5 Others Who Should Follow Rahm Emanuel Out of the Administration

October 1, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (19)

In sharp contrast to the relative stability of the Bush White House, President Barack Obama has started to burn through his senior staff at a rate fast enough to be interesting.

It really doesn’t matter whether the departing members of his administration were pushed or if they jumped; the turnover is a clear indication that the people who count in the West Wing understand that things aren’t working.

[See a slide show of 5 officials who should leave the administration.]

These kinds of changes usually don’t start happening until after an election--even when they should. If it is true that, as National Journal asserts based on its latest polls, Obama has burned through his base to the point where “young people and minorities are all the president has left,” then there is a lot of work to be done to get things in fighting trim in time for the 2012 elections. Which means more changes are coming.

The new White House chief of staff, which press reports say will be longtime Obama hand Peter Rouse, probably has some ideas of changes he would like to make once he takes over. These are important--Rouse needs, if not his own team at least people who won’t be promoting themselves at his expense in the West Wing’s top jobs. But that’s only part of what needs to be done. For Obama to get his administration back on track he needs to make some changes in the cabinet as well--lest the opposition continue to use some of its more polarizing figures as symbols for policy failures.

[See a slide show of keys to an Obama comeback.]

One who almost certainly needs to go after the midterm election, if not before, is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

An embarrassment from the beginning, Geithner never seemed to win the confidence of the financial markets. Getting rid of him would send the strongest possible signal that the White House recognizes the obvious: The stimulus approach to the nation’s economic problems has failed and that new ideas are needed.

Sacking Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the cabinet official most closely associated with the disastrous Gulf oil spill, is also probably a good idea.

Having failed to clean out the mess that was the Minerals Management Service before the crisis took root Salazar has also refused to back down from the economically ruinous offshore drilling ban. It’s an unpopular policy that is costing real people good jobs at good wages that cannot be changed or withdrawn until Salazar is gone.

With an eye to preventing future problems before they occur, the White House probably also needs to find a way to let Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius go--before the Republicans in the House can get her up to Capitol Hill for oversight hearings.

HHS put out a lot of misleading numbers during the Obamacare debate that might have damaged the bill’s prospects for passage and withheld other important information until after the law was passed. Someone needs to be called to account for this. It would be better for Obama if that someone was someone other than Sebelius.

[Read more about healthcare reform.]

Obama probably doesn’t need any more Republicans in his cabinet, which is just one reason to get rid of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

It’s not just that LaHood bungled the early phase of the Toyota safety investigation, telling Americans to stop driving Toyotas if they thought they were unsafe purely on the basis of anecdotal evidence we now know to have been misleading. The GOP majority in the House that everyone expects to see will almost certainly want to grill him about the stimulus moneys that appear to have gone missing--much of which was supposed to go to highway projects. Besides, outgoing Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley needs a good job once he leaves office.

Finally, Obama needs to start thinking about who his new secretary of state is going to be--not so much because he needs to fire Hillary Rodham Clinton as she is unlikely to want to stay. There are a lot of people who are looking to Mrs. Clinton to be the savior of the Democratic Party, seeing her as the perfect midpoint between the liberal incompetence of the Obama administration and the extremism of a Tea Party-led GOP. Having been inside the tent for two years she will now be even more dangerous outside it--but that’s not something Obama can control.

The handwriting is on the wall. How Obama reads it is anyone’s guess.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
Rahm Emanuel,
Ray LaHood,
2010 Congressional elections,
Richard M. Daley,
Tim Geithner,
Ken Salazar,
Gulf of Mexico,
Kathleen Sebelius,
Toyota,
BP,
Barack Obama,
Tea Party,
Congress,
2012 presidential election,
oil,
Hillary Clinton,
healthcare,
economic stimulus,
healthcare reform,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (19)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"Change is good" is a connotation that requires explicit definition. However, your conclusion to Obama's, "change is good", references our president taking us and our country down into an unprecedented monster abyss by which we may or may not ascend:

Obama Defeats FDR (in Spending Other People’s Money)

The bottom line on Obama: He puts our money where his mouth is.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

By Terence P. Jeffrey

After he signed a law last week authorizing the U.S. Treasury to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion, President Barack Obama delivered a characteristically sanctimonious speech. It was about his deep commitment to frugality.

To put Obama’s Olympian hypocrisy in perspective, one need only examine the federal budget tables posted on the White House website by Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget.

They reveal these startling facts: When calculated by the average annual percentage of the Gross Domestic Product that he will spend during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the earliest year reported on the OMB’s historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP. When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP he will borrow during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the greatest debter president since Franklin Roosevelt.

Obama will outspend and out-borrow the admittedly profligate George W. Bush, a man Obama and his lieutenants routinely malign for fiscal recklessness and who, when in office, was often hailed even by his allies as a Big Government Republican. Obama will even outspend—but not quite out-borrow—his fellow welfare-state liberal FDR, who had to contend with both the Depression and World War II.

In determining this was the case, I credited the presidents prior to Obama with the federal spending and borrowing that occurred during the fiscal years that started when they were in office. I credited Obama with the spending and borrowing that his own OMB estimates will occur during the fiscal years from 2010 to 2013, which are the four fiscal years starting during Obama’s four-year term. (Before fiscal 1977, fiscal years ran from July 1 to June 30. Since then, they have run from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.)

FDR was inaugurated in March 1933 and died in April 1945. He is thus responsible for the 12 fiscal years from 1934 to 1945. During those years of depression and world war, according to OMB, federal spending averaged 19.35 percent of GDP. During Obama’s four fiscal years, OMB estimates spending will average 24.13 percent of GDP. That is about 25 percent more than under FDR.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/article/61454

Condensation of this article was necessary as I am unable to fit more of this "revelation for you and others" into this response and I am unwilling to chase this all night. There is much more printed fact which tell me (and should tell you) that Obama certainly is not the right choice for our POTUS.

Apropo of CA 6:35AM October 04, 2010

Yes, I looked back at your initial goofy comment, jamie, and Beatrice's reponse is most appropriate.

She's funny, and you, the idiot, need to go back to school to hone your comprehension skills (you have none!).

Michael of TX 5:28AM October 04, 2010

beatrice, your comment makes no sense.

damon, your sexist remarks shows your ignorance.

sincerely,

mr. jamie

jamie of IL 11:29AM October 03, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement