Daley Out, Lew In: No "Getting-To-Know-You-Period" Necessary for New Chief

Politico Arena Topic: What does departure of Daley mean?

White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley’s imminent departure is not a surprise. Increasingly, he was a lightning rod of criticism both within the White House and on Capitol Hill. His rocky relationship with Senate Democrats and public missteps during the debt ceiling negotiations and over scheduling President Obama’s jobs plan speech to Congress are well documented. In November, some of Daley’s administrative responsibilities were transferred to White House Counselor Pete Rouse, who was the interim chief between Rahm Emanuel and Daley. This move of downgrading the chief’s role—unprecedented in the modern era—signaled that Daley’s grip on the position, and on the White House, was tenuous. From that moment he became a lame duck and it was simply a question of “when” he would depart, not “if” he would depart.

The fact that Daley will leave the White House at the beginning of 2012 rather than closer to the election should be a net positive for the Obama administration. That he is being replaced by Jack Lew, a seasoned White House player with a long history as a Congressional staffer (including a lengthy stint as committee staff for House Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-MA)) and relationships on Capitol Hill, will be very important to improving morale within the White House and repairing the relationship with Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and company. Lew knows his way around the West Wing, and as OMB Director during the Clinton and Obama administrations, knows a thing or two about budgets. As a current member of the White House, he also has a relationship with President Obama which means a “getting-to-know-you-period” between the President and Chief can be avoided. Finally, as the Obama White House prepares to spend the year slugging it out with Congressional Republicans over budget priorities and the deficit, who better to lead the negotiations than a chief of staff who has been OMB Director for two presidents?

Permalink to Politico Arena comment

The Panetta Kerfuffle

I have been reading, hearing, watching all day the criticism of Barack Obama's pick of Leon Panetta to head the CIA. I am absolutely baffled by the criticism over this pick, much of which is aimed at Panetta's supposed lack of intelligence experience. My sense is that when Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the incoming chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, felt slighted by not being informed of the Panetta pick in advance of the news and criticized the pick, others, including many Republicans, saw an opportunity to pile on.

There are a number of reasons why the criticism of the Panetta pick is asinine:

1. As a very successful White House chief of staff (1994-7) who was largely responsible for turning around a wobbly Clinton presidency, Panetta demonstrated great management skills--a must for CIA Director. Also as chief of staff, Panetta was one of the chief consumers of the intel coming from CIA.

2. As Paul Begala pointed out on CNN tonight, as OMB Director (1993-4), Panetta oversaw the CIA's budget including the so-called black budget that few get to see. Also, as OMB Director, you need good budget and management skills which he has demonstrated.

3. Panetta was part of the Iraq Study Group.

4. Not all CIA Directors come from CIA ranks or the intelligence field. George H.W. Bush had little intel background when he served in that capacity under President Ford.

5. Nor does an intel background guarantee success. George Tenet was a company man. How'd that turn out?

6. As a 16 year veteran of Capitol Hill, Panetta knows how to lobby on behalf of an agency or cause. Former members of Congress make great lobbyists.

The criticism and trashing of Panetta, a well-respected public servant by individuals on both sides of the aisle, is mere politics. I suspect and hope the President-elect will not cave in and withdraw the pick. Panetta would make a fine addition to the Obama administration.