I've really been enjoying some of Mr. Klein's work recently, but his statement about a "debilitating" problem among Democratic Presidents struck me as monumentally stoopid:
I've always been a Rahm fan, even when I disagreed with him. Love the passion, the quickness, the candor. Ron Brownstein has a nice appreciation of what Emanuel actually believes here. But his departure--and Pete Rouse's imminent arrival--highlight a debilitating tendency that Democratic presidents have: they tend to go for chiefs of staff who have Congressional experience. Republicans tend to have chiefs with executive experience. This isn't ironclad: Bill Clinton started with an outside executive, Mack McLarty, who proved inadequate. Clinton then turned to the ultimate Congressional insider, Leon Panetta.
Why is this important? Because Democratic presidents too often find themselves in thrall to their Congressional leadership--which, in this largely Republican era has been the party's center of gravity. (Presidents come and go; Nancy Pelosi is eternal). They place too much emphasis on legislating, too little on leading; too much emphasis on deal-making, too little on managing and communicating. Thus, Obama has won a historic boatload of legislative victories, but he's had difficulty establishing his authority as the nation's Chief Executive. He certainly has befuddled the Americans I've spoken with during my September road trip and it seems clear that if Obama is going to win another term, he's going to have to find a chief of staff who understands that the President should stand above, and apart from, the Congress.
I don't know Rouse very well. I don't know what his priorities will be. Early reports emphasized his "calming" effect and his long career as a Congressional insider. But if this no-drama White House gets any calmer, it'll be comatose. There's a need for energetic, non-Congressional, non-insider voices in the inner circle. Some wise executives like Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell would be welcome.
Okay, let me get this straight. Working with Congress, bad. Getting Legislation passed, bad. Respecting Congress as a co-equal branch, bad. Pounding your chest, giving folks like you good copy, and dictating to Congress, good?
As much as I like Ed Rendell, as much as I sorta respect him, Rendell would be a train wreck as a White House Chief of Staff. He has a mouth on him a mile wide, and he doesn't necessarily think before he speaks. (It's not to say that he doesn't, its just not an ironclad guarantee). He will have every bit the same problem McLarty and prove just as much of a disaster.
And tell me, with all the "executive experience" Bush 43 had at his disposal...how did that work out for ya? How well did it work out for the country? Mr. Klein might recall the massive hole the current President is digging out from because of the actions of the previous President.
Liberals, is this about getting @#$% done, or is it about enjoying the fight? I throw Joe Klein in the same category of Adam Green, in that Mr. Klein values the fight more than the outcome. Then again, the fight always makes for better copy. Ed Rendell would make for good copy. Rahm made for good copy, and who in this article benefits most from there being good copy in the White House Chief of Staff's office??
