Why is Obama so tone deaf about Summers

[edhopper]

More and more reports that he is picking Larry for the Fed.
And more and more articles about why Janet Yellen would be the better choice and how bad choosing Summers would be.
Even when I disagree with him, I usually understand why Obama does some things.
But I can't understand his infatuation with this destructive man.

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. He's not tone deaf. Ignore what he says and watch what he does.

Who actually gets the full resources of the U.S. government support?

[CTyankee]

2. I agree. I can't figure it out either.

My only guess is that the people advising him are in their own bubble, for whatever reason, and they hold sway over his decision making on this issue. I want to be wrong.

[grantcart]

10. The only thing I can think of

1) He feels that the Fed Chairman has to be someone who commands a strong leadership profile and based on how he has seen him in action believes that he has unique skills in that sense.

2) Realizes that Summers pisses people off with a rather negative demeanor but doesn't feel that is bad.

3) Philosophically believes that the FED's most important role is fundamentally utilitarian and as such should be more policy neutral and that more liberal issues vis a vis economic redistribution need to be handled through legislative actions where legislators have to vote. In other words that a FED that is too aggressive in policy would help fuel paranoia on the right (see Paul Rand) and that process wise it is better handled in Congress.

I can agree with part or most of the three but what really stumps me is that even if you agree with those three points there have to be other candidates who could fulfill those points without antagonizing almost everyone.

Summers seems to have a unique ability to piss everyone off. While some of that is understandable he seems to take it to Olympic proportions.

[CTyankee]

13. good analysis, particularly #3.

But I don't think he should worry about what Rand Paul or any other of repub party thinks about him. The paranoia is going to be there no matter what Obama does.

[Marr]

22. The problem with Summers is not his demeanor, and he is most certainly not "policy-neutral".

He's been a major player in a covert and corrupt push deregulate markets on behalf of the big banks. *That* is why he's risen so far, and if Obama nominates him, it will be because Summers is an insider with the big banks, and they want their chosen man in that position.

[grantcart]

25. I don't think that accounts for the atmospherics that he experienced at Harvard.

[PSPS]

3. He's not "tone deaf." He just isn't the person you still think he is.

[edhopper]

4. You mean he actually supports the 1%

at the detriment to the rest of us?
Because that seems to be the only reason i can see.
If so it is very sad.
I did not expect him to be FDR, but I didn't think he would be Hoover either.

[LWolf]

5. Bingo. nt

[Safetykitten]

11. He never was. Think who spoke at the first inuaguration. Some said this was really the mark of a

politician. Gee, now everyone is shocked. Shocked I tell you!

[broiles]

15. +1

[woo me with science]

28. Indeed. nt

[TransitJohn]

6. He's not 'tone deaf'

He's a supply-sider looking out for the banksters.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Obama only listens to "peers"

people who, like him, have great great wealth and power. Bankers and the rest of the Predator class.

He treats the rest of us like petulant children who need to know our place. He and the rest of his kind are the grownups who make the rules.

Don't believe it? Look at the historical record. On evrrything from implementing Romney Care to trying to slash Social Security to Operation Spy On Everyone, and now Toonces Summers, he's utterly ignored input from the 99%.

[Safetykitten]

9. But Obama is not reponsible Manny! He's really just a passive bystander economy-wise

since he's been in office. This is just a historical trend and bend that is unavoidable and completely predictable. So having Summers is really to help him "observe" the economy on it's natural trajectory. Downward.

[spanone]

12. wow, i didn't hear the news that summers was nominated, when did that happen?

[MannyGoldstein]

14. He was nominated as Obama's chief economist in 2009, and won Senate confirmation

Nobody nominates Summers to a post like that if they care a whit about the middle class. Summers' track record is - and was - crystal clear.

And now Obama is on the record saying that Summers is one of the three candidates to run the Fed. Astonishing,

[edhopper]

16. There are quite a few reports

that say he made up his mind to nominate Summers.

[jsr]

21. Well, I think he was kind of forced into taking the job

and making very bad decisions. Poor guy.

[Safetykitten]

8. You see, that's why it was so hard to get decent HC reform. He has no power. Really, just...

oh he wants Summers. He's going to fight for him.

One person gets his undivided attention. A whole HC system? Well...

[treestar]

17. Clinton liked him too

It is odd that Summers is a Democrat, given his opinions on cutting capital gains taxes.

[Scuba]

18. More evidence that the Democratic Party leadership has been taken over by conservatives.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. "More and more reports that he is picking Larry for the Fed."

and "More and more reports that bombing Syria was imminent".

Summers is a vomit-inducing douche but sadly, I recently heard a business report a couple weeks ago that had as an aside, mention of possible issues with Yellen and her husband with respect to their finances if a confirmation hearing were to delve into it.

http://www.startribune.com/business/221402271.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906304579039301166905042.html

Ezra Klein did an interesting summary and analysis of this whole sordid situation of Summers and the Robert Rubin clan - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/30/why-larry-summers-was-always-the-favorite-for-fed/

If anything, there's probably a better chance than any that Summers might not make it through a confirmation - particularly if someone brings up the GOP "War on Women" and then brings up Summers' own war on women.

[edhopper]

20. First

you don't think that before the Putin deal, Obama had every intention of military action? He made a speech to support it. The media did not make it up, it was Obama who brought up the idea of a military response to the gas attacks.

Second, I don't know who the nominee will be, but it is obvious that Summer is a top contender, and perhaps his problems in confirmation might be the only thing that stops Obama from putting him forward, so I think my OP is consistent with that.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. To answer

you don't think that before the Putin deal, Obama had every intention of military action? He made a speech to support it. The media did not make it up, it was Obama who brought up the idea of a military response to the gas attacks.

Not in the Shrub-Darth sense, absolutely not. One, like only a few others on DU, would need to have followed Kerry's history since 2005 when Shrub pulled our Ambassador out of Syria - e.g.,

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/01/would-syria-be-great-new-home-for.html
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2008771437_syria22.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/06/_the_long-stalled_us_diplomati.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/world/middleeast/02syria.html

where while in the Senate, he continually traveled to Syria trying to head off Shrub's "Axis of Evil" bullshit related to Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria. And thus looking at what just occurred in the past couple weeks, the outcome should not have been a surprise - particularly noting who was the centerpiece of the media blitz (Kerry) and who wasn't (Hagel).

Iraq is a basket case (with no Saddam) but we ended our active involvement, Iran has a brand new leader, so you don't have the bombastic distracting utterances of Ahmadinejad, Libya is also a basket case (with no Khadaffy), but we are not actively involved there... So what was left was Syria and the need to tamp that down as one of the last efforts to restart the Israel-Palestinian talks (Egypt still has the treaty with us despite their disarray).

As a historian, the President has often used (in a sortof updated old-fashioned way) some of the techniques of the past - i.e., in this case, the "Big Stick". Assad was born with the silver spoon in his mouth because his father did all the heavy lifting under Nixon and Assad was born into the wealth that his father amassed. He has a medical degree and because his eldest brother had died, he got dropped into this role. So I expect the idea was most likely that a "Big Stick" (with some teeth behind it) was needed to re-start Geneva 2 - the strategy taken from the old adage - "Speak softly and carry a 'big stick'". And in these sorts of geo-political showdowns, if all parties can be given a way to "claim victory", then your negotiations have essentially worked. It's what the negotiation workshops call "win-win" (even if you "lose" some things you really wanted, you still get your major desired outcomes).

Second, I don't know who the nominee will be, but it is obvious that Summer is a top contender, and perhaps his problems in confirmation might be the only thing that stops Obama from putting him forward, so I think my OP is consistent with that.

Yes hes' a contender but during the past 4.5 years, every single event that has occurred under this President, whether it was the getting Dodd-Frank signed into law or the ACA passed and implemented, or ending the war in Iraq and pulling all the combat troops out, or ending it in Afghanistan and transitioning the troops from there, getting re-elected in the face of a $2 billion Koch-fueled campaign against him (where according to DU, Rmoney was GUARANTEED to win after a single debate that caused this place to explode in outrage), or letting the Shrub tax cuts expire (which according to DU, was NEVER EVER going to happen)... and on and on.

It seems easier for folks here to do this --> than to use the myriad of past examples of the final outcomes of decisions made under this administration, after many thought that something ELSE was "GUARANTEED" to happen but didn't. And the result every single time is all sorts of justifications and hand-wringing and drive-by insults until such time that everyone moves on to the next thing, and amnesia sets in.

There were reports last month that the announcement was coming as soon as Obama got back to D.C. from Martha's Vineyard, yet here we are almost a month later.

IMHO, I hope Summers is torpedoed in a hearing IF he is nominated but we shall see. As an ironic aside, I have seen the President nominate or at least float names of some very controversial folks in a manner that just the exposure ultimately destroys them in the end (see Judd Gregg... )

And as a side note, it has been reported that 3 Democrats on the Committee (where Democrats only have a 3-vote margin) had already indicated that they would vote "No" which would mean that to get out of Committee, all the Republicans would need to vote for it (which ain't happening) along with Warren, who is also on the Committee but hasn't announced any intentions yet.

I may be wrong but Obama's pattern has often been to push for something, despite the long odds, to at least to show that the attempt was made, and if it fails it fails and he moves on.

[raccoon]

23. Maybe he's being blackmailed into it somehow. nt

[demwing]

26. Maybe he's trying to leverage

Putin into writing and op-ed for the NYTs on why Janet Yellen would be the better choice?

[L0oniX]

27. The DC bubble is from another planet of the rich.

[FarCenter]

29. Ever notice how some people seem to be complete assholes, except to their next boss.

Could be Larry is an accomplished brown-noser.

[PoliticAverse]

30. "Summers Withdraws Name for Fed Chairmanship"

See DU thread for WSJ article: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023672728

[karynnj]

31. Summers withdrew from contention

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/15/summers-fed-bernanke/2816927/

Complete replay of Susan Rice I suspect

[trumad]

32. No---much different..

Rice is terrific and had the backing of Progressives... Summers... total opposite.

[karynnj]

34. Not my point

I was not intending to comment on who they are. I was commenting on the fact that Obama strongly defended both from attacks when their names were out there. You might have noticed that Obama did not then comment on all the media allies attacking John Kerry. I suspect that it might - in both cases - have been because he thought it likely that he would not counter the attacks when he praised them in a nomination speech.

John Kerry was the better candidate for Secretary of State. Given Rice's relations with Russia, I doubt she would have had the role Kerry did on Syria --- and I doubt she would have restarted the Israel/Palestine talks.

[Cha]

35. Interesting theory, karyn..

So, you're saying.. that PBO defended attacks against Rice and Summers because they weren't going to be offered the job?

[karynnj]

36. Purely theory

Just going by the intensity of his remarks in both cases - and the underlying tone that it is wrong that people get taken apart because their name is out there.

I also think that there is a difference in his second term picks and the first term. The first term had a lot of ex-Clinton people. This makes complete sense because they were the last group of experienced executive office Democrats. I think that was true of nearly the entire economic team. Now, he likely has people who were not in the top position, but whose work for him over the last several years.

[Cha]

37. I think it's

a good theory. Glad I caught it.

And yes, it did make sense to have those in his Admin who were experienced because they a a hellava to challenge to meet. What with coming after 8 years of the bush-cheney train wreck.

[polichick]

33. Seems he likes the club Summers is a part of...

Obama is actually part of that same club - or dearly wants to be.