Howard Dean's endorsement
here.
Robert Reich praised Daley as a good addition to the WH.
by Joan McCarter
<...>
But beyond the actual and direct corporate ties, he is firmly ensconced with the most corporate arm of the party. That would be the Third Way, which
trumpeted his joining the board of trustees in July, 2010.
Secretary Daley said: “I believe in Third Way’s unique mission—advancing moderate ideas, challenging orthodoxies, and building a big tent political movement that can attract an enduring majority. Their views are right for both campaigning and governing: pro-market, strong on security, and seeking common ground on culture issues. Third Way is doing exactly the work that we must do—with the White House, Congress and statehouses—if we’re going to own the center of American politics and create the kind of pragmatic change the country wants.”
Mr. Daley continued: “We’ve really got to listen carefully to the public. Voters are not re-embracing conservative ideology. But we must acknowledge that the left’s agenda has not won the support of a majority of Americans—and, based on that recognition, we must steer a more moderate course. Third Way is playing a central role in helping us navigate that course.”
The Third Way: "Only privatize half of Social Security. Bring half the troops home from Afghanistan. Only punch hippies half the time." Corporate America has had enough influence in our nation's governance, and certainly in this administration. Too many of Obama's economic advisors, with the exception of Elizabeth Warren, already come from Wall Street or corporate America. The Sunlight Foundation's Paul Blumenthal
wrote about this problem before Daley was chosen.
moreConundrum?
Steve Benen:
<...>
The banker background isn't encouraging, but I could find it relatively easy to overlook this. By all accounts, Daley enjoys the support and respect of those who've worked with him, and has proven himself as an excellent manager. Those are good qualities to have in this job.
But it's
his political instincts that rankle. Daley has opposed some of the same Obama policy achievements I think are worth supporting, and Daley's belief that the mainstream Democratic agenda is too liberal strikes me as absurd.
The flipside, though, is that I'm not sure just how much this matters. Rahm Emanuel wasn't exactly a choice to get excited about, and his ideological instincts weren't quite reliable, either. Indeed, it's an open secret that Emanuel pleaded with Obama to forget about health care reform in 2009, insisting that the political investment wasn't worth the reward.
And as we know, the president ignored him, and pursued the priorities he wanted to pursue. Emanuel's instincts didn't get in the way of the best two years of progressive policymaking since LBJ.
That's why I'm not worked up either way about the Daley selection. He wouldn't have been my pick -- Obama neglected to ask me for my input again -- but as far as I can tell, this isn't a White House in which the chief of staff necessarily sets the agenda. That's the president's job.
To be sure, a CoS isn't irrelevant, and Daley will have enormous influence over who gets the president's ear, and what kind of information reaches the Oval Office desk. This clearly has an impact. But I'm not convinced that Daley's DLC-like instincts will necessarily drag the White House to the right, any more than Emanuel's instincts on health care dragged the president away from his commitment.
I have no use for
Third-Way thinking, but this is President Obama's show. The achievements and progress are going to depend on his policies, not Daley's.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
