Getty Images
President Obama and Denis McDonough, his new White House chief of staff
Since President Obama won re-election, congressional Republicans have, at various times, complained about his cabinet choices, his policy agenda, his negotiating stances, and his inaugural address.
And as it turns out, his West Wing staffing choices aren't exactly drawing GOP praise, either.
President Barack Obama's most recent nominations and appointments show that he is assembling a muscular senior team of trusted allies to carry out his second-term plans, without concern for Republican sensitivities, some GOP officials say.
With his second-term appointments largely complete, the president has built a cadre of officials and aides that some say is more for combat than consensus -- to execute policies rooted in the Democratic ideals laid out in his inaugural speech last week.
By contrast, midway through his first term the president named William Daley as his chief of staff, choosing someone with ties to the corporate world in an overture to Republicans and business leaders.
As a matter of basic accuracy, the complaints have at least some merit. Last week, Obama named "Denis McDonough, a longtime deputy with no independent political base, whose primary purpose will be to put in place the president's policies" as his new chief of staff. There is a legitimate contrast -- two years ago this month, shortly after huge Republican gains in the 2010 midterms, Obama tapped Daley to serve as the White House chief of staff, a decision that seemed to designed to send a signal of cooperation to the right, which appreciated Daley's not-so-liberal background.
And how did congressional Republicans respond to the overture? By quickly using the olive branch as kindling -- in April 2011, GOP leaders nearly forced a government shutdown; in July 2011, Republicans instigated a debt-ceiling crisis, nearly forcing a default and global economic catastrophe; and in October 2011, they nearly forced another shutdown.
Daley was in the West Wing for all of 12 months, during which time congressional Republicans launched three separate crises and made no meaningful efforts to govern or legislate at all.
And so here we are, two years later, and unnamed GOP officials are complaining that the president is assembling a team designed "more for combat than consensus." My question to these Republicans is simple: what, exactly, did you expect?
Or more to the point, why in the world would Obama put together a team set on building consensus after the reaction the last time the president tried to do exactly that? Why try new overtures when the old ones failed to produce any constructive results?
Republicans created this environment; it's a little late for them to complain about its toxicity.
Leave a Comment:
Republican sensitivities? Why should the President care? It is his staff. Republicans don't give a rat's backside about Democratic sensitivities.
Someone please remind me of how much the most recent Republican Presidents bothered over Democratic (or even democratic) concerns where staffing was involved.
Quick internet search shows Mineta. So...
This is The Best Thing . . . Ok, not Today, but A Couple Days Ago, about the silliness of reporters bending over backwards to be "fair" about bipartisanship - Must Read News:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/26/post-inauguration-partisanship-obama_n_2554281.html
:-)
"without concern for Republican sensitivities"
Say it ain't so...those tender, sensitive souls might end up with bruised feelings!
Oh, the humanity!
The jokes write themselves!
How dare Obama stop rolling over for the Rs????
Personally, I think the aim of any Democratic politician should be to cause Republicans to curl into fetal positions and cry out for their mommies. Any Democrat who gives a monkey's for the feelings of Republicans should switch parties.
I'm with you. I'm part of a new gen of Dems who believe we can be progressive and liberal without being kowtowing wimps like Harry Reid.
if being ' sensitive' with his appointments had gotten the President ANYWHERE in Term 1...maybe he should think about it. since it got him NO GOP VOTES ON ANYTHING..
F 'EM.
"Republican sensitivities" = oxymoron
Despite losing the election, they still think they're in charge. You know, rich, white, etc. They'll allow the hired help to pretend for a while that he's the boss as long as he doesn't take things too far.
The favorite tv show for billionaires is Undercover Boss. But only for episodes where the real boss gets to kick @ss & fire people.
They don't actually think they're still in charge. But they believe that if they act as if they are, everyone will fall in line.
"Hey, see that f#cking river over there?.. Oh, never mind.."
I wish Obama were more comfortable referring to the GOP as a bunch of WATBs. Their M.O. is obstruct and then complain that nothing gets accomplished. Treat goodwill gestures as if they don't exist, then claim a lack of goodwill gestures is a punch in the gut. Be as partisan as possible while accusing the President of being as partisan as possible.
Because hey, "both sides do it." And if you're so fed up with politics that you stop voting, it'll so much easier for them to "win" elections. Saves them the trouble of suppressing your vote legally if they disenfranchise you emotionally.
If Republicans don't complain about the President's staff choices, then they'd have to complain about his policies. But complaining about President Obamas policies would only demonstrate, again, that they're supporting policies the country doesn't like.
Of course, the Republicans could just shut up...
President Obama has had very high turnover in the Chief of Staff position. I'm not sure why or whether it matters, but it's interesting to compare his four (or five) chiefs in just over four years with George W. Bush (two in eight years) and Bill Clinton (four in eight years).
Why? What possible rationale would anyone care how many chiefs-of-staff a president selects.
The Rahm & Daley were two too many.
There are two, and only two, narratives in Republican politics:
1) Those so-called "victims" you bleeding hearts are always mewling about had it comin' to them!
2) Hey, we're the real victims here!j
If republicans are complaining about President Obama's picks he must be doing the right thing.
"Republican sensitivities" really?!? Crybabies, whiners, obstructionists, bullies, mendacious to a fault, know nothings, unAmerican, whores to the Oligarchy - the GOTP may be called many things but their "sensitivities" is so NOT something that the American people need to worry about!
FDR welcomed the haters, maybe this is O's way of saying the same thing.
Let's hope this is the case and the next 4 years will consist of the GOP getting it's ass kicked on a daily basis.
My only regret is that Obama waited so long.
Now, if only Reid hadn't caved.
Way too early to say that The Obomination has given up his role as The Capitulator in Chief.
Oh yes his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has done a fantastic job as mayor of Chitown just look at his murder rate. Funny how "progressives" can't even get or keep their own house in order but can preach to the rest of us. And congrats to him for haveing a hand in the latest financial downgrade of Illinois, now tied with Calif as the worst states. Which means us taxpayers will have to pay more taxes to borrow more and more and more and more.
Seems to be a pattern here, democratic controlled state senate and state house = massive state debt.
Yawn, nothing to see here but another troll with a lot of numbers after his name, blabbering about debt or whatever Fox News or Rush or his snake handling preacher tells him to blabber about, totally oblivious to the fact that his party and their policies are to blame for his miserable existence and his anger.
"Seems to be a pattern here, democratic controlled state senate and state house = massive state debt."
An interesting - and easily proved - supposition. Let's take a look at the top 10 states with the biggest debts, shall we?
10: MA - D control
9: MI - R control
8: FL - R control
7: PA - R control
6: OH - R control
5: IL - D control
4: NJ - split
3: TX - R control
2: NY - split
1: CA - D control
Soooooo......That's 3 states with state legislatures with Democratic control, 2 states that are split, and 5 states with Republican control of both state houses. I don't know if that constitutes a pattern, but I do know Wyatt has no idea what he's talking about.
The fact that Wyatt has no idea about what he's talking about should be a given, right? After all, he IS a right winger.
I ain't got any "sensitivities"!! I expect no quarter from this president.He sat there with Rev. Blight and lent him an ear for 2 decades what the Hades do the republicans expect, hugs and folk songs by the no carbon dioxide fire?
Yes Obama is surrounding himself with his kinda peeps.This isn't news to me.
"Without concern for Republican sensitivities" isn't just a good method of assembling a White House staff to carry out your policy plans; for some of us, it's a way of life.
F Republicans. Obama ought to be giving Republicans a big ol' middle finger and laughing about it. Then he ought to be taking every chance he gets to explain to the nation just what Republican ideas and policies have done to the country and world.
Your mamma know you talk like that?
She demands it. F Republicans.
I have been lurking on this site for a while now now and Disgusted....you should know...I adore you.
I love it when the pretty ones like me! Thank you, Persephone.
HAH! What else is new? Blaming Ds for what they did… AGAIN! Sheesh, there is no end to their chutzpah, with accent on the ccccchhhhuuutz-pah!
They disgust me.
If you understand where the repubs are coming from, then it is clear why they do this. And they really don't know what we're talking about when we make fun of them for their sensitivities.
Narcissistic sociopaths honestly feel that they are all that matters in the world. Their feelings are important and other people don't even have feelings, let alone legitimate ones. Since they're the center of the world, it never even occurs to them to judge themselves on the basis of how they treat other people. Being a repub these days requires at least a certain amount of that orientation, so they are totally surprised when other people don't automatically take their desires into account when doing everything.
See Susan H above for a good example.
well, that was refreshing.