James Carville said recently that the President should fire a ton of stuff, including apparently White House chief of staff Bill Daley. Matt Bai makes an interesting argument for why the President should not fire Daley. NYT:
If administrations are to be judged solely on results, rather than in the context of the times, then Mr. Obama can’t possibly make a compelling argument for his own re-election — not when unemployment refuses to fall below 9 percent. But if he intends to argue that the data points of his presidency are simply beyond anyone’s control for the moment, and that good policy takes some time to work, then he can’t very well go around firing senior aides who have failed, in a matter of months, to stop the slide.Economy aside, I've never had a sense that this White House works terribly well in terms of how effectively it fights for things (legislation or otherwise). That problem existed before Daley arrived on the scene. And in part it might be a staff problem, but I can't help feeling that it's the President's who's constraining the staff in terms of how forcefully they fight.
Or, rather, he can, but it would contradict his own appeal to the voters for their continued faith. He would be judging his top aides by exactly the criteria that he is asking the public to set aside.
The White House is either largely responsible for this prolonged economic misery and the ongoing dysfunction in Washington, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then there’s not much reason to bring the hammer down on those who run the place. If it is, then someone will indeed be held accountable.
