LibriumArcana.Games

Former DNC chairman and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Wednesday that William Daley would be a "huge plus" for the Obama administration if he is tapped to be the president's new chief of staff.

Dean praised Daley as someone "who knows Washington, but he also is not of Washington." At the same time, the former presidential candidate excoriated Obama's senior staff.

At a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, Dean refused to single out any administration officials for criticism, but said Obama would be better served by staff that has not spent so much time in Washington.

Noting that many officials are "either out of the White House or going," Dean blasted Obama's current officials who he says have treated the left wing of the Democratic Party with "contempt."

"As they say, don't let the door hit you in the you-know-what on the way out," Dean said.

The comments came as senior adviser David Axelrod prepares to depart for Chicago to begin Obama's reelection campaign and amid reports that press secretary Robert Gibbs might be leaving.

Dean acknowledged that he has big differences with Daley, who according to Dean has "been moving to the right over the last five to 10 years," but he said that Daley is "a grown-up who doesn't treat people like they don't know anything and you know everything."

The 2004 presidential candidate's comments came in response to a question about Obama's relationship with the "professional left," a term Gibbs used in an interview with The Hill last year to describe liberal commentators who criticize Obama.

When pressed for specific names, Dean refused to say whether he was talking about Gibbs, Axelrod or former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Dean said that Daley would bring an "adult" mindset to the White House in dealing with liberals in the party.

"Disrespect breeds disrespect," Dean said.

The former Vermont governor appeared to be endorsing Daley for the position, vacated by Emanuel who left last year to run for mayor of Chicago, but he said he thought John Podesta would be the best choice for the position.

Despite his statements, Dean said he will not run against Obama in 2012, and it would be "foolish" for another Democrat to try.

Dean also warned that on big four deficit drivers — Social Security, Medicare, defense spending and taxes — Obama should tread lightly unless Republicans show they are serious about cutting all four.

It would be a "huge mistake" for Obama to deal with Republicans on their terms, Dean said.

"He'll get whip-sawed just like he did the last two years," Dean said.

Over the course of the breakfast, Dean tackled a number of topics, including healthcare and the Republican Tea Party that was officially swept into power on Wednesday.

Dean warned House Speaker-elect John Boehner (R-Ohio) that he will have trouble getting the Tea Party in line, describing Boehner's new position as "the biggest hot seat in Washington."

Derek Thunder wrote:I'm not sure what Howard Dean is thinking then. Our economy is in many respects broken - bankers continue to collect outrageous compensation for speculating, businesses continue to hoard free cash from the Fed while refusing to hire... and the White House's response is to seek out a pro-business, anti-regulation hack directly from Wall Street.

It's really quite clear that this president has made the determination not to confront any of the fundamental problems in our economic system, perhaps hoping that his successor's inability to grapple with the same problems will make him look better in retrospect.

God forbid that business leaders be consulted when discussing the proper functioning of the largest and most complex economy in the History of the World.

Yes, because based on the background of the person that the President has selected as his chief of staff, it is plainly clear to all that he has no intention to confront any problems within the system just as he had no intention of addressing any problems with health care or Gays in the military.

Derek Thunder wrote:Ah yes, the poor put-upon executive class shall finally have a voice in Washington. Truly, justice is on the march and we shall right the wrong of discrimination against the global hyper-rich.

I first saw Nitram's post and was hoping to have an interesting discussion with him, but instead I face a pique of childish snark. You are aware that you're not going to get an invitation to the Davos Summit or Jamie Dimon's birthday party with knee-jerk defenses of the plutocracy on a lightly-trafficked sci-fi/fantasy message board right?

Derek Thunder wrote: Normally I'd be more game for an actual debate, but I'll just say this - The Affordable Care Act, while containing some good aspects, did next to nothing to fix the actual problems with a for-profit, employer-based health care system which is now even more enshrined into law. If you believe otherwise, please share whatever you and Dr. Dean are hitting, as I need an upper after the drudgery of graduate school applications.

General Havoc wrote:Is there someone else's post you are responding to that I should be aware of? I was merely inquiring how a background in finance is evidence as to the going intentions of the President of the United States regarding the economy, let alone evidence as to the President's "clear determination" (your words) to avoid grappling with any economic problems.

I'd be careful about making personal attacks if I were you, and I'd be extremely careful about bringing the term "knee-jerk" into the discussion, given your record of absurdest left-wing propaganda concerning the fascist nature of the United States, to say nothing of your lengthy trolling history on these very lightly-trafficked sci-fi/fantasy message boards. You haven't the wit or the intellect to comprehend my motives in positing an argument, so I suggest you desist in pretending that you do, before I start making guesses as to why you might, yet again, bring up the same hoary old cliche's about "the plutocracy".

Whatever you think of the Affordable Care Act, be it good or bad (and I'm no unreserved fan of it, I assure you), it does not indicate a "clear determination" to avoid grappling with the problems of Health Care on the part of the President, any more than this selection indicates that in regards to financial regulation.

The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party -- my lifelong political home -- has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.

Rep. Griffith's decision makes him the fifth centrist Democrat to either switch parties or announce plans to retire rather than stand for reelection in 2010. These announcements are a sharp reversal from the progress the Democratic Party made starting in 2006 and continuing in 2008, when it reestablished itself as the nation's majority party for the first time in more than a decade. That success happened for one major reason: Democrats made inroads in geographies and constituencies that had trended Republican since the 1960s. In these two elections, a majority of independents and a sizable number of moderate Republicans joined the traditional Democratic base to sweep Democrats to commanding majorities in Congress and to bring Barack Obama to the White House.

These independents and Republicans supported Democrats based on a message indicating that the party would be a true Big Tent -- that we would welcome a diversity of views even on tough issues such as abortion, gun rights and the role of government in the economy.

This call was answered not just by voters but by a surge of smart, talented candidates who came forward to run and win under the Democratic banner in districts dominated by Republicans for a generation. These centrists swelled the party's ranks in Congress and contributed to Obama's victories in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and other Republican bastions.

But now they face a grim political fate. On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, "true" Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.

The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.

Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year's off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents -- many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.

Witness the drumbeat of ominous poll results. Obama's approval rating has fallen below 49 percent overall and is even lower -- 41 percent -- among independents. On the question of which party is best suited to manage the economy, there has been a 30-point swing toward Republicans since November 2008, according to Ipsos. Gallup's generic congressional ballot shows Republicans leading Democrats. There is not a hint of silver lining in these numbers. They are the quantitative expression of the swing bloc of American politics slipping away.

And, of course, witness the loss of Rep. Griffith and his fellow moderate Democrats who will retire. They are perhaps the truest canaries in the coal mine.

Despite this raft of bad news, Democrats are not doomed to return to the wilderness. The question is whether the party is prepared to listen carefully to what the American public is saying. Voters are not re-embracing conservative ideology, nor are they falling back in love with the Republican brand. If anything, the Democrats' salvation may lie in the fact that Republicans seem even more hell-bent on allowing their radical wing to drag the party away from the center.

All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.

For liberals to accept that inescapable reality is not to concede permanent defeat. Rather, let them take it as a sign that they must continue the hard work of slowly and steadily persuading their fellow citizens to embrace their perspective. In the meantime, liberals -- and, indeed, all of us -- should have the humility to recognize that there is no monopoly on good ideas, as well as the long-term perspective to know that intraparty warfare will only relegate the Democrats to minority status, which would be disastrous for the very constituents they seek to represent.

The party's moment of choosing is drawing close. While it may be too late to avoid some losses in 2010, it is not too late to avoid the kind of rout that redraws the political map. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to move back toward the center -- and in doing so, set the stage for the many years' worth of leadership necessary to produce the sort of pragmatic change the American people actually want.