This article, from the Washington Times of all places, was highlighted on the DKos front page:
Emboldened by the ouster of presidential adviser Van Jones, conservative and business groups are launching fresh challenges aimed at derailing President Obama's nominees.
The latest of these targets is David Michaels, Mr. Obama's pick to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), who as an academic published a book attacking corporate executives for the tactics they used to fight class-action lawsuits. Republican critics said they considered Mr. Michaels to be too close to trial lawyers because of his aggressive advocacy on their behalf.
I know nothing about Michaels, though according to the front page story he's highly qualified, but this isn't about him. It's about the repeated Democratic/progressive mistake of appeasing rightwingers. Van Jones was the perfect example; he was thrown under the bus, and what did that get us? It just emboldened them to go after more Obama nominees. Instead, go below the fold to see what Obama should have done.
I don't give Bush credit for much, but he did know how to fight -- unfortunately, for the wrong causes. He would have gloried in the opportunity to turn the attack back on his attackers. Remember the Bush administration reaction when the New York Times disclosed his secret, obviously illegal and unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping program? Did he say "In an effort to protect America we perhaps were a bit too overzealous, but we've dropped the program and it will never happen again"? Hell no, he called it the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and not only didn't apologize, but campaigned on it!
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have a President who can see more than one side of an issue, and who can change course or admit error when necessary -- all things Bush couldn't do. But you also have to know how to fight. I'm not singling Obama out here, I'm not sure the Democrats in general know how to fight back. They seem to be stuck in the seventies, believing the Republicans may be a bit more conservative than they are, but that they are dealing in good faith and want to help solve the country's problems. Well, wake up, guys -- that's not true now, if it ever was. This present-day Republican movement conservative party is out for blood, and does not -- and never will -- deal in good faith. The only way to deal with them is to crush them.
So back to Van Jones -- just what do we gain from throwing him overboard? Even the Washington Times reports it merely emboldened the Republicans to go after more Obama appointees.
Instead of caving in to pressure, Obama and the Democrats must realize they can never appease the howler monkeys. The right wing, Fox, Glenn Beck, Hannity, McConnell, teabaggers, birthers, deathers -- all of them -- will never be appeased because they are not dealing in good faith. They don't give a rat's ass about Van Jones or David Michaels or Acorn anyone else -- they just want to weaken Obama and make Democrats look bad.
This is what Obama should have said about Jones: "OK, so Mr. Jones used some intemperate language concerning Republicans, before he was in an official capacity of any sort. I've got to confess, I've been tempted to use some of that language myself lately. If that was a disqualifying factor, I don't think there'd be a Republican or Democrat left standing in Washington. Now, on the petition -- that was a mistake. Mr. Jones says he didn't read it, and I take him at his word. It's always a mistake to sign something you haven't read. But people make mistakes, and it's clear to me that Mr. Jones does not, and did not ever, believe the the Government was complicit in 9-11. It's as simple as that. There's simply no reason whatsoever to ask for his resignation, when he's the best-qualified person to carry out this important job. I stand firmly behind him, and will not let my political opponents intimidate my administration into making hasty, ill considered personnel decisons due to unfair personal attacks. The politics of personal destruction must stop, and it's going to stop here."
In other words, though I loathe Bush and Karl Rove, they actually knew something about political knife-fighting -- do everything you can to turn your opponent's strength into a weakness. The Republicans smell blood because Jones made a couple of indiscrete, but totally insignificant, statements or acts? Turn it against them, attack them for trying to intimidate you with the politics of personal destruction (something they love to whine about). Don't cave in and throw Jones to the wolves, because they'll just develop a hunger for more meat.
Along the same lines: The Washington Post had a story today about the Baucus disaster -- er, I mean healthcare reform negotiations. (And by the way, printed a picture of Conrad but labelled it Baucus -- guess those budget cuts are really hurting proof-reading.)
The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said Monday that he will propose an overhaul of the nation's health-care system that addresses a host of GOP concerns, including blocking illegal immigrants from gaining access to subsidized insurance, urging limits on medical malpractice lawsuits and banning federal subsidies for abortion.
WHY? Not only is that bad policy, it won't gain a single Republican vote! What Baucus should have said:
"My Republican colleagues have pushed a number of issues regarding health care reform. We disagree with them, but in the interest of compromise and bipartisanship, we would be willing to discuss these issues if the Republicans were willing to negotiate in good faith. Unfortunately, they are not -- they've already made it clear that they won't vote for healthcare reform, no matter how many of their proposals we adopt. They don't care about helping the American people, they care only about using healthcare as a partisan wedge to attack President Obama and Democrats. Therefore, we see no need to weaken the bill, since it won't promote bipartisanship in any event. If the Republicans ever change their strategy and decide to negotiate in good faith, at that point we would be willing to consider compromise, but not until then. We are not going to negotiate against ourselves."
It will never happen, but we can dream can't we?