Step Back, George Packer

Today, George Packer of the New Yorker wrote a blog post on the zine's site about the different ways presidents handle troubled subordinates. He writes,

"Clinton showed that he was ready to cut anyone loose who caused him political trouble, and this opportunism weakened him more than the troubled appointee could have. Bush responded with stubborn loyalty, which became the same thing as indifference to competence and integrity, poisoning his Presidency. There's a third way, projecting true strength, and that's to live up to your principles, which is what Obama just did."

Forget about the embarassingly cloying nature of this post. What's more noticeable is Packer's lack of context. Instead of comparing the Daschle/Geithner/Killefer issues with similar transition troubles Bush and Clinton faced, Packer's only example for either one is Bush's defense of Alberto Gonzales -- already an established Cabinet official.

A more apt comparison would be Bush's handling of Linda Chavez, who was (now, as it turns out, wrongfully) pilloried for helping an illegal immigrant ten years before her nomination to Labor Secretary in 2001. Or Bernard Kerik, who withdrew amid scandal after being nominated as Homeland Security chief. Both of these officials were handled in roughly the same manner as Obama handled Daschle. In all of these cases, the President tried to hang on to the nominee for as long as he could, until the nominee finally had to capitulate to public pressure. Packer shouldn't try to manufacture a distinction between presidents when it isn't really so clear-cut.