So... what to do about Tom Daschle?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

BREAKING NEWS: As I was writing this post, this came along the wire: "Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination to be Health and Human Services secretary."

Two questions:

First, what's up with Obama nominees and tax problems? First it was Geithner (confirmed), then it was Daschle (still in progress), and now it's Nancy Killefer, Obama's pick to be chief performance officer, who withdrew her nomination earlier today.

I suppose it has to do not specifically with being an Obama nominee but with being a successful public figure, or successful generally. A question to which I do not know the answer is this: Is the rate of tax problems -- to put it euphemistically -- higher among the upper class of political, business, and other of society's more visible leaders than it is among the general populace? Or does it only appear to be because there is greater scrutiny of society's upper classes? (Obviously, Geithner isn't alone in having made mistakes. If anything, his problem showed that he is, in this respect, a lot like a lot of people far lower down society's hierarchy. His mistake, after all, was nothing if not common, one imagines.)

But enough of that.

Second, what should happen to Daschle? Or, put another way, what should Daschle do, either on his own or at the urging of, say, the president? Should he withdraw his nomination, as both far-right Republican Sen. Jim DeMint and the editors of the NYT would have him do, or should he stay and fight it out, claiming (perhaps correctly) that his tax problem is just a simple mistake even as, on another front (a closely related one), rather disturbing news keeps coming out about his connection to, and support for, Leo Hindery, a key Daschle fundraiser, media mogul, and equity fund chief for whom Daschle worked (and who supplied him with the car and driver at the center of his tax problem)? For now, he is staying and fighting, but for how long, who knows? His Democratic allies, as well as Obama, are behind him for the time being, but they'll jump ship if this gets much uglier.

In Glenn Greenwald's view, Daschle is a frequent feeder at the Beltway trough: "He embodies everything that is sleazy, sickly, and soul-less about Washington. It's probably impossible for Obama to fill his cabinet with individuals entirely free of Beltway filth -- it's extremely rare to get anywhere near that system without being infected by it -- but Daschle oozes Beltway slime from every pore." Ouch. (To quote Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, as Glenn does: "In Washington there are whores and there are whores, and then there is Tom Daschle." Double ouch.)

This may be overstating it a bit -- but, if it is, it's not by much. Daschle is a long-time Washington player, as is his wife Linda. "There's no evidence they did anything illegal, but it is still blatantly sleazy and corrupt." The Daschles are like many others in Washington, high-ranking public servants who use their connections to profit in the private sector: "Other than his being more extreme than most, and the fact that he and his wife work in tandem as a public-private team, there isn't anything particularly unusual about how Tom Daschle functions. He's quite emblematic of the Beltway syndrome." (Make sure to read Glenn's post for the sordid details.)

And yet.

Over the weekend, Edward Copeland argued that it was time for Obama to let Daschle go -- and that was only on account of Daschle's tax (and Hindery) problem, not because of his long history of (legal) corruption. I'm not quite there yet, though, I must admit, the more I look into Daschle's Beltway profiteering the less I like him and the more I wouldn't mind seeing him dropped from Obama's team. At The Plank, Eve Fairbanks suggests that it is Daschle's "thoughtlessness" that disqualifies him, but I don't agree. It's not his thoughtlessness, that is, his failure to pay taxes on the car and driver, that's the problem, it's his corruption, his profiteering at the very heart of what makes Washington such a loathsome place. (And, yes, Democrats can be just as bad as Republicans at playing the game -- or as good at it, depending on your perspective.)

And yet.

No, I'm still not there yet. I'm still willing to give Daschle, and Obama, the benefit of the doubt, pending further review. And the reason is this: Whatever you think of Daschle, this isn't about him as much as it is about health care reform. Like Jonathan Cohn, I favour universal coverage through a single-payer system, whereas Daschle "favors the mainstream Democratic position, which relies primarily on private insurance to deliver coverage," but, to me, Daschle seems to be the right person to lead the reform effort, and not least because of his many political connections in Washington. As Jonathan puts it, "he is genuinely offended by the way our health care system ruins the lives of countless Americans -- and genuinely committed to solving that problem, regardless of which special interests that solution may offend."

So let's wait and see. There are still questions to be answered. Given his senatorial past, Daschle should make it through the confirmation process intact. But that's assuming that nothing else, or not much more that is damaging, comes out.