Bad nominee withdraws. Obvious defeat for everyone who thought he was a bad nominee.

[WilliamPitt]

This fucking place cracks me up.

[ProSense]

1. No, it's good news.

Best of all, it ends the speculation.

[Skittles]

2. oh put those silly people on Ignore, William

they really are not worth any time

[KG]

3. 'Oh, I used to be disgusted. And now I try to be amused...'

[NuclearDem]

4. You and me both.

[SidDithers]

5. Bad nominee withdraws...

and everyone that was sure he was going to be the next Fed Chairman will shift to the next speculative outrage.

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Bad Nominee bandied about, Democrats everywhere practice democracy by giving their

Senators and Reps and earful and Bad Nominee Trail Balloon is shot down. My Senator Merkley was one of the committee members who announced that the Nominee was in fact Bad and would not get the support of Democrats in the United States Senate.
It's how we do things. If you see a bad trial balloon, so often used by furtive politicians and you just smile at the pretty object, it passes it's trial and goes into regular service. Hence the democracy that so vexes the more conservative posters here, be they Democrats or not.

[bigtree]

11. +1

[scarletwoman]

13. Thank you, well said! (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

22. It is important to take the time to explain our political system to visitors like Sid who

don't always understand the way things work. During the Bush era, things didn't work that way, the way they are intended to work so many more distant observers and younger people are perhaps taken aback by activism and the use of our elected representatives to carry the will of the people who elected them.
We can't expect people to really understand things they only see on TV and read about in glossy magazines.

[scarletwoman]

29. You are indeed correct. It would be unkind to leave them in the dark about how our democracy

is supposed to work.

[KG]

37. oh, no. how it works is wait something happens, so you can be told you only object coz of your

'illogical obama hatred'.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. I was told that the opposition to Summers was 'abject hatred'

By a person who does not seem to understand that this has been an ongoing possibility, actively opposed by actual elected Democrats for months now. They think it was sudden, just a rumor, and in that way they missed their chance to advocate for Summers if that is what they wanted to do.
I'm very much tired of the use of the word 'hate' to describe 'I'd rather not have him as Fed Chair'. The world has actual hate, which does much harm and people attempting to define an opinion about an outspoken political nominee as 'hate' are aiding that harm and increasing the anger in themselves and others. Our entire community should reject it.

[Starry Messenger]

48. Very true.

[rhett o rick]

140. I dont think that will work. He apparently seeks a utopian DU where everyone loves the President

and no one disagrees. He is only trying to purge DU of those that dare to speak out truth to power. Democracy is soo messy.

[IronLionZion]

143. It is a pleasant surprise when our elected representatives actually represent us.

I fully agree that activism works. More likely in the Obama and Clinton eras than Bush. I suppose elected leaders want voters to vote for them. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and so forth.

[Safetykitten]

28. Thank you!

[Mojorabbit]

53. +1000 nt

[Le Taz Hot]

129. Nice.

Good response.

[rug]

17. Bad nominee was critical member of team before he was bad nominee.

Statement by the President
Earlier today, I spoke with Larry Summers and accepted his decision to withdraw his name from consideration for Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Larry was a critical member of my team as we faced down the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it was in no small part because of his expertise, wisdom, and leadership that we wrestled the economy back to growth and made the kind of progress we are seeing today. I will always be grateful to Larry for his tireless work and service on behalf of his country, and I look forward to continuing to seek his guidance and counsel in the future.

[sendero]

86. "faced down the worst economic crisis"...

"the kind of progress we are seeing today". Comedy gold and laughable spin rolled into one.

[magical thyme]

19. sorry to disappoint, but all I've seen so far is celebration.

[Cryptoad]

26. Amazing

the Power of Speculation by some!

[DeSwiss]

33. ....

[Vanje]

39. Snort, chortle, whoop! nt

[KG]

43. epic.

[Phlem]

70. Nice.

and a beer for you.



-p

[QC]

91. So true....

[RetroLounge]

105. Give him credit, he did something besides kick a Prosense screed.

RL

[quakerboy]

59. If he was a bad nominee

Why was he in a position to withdraw in the first place? Do we have such a shortage of talent available?

[Rex]

114. I doubt I will move shift.

[markpkessinger]

142. No one said he would necessarily be the next Fed Chairman . . .

. . .. What folks said was that he was the front-runner among those under consideration to be nominated by President Obama. And that has been pretty well confirmed. And the left NOT made a lot of noise about it, he wouldn't have withdrawn his name, and the President likely would have nominated him.

Here's what you don't get about this issue: the anger was that President Obama would ever, under any circumstances, even consider Larry Summers for the job. The fact that the President was seriously considering him represents, as far as many of us are concerned, a serious disconnect on the President's part. The fact that Summerz has withdrawn is a great relief; that does not, however, say a whole lot about the President's judgment on this issue in the first place.

[2banon]

145. And that my friends, is the POINT. (what you said mark)

[Celefin]

162. ^^THIS^^ -nt-

[Puglover]

153. Perhaps if you find the way

politics is conducted in the US so odious you might focus more on the politics in your own country.

[scarletwoman]

156. Well said! It gets very tiresome being derided by someone who doesn't even live here.

Someone who doesn't have a vote in the U.S. Someone who will never have to cope with the quality or lack thereof in his representation in the halls of the U.S. Congress. Someone who will never be subject to the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Someone who has no direct stake in the state of democracy in the U.S.

Where does he get off, heckling and mocking and insulting those of us who LIVE here? What arrogance!

[Puglover]

165. Yep Scarletwoman.

Last edited Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:50 AM - Edit history (1)

I have been a donor at DU for over 10 years and a volunteered as a mod for three of those years. And frankly the fact that admin will not deal with the constant heckling, disruption and mocking behavior of this and other posters is the only reason that my star will disappear soon.

Makes me sad. I love DU. But enough is enough. Big tent is one thing. However allowing posters to remain on this site that operate under the guise of absolute and unquestioning support of OUR government only to divide and alienate loyal democrats has pretty much led me elsewhere as far as any sort of support is concerned. This has gone on for years and as I said enough is enough.

Case in point. Summers withdrew his nomination. Something we ALL are pleased with. Yet that point is turned into a 20 something string of off topic comments, a waste of time because of a snide comment orchestrated to do just that. If that is not disruption I'd love to know what is.

[delrem]

185. Please!! Perhaps some Canadians wouldn't benefit from that.

Perhaps a shitload of NDP/"Liberal"/Progressive Canadian voters have heard way too much of that jabberwocky already, and are happy that if it can't be stopped the overload of it can at least be exported. Tho' who knows, across the world's longest undefended border, the origin of the plague.

{Please excuse the quotes around 'Liberal' -- there was no other way to include the name of such a totally bought-out for-sale group.}

[delrem]

184. Great job of mimicking the illustration in the OP!

Thank you. This place wouldn't be same without you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Truly ignore is your friend

It makes this place almost usable.

I really have no time for that idiocy any more.

[L0oniX]

18. It also excludes the ignored from jury duty bullshit on you. My excluded list is full and...

needs to be larger ...so I've started putting everyone in the BOG on ignore to keep em from getting jury duty on any of my alerted posts. DU is already smelling better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. I am not sure if it quite does that

But I don't play rigged games either. So don't alert, and don't do juries either.

[scarletwoman]

34. It doesn't work like that, sorry. Just the opposite, in fact.

YOU can not be called to a jury for anyone on your ignore list, however - unless you have them on your Jury Blacklist as well - THEY can be on a jury for any of YOUR posts that might get alerted on.

[Isoldeblue]

69. That is excellent advise....

I believe I'll use it for those who believe they are so much better and above everyone else......................

[DeSwiss]

124. I agree completely.....

...and came to this conclusion way back in DU2.

Look at it this way. Let's say we're all in a bar. It's a real nice bar that serves democratic-progressive-leaning people, along with members of Democratic Party. It's got Buffalo Wings on Friday nights, and great cold crisp beer (all BYO). And it's got all kinds of rooms in it. Rooms for the astrology and alternative healing folks. And a place where geeks can can feel free to let their hair down and talk nerdy to each other. It's got places to swap recipes and to talk about photography. It's got the union room and the armed-liberals hangout as well. It's got it all.

And yet even with all this, there are people that must be Ignored. It's not a perfect system to place someone on Ignore. It's a personal choice. Like deciding whether to go into a BOG thread. You know there's a risk the most innocent remark could get you banned for life. So you decide it just ain't worth it. It's their echo-chamber and their loss, let 'em have it. I have no skin in their game. No loss here.

It's just like when you get to decide IRL who you'll give your time and energy to if this were a real bar. Sometimes the people you have the least time for, could turn out to be worth getting to know. So its not a foolproof system by any means. The question is whether you want to take the time to find that elusive nugget of gold among all the layers you may have to go through to find it. But like I said, it's a personal choice. And for me, my health ain't that good anymore so time is of the essence. I have to take my shots at looking at this crazy setup we got going here, when I can. And I've no time to waste.

But I think this attitude that I and many others have is borne of the fact that there's a new realization settling-in, globally. A new consciousness that understands that the time for bullshit is over. That there's only so many times that we have to keep turning the crank to realize that it ain't working. So I don't have time for people promoting the same old-ass ideas, the same old-ass practices and the same old-ass institutions that have failed us and have us mired in the hole that we're all presently in.

- You remember the bar scene in Star Wars? Yeah, that's what I mean......


[center]Tatooine DUers Meetup at the Cantina September, 3974

[/center]

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. Speaking of nerds...

And you are correct. I don't have time for the bullshit either.

[2banon]

147. +++++++.... exactly

[progressoid]

7. Yeah, it's derpville sometimes.

[longship]

176. Hugh Laurie as Bertie Wooster?

I would bet on it.

And Stephen Fry played Jeeves.

Wonderful series. P. G. Wodehouse rules!

Here's a taste:

[progressoid]

179. Yes!

I love that series! I've seen it a couple times. Might have to check it from the library again.

[longship]

180. Yup! I watched it on PBS, then gotthe videos from my library.

I have four Tivo'd episodes that I watch once in a while (the first four).

I did my own TiVo with Linux and open source software with a T1 line and a cable TV connection. I could record two programs simultaneously on it from any of the seven computers on my home network and view the resulting recording from any workstation, too. I could also, with a single click, burn a DVD.

Sadly, that hardware is long gone due to a fire and I live where there is no cable TV, let alone broadband Internet. It was fun to TiVo Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann every night.

[OregonBlue]

8. Oh don't worry, I predict that they will have a new "Obama plans to ????" to generate outrage

within the next hour or so. Obama Derangement Syndrome is and all-consuming, full-time job.

[Vanje]

44. Yep

We havnt seen our last outrage.
And when we become outraged, we'll act on it, spread the word, email the WhiteHouse, circulate petitions, write and call our congressionals.....
and maybe something outrageous will be changed, for the better.

Then you can join the new celebratory thread here on DU, and denigrate the ODS-suffering poutraged pony-whining haters that made it happen.

Thats cool. If it floats your boat. It keeps you off the streets, and it doesn't cost anything.

[Marrah_G]

133. <3

[Celefin]

163. Perfect.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. The thing is, you missed the democracy party. This was months in the making.

From July
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/26/usa-fed-summers-idUSL1N0FV0T820130726

[Isoldeblue]

74. They must think

that it makes them seem ever so cool, to be completely uncompromising in their need to disqualify everything Obama does.............

As if they would know how to do things, if they were POTUS....

As if they could have accomplished all he has done, against so many odds..........

So silly..................

Must be serious inferiority complex issues.

[Jack Rabbit]

149. Who do you think we are? Teabaggers?

If the headlines read "Obama plans to push Trans-Pacific Partnership", you better believe we're going to be outraged and rightly so. That's not Obama Derangement Syndrome.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. no attack on Syria - obvious defeat for those who opposed an attack on Syria

[Vanje]

46. Seriously. A DU member recently posited that the anti-invasion people are sad.....

....because "they" (we) didnt strike Syria , so they can't bash Obama for it.


Yep. I'm anti-war, but I wish we had a war so I could get mad at Obama for it. You bet.

[KG]

54. they're so dizzy from spinning they don't know whether to shit or wind their watch.

[Vanje]

58. Some-are-Half-the-Way

[Douglas Carpenter]

95. sure glad Obama didn't push single-payer - because if he had I wouldn't be able to fault him for

not pushing single-payer

[onyourleft]

111. I'm very happy...

...I missed that post, but not surprised that it is out there among all the other bashing.

[deutsey]

134. Exactly...I was very active in the anti-war movement before Iraq

and was dancing with glee when Bush unleashed shock and awe and the bloody invasion.

:

[delrem]

173. Good post! hammer, nail, SMACK

[deutsey]

132. I know...I think suffered a brain cramp trying to follow the contorted "logic" of some here

[kentuck]

12. I hate to say it but...

that's the way Republicans think.

k&r

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Politics as a team sport has destroyed meaningful discussion here. Nt.

[Ed Suspicious]

31. this.

[tkmorris]

38. ^^^THAT RIGHT THERE^^^

Some people pick a side and then argue for that side. Facts don't matter. They are fundamentally incapable of being objective anymore. It's like having a conversation with a bandicoot.

[QC]

42. Bingo. n/t

[Vanje]

47. Be true to your school!

I wasn't much of a sports fan even back in my school days.

[LaydeeBug]

115. Yep. nt

[Jester Messiah]

139. Exactly.

People are so rah-rah for their "team" that they can apply no critical thinking towards their supposed representatives. Whatever the "star quarterback" does is right and heroic, by definition. Makes me ill to see it here.

[Celefin]

164. Spot on.

IMO there also has been quite an increase in sports/games metaphors in political 'discussions' around here; something which isn't a good sign in extremely serious matters like going to war or not.

[rug]

15. Lol!

[mmonk]

16. snicker

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Summers was never a nominee. n/t

[Number23]

23. That point appears to have flown over sooooo many heads here

Along with damn near everything else.

[temporary311]

27. And now he never will be.

[Vanje]

50. ...He was very close.

..which is why he sent his nomination withdrawal letter to Obama.

[ljm2002]

52. Was he on Obama's list of candidates for the job?

If not, then what exactly did he withdraw from?

[BeyondGeography]

61. A window into the "guilty until proven innocent"

mindset re. Obama w/many posters here.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. His possible nomination has been a serious matter of discussion for months

and the Democrats who announced they would not support him this week have been talking about this for months. Summers will never be an actual nominee in spite of those who promoted him and because of those who opposed him, including my Senator Merkley.
This did not all go down this week. From July:
RPT-Opposition mounts to Summers as possible Fed chief
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/26/usa-fed-summers-idUSL1N0FV0T820130726

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Saying that he was the nominee and was withdrawn is wrong.

Harriet Miers was a Bush nominee for the Supreme Court and was withdrawn.

Larry Summers was never a nominee for the Fed Chair.

[Caretha]

170. And that's why

Summers withdrew. Makes perfect sense to me, like a pro.

[delrem]

174. Then why did he withdraw his name? Why did Obama respond so eloquently to the withdrawal?

That seems strange....
I know: Because his name wasn't on the table in the first place!
Thanks Mr Boffin, for making perfect sense.

In the meantime, I join the vast majority of DUers in breathing a sigh of relief, even though, as you so rightly suggest, *of course* left-wing/progressive agitation had *no* effect whatever on the Dem gov't.

[Bolo Boffin]

175. Not being the nominee does not mean he was not being considered.

And he withdrew his name from further consideration to be the nominee. This is not a difficult concept.

And you will look in vain to find me suggesting "*of course* left-wing/progressive agitation had *no* effect whatever on the Dem gov't." On the contrary, it is my contention that it did indeed play a part in Obama's decision. He listened.

Perhaps you should stop digging.

[delrem]

177. OK... since you agree with the vast majority of responses to WP's OP,

and I do as well, so of course I have no problem with your opinion.

However, one thing that ought to be highlighted rather than be erased to the point of being illegible is that the pair Bernanke/Summers have been central to Dem Pres Obama's admin for the first 5 yrs, and that Pres. Obama took time out to *publicly* accept Summers' face saving move, in the most glowing terms, after Summers *publicly* declared that he wouldn't contend for the spot. After months of speculation - the post being so important. When one engages their reasoning with *that* factor, as well as all others, response has to be *premised* on the fact that Summers wasn't just any old "contender".

If you, too, think Summers would've been wrong for the job, then you, too, should be happy that the push-back became enough of a movement so the unthinkable didn't happen - in spite of some very heavy duty warning signs.

[Bolo Boffin]

178. There were better choices than Summers IMO. But he wasn't the Fifth Horseman.

There are far worse people that could be considered for the job.

Krugman, no fan of Summers, was able to deal with him being the Fed chair. That should be a hint.

But I was disappointed he was the frontrunner for the nomination and was happy to see him step back. But that doesn't mean he was ever the actual nominee. Hyperbole weakens arguments.

[delrem]

181. I've seen no "hyperbole" w.r.t. Summers on DU.

Rejection, yes. Strong rejection, yes. But in near every case with sound argument to explain the opinion, even if the argument came via several responses in a thread.

I don't know what "the Fifth horseman" means. I hope it isn't hyperbole. That'd be just too ironic, don't you think?

[Bolo Boffin]

182. Color me surprised. n/t

[delrem]

183. Well, if that's how you wish to conclude - let it be.

[ProSense]

24. Post your preemptive Summers defense here.

Post your preemptive Summers defense here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023660703

[Vanje]

51. That is a damned funny thread.

It worked my abs.

[LittleBlue]

25. Incredibly amusing

Seriously, one could come to this forum for laughs and political discussion in equal parts... at the same time.

[Th1onein]

30. Huh? You're talking about Summers, right?

I'm sure most people are happy he withdrew.

[dkf]

32. What's funny is they don't get the point of your post...witness your replies.

[scarletwoman]

35. Yeah, I noticed that, too.

Especially post #8 - *whoosh*!

[Oilwellian]

41. I'm afraid number 8 really thinks we were defeated

[Blue_In_AK]

117. Thanks, Scarlet.

I was getting confused.

[ProSense]

36. LOL!

"We're perpetually wrong, but always cool and smarter than everyone else!"

[SDjack]

40. Senator Warren sliced off his privates, put them on a plate, and served them to him. nt

[bhikkhu]

45. It has been a good week

Its nice to have a good week sometimes, and nice to be able to feel like the system works - as long as we participate in it.

[Vanje]

56. Agreed! nt

[11 Bravo]

49. Dude, you know I love you, but the bad nominee was never actually ... you know ... the nominee.

On edit: God knows that I've been disappointed with some of the President's decisions, but it has become almost a sport at DU to shit on him for what some people are absolutely convinced that he MIGHT do!

(And I don't include you in that "some people" group. Like you, the thought of us intervening in the Syrian civil war froze my blood; but there are posters here whose entire purpose for posting appears to be to attack Barack Obama at every opportunity ... and if an opportunity doesn't actually exist, they are content to manufacture one.)

[Vanje]

57. Good!

and now everyone in Washington knows that the people are not behind anyone like Summers.

Its a win.

[quakerboy]

66. What exactly was he withdrawing from, and why?

I'll grant his name was never sent to the senate for confirmation, so there is that.

[Bluenorthwest]

67. It's called Democratic politics. The possibility of his nomination has been an actual

issue being talked about by actual elected Democrats for months now. Many of us here have voiced our opinions about Summers to those officials weeks ago. Summers had his boosters and his opponents and the opponents won the day. This has been going on. I see today that many here seem to have been utterly unaware of this, and thus probably missed their very lengthy window for boosting Summers to their Congressional delegation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/26/usa-fed-summers-idUSL1N0FV0T820130726

That article is from July. The 'BOG type DU poster' is very behind on actual political events and timing and only hears about them in the last public moment. They volunteer to bark on cue after the decisions are already made. They leap up for Summers after he was already rejected by the Senate, for all intents and purposes. Like so many other times for Larry, the math was just not there for him.

[Maven]

101. The fact he needed to formally withdraw means he was a serious contender, probably the most serious

It has been widely reported he was at the top of the list. This is not that hard to figure out.

This is a win, and it only happened because people spoke out.

[Bobbie Jo]

137. Thank you.

Those intent on pushing the inevitability narrative were wr..wr..wr..wrong. Again.

The chronic intellectual dishonesty is the issue here, IMO.....

Yes, we're all glad to see Summers back down, it's just that some of us never considered him a foregone conclusion.

Thanks again for your post.

[Maedhros]

144. Your accusation of "chronic intellectual dishonesty" on the issue of Summers' potential nomination

to the position of Fed Chair is unsupported by the facts.

For example, Bluenorthwest in post #63 put up this link

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/26/usa-fed-summers-idUSL1N0FV0T820130726

showing that the effort to put the kibosh on Summers' potential nomination has been ongoing since July. Clearly, a coalition of liberal Democratic Senators felt he was enough of a threat to be nominated that they took action to prevent it. Were those Senators also "intellectually dishonest?"

Why is it important to disparage other posters because they are happy that, for once, liberals appear to have a voice that is being heard?

[Bobbie Jo]

148. key word

"potential" nomination.

My post dealt with misrepresenting the CERTAINTY and INEVITABILITY of a Summers nomination that was absolutely rampant on this forum.

Why is it important to misrepresent how ALL of us feel about Summer's exit from consideration. I think it's freaking outstanding! Just don't pretend that some of us are in some way disappointed.

The twisting that goes on around here is just bizarre.

[Maedhros]

154. I think you're putting too much effort into a semantic argument: "potential nominee" vs. "nominee"

There has been quite a bit of analysis since at least July pointing to Summers as the presumptive nominee - so much so that a coalition of liberal Democratic Senators felt compelled to speak out against Summers. Senators don't do things like that unless they think it's important - it carrys with it a certain amount of political risk, especially when they appear to be going against their own Party's President.

Given the President's track record in ignoring Liberal voices when making certain appointments (e.g. Tim Geithner, Chuck Hagel, Arne Duncan) it is somewhat heartening to see that we won this particular round. The Summers trial balloon was floated and then shot down. Everybody wins here.

[scarletwoman]

157. Semantic argument is all they've got.

Yes, to be completely accurate, Will should have said "candidate" instead of "nominee". But that's hardly the point - we all know what Will meant, and we're all glad that "potential nominee" Summers has withdrawn his candidacy.

[Maedhros]

159. I can understand their knee-jerk responses.

They view our celebration of the Summers flame-out as (somehow) an attack on Obama, and they are tired of defending the President.

There's something to that - look at the posts on the thread about the nomination of Zientz for Economic Advisor. A lot of posters jumped on the President's case simply because Zientz is a CEO and had worked at Bain Capital eighteen years ago, without knowing much else about the man. I get just as frustrated at posters who jump into a thread and smear Glenn Greenwald without knowing much else about him other than he admitted to supporting the Iraq War in the preface to a book published in 2006 (and then immediately explained how his sense of betrayal when he learned the truth of the matter led him to despise Bush, but that part gets ignored).

In this particular case I believe Summers was the Beltway's presumptive nominee because Obama had praised him in the past and because Obama has appointed Wall Street mavens to cabinet positions before (cf. Tim Geithner). I'm not sure that Summers would have removed his name from consideration all on his own, so the idea that Obama may have asked him to do so after testing the political winds carries some weight.

I just wish we could get more thoughtful responses to this issue beyond "You're all stupid! He was never the nominee! "

[Bobbie Jo]

160. And the prognosticators on this site have been

habitually WRONG.

This is just another example in a long line of DIDN'T HAPPEN.

[Maedhros]

161. It was the inside-the-Beltway folks who decided Summers was the presumptive nominee.

People here were just reacting to that.

[Bobbie Jo]

166. Hence the term

"knee-jerk."

I believe you used it above to disparage my post.

Carry on....

[Maedhros]

167. Is a response to two months of analysis a "knee jerk" response? [n/t]

[Bobbie Jo]

168. Yup.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3660703

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023660767

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3670171

Please.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3676502

[Maedhros]

169. I'm not following you...

Beltway declares Summers the preemptive nominee, liberals get out ahead of the Beltway narrative and raise a stink, Summers withdraws his name from consideration.

The alternative could very well have been:

Beltway declares Summers the preemptive nominee, liberals stay silent, Summers is nominated.

I don't understand why you are advocating that liberals remain silent on these kinds of issues.

[Bobbie Jo]

171. Obviously.

I advocated silence? Hardly. I advocated against ascribing nefarious motive and knee-jerk, reactionary narratives that feed the never ending outrage machine.

Again, back to my original post in this thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3676502

and again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3678814

Your latest response, once *again,* completely ignores the point. Like I said, the twisting that goes on around here is just bizarre.


Done here, this is an exercise in futility. Have the last word.

Good evening....

[Maedhros]

172. I'm not ignoring your point.

Those intent on pushing the inevitability narrative were wr..wr..wr..wrong. Again.

It wasn't inevitable, but quite likely: this is the same President that appointed Tim Geithner and Chuck Hagel to cabinet positions. Summers is birds-of-a-feather with those guys. If there hadn't been a liberal outcry, maybe Summers would have been the nominee.

The chronic intellectual dishonesty is the issue here, IMO.....

Accusing others of intellectual dishonesty is a bit much.

Yes, we're all glad to see Summers back down, it's just that some of us never considered him a foregone conclusion.

That's a bit of a straw man argument. There were very good reasons to think that Summers would be the nominee, and very good reasons to draw a line in the sand and say "No way!"

My post dealt with misrepresenting the CERTAINTY and INEVITABILITY of a Summers nomination that was absolutely rampant on this forum.

Why is it important to misrepresent how ALL of us feel about Summer's exit from consideration. I think it's freaking outstanding! Just don't pretend that some of us are in some way disappointed.

The twisting that goes on around here is just bizarre.

You are engaging in the same sort of hyperbole of which you are accusing others.

[pa28]

55. Resistance in the Senate and public pressure kept him out.

Don't let anyone tell you differently.

[eppur_se_muova]

62. "I am happily indifferent to the ones who have consistently been wrong"

http://www.metrolyrics.com/coming-home-lyrics-kd-lang.html

A good attitude to adopt.

[snooper2]

64. teabaggers won again!

Mark Levin was all over this POS nominee...

Oh wait..sorry, the left "True" democrats were against him. Oh, wait, I'm confused again lol



Common Dreams Common Ground?

[scarletwoman]

71. So, were you hoping that Summers WOULD get the Fed Chairmanship?

Three Dems on the Senate Banking Committee were against Summers, too. Are they also "teabaggers"?

[snooper2]

73. Concern level about Summers, 2.5%

enjoyment from online outrage, backtracking, BUT posts!


Golden

[Number23]

87. "Concern level about Summers, 2.5%" I'm right there with you on that.

Seriously.

[Vanje]

90. Really?

Are you unconcerned about any of Obama's economic "team"?
Is it just not important to you?

I find that odd, surprising , maybe intellectually lazy, though I don't know your reasons for your unconcern, so I don't know.

[Number23]

93. "Concern level about Summers, 2.5%" Seems pretty damn self-explanatory "Vanje"

Why don't you bore... I mean, regale with me with the percentage level of your interest on this issue and how you came to it? I'm waiting eagerly so if I don't respond right away it's only because I went to clear my schedule.

[Vanje]

97. Well, alright. Since you asked.

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2013, 12:49 AM - Edit history (1)

I hope you won't be too awfully bored. I took some time in writing this.

How I came to be concerned about Larry Summers, and other economic team members of the modern presidents.


I've been long time concerned with the accelerating wealth-poverty gap in this country.
I first became aware and shocked by income disparity during Clinton administration. We didnt hear much about it then, but the great Molly Ivins was on it. I was influenced by her writing.

Its gotten worse since then, as you know. (or maybe you don't know, since you don't seem to find economic policy engaging.)
But it has gotten worse. Take my word for it, or better yet, read something. I can provide suggestions.

I was disappointed by Clinton's economic policies.
Through the GWBush administration, I was appalled to the point of nausea, at Bush's econ policies, and the merging of government and corporate interests. It seemed government was working solely on behalf of the likes of Haliburton, Enron, and big banks.
It was a horrible 8 years.

When the 2004 primaries rolled around, I was thrilled to hear one candidate repeatedly acknowledge the problem of income disparity and poverty. Thrilled! It was Edwards. My thrill was short-lived. Turns out Edwards was a Doosh-wad in his personal life. He apparently spent my campaign donation on a mansion for his concubine. I'm still mad!
But I digress.
When Edwards was out of the race, I turned my volunteering and donating efforts to candidate Obama. Though I didnt hear Obama the candidate address poverty specifically, he spoke of concern about the struggling middle class, and seemed to be interested in people over big businesses and banks. Seemed he said something about working for Main Street, not Wall Street. I was very happy to get behind Obama. I wanted and needed that Change I can Believe in!

When he was elected, I was euphoric. A victory for the people! A turn-around of an economy that was ripping this country in half between poor and rich.
But soon after, I was less than comfortable with some of the appointments he made. Vilscack , Geithner, Summers, Gates.
It looked like more of the same, and for the most part it has been.
Granted, Obama inherited the worse economy since 1929, so I was prepared for a long haul.
Subsequent opposition from Congress has been certainly slowing down the changes I was hoping for.

Those weren't things Obama could reasonably do anything about. But those appointments! Those oligarchs on the economic team were selected by Obama.

That has been disheartening to me.
So , finally, when it comes time for Obama to select a candidate to replace that out-going old corrupt Randian fuck, Ben Bernanke, I was acutely interested. 100% interested.

So. No. Interest in Obama's financial appointments is not merely my flavor of the week.


I hope I've held your attention, and that you didnt get bored.

Thank you for reading and considering my views.

Now you can go to the Bog, and swap Obama trading cards , or whatever it is you all do there that takes so much time away from being concerned about the nation's economy.

[Blue_In_AK]

118. Excellent summary.

I join you in that "2.5 percent."

[Vanje]

120. Thanks!

Glad someone read it.

[Blue_In_AK]

121. Probably not the people who should have.

Lol.

[Enthusiast]

125. I liked it too.

[BelgianMadCow]

126. Good write-up there Vanje. I felt exactly the same

"But soon after, I was less than comfortable with some of the appointments he made. "

I actually teared up whan Obama was elected. But that lasted until his appointment of Geithner. The whole baking crisis is, by virtue of numbers, an order of magnitude bigger than everything else. So that appointment really said it all. Goldman Sachs = the true government, or close to that.

[Number23]

127. So nice of you to take so much time in this.

But I feel this bit "Now you can go to the Bog, and swap Obama trading cards , or whatever it is you all do there that takes so much time away from being concerned about the nation's economy." truly sums up the entire gist of your participation on this web site and is pretty much why I didn't bother reading any of your summary or care even the slightest about your opinion or your posts.

Now go back to... wherever it is that you go and swap Ron Paul trading cards or whatever it is that you do that makes you such a consistently nasty person.

Edit: Removed entirely true but probably not entirely necessary insult.

[Vanje]

130. You're welcome!

[Vanje]

88. Wouldn't want to worry your head about our Nations economic future.

It might detract from your enjoyment of other people's online outrage.

[whistler162]

72. Ooops..... another failure from the Obama bad group!

whats that a 99.9999999% failure rate.


poor pseudo-liberals.

[scarletwoman]

82. What the hell are you talking about?

We didn't want Summers for Fed Chair. He has now withdrawn from running for Fed Chair. We are very happy that he has withdrawn. How is this in any way a "failure"?

[Blue_In_AK]

119. They're making my head spin.

Are we all on the same planet? Do we speak the same language? Is 2 + 2 really 5? I'm so confused.

[NuclearDem]

84. Ladies and gentlemen, Exhibit A.

[RetroLounge]

106. WTF are you babbling about?

Did you even read the thread?



RL

[Isoldeblue]

75. I feel as if I'm on a middle school playground,

watching a bunch of pubescents, bully and pile on anyone with a different opinion or view. Certainly not an adult forum............

Much less a liberal one that should have more tolerance, compassion and empathy than your typical teahadist, rethugs. Can't tell the difference in the meanness and immaturity between either side, really.

[grasswire]

78. Obama never loved him, you know. nt

[Isoldeblue]

80. I wasn't talking about Sommers.

I don't know what Obama's actual thoughts were about him. Nor does most anyone else really know.

Though some act like they do, and feel they are able to fully predict everything about him and accurately assume what his real plans and ends are.

That is just foolish................ But hey, if that's what some need to do, to feel better about themselves at his expense, Obama is a big enough man to take it...... Or even care about those twits.


I'm glad he withdrew, though.

[Vanje]

99. Its a total mystery what Obama felt about Summers

since we only have his words, actions, and direct quotes and whatnot to go by.
Heres just a little one:
In a statement, Mr. Obama said he accepted Mr. Summers's decision. He described him as "a critical member of my team as we faced down the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it was in no small part because of his expertise, wisdom, and leadership that we wrestled the economy back to growth and made the kind of progress we are seeing today."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981304579077442028100408.html

[Isoldeblue]

102. That still does not tell the whole story of

what actually motivates his decisions. Those are only broadly, generalized words. Apparently he got some expert help from Summers. I don't see a problem with that.

Obama doesn't have to give a detailed explanation for ALL his decisions. At times it may not be wise to. But that doesn't stop some saying like they do know everything about him.....

[Vanje]

107. I imagine the selection process for cabinet people and nominees is a team operation.

That would be sensible.
Like personnel issues at most work places, a lot of the decision making happens behind closed doors.

[LWolf]

83. I'm old enough

to have been raised on the rule of good manners: keep politics and religion out of conversations.

Obviously, that's not going to happen on a political discussion board, nor should it. But it serves as a solid example of why that rule was once part of our culture. We could possibly use a little more restraint. Not to stifle free speech or dissent, but to express ourselves with civility. Of course, back when I was a child learning that rule, there was no internet, we didn't spend that much time on the phone, and we generally talked face to face. There was no anonymity, so if we couldn't be civil, everyone knew about it.

Add anonymity to political and religious debate, and the inner bullies come roaring out of hiding, with social inhibitions gone.

Put downs, name calling, etc., etc., etc., are an embedded part of the greater culture. In earlier days on DU, personal attacks against other DUers were specifically prohibited, but it was open season on Republicans; ridicule, derision, name-calling, and general middle school bullying of Republicans was celebrated, and still is, without seeing the inherent hypocrisy.

In the move to DU3 and the jury system, personal attacks on other DUers are rarely acted on. Most jurors reject alerts on those grounds as "whining," "silly," "weakest alert EVER," "Please, give me a break...is this a discussion site or the kissy face place?", "What a petty complaint.", etc.. Those are all in quotes because they are comments from recent juries I've served on.

In other words, DU has evolved into Lord of the Flies, as long as nobody is advocating leaving the party or voting for anyone who isn't a democrat.

[Isoldeblue]

89. As am I...

being a retired woman in her "late" 60s'.

But, I'm a newbie here (and to internet forums), and appreciated the history lesson from a DU veteran. Thank you.

I guess I sound like a strict, old teacher, scolding her ill-behaved pupils..........

[PoliticAverse]

110. Yeah anonymity is certainly a mixed bag. n/t

[Number23]

128. You got that right. I can't tell if it's getting worse or if the same folks are just piling on more

in order to save face (looking at the OP).

But I particularly enjoy the ones who feel compelled to break their arms patting themselves on the back with why they consider this such an important issue and why their perception is the only one that matters. As if the very thought that there are Americans that don't consider who may get considered to be on the list for who might possibly become chairman of the Federal Reserve to be the single greatest issue in the whole nation sends shivers up and down their little spines.

It's almost laughable that they believe that anyone would be interested in their opinion when it is so obvious that they are merely trying to score points and bully others. I guess they don't realize that in order to bully people you need to actually have some authority and/or power instead of being merely obnoxious and needlessly tedious.

[Isoldeblue]

155. You nailed it!

Aren't they just so special................. ?

[snooper2]

76. Oh, it's bad form not to reply to any posts in your OP

FYI-

We talked about this at committee meeting tonight

[quinnox]

77. The cognitive dissonance has proved to be too much for some hard core fan club members

In their minds, Obama must always come out as the victor, so they will spin it and think of everything that happens in those terms.

It was the same thing in Syria. Since Obama seemed to be gung ho about attacking Syria, therefore, they were too. So for weeks they said stuff like “Think of the children!" and "We are morally bound to help them by attacking Assad, if you disagree you must be a terrible uncaring person!“ or the always popular "I trust my president! Whatever he says and thinks I support 100%. And he is smarter than you, so there!"

So, when Obama backed down due to a number of factors, (Putin intervening, Hard opposition against it by most citizens) All of a sudden, the urgency to attack disappeared as if by magic, and they now forgot all about their righteous moral outrage. So then you see the crazed reactions and altered reality responses, they were on board all along and it was all a secret grand plan by Obama!!

[snooper2]

79. Same thing in Syria, so why didn't you respond to this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023667275

I didn't follow the pre-written script?

[quinnox]

81. I said "some", not all

My post only is referring to those who were posting things along the lines that I showed. If you weren't saying those things, then my post doesn't apply.

And I am not on Du 24 hours a day (despite how it may appear, lol) so I will miss threads that are posted, or maybe I just don't feel like responding, could be any number of reasons I don't post in a thread.

[gulliver]

85. Do you stand behind your source? nt

[Summer Hathaway]

92. It is a defeat

for the Poutrage of the Month Club.

But they'll find something else to bitch about within twenty-four hours - just like always.

[scarletwoman]

96. It is NOT a defeat. There's probably not a single DUer on this board who isn't delighted

that Summers withdrew his candidacy. We're celebrating - we got what we hoped for.

It takes a particularly twisted feat of illogic to accuse people who have gotten exactly what they wanted, of not wanting what they've been saying for months that they DID want.

What we wanted was for Summers to NOT be named as Fed Chair. So, it's very simple, we got what we wanted. That is NOT a "defeat" by any measure.

[Union Scribe]

103. Then why are the only people upset

a certain subset of Obama supporters who are now whining about it?

[Rex]

116. Good question.

nt.

[Vanje]

108. ?

[scarletwoman]

109. I know, right? It's so weird, I can't even begin to fathom the thought process

behind a post like that.

It's like, "You got what you wanted! LOSERS! Neener neener neener!"

A person just kinda ends up scratching their head, going "WTF?"

[Maedhros]

146. "Are my methods unsound?"

"I don't see any method at all, sir."

[scarletwoman]

158. Heh.

[Cha]

122. "So far, the only people shocked at Summers' "withdrawal" are the pack journos who pushed..

his hypothetical candidacy as a narrative."

Adam Weinstein @AdamWeinstein

"So far, the only people shocked at Larry Summers' "withdrawal" are the pack journos who pushed his hypothetical candidacy as a narrative."

10:23 AM - 15 Sep 2013

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/09/15/the-weekend-funnies/

Adam Weinstein..
http://www.motherjones.com/authors/adam-weinstein

[morningfog]

94. Some see the world through Obama lenses.

Every thing, every act, every event is understood only as how it affects Obama's image. Some are obvious shills, some are disruptive trolls who look for a rise, yet some genuinely believe what they say.

[JoePhilly]

98. Obama was absolutely going to nominate him,

and a huge chunk of DU was pissed because they were sure Obama was going to nominate him.

Now that that is not happening, it is time to spin the wheel of outrage again.

So what's new?

[joshcryer]

100. And people act as if they didn't say his nomination was written in stone.

As if the future has already happened and there's nothing changing it.

Just like Obama was going to strike Syria August 30 and nothing was going to stop him.

[Union Scribe]

104. It's always good when Obama listens to his better angels

Those angels being, of course, liberals. It's weird how instead of being happy that a shitheel is now out of the running, certain posters are so terribly pouty about this happening.

[Egalitarian Thug]

112. K&R&LOL.

[Rex]

113. Liberals and progressives save the day again!

To the chagrin of a few here.

[Whisp]

131. I guess we know where the balls were dangling on the Summers issue...

*WHAAAT, if Obama picks Summers, I'lll **&^$3_ !!! and Never again expect ^WHAAAA,**@@ he broke my heart and &&^^^%%$$# and *spittle, he WILL picks SUMMERS, he WILL WILL WILL and that will beeeeeeee the last straaaaaaaaaaaaw! rec me! rec me!

[Capt. Obvious]

135. This is an awesome thread

Brings Out Gloaters

[durablend]

136. Two sads for Obama in less than a month

You far left hippies should be ASHAMED of yourselves!!! Obama is just doing what he thinks he's best for us, and you go and shoot down his war then his Fed nominee just because you hate him!!!! Clearly everyone thrilled with this is a RACIST and is a Republican ENABLER!!!!

[Capn Sunshine]

141. Just so we're clear on this Will

It wasn't the "newly aroused left" that defeated Lawrence Summers. It was Wall Street. Pretty much common opinion that he was the exact opposite of what we needed. Thus, stock rally today :

Many investors believed that Mr. Summers, a former Treasury secretary who has been one of President Barack Obama's top economic advisers, would be more aggressive in reining in the Fed's bond-purchase program. Since the financial crisis, the Fed has been buying Treasurys and other bonds with the aim of stimulating economic growth through lower long-term interest rates. -----WSJ

in depth:

http://www.housingwire.com/articles/26851-stocks-bonds-rally-as-summers-exits-fed-chair-race

[pnwmom]

152. Yup. I think there's some misplaced gloating going on lately. Oh well. n/t

[pnwmom]

150. You mean "bad potential nominee," right? Unless I missed something,

he was one of a few potential nominees, but he never got nominated.

[awoke_in_2003]

151. It is good news...

but the cynic in me makes me wonder what new asshole they have lined up.