January 14, 2009

1/14: Is Tim In Trouble?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the news that NY Fed Chair Timothy Geithner, whom Barack Obama nominated as Treasury Sec., failed to pay $34,000 in taxes from 2001 to 2004. While previously there was little opposition to Geithner's confirmation in the conservative blogosphere (particularly when compared to Eric Holder), righty bloggers have begun discussing the possibility of blocking Geithner. Michelle Malkin, for example, is criticizing Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) for telling reporters that he still supports Geithner in spite of the latter's checkered tax history.

Meanwhile, righty bloggers are giving Obama credit for dining with some prominent conservative pundits last night. While they still expect Obama to advocate policies they disagree with, the rightroots appreciate his effort to reach out to his ideological opponents. Lefty bloggers, for their part, don't mind that Obama spent an evening with hardcore GOPers like William Kristol. Marcy Wheeler writes: "If, for the sake of one night of indigestion, he can neutralize propagandists that the Noise Machine has invested a lot of money in, all the better."

GEITHNER: Apparently The U.S. Tax Code Was Too Complicated For Him

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Geithner after it was revealed that he failed to pay $34,000 in taxes from 2001 to 2004:

• Malkin: "Obama's Treasury Secretary: Tax rules for thee, but not for me."
• Ace of Spades: "On one hand we're assured he's brilliant and possesses a steel-trap mind for finance. On the other hand, he 'forgot' that he had to pay taxes in America. I am having some difficulty comprehending how both of these statements can be true simultaneously."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If I happen to forget to pay some of my taxes, will the IRS say, 'hey, no big deal, no penalties'? Because they said that to Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner."

Glenn Reynolds: "I don't think this is that big a deal, but I can't help but feel that if he were a Republican nominee it would be treated as a bigger one....But, as I've noted before, isn't this -- together with [NY Rep.] Charlie Rangel's problems -- an argument for tax simplification? I mean, if the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Treasury Secretary nominee -- who's head of a Federal Reserve Bank -- can't keep their taxes straight, how can the government expect the rest of us to?"

Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Frankly, I like the idea of a tax cheat as Treasury Secretary in this environment; it makes the thought of him spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on new stimulus bills and bailouts that much sweeter."

GEITHNER II: You Call This Vetting?

Several conservative bloggers are portraying the revelation about Geithner as further evidence that the Obama transition team did a poor job of vetting Obama's nominees:

• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "What the heck is wrong with the Obama vetting process? One strike on Bill Richardson. Two strikes on this -- the transition team found the housekeeper problem and the 'error' for additional years of nonpayment and arranged for the tax repayment back on December 5. But they seemed not to have appreciated the impact tax nonpayment would have on the confirmation prospects of a Treasury Secretary. [...W]hether or not Geithner survives, the air of competence surrounding the new administration is a precious thing and shouldn't be frittered away like this. Certainly this was one more unforced error the new team did not need. One wonders if this is indicative of a regrettable pattern or simply the final bobble as the Obama administration gets its sea legs. But, wait. The Eric Holder hearing -- which may be the bloodiest of them all -- is still ahead. So much for the honeymoon."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "In the wake of the news that Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in federal taxes for a housekeeper, President-elect Obama's allies in the media are starting to see a pattern of blunders, given that it is coming off [NM Gov.] Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw his nomination as Commerce Secretary."

Liberal blogger Steve Benen is downplaying the incident: "This seems...like small potatoes, especially given the seriousness of Geithner's responsibilities at the Treasury Department in the middle of an economic crisis. [...] We're talking about infractions that a) are minor; b) Geithner addressed and corrected; and c) he made no effort to conceal. It'll take considerable effort for Republicans and Fox News to gain traction with this."

OBAMA: Breaking Bread With The Enemy

Liberal bloggers don't mind the fact that Obama dined last night with a group of conservative pundits that included Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and David Brooks:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Why wouldn't he talk to conservative writers? It's not as if he shied away from the other side during the campaign, even going on Bill O'Reilly to get yelled at by that old gasbag. Let him try to work his charm with that crowd. There's little downside."
• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "If, for the sake of one night of indigestion, he can neutralize propagandists that the Noise Machine has invested a lot of money in, all the better. I wouldn't want to do it. But if Obama's got the intestinal fortitude to dine with these three, more power to him."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I don't necessarily have a problem with this. I suspect Brooks is the only one even possibly movable, and [Rush] Limbaugh and Kristol are simply treacherous. Still, it's an interesting move."
• The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "Obama has pledged to be a uniter once in office. He's also said he is willing to take policy suggestions from any source, regardless of ideological affiliation, as long as they work. So far, he's living up to his word."

Benen: "Obama really has nothing to lose by trying to engage these four. Each seems rather susceptible to flattery, and they were no doubt thrilled not only with the access, but with the chance to tell the president-elect how right they are. I'm sure Obama listened politely, hoping that the outreach might pay dividends over time, in the form of a more civil discourse, and possibly even the benefit of the doubt. [...] And if it doesn't, Obama wasted a pre-inaugural night, maybe picking up some new credibility from the David Broders of the world for making an effort to engage prominent critics on the other side."

OBAMA II: Credit Where Credit's Due

Several conservative bloggers are giving Obama credit for reaching out to his ideological opponents -- especially Kristol, who is a favorite of the rightroots:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Obama deserves credit for this 'outreach,' which is consistent with reports about how he handled himself as head of the Harvard Law Review and, to some extent, as a powerhouse in the Illinois legislature. Brooks arguably is no longer a conservative, and may well have voted for Obama, while Will has bashed President Bush and John McCain for years. But the diversity of the three (counting Kristol) should count further in Obama's favor. He has sought out three of the very best, most distinctive minds in non-liberal journalism. [...] UPDATE: It gets better. Charles Krauthammer apparently was at the dinner too."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I like David Brooks, and he's about as conservative as anyone with a regular column in the New York Times could be, but I'd classify him as center-right at best. George Will and Bill Kristol are certainly conservative, but Will doesn't dig into the partisan warfare, preferring to remain on policy more than politics. Kristol, though, is a man for the trenches, a stalwart on both policy and politics. Kristol's presence impresses me the most. Had Obama just wanted a conservative 'beard', he could have stuck with Brooks and invited Doug Kmiec. The entire meeting is somewhat of a surprise, but Kristol's presence indicates that Obama wanted it to be taken seriously."

Morrissey continues: "Will it change Obama's direction? Of course not. Obama will do what Obama wants to do. I'd guess that he's hoping at best to take some of the nastiness out of the punditry to come over the next few months. It's not as easy to rip your friends as it is your opponents, and Obama wants a base of goodwill for his first 100 days to give him some breathing space. It makes some sense, but knowing Kristol as I do (slightly personally, but I've read him for years), I don't think it will work if Obama runs to the left on economics and foreign policy -- nor should it."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins is less charitable: "What does it mean? Well, note that Obama certainly isn't proposing any conservative policies. Instead, he's making a P.R. move by making meaningless nods to the right so that when he supports policies that [Vladimir] Lenin would blanch at, he can come back and say, 'Sure, I ran a trillion dollar deficit, got rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and stopped the building of the border fence -- but I ate dinner with George Will! See? It all balances out! I'm a moderate!' Obama is a corrupt, hopelessly dishonest, far left-wing weasel right down to his core and chowing down with a few columnists isn't going to change his nature."

GUANTANAMO: A Bit Of A Predicament

Liberal bloggers continue to urge Obama not to create an alternate legal system to deal with the Guantanamo prisoners:

• digby: "We have a civilian legal system and a military legal system under our constitution, both of which have been developed over centuries and tested from a myriad different directions. And as sophisticated as they are, they are still imperfect and often produce unjust results. It's impossible to develop yet another legal system from scratch that will even function much less have any credibility. We've seen that with the military commissions that are nothing more than staged Kangaroo courts where even the judges don't have a fundamental understanding of how the thing works. It's just not possible."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "When Obama does things that warrant praise -- when he appoints someone like Dawn Johnsen as OLC Chief, or defies Beltway demands by going outside of the intelligence community to find his CIA Director -- he should be praised. When he does things that warrant criticism -- such as going on national television to talk about the need for a special process to allow the use of 'tainted' evidence against Guantanamo detainees, or when he openly contemplates naming someone as CIA Director who supports rendition and torture, or when he votes in favor of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- he should be vigorously criticized."

BooMan is furious at the Bush admin. for creating this situation in the first place: "We are going to have to release almost everyone at Guantanamo because we can't successfully prosecute them. But many of them could have and should have been prosecuted. A few of them are seriously dangerous criminals, and some of them were directly involved in the 9/11 plot. Some people on the right will kick and scream about releasing even the innocent, let alone the guilty. But what are we supposed to do? The people to be angry with are the Republicans that created this situation. Imagine if I told you on 9/11 that the people that did it would be released because the government screwed up their cases!"

Like most righty bloggers, Malkin is opposed to releasing prisoners from Guantanamo: "61. That's the number of jihadi recidivists who returned to their terror-waging ways after being released from Gitmo. Go ahead and leave your bets on what the number will be a year after Barack Obama takes office."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Democracy And Responsibility

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison:

"One of the claims that I have seen made quite often over the last two weeks is that Palestinians in Gaza voted for Hamas and so ought to be 'held responsible' for that decision. In other words, the idea is that they brought whatever they are suffering upon themselves. [...] The vital distinction between people and government will usually be blurred or erased for one of two reasons: the state needs to use the people as a shield against criticism, or a foreign state needs to reduce the population to an extension of the state in order to make war on it more completely. Realizing this should make us even more wary of rhetoric that invests democracy and elections with some moral significance. It should also warn us that the natural complement to valorizing popular sovereignty and democratic government is the demonization of entire peoples by identifying them with their political leadership in an indistinguishable mass."

LEST WE FORGET: Bush Spends Day Feverishly Booby-Trapping Desk

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- In preparation for the traditional task of welcoming his successor to the Oval Office, outgoing president George W. Bush canceled all his appointments and press conferences Monday so he could spend the day outfitting his desk with a series of traps, gags, and hair-trigger switches. 'Oh, man, is he gonna get it,' the president said after rearranging the letters on his computer keyboard and supergluing the direct-line-to-the-Pentagon telephone to its base. 'If the 44th president is anything like me, he'll grab this can of peanuts to snack on when he's talking to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and when he does -- bam! Right in his face!'

As one of his last official acts in office, Bush reportedly rigged the presidential drawers, chair, and ceiling fan with a number of inconveniencing though harmless devices, including Vaseline-covered pens, fishing-line trip wires, a saltshaker with the top unscrewed, a fake set of nuclear launch codes, an inflated whoopee cushion, and a drawerful of pickles. After backing slowly away from his desk, the president informed his top aides that, if he can get back from the inauguration quickly enough, he also plans to place a bag of canine excrement near the Rose Garden door and set it aflame."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 14, 2009 12:30 PM