Tim Geithner will likely be confirmed. But we are now setting a dangerous precedent: it is okay to be disingenuous in your confirmation hearing. It is hard to reach any other conclusion other than that Geithner is now fibbing to get through the Senate:
Perhaps the most embarrassing moment for Mr. Geithner was his attempt to evade the questions by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl on why he had only remedied the error on back taxes for two of the four years. Because the statute of limitations had run out on the 2001-2002 tax payments, Mr. Geithner was not legally required to pay them — and didn’t until a Treasury confirmation hearing seemed possible.
But instead of fessing up that he had obeyed only the letter of the law, he insisted yesterday that, gee whiz, the earlier tax dodge didn’t even occur to him — an excuse that came off as legalistic and implausible. His replies finally brought Mr. Kyl to insist, “Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it — please?”
Mr. Geithner replied that “I did not believe I was avoiding my liability,” and that he had worked in government his entire life and “would never put myself in the position where I was deliberately not meeting my obligation as a taxpayer.”
Hence, one is left to conclude that he lied in response to Senator Kyl. The underlying offense may have been “minor,” and his judgment in chiseling the Treasury in 2006 flawed, but they might not be considered disqualifiers for this or future nominees. But what about lying? Is this the new standard for the Senate?
That’s the same predicament that Eric Holder is now in. It’s evident his underlying judgment in the Marc Rich pardon matter was deeply flawed — he, in fact, admits it. But it has become increasingly hard to believe his “I had no idea Rich was such a bad guy” defense. The facts scream otherwise. Yet he’s about to be whisked through, regardless of his lack of candor before the Senate.
This all comes as a new era of responsibility and transparency is declared. If that is the case, perhaps we should go back to the bad old days when nominees gracefully withdrew when their past transgressions proved embarrassing and Senators of both parties demanded a basic level of honesty. At some point Senators and the public will wish we hadn’t systematically lowered the bar for high office to the point where lying was tolerated and, in some sense, encouraged as a maneuver to obtain confirmation.
Maybe some Democrats are not ready to see this corporate state in full bloom. That is a hopeful sign but still a small one. I wonder what Obama’s response will be. After seeing Gibbs attack the Today show, heretofore an Obama cheerleader, he does not seem to handle criticism well.
You’re so easy. Obama’s budget is an opening position. Bayh is a useful idiot. He was passed over for VP and is anxious to get his swipes in at the administration, and if things don’t work out, he’s covered. This is hardly opposition. Just as with Dowd, Senate Dems need to take the occasional stand just to prove that they aren’t rubber stamps, even if they really are. The budget might get a haircut. Red state Democrats will get some credit from their constituents. And, in the end, Obama will get exactly what he wants.
Have you been right about any of your “turning points” yet? No.
Obama should be suffering with the markets. The fact that he is not should make you very nervous. As long as the public is with Obama, Senate Dems will be with Obama.
Of course, as I pointed out yesterday, the Omnibus bill is simply one of the regular appropriations bills that’s allocating money that’s already been budgeted last year (not havig changed fiscal years yet). If the Senate rejects it, or Obama vetoes it, the money will simply roll over to the relevant executive branch department who will be free to allocate it as they wish…because the money is already appropriated. And Bayh even seems to understand that based on his first sentence.
In other words; Bayh is engaged in your run of the mill, meaningless posturing, and you’re still a lying hack. I guess this day ends in Y.
It’s not meaningless posturing, it’s trying to look good to the home folks. The congress controls all this spending, Obama can’t force them to spend the country into banana republic status. But some of them don’t want to look like the drunken sailors they are.
I doubt Bayh will ever oppose Obama when it gets down to voting. Bayh’s image as a centrist, reasonable person does not fit what he always ends up doing.
It’s one thing to have different viewpoints – either politically in general, or on economic or foreign policy. Obama certainly has a different viewpoint than most of the readers of this blog.
But he won the election and has big majorities in Congress and will be able to get most, if not all, of what he wants passed.
But what is so discouraging and disappointing is his phoniness. We saw it in the campaign, starting with his response to Reverend Wright and now we keep seeing it in his administration.
No lobbyists – except when I want them
5 day waiting period on legislation – unless I need to ram it through before anyone can really understand it
No earmarks – maybe next time
Same old, same old – except with a radical liberal domestic agenda.
His approval ratings are slowly moving under 60% and this is after only 45 days.
2010 will prove to be much more interesting than originally thought if this keeps up.
“…Obama can’t force them to spend…”
They already spent it.
Frankly, I don’t put much stock in these muddled donks. Much of it is for show back home in the hinterland. Generally, they get a token to hang their hats on and vote overwhelmingly for the Donkey in Chief.
Excellent, I say. What’s Obama going to do? Say that the Blue Dogs are the Party of No?
Let’s see how far this gets buried by Obama’s media cheerleaders. Right now Anderson Cooper’s putting the op-ed in a time capsule to be opened in 2498.
#3- So the Democratic Congress started the spending spree last year, and oh well!! its too late for the majorities – ie. Democratic Congress and President to keep their campaign promises. Earmarks, stimulus, pork-a-thon, and of course, a healthy dose of blaming the Republicans. pathetic!
Schizoid Stimulus Spending Spree courtesy of Socialist Democrats 2009!
Rubin,
Obama’s lurch to the left began in his childhood. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
KarlTroll,
the public is not happy about our sinking economy. It’s cute that you think the public will adore Obama even more for sending it plummeting while he rewards political cronies and lines Democrat pockets.
Watch out, Evan! Your going to be on THE LIST. Don’t expect any more Christmas cards from Pelosi.
The Democrat party isn’t completely made up of a bunch of Pelosi and Reid clones. There are a good number of “conservative” Democrats, otherwise known as responsible Democrats. At some point they are going to say “enough”, and force a debate within the Democrat party. These are the ones the GOP should be courting, and should be vulnerable in the next election. Their states or districts are generally more conservative, and so it presents a leverage opportunity for the Republicans. Using this leverage within the state or district will allow them to create a strong enough “caucus” to oppose much of this lurch to the left by Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
Obama losing centrist Democrats?…
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) attacks the administration’s lack of fiscal responsibility. Technorati tags: Evan Bayh, budgets, appropriations, stimulus, Barack Obama, criticism, Democrats……