Skip to main content

OK, a loss of 60-plus seats in the House and 6 Senate seats is a disaster.  Luckily the teabaggers threw up certified lunatics like Joe Miller, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck and Christine O'Donnell and incompetents like Carly Fiorina and Dino Rossi or the Senate would be gone too.  Let's be real: President Obama is significantly if not mostly to blame for this "shellacking".  Although not alone that is, for there are incompetents in his cabinet who are letting not just him but the American people down.  After the 2006 midterms when the GOP was pummeled and lost both houses of Congress, at least President George W. Bush did one right thing and fired the incompetent Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who had been overseeing 2 failing wars (that are still failing but that's a whole other diary).  Yet 3 weeks after the bloodbath and President Obama has not made ONE substantive staffing move.  I believe a bold move MUST be done to show that the White House is listening to the will of the people.  So why don't we help him along?  Here's a few names I wouldn't shed any tears over:

How about Timothy Geithner?  This should be a no-brainer.  He should have been dropped for consideration for the job that includes head of the I.R.S. once it came out that he couldn't even manage to do his own damn taxes right.  2 years later and the sailing has been just as rough.  Why is the stock market flush with cash but unemployment still sky-high?  Why are there huge bonuses going out to execs of taxpayer-money hoarding corporations but very little hiring or lending going on?  

How about offshore oil-drilling shill Ken Salazar?  Rolling Stone makes the best case as to why Interior Secretary Salazar's hands are dirty when it comes to the BP oil spill (the whole article is a must-read):

Though he criticized the actions of "a few rotten apples" at the agency, he left long-serving lackeys of the oil industry in charge. "The people that are ethically challenged are the career managers, the people who come up through the ranks," says a marine biologist who left the agency over the way science was tampered with by top officials. "In order to get promoted at MMS, you better get invested in this pro-development oil culture." One of the Bush-era managers whom Salazar left in place was John Goll, the agency's director for Alaska. Shortly after, the Interior secretary announced a reorganization of MMS in the wake of the Gulf disaster, Goll called a staff meeting and served cake decorated with the words "Drill, baby, drill."

How about Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano?  The new TSA screening guidelines are a traveler's (and public relations) nightmare.  Why didn't her department adequately prepare the public for the new procedures?  She hasn't made the case and the result is that the TSA is a laughingstock and enraging more people every day.  This was hardly her first misstep either.

How about Eric Holder?  Was it really necessary to blast America as a "nation of cowards" when first assuming the job as Attorney General?  Beyond that controversial first-impression are his decisions to hold a civil trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City and the recent failure of his Justice department to convict Ahmed Ghailani on more than 1 count out of more than 280.  Whether or not you think civilian terrorist trials are a good idea there's little doubt that Holder's leadership in these matters hardly inspires confidence.

Then there's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the genius who decided to blast the "professional left", you know the BASE that helped push Obama over the edge in the 2008 primaries, shortly before the mid-terms when it was clear that turnout would be key.  Heckuva job there.

So, Kossacks, who should go?  I vote all of the above.  Please cast your vote and comment below.

Originally posted to Druggy Bear on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 12:58 PM PST.

Poll

Who must be fired?

31%89 votes
1%5 votes
2%7 votes
3%9 votes
3%11 votes
31%88 votes
10%28 votes
0%2 votes
14%41 votes

| 280 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Can't fire everyone (2+ / 0-)

    By the way Obama will be on the ballot in 2012, he still has to win the nomination, it's just a question if he has any serious opposition, which I doubt.

  •  In my limited experience, (9+ / 0-)

    top dogs in trouble don't know how to clean house.  They tend to look for scapegoats or sacrificial lambs.  Instead of looking internally.  What was it in him/herself that chose the senior staff that helped him/her screw up?  Of course, top dogs are rarely self-reflective and tend to remain in denial of "trouble" long after effective correction actions could be taken.  

    Bring Our JOBS and Troops Home NOW!

    by Marie on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:16:23 PM PST

    •  My thoughts exactly! (0+ / 0-)
      I kept thinking: That's quite a list.  So diverse!  And yet, there's something that unites them ... let's see ... could it be the taste of the chooser?

      Nah, you're right.  If the President hasn't fired any of these people to date, he's not going to do it now.  More's the pity.  

  •  Obama doesn't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allergywoman, flhiii88

    have to fire anybody. So let's clear that up right away. Now who would you like him to fire is another story all together. But my guess he is going to hold onto the people he trusts and works well with and some of those will be folks you don't like.

    My guess is that yes some of the players will change in the cabinet for his second term, but who those would be will be his call or the call of those who just decide to retire from burn out.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:23:24 PM PST

    •  second term? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      output, abarrenfuture, jconn

      who says there will be one at this point? if the GOP is smart enough to not nominate Palin then he will likely get beat

      Visit Druggybear's Den: www.druggybear.com

      by Druggy Bear on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:26:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Second term? (6+ / 0-)

      If the GOP nominates anyone semi-sane, Obama can start packing for Illinois the day after the RNC convention.  

      "I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?" Harry Truman - 1948

      by ThAnswr on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:32:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ain't no no semi-sane among those that would (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        flhiii88

        get past the tea bag faithful.

        Americans will make sacrifices but refuse to be sacrificed on the alter of the rich.

        by OHdog on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:54:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Remember this name: Jeb Bush (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          historys mysteries, Badabing

          He is the Democrat's nightmare.  

          "I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?" Harry Truman - 1948

          by ThAnswr on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:57:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  First he has to stop (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ThAnswr

            saying there is no chance he is going to run in '12.

            Ten Questions for Jeb Bush

            Q.You going to run for president?

            A. No.

            Q. Not ever?

            A. I don’t know about that. But I’m not running any time that I’m aware of. 2012 for sure.

            Next  he is a strong immigration reform advocate, reform similar to George's. And we know how well this sits with the Tea Party crowd and the far right in general.

            Jeb isn't going to run this time around. Now '16 all bets are off.

            In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

            by jsfox on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 02:19:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The markers for if and when Jeb Bush runs are (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jabney

              what his political staff are doing. If, like between his defeat for Governor and his win 4 years later, they are working for one of his "non-profit" groups then he is planning to run and soon. If they are in other positions not connected to Jeb then maybe later. The supposed non-profit educational group that kept his campaign staff employed between runs for Governor spent about 88% on their salaries and about 10% on buying his brother's educational software and giving starter kits to Florida schools. Most donors to the "charitable foundation" were in on the scam. The Florida Democrats were urged to prosecute the group for fraud but the weenies thought it would look too political. And in the next election the wiener got put in their bun.

              Americans will make sacrifices but refuse to be sacrificed on the alter of the rich.

              by OHdog on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 03:30:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Remind me (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        flhiii88

        not to go to you for political prognostication. Right now the Republicans are controlled by the insane and if this trend continues odds are not good for a moderate Republican to get the nod which is the only Republican that would have a chance to win in the general and even that if history is any guide is a long shot. There have been only two incumbents in modern history to lose a second term. Carter and Bush I.

        As one example let's look at Virginia which based on mid-terms some would say it has gone back to a reddish State. Thus a tough road for Obama to carry again. However . . .

        TPM

        Virginia, we're told, is one of those states that went blue in 2010 but has now bounced back to its reddish norm. But the first poll looking at 2012 presidential matchups shows President Obama beating all four Republican frontrunners -- two by 11 points.

        In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

        by jsfox on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 02:04:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Elizabeth Warren (0+ / 0-)

    Hands down!

  •  "Who must President Obama fire?" (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    khereva, Badabing, output, Earth Ling, Vtdblue

    Himself.  Decide to not run in 2012 and go home and write his memoirs and community organize.  

    Every one of the people mentioned in the poll was Obama's handpicked choice.  Enough with blaming the underlings.  

    There's an old Mediterranean saying:  When a fish starts to rot, it stinks at the head first.  

    "I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?" Harry Truman - 1948

    by ThAnswr on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:30:50 PM PST

  •  Geithner is a hero (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a night owl, flhiii88, FiredUpInCA

    I'm not thrilled with the White House blog or Obama's press operation, and, certainly, maybe he and people in his administration have zigged when they should have zagged.

    But I think the name on this list that's there most unfairly is Geithner's.

    Geithner has nothing directly to do with creating jobs. He's not at the Commerce Department or the Labor Department, and he's not a private company, or even connected with the Office of Personnel Management. He's been in charge, mostly, of doing what he can, with the limited power that he has, to help the Fed keep the dollar from collapsing in a puff of smoke, and to keep the banks from collapsing in a puff of smoke.

    Plenty of banks have failed, but they've all been dealt with in a smooth, almost invisible way. My bank was a big, spectacular failure, but I barely even noticed, operationally speaking, when another bank took it over.

    My ATM card still works. My dollar probably buys a little less, despite all of the happy happy government inflation statistics (from the Commerce Department; not the Treasury Department) that show that inflation is under control, but it still buys roughly what it bought two years ago.

    China and Germany are mad at us, but that's because of a decision Bernanke made, and Bernanke was probably right. It's not great to risk creating inflation by playing with our currency, but it's also not great for China to keep its currency weak to give its manufacturers an automatic, unearned discount when they're selling to us.

    People hate the IRS, which is part of the Treasury Department, but it actually works pretty well, and it got me my refund back very quickly earlier this year.

    Maybe Geithner will still go on to do something terrible later in life, or maybe he's done something we don't know about, but the stuff he's done so far has worked.

    •  If it's not too personal... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bmcphail

      Which bank do you work for?

      •  I work to pay off my credit card debt at Capitol (0+ / 0-)

        One Bank, and, for about 4 weeks in 1986, I was a temp in the IT department at a bank in Charlottesville, Va., whose name I cannot remember.

        I think one basic principle of life is that the people who run unions and government agencies are as messed up as the people who run companies. I don't really care whether we have a capitalist or socialist system; I think the main thing is that, no matter how we organize the economy, we have competition between different units.

        Competition between two different types of government units probably works as well as competition between companies. And, really, I think competition between different types of entities -- companies, nonprofits, academic entities, government agencies -- is probably even better.

        But I think the reality is that, even if we want to nationalize the banks someday, that will work much better if we do so when the economy is perking along and we haven't had mass riots than if the banks have all collapsed and we've burned down all the cities. And maybe the United States could have survived the collapse of most of the banks in 2008 just fine, without rioting, arson or starvation, but Geithner didn't know that.

        In the fall of 2008, I thought the crash talk was probably exaggerated, so I put more of my 401(k) money in stock funds, but all of the investments I could afford to make with my own actual money I could touch (not much; maybe $25 per month), were in survival gear. I was starting to think of waterproof matches as me real 401(k) plan.

        The good thing that Geithner did is that now I think waterproof matches are for going camping and having fun and that my 401(k) plan is my retirement plan.

    •  Geithner didn't nationalize the banks. (0+ / 0-)

      The anti-capitalists claimed that the banks HAD to be nationalized, that there was no other solution to the banking crisis.  They can't stand the fact that Geithner chose less drastic means to deal with the banking crisis, a means that didn't scratch the socialist itch of those for whom government takeover is always the option of first resort, and thus proved their claims that nationalization was the one and only solution to be utterly false.  They'll never forgive him for it.

      •  As I say below (or above, I guess it (0+ / 0-)

        depends on how you sort the posts), I'm not all that emotional about socialism vs. capitalism. I tend to prefer the idea of the free market, but, of course, markets screw up, too.

        I just want freedom and competition of some form. I don't really care all that terribly much what's competing.

        But I don't think people like Fidel Castro or Stalin really wanted to see banks collapse all at once (unless it was a controlled demolition, and they were in charge of the dynamite) any more than someone in charge of a capitalist economy does.

        If Geithner had truly nationalized all of the banks, I think that would have scared everyone to death, and the socio-politico-economic system as we know it would have been completely gone. Money would have had no value any more. So, I think even a good, practical socialist probably would have done what Geithner did and pushed for switching to nationalization when the immediate crisis was past, not adding the shock of nationalization onto the shock of the emergency bailout.

  •  They all should be fired frankly. The president (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfdunphy

    Could use new advisers. I hope he gets a new chief of staff that is not a loyalist. I'm hoping Ed rendell gets the job of chief of staff. The man has been making sense this past year, he told democrats not to abandon the health care fight. He told democrats to stand up for the passage of health care, he said the president should not compromise his principals to the rethugs. I know it's a long shot, but Obama should really consider finding a spot in his administration for this guy.

  •  The hell he is. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flhiii88, FiredUpInCA

    I can't believe I have to keep saying this. President Obama wasn't on the ballot this November. The reason the Ds lost was because of R obstructionism that kept them from improving the economy. Unless you have, oh, evidence other than your opinion for this, I think I'm gonna go with reality on this one and call your opinion unnecessary and untrue. Thanks.

    On Sara Palin: "That woman...is an Idiot." -- Keith Olbermann

    by allergywoman on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:43:36 PM PST

    •  Obama shares some of the blame for Dem losses (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OHdog

      he should have been better at pushing an agenda a marketing his successes.

      I am proud to live in a nation that hasn't practiced torture since 1/20/2009 - I just wish this alone didn't justify celebrating.

      by RethinkEverything on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:45:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  whistling past the graveyard (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      output

      so there's nothing the administration had or hadn't done that made an impact on 2010? Gimme a fucking break

      Visit Druggybear's Den: www.druggybear.com

      by Druggy Bear on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:55:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And reading comprehension isn't your friend. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        flhiii88

        I see. You just make stuff up I didn't say and critique it? Wow. Must make your life easier...and the lives of everyone else around you harder.

        I said, as the polling shows, that the main reason the Ds failed was R obstructionism (and R cash buying lies, too). Can you show otherwise?

        Yeah. Didn't think so.

        On Sara Palin: "That woman...is an Idiot." -- Keith Olbermann

        by allergywoman on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 03:24:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  let's see your poll then (0+ / 0-)

          that shows that voters blame republican obstructionism so much they.... elected more republicans.

          "Can you show otherwise"

          the burden's on you, I'm supposed to prove a negative? fuck off

          Visit Druggybear's Den: www.druggybear.com

          by Druggy Bear on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:27:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Rahm's already gone, making decision difficult! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfdunphy, khereva, output, Druggy Bear

    What Obama needs to do is get return campaign team who got him there to remind him that part of his job as a president is messaging.  I firmly believe that if (1) he had given up on the elusive dream of bipartisanship so real, meaningful change could have happened and (2) he kept campaign-level messaging to communicate what was happening we would have retained the house and he would be looking pretty good right now.  He still hasn't either recognized or figured out how to counter the RW noise machine to effectively govern.  Once he does, look out!

    I am proud to live in a nation that hasn't practiced torture since 1/20/2009 - I just wish this alone didn't justify celebrating.

    by RethinkEverything on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:43:44 PM PST

  •  Two weeks after the election the White house (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfdunphy, Druggy Bear

    starts touting the great new advantages we will be receiving from Health Care Reform. That is 6 weeks too late. The messaging from the administration has been consistently too little and too late. Of course the media doesn't help but members of the admin and Democratic leadership were on shows answering the slanted questions instead of ignoring the hosts and spelling out the good things they had passed. The assholes on the other side sure do that enough and effectively but the boys from Chicago don't seem to have a clue.

    Americans will make sacrifices but refuse to be sacrificed on the alter of the rich.

    by OHdog on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 02:01:07 PM PST

  •  How about some generals who are only (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jabney, historys mysteries

    producing war-prolonging stalemates?

  •  i know he's already gone, but can (0+ / 0-)

    we please fire rahm emmanuel anyway?

    msnbc = fox = bullshit

    by output on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 02:48:33 PM PST

  •  Valerie Jarrett (0+ / 0-)

    and people like that that make him too partisan and push him too far to the left. Then he should bring in moderates like Evan Bayh... and maybe a Republican or two.

    He needs to signal to independents that he heard their message in the midterms and is going to be more moderate and bipartisan.

    What really needed to happen is not just a move to the center in the Obama admin, but for Pelosi and Reid to go.

    The democratic party is in the same position as it was before Clinton and after Clinton's first two years, too far left of the voters. Obama needs to do what Clinton did and pivot to the center or he will not be reelected.

  •  I think it's way more complicated than blaming (0+ / 0-)
    the president for this "shellacking."  What about the Citizens United decision?  What about right wing media (which includes most of the media except for a few programs on MSNBC in the evening)?  What about Palin's hateful and divisive tweets being newsworthy?  Of course I agree Geithner never should have had the position in the first place.  But I don't agree that getting rid of cabinet members will prevent another shellacking in the future.  If we can't get our message out through the corporate owned media, we're in trouble.
  •  Geitner never gets criticized... (0+ / 0-)

    ...by Republicans.  Isn't this interesting?  In their mania for trashing all things and people related to President Obama, the GOP always gives Geitner a pass. Has anyone here ever read anything critical of Geitner that didn't come from a liberal blog?  

    •  Because the public doesn't know who he is. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cas2

      The Repubs target those that the public actually know: Obama, Pelosi, etc.  Really, nobody but the anti-capitalists care about Geithner and hold him out as evil personified.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site