When the Biden economic team members were announced, I wondered if there was any pattern to discern in the locus of Republican attacks. As far as I can tell, it’s not expertise, it’s not ideological bent, it’s not what school you went to. But here is a Venn diagram to help you identify what makes you a “no-go”.
Note: Tentative, based on journalistic accounts.
By the way, here’s the contrast between past and present economic managers (from this post).
Update, 12/3:
Some people wonder about the merit of discussing how race/gender/ethnicity/immigration status affects how individuals are treated. I’m not expert, but here is one interesting article, from an admittedly obscure journal(!).
In an earlier thread I suggested that perhaps Biden should not have proposed Tanden given the difficulty of getting her confirmed in the Senate given that she has angered both Republican senators with some of her tweets as well as some in the Sanders camp on the Dem side. And she may yet probe to be unconfirmable.
But I have been reading more about her, not knowing her personally in contrast with several others that Biden is proposing for his economics team. The more I read the more impressed I have become. She looks to be very competent, with her leading the Center for American Progress involving dealing with a wide array of issues from national security to social safety nets. She was also involved in developing the ACA law and several other important initiatives in the Obama admin. She does seem to be especially well informed about the vast array of issues that an OMB director must deal with, and she is also tough, which is why many are not happy with her, she has not pulled punches. She has also been a lot more progressive than many critics have assumed, especially those just making assumptions because of her links with Hillary Clinton and her campaign. See support for her coming from Dean Baker and Elizabeth Warren.
She may not be confirmed, and maybe Biden should not have nominated her. But now that he has, she should stand up for her. She is fully qualified and deserving.
” She is fully qualified and deserving.”
people have been disputing some of biden’s decisions. but i have believed, from the vp on down, he has chosen only qualified individuals. they may not be who others hoped would be chosen. but they all do seem to be qualified.
i have been wondering about Neera Tanden, too, but not on whether she could be confirmed…it seems this recent post by Matt Taibbi has nailed down my nebulous concern…
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/with-tanden-choice-democrats-stick
“With Tanden Choice, Democrats Stick It To Sanders Voters”
The Democratic Party is not known for its sense of humor, but news that Joe Biden will appoint longtime Center for American Progress chief Neera Tanden to his government qualifies as a rare, well-earned laugh line.
Tanden is famous for two things: having a puddle of DNC talking points in place of a cerebrum, and despising Bernie Sanders. She was #Resistance’s most visible anti-Sanders foil, spending awe-inspiring amounts of time on Twitter bludgeoning Sanders and his supporters as a deviant mob of Russian tools and covert “horseshoe theory” Trump-lovers. She has, to put it gently, an ardent social media following. Every prominent media figure with even a vague connection to Sanders learned in recent years to expect mud-drenched pushback from waves of “Neera trolls” after any public comment crossing DNC narratives. No name in blue politics is more associated with seething opposition to Sanders than Tanden.
Biden is making this person Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Sanders is the ranking member (and, perhaps, future chair) of the Senate Budget Committee. Every time Bernie even thinks about doing Committee business, he’ll be looking up at Neera Tanden. For a party whose normal idea of humor is ten thousand consecutive jokes about Trump being gay with Putin, that’s quite a creative “fuck you.”
There may be a need for a sacrifice, going in. Apparently, every recent administration has lost one candidate in its first round of Senate confirmations. Tandem, who is a solid member of the moderate middle of the Party, is headed for great things someday. Honoring her (and her backers) with a nomination doesn’t harm to her reputation.
Not saying Biden knew she’d be the one who is blocked, though Menzie’s analysis says that if one sees today’s GOP for what it is, one could guess. Just saying that there is a certain inevitably to what’s happening. If putting Tandem through the process of confirmation serves a good purpose, then put her name forward. If doing so would hurt Biden’s agenda, then don’t put he forward. Hire her in a position that doesn’t require confirmation and keep her handy for 2023.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Washington.
I don’t know if anyone has noticed or not, but the Bernie faction didn’t go away when Debbie Wasserman Schultz shoved them and told them to go away. The Bernie Sanders faction didn’t go away when celebs Sarah Silverman and Al Franken told them to go away. Tulsi Gabbard wouldn’t participate in Debbie Wasserman’s infant playgames. Somewhere, irrelevant, as she has always been because she can’t campaign much better than Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, or John Delaney, petty-minded Hillary Clinton is grinning like the Grinch in the cartoon.. Hillary can’t speak two consecutive sentences without a lie coming out of her mouth. Hillary told Bernie Sanders supporters to “go away” with her own mouth and through her proxies like Neera Tanden. How’s that working out??
Paybacks are a B—- folks. You think after 8+ years of Sanders building up a base of support and moving the rhetorical party platform that he’s going away??? Let’s just watch and see how this one ends Ever watch or participate in skeet shooting?? It’s possibly more entertaining when it’s a real live pigeon that’s been trying to crap on your head for about 12 years.
I have already stated my opinions on this. If I question Tanden’s capability, qualifications, professionalism, and motives, does it also mean I “hate old women”?? Check with the folks at “FemaleNoSpeak” blog and get back to me on if I disapprove of Tanden because she is “old”.
For the record, I never liked Jerome Powell either, and am on the record for disliking him for multiple reasons, including the fact he enabled donald trump’s trade policies:
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2019/08/estimated-recession-probabilities-august-2019#comment-228691
Did I strongly dislike Jerome Powell because “she” is an old female minority, with no degree pertaining to the MAIN job of “her” quasi-government “agency”???
And no one here will believe this, but I think I also at one time brought up the fact Powell had no Economics degree and I think I had a “back-and forth” with at least two people on this blog about that (possibly Menzie, but my memory is hazy on it) although admittedly I cannot find the comments. I will keep trying to find it, but even for me time consumption hunting down comments gets a bit much.
When it’s politically expedient anyone can be a target for unfair persecution.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4831264/devin-nunes-republican-counsel-question-lt-col-vindman-jennifer-williams
In this case, I don’t see it. Yeah, for transparency’s sake, I’m white male. So, yeah that may influence my perceptions of things. Here, I don’t see it.
Moses,
This is just a pile of irrelevant gibberish. Time for you to shut up and get lost.
@ Barkley Junior
You’re not gonna punch me are you Rosser?? I been wondering for a while now who your personal paragon was for social graces:
“In 2008, Neera Tanden, then a top aide on Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign, accompanied Mrs. Clinton to what was expected to be an easy interview at the Center for American Progress, the influential group founded by top Clinton aides. But Faiz Shakir, the chief editor of the think tank’s ThinkProgress website, asked Mrs. Clinton a question about the Iraq war, an issue dogging her candidacy because she had supported it. Ms. Tanden responded by circling back to Mr. Shakir after the interview and, according to a person in the room, punching him in the chest.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/us/politics/tanden-sanders-.html
Well, that’s ok. As long as both genders are treated “equally” after they act violently towards others for asking a simple question, that seems fair. Right Junior?? What a classy lady Miss Tanden is. Wonder how that would work out if Peter Orszag punched a female journalist?? Never you mind Junior, you go back to looking for non-existent “skewed” distributions and update us on your “V-shaped” recovery forecast when you can find time. Professor Frankel is dying to know.
Moses Herzog: I believe “Ms. Tanden” is more correct.
My apologies. It’s hard for me to pretend I respect her (I don’t) but I will try to make that into a habit in my writing. I clearly make no secret of my disregard for the woman, but it was not intended in that specific instance. It’s just a knucklehead habit. Maybe because I live in a red state but most the women I’m around don’t take any offense when I use it in my verbal English. Maybe they just don’t want to embarrass me by calling me out. But I will try to fix that.
Junior, don’t forget like you usually do, ok?? Miss Tanden is going to need some people to sing chorus on “It’s a Hard Knock Life” when she does her fake “little orphan Annie” schtick at her confirmation hearing. So please practice your vocal cords for your big moment.
Give it a rest. She is quite competent. But both you and JohnH say otherwise. Seriously dudes?
@ pgl
You know, one thing that really I have to confess super mystifies me, I have to admit it, super mystifies me about you. And I consider myself pretty damned perceptive about people, yes people I don’t even know on a personal level. I’m pretty good about “feeling people out”. So I don’t like to admit when parts of people leave my antenna totally blank. And one thing that really mystifies me about you on this blog, or maybe I should say mystifies me about Menzie. Is how when you argue with people you continually misquote people, put words in their mouth, and misrepresent them. I never said she was “incompetent”. I am sure that in large circles of the DNC and Democrat Party apparatus Tanden fits in perfect. i.e. Stroking egos, backstabbing, high school click behavior, “delegating” real work (Ronnie Reagan style) the woman is a master jedi. So I have zero doubts she has some “management skills” in which she has very high competency. But not the skills I think are suitable to head the OMB. You don’t get to the top of “HIllary Crony Mountain” without knowing how to kiss A** and shove friends off a cliff. So….. Tanden has very high competency.
And I’m gonna tell you something else that might not “go over well” with you or Menzie. If the Republicans excoriate her (and they will) and toss her into the garbage heap of failed Democrat appointments (85% it’s going to happen and a stupid decision which should have been “teased out” for public opinion before appointing her) for the wrong reasons, I really can’t pretend I care if they get rid of Tanden for the wrong reasons, if for all the RIGHT reasons, she is not suitable for the job at OMB.
You know what happens when you cry wolf every time a “brown person” doesn’t get a job when they aren’t equipped for the substantive parts of that job?? No one is going to listen anymore when you cry wolf.
I should clarify, when I mentioned what mystifies me about Menzie in relation to your quotes of other commenters. Because I know some lowlife here will try to “pick up the ball and run with it” saying I am saying that about Menzie, which I am not.
You are all over the map. You have questioned her competency but you are not doing so now? Cool. Then your beef is she has sharp elbows. Like guys are ever criticized for having sharp elbows. When you make up your damn mind what the issue with her heading OMB – let us know. Of course most of us have grown bored with your huffing and puffing so we will likely just ignore you.
Are you like Barkley. getting early stage dementia?? The complaint is not “sharp elbows” (I mentioned this in reference to another person in another thread, which really had to do with other’s complaints in reference to that person). Quite the opposite, Tanden kisses up to the DNC leadership to get career advancement and what she perceives as power. Are you bi-polar?? WOW, would love to see how you function in a conference room meeting at work. I bet that’s a fun experience.
Uh oh, pgl, now you have done it. Econbrowser’s most “damned perceptive about people” commentator has declared you to be in with me “getting early stage dementia.” Uh oh.
Of course he would really like to use the s word, but Menzie has banned it, so you are just going to have to do with early stage dementia, you poor thing. This means you do not get to be put into the same camp as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, both of whom he has used the s word on along with me. Well, heck, I know you are smarter than Joe Biden. I mean you would have done what Moses liked and picked Susan Rice to be your VP candidate if you were the Dem candidate for president rather than that awful “Copmala.” And as for Pelosi, well, I doubt you have ever gone on TV showing off fancy ice creams you like to eat, although, who knows, maybe you do like fancy ice creams, for shame.
Tanden was a deficit hawk. She advocated putting entitlements on the chopping block. Is that really appropriate for the head of OMB today?
Shouldn’t she have some real explaining to do before getting accepted?
https://vimeo.com/485302612
As for her being competent, you have to ask “to do what?” I mean, Dick Cheney was extremely competent and qualified…at doing really bad stuff.
Of course, pgl repeatedly denied that Obama ever introduced an an austerity budget or put Social Security on the table, so he has no problem parroting whatever talking points the Democratic establishment manages to dream up.
JohnH: This is the second time you’ve posted this vimeo, w/o mentioning that it was 8 years ago.
Yes, it was eight years ago. Shouldn’t she explain why she was wrong then? And how can we be sure that her position has changed?
Or should we just take it on faith that she won’t advise Biden to introduce an austerity budget?
As you know, I already have deep concerns about Biden’s instincts, since was a long term deficit hawk. Tanden could reinforce that.
I bet JohnH did not catch her line that “there are a range of entitlements”. Entitlements covers a lot more than Social Security benefits but good luck getting him to recognize that.
“JohnH
December 2, 2020 at 11:58 am
Yes, it was eight years ago. Shouldn’t she explain why she was wrong then? And how can we be sure that her position has changed?”
8 years ago JohnH was praising David Cameron’s fiscal austerity. And to date he has not acknowledged he got the economics all wrong. Are we sure he is not a deficit hawk now? He says he is not but let’s hold him to his own standard.
BORING!
Usually “entitlements” is deficit hawk code for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the programs with the biggest budgets, hence the biggest targets.
Of course, entitlement could also refer to the attitude of arrogant Clinton Democrats, like pgl.
Tanden considers herself a white Indian. It’s a fiscally moderate cabinet as you would expect from a Biden team.
NEC Chair went from Larry Summers to Lawrence Kudlow?! That would be like replacing as your QB Patrick Mahomes with some wide receiver off the practice squad.
don’t laugh, that basically happened in denver.
baffling
December 2, 2020 at 12:08 pm
don’t laugh, that basically happened in denver.
I think that was the joke.
The person nominated to be the director of the Office of Management and Budget, previously chose to repeatedly demean and vilify an American soldier, a soldier who served in Iraq, a soldier now serving as an honored major in the active reserves. This soldier was elected and reelected to Congress as a Democrat, receiving 74.4% of the vote even after the vilification. The reason for the vilification was that this Democratic member of Congress, this soldier, sought to work for peace in Syria.
The soldier, the Democratic member of Congress, so awfully treated, happens to be a multi-ethnic woman.
ltr: Context would be useful. If you do not want to provide the name of the alleged victim, I will (at least guess): Tulsi Gabbard.
Menzie, while conceding, I am freely handing you a concession here, that I can see how some people view Gabbard’s behavior as on the “flaky” side, or rather “appearing flaky”. But she has said some important things that other people/candidates aren’t willing to say. She said things that were very important during the debates (I think you know what I am referencing, and am not going to wake up sleeping dogs) that few if any other candidates were willing to say. I saw her give speeches related to military service, and I am not kidding, there were multiple people in the rally crowd who were crying when she discussed military service. I am not easily moved Menzie and I had a lump in my throat.
Could you please pray tell, tell me what was Tulsi Gabbard’s great “sin”??~~other than her absentee vote on impeachment. Which I have already conceded multiple times on this blog was a doozy of a failure in her Congressional duty. Other than that, what was her horrible crime?? Not “playing ball” DNC style and not happily participating with Debbie Wasserman Schultz in hiding 3rd plate from Bernie on the baseball diamond the way the DNC wanted?? Was that Gabbard’s “sin”??
gabbard’s biggest problem is after serving in congress, she accomplished nothing. and believed that was enough to run for office of the president. what did she expect to accomplish there? the same? gabbard’s suffered from the inability to deliver the political goods. whether you like it or not, that is how a politician is measured.
@ baffling
I see…… and can you please tell me, one bill that would have passed, ONE SINGLE BILL of law that would have passed, without Hillary Clinton’s vote when she was in the Senate?? Try to remember also (as if it matters either way) that a Democrat would have held that NY Senate seat either way. I’ll be waiting for an intelligent answer from you to arrive about 20 minutes after the Judeo-Christian version of the Apocalypse happens.
moses, it is not simply the passing of a vote. it is the operation in committees, helping to push forward legislation, or creating the environment for which change has occurred. clinton has been very involved in creating this type of change. hence, the right despises her. your desire for healthcare reform had the modern seeds planted by her actions as a first lady. i understand you despise clinton. but she has been influential.
now moses, lets return to your crush gabbard. exactly what influence has she had? crickets. even having this discussion with you is simply absurd.
ltr,
Tulsi Gabbard deserves to be vilified.
I think we should all just rent Animal House and start yelling toga, toga, toga. Or maybe just a good old fashion food fight.
I am with you Barkes, quite attractive but has strange views
@ Not Trampis
She doesn’t lie just for the sake of lying. When politicians don’t lie to you, it probably confuses you. But who is “strange” for that??
Is this what you want??~~~
Politician: “America will never negotiate with the likes of al-Assad or ANY terrorists!!!!” Then send envoys over to negotiate with the Taliban.
Idiot Rubes on some economics blog b*tching about a politician from Hawaii who told them the TRUTH for once: “Why do politicians always lie to us??? Why do they ALWAYS do that???”
Gee, it’s an “eternal mystery” why they make a hobby out of lying to you people, isn’t it??
OK, ltr, I have just checked out this supposed slam that you are whining about, and i have to say this is really groundless, and you look seriouslyi dishonest and stupid making this charge, even if you are being “polite” about it.
So Tendan and Rep. Gabbard had an argument about foreign policy back in 2011. Gabbard started it by criticizing Tanden’s views on Libya. Frankly I would agree that Tanden’s views on Libya were open to criticism, perhaps overly simplistically characterized as “bomb Libya and steal their oi,” noted to be also the position of Trump at the time. Tanden then responded by criticizing Gabbard for her views and actions regarding Syria, which, Moses Herzog’s half-baked efforts aside, look pretty open to critiicism. Certainly they are way out of line with those of most US citizens and policymakers, with her being one of only three members of Congress in March early this year to vote against a resolution condemning Assad for the many deaths he has brought to his citizens. About the nastiest thing Tanden said was a tweet reply to one of Gabbard’s slams on her in which she said “Lord.”
This does not remotely support your completely out of line claim, ltr. You look really our of it with this. Is this really the current CCP line in Beijing? If so, it is really stupid. A nation that can pick up rocks successfully on the moon should have leadership that does not come out with this sort of nonsenes.
Oh, and in the last several hours, Gabbard has come out blasting criticism of the pick of Tanden for OMB, but Gabbard looks to me to have no credibility. She is truly vile, and below in reply to some of the stupid stuff Moses Herzog has put here I shall list more of her conduct that is really pretty nauseating.
Oh, and btw, ltr, Tanden is a woman of color, so when Gabbard went after her, she was going after a woman of color, the thing you dumped on Tanden for doing in response to Gabbard going after her. You really are out of it on this matter.
“We have a giant deficit. They have lots of oil.” Verbatim quote from Tanden’s email. She’s simplified it herself pretty well.
When I was young my grandfather once explained and described McCarthyism to me. Grandfather was a soldier, and McCarthyism was a personal affront. This was why the words against McCarthyism spoken by Chief Counsel of the Army Joseph Welch were so important to grandfather and so many others.
I realize now that there are Democrats who have come to embrace McCarthyism. What sadness.
ltr: Sincerely, I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t recall anybody calling Tulsi Gabbard a communist. I do recall people saying that it was ill-advised to meet with Assad. Are you saying anybody who criticizes a former soldier is a McCarthyite? If I criticized those who perpetrated My Lai, would that make me a McCarthyite?
I also seem to recall a certain Mr. Trump demeaning a Senator McCain re: his war service, and a certain group questioning Mr. Kerry’s Vietnam War service (hence the term “Swift-boating”). But I do not recall your objecting to the former action.
What were your thoughts on FDR meeting with Stalin??? Shall I list others, it’s not terribly hard. I can list a veritable laundry list and then some, just give the word.
fdr was a head of state. tulsi gabbard was not. there is a difference.
@ baffling
And that “difference”, on moral grounds, would be WHAT?? I’m “all ears” here. Especially since we are discussing a person who was candidate for President of the United States. I’ve been told by the contributors at “FemaleNoSpeak” blog that I’m a sexist. Did you want Gabbard “in the kitchen”??
“moral grounds” we are not talking about moral grounds here. we are talking about actions a head of state may take, and those are different from somebody who is not a head of state.
“Especially since we are discussing a person who was candidate for President of the United States. ”
so what? kanye west was also a candidate for president. neither he nor gabbard were ever considered viable candidates. this was a silly defense, moses.
I guess you would have had WWII continue for another five years. Try some Australian wine and chill out.
There was a comparison being made there between Stalin and al-Assad which apparently you missed. I only drink about once very 3 weeks, so fill in your joke there. Menzie can clock it to when I post music links here. Change topic before Menzie’s eyes roll into the back of his head thinking about my music tastes.
FDR met Stalin because the US and USSR were allied in WW II to fight the common enemy, Adolf Hitler. Gabbard was a nobody rep. who did nothing but embarrass herself with her disgusting visit to Aleppo with Assad.
Her trip to Syria:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats
She did a lot more than meet with Assad:
Gabbard claimed the US was funding terrorist groups by assisting Syrian rebels and further pushed a talking point propagated by the Assad regime and the Russian government that there are no moderate rebels in Syria. That argument was also at the center of an op-ed published by Gabbard on Thursday in her hometown newspaper, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. “Repeatedly I was told there is no difference between ‘moderate’ rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or Isis – they are all the same,” Gabbard wrote.
@ pgl
Representative Gabbard said nothing that was untrue, she is repeating what people on the ground (many—innocent families) told her directly and in person. What is Gabbard supposed to do—LIE??? Would you be happier if Representative Gabbard lied about what slaughtered Syrian families told her directly and in person?? Some of you I think better stick to labor economics and away from talking about things you have little knowledge of. In fact there are many terrorists intermingled in the rebel insurgency, they are not all “just Kurds”. Even the American government and every knowledgable expert under the Sun (except geopolitics PhD “pgl”) openly concedes (multiple times without blinking an eye) this to be the case.
Since pgl has acquired Barkley Junior’s “I don’t wash windows and I don’t post links” disease, let me do readers the “excruciating chore”:
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/in-the-news/op-ed-us-must-stop-helping-terrorists-fighting-syria-s-government
Here are some other readings for Menzie’s more geopolitically educated readers, who aren’t operating debate outlines from Hillary’s Cliff Notes:
https://www.joshualandis.com/blog/ambassador-nikolaos-van-dam-my-great-personal-affection-for-the-syrian-people-together-with-my-academic-interest-in-syria-are-the-source-of-my-inspiration-and-activities/
From the interview:
“Many Syrians of the opposition, and with them many Western politicians who supported them, expected the regime to fall by the latter half of 2012. But this turned out to be fully unrealistic, as they did not take the strong and coherent power structure of the Syrian regime into account. The regime wanted to survive, whatever the costs.
In March 2012, I argued that it would be better to have al-Asad with 10,000 dead (which was the number of deadly victims at the time), rather than to have al-Asad with 300,000 dead (which later even turned out to be even worse by going in the direction of half a million dead). For this, a dialogue with the regime had been necessary.
In my opinion it was better to have a failed dialogue than to have a failed war, with half a million dead, more than 10 million refugees and a country in ruins. But many refused any dialogue with the regime, arguing that this was useless anyhow.
As Special Envoy for Syria, I aimed at providing the Syrian opposition with what I considered to be some realistic counsel. I could, of course, have taken the easier, more popular way of joining the opposition and many others in their wishful thinking that the Asad regime was going to be brought down anyhow through political pressure, UN resolutions and military support from Western and Arab countries, but these countries created false expectations. They had so-called “good intentions” of helping the Syrian people, but were not really prepared to implement their declared intensions in the form of sufficient deeds and actions on the ground. I rejected the idea of creating false expectations, because it contributed to making the situation even worse than it already was.
Direct military intervention was excluded by these countries, even though US president Obama had proclaimed that “there would be consequences” if certain “red lines” were crossed, such as the use of chemical weapons. Not crossing these red lines meant thereby, implicitly, that all other means of suppressing the Syrian people and the opposition groups were condoned by the US (and others). Not carrying out their promises, meant that the United States could not be considered as a reliable ally.
Many people kept on thinking in terms which were in fact wishful thinking, and the countries supporting the opposition did the same. They kept turning around in the same vicious circle, arguing that one day their wishes and ideals would be realized. But the realities turned out to be different, and the human cost was disastrous.
By only supporting the military opposition groups halfheartedly, and not providing them with the necessary arms (both quantitatively and qualitatively) the Western and Arab countries involved, in fact sent many of the opposition military to their death.”
It may be interesting for our resident New Yorker to know, Al Nusrah is a part of al-Quaeda, And shocking as it may be to geopolitics guru pgl ISIS is also considered a terrorist outfit. Go figure……
Gabbard has said many untrue things. I documented some of those in a thread here some time ago. You are as out to lunch here as ltr, Moses.. Gabbard is seriously bad news and a major hypocrite.
Your grandfather was an American soldier, ltr? Really? How did you become such a party line Confucius Institute line spouter given that? Did he serve in Korea fighting against soldiers from the PRC or was he on the other side in that conflict, your grandfather, I mean.?
BTW, i have had unpleasant family dealings with McCarthyism beyond being merely an “affront,” so do not say something stupid or incredible on this matter here.
Imagine, an honored soldier, risen to major, having served in Iraq, gone on to election to Congress, a soldier, a Democratic member of Congress, who would work for peace. Imagine a Democrat demeaning and vilifying such a soldier, such a Democratic member of Congress, who knowing war would stand for peace.
The core of McCarthyism was always standing for war. What sadness.
Yep – you will go on and on and on as usual. Your assertion here is totally baseless but do not let me interrupt your tirade.
Yeah, but McCarthy was about ready to jump ship and join the Democrats for JFK’s 1960 run. People forget they were all buddies. Where McCarthy errored was thinking “Communist” spies actually wanted the US destroyed. The truth is “conservative” Republicans life Taft were conspiring with Russians to push up the DoD empire and the illusion of war.
Progressive liberals are out of touch on many issues.
TR,
McCarthy died in 1957 of alcoholism, so, no, he was not “about ready to jump ship and join the Democrats for JFKs 1960 run.” It is true that RFK did work with him for awhile though. But this is stupider than your usual stupid fare here.
And I thought he would blame McCarthy for the shooting of JFK!
@ pgl
Have you ever thought of using what people had actually said against them, instead of making up things you imagined they “thought”?? Try it, I do it ALL the time with Barkley Junior and it drives him literally into psychotic madness having his own words repeated back to him. He even accused me of using Quora, after I mentioned his own infantile reference of using Quora. It was like pointing out an ugly food stain on Barkley’s shirt and then him saying “Look!! Moses even likes shirt stains!!!” This is kind of what it’s like attempting to get into you two’s heads.
Moses,
I do not remember ever “accusing” you of using Quora. I do not give a phoo about Quora, which I used exactly once because a single article on it popped up on a google search I made, a perfectly reasonable article. You are the one all worked up about Quora and have many times accused me of “using” it, which I did exactly once. I know basically nothing about it and would not care at all whether you use it or not.
Looks like you are the one descending into “psychotic madness.” with this. What is even more hilarious, while also pathetic, is that what I used it for was to cite a paper (I could have cited others) on that matter of skewed distribution of Native American ancestry among Euro Americans, an issue you keep bringing up even though you were totally wrong on it as pointed out by many here, making an utter fool of yourself. That you keep bringing it up can only be explained that you are descending into “psychotic madness.”
Please get back on our meds and leave the cheap wine alone.
Actually the core of McCarthyism was making false accusations that people were Communists or comsymps. It was McCaethy who coined “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck,” by which he meant a Communist. Sorry it was not about “standing for war,” per se, even if that is what your poorly informed grandfather told you, ltr.
—– ——- deserves to be vilified.
[ The terrible sadness of McCarthyism. ]
I have no problem with Gabbard visiting with Assad. I do have a problem with her visiting Aleppo with him after he utterly destroyed the place killing thousands of people there. Would you approve of someone who went to Nanjing after it was raped by the Japanese to walk around with Tojo?
You really have no sense on this one, ltr, being as stupid as Moses Herzog, which is really getting into it. There is more than just this for which she deserves to be vilified, including her conduct during the impeachment matter, which even Moses admits was not a good move.
Sorry, ltr, take your fske whining about alleged racism and shove it.. I think you are a stinking hypocrite on this.
Rosser: Did you have a problem with John McCain’s meeting with terrorists in Syria?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mccain-poses-with-terrori_b_3360762
Democrats’’ widely disparate treatment of two politicians’ behavior in Syria is just another example of the hypocrisy of political elites.
“McCain’s office says that the senator didn’t know who they were, and doesn’t support their terrorist acts.”
JohnH does have Bruce Hall disease – not reading their own links.
“ McCain’s office says that the senator didn’t know who they were”…and I have a bridge to sell you..the one you use to cross to Manhattan…going fast!…and it’s cheap!
pgl is now officially a rube!
@ pgl
I hate to inform you pgl, but, JohnH “got you” on that one, and I have tried to remain relatively neutral in your two’s spat~~~believe it or not. No one of ANY intelligence at all would believe that statement from McCain’s office, and frankly, ignorance would not be an excuse if you were dumb enough to believe that statement anyway. McCain is/was expected to be self-educated on this things. It’s like saying you didn’t know something because you were absent for an important Senate hearing. Either way it doesn’t come out clean in the laundry wash.
I do not know what McCain knew or did not know about those people when he met them or why he met them. But I note he was a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and almost certainly had that meeting with the approval of top people in the Pentagon and whichever administration was in charge then, unlike Gabbard who was a nobody Rep. off on a wild goose chase that only ended up giving a bunch of good propogandistic publicity for a brutal dictator. I do not remember the terrorists getting any favorable publicity from that meeting with McCain, whatever it was about and even if it was ill-advised, which is quite possible.
Sorry, both JohnH and MosesH, no big score on this one. Your worthless Gabbard is still a vile scumbag.
@ Barkley Rosser
Sorry, there’s no other word for it, it’s a very stupid analogy. Aleppo is inside al-Assad’s home country, Nanjing is not inside the Japanese leader’s country. You’re comparing pineapples to avocados. Once again, you’ve made an asinine analogy. Normal for you, but still dumb.
JohnH is dumb enough to think I cross the Manhattan Bridge? No – the R train uses the Brooklyn Bridge. So no he did not get me unless he can prove Senator McCain was lying. Which he cannot and neither can you.
Neither one of you two know nothings would even know who are mayor was if you ran over him. I actually did one day as I was hauling groceries and a gym bag not seeing him as he walked out of his gym. And the man is REALLY tall. BTW – a couple of his guards started to go after me when my mayor politely stood up and shook hands with me. A class act unlike the fool known as JohnH – you new BFF.
@ pgl
Gosh!!!!! Did de Blasio have to pinch himself afterwards, just to prove to himself meeting you wasn’t just a dream?? Please stop with the NYC references, none of us can get those obscure and deep landmark references. It’s so difficult to keep up with you!!!! No, none of us have seen the NYC mayor on TV, just you and Barkley Junior, that’s the only two. And everyone is very impressed with how you tuck away your extreme conceitedness. That is amazing!!!
@ pgl
Why do I get the strange sense sometime when Rudolph was mayor of NYC that on this same blog you bragged that after “leaving the gym” you shook the same hand Giuliani uses to oscillate his meat stick??
Related to the false Syrian arguments
It’s also worthy to note, Barkley gets a little confused sometimes in his head, that basically ALL of Syria had been a war zone at that point. And actually the place it would make sense for Senator Gabbard to visit would have been a rebel stronghold, which Aleppo had been. She’s not going to visit the capital (Damascus) and ignore the rebel areas. The only way she’s going to be able to assess and get a barometer of what is happening is talking to rebels and insurgents directly—she’s not going to do that in Damascus. But I guess in Barkley’s world, in his JMU office, where he plays with little green toy soldiers, he thinks all of Syria is homogenous. But if Senator Gabbard had gone to Damascus or areas near to al-Assad’s center of power, she’s only going to meet and talk to al-Assad loyalists. The only way to get a better barometer of what is going on would be to visit rebel strongholds, which Aleppo had been for an extended amount of time.
Don’t tell Barkley though, he thinks all of the serious wars happened in the “Aleppo War Stage” he has on his JMU office desk, where his green toy soldiers are. The little green plastic soldiers even have laser guns because Barkley adds in the “Pew!!!! Pew!!!!” sound effects. It is awesome.
*capitol, excuse me
Moses,
You have made a lot of incorrect and silly remarks here, more than I shall bother dealing with.
1) Gabbard was a member of the House, not a senator.
2) she did not talk with rebels in Aleppo. None were left. This was a horribly devastated error where the rebels had been defeated and were gone. She participated in puffing Assad in his bloody triumph there that reached the level of war crimes.
3).. I used Nanjing because ltr takes things Chinese so seriously. So, replace it with one of the towns in Kurdistan that Saddam gassed, with some representative visiting there with Saddam, highly inappropriate. Of course in those days US was largely supporting Saddam and Donald Rumsfeld, a bit more senior and appropriate than some Rep. visited Saddam in Baghdad not too long after he did his gassing job in Kurdistan.
Here is more on our glorious Tulsi Gabbard.
1) She regularly appeared on Fox News, often agreeing with their lines supporting Trump and dinging Dems.
2) She also met with Trump and Bannon, I think at the White House. At least that was not in the middle of a city in ruins from bomb attacks by Trump.
4) She not only did not vote on impeachment, while the hearings were going on she agreed with Trump in criticizing the proceedings and denying the Russia connection to the Trump campaign. This is a major reason why Hannity liked to have her on and Trump invited her to the WH. It is also a reason why Clinton probably unreasonably criticized her as a “Russian asset,” although as the LA Times reported, “Even though she may not be a Russian asset, she certainly talks like one.”
And there is more, if you guys want to continue to attempting to save or revive her reputation, which is pretty much in a garbage dump in the eyes of most Dems, although that probably appeals to JohnH, “good for her!”
On (2) I search for a story about Gabbard and Aleppo and found this:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/10/21/1894034/-The-Strange-Alliances-of-Tulsi-Gabbard-Bill-Browder-and-others-highlight-odd-affinities
Moses is trying to lecture us on how she was supporting the rebels. Me thinks he has no clue what he is babbling about. No clue at all.
I should say sorry and correct my error. I know Gabbard is a Representative, I keep wanting to call her Senator, maybe because it’s more apt to be Senators running for President than Representatives. I know the difference in my mind but I keep making this error which is a pretty bad error on my part. But frankly (and call this rationalization if you like) I’d rather know 85% of the moving pieces of a story and get someone’s title wrong, then know 15% of the logical layout and get one person’s title correct.
Your claim that she was visiting the rebels at Aleppo was more than 85% off. This amazingly stupid claim should lead you to follow the lead of PeakTrader and just disappear.
Maybe confused members of Congress should just stay home. By YOUR account she had no clue what she was doing. And something tells me that neither do you.
OK, Moses, you have now completely fallen on your face on this issue with your massive incorrect statements about Gabbard and her actions in Syria. Given that, I am curious what color are the little plastic soldiers you seem to be playing with when you come up with this ridiculous foolish nonsense?
BTW, ltr, Tulsi Gabbard deserves to be vilified because she is truly vile.
Do you want to tell us about the details of your grandfather’s military service before you make more obnoxiously stupid remarks?
I have been, of course, completely correct:
The person nominated to be the director of the Office of Management and Budget, previously chose to repeatedly demean and vilify an American soldier, a soldier who served in Iraq, a soldier now serving as an honored major in the active reserves. This soldier was elected and reelected to Congress as a Democrat, receiving 77.4% of the vote even after the vilification. The reason for the vilification was that this Democratic member of Congress, this soldier, sought to work for peace in Syria.
The soldier, the Democratic member of Congress, so shamefully treated, happens to be a multi-ethnic woman.
ltr: I’m sorry, but I did not see a response to my points. If you want to keep on cutting and pasting, I guess I’ll keep on approving — but this is not an exchange of views.
ltr did this under another name a lot at Thoma’s blog. I guess you have inherited a few of those he tolerated to no end.
Sorry but there is a point that has long baffled me. Why does being a soldier (sailor, airman) quality one for respect?
I know we have a strongly developed reflex to “thank you for your service”, but I don’t see any strong moral argument supporting it. Signing up for military service is surrendering moral volition.
I would have preferred Gore over Bush. I’d have preferred Kerry. That’s despite the fact that both volunteered for service in Vietnam. Their choice to fight in a country that never threatened the U.S. is something I looked past, not something that I respected.
I, of course, made my case. I was polite, as always, while defending the worth of a specific honored soldier and Democratic member of Congress who was elected overwhelmingly. I was defending a person of impeccable integrity and principles. I was and am right to defend such a person, and consider the vilifying of that person by an elite Democrat to be frightening and saddening.
My case is simple, and though I am not a brave person I am not about to ask forgiveness for my defense of this soldier-Representative. I was frightened in posting, and I am still frightened. I was and am frightened, but what I have written was ethically necessary and right.
ltr: OK. Would you be willing to make a similar defense of the late Senator McCain?
I meant no disrespect, but for whatever supposed accomplishments I have I would not begin to know how to discuss or argue about a terrible crime committed during the Vietnam War in the context of my remarks. Why refer to a terrible crime to deflect me?
I am defending a person of decency and honor and courage. I just wish I were able to better defend this person, my words evidently do not suffice.
No, she is a lying piece of you know what, a word I shall not use out of deference to Menzie.
She was repeatedly in trouble with the Hawaiian national guard for violating rules and misrepresenting herself in videos during her campaigns. She had a long record of extreme homophobia and anti-gay actions and statements, although I grant that she eventually changed her mind on all that and apologized for it. She not only went to Aleppo with Assad but has defended him against accusations that he used chemical weapons, which pretty much everybody agrees he did.
There is more, but that should be enough for you to back off from all this crap about how honorable she is and how full of “integrity and principles” she is. Sorry, not.
Another ptoblem with ltr’s whine, showing serious hypocrisy on his part, is that among the numerous other vile things former Rep. Gabbard has done, is that she has done what ltr got all hot and bothered about Neera Tanden supposedly doing: smeared a woman of color with lies.
No, she is a lying piece of ————-
[ Please, please do not address me again. I am afraid of such language.
Please, please do not address me again. ]
Yes, “you know what” is terrible language, as you, ltr, great expert on the English language and what is proper and what is not do know. And I am sure Menzie will ban me from using “you know what.” Of course, the fact that you do know what, ltr, means you think dirty thoughts, shame on you. Time to send you to a “reeducation camp” to clean your thoughts up. I am sure that can be arranged.
Or maybe what has you really unhappy is that I am confusing the celebration of China’s genuine achievement in bringing back moon rocks by bringing up Japan’s achievement in bringing back material from an asteroid, horrible me. Nothing should distract from the unremitting praise of Zhongguo and its achievements.
Would you be willing to make a similar defense of the late Senator McCain?
[ Of course. I always respected and admired John McCain. ]
ltr: Then you should be excoriating Mr. Trump for his McCarthyite behavior toward Senator McCain. Consistency would be persuasive. By the way, do recall Mr. Trump also excoriated Lt. Col. Vindman – thus adding to the reasons to title Mr. Trump the arch-McCarthyite, using your criterion.
I await your statement with bated breath.
On the matter of Trump and McCarthyism, the ultimate in all this is that Trump’s first mentor was none other than Roy Cohn, McCarthy’s longtime assistant and aide in his smearing of numerous people. From Cohn Trump got many of his most obnoxious tactics, such as simply never admitting one is wrong and just keep lying and lying and lying when confronted.
Of course, Trump would show his colors by abandoning Cohn when it came out that he was dying of AIDS and was gay. But, hey, we know that Trump is worse than an awful lot of other pretty awful people.
Would you be willing to make a similar defense of the late Senator McCain?
[ Of course. I always respected and admired John McCain. I have never ever written or spoken a harsh word about John McCain, nor would I. I would always be willing to defend and have indeed defended McCain. Through this thread, however, I never mentioned McCain, since McCain was not repeatedly attacked by a Biden nominee.
I was only talking about a specific soldier-member of Congress, who I admire and who was repeatedly attacked by a Biden nominee. I am entitled to defend an honored soldier and member of Congress and that is what I have done.
I was polite and always am. Asking me about General Eisenhower, who I admire, or General-Secretary Marshall, who I admire, does not strike me as relevant. I am expressly defending an honored major, a member of Congress much admired by district voters. My defense is right; my defense is ethical.
I admire McCain and Eisenhower and Marshall and I surely admire the honored soldier-member of Congress I chose to defend here. I surely know when a soldier-political leader deserves respect. ]
ltr,
Whille you may think that “surely know when a soldier-political leader deserves respect,” but your defense of Tulsi Gabbard makes it clealr that this is not always the case, and even your honorable grandfather might be able to tell you that. Without reminding you of her numerous other less than honorable activities I shall simply note that she had to be disciplined more than once by the Hawaii National Guard for her violating rules regarding how she is to behave regarding her political activities and her military service.
I know I have been pretty rough here, but hopefully I am being sufficiently polite i making this point, which is a very serious and hard point that you need to understand and accept.
I await your statement with bated breath.
[ Please try to be polite, since I try to be polite. Sarcasm generally just confuses me.
Possibly I am completely wrong on this matter, but I wrote sincerely and still find no problem with what I wrote. I in no way sought to offend any reader, just to set down what I considered to be ethically necessary. I found this experience frightening, but am in the end pleased I was brave enough to persist. ]
Yes, ltr, you were wrong.
The only other thing here that is bizarre is your claim that you are afraid or fins “this experience frightening.” What are you afraid of? One of us is going to pay you a visit and put up meanie signs outside your house? Or we are going to send you to a reeducation camp? No, the people who might do that are you know who, if that is not yet another forbidden phrase, whom you appear to work for. Offhand I think you have done a good job of putting forward their views, so I think you have nothing to be afraid of.
“Sarcasm generally just confuses me.”
that is a problem with using bots on a blog.
Oof. What an embarrassing post. Isn’t this blog about “current economic conditions and policy?” This is more akin to something a 14 year old would post on Instagram, not something a serious economist would post. I’m embarrassed for Menzie and I’m embarrassed to have ever visited this blog.
Try harder next time.
– A liberal.
Matt: Thank you for your precise and detailed explanation for your dislike of this post.
Matt would not know what a Venn diagram is if one hit him in the fact in a dark alley at midnight while he was searching for a black cat that is not there.
I think it is clear why the post is bad, but I’ll explain.
1. It is unsound. Attributing Republican dislike with economic team picks to demographic characteristics is akin to an old man yelling at clouds. You are arguing against nobody. What person is saying “if Tanden wasn’t non-white, female, and an immigrant, I would be ok with the pick?” If you find me a single example of a serious right-leaning individual saying this, I will happily let it go.
I am well aware that some are complaining that it appears as if Biden prioritized diversity over experience. First, that is clearly a different argument. If your response is to call racism, you are making it clear you a missing the point and playing into the image described by #3. However, my guess is that those arguments are what is bothering you and inspired you to make the post. If so, please consider the next point.
2. It misses an opportunity. I imagine you know more about these people than most. Why not put their selection in context and educate your readers? Instead, you post a blurry image that could have been made by anybody. That is not a good use of your expertise. The problem is made clearer by the second exhibit, which I found to be quite interesting.
3. It is a good example of why the right considers the left to be unintellectual and overly obsessed with identity politics. It appears to be an attack on racist, sexist white men, which is tired, irrelevant, and usually pointless. (You know why Republicans dislike these picks. It is because they are Biden’s picks. It’s that simple.) In other words, you are making us look bad.
4. It unnecessarily isolates your right-leaning readers. You could have posted the diagram and said something about the diversity about the team. It is certainly interesting. Instead, you take an argumentative tone. And given that the argument being made is rather silly, the argumentative tone comes across as immature.
Matt: Thank you. That comment contains some logical impetus, and I appreciate that. The first person out of the blocks (if I can use a track metaphor) was Senator Cornyn. Senator Cornyn was also among the first to vocally dismiss out of hand the idea of “systemic racism”. Forgive me if I jumped a little too quickly. As to immigration, here is a summary of Senator Cornyn’s views: [link].
So, in re your points…(1) I accept you don’t think it’s worth discussing this matter, (2) I have had numerous posts on Yellen (full acknowledgment – multi-decade acquaintance), and in my earlier post on the economic team, listed their most cited publications (you can get the quick assessment in numerous other places), (3) I disagree that I shouldn’t discuss characteristics of targets of criticism; if I can’t detect an ideological, academic, ethics-problem, pattern, what else am I to rely upon? (4) I could’ve mentioned the diversity of the team, but that is summarized in the graph, and the previous post indicating most cited papers/books.
Thank you for reading. I’ve mostly said what I wanted to say. I enjoy the blog, and I feel that the post is uncharacteristic of the blog. I suppose we mostly disagree about #3. I think the most relevant characteristic of these appointments is simply that they were made by Biden, and Republicans don’t like Biden. The same would be true the other direction if a Republican president was filling out an economic team.
Matt: Well, let me say I think I’m entitled to occasionally say what I think about how race and perceptions of race permeate society and personnel decisions — just sayin’ as one who’s watched how things play out in government, academia, in restaurants…
” I think the most relevant characteristic of these appointments is simply that they were made by Biden, and Republicans don’t like Biden. ”
that is certainly a valid point. but it is not the only reason. you need only look at what the cabinet under the republican administration looked like the past 4 years. notice how similar all those faces looked? old. white. male. and i would add, privileged. i would add, it appears that republicans may hate all biden picks, but they do seem to be more vehement in their responses to the women and minorities. do you disagree?
Matt,
In the particular case of Tanden the GOP, and Cornyn in particular, have gone after her for supposedly making nasty remarks about various GOP senators in tweets. That she also did so to some Dems as well has her getting criticized by various people from several directions, and it may well result in her failing to get confirmed.
@ Matt
I thought it was a great way to visually make a point, and although I might not totally agree with the gist, the point was well made.
I’ll tell you something Menzie knows that you might not know Matt. I know it because I was what I like to call a “pretend teacher”?? What does that mean?? “Pretend teacher”?? That means I taught in many classroom settings, as many as 80+ kids in a classroom (not easy for a person who is inherently shy) even though I didn’t have a teaching certificate. But I took my duties as “pretend teacher” as serious and sacred things because of messages my father pounded into me as a kid. My father had his Masters degree in Education. You know one thing I learned on my own I bet Menzie knows also?? That sometimes the hardest thing to do is to teach something in a way that doesn’t bore the hell out of the sharpest kid in the classroom, but also the slowest kid in the the back of the classroom can digest. I think one of the greatest things a teacher can do is present lessons, ideas, and concepts so he hits both of those audiences, or actually all of those many types of students “along the spectrum”. That’s a great feeling as a teacher when you can achieve that. I don’t know about “instagram post”, ‘cuz friend I never used it. But I think this post does a pretty good job of presenting things which are very legitimate and viable arguments—whether you agree with them or not.
Since, by your own statement, you seem to have decided not to return here, why do you care whether Menzie tries harder next time?
As to whether this post is appropriate on a blog devoted to economics and economic policy analysis,l Menzie provided a clear suggestion as to the decision rule employed by members of a major political party in accepting or blocking the choice of policy makers. That is at least immediately adjacent to the declared purpose of this blog.
Please, be true to the implication of your own words. Scram. We don’t need yet another troll cluttering up the comments section.
Menzie,
I don’t recall seeing Matt here before. If this is the same Matt who has polluted other economic blog comment sections, and if you are till now unfamiliar with his work, I am sorry to inform you that he is among the worst of partisan hacks. Maybe there is a rotation of hacks underway now that Trump sycophants have all been exposed.
Note Matt’s implication that a politician who behaves as a racist cannot be accused of racism unless he or she overtly declares themselves to be racist? In Matt’s world, “dog whistle” is something only found at pet stores and Lee Atwater never spilled the beans. That’s who Matt is. Just so you know.
Holy cow macroduck, calm down. I frequent this blog but have never commented. I never felt compelled to until this post. See my other replies for an explanation of my initial comment.