Why Mulvaney is bad choice as Chief of Staff

President Trump has finally settled on Mick Mulvaney as his replacement for John Kelly as White House Chief of Staff.    It's a bad choice.

On paper, if you are a conservative Republican, you might think Mulvaney would be a good choice.    He served six years in the House of Representatives from  South Carolina.   Trump picked him to head up the White House Office of Management and Budget.     He then added on a second job, running -- with intent to dismantle -- the Elizabeth Warren-created Consumer  Financial Protection Bureau.

Now Trump, having been scorned by his first choice for Chief of Staff (CoS) by golden boy Nick Ayers, and having been told by several others, including Steve Mnuchin and Chris Christie that they weren't interested -- he turned to Mulvaney, who has accepted the job as Acting Chief of Staff.    "Acting" was Mulvaney's condition, a sort of conditional condition, it seems.   That presumably means that, if things work out, he'll stay;  but that the path is cleared for him to leave if they can find someone else.

According to inside reports, that is more or less the same condition that Ayers asked for, and it was the reason given for his appointment not being made.   So, on the surface, it would appear that something has changed -- like, perhaps, not being able to find anyone acceptable who would accept the job unconditionally.

Aside from the bad idea of having an Acting Chief of Staff, when the place needs stabilizing, here's why Mulvaney is a bad choice anyway.    According to Chris Whipple, author of a book about White House Chiefs of Staff and the presidents they worked for, the CoS needs, among other multiple talents and skills, to be able to guide the president and to stand up to him to prevent him from making bad decisions.   He (or she) needs to be able to say No to the president in a way that he or she will accept.

As Whipple points out, Mulvaney has already proved he can't or won't do that.    He is an ultra-conservative, having come to Congress as a part of the Tea Party crowd, then became part of what formed as the Freedom Caucus.    That would indicate that he is pro-small government and definitely anti-deficit spending.   As a member of congress, he would have voted against the tax cut for the wealthy that created such a huge deficit in the budget and increased the national debt so hugely.   But, as Trump's budget director, Mulvaney supported the tax cut.

So, it appears that Mulvaney has certain principles -- but, once in Trump's orbit (as his budget director) he turned sycophant and went along with a direct violation of his anti-deficit principle.

That is what makes him not a good choice for Chief of Staff.    Did he even try to talk the president out of such a big deficit hole?    Did he buy the myth Republicans have been peddling for decades, that tax cuts pay for themselves?    Will he even try to tell the president he's being played a fool by Kim Jong Un?    That everyone knows that he (Trump) is Putin's asset?     That Mueller's investigation is not a hoax but rather a mortal danger to his presidency?

I think not.    The only other possibility is that he tried very hard to talk Trump out of the tax cut . . . but failed . . . and neither is good news.

Ralph