Ezra Klein calls latest WaPo piece on Rahm BS

[ProSense]

Defending Rahm for all the wrong reasons

<...>

Though I'm an avowed defender of Rahm Emanuel's performance as chief of staff, I'd be calling for his head if he were calling these shots. This critique only makes sense if you think about the presidency in terms of poll numbers rather than problems. Health-care reform, for instance, is inches from passage. If not for Scott Brown's unexpected victory in Massachusetts, it would have passed weeks ago. We'd be on our way to implementing a bill that would cover 30 million Americans, completely reform the insurance market, make a serious start on cost control, end the days when sick people couldn't get health insurance, and create a new coverage infrastructure that could absorb the flood of refugees from the dying employer-based system. That deserves some weight in this discussion.

Whether health-care reform passes, what's undeniably clear is that it could have passed. When you make a bet, some risk is acceptable. In fact, it's inevitable. As any poker player knows, the fact that you lost a hand doesn't mean you bet wrong. And so it is for health-care reform. If this bill had suffered the fate of Clinton's bill and never even made it to the floor, you could argue that it was a strategic miscalculation from the start. But we're talking about historic legislation that has, for the first time ever, passed both houses of Congress. That's not a strategic miscalculation. It's a tactical triumph. And insofar as Emanuel has, at times, been opposed to persevering on this effort, he's been wrong.

As for jobs, it's evidence of what a strange place Washington is that people think the country's economic anxiety could be alleviated if the president and his party just said the word "jobs" more often. The jobs issue is trouble for the Democrats because unemployment is nearly in the double digits. Unless they have a way to bring it down -- and, as of yet, they've not been willing to consider any secondary legislation of that size, or any pressure on the Federal Reserve -- the jobs issue will continue being a problem for Democrats. Only in Washington could anyone possibly believe that unemployment is properly a question of political communication rather than people not receiving a paycheck.

I'll stay out of the Guantanamo debate because I haven't been following it. But on the areas that I know well, the defense of Rahm favored by some Washington Democrats is evidence of everything that is wrong with Washington: It prizes politics rather than policy, and seems interested in the problems Americans are facing only insofar as those problems show up in the president's poll numbers. In this telling, the measure of Obama's success is not how much good he does for the country but how much good he does for congressional reelection campaigns. No wonder people hate this city.

[frazzled]

1. He's right, but it's kind of the Chief of Staff's job to oversee the politics ...

rather than the policy. Here are the basic duties of the Chief of Staff:

The roles of the Chief of Staff are both managerial and advisory and can include the following
Select key White House staff and supervise them
Structure the White House staff system
Control the flow of people into the Oval Office
Manage the flow of information
Protect the interests of the President
Negotiate with Congress, other members of the executive branch, and extragovernmental political groups to implement the President's agenda

It's the COS's job to say, Mr. President, the politically viable thing is to--for example-- pass a smaller bill. But clearly in this administration, at least on health care, jobs, and Guantanamo, the President has decided not to do the politically expedient thing. And then it is the Chief of Staff's job to work with Congress, etc. to implement the President's chosen agenda. He's been doing a pretty good job of that.

It would be appalling if the Chief of Staff were actually determining policy, as opposed to dealing with the mechanics of the politics of things.

[ProSense]

2. The Rahm thing, from his defenders to his detractors, is really an attempt to obscure this:

But we're talking about historic legislation that has, for the first time ever, passed both houses of Congress. That's not a strategic miscalculation. It's a tactical triumph. And insofar as Emanuel has, at times, been opposed to persevering on this effort, he's been wrong.

Ezra is right.

[frazzled]

3. Definitely

I guess that is what I was trying to say (and what Ezra updates in a new post on the subject): the WH policy people are going fairly full steam ahead on big things; the political people are not driving the agenda--but they're doing a great job of getting that agenda through and selling it (well, maybe less well on selling it--but that will happen AFTER a final bill is passed).

[Inuca]

4. The more I read and hear

of Ezra Klein the more I like him. One smart, extremely well articulated, serious kid.