Why is Obama so tone deaf about Summers

[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.