White House

How About That Change ? ~ Jane Hamsher on Barack Obama and the Healthcare Debate

Barack Obama, Big Pharma, Billy Tauzin, Blue Dogs, Charles Grassley, Firedoglake, Healthcare Industry, Healthcare Reform, Howard Dean, Insurance Companies, Jane Hamsher, Kent Conrad, Max Baucus, Orrin Hatch, Public Option, Single -Payer

Danny Froomkin Pretty Much Says It All About The Last Eight Years of "Journalism"

Dan Froomkin, Washington Post, White House

Posted at 10:22 AM ET, 06/26/2009

White House Watched

WAPO DOT COM

Today’s column is my last for The Washington Post. And the first thing I want to say is thank you. Thank you to all you readers, e-mailers, commenters, questioners, Facebook friends and Twitterers for spending your time with me and engaging with me over the years. And thank you for the recent outpouring of support. It was extraordinarily uplifting, and I’m deeply grateful. If I ever had any doubt, your words have further inspired me to continue doing accountability journalism. My plan is to take a few weeks off before embarking upon my next endeavor — but when I do, I hope you’ll join me.

It’s hard to summarize the past five and a half years. But I’ll try.

I started my column in January 2004, and one dominant theme quickly emerged: That George W. Bush was truly the proverbial emperor with no clothes. In the days and weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, the nation, including the media, vested him with abilities he didn’t have and credibility he didn’t deserve. As it happens, it was on the day of my very first column that we also got the first insider look at the Bush White House, via Ron Suskind’s book, The Price of Loyalty. In it, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill described a disengaged president “like a blind man in a room full of deaf people”, encircled by “a Praetorian guard,” intently looking for a way to overthrow Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. The ensuing five years and 1,088 columns really just fleshed out that portrait, describing a president who was oblivious, embubbled and untrustworthy.

When I look back on the Bush years, I think of the lies. There were so many. Lies about the war and lies to cover up the lies about the war. Lies about torture and surveillance. Lies about Valerie Plame. Vice President Dick Cheney’s lies, criminally prosecutable but for his chief of staff Scooter Libby’s lies. I also think about the extraordinary and fundamentally cancerous expansion of executive power that led to violations of our laws and our principles.

And while this wasn’t as readily apparent until President Obama took office, it’s now very clear that the Bush years were all about kicking the can down the road – either ignoring problems or, even worse, creating them and not solving them. This was true of a huge range of issues including the economy, energy, health care, global warming – and of course Iraq and Afghanistan.

How did the media cover it all? Not well. Reading pretty much everything that was written about Bush on a daily basis, as I did, one could certainly see the major themes emerging. But by and large, mainstream-media journalism missed the real Bush story for way too long. The handful of people who did exceptional investigative reporting during this era really deserve our gratitude: People such as Ron Suskind, Seymour Hersh, Jane Mayer, Murray Waas, Michael Massing, Mark Danner, Barton Gellman and Jo Becker, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau (better late than never), Dana Priest, Walter Pincus, Charlie Savage and Philippe Sands; there was also some fine investigative blogging over at Talking Points Memo and by Marcy Wheeler. Notably not on this list: The likes of Bob Woodward and Tim Russert. Hopefully, the next time the nation faces a grave national security crisis, we will listen to the people who were right, not the people who were wrong, and heed those who reported the truth, not those who served as stenographers to liars.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that there is so very much about the Bush era that we still don’t know.

Now, a little over five months after Bush left office, Barack Obama’s presidency is shaping up to be in large part about coming to terms with the Bush era, and fixing all the things that were broken. In most cases, Obama is approaching this task enthusiastically – although in some cases, he is doing so only under great pressure, and in a few cases, not at all . I think part of Obama’s abiding popularity with the public stems from what a contrast he is from his predecessor — and in particular his willingness to take on problems. But he certainly has a lot of balls in the air at one time. And I predict that his growing penchant for secrecy – especially but not only when it comes to the Bush legacy of torture and lawbreaking – will end up serving him poorly, unless he renounces it soon.

Obama is nowhere in Bush’s league when it comes to issues of credibility, but his every action nevertheless needs to be carefully scrutinized by the media, and he must be held accountable. We should be holding him to the highest standards – and there are plenty of places where we should be pushing back. Just for starters, there are a lot of hugely important but unanswered questions about his Afghanistan policy, his financial rescue plans, and his turnaround on transparency.

So now I’m off. I wish The Washington Post well. I’m proud to have been associated with it for 12 years (I was a producer and editor at the Web site before starting the column.) I remain a big believer in the “traditional media,” especially when it sticks to traditional journalistic values. The Post was, is and will always be a great newspaper, and I have confidence that it will rise to the challenges ahead.

I’ll be announcing my next move soon on whitehousewatch.com and also to anyone who e-mails me at froomkin@gmail.com. Please stay in touch.

//

By Dan Froomkin  |  June 26, 2009; 10:22 AM ET  |  Permalink |  Comments (414)

John Tully | Tullycast Memo

Albritton Communications, Anne-Marie Cox, Beltway Media, Bill Kristol, Chuck Todd, Deficit Hawks, Ed Henry, Hate Game, Hillary Clinton, Jake Tapper, Maureen Dowd, Media, Politico, Politics, Real Time, Rick Santelli, Robert Gibbs, Tom Cruise, Tom Friedman, Tullycast Memo, Wall Street, White House Correspondents

Politico Becomes Official Shit-Stirrer of Obama Administration

Beltway Groupthink, DC Press, Jonathan Martin, Nancy Pelosi, Politico, Rahm Emmanuel, Steny Hoyer

Pelosi lays down the law with Rahm
By: John Bresnahan

December 16, 2008

bama
In a recent conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel offered some advice on a Democratic House leadership race. Pelosi’s response, according to several Democratic sources: It is “an internal House Democratic Caucus matter, and we’ll handle it.”

Democratic insiders say there’s no animosity between Pelosi and Emanuel, who’s leaving his post as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus to become the next White House chief of staff.

But the speaker is laying down the law nonetheless.

In talks with Emanuel and others, sources say, Pelosi has “set parameters” for what she wants from Barack Obama and his White House staff — no surprises, and no backdoor efforts to go around her and other Democratic leaders by cutting deals with moderate New Democrats or conservative Blue Dogs.

Specifically, Pelosi has told Emanuel that she wants to know when representatives of the incoming administration have any contact with her rank-and-file Democrats — and why, sources say.

During the Bush years, the White House set policy, and Republicans on Capitol Hill were expected to follow it. Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) occasionally lashed out at former White House chief of staff Andy Card or other senior administration aides when he felt they had gone too far. But in general, Republican lawmakers followed Bush’s lead on every major legislative battle, from Iraq to tax and spending bills to anti-terror policies. With the exception of immigration reform, the House fight over the $700 billion Wall Street bailout package and last week’s meltdown over a bailout for the Big Three automakers, Bush got what he wanted from Congress, especially within his own party.

Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are signaling that they won’t tolerate a repeat with a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate.

Pelosi “is not going to allow Obama to triangulate her,” said a Democratic source close to the leadership. “It’s not going to happen to her.”

Pelosi’s mantra, in a way, is “no surprises.” The speaker wants to be told when Reid is communicating with the Blue Dogs or other factions with her caucus, and she expects the same from Obama when he arrives in the Oval Office, said Democratic sources.

“We certainly are in frequent communication with the [Obama] transition team,” said Brendan Daly, Pelosi’s communications director. Daly noted that Pelosi and Emanuel have long-standing ties — she appointed him to head up the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at the start of 2005 — and added that Emanuel often speaks directly with John Lawrence, Pelosi’s chief of staff.

Daly said Pelosi will work closely with Obama and Reid to craft an economic stimulus package early next year, as well as other economic recovery legislation.

“She and President-elect Obama have the same goals,” Daly added. “It’s a matter of working together to get things done.”

Pelosi herself said the same about Obama in an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt last week, stating that “our priorities are the same about creating good-paying jobs.”

But it won’t always be that easy. Capitol Hill veterans predict that, no matter how much goodwill there is at the start of a new administration, there are always battles over policy and legislative priorities between the White House and Congress.

“There is tension. There is going to be tension,” said a Democratic veteran of Capitol Hill. “This is not Hastert. She wants to know what they are up to.”

The Emanuel-Pelosi relationship is a complex one that defies easy explanation. Emanuel was a rising star inside the Democratic Caucus — with many members convinced he would be speaker one day — until Obama tapped him for the West Wing job. In large part, Emanuel owed his rise to Pelosi, who put him in charge of the DCCC, where he helped lead the Democrats back to the House majority after 12 years out of power.

From the DCCC, Emanuel moved up to the chairmanship of the caucus. But both he and Pelosi had stocked the DCCC with their own loyalists after the 2006 election, and they both tried to influence campaign strategy as subtly as possible through these surrogates. At the same time, Emanuel was often jockeying with other members on major legislation, including immigration reform and the Wall Street bailout, but rarely without the speaker’s blessing.

Pelosi sometimes resisted Emanuel’s desire to always be on the attack, but she did respect his insight and his willingness to work hard to achieve legislative and political goals. She refused to back Emanuel when he made noises about running for majority whip, the post now held by Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.). But when Obama approached him about the chief of staff job, Emanuel consulted Pelosi first.

Yet the two will find themselves on different ends of Pennsylvania Avenue next year, and that will change the nature of their current relationship profoundly.

“Look, they have different goals now,” said an aide to one top Democrat. “Her job is to protect her members; his job is protect Obama. Those can’t always be the same thing.”

This source added: “I think they will do what they can to work together, but these are two strong-willed people who are used to getting their way. There’s bound to be some areas of disagreement. We’ll just have to see how they handle it.”