President Obama announced today that he's tapped former Commerce Secretary Bill Daley as his next chief of staff. News of the move brought instant praise from the business community, which has had a shaky relationship with the White House over the last two years. But it's likely to further inflame tensions between Obama and liberal Democrats, who aren't fans of Daley's ties to Wall Street or his centrist political leanings. Daley, a 62-year-old executive at JPMorgan with decades of experience in Washington, is not personally close to the president. Yet he's a firmly established fixture in Chicago's political orbit Yet Daley's hiring will likely have its biggest impact on the shifting politics of the West Wing. A political moderate, Daley has publicly argued that Democrats need to move more toward the governing middle. It's a message that, if heeded by the president, could help him win back support among independents and moderate Republicans ahead of what's shaping up to be a grueling 2012 re-election campaign. The former Commerce secretary is likely to be viewed more favorably by the GOP and conservative Democrats, with whom he's worked on pro-business initiatives over the years, than his predecessor, Rahm Emanuel, who was often criticized for his abrasive style. "I see it as a hopeful sign," Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell told reporters today. Yet the Daley hire could hurt Obama among the Democratic left, many of whom have already aired their anger with the White House's feints toward the political middle ahead of 2012. As The Ticket previously reported, Daley has clashed repeatedly with liberals for years, dating back to his days as President Clinton's chief liaison on pushing through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The former Commerce secretary also opposed this year's health-care overhaul on the grounds that it tacked too far to the left for most Americans. So far, there has been muted response from labor unions, including the AFL-CIO, whose former president once labeled Daley "squarely on the opposite side of working families." In a statement today that did not mention Daley's name, current AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said that it's ultimately Obama's choice on who he hires as chief of staff. But, he added, Obama and his administration will "ultimately be judged by results." But Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, slammed the Daley appointment, calling it a "real mistake." "Bill Daley consistently urges the Democratic Party to pursue a corporate agenda that alienates both Independent and Democratic voters," Green said in a statement. "If President Obama listens to that kind of political advice from Bill Daley, Democrats will suffer a disastrous 2012." http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/in-picking-daley-obama-edges-out-of-his-comfort-zone So what does everyone think of his choice? I believe he is so caught up in winning over GOP votes he's completely forgotten about the base who overwhelmingly voted for himPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh, there's a shock. Puppet Obama has his string pulled and "chooses" someone from the banking Oligarchy as Cheif of Staff. Well Lucy, I am totally and uterly f*cking shocked. I mean, my world is rocked - I'm spinning .. *vertigo* Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't think this appointment makes one damn iota of difference and I wouldn't worry too much about it. The Republic is Dead, Long live the Banks**. ** Didn't you get the memo??? We lost. I don't mean to come off harsh, but, I've tossed the towel in on these posers. Vote again in the next round I suppose and wait for shit to hit the fan.
Well you've obviously had your cup of cynicism today. Its ironic that how much more there is of this brew since Obama's early days of 'Hope' and 'Change'. Even under Bush there was a sense, at least on the left, that events could be overturned, now they're all battered and bruised like a rape victim. I haven't a thread of respect left for the man or his administration, at least the Bush administration didn't pretend to be anything less than machiavellian, what I find offensive is the mocking pretense of liberalism and progressive ideals.
Ok, I am going to stick my head out here and maybe get it blown off. But I think the choice was a wise one. Daley is not going to dictate White House policy. This will be Obama's job. Obama's former Chief of Staff advised Obama against pursuing Healthcare Reform too. Obama didn't heed the advice. Instead he set the policy and we now have healthcare reform as a direct result. Daley is a man who I think can get things done. The reality of the political situation in Washignton is that Democrats are going to need Republican votes in order to get things done. I think Daley can deliver those votes. Daley is also known as a moderate. He is not a radical left winger, nor is he a radical right winger. He is in the middle...the middle that Obama is going to need if he is going to get reelected in 2012 and bring a Democrat majority back to the House. Obama is being pragmatic. He has to be if he wants to advance an agenda. If Obama wants to further run the country into the ground he could move to the left and sit on his duff for the next two years and do nothing - just like George II did his entire two terms in office. But Obama is not that kind of guy. So he does what is practical and achievable. His adminstration and the Democratic congress, despite all of the dificulties, has been more productive than any other congress or administration in the last two decades. So I think we need to give the man some credit. We will see what happens in his remaining years in office. I hope he is able to continue to heal the economy, add jobs to the economy. And if he is given a second term, I would hope that he would push some serious election reforms: A Constitutional Admendment that: - publically fund campaigns (taking special interest money out of politics) - ensures voters are better informed (bringing back the Fairness Doctrine) - Ethics Reform of elected officials (eliminate the perks of office, eg. privately paid gold trips to London and the swinging door between Capital Hill and K Street for members of congress and their families).
In the light of the Cons-Piracy thread, let's run through the OP and pick out a couple of the more obvious contributions: No, it hasn't. The business community has had a quite solid relationship with the White House for the past two years. That's a Fox meme. There is no such middle, and people who argue that the Dems should move even farther rightwing than they already have - the bulk of the Dem Party is now rightwards of Eisenhower and Nixon - are not "moderates". JP Morgan execs in general are not "moderates". Labeling as a "moderate" anyone who calls for "the Democrats" to "move to the center" (from where, pray?) is a standard Fox meme - boilerplate propaganda, heard every day from the Republican and Corporate Right choir. And this is made perfectly clear to anyone with a memory of more than two months, as soon as any aspect of political reality (inevitable in even the best propaganda efforts that must present themselves as news) intrudes: Presenting Obama's corporate centered, "free market" based, almost completely privately organized Health Care initiative as "tacking left" is a Fox meme. So is glibly passing over the central feature of the guy's actual political resume, his support of Reagan's NAFTA, a piece of Reagan's program that took a few extra years to put over (the Reps and Dems had to get rid of a few more actual moderates in Congress, and the corporate interests had to get better political cover and executive skill than the Bush Family could supply). Yes they did. They talked even more high and principled and hopy and changy than Obama did. So do the current drop of Tea Party barbarians. What discourages is the acceptance of the frame by all in the public discussion. This guy is presented as a "moderate" - and nobody laughs? Nobody at CNN gets demoted for emitting nonsense obliviously?
So Obama appoints another Clintonista who has ties to the same big businesses that have ripped America off and continue to do so. Why is anybody surprised, or expecting change any longer? Which was stated on NPR this morning as I drove to work...
Yep. One hears lots of stuff like that on NPR - for many years now. An interesting item to throw into the mix on the Cons-Piracy thread.
And the only one who brought it were the ones who drank the cool aid...same with Obama. Its not surprising Daley is named a 'moderate' even though he is openly anti-liberal. I mean they call O'Reilly a journalist without anyone laughing, they call Obama a socialist as if it holds any credibility, so sure Daley is a moderate. I mean why not?
What? That you think NPR is taking marching orders from Fox News? Or something like that? No, it's not interesting. It falls under the not worth others time. It's just you detailing your bias and ideology, and thus, not indicative of anything other than your bias and ideology.
JP Morgan...Maybe he was the guy at JP Morgan that was teaching poor Europeeen cuntries how to hide their debt, to get more debt. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.html On second thought...wow U.S = Greece? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A return to the comparative sanity of the Clinton phase, in which at least some of the more extravagant depredations of the Reagan program were at least somewhat curbed, would be a welcome change in the right direction. That is what a lot of us voted for, anyway - and it's still possible, if the Reps kneecap themselves again with the crazy gun.
Why discouraging? They call him a moderate and people buy it as much as they do Obama being a socialist etc. Its not discouraging its the status quo. I mean you should have been discouraged a long time ago, like when he had Summers et al as economic advisors.
Then apparently you are completely ignorant of the fact that Clinton's economic team -- Summers and Rubin, in particular -- helped foster the deregulation that has us where we are? Gietner was in on it, so, too, probably, was this guy, who works for one of the handful of companies that everyone in finance seems to these days. But, of course, it all goes back to Reagan for you, doesn't it?
Not at all. And helped push NAFTA and other Reagan initiatives, too. Summers being a Reagan administration alumnus carried over (with Greenspan et al) into Clinton's administration, and Rubin from his perch on top of Goldman Sachs an enthusiastic backer of the deregulatory program - for bankers - that Reagan was famous for. The watershed moment of the present disaster was of course Reagan's campaign, then election, in 1980 - yes. That administration was the first big leap into the cesspit, and set several records for waste, debt, incompetence, and corruption (not to mention clueless and comical utterances) that stand today - and many others only bested by the incomparable W himself. But I just label the era by its iconic figure - no one I think blames Reagan for anything much. It's not certain how much of what his regime launched he was ever even told about.
No actually Counterzero is correct. Clinton ASKED Rubin to be on his team. Just take a look at this Frontline documentary. You don't even have to watch the whole bloody thing, just the first 10 minutes. Geithner and Summers, they were all there deregulating with the support of President Clinton! Clinton trusted them and you may suggest that Clinton was misguided but since hindsight is 20/20 we cannot say Obama doesn't know which is why I find him surrounding himself with these people very disconcerting. Even when Clinton was WARNED he ignored it and went with the deregulation by these so called 'experts'. As for NAFTA, that's Clinton's doing as well as repealing Glass-Steagal. No one is suggesting that Republicans are not at fault, simply that Democrats have also helped pave the way in significant fashion: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...aign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
Joe, Daley is NOT moderate he is a corporatist. I have a feeling that you would be someone who would have said the same thing about Summers and Rubin etc., when they were chosen by Clinton, you would have praised them as being people who could get things done and get things done they did. They helped ruin the economy. Daley opposed Obama's health care reform and the financial regulation bill's consumer protection agency. Iceaura is correct that there is no such 'middle' that you're looking at. Excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's article: There's a section of my forthcoming book about the rule of law which examines the direct causal line between the vast number of Wall Street officials in key administration positions and the full-scale exemption from accountability which financial elites enjoy even for the most egregious lawbreaking. When you compile all of those appointments in one place, the absolute stranglehold large-scale corporate interests exert over virtually all realms of government policy is quite striking. But it's nothing more than what the economist Nouriel Roubini meant when he told the makers of the 2010 documentary "Inside Job" that Wall Street has "captured the political system" on "the Democratic and the Republican side" alike, or what Simon Johnson describes as "The Quiet Coup": "The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against" elite business interests. Shipping in a JP Morgan executive to be White House Chief of Staff isn't a cause of any of this; it's just a nice symbol for what our political culture is, more than ever in the Era of Change. It's the other side of the revolving door that sent Peter Orszag to his multi-million-dollar a year reward at Citigroup for his 18 months in an administration which lavished that bank will all sorts of gifts. Getting exercised about Bill Daley's empowerment is like going to the beach and being angry that it's full of sand: this appointment is the inevitable by-product of the essence of Washington and of the Obama presidency. It's what they do and who they are. As Matt Stoller suggested, the most surprising thing about the Daley pick is that he has no Goldman Sachs experience. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/daley He's right Daley's appointment is a reflection of what interests the Obama administration is caving into. As he states here: "Why, angry progressives seem to be asking, would Obama ignore the views of his so-called "progressive base" while seeking to please those who are his political adversaries? But it's perfectly rational for Obama to do exactly that. There's a fundamental distinction between progressives and groups that wield actual power in Washington: namely, the latter are willing (by definition) to use their resources and energies to punish politicians who do not accommodate their views, while the former unconditionally support the Democratic Party and their leaders no matter what they do. The groups which Obama cares about pleasing -- Wall Street, corporate interests, conservative Democrats, the establishment media, independent voters -- all have one thing in common: they will support only those politicians who advance their agenda, but will vigorously oppose those who do not." And that's what you are doing, supporting the democratic party and their leaders no matter what they do!
Me too. Daley has to be the POTUS's ambassador to Congress (well, he doesn't have to be, but that's the role that the COS has assumed on-and-off since Nixon and it's what has happened in this White House). This COS will also be the Obama admin's point man on corporate America. Hate it all you like, but it is what it is. Daley has a good rapport with the GOP (a necessary evil), he knows how Wall Street works (and who works there), he has a very cool temper, he's got a shit-load of business smarts (sorta necessary these days), and he's a strong manager. Emmanuel was none of these things. Rahm may have been a good guy, but his notorious flareups and prickly-ness with the GOP won't work well with the new Congressional makeup. The reality is, Obama has to live in the political reality of Washington D.C. Wishing away Washington politics is great for slogans put not a very good operational plan. From a managerial and strategic standpoint--not an ideological one (on which I won't comment)--this choice is about as good as it gets. ~String
So wait a minute here, are you suggesting that this rapport with the GOP is going to lead to GOP supporters voting for the Democratic Party? Or are you suggesting that this rapport will lead to corporate america giving more money to future Democratic campaigns? Because I doubt that republicans are going to back this administration by turning against their own party and its constituents...I mean that's what democrats do. In other words I would like to know how you think this capitulation will help the Democrats in the future to fulfill their agenda? Because it seems to me that Obama's administration is simply helping the Republicans pass their own at the expense of his own party's credibility.
Nobody said Clinton did anything else. The observation is irrelevant to the argument. Rubin pushed the Reagan agenda, just like Clinton wanted him to, only with some of the crazy (like "privatizing" Social Security, and taking the capital gains tax rate to zero, and doubling down on the rich people's tax cuts in the face of the largest federal debt ever amassed) curbed and shelved. The agenda he pushed started with Reagan, in the late 70s and early '80s. A lot of those guys - like Summers and Greenspan - signed on during the Reagan administration. Some, like Rubin, signed on later after fat careers on Wall Street. But it basically started with Reagan - financial and corporate deregulation, NAFTA, the new degree of wholesale trough feeding at the Pentagon, union busting for real, the privatization binge, "globalilzation", absurdly justified and drastic tax cuts for the rich in the face of huge deficits, that entire economic schtick moderates (Rep and Dem) used to call "voodoo economics". My point was simply that a return to the relative sanity, the modicum of responsibility, the trace of actual conservative thought respectful of established norms and prudence, of the Clinton administration would be welcome change - and in fact is all that a lot of people were hoping for. The Reagan agenda with the crazy left in - boosted, amplified - has brought its predicted consequences down on our heads, and a lot of people would welcome a Clinton style walkback from the collapse zone. So what you are reading as Count's attempted argument - that the plethora of Clintonistas Obama has brought on board somehow obviate the hope of a change in the Executive Branch behavior - misses the point entirely. (Rule of thumb: Countzero is not correct, in the sense that he does not comprehend the argument in the first place. Try it - it works every time) No. NAFTA was Reagan's initiative, ad despite giving Clinton full credit for puncihing it through, it wasn't his idea in the first place or his efforts that set it up. Glass=Steagal repeal was only accomplished as a legislative manuever made possible by Clinton's impeachment and lame duck status - Clinton had almost no say in it, spoke as if he opposed it, did not push it, and it certainly wasn't his doing. This entire scene comes to us courtesy of the Reagan Revolution, which may have finally gutted itself in 2008 - or maybe not: there is still a lot of prosperity in the US not controlled by the rich, still some societal infrastructure not delivered into the hands of the wealthy, its original solidity left in ruins and debris.
