, Washington insider like Tom Daschle) uses up a bit of the new President's capital.
But other more independent and principled journalists are asking tougher questions. Enter, for instance, Philip Sherwell, writing in the Telegraph (U.K.):
So Tom Daschle has ended the farce and withdrawn as health secretary nominee. But why did Barack Obama stick by him so defiantly for so long? And in the current horrendous economic climate, how did he think this was playing outside the Beltway? And what happened to that much-vaunted vetting process?...
The reaction of Mr Daschle's old Democratic chums in Senate is also telling. They were surprised and disappointed that he'd withdrawn because they said he'd have been nominated - despite all the baggage. In other words, the Senate Club would have swung behind a long-time member. It seems that Mr Daschle had woken up and finally smelled the coffee (and this New York Times editorial can't have helped).
New treasury secretary Timothy Geithner must be breathing a sigh of relief that his failure to pay his taxes came up last month and didn't scuttle his nomination. It could well have done now. No such luck for Mr Daschle or Nancy Killefer, nominated by Mr Obama to be the government's first chief performance officer, who has also withdrawn over her taxes.
Mr Obama has already shown he's been happy to issue waivers to his ban on lobbyists moving seamlessly into his Administration when it suits him. But his determination to push through Mr Daschle's nomination, regardless of the developments of the last few days, was either politically tone-deaf, inept, naïve loyalty or straightforward "I won" arrogance. Or some combination of the above.
It certainly does not seem like that much-vaunted change from business as usual in Washington.
Peter Baker's article here in the International Herald Tribune covers some of the same ground:
During almost two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher in what he would later call in his Inaugural Address a "new era of responsibility." What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.
The exceptions that went unmentioned now include a pair of cabinet nominees who did not pay all of their taxes. Then there is the lobbyist for a military contractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industry even if not formally registered as lobbyists...
But the episode has already shown how, when faced with the perennial clash between campaign rhetoric and Washington reality, Obama has proved willing to compromise.
Every four or eight years a new president arrives in town, declares his determination to cleanse a dirty process and invariably winds up trying to reconcile the clear ideals of electioneering with the muddy business of governing. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.
"This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual."...
Finally, there's been one other event that has contributed to the bloom falling from the Obama rose for the American public. And that was his rescinding the Mexico City policy just days into his presidency.
Though Obama tried to do it as quietly as possible, forcing American taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions and abortion promotion in other countries was sure to wake many people up to the sordid and sinister character of the man. Indeed, even though the MSM has tried to avoid the matter, the alternative media (and the crowing of pro-abortion enthusiasts) has effectively communicated the issue. Result? The Gallup Poll reports that Obama's radical pro-abortion action has been the most unpopular thing he's yet done.
And, as he and his administration do more to push abortion as well as profane and counter-productive "sex education," Barack Obama's aura as a compassionate, ethical liberal will most assuredly be diminished further.
So, will the last laugh be to those who opposed Barack Obama, who tried to persuade the American voters of the man's scandalously poor qualifications for office? Or will the damage he does to America's economy, culture and national defense be anything but a laughing matter -- to anyone?
