News that Elon Musk has told Tesla investors he plans to cut back on his destructive service to Donald Trump and pay more attention to his troubled company felt like a victory to many Democrats. But at New York I warned that it might not matter as much as we had hoped:
This has been one of Washington’s favorite games lately: When will Elon leave? The planted axiom is that Elon Musk’s bizarre and wildly destructive adventures as head of the shambolically established Department of Government Efficiency can’t last long, for multiple reasons.
First, his far-flung corporate empire could use more of his attention, and his extracurricular activities haven’t exactly helped his bottom line (notably at Tesla, where public reaction to DOGE’s antics severely damaged the once-cool brand). Second, it’s assumed that infinitely large egos like Musk’s and Donald Trump’s (not to mention the other highly self-regarding MAGA veterans in the Trump Cabinet) cannot perpetually coexist in the same public and private space for very long, particularly since there are elements of the Trump 2.0 agenda, like his trade war, that may not enchant the chief bankroller of the 47th president’s 2024 campaign. Third, the incredible yet deliberately induced chaos that has been DOGE’s signature contribution to public administration must soon give way to some sort of sustainable operating model for delivering benefits and services. And fourth, Musk’s own lagging popularity (punctuated by the defeat of a Republican judicial candidate in Wisconsin whom Musk had bankrolled and personally campaigned for) isn’t helping the Boss’s own gradually eroding job-approval numbers.
But assuming Musk’s days at the helm of DOGE are numbered (his original appointment as a “special government employee” expires next month, and the entire DOGE operation is supposed to wrap up in July of next year), can his minions sojourn on without him?
They probably can. DOGE employees are now routinely “embedded” in federal agencies, typically at the very peak of the administrative pyramid and with top-shelf access to the all-important data. They are typically working hand-in-glove with Trump political appointees who share their deep hostility to agency missions and to career civil servants. In many parts of the federal bureaucracy, the mid-level managers that might push back against DOGE demolition efforts are already gone or are so terrified of losing their jobs that they do exactly what DOGE staffers tell them to do. They no longer need much adult supervision.
Perhaps just as importantly, there is a powerful permanent institution in the Trump administration that shares DOGE’s hatred of the “deep state” and is much better equipped to manage a gradual transition from slash-and-burn cuts in spending and personnel to a regularized if downsized bureaucracy devoted to the administration’s policy goals. That would be the Office of Management and Budget and its director, Project 2025 co-author and Christian nationalist zealot Russell Vought.
Vought formed an alliance with Musk shortly after the 2024 election, when DOGE was just an evil glimmer in the Tech Bro’s eye, based on their shared vision of a vast purge of the bureaucracy to root out non-MAGA influences and blow up programs and policies that did not serve the reactionary cultural and economic agenda of Trump 2.0. And the deeply experienced OMB director has almost certainly played a key role behind the scenes in coordinating DOGE’s raids on federal agencies with OMB’s plans and harmonizing both with what the administration is demanding from its congressional allies. Vought is the “glue guy,” to use a sports metaphor, who keeps the team together. And his authority will likely expand if Musk leaves Washington, as Bloomberg’s Max Chafkin explained earlier this week:
“A Trump administration official, who requested anonymity to share internal discussions, says Vought is widely perceived as preparing to pick up wherever Musk leaves off. Where Musk has shown a zeal for smash and grab, Vought has the institutional knowledge—and perhaps the patience—to make the DOGE cuts stick. Vought, this person says, ‘is waiting in the wings.’”
Unlike Musk, Vought knows the federal government’s many nooks and crannies like the back of his hand and is perfectly positioned to deploy Musk’s orphaned raiders in a much more coordinated campaign to take DOGE and its hollowed-out agency hosts to the next level (or, in the eyes of their victims, the next level of hell). They don’t need their turbulent creator around with his attention-grabbing habits and over-the-top cartoon-villain malevolence. Vought’s dull knife will cut even deeper than Musk’s chain saw, and a lot less noisily.
> Bush and Cheney are increasingly desperate. So their
> rhetoric will be increasingly shrill and over-the-top.
> They have painted themselves in a corner with their
> scare campaign.
I think the Kerry camp needs to be careful in the final debate. They’re saying the subject (domestic issues) should favor the Dems, but a *lot* of observers are saying “Shrub” actually fared better in debate#2 than when he had to defend his failed Iraq strategy.
—
My fear is “Shrub” and the GOP will try to exploit the usual cultural wedge issues in the final debate, and Kerry will give some vague Dukakis-esque responses. Maybe they will accuse the Democrats of banning the bible and requiring men to marry other men… It’s what they do when their Iraq policy is in shambles, there are fewer jobs than four years ago and the federal government is drowning in red ink thanks to the tax cuts.
MARCU$
Mimikatz, you wrote:
I think that Bush really damaged himself with undecided women in the second debate. His demeanor in the first half was the sort of swaggering, cocksure braggart that most women detest. He was rude to many of the questioners, particularly the older man who asked about drug reimportation and the last woman, who asked about his mistakes. Women tend to be more attuned to social niceties. Third, the abortion question. Of course rabid pro-life women would go for Bush. But his refusal to understand any nuances to that issue, and his favoring the fetus at the expense of the mother’s health or even her life, had to make many women cringe. Expect to see Kerry rise a few points in the next polls because of this.
Posted by Mimikatz at October 9, 2004 05:22 PM
===========================
I absolutely agree.
All the talking heads need to pull their HEADS out of their collective ass and look around. The ONLY voters who matter are those in the middle who are undecided or persuadeable. If oozing faux machismo would have won them, they wouldn’t be persuadeable now.
Many woman respond very negatively to men to exhibit the behaviors of Bush, mainly because most have been bullied by some similiar sounding male all too often. They know it instantly as the boyfriend or husband who was always going to have things his way, and wanted to shout down opposition. Or the boss, or the co-worker, or the husband of a friend.
Bush had to have lost all women who were anywhere near the fence.
I am predicting that Kerry will gain the lead from the second debate and not lose it again.
We should begin to see evidence of it tomorrow or Tuesday.
I think that Bush really damaged himself with undecided women in the second debate. His demeanor in the first half was the sort of swaggering, cocksure braggart that most women detest. He was rude to many of the questioners, particularly the older man who asked about drug reimportation and the last woman, who asked about his mistakes. Women tend to be more attuned to social niceties. Third, the abortion question. Of course rabid pro-life women would go for Bush. But his refusal to understand any nuances to that issue, and his favoring the fetus at the expense of the mother’s health or even her life, had to make many women cringe. Expect to see Kerry rise a few points in the next polls because of this.
RE: Angry Man
Between the blatant lies and the anger Bush’s public persona is morphing from “Someone you would like to have a beer with”* to Richard Nixon.
*I am only quoting the spin, I always thought that line was a load of nonsense
Two points.
1. Bush and Cheney are increasingly desperate. So their rhetoric will be increasingly shrill and over-the-top. They have painted themselves in a corner with their scare campaign.
2. In each debate there was an initial effort in the media to prop up Bush and Cheney’s performances. They quickly abandoned the effort in the first debate in the face of Bush’s obvious stumbling. With Cheney/Edwards and last night the effort is more resilient, but has weakened after time as the consensus pointed out reality. They are the incumbents defending a sorry record. They are defensive and angry. They insist they are right and their defense consists of outright lies or distortions or browbeating. All Kerry has to do is sound reasonable and truthful.
Expect them to now go back to the August formula – attack Kerry with lies and slander. But now people have seen and heard Kerry. That swiftboatliar won’t hunt.
It is disappointing that with such a strong performance by Kerry (better than the first debate, although the improvement in Bush was enormous), the polls wouldn’t show Kerry with a stronger win. The press will insist that it was a draw.
Kerry FINALLY introduced the point that the whole ‘wishy-washy’ (but he was talking about flipflops) issue was a mere spin. He needs to explain that more clearly.
The questions were also really favorable to Kerry. I really admired Kerry’s frankness with his “it’s not a matter of if but when” response to the question about another 9-11, but he should also have been more specific about the history (unsure when the 1993 attack and the following attack in E Africa he alluded to was? — chalk that up to tiredness). In my own mind, Kerry’s substantive forthrightness in answering that question contrasts with Bush’s “And he put a trial lawyer on the ticket” line. The irony of the latter is that trial lawyers are often resented as people who profit by demagogically appealing to juries in an emotional manipulative way — just like Bush was doing in his approach.
KERRY HAS GOT TO STOP USING THE WORD “PLAN” SO OFTEN. He needs to sharpen his attacks on Bush’s policies on health care as for the corporate interests.. He could have left Bush looking like an ogre in response to the environment question. He should take the opportunity as he lays into Bush in the last debate on either tax policy for the wealthy and/or pro-corporate health care policy to give a good NICE AND ACCURATELY HARSH picture of Bush the worst kind of stereotypical big business Republican and go into at least three or four specific environmental policies. Kyoto ISN’T winning him any points with the mainstream, although I support it. How he has made backroom deals with corporations that even the Republicans wouldn’t pass thru Congress and then name SEVERAL NEW ones: mercury policy should be specifically described, as well as one or two other horror stories like that.
On jobs, Bush keeps citing the 1.9 million figure. That is his BEST(and only) year of job growth, after massive declines, and it’s worse than the AVERAGE year of 8 years of Clinton. That punches Bush down at his main point on that issue.
It doesn’t even keep up with the growth of the potential job market.
He was a little confusing at the key point on how he had been consistent on the Patriot Act — the issue of being a flipflopper and explaining how he isn’t is probably more important than the issues of the Patriot Act as far as winning the elections. Kerry focuses on the issues — Bush on winning the election. But still, Kerry had a slightly better demeanor than Bush and was MUCH stronger on the substance. He answered the questions and devastated Bush’s arguments. The polls should (have) reflected that — though perhaps the talking heads (with the conservatives insisting it was a big win for Bush and the liberals taking a balanced approach of a narrow win for Kerry) have an impact.
Lookin’ good for K/E, but I’m still waiting for an Oct surprise(s). Read the Atlantic Monthly essay on Karl Rove if you don’t understand my anxieties.
Bush gave tired excuses for poor performances. He did not appear to have a real grasp of either Foreign Policy or Domestic issues.
Paul C. is right. Bush came off like a raving lunatic for the first 45 minutes. However, I thought Bush got the better of JK on the domestic issues, where his folksy, simple-minded stuff came across more succinctly than Kerry’s thoughtful, but long-winded responses.
Most people aren’t smart enough to follow along with complex lines of political reasoning, so I hope Kerry can sort of sharpen his domestic stuff before next Wed.
Thanks for the news on independents.
Bush did much better this time than last, but I still think that the main dynamic of the debates is to demolish the straw man that the Republicans have constructed. Kerry comes across as reasonable and presidential. Which he is. That completely undermines the Republican attacks. In contrast, there’s not a lot that Bush can do to undermine the Democratic attacks.
I am sure that Kerry beat Bush by 10 to 1 among people who only watched the first half hour of the debate. What did his people tell him –“George, if you say it loud enough, people will believe you.” My favorite line was Jeff Greenfield “Mr. Bush, two words — ‘anger management.’
way to go, kerry.
why won’t the main stream media report these internals?