"Summers wasn't the nominee."

[WilliamPitt]

No, you're right, he totally wasn't on the short list and the favorite of the White House, you're right. He didn't withdraw from being a nominee for the Fed Chair at all. He withdrew from being the grand marshal of the Rose Bowl Parade SO STOP SAYING THAT.

[The Magistrate]

1. Odd, Sir: I Thought He Had The Nod....

Very glad he is out of the running; the man is a walking disaster, and sound policy would be to always do the opposite of what he thinks best....

[WilliamPitt]

2. You would indeed think so, sir, but for the comments here.

Apparently, we radical lefties were all up in arms over Summers for nothing, because he wasn't the nominee, and we were just wasting everyone's precious time.

Also, water is dry.

[Chan790]

6. Indeed.

I mean why would we think Summers was in the running? The White House had only started trying to line up support for his nomination from the Democratic leadership.

[Jack Rabbit]

93. Shouldn't that be repackaged by Nestle's Water?

We'll see how it sells. I'll buy a can, as long as it's a hoax.

[AgingAmerican]

11. It's that 'purity' thing again

It blinds us and plants false ideas into our heads. If only we could latch onto the Third Way purity® of the center right. We then might see the light.

[el_bryanto]

3. He's the establishment choice

Which gives him a few benefits and a lot of negatives.

Bryant

[snooper2]

4. You've used that gif a couple times already

You have to keep it FRESH!

keep it interesting!

[WilliamPitt]

5. But it expresses my feelings so well.

[Autumn]

7. He sure as hell isn't the nominee NOW.

[sufrommich]

8. Everyone should make their answers to individual posts

stand alone OPs,because why not?

[Maedhros]

79. I believe William is responding to what appears to be a common, repeated theme

present in a number of threads discussing the Summers withdrawal. "He wasn't the nominee" appears to be a distributed talking point used by a number of posters likely working in concert to manipulate the perception of this development. It's helpful to call out these talking points as they are identified.

[Bolo Boffin]

151. "a distributed talking point used by a number of posters likely working in concert to manipulate the

perception of this development."

I invite you to Creative Speculation to further work out the ramifications of this most interesting theory.

[Maedhros]

156. My evidence is mostly anecdotal, and therefore not probative.

There has been a pattern, now and in the past, in which a certain group of posters shows up with the same talking point (e.g. Summers wasn't a nominee, usually folowed by ) and push it relentlessy without engaging in debate. Maybe it comes from everyone reading the same Josh Marshall blog post? I don't know.

In this particular case, the point being drummed home is simply a semantic argument that distracts from the discussion. The assumption behind the posting of the "Summers wasn't a nominee" talking point seems to be that Obama should not be criticized for Summers' presumptive-nominee status because the President didn't actually nominate him. The counter to that point is Obama's prior praise of Summers and the conventional wisdom inside the Beltway that Obama was favoring Summers. Assuming that we all are happy that Summers won't be Fed Chairman, focusing on semantics lends nothing to the discussion of why Summers was considered the presumptive nominee.

[Bolo Boffin]

157. Is calling Summers the presumptive nominee so hard?

It has the benefit of being true as well. It would be extremely hard to fault someone for saying Summers was the presumptive nominee since he most certainly was. Everyone presumed it! And most here, including myself, weren't too happy about it.

But coming down on Obama for thoughtcrime is a lot less defensible than equating this situation with, for example, Bush actually nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. In fact, calling Summers the presumptive nominee also opens up the possibility that Obama listens and responds to people.

Should we also speculate about the way a certain group of posters seem to have it out for Obama at all times of the day, who also seem to have the same lines as one another when responding or posting? Or maybe, just maybe, the people disappointed with Obama for various decisions are not the sole possessors of genuine feelings being openly expressed about the situation? And nobody has a lock on the Democratic Underground brand?

[Maedhros]

162. The dead horse.

Stop beating it.

[Bolo Boffin]

170. The Kaboom.

Stop inflicting it on yourself.

[Maedhros]

196. Again, "nominee" or "presumptive nominee" is splitting semantic hairs.

Just why Summers was the presumptive nominee is the important question. Insult all you want, doesn't change the facts on the ground.

[Bolo Boffin]

204. Bullshit.

This isn't angels on the head of a pin-level stuff. Someone's the actual nominee or they aren't. And carp about "splitting semantic hairs" all you want. It won't change the fact on the ground that Summers was never the nominee.

[cui bono]

198. Obama thoughtcrime???????????????????????????????????????????????

Wow! Now that is a DUzy!

That is so absurd I really don't know how to respond to it.

Phew. Seriously. I'm completely bewildered. Just sitting here shaking my head in disbelief.

[Bolo Boffin]

200. That is what people are angry with him about concerning Larry Summers.

That he even dared consider Larry Summers for the job and that highly.

That's thoughtcrime. And it must be remembered and forever held against Obama that he thought so evilly. Even though he did not follow through (and this withdrawal is just as easily seen as giving Summers the option to withdraw and not be embarrassed by being passed over).

[cui bono]

201. You've got to be kidding. Is this DU performance art?

He's the president ffs. What he does and considers doing affects all of us and our entire country. It is our duty as citizens to stop him from making mistakes. No one is arresting him or prosecuting him. Of course we're angry for him to consider a Wall Street stooge for that position. You should be thanking those who made themselves heard so that he stopped such nonsense rather than making up a new meme and (presumably) hoping it sticks. It's probably the most ridiculous thing I've read on here.

Edited since I don't think you'd believe I meant it sincerely that I was concerned about you.

[Bolo Boffin]

203. Thank you for telling me how you see me coming off.

After all, that's what I'm doing with everyone here who seems intent to find every way that Obama has failed them and whip his effigy throughout the forums and groups as best they can.

Here's a secret for you: I wasn't too thrilled with Summers as the presumptive nominee either. But it wasn't the knife in the back some here are making it out to be. Paul Krugman also thought he'd be a decent choice and he's hardly some cloaked rightwinger trying to undermine us from within.

All of this uproar is just "OBAMA IS WORSE THAN BUSH HE SOLD US OUT!!!!" at its most off-putting and self-defeating. And it just keeps going on and on and on. Nothing Obama does right is ever counted in his favor. Everything Obama does wrong is hyped and overstated and laboriously recounted. It just gets old and I don't mind telling you all that. No need to thank me. Your concern for my wellbeing is its own reward.

Summers was the frontrunner for the nomination. Now he's not even in consideration. Yay! Obama listened to us. The process works. It's cause for being happy, not an excuse to bash Obama even more for daring to thoughtcrime Larry Summers in our direction.

[cui bono]

207. Sorry you are tired of hearing criticism, unfortunately it is warranted.

As tired as you are of hearing it, we are even more tired of having to say it. He is such a huge disappointment to so many of us. For me it is so sad that he squandered all the good feeling about him being elected and stayed in the middle, trying so desperately to get the GOP on his side. He should have come out boldly for a new deal type of program and the people would have stood up and given him the support and made our congress critters listen.

Instead he put Wall Street in the WH. I mean really, they are what caused the recession. And that's not all. We all know he continued a lot of BushCo policies and even expanded them. Of course people are going to keep speaking out about it, because it is continuing! If we hadn't spoken out perhaps we'd already have bombed Syria and Summers might be nominated. That's the point of a democracy, to speak our minds and have our voices heard.

Your term, is just ridiculous. How do you not see that? It makes no sense, especially how you used it in the post to which I'm replying.

No one needs to find an excuse to criticize Obama when he has bonehead ideas like that. And we've suffered through enough of them already. Any good he has done is far outweighed by his corporate/bankster sell outs. The good he has done is what any Dem should do. The bad he does no Dem should ever be caught doing. That is why the criticism continues.

I advise you to drop your meme if you want to be taken seriously.

[Bolo Boffin]

208. Thank you for your concern.

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2013/09/how-things-work.html

[pnwmom]

206. "He wasn't the nominee" is a statement of fact.

IOW, Summers was not the nominee.

No one was, because Obama had not yet nominated anyone -- even though he could have done so, months ago.

Now, of all the POTENTIAL or POSSIBLE or LIKELY nominees that were publicly discussed, Paul Krugman said that his choice, Yellen -- along with Summers -- was head and shoulders above the rest.

But what does Krugman know, anyway?




http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/the-fed-succession/

Rumors flying all over; supposedly it’s between Janet Yellen, the obvious choice, and Larry Summers, with totally unsubstantiated claims that LS’s star is rising. So I guess that, despite an intense desire to stay out of the whole thing (I know and admire both players), I need to say something — not an endorsement, but some sense of how I and others I talk to see this.

First of all, what do we need in a Fed chair? Above all, a committed dove — someone who will not succumb to the pressure to tighten policy too soon, and almost equally important, someone who will be seen by investors as resistant to this temptation. We’ve just seen how much damage even a hint of Fed hawkishness can do; it’s really critical to not follow the far worse step of making an appointment that gives the wrong signal.

As it happens, both Janet and Larry have good credentials on those grounds, at least in terms of what they’ve said in recent years.

SNIP

So what we have here are two highly qualified candidates, head and shoulders above anyone else I’ve heard mentioned and inconceivably better than the men who might have been in contention if that guy who ran with Paul Ryan had won. But if the final choice isn’t Janet Yellen, I think the president is going to have to offer a very good explanation of why not, or face a lot of grief from people who want to think the best of his administration.

[Whisp]

9. Things not going so well for so many lately.

I feel for you.

I think if Syria was being bombed right now (what the heck, throw in Iran and a full re-engagement in Iraq), Summers was in charge of the Fed, Kerry was thrown out of SoS and replaced by Jeb Bush, old people were dining on Obama Brand Cat Food™, the President was caught red handed on camera stealing from poor people and handing that cash over to Wall Street...

this would make some here much, much happier but the batting average for Evil Obama and his Shadow Army is pretty dismal overall, and the real President Obama's batting average is actually pretty damn good considering all the traps and opposition he has to overcome. And I'm not even counting the GOP and Baggers.

[Vanje]

13. _ _ _

[NealK]

95. I totally agree with you.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. It's because their Evil Obama Fantasy still hasn't panned out to make them right...

...so they have to create an alternative fantasy that it was THEM all along who were behind getting the Evil Obama to change his mind. The hubris of these people is amazing!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. +++1000! touche!

[Maedhros]

82. Not going well? What are you talking about?

Things are going very, very well - we have (so far) avoided committing to involvement in a civil war in Syria (WIN) and Larry Summers has been pressured into withdrawing his application for chair of the Fed (WIN).

I'm very happy with those results. Why are you so bitter about them?

[Phlem]

85. WOW.

Just wow.


ooooooooo K

-p

[ljm2002]

108. Of course, that must be it...

...all those damned leftist agitator types who claim to be against bombing Syria, who claim to be against Summers for the Fed Chairman, who claim to detest Jeb Bush and all the other Bushes, who are against reducing Social Security benefits... secretly all those things are what they REALLY WANT.

Conversely, then, all those who are FOR President Obama no matter what, must REALLY want him to lose on every issue.

It's obvious, isn't it?

Or maybe, just maybe, your logical contortions are a big, steaming pile of horse shit.

[Whisp]

109. the Justify My Hate crowd is very unhappy.

[LondonReign2]

115. And the Fail At Logic crowd

lacking a congent response, loves their ROFLs

[ljm2002]

120. And you are pathetic...

...trying to pin labels on your opponents rather than make logical arguments.

It is a well known and quite dubious rhetorical tactic. It is content-free.

Not that I expected anything different.

[Whisp]

121. ha!

''...trying to pin labels on your opponents rather than make logical arguments. ''



o man, thankyou.

[ljm2002]

126. You are quite welcome...

...shoe. fits. wear it.

[tazkcmo]

127. hahahahha

hahahhahahahahhaha ahhahah hahahahahahha!!!!!

[Whisp]

129. yah, I know!

[rhett o rick]

195. I think that pretty well sums up your argument. Rude emoticons. nm

[IronLionZion]

135. Some people need an enemy to fight against.

I'm sure a lot of folks miss the Bush years. And are still completely flabbergasted when our elected representatives respond to their constituents. It throws them off so badly they don't know what to do.

The tireless rebel mindset around here often reminds me of the wars on "terror" or "drugs" or "patriarchy" or so many other ambiguous wars. There is no possible to way to win since victory isn't clearly defined and neither is the enemy. So keep on fighting against something...

[RetroLounge]

184. Wow, where did you pull THAT strawman out from?

Oh, wait, we know already.



RL

[myrna minx]

10. It's bizarre - in addition, those of us celebrating his withdrawl from the nomination process are

somehow upset losers, as well? The logic is surreal and bizarre.

[dgibby]

39. Yep! Right out of Karl Rove's playbook.

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it.

[Whisp]

73. what is bizarre...

the very same people who find fault with Obama's eyebrows to his failing to get full single payer from scratch making him a failure in everything he attempts to do in between. And what he does get done, is never good enough - Grayson would do it better, hell, even your pool boy would be better at Presidentin' that this lazy stupid man.

Those are the people I make laugh at. The continuously unsatisfied bellyaching rain clouds of misery.

[Maedhros]

84. Umm....there was ONE person who commented on Obama's eyebrows, and immediately retracted

their statement and apologized for it.

In all honesty, you seem to be the one who is incessantly bellyaching. When was the last time you responded to a debate opponent with a reasoned, respectful post?

[Whisp]

87. o yes, it is supporters of Obama that have to 'play nice'

and stand by while the sewage continues to flow.

of course that's how things should work.

[Capt. Obvious]

92. Don't let them bog you down

[Maedhros]

98. Feel free to call me out if I'm disrespectful and abusive.

But you're painting with an awfully broad brush. It's almost as if you don't want civil discourse.

If you feel there is too much "sewage", then improve the discussion by being the better person. Avoid empty insults.

[Phlem]

113. +10000

You mean "Don't be a tool"?

impossible for this one.

-p

[NCTraveler]

96. When did Obama, during the health insurance debate, put his weight behind single payer in any way?

Who are these people who find fault with his eyebrows?

[Whisp]

97. single payer would have had Zero chance

and you know it and all the complainers know it too.

ACA gives the path to single payer - just like every other country that does have single payer - it takes Steps, Progress, Time and great opposition - it is not a package all complete and delivered to your door with the exact kind of bow everyone wants exactly when they want it.

[NCTraveler]

100. Avoidance. Good way to reply.

Your post was basically you venting at what you perceive to be an injustice against Obama. Some in your position aren't willing to admit it, you on the other hand are a bigger person.

[Whisp]

102. Name me one country with single payer

That got it fully implemented the way you think Obama should have done in one term.

Name one.

The U.S. has not even had a slight Whiff of single payer in the past (the Clinton's attempt counts for absolutely Nothing), but you want it all done Now.

Name one.

it's a fucking struggle to get it - every country that has it, had to struggle for it, and it takes time. Why it took the U.S. so long is an entirely other question.

[NCTraveler]

103. I think you posted to the wrong person.

"Name me one country with single payer That got it fully implemented the way you think Obama should have done in one term. "

WTF are you talking about?

[Whisp]

106. nevermind.

if you can't read then me saying it twice isn't going to help.

[RetroLounge]

185. Saying things only twice would be refreshing from you

RL

[bvar22]

160. The United States, July 30, 1965,

LBJ signed the Medicare and Medicaid Amendments to the Social Security Act.

With this one stroke, LBJ established a national, publicly owned, Government Administered, Single Payer Health Care System.

http://www.lbjlibrary.org/press/the-1965-medicare-amendment-to-the-social-security-act

[Whisp]

104. the injustice seems to be against common sense.

ACA is a great step toward single payer. So very many are now feeling the positive from it and so many more will in the near future. I know the list of great improvements in health care will be very boring to you so I won't do that. But they aren't boring to many people that are so much better off now because of it. I don't understand how anyone could be against this, it just boggles the mind.

If George Fucking Bush would have done the ACA I would have been happy about it and given him credit.

[NCTraveler]

107. Once again, What?

"If George Fucking Bush would have done the ACA I would have been happy about it and given him credit."

I am fully aware of that. Still not sure where this tangent is coming from.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

123. Not boring to me, Whisp. I live in the great BLUE State of Maryland. Yes, one of the

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2013, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)

states, who--thanks to Obamacare--has established the healthcare exchanges, and as a result, will see its premiums reduced by at least 50% next year. (Thanks also to Governor O'Malley who has been nothing short of amazing!!!)

I used to live in England and while I was there, I studied the NHS (National Health Service or single payer system) when Prime Minister Tom Major was in control. Major, like Maggie Thatcher, wanted to privatize the entire NHS but the Brits weren't having it. Sure, they hated the notorious waiting lists (called "queues&quot . Sure, they disliked some aspects of the NHS. But, by and large, they loved the NHS. However, even in England, the history of the establishment of the NHS is storied. It look many, many decades to implement the NHS. None of this happened overnight.

What infuriates me about the Obama haters or "The Impatient Left" is that they can't accept--or, won't accept from *THIS PRESIDENT*--that governance doesn't happen overnight. Governance is a process. It requires a process. And that process is a LONG process.

When candidate Obama promised hope and change, his slogan didn't say, HOPE AND CHANGE by a *specified date*. When Obama said *YES WE CAN* he did't say mean *YES -I- CAN*. That's the other mistake we make. We think this guy can do everything by himself. He can't. We want it NOW and we want HIM to do it alone. That's ridiculous. I've never seen anything like this in all my years. Never.

[Whisp]

138. Thank you.

I appreciate your post, especially your acknowledgement of the long history and struggle for the NHS.

[ljm2002]

110. But allowing Single Payer advocates to the table...

...could have helped shift the discussion somewhat, and that would have been a good thing. Instead, they were completely excluded, and there was not a peep from our esteemed President. Furthermore, he PROMISED to include a public option, and then dealt it away in secrecy. So did a public option have Zero chance as well? or was this just political expediency?

If a politician will not fight for policies they claim to support, or if they actively subvert those policies, they can hardly complain when people take note.

[Whisp]

111. there are options to states to get a public option like set up, single payer,

whatever you want to call it.

I think it's Vermont and California that are considering just that and it is well within the 'rules' of ACA. So as much as you didn't get what you thought in the way it was presented, it is real in another way you might not be considering. And a very clever way to implement it, if you ask me. but you won't ask me, and that's okay because I don't care.

I do care that proper health care is on it's way for all Americans. It's about damn time to start that engine, and it took President Obama to do it. No other Kings nor their Horses would touch it.

He did.

Hallejuah.

[ljm2002]

125. Our President did not fight for a public option...

...at the Federal level even though it was something he promised to do.

You can go on and on about the ACA and what it has in it, and how the states are free to try stuff. All good. But that does not alter the fact that, when push came to shove in negotiations, Obama caved on a promise he had made. And he caved in a very sneaky way, which makes it worse. He also caved on the individual mandate, something he had campaigned against in the primaries.

Anyway, yes the ACA was an accomplishment. It could and should have been so much more. He had a mandate at the time, he just did not press it as hard as he should have, due to a misguided belief that he could bring "bipartisanship" to DC.

Many of us saw from the get-go what an absurd notion that was.

[Whisp]

128. I just find it really strange that ACA is now under a new attack phase...

and not only by the GOPbaggers.

The GOP is shitting their pants about new ACA implementations coming real soon -- makes my little wizened heart happy.

Other things makes other hearts happy.

[ljm2002]

130. I agree it is amusing...

...to watch the GOP as they try and dismantle ACA.

But I still remember the flawed process that produced the legislation in the first place. President Obama gave up more than he needed to, due to his misguided attempt to be bipartisan with a bunch of raging hyenas (apologies to real hyenas everywhere).

[Chan790]

131. Um...you should read more about the British NHS...

Aneurin Bevan explicitly rejected the incrementalist approach arguing that it was a path to nowhere, a means of never getting to a real health service and of course the course of action favored by the conservatives because they wanted to insure a place in the system for their partners in industry and graft.

We need Democrats more like Bevan and less like the milquetoast moderate fools we have.

The British NHS was "a package all complete and delivered to your door with the exact kind of bow everyone wants exactly when they want it." until assholes like Thatcher and Cameron started fucking around with it in the name of reform and streamlining to create its current problems.

[Whisp]

136. It took time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance_Act_1911

The National Insurance Act 1911 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act is often regarded as one of the foundations of modern social welfare in the United Kingdom and forms part of the wider social welfare reforms of the Liberal Government of 1906-1914. The increasing influence of the Labour Party among the population had put the Liberals under pressure to enact social legislation.
---
Sections of the Conservative party opposed the Act considering that it was not for taxpayers to pay for such benefits. Some trade unions who operated their own insurance schemes and friendly societies were also opposed. The Act was important as it removed the need for unemployed workers, who were insured under the scheme, to rely on the stigmatised social welfare provisions of the Poor Law. This led to the end of the primacy of the Poor Law as a social welfare provider, resulting in the Poor Law finally being abolished in 1926.

Too bad the U.S. is still in the early 1900's compared, but you got to start somewhere. And Obama started it.

[eridani]

202. If you want $3000 for your used car, ask for $6000

If you'd like the public option that Obama campaigned on in 2008, demand single payer.

[corkhead]

177. strawman

[Skraxx]

12. Not Sure I'm Understanding What the Issue is Here

Shouldn't we be glad he's dropped out?

Point of fact, he was in consideration to be the nominee and dropped out. He was never chosen to be nominated. It bothers you that someone points that out?

What am I missing?

Should't we be happy that we have a President who it seems is amenable to listening to his Democratic colleagues in the Senate who are opposed to someone he's considering for a nomination? We should be happy about that, shouldn't we?

[JoePhilly]

22. See ... some folks predicted that Summers was definitely, absolutely, positively ...

going to be the nominee.

It was a done deal. That's what we were told all summer (lol, all Summer).

Everything else was smoke and mirrors. A trick.

Any of the other potential nominees mentioned were only mentioned to fool the stupid people. They were mentioned to create the illusion of some deliberative process. A process that really did not exist.

TPTB had already decided ... Summers was the guy. Period. End of discussion.

You were an absolute idiot if you did not know it was a done deal.

For some ... Obama nominating Summers was going to be their very LAST, LAST Straw!

.
.
.
.
.
.

And now that Summers has dropped out of consideration ... and so apparently, the done deal wasn't as done as some had predicted.

We had OP after OP displaying increasing levels of speculative anger and disappointment ... and then Summers drops out of consideration.

Some folks are frustrated. First Obama doesn't start WWIII in Syria, and now Summers drops out.

Its been a tough week or so for the predictors of doom.

[Skraxx]

25. Ah, I See

Thanks!

[Vanje]

29. "Some folks are frustrated." Who is frustrated?

Reading DU last night and this morning, I'm seeing folks relieved and celebrating.
Frustration seems to be actually at a low ebb.

The week ended well for us Lefties.

[myrna minx]

42. This Leftie is elated!

The logic that somehow we're angry that he withdrew his nomination is just bizarre. I'm walking on sunshine that he's no longer the heir apparent and we're not in a new war with Syria.

[bvar22]

83. I'm celebrating!

We WON!
.
.
.
.
.
Again!

Now, Kill the TPP.

[Blanks]

153. Start a petition. That seems to be working. eom

[JoePhilly]

43. The prognosticators aren't as happy as they pretend to be.

See, they are somewhat happy that Summers isn't the nominee.

But, they also made all these predictions about how the President was just a corporate tool ... and nominating Summers was PROOF.

And they went on and on about it.

Now ... do they admit that their prediction was wrong? No. They take credit for it. They stopped Obama's evil plan.

They're still just as angry and frustrated as if the President had actually nominated Summers.

The same happened with DADT, Social Security Cuts (about 15 times now), Libya, Egypt, Syria, and now Summers.

The President doesn't do the evil thing they were SURE he was going to do ... and if he doesn't do it ... THEY stopped him and his evil plan.

And their anger and frustration stays right where it was, as if he had actually done the evil thing they predicted with such certainty.

[Vanje]

47. Now. I'm only trying to be helpful here....

...but , could it be that tad more fiber in your diet might lighten your step a little bit?

[NealK]

105. Good advice.

Staying away from old brown acid wouldn't hurt either IMHO.

[quakerboy]

76. "they take credit for it"

Ya mean.. like a victory party?

Ya, I can see why you would say they are frustrated and unhappy. What with the victory party, the sense of accomplishment, the feelings of finally making a difference and seeing some progress. That would have to be fairly tough to cope with, really. I mean, those are things no human should have to try and cope with. LOL

[FredStembottom]

80. Success is Failure.

Come on! Join the celebration! Would love to buy you a beer.

[Skraxx]

94. If They Stopped Him, Then They Should LOVE Obama, He LISTENS To Them!!

And yet...

[tridim]

116. The same thing happened with CO and WA Cannabis legalization.

Neo-DU was 100% certain Obama would direct Holder to call in the Feds. The opposite happened.

I was practically the only DU'er who knew Obama would never restrict those states federally. Why? Because it's obvious, he ALWAYS does the right thing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. What ^^^ he said too!

[hughee99]

63. Either that or it's been a good week for shooting down bad trial baloons. n/t

[Sheepshank]

81. There will be something else to deride Obama and his supporters on....

...there's always something else.

AND, lets not forget the constant rehash of the "ponies that fart glitter" that we didn't get. That ponyless whining gets interjected into every thread regardless if its related to the OP or not because there has to be something to complain about.

There is a constant and predictable group without farting ponies that will never, ever under any circumstances acknoweldge any accomplishment. So there is that to remember.

But still, I am very excited to see what the next outrage will be about and see if I can predict the rec'ers and supporters...and those creating innumerable duplicated threads. Very excited indeed.

[ljm2002]

119. Yeah, those 4 members of the Banking Committee...

...are just such idiots to take a Summers nomination seriously. Their statements of non-support were just so much hot air, signifying nothing.

Yeah, it wasn't serious at all. That's why Summers was already breaking ties with Citigroup.

In fact he wasn't even on the list. That's why he publicly removed himself from consideration.

Right.

[JoePhilly]

145. He was absolutely on the short list. Always was.

The bottom line however is that those who spent days and days predicting and lamenting his forgone nomination, were wrong.

See, in reality there was an actual process. You mention 4 senators who participated in the process.

The folks on DU predicted no process, no deliberation. Summers was a done deal. Everything else was fake.

They were wrong. All of the evil intent they proclaimed, also wrong.

[ljm2002]

147. "The folks on DU predicted no process,"...

..."no deliberation."

Cite please.

[BumRushDaShow]

159. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023323570

[Autumn]

163. Oh yes, that fucking nasty troll.

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=89446.0

[ljm2002]

182. The OP you link to...

...is in turn a link to the Washington Post, to a blog post by Ezra Klein entitled "BREAKING: Larry Summers is front-runner for Fed Reserve chairman, source tells Hayes it's certain"

It was posted July 23. The post ends with a quote from Christopher Hayes saying

Christopher Hayes @chrislhayes

A source close to this says it's "way past that." WH has all but decided on Summers. Unreal.

In all the replies, I did not find one that claimed there was no process.

Basically, you and some others here seem to object when DUers react to things that are in progress. You seem to want us to wait until there is actually a nomination, and THEN complain if we don't like it.

That isn't a very effective strategy. In this case, many of us (and many in DC and even on Wall Street, apparently) did not like Summers as a proposed nominee, and we let our opinions be known in no uncertain terms, and not only here on DU. Ultimately it was the 4 Democratic Senators on the Banking Committee who held final sway; once they signalled they would not support Summers, it was all over. But without the groundswell of revulsion about Summers, I don't believe that would have happened.

In any case, you seem to misinterpret strong revulsion at the prospect of a Summers nomination as people not understanding there is a process involved. I think you are very much mistaken on that, and the link you supplied did not support your claim.

[Whisp]

180. There are the predictors of doom

and then there are the ones who go ballistic when their rants and rages and *ommphs and CAPITALS! are proven wrong. These are not always the ever reliable predictors of doom, this is one that can't stand being wrong about anything and will get enraged when someone points that out.

[ljm2002]

118. You say, "He was never chosen to be nominated."...

..."It bothers you that someone points that out?"

Well, yes, it does. Why? Because those who point that out, are being disingenuous in the extreme. The statement that "He was not the nominee", while technically true, leaves out the REALITY that he was on the short list and was a very likely nominee, until the bottom dropped out. They are trying to change the subject, and handwave the fact that he WAS on the list, by trying to say that since he did not become the actual nominee, it was all a non-issue to begin with.

If it was a non-issue to begin with, then why, I wonder, did those 4 Democratic members of the Banking Committee say anything about it? Maybe some of our posters here should tell them how ridiculous they are, going on about things that aren't really happening.

You admit Summers was in consideration. You admit he dropped out. Yet you give Obama full credit for the outcome.

Since it was Summers and not Obama who withdrew his name from consideration, I fail to see how you can claim this represents the President being "amenable to listening to his Democratic colleagues". It seems more likely that Obama was pressing ahead, and Summers saw the writing on the wall when there were 4 Democratic defections on the Banking Committee.

[Skraxx]

139. Umm, the Disengenuous Resides on those Who Insist Obama Should Get No Credit

(assuming Summers was asked by Obama to drop out, which is, considering how these things usually work, probably close to truth, though who knows?) Where did I give him all the credit?

He gets credit for listening to the critics of Summers, and presumably asking him to withdraw in response. Maybe the decision came from Summers, but maybe Obama asked him to withdraw because there was no point in considering him anymore and it was a distraction from the whole process.

You have no idea if he was the likely nominee or not, despite the rumors of such, in fact, reality shows just the opposite since he's NOT the nominee. For all you know, Obama never liked him and only was considering him as a favor and it was a very easy decision to ask him to drop.

But the fact remains, he was never nominated, despite all the predictions it was a done deal. Why that fact bothers some people, only they can answer.

[ljm2002]

148. You said...

..."Should't we be happy that we have a President who it seems is amenable to listening to his Democratic colleagues in the Senate who are opposed to someone he's considering for a nomination? We should be happy about that, shouldn't we?"

In other words you assume that it was the President who told Summers to withdraw his name from consideration.

But neither you nor I know what was said. What we DO know is that Summers withdrew his own name, citing the obvious difficulties he would encounter in being confirmed.

In this case, you are the one who is imposing your own view of things, rather than taking them at face value.

[grahamhgreen]

181. Just that we need to have these things happen within the ture and factual framing.

[pnwmom]

14. Yeah, he was on Obama's short list. And he was also on Paul Krugman's even shorter list.

Krugman says that compared to the rest in contention, he and Yellen were head and shoulders above anyone else.

I think the fact that Obama had put off nominating Summers for months shows that he wasn't THAT determined on it being Summers.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/the-fed-succession/

Rumors flying all over; supposedly it’s between Janet Yellen, the obvious choice, and Larry Summers, with totally unsubstantiated claims that LS’s star is rising. So I guess that, despite an intense desire to stay out of the whole thing (I know and admire both players), I need to say something — not an endorsement, but some sense of how I and others I talk to see this.

First of all, what do we need in a Fed chair? Above all, a committed dove — someone who will not succumb to the pressure to tighten policy too soon, and almost equally important, someone who will be seen by investors as resistant to this temptation. We’ve just seen how much damage even a hint of Fed hawkishness can do; it’s really critical to not follow the far worse step of making an appointment that gives the wrong signal.

As it happens, both Janet and Larry have good credentials on those grounds, at least in terms of what they’ve said in recent years.

SNIP

So what we have here are two highly qualified candidates, head and shoulders above anyone else I’ve heard mentioned and inconceivably better than the men who might have been in contention if that guy who ran with Paul Ryan had won. But if the final choice isn’t Janet Yellen, I think the president is going to have to offer a very good explanation of why not, or face a lot of grief from people who want to think the best of his administration.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. Thanks for this. But, you know, the ODSers will ignore Krugman's post because it

doesn't comport with what they think. Because, you know, they think that it was THEY who knows best. They are smarter than Obama. THEY are self righteous. THEY have all the answers.

No THEY don't!!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. "they" are TERRIBLE at predictions..

they must have gotten their crystal balls at the bargain basement.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

112. Whever they got them, those balls have done a grave disservice

because none of those predictions have come true. Obama hasn't turned out to be the Evil Incarnate that they cream their pants over.

I still don't fully understand where the hate comes from. I have ideas, but I'm not totally sure.

[Capt. Obvious]

117. "I have ideas, but I'm not totally sure."

Let's flesh 'em out.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

124. I would but I'd get banned. I'm sure of it.

[RetroLounge]

186. Oh, please elaborate...

please?

RL

[eridani]

205. That Rachael Carson was such an alarmist twit about all those bird extinctions, no?

Ranting and raving about bird species going extinct in Silent Spring, and most of it didn't happen. The public alarm that resulted in banning DDT had nothing to do with it, so stop saying that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

209. I don't know whether to laugh or....sigh.... *rolling eyes to the sky*

[Cha]

154. Krugman: "... both Janet and Larry have good credentials on those grounds.."

thanks pnwmom~

[progressoid]

15. Lately, I've noticed a fair amount of this also...

[Vanje]

20. Oh yes!

I'm afraid that may be an accurate graphic.

[Marr]

16. This a perfect example of why urges from the Pep Squad to 'reserve judgement' are imbecilic.

Summers ultimately withdrew his name because so many regular, phone-ringing people were against his appointment. That's what would spawn a Congressional fight, and it was clear that it'd be a losing one.

[Hydra]

19. They're taking credit for our work on the President's behalf

We stop him from doing something stupid, and at that point we're told this was always the plan and our efforts were wasted. Meanwhile, on planet reality, if we don't make enough noise, things like the Deepwater Horizon happen...and we are told "There was nothing he could have done about it."

[FredStembottom]

90. Thank you so much, Marr.

Sincerely. This constant call to not speak up to the president and his advisors is not only un-democratic, it's un-Democratic!

Maybe the Swarm will be redeployed against Tea Partiers for a change?

[Rex]

21. The Left made a dent and the Usual Suspects are hating on us for it!

Their passion for hating the Left is only rivaled by the Teabaggers passion for hating the Left.

[Capt. Obvious]

23. I see several :rofl: smilies in your future

[Rex]

26. And :roll: and :eyes:

Let us not dismiss the complete set!

[Capt. Obvious]

28. I think DU should offer a "trash by smiley" feature

So that posts that use the will be hidden.

[Rex]

31. You know that would be about a third of all posts.

Probably over half if we include the and too.

[Capt. Obvious]

33. I know they constitute majority of some posters' vocab

but that way I wouldn't have to ignore them - just ignore the really vapid posts.

[Rex]

34. Maybe instead of a hide, there could be a flag over the reply title

maybe says something like, "empty smiley reply alert" to make them easily to skip over.

[Capt. Obvious]

114. And the :rofl: finally makes an appearance!

[Metatron]

86. About 6 weeks ago, I 'Ad-Blocked' the ROFL smilie

It has made my DU experience much more enjoyable. I highly recommend it.

[zeemike]

78. The ROFL smiley has already been trashed

And I hate that because I liked that little guy ROFLing....but only when it really is funny...not when it is used as ridicule.

[bvar22]

164. The :rofl: smiley is usually deployed in a desperate, childish attempt..

..to hide Butt Hurt by those who are unable to respond with a cogent, logically valid rebuttal.

They lack the ego strength to admit they have made a mistake,
and desperately clutch at the misguided belief that nobody at DU is smart enough to see through their clever deception.
They are betrayed by their bitterness and frustration
which makes it all too obvious that they are not really laughing.

[font color=white]....................................[/font][font size=4]Bvar's Postulate[/font]

The first person to use in a discussion thread is not really laughing,
but has, in effect, made a public admission that they are no longer able to cogently defend their position,
and are desperately clinging to the absurd misconception that no one will be able to see through their pathetic attempt to Save Face.

[MNBrewer]

51. I'll do this one for you

[libdem4life]

24. Dang Rabblerousers...just stirring up the trouble pot. At least we're finally on the radar.

[ProSense]

27. He wasn't, and it's cause for celebration.

No amount of spin is going to change the fact that he wasn't the nominee.

He withdrew from consideration, and that's a far cry from the certainty that he was going to be the President's choice.

[dkf]

30. Exhibit #1

[ProSense]

35. Don't like facts?

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2013, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)

It's not my opinion that he wasn't the nominee. It's also not my opinion that no one knows if he was Obama's choice. Neither is it my opinion that there are those who were certain he would be.

Deal with it.

[dkf]

46. And exhibits 2-100000.

[ProSense]

77. LOL!

Summers is out.

Exhibit Period!

[Rex]

36. He was Obama's number one pick for the position.

nt.

[ProSense]

38. Link? n/t

[Rex]

55. Here ya go, not that it will make any difference in your mind.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/07/what_does_obama_see_in_larry_s046135.php

[ProSense]

62. That's a rumor about him being a "top contender." n/t

[Rex]

134. Like I said, I knew it would make no difference to you.

nt.

[adirondacker]

57. Here you go...

“Clearly Obama couldn’t bring his own most enthusiastic supporters to back him on an issue of national security,” one supporter said. “How was he going to corral them for Larry?”

Mr. Summers’s decision, which he shared with the president in a phone call Sunday followed by a letter, was described as reluctantly made and reluctantly accepted. Mr. Summers wanted the job and Mr. Obama wanted to pick him. But the public opposition of three Democrats on the Senate banking committee, the first step in the confirmation process, surprised the White House and forced a calculation that this was a battle the administration could not afford to fight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/business/economy/summers-pulls-name-from-consideration-for-fed-chief.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp&target=comments&

[ProSense]

65. More

"Mr. Summers wanted the job and Mr. Obama wanted to pick him. "

...mind reading speculation. From the same link:

White House officials have described Janet Yellen, the current vice chairwoman, as a finalist, and her candidacy has received widespread attention, but it remains unclear how seriously Mr. Obama is considering her. He does not know her well and White House aides have seemed unenthusiastic about her, despite the substantial support she enjoys from Democrats and outside economists.

President Obama friggin nominated her to be Vice-Chair of the Fed.

On April 28, 2010, President Obama nominated Yellen to succeed Donald Kohn as vice-chair of the Federal Reserve System. In July, "he Senate Banking Committee voted 17 to 6 to confirm her, though the top Republican on the panel, Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, voted no, saying he believed Ms. Yellen had an 'inflationary bias.'" At the same time, on the heels of concerned testimony by Fed chair Bernanke, FOMC voting member James B. Bullard of the St. Louis Fed made a statement that the U.S. economy was "at risk of becoming 'enmeshed in a Japanese-style deflationary outcome within the next several years.'" Bullard's statement was interpreted as a possible shift within the FOMC balance between inflation hawks and doves. Yellen's pending confirmation, along with those of Peter A. Diamond and Sarah Bloom Raskin to fill vacancies, was seen as possibly furthering such a shift in the FOMC. All three nominations were seen as "on track to be confirmed by the Senate."

On October 4, 2010, Yellen was sworn in for a 4-year term ending October 4, 2014. Yellen simultaneously began a 14-year term as a member of the Federal Reserve Board that will expire January 31, 2024.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Yellen#Vice_Chairwoman

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023675038

[adirondacker]

69. And the previous paragraph...

"He concluded that the White House was also unlikely to overcome opposition to his candidacy from many of the same Democrats, who view him as an opponent of stronger financial regulation, according to supporters who insisted on anonymity to describe confidential conversations with him.



Maybe someone within and the NY Times has it out for the President and Larry?

I try not to over-speculate though.

[ProSense]

71. Rumor, and the claim he doesn't know her enough to appoint her is silly. n/t

[Vanje]

45. You're right about the celebration

We could use a champagne smiley.....but beer works

[cali]

48. spinny, spinny, spinny. It's your raison d'etre.

No amount of your unending spin changes the fact that he's hugely admired by President Obama- that in itself is indicative of the President's perspective on the economy. No amount of your endless spin will change the fact that Summers was chosen by President Obama as Director of the President's Economic Council. No amount of your spinning will change the fact that President Obama had him on his short list.

Now I look forward to your spinning those facts into an interesting fiction.

[ProSense]

66. Ah, yes

better to believe bullshit speculation and silly claims: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023676634#post65

[cali]

68. bwahahahahahaha. yeah, sure. the President didn't have him on his short list, pro

now how about responding to the facts in my op other than that?

Are you going to deny that the President is a big admirer of Summers?

Can't wait to see how you spin that, pro.

It is funny shit, your endless spin.

ODDS. You have it. severely.

[ProSense]

75. Who said "the President didn't have him on his short list"?

The claim was "He was Obama's number one pick for the position."

That implies Obama picked him.

I also said, it's not my opinion that he wasn't the nominee and that no one knows if he was Obama's choice. Neither is it my opinion that there are those who were certain he would be.

[Vanje]

143. I give you this much, Prosense

You do fight tenaciously for your tiny little tangent.

[tridim]

122. LOL

@ desperate Cali.

I'll say it again (and will certainly say it more in the future).. It must really suck being completely wrong all the time.

[cali]

132. projection much?

you should know about being wrong. You are far, far more often wrong than I ever have been

And just where was I wrong in my post about the President's admiration for Summers?

Do tell, hon.

[tridim]

133. I have been correct about everything Obama has done.

It's quite stunning how wrong you and Manny are.

And now you're saying I'm projecting? Wow. Get well cali.

[RetroLounge]

187. Exhibit A

RL

[Rex]

32. Summer wasn't the nominee = whaaaa boo hoo whaaaa.

nt.

[MNBrewer]

37. I think I'll send a letter to the President too, withdrawing my name from consideration

[Vanje]

49. Lol! nt

[Maven]

70. LOL

[tammywammy]

50. But he wasn't the nominee

He was under consideration, along with others, and removed his name from the pool. At no point was he the actual nominee for the position.

I guess I don't even understand why there's an objection to mentioning that Summers was not the nominee for Fed Chair...since he wasn't.

[MNBrewer]

54. It's called "deflection"

It's to get people arguing over whether Summers was the nominee instead of discussing whether he would have been a good nominee, or whether pressure from the left actually had an effect IRL.

Kind of like getting people to discuss whether it's morally worse to kill a smaller number of people with sarin gas or a larger number of people with conventional weapons instead of whether it's a good idea for the US to threaten an attack that is illegal according to international treaties to which the US is a signatory.

[Vanje]

140. /\ This is an insightful post.

Thanks for it.

[Rex]

60. So Summers withdrew his name from what then exactly?

Why are people so mad that Summers did not get picked as fed is what I want to know?

[tammywammy]

61. He withdrew from consideration to be the nominee.

I don't think I've read anyone one DU that's "mad" that Summers didn't get picked or is out of the running. Seems to be a pretty good consensus that his withdrawing is a good thing.

[pnwmom]

165. What do facts have to do with it?

Facts aren't any fun.

[heaven05]

52. Yeah

he was just being considered, evidently strongly, for this position he withdrew from.

[dkf]

53. When you are a true believer the outcome was always designed by Obama anyway.

[Capt. Obvious]

56. Obama works in mysterious ways

[Vanje]

59. I think he's probably a time traveler

That would explain a lot.

[NealK]

91. Yes it DOES explains a lot...

So that was him who was changing water into wine, healing that blind guy, walking on water and all those marvelous things!

[SidDithers]

58. Thank God you stopped the nomination...

Well done.

Sid

[WilliamPitt]

72. You can usually do better than that.

This particular bit of Summers spin appears to have balded a number of tires around here.

Selah.

[Phlem]

89. No

he really can't.

-p

[MineralMan]

64. Thank you for the accurate post title. nt

[Myrina]

67. Sadly, though, it sounds like the woman who will get the nod is ALSO a Wall Street Darling ...

... average folk are screwn, & the brazillionaires will keep raking it in, regardless.

[Whisp]

74. I've got balls that dingle dongle dangle...

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2013, 03:45 PM - Edit history (1)

sung to this melody:

so many vises, so little time.

[Phlem]

88. Nice post.

And most revealing. There's at least a couple professional Obama fans in this thread that need to seek professional help.

Sad and Scary.

-p

[gopiscrap]

99. Ha Ha

[vi5]

101. And even if he was the nominee....

...which of course he wasn't, but even if he was, he didn't withdraw because of protesting and indignation from lefties. He totally didn't. Even if Summers himself says that was the reason, he's lying. And even if Obama comes out at some point and explicitly says that Summers was his choice, he's not telling the truth because chess or something or other.

But bottom line is that he wasn't the nominee and he wasn't who President Obama wanted for the job.

[Rex]

137. So right! Obama said, "Icky yuck get away from me Summers!"

Total cooties.

[Vanje]

144. "Larry, Who???"

[Rex]

141. "Summers wasn't the nominee, he withdrew his name from

a lottery drawing...yeah that's the ticket."

[pampango]

142. From CNBC: He may not have been Wall Street's choice; Yellen may be.

Wall Street looks set to get who it wants as Federal Reserve chairman, but definitely not who it expected.

The CNBC September Fed Survey, conducted Thursday and Friday, found Wall Street participants by a 2-to-1 margin believed President Barack Obama would nominate former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to be the next Fed Chairman. But by about a 5-to-1 margin, they wanted current Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen to accede to the top post over Summers.

Among the reasons for the preference of Yellen over Summers: The survey of 47 top economists, Wall Street strategists and investment managers found that most perceived Summers to be more hawkish than Yellen—that is, they believed he would be less likely to continue the current easy monetary policy of current Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The survey found that participants believed Yellen was substantially more concerned about unemployment than Summers, and that Summers had greater concern about inflation. ... Market participants gave Bernanke the highest overall score. Yellen came in a close second. But even Kohn beat Summers, who finished last among the four in the eyes of Wall Street.

http://t.nbcnews.com/business/if-its-yellen-wall-street-gets-fed-chief-it-wanted-8C11166978

[SleeplessinSoCal]

155. As usual, we've all been played. I'm pretty sure about that.

I want a job at a think tank. I'd love to slip a couple of mickey's into the mix.

[great white snark]

146. Such a vindictive streak lately.

No big deal being wrong...the detractors won't hold you or anyone else who constantly make false predictions accountable.

[Number23]

190. I know. I am really trying to figure out the endless stream of petty, baffling OPs from this one

It is not anything other than fact to say that Summers wasn't the nominee. Because this OP created a big, loud thread calling Summers the nominee and a bunch of folks corrected him on that, we now get to be regaled with OPs chastising those who had the unmitigated gall to correct him on something he said that was flat out incorrect.

Brings new meaning to the phrase "digging in."

[Bolo Boffin]

149. If the facts get in the way of your daily outrage, by all means, dispense with the facts.

But Larry Summers was never the nominee for the Fed Chair. As Ezra Klein points out:

Similarly, Obama could've named Larry Summers to the Federal Reserve weeks, or even months, ago. The left would have grumbled, and some would have rebelled, but faced with the immediate prospect of watching Republicans hammer Obama's economic record and scalp one of the most important appointments of his second term, Democrats would likely have rallied around the administration -- and Summers. There would've been a fight, to be sure, but it would've been a winnable one.

But Obama didn't move quickly to appoint Summers. In a move that infuriated supporters of both Summers and Yellen, Obama let it be known that he favored Summers and then simply watched the debate unfold. And what happened in Congress, and on the left in general, is that Summers got savaged. The arguments from his defenders didn't persuade his critics. He lost the support of key members of the Senate Banking Committee. And, on Sunday, he withdrew himself from consideration for the post.

But if you need your daily requirements of Obama-done-me-wrong vitamins and IRE-on, keep pouring yourself a great big bowl of Kaboom.



But I gave up marshmallow stars three decades ago.

[bvar22]

161. Here are some more "facts":

Obama Slams Left for Attacking Larry Summers
By Emma Dumain
Roll Call Staff
July 31, 2013

President Barack Obama gave a “full throated defense of Larry Summers” at a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus on Wednesday morning.

Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, D-Va., told reporters following the closed-door meeting that Obama praised Summers, the former Treasury secretary, and “his record in helping save the economy in the dark days of ’09.”

Obama also, Connolly said, “felt that Larry had been badly treated by some from the left and in the press.”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/obama_slams_left_for_attacking_larry_summers-226792-1.html

[pnwmom]

166. So? That was six weeks ago and Obama still hadn't nominated him. But he didn't think Summers

deserved all the vitriol.

Neither did Paul Krugman, who preferred Yellen (as I do) but said that Yellen and Summers were heads and shoulders above everyone else who'd been mentioned for the job.

[Bolo Boffin]

172. None of those facts show that Larry Summers was the nominee.

So unless you'd like to offer some of those...

[Douglas Carpenter]

150. you mights as well try to reason with Sean Hannity

I don't think some of these "they planned it this way all along" types have a clue what a democracy looks like or at least supposed to look like.

[muriel_volestrangler]

152. Obama's re-election advisers were working to promote Summers

Reports in the New York Times and Washington Post on Thursday suggested Obama was strongly inclined to pick Summers.

A number of former Obama administration officials, including Jim Messina and Stephanie Cutter, who ran his 2012 re-election campaign, are working behind the scenes to help promote Summers' candidacy, according to a former administration official. Neither Cutter nor Messina responded to requests for comment.

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has also played a backstage role to ensure that Summers' work for Obama is accurately portrayed, the source said, while the president has publicly defended Summers and praised his White House service. Geithner declined to comment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-usa-fed-summers-analysis-idUSBRE98414R20130905

And that's why commentators are saying things like this:

Obama blinked first in battle for Summers

It really is silly of a few DUers here to pretend that only 'hair-on-fire' far lefties thought Summers was the White House preferred candidate. The Nikkei newspaper in Japan felt confident enough to announce Summers already had the nod, a few days ago.

[djean111]

158. Mr. Pitt, I believe the problem is that those who opposed Summers have not offered obeisance.

That's the only reason I can think of for the continued prodding by those whose hair is on fire because we emo-progs have not knelt in admiration or something like that. Kinda funny, really, the foaming at the mouth seems to be coming from non-Progressives.
I am just relieved.
And now I will continue contacting anyone I can about the TPP.
I cannot imagine how demonstrating against the TPP can be criticized, but I am sure I will be enlightened.

[pnwmom]

168. No, the problem is that it's a fact that Summers was not ever the nominee.

And to many of us, the fact that Obama took his time about the nomination instead of naming someone months ago was a sign that Summers was never a shoe-in.

[djean111]

169. So the reports that Obama "vigorously defended" Summers in private, and that Summers requested a

meeting with Warren were incorrect? The Democrats who said they would not vote for him were misinformed about Obama's intentions?
It is disingenuous to say that Summers was never the nominee - the fact remains Summers was on the short list, and Obama defended him.
In any case, the TPP is of paramount importance now, Summers has pulled his name out of consideration (was Summers delusional to think his name would be put forward?) and I, at least, am moving on.
Summers was not a shoo-in because so many made their feelings known, including the Democrats who had a real say in the matter. I think Democrats in Congress are looking very carefully at 2014 and 2016, and will not easily support anything that is not popular with their constituents.

[Bolo Boffin]

171. "It is disingenuous to say that Summers was never the nominee." The truth is disingenous?

What an interesting notion.

[djean111]

173. It seemed to many that Summers was going to be the nominee, like, for instance, those Dems

who announced they would not vote for him. If Obama was defending him, that is a clue right there.
Are you saying Summers never had a shot at the nominations? Or people should have waited to protest until after the nomination?
I say disingenuous because it was evident to many that Obama preferred Summers.

[Bolo Boffin]

175. I am saying that Summers was only the presumptive nominee.

He was never THE nominee. Even being the favorite doesn't mean he was the nominee. You have to be nominated to be the nominee. Words mean things.

I promise you that you can feel just as betrayed by Obama while calling Summers the presumptive nominee. Go ahead - try it on for size!

[djean111]

176. That's just splitting hairs and is pointless. But okay, Summers is out of the running! Hurray!

Now on to the next fucking scary thing - the TPP.

[pnwmom]

178. They could very well be correct. So what? I would vigorously defend an employee or friend of mine

in that situation -- if I felt that the criticism was unfair, as Obama did -- whether or not I had decided to actually appoint him.

It's clear that Summers WAS lobbying for the job, and that he was on the short list -- but it's false to claim that he was the nominee.

And it's true that Summers and Yellen were also on the top of Paul Krugman's list, who said they were both heads and shoulders above everyone else. So I can't blame Obama for considering him.

[Skittles]

167. LOVE YA WILLIAM

[La Lioness Priyanka]

174. 3 Dimension Contorting

[jazzimov]

179. C'mon Will. I used to respect you and your writing so much

because I thought at the time that it was well thought-out and well-researched. Now, I am beginning to question that.

Yes, I am beginning to question your previous writings based on the BS that I see reflected in your current writings.

To the Will Pitt I remember, the simple distinction that Summers was NOT a nominee would have been a BIG DEAL - and he would have written about it EXTENSIVELY.

To the Will Pitt I remember, the fact that today's market reacted so POSITIVELY to Summer's withdrawal would have sent up a red flag. The Will Pitt I remember would have written extensively about WHY the market that so many of us were afraid Summers would faovr were so GLAD that he didn't get the nomination (whoops! There's that word again!)

I know that you're a new Daddy, and that you don't have time or sleep to be as prolific as you were before. But, surely, having a baby didn't affect your BRAIN. Unless I start seeing your posts saying "gaa-gaa goo-goo". Although, come to think of it, that's what your posts have become.

What happened to you, Will? I thought you were smarter than you've been expressing lately.

[RetroLounge]

188. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care that you are "beginning to question" anything

Although questioning the blind BOGGING around here by the true believers might be a good step.



RL

[The Second Stone]

183. Summers not being the nominee is a win for everyone

Me, you, the DU, the country and Obama. On this occasion Obama heeded the counsel of his base that Summers was not the right person for the job.

[Marr]

197. Oops-- mispost.

Pardon me.

[RetroLounge]

189. Seriously, it BOGgles the mind.

RL

[RetroLounge]

192. ...

RL

[Safetykitten]

193. By mistake I posted in response to you...I will correct.

[Marr]

199. ...

[Safetykitten]

194. Agree completely