With President Obama’s hyper-partisan Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once more in the news for his, well, direct manner of expressing himself, many who follow politics are asking if it’s time for the president to seek a replacement.
When, right after the 2008 election, then-President-elect Obama tapped the veteran of the Clinton White House to be his Chief of Staff, Republicans (and independents) should have recognized that the Democrat’s post-partisan campaign rhetoric was just that, rhetoric. In his three terms in the House, the Chicago Democrat (Rahm, not Obama) never showed much of an inclination to forge bipartisan compromises. He preferred attacking Republicans to working with them.
The president could show that he really means to work in a bi-partisan manner by replacing Rahm with someone less belligerent toward the increasingly resurgent GOP. Yet, in her article considering where the Chief of Staff is liability or asset to Obama, Julie Mason thinks he’s keeping his job: “his close relationship to the president means his position is largely secure.”
That’s too bad, this is a man whose background is not shaping policy, but promoting his fellow partisans. His departure would signal a White House less committed to winning political fights and more concerned with advancing the national interest.