Brokaw Ignores Obama's FDR-Like Refusal to Work With Bush Economic Team

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

Though given a perfect opportunity to do so, Tom Brokaw on Sunday chose not to discuss the similarities between Franklin D. Roosevelt's refusal to work with President Herbert Hoover on solving the Depression before he was inaugurated in March 1933 and president-elect Barack Obama doing the same thing today with George W. Bush.

For those not familiar with the historical reference, the financial crisis at the time of the 1932 elections was so bad that banks were failing on almost a daily basis. As a result, Hoover felt the country couldn't wait until March when inaugurations used to take place to hear what Roosevelt's plan was to solve these problems, and wanted FDR and his economic team to come to the White House in order to work some things out together.

Sadly, Roosevelt refused, and although he claimed it was so that his hands wouldn't be tied once he officially became president, some historians feel FDR's delay was designed to allow the crisis to deepen so that it would become easier for him to get his policy proposals passed.

On Sunday's "Meet the Press," the fact that President Bush wants to work with Obama and his team concerning the financial crisis surfaced in discussion with former Reagan treasury secretary James Baker and former Clinton commerce secretary Bill Daley. Unfortunately, Brokaw chose not to address this seemingly-important historical comparison and precedent (video embedded below the fold, relevant section begins at 6:15, file photo):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

JAMES BAKER: I think that a lot of what we're seeing out there today is a lack of confidence, and the president-elect and, as a matter of fact, the current president have to face this problem over the next 60 days. It's unfortunate that we're in this interregnum of a transition, but I think that something very useful might even come out of the two of them sitting down together and addressing not the, not the midterm, not the mid and long-term problem that we face that was the subject of the president-elect's speech, but the--but facing--but addressing stability of our financial system and to see if there isn't something that they could do jointly, together, over the next 58 to 60 days that would help us make sure that the--that the financial system is stabilized and, and secure. Because if that goes under, then this thing is even, believe it or not, going to get worse. And I think just the mere fact of their sitting down together and seeing if there's not one thing that they could come together on would do a lot to restore confidence and, and remove the anxiety and fear that's out there.

TOM BROKAW, HOST: Mr. Daley, I know there's some wariness on the part of your team about getting too close to the outgoing administration, taking ownership, in effect, of some of the policies that they believe that have failed. But isn't that a reasonable idea?

WILLIAM DALEY: Well, I think the--what you've seen is probably the, the best transition by, by President Bush of any administration outgoing. There has been great coordination, great discussions between President-elect Obama's team, the president-elect himself, and the secretary of Treasury and the, and the Fed. So there's a lot of interaction going on.

I, I agree with Secretary Baker that confidence is what's lacking. Senator Obama, in his address yesterday, put forward a very positive program. He is appreciative of President Bush's consultations with him, and they will continue that. No question, this 60-day period is, in, in some ways, is an opportunity to get a team together, get a plan together to act. We only have one president during that period, but there is great consultation going on. And, and, and all the major decisions that this, this administration is moving on, they are consulting. And as President-elect Obama's team gets put together, starting tomorrow, they'll be a greater opportunity for--to work even closer.

MR. BROKAW: You've walked all the way around the simple question, however.

MR. DALEY: Yeah.

MR. BROKAW: Secretary Baker...

MR. BAKER: Tom, Tom, I agree.

MR. BROKAW: Anyway, secretary...

MR. BAKER: I agree. I agree 100 percent. We can only have one president at a time, but nothing would do more to create confidence and, and eliminate the fear and anxiety that's out there, particularly in the finance--in financial markets, than to see the incoming president and the outgoing president get together on a--on some sort of a proposal or, or program over the short term. I'm not talking about the, the mid, the mid-term or, or long-term correction of the economy, but something that would do a little more perhaps to make sure that our, that our banks don't continue to slide down and, and that would stabilize our financial system, which is critical.

MR. BROKAW: So if the--President-elect Obama came to you and said, "Bill, what do you think? Should I go meet at the White House if we have sherpas in advance work something out?" Do you think that that's a...

MR. DALEY: I, I, I don't think there's a, a meeting that's going to give the confidence that Jim is talking about. I think what's going to take place is you're going to have the confidence by the actions of this administration in consultation with the president-elect, in--and then President-elect Obama, as he has done, telling his team, "Quickly, in 60 days, put together a plan that we can pass, even before I become president." That's the sort of aggressive leadership that I think President Obama's going to give. And I think the markets, as shown by Friday's action, maybe, indicate that there is some belief that, as his team gets appointed and they then develop a plan, that we're going to begin to see some confidence come back into the--and there, this is a difficult period, no doubt about it, in this transition period, but the administration is also, as I understand it from press reports, moving very quickly to possibly even change the plans that they've put forward at this point.

MR. BAKER: The appointment...

MR. BROKAW: Here, here is part of the problem as I see it.

MR. BAKER: The appointment of the team...

MR. BROKAW: Go ahead.

MR. BAKER: Tom, the appointment of the team did, the appointment of the team did, did stabilize things for a day or so, and Bill's quite right about that. And then when it's formally announced Monday, it may do so again. But I'm not sure that it's going to be enough to, to, to stop the problem. And, and, boy, nothing would do more. And, and the president-elect would not have to take ownership. This would be a joint program, and it would only--it would be limited to trying to do further stabilization of the financial system only.

Exactly. Seems to make a lot of sense, doesn't it? And, as Brokaw appeared to agree with Baker, this could have been the perfect opportunity to bring up the FDR-Hoover precedent, and ask Daley whether Obama's reticence to work with Bush before inauguration day was because he and his team were secretly hoping the crisis worsens.

The absence of such a discussion was made even more absurd by the recent comments of Obama's future chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as my colleague Seton Motley reported Friday:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Was Brokaw ignorant of this precedent, and Emanuel's statements, or just looking to protect both Obama and FDR from such scrutiny?

That question seemed even more important as the panel discussion ensued in a later segment, and nobody else was interested in bringing up the FDR-Hoover precedent:

BROKAW: Chuck Todd, we heard former Secretary of the Treasury Jim Baker, former secretary of state, a wise man in the Republican Party, announce today that he thinks that Barack Obama and President Bush should get together before the inauguration with some kind of a symbolic act to try to shore up confidence in this country.

CHUCK TODD, NBC: Well, it's interesting, and, and what I'll be curious to see is what Republicans will jump on that bandwagon and say let's do something. And maybe the symbolic act is what you asked him about in particular, asked Bill Daley about it, about getting Timothy Geithner in place now. You know, don't wait until January 20th. What's been interesting about watching Barack Obama during this transition is he wanted to hold off on, on doing this economic team.

There was a lot of, of sort of, of political advice he was getting: "Hold off, don't take, don't take control of this economy just yet. Don't..." And yet, a lot of Wall Street folks got to him and said, "No, get on this now. Hurry up and inspire confidence." What Baker outlined, I could absolutely see in the next couple weeks influencing Obama and saying, "You know what? Maybe I will sign on to something."

Might have been another opportunity to bring up the FDR-Hoover precedent, and whether or not the political advice Todd said Obama was receiving was indeed to follow this model and allow the crisis to deepen.

Sadly, not only didn't it go in this direction, but another panelist actually chided Baker for making such a bipartisan suggestion:

MR. BROKAW: Good idea, Gene Robinson?

EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST: Well, I, I think it's a good idea. I--but I think it was extraordinary to hear Jim Baker, the, the Republican eminence grise, essentially call on George Bush to, to share power, Republican president to, to effectively step down early and, and hand over the reins to the president-elect as a way of, of reassuring the, the market and the economy.

MR. BROKAW: I'm not sure he was going quite that far, but.

MR. ROBINSON: Well, well, but almost. And, you know, the--I mean, he is still president.

MR. BROKAW: Right.

MR. ROBINSON: And, and as, as Bill Daley was saying, George, George Bush--there are things he can do now, yet he does not have the credibility in the market, or I think in the, in the, in the country to, to get--to bring about that sort of confidence right now.

Well, maybe he doesn't, which presents a perfect opportunity for the president-elect and his team to participate in joint meetings with Bush in order "to bring about that sort of confidence right now."

Unfortunately, nobody wanted discuss whether Obama and his team actually want such confidence to emerge yet, or if they're emulating FDR and secretly hoping the crisis worsens.

I wonder why.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

OK...that's it!!  I

OK...that's it!! 

I can't believe I lasted this long, today.

My head just exploded.

 

Oh crap, I'm an hour to

Oh crap, I'm an hour to late!!!

http://www.rpconline...

Obama should NOT interject

Obama should NOT interject himself (he's NOT president) on his own, BUT if President Bush is requesting that they come together and have talks, then Obama should do that.  After all, he is going to be President.

If he doesn't do it, yet it's requested that he does, then he's not putting America first and is more interested in trying to ensure his hands are completely clean, and likely doing what FDR did to later get the American sheeple to go along with any idea he presents.  I already expect that he's not going to put America first, above politics.  The latter two (clean hands and FDR-like standback) are disgusting.  NOT that he can fix anything, but surely in his mind he thinks he can.  Any incoming president would.

Brokaw and Co. won't bring up the FDR-like similarities in this or anything else that FDR did that didn't work in a perceived "successful" way, but they'll fall over themselves trying to be the first to compare the Messiah to any perceived "successful" action that FDR took.  On that you can be CERTAIN.

To Greg E

"If he doesn't do it, yet it's requested that he does, then he's not putting America first"

When has "that one" EVER put America first?  NEVER.  His political career and his cronies are the important things to consider, not our country (which is going down the drain.)

 

"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"

Forget that BO is

Forget that BO is "President-elect."

If the President asks a private citizen to consult on national issues, who would refuse? Who could refuse, and still claim to "love their country?"

For a President-elect to refuse, that's just pure, same-old-same-old political BULLSH*T!

Some "change." Even more partisan crap. Surprise, surprise.

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

Glad you could watch this

Glad you could watch this Noel and let us out here know what transpired on the show today regrading the market and the situation between O and Bush...I just could not do it this morning, I simply cannot take Brokaw let alone dim bulbs like Robinson or his asinine opinions, which the usually always are.

As far as I am concerned, the O team will announce about Summers and whats his name that he already mentioned Friday, see what the stock is going to do, have cover for their arses, with the msm protecting/agreeing with O all the way, proceed to leave all alone until O takes office...all the while hoping for the worst.

Pelosi and Reid know they don't have the votes for the Big 3 IMHO, they want a bigger dive in the market, they can implement more socialistic programs, ram anything through hey want, they will have the power, they all know it...and leave it to the msm to make O a hero with more rules/regulations(Waxman) on businesses, paybacks for the unions and greenies...and to hell with us out here who are going to suffer...

Smile...be happy...that is the picture the msm is going to attempt to paint.

As far as I am concerned we are in for a big downfall, Brokaw is of the same ilk, wanting this very scenario, of course he isn't going to delve where he should...not when he agrees and has the same agenda for the eventual socialistic outcome, far worse than this country has ever seen, they want people at their mercy...all the while acting like the govt. is the only one you can depend on...while the hard-working men are women are the very people paying the way for the rest of them.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

BT

BT, 

I'm not sure I agree that Brokaw wants the financial crisis to get worse all because it might benefit Obama. Believe me, there is just as much concern for the economy and stocks from liberal elites as the rest of us. These folks have 401(k)s and investments just like we do, and they've seen their fortunes plummet in the last two months.

As such, I think these people would just as soon see solutions offered now that might slow this collapse down rather than waiting until January 20.  ns

Well, Noel,

I'm sure the average, "person-in-the-street" liberal Obama-voter would like to see this market rebound sooner rather than later. Problem is, the liberal elite leaders (all the way to the top, that is) are only interested in making political hay out of this crisis, avoiding blame now, and taking credit later.

They don't want a solution that can ever be tied to Bush in any way. It has to wait until Obama's in office. That's my take, anyway, and I don't see any indication that it's not true.

If Brokaw really wanted Obama to do something now, why would he avoid addressing it, given this golden opportunity to do so? He can't be afraid of "opinionating," it's a little late for that.

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

IJ

IJ,

In a normal bear market and recession, I would agree with you. However, I think even these elites right now are scared to death just like we are, and aren't interested in sacrificing their financial security for any politician.

Remember, these folks are all hypocrites. They want taxes raised on everybody else, but take every deduction possible. At the same time, they donate far less to charity as a percentage of their income than conservatives.

As such, these are the really greedy in our society, and if they believe their fortunes are at risk, they're NOT going to sacrifice their money for their political agendas. JMHO. ns

Greed was on display the other day and everyday.

Noel,

The really greedy ones are the ones who fly their jets into town for a handout.

You seem to be well educated and positioned in society with no real worry on your overall well-being. You probably have some of the problems of the rich (i.e. college tuition costs, return on your investments, 401k plans, etc.) as opposed to the problems of the poor (no healthcare, part of the "system", no investments, no job, too many mouths to feed, etc.)...

Why wouldn't you be considered an "elitist" by some members of the population?

Are you an elitist without the attitude?

Are you similiar to Bush propagating the commoner persona, denying his elitist roots, when needed to push his agenda?

Übercon

being an "elitist" isn't about money

It's an attitude that you are better than others and should be able to tell them how to live their lives because you assume they are too stupid to manage on their own.

"Elitists" come in many income levels and just about all education levels. 

Dee (and Uber)

"Are you an elitist without the attitude?"

To echo Dee's point, if Noel's an "elitist" without an attitude, Noel's not an elitist.

"It's an attitude that you are better than others and should be able to tell them how to live their lives because you assume they are too stupid to manage on their own."

My liberal brother comes to mind, not to mention some other liberals I have the misfortune to know, who always feel compelled to give me unsolicited life advice and "worry so much" about me.

 

You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!

 

Hmmm...food for thought, thanks.

Mr. Shy & Dee,

"It's an attitude that you are better than others and should be able
to tell them how to live their lives because you assume they are too
stupid to manage on their own."

And if you can make money from telling them how to manage their lives is icing on the cake!

"Once he started working with Merrill Lynch’s options arbitrage
division, Noel began years of exhaustive research into economic, trend,
and technical analysis. His forte was correlating economic data with
commodity price fluctuations in order to forecast Federal Reserve
monetary policy as well as the direction of bonds, interest rates, and
currency and equity valuations.

"Eventually, Noel became a financial consultant, a branch vice
president for a bank, and, finally,
started his own legal and financial
estate planning family of companies
with offices in Northern and
Southern California."

Thanks for underlining my point.

Übercon

Why is FDR/Hoover link so important to you, Noel?

Noel,

How much have you lost in the Markets? What type of blame would you lump onto the new Admin. if they couldn't pull off what you wanted them to do? As an economist, what would you want to see happen in the next 60 days that could restore a bit of confidence in the markets? If the markets were to stabilize and your stock rose to a certain level, would you cash out? What do you want Noel?  Are your motives for the good of the Nation or your own self interest?

Übercon

why is james baker talking to this idiot?

probably smarter and more experienced than anyone in o's cabinet. m.r. baker, don't waste your breath on these idiots. i can't wait for whats going to happen. the only question is to what lenghts the msm will go to protect "the one". the office is called"the most powerful man in the world". but, history has shown that short of starting a major war, really has limited power after all. i think that this is one time that the limited attention span of the public will be of use."where's my check","where's my job" they won't want any excuses when they're hungry...   

"What's been interesting

"What's been interesting about watching Barack Obama during this transition is he wanted to hold off on, on doing this economic team."

Sure, "interesting." We got talk about COS, SecState, HHS, and DHS, to name a few. But practically nothing about SecTreas or anything to do with the worst crisis we're currently facing. Yeah, you could call it "interesting."

I call it craven opportunism, a willingness to let our economy crash and burn for political gain, and a total lack of responsible action by the next "leader of the free world." But I'm funny that way.

Since BO seems to be wanting to follow directly in FDR's footsteps (Time would have never run that cover if he hadn't approved), how long do you suppose before he declares war on Japan?

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

"Unfortunately, Brokaw

"Unfortunately, Brokaw chose not to address this seemingly-important historical comparison and precedent"

 You forget the obvious.  Brokaw is an esteemed member of the MSM.  Which means that he is both mentally challenged and only semi-literate.  Which means that it is doubtful he even knows who FDR was.

At some point in the future

At some point in the future when the wheels begin to come off the Obama financial plan, he will contend that he did in fact consult with the Bush Administration, but was given faulty information.

By the way, does anyone remember the abundance of cooperation during the Clinton/Bush transistion?

Obama and the economy

I don't think there is any doubt Obama knows he has a super large bucket of worms and that it is mostly his partys fault. I also don't think he wants to do anything that cannot be blamed on Bush. His staff "leaked" a report last week that he would say nothing about the auto bailout until after the inauguration, so believeable was this to Reid/Pelosi/Dodd that Reid and Pelosi sent the congress on vacation and Dodd is quoted as saying "he could assure...that there would be no statements by the Pres.-elect until Jan.21". The next day there were a number of reports about the Obama plan for Big 3 Bankruptcy and other things. Now he obfuscates to his own party as bhe has obfuscated to the general population....not a good start and one likely to cause more harm in the future....if you cannot trust his word how do you vote for his policies?

Hoover helped cause the Great Depression!

Hoover was a protectionist, raised tariffs (Smoot-Hawley), tried to fix prices, subsidized parts of the economy, banned short sellers, expanded public works, weakened bankrupcy laws, tried to keep wages high, moved to have the Fed save failing banks and expand credit, increased the fiscal burden of Government..

America's Great Depression (PDF) (368 pgs) (Murray Rothbard, Ph.D. Economics, 5th Edition, 2000

 

Censored Global Warming Videos

Thanks, PopT!

...It sounds like history is repeating itself.

Übercon