The New Republic

I think Daley's statement is quite true, but I'm not so sure he is making a false equivalency. Reid and the Invertebrates haven't exactly been doing their part in things until recently. They dawdled on PPACA until the country was sick of it, and they have done NOTHING to make the Republicans pay any sort of political price for their intransigence. And exactly how many seconds have the GOP spent actually holding a fillibuster? There's more than enough blame to go around in DC, let's not be coy about it.

- GSpinks

October 28, 2011 at 12:02pm

Harry Reid and the Invertebrates would be a good name for a 50s-style rock band.

- JEFF FREY

October 28, 2011 at 12:07pm

Isn't it possible he's thinking about Senate Democrats like Max Baucus and Ben Nelson who hem and haw when it comes to liberal priorities like the ACA and the American Jobs Act? They're hardly the primary obstacle to Obama's agenda, but Mitch McConnell doesn't have to put with that crap. They also make the Democrats look disorganized and the Republicans disciplined, which is something a chief of staff probably dislikes on a fundamental level.

- benjamin81

October 28, 2011 at 12:15pm

Apart from anything else, it makes his boss look weak. Why don't these guys learn?

- NR409654

October 28, 2011 at 12:15pm

"Maybe he's risen to his own level of incompetence" Hahahahaha. Classic.

- Tristan

October 28, 2011 at 12:20pm

Tim - Daley's absolutely right. You're the one who asked why Ben Nelson was a Democrat. Let's not even talk about Holy Joe. This nonsense was crippling for Obama at times and no doubt drove this blunt former CEO absolutely bonkers. Daley always looks like he's ready to deck someone and I'd bet its Nelson.

- WandreyCer

October 28, 2011 at 12:33pm

Good point about Nelson, et alia; giving bipartisan legitimacy to Republican intransigence hasn't helped anything.

- GSpinks

October 28, 2011 at 12:39pm

.“On the domestic side," he told Simon, "both Democrats and Republicans have really made it very difficult for the president to be anything like a chief executive. This has led to a kind of frustration.” I think he is playing to the Americans who give Congress a 14% favorability rating, if he just pointed fingers at Republicans that message would be ignored by everyone as politics. As it is, most people would say "you know, he is right, Congress does suck." Being that the house is more up for grabs since everyone is running next year, I don't think "throw the bums of out Congress" will be so bad. The Senate might go Republican but the House would go Democrat and if Obama wins I am fine with that.

- blackton

October 28, 2011 at 12:56pm

I have no idea what he believes. I grant he's not coming off as the sharpest bulb in the tulip patch. But why are we assuming that this isn't politic speech and he hasn't simply made the calculation (rightly or wrongly) that the president's best bet politically is to be perceived as even-handed and non-partisan?

- miceelf

October 28, 2011 at 12:57pm

I want to commend you for your posts lately, W. You are brimming with energy and your writing is concise, eloquent, and inspiring, and I constantly think this, even when I disagree with you. You have always made very good posts, at your best, but sometimes, I thought some of your comments were a bit tone-deaf. But there isn't any of that in your writing lately. Your string of remarks yesterday at the Otherwise Occupied thread were simply excellent, particularly your description of bulbman.

- liberalref

October 28, 2011 at 1:10pm

Well libref, you're just leaving me speechless. You're awfully chipper yourself these days and sharp as a tack as always, very sophisticated. I'm surpised and pleased I've made your cut! Thank you!

- WandreyCer

October 28, 2011 at 2:21pm

I always come here to see what Timothy Noah has to say, but lately, I eagerly click on to his threads to read your comments, as well, W. Your postings are the best of anyone's this last month, and I most definitely include myself in that. Keep up the great work!

- liberalref

October 28, 2011 at 2:59pm

While these comments about Reid and the invertebrates may be true, I don't believe that's what Daley was referring to when he says both sides are equally at fault: "both Democrats and Republicans have really made it very difficult for the president to be anything like a chief executive". And waht exactly does a chief executive do: he leads. On ACA, he dawdled, while Reid and others tried to carry out Obama's promise to be post-partisan; on the Bush tax cuts, he dawdled, even after taking the issue away from the Democrats in Congress, and then caved to the Republicans' demands. When Obama finally starting acting like a chief executive, what did the Senate Democrats do? They gave Obama 50 plus votes. And who blocked Obama? A minority of Republicans in the Senate. No, I'm not ignoring the worst traits (or is it traitors) of some Congressional Democrats, but for Daley to criticise Congressional Democrats for making it impossible for Obama to lead is laughable. And, as TN asks, what is to be gained from criticizing your own party. Here's where I disagree with TN, who says that Daley actually believes it. I say Daley is on his way out and wants to make nice with his friends at Morgan Chase.

- rayward

October 28, 2011 at 3:04pm

Yes, it's CONCEIVABLE Daley is referring to Democrats like Nelson who side with the GOP on important votes. But something tells me he means people like Nancy Pelosi.

- Timothy Noah

October 28, 2011 at 3:08pm

Wandrey: I second what Libref wrote. It's been Nush, Libref, Dubya, Konstantin, and many others that have taken their turn at being on a roll. A couple months back it was Sophia who was submitting some of the best writing I've seen on here. Now it appears to be your turn. Whatever you're putting in your coffee, keep it up my friend.

- Tristan

October 28, 2011 at 3:43pm

I'm on Tristan's list! Have to get on Libref's.

- Nusholtz

October 28, 2011 at 5:47pm

Nancy Pelosi? She is just one of many in the minority in the House. Do you mean that she doesn't always support Obama politically? Because her support in the House is almost meaningless. As for the Senate, that a few Democrats side with Republicans "have really made it very difficult for the president to be anything like a chief executive"? If Democrats can be blamed for anything, it's the ridiculously gerrymandered House districts that dilute Democratic votes, gerrymandered districts that, I'm sorry to say, Democrats were too willing to cooperate with Republicans to create. As for the Senate, blame the founders for that undemocratic institution. How many Senators from New York? And how many from Wyoming? And Mississippi? The founders created an undemocratic legislature, designed for Cincinnatus perhaps, but made for reactionaries.

- rayward

October 28, 2011 at 5:54pm

No, no rayward. Noah is referring to the well-established notion that William Daley is a DLC centrist neoliberal Business Democrat. For a man in this framework, Bowles-Simpson is the beginning of wisdom and Obama's last, embarrassing debt ceiling hairshirt of a Grand Bargain was probably runner-up. The three trade deals also count as a proud bipartisan achievement that can be spun as stimulus-related, even though they originate from the middle of the last decade, which makes them emergency job-creating legislation for a Bush or a Perry. If this is your worldview and you're freshening your Rolodex to go back to JP Morgan Chase, then, yeah, Nancy Pelosi is the enemy of the good bipartisan Big Deal that David Brooks and Tom Friedman are always hawking.

- chaitless

October 28, 2011 at 8:20pm

Daley is yet another reason for the Democrats to replace Obama as their nominee in 2012. If Obama is re-elected, he is not going to improve.

- amidut

October 29, 2011 at 6:21am

At the root of Obama's failures is his delusion that there exists or could exist or has ever existed in American political life some sort of non-partisan, post-partisan, or bi-partisan means of governing. Yes, there used to be the possibility of compromise between partisan parties, deals cut in recognition of mutual power. That no longer exists. As a direct consequence of this delusion, Obama has refused to assume his essential role as leader of his own party, strategically, tactically, or rhetorically. A political leader without a political army behind him is nothing. In attempting to be a leader without a party, Obama succeeded only in neutering himself. The reality that the president must be the leader of his party and make his party politically effective in order to be able to deal with the opposition, even when it is in the minority, does not imply that the tactics used can or should be pitched battle rhetorical all the time. Tactics are just tactics. What matters is whether they are effective in moving toward the strategic goals. The rhetoric of bi-partisanship is useful at times for the purpose of allowing the minority to enjoy political benefits from compromise IF it is willing to compromise. The rhetoric can at other times be a useful weapon. But anyone who imagines that the minority cooperates other than out of deference, not to the office of the president, but to the political power of the president is a fool, a child. And so Obama has shown himself to be. This noxious rhetoric by Daley merely reflects Obama's belief and temperament even while he tentatively and tactically assumes a more partisan stance. Even if it were absolutely true, and that is far from being the case, only a moron insults the troops he needs to follow him. Unless, that is, he imagines he doesn't need any. Then he isn't stupid, just delusional. Obama owes to Pelosi anything at all that he has accomplished. She was never his problem. She was his savior.

- roidubouloi

October 29, 2011 at 7:50am

Before Obama, I never particularly liked Nancy Pelosi. Now I have enormous admiration for her. Out of devotion to the causes of the Democratic party, she fell on her sword repeatedly for Obama, taking without complaint or fingerpointing blame for failures that properly belongs to him. She put her cause, our cause, above herself. Obama more than anyone owes her a tremendous debt. To this day, she makes no excuses and does and says nothing to undermine the president, unlike that prick Daley who has no qualms about undermining Congressional Democrats. They don't deserve Pelosi.

- roidubouloi

October 29, 2011 at 8:28am

roid, I found the Wilentz's historical look at post-partisanship quite helpful. Perhaps we should move the discussion on postpartisan mirages there. http://www.tnr.com/article/books/magazine/96706/post-partisan-obama-progressives-washington Here's my comment on it: I like this. I'd like it even more if Wilentz traced a history of the partisan divide, showing us what the enduring conflicts have been. I know for a fact that strong central government versus weak central government is one of them, but there are probably others. The post-partisan flowering comes in the occasional periods like the 1950s, when uneasy truces are drawn and enforced by popular presidents that transcend the divide. As highlighted in the article, when it happened under TR and Eisenhower, the result was a vacuum in a Republican Party holding down too much turf. Perhaps Obama hoped to repeat this. FDR didn't seem to transcend the divide by crossing onto the other side's ideological territory, and he is the best example of a president that cemented a lasting majority coalition. GW Bush, via Rove, wanted a permanent majority, but was only able to do that by transcending the divide as little as was necessary to win in 2004. Because the core of the Republican Party is still quite cohesive and failures like NCLB and the Iraq War weren't completely unprecedented for the party of Reagan, the vacuum that opened up for the Republicans was smaller and much more quickly filled by the die-hard conservatives. I'd love to be rid of the Republican Party as currently constituted, but I simply don't know how you can kneecap such a party short of emulating FDR and running roughshod over them. Republicans know their game theory, and the obstruction we've been witnessing over the last three years is a last-ditch effort to prevent their being totally crushed by a Democratic Party that, were it not for its truculence to the filibuster, could have done a whole host of things that ensured Republicans were not heard from again until 2014.

- chaitless

October 29, 2011 at 9:41am

amen roid. I was among those who voted for Obama because I thought his post-partisan-we-are-all-one-big-family was a tactic. I had plenty of time to wake up to the sad reality that he really believes it.

- Idefix

October 29, 2011 at 5:24pm

Thanks chaitless. I started but didn't have time to get through it all. I will. But I note his observation early on, seconded by idefix, that appeals to non-partisanship can be and often are a partisan tactic, going back to Washington. But one should not confuse oneself with one's own bullshit, as Obama appears to have done. I too thought it was a tactic, and a good one, idefix. I was stunned as it began to dawn on me that Obama really believed it and was shaping his actions and rhetoric accordingly, even if the face of massive (indeed overtly announced) Republican obstruction.

- roidubouloi

October 29, 2011 at 6:22pm

Could you ever imagine a Republican Chief of Staff making such a comment ? NEVER !! It would be as if an atom bomb went off in the capitol . It is especially foolish in light of the difficulties Obama has with certain members of his own party : smokin Joe , Nelson , and even progressives . Add in the constant problem of denial and false equivalences in the press and it could become downright toxic if ever repeated. He should be canned if he ever repeats this concept , but we know he won't be.

- alanwilkov

October 29, 2011 at 8:27pm

Daly was brought in for his 2012 campaign contributing rolodex. He'll be gone soon after O'bama wins.

- IggyPop

October 29, 2011 at 8:46pm

I doubt that this one comment by Daley will have any real repercussions. More broadly, Obama's rhetoric stems from an effort to appear reasonable, reliable, trustworthy, non-threatening, non-aggressive, non-partisan (in the sense of not cravenly partisan), open-minded, objective, and presidential. It stems from an obvious desire that goes back to the "blue states, red states" speech to spin a grander, more inclusive narrative than "we're right, and they're deranged morons," a sentiment that does not go down easily, even if it's true. It's justified on political grounds, because it draws a contrast with ideological extremism and partisan obstructionism (as in, we're against it just because he's the one proposing it) on the other side. Maybe it's overrated as a matter of rhetorical strategy. But I imagine that Obama is better liked than he ought to be, given the state of the economy and the constant barrage of rhetorical assaults against him. And I also see that Romney, the mildest Republican contender by far, is the front-runner due to electability. It must be due to electability, because Republican primary voters don't like him on the merits. Maybe a more war-like footing out of the gate would have yielded a stimulus adequate to eliminate Obama's economic woes today, but that seems unrealistic.

- JakeH

October 30, 2011 at 1:49am