Why the President won't nominate Summers.

[cali]

He's cannier than that.

The last thing he needs right now is a high profile battle in the Senate that he stands a fair chance of losing. Despite recent missteps, he's a damned good politician.

It would defy logic and everything we know about him for President Obama to spend his dwindling political capitol on Summers.
4 Democrats on the Banking Committee have already effectively told him, "Don't do this Mr. President. We don't have your back".

The math isn't there for the President. He'd need 4 repub yes voices and gambling on that is more than a little risky- and that's assuming that he doesn't lose any other dems, no sure bet itself.

It's undoubtedly true that for whatever reasons the President has a lot of faith in Summers and wanted him for the job, but he's been blocked.

[Autumn]

1. I think that's true. It would shock the hell out of me if Summers

were nominated by Obama. There is no upside for him to do that.

[Safetykitten]

2. Oh God!

[gopiscrap]

3. Good, I hope he doesn't nominate him!

[HappyMe]

4. I think you're right about this.

A lot of people are assuming that it's a done deal.

[monmouth3]

5. I wonder if POTUS had a nefarious plot in the works, nominate a guy so the repubs would vote against

him for ODS reasons, if nothing else. Then nominate Yellin..The repubs would look foolish to go against her after not supporting Summers. Maybe I imagine too much. At any rate, no Summers would make me very happy..

[Safetykitten]

6. Chess!

[monmouth3]

7. It's what's for dinner!!

[LWolf]

8. I hope you are correct. nt

[KoKo]

9. A Larry Summers Bait-and-Switch? --Richard Eskow

This article is from late July and I wonder if there isn't something more to it as we see that Summers won't get the Senate votes. Eskow seemed to think Summers wouldn't get votes when he wrote this but thought we might get worse and he doesn't mean Janet Yellen.
-----------------

A Larry Summers Bait-and-Switch?
by Richard Eskow

Barack Obama thinks Larry Summers is the right man for the job, and you can take that to the bank (sorry about the pun). What are we to infer from this information?

It certainly tells us that the president is very forgiving of Summers’ flaws, which include his apparently shocking attitudes toward women, his spectacular failure to foresee the financial crisis, his pivotal role in deregulation, the many millions he’s made from the same Wall Street bankers he’d have to regulate, and his long record as a bully to subordinates, peers and colleagues.
So, given the many good reasons not to nominate Summers, how did he become the president’s preferred choice? And why are they fighting such strong headwinds for him?

What were they thinking?

We can’t know that, of course, but there are several possibilities:

They didn’t see it coming.. It’s possible that, while the White House clearly knew Summers has enemies, the depth of the blowback has surprised them. It may be continuing to surprise them on a daily basis, and they may be hoping it will fade away as quickly as it appeared.
-----------
They have a Plan B. They’ve got somebody lined up – somebody other than Yellen, that is – if they can’t push Summers through the nomination process (a procedure which is increasingly starting to resemble the process by which a python digests a pig).

Bait, meet switch.

That last possibility is the one we should really be worried about. The last time Summers was up for a White House job, we got Geithner instead. He was worse than Summers would have been, at least on policy. But the White House was able to tell several key constituencies “We heard you,” while actually selecting an even more pro-Wall Street candidate.

Don’t discount the possibility that we’ll see a similar bait-and-switch routine here. The President and his team could bypass both Summers and Yellen, toss a Geithner type in our lap (it might even be Geithner himself), and score a political victory while tacking further right on economic policy.

That’s not a reason to embrace Summers, but it means his opposition should be tempered with a clear message: The next chair must take the Fed’s job-creation responsibilities much more importantly than Ben Bernanke has done. So far the Summers resistance has been closely linked with pro-Yellen sentiments, which is good, but it should also be made clear that a Geithner-like surprise nominee would be equally unacceptable.

We’re not saying that a bait-and-switch will happen. But if it does, remember: You read it here first.

Good Read More at:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/26-1

[Hutzpa]

11. You should post this over at Good Reads

very interesting article.

[KoKo]

12. Thanks. I had posted it there but it's from July and I dug it out of "GR Archives"

archives to post here. Will go back and give it a kick there though if folks think it's interesting.

[Bigmack]

14. VERY interesting analysis - thanks nt

[cali]

15. well, that's a very interesting read.

[Hutzpa]

10. Summers is not the man for the job

you don't ask the fox to guard the door of the hen unless you're looking for a disaster.

I thought the president is surrounded by progressive thinkers rather than corporate democrats;
you will be led to believe that considering how some of his nomination has gone, it's as if the
corporate democrats have somehow out manoeuvre the progressive thinkers within his circle.

A progressive wonk will be the perfect replacement, sometimes you get tired of these political
games, you just want politicians to do what is right instead of succumbing to these organised
crime lords.

[KoKo]

13. Summers definitely a disaster. There must have been some arm twisting

going on from Wall Street that Obama seems to have kept pushing him.. Or, maybe he just likes the guy for whatever reason and can't get past that.

[Hutzpa]

16. We just need to ramp up the noise a notch

so that he (the president) can hear us.

[n2doc]

17. I do think you are right

I also think that Obama really wants Summers for the job, but these trial balloons have all been shot down with vigor. My prediction is that he will pick someone whose name hasn't come up much. It won't be Yellen, unfortunately.

[Lifelong Dem]

18. Maybe we can offshore his position since he is all for offshoring jobs

[Doctor_J]

19. That would be great. I am hoping he finds a demand-sider

[Scuba]

20. Why would Republicans vote against Summers' nomination?

[cali]

21. There are more than a few who wouldn't confirm any nomination

this President makes. We've seen that more and more. Particularly in committee where so many appointments get through to a vote because the Dems have a majority and they all vote for it.

Happens frequently that it's split on a partisan basis.

[Scuba]

22. Sure, but Summers is the choice of their owners. They'll call it "a bi-partisan effort".

[cali]

23. any you know that how? You don't

I don't think that's true. They'll do just fine with just about anyone the President chooses. Surely you don't actually believe that the President is going to appoint anyone who upsets that class of folks?

Again, it's simple math. That's the message these 4 Senators are sending him.

[cali]

24. it's satisfying to call it right.

[Fumesucker]

25. Even more satisfying to do it nearly two months beforehand

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3342454

[cali]

26. lol. you have this one.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Good call. But going to Congress for a non-binding

Syria vote was also nuts for the same reason.