Does Trump need a chief of staff more like an SUV or a Priebus?

The president's chief of staff is partially responsible for shaping policy.  By limiting access to the president, he can determine which arguments the president hears.  When a policy is chosen, the chief of staff is responsible for making sure it is carried out in an effective way.

One can argue that the way President Trump's policies have been carried out has been lacking.  This is laid directly at the door of Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, whom President Trump selected, which may explain why there are rumors of his pending replacement.

"Reince is responsible, ultimately, for the rollout of the immigration executive order," one source said.  "He failed to get [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions on the calendar in the Senate in time for what he knew would be a highly controversial executive order.  He was supposed to be this wizard in dealing with congressional Republicans, but has not been successful in getting anything serious done."

Pouring fuel on this fire around Priebus is the fact that he is not effectively working Republicans on Capitol Hill, such as his friend House Speaker Paul Ryan, to push through key legislative items that Trump campaigned on, like the repealing and replacing of Obamacare and reforming taxes, among other initiatives.  Sources close to the president question whether Priebus will be able to stomach pushing through major pieces of legislation down the road, such as the president's infrastructure plan, a plan for the promised border wall, or the buildup of the military, among other things.

Priebus was selected because he is known as the Counselor Troi of the Republican Party – he had relationships with all the key players in Washington.  But consider the problems that have arisen so far:

1) The slow pace of confirming President Trump's Cabinet appointments.  A more aggressive chief of staff would have put more pressure on Mitch McConnell to hold the Senate in session 24 hours a day, seven days a week, until all were confirmed, which McConnell has done occasionally but not continuously enough.

2) The poor vetting and dealing with national security adviser Michael Flynn.  Priebus knew about the controversy involving Flynn's talking to the Russians for weeks.  Flynn should have been vetted better, and if they were going to dump Flynn (as they did), they should not have taken so long and hung him out to dry, so to speak.

3) Taking the beaten housewife approach toward dealing with the judiciary.  President Trump continues to play the game of the biased courts, which have seized power and taken over control of immigration policy.  A more assertive chief of staff would realize that Trump will need to make even tougher decisions down the road and so needs to confront the judiciary's illegality sooner, rather than later.  But Trump has been content to play the courts' games and to talk of issuing a new executive order, one that judges can just as easily find "discriminates" against Muslims.  Who has been giving President Trump this bad "wait and see" advice?

4) President Trump has stated he wants to end Obamacare.  There are things he can do immediately, unilaterally, to end parts of Obamacare, but he hasn't.  President Trump isn't an expert on health care, but there are people who are.  Part of the function of the chief of staff is to focus the president and to give him options.

5) President Trump has not yet stated his intentions regarding Obama's amnesty for young illegal aliens.  Every day, new illegals are signing up for the program under President Trump.  A decision has to be made about it, but there is none in sight.  Again, a good chief of staff helps a president prioritize decisions and gets him the information he needs to decide.

6) A good chief of staff does not leak like a sieve and sabotage other White House staff.  Conservative talk show host Mark Levin has said repeatedly that he suspects that Priebus is leaking harmful stories to hurt Stephen Bannon and other conservatives in the White House.

Priebus was chosen for his relationships with Republicans, but that has not paid off.  Neither has his non-confrontational strategy.

What do you think?  Does Trump need a chief of staff who is going to encourage the president and congressional Republicans to be more like an SUV, or a Prius?

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

The president's chief of staff is partially responsible for shaping policy.  By limiting access to the president, he can determine which arguments the president hears.  When a policy is chosen, the chief of staff is responsible for making sure it is carried out in an effective way.

One can argue that the way President Trump's policies have been carried out has been lacking.  This is laid directly at the door of Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, whom President Trump selected, which may explain why there are rumors of his pending replacement.

"Reince is responsible, ultimately, for the rollout of the immigration executive order," one source said.  "He failed to get [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions on the calendar in the Senate in time for what he knew would be a highly controversial executive order.  He was supposed to be this wizard in dealing with congressional Republicans, but has not been successful in getting anything serious done."

Pouring fuel on this fire around Priebus is the fact that he is not effectively working Republicans on Capitol Hill, such as his friend House Speaker Paul Ryan, to push through key legislative items that Trump campaigned on, like the repealing and replacing of Obamacare and reforming taxes, among other initiatives.  Sources close to the president question whether Priebus will be able to stomach pushing through major pieces of legislation down the road, such as the president's infrastructure plan, a plan for the promised border wall, or the buildup of the military, among other things.

Priebus was selected because he is known as the Counselor Troi of the Republican Party – he had relationships with all the key players in Washington.  But consider the problems that have arisen so far:

1) The slow pace of confirming President Trump's Cabinet appointments.  A more aggressive chief of staff would have put more pressure on Mitch McConnell to hold the Senate in session 24 hours a day, seven days a week, until all were confirmed, which McConnell has done occasionally but not continuously enough.

2) The poor vetting and dealing with national security adviser Michael Flynn.  Priebus knew about the controversy involving Flynn's talking to the Russians for weeks.  Flynn should have been vetted better, and if they were going to dump Flynn (as they did), they should not have taken so long and hung him out to dry, so to speak.

3) Taking the beaten housewife approach toward dealing with the judiciary.  President Trump continues to play the game of the biased courts, which have seized power and taken over control of immigration policy.  A more assertive chief of staff would realize that Trump will need to make even tougher decisions down the road and so needs to confront the judiciary's illegality sooner, rather than later.  But Trump has been content to play the courts' games and to talk of issuing a new executive order, one that judges can just as easily find "discriminates" against Muslims.  Who has been giving President Trump this bad "wait and see" advice?

4) President Trump has stated he wants to end Obamacare.  There are things he can do immediately, unilaterally, to end parts of Obamacare, but he hasn't.  President Trump isn't an expert on health care, but there are people who are.  Part of the function of the chief of staff is to focus the president and to give him options.

5) President Trump has not yet stated his intentions regarding Obama's amnesty for young illegal aliens.  Every day, new illegals are signing up for the program under President Trump.  A decision has to be made about it, but there is none in sight.  Again, a good chief of staff helps a president prioritize decisions and gets him the information he needs to decide.

6) A good chief of staff does not leak like a sieve and sabotage other White House staff.  Conservative talk show host Mark Levin has said repeatedly that he suspects that Priebus is leaking harmful stories to hurt Stephen Bannon and other conservatives in the White House.

Priebus was chosen for his relationships with Republicans, but that has not paid off.  Neither has his non-confrontational strategy.

What do you think?  Does Trump need a chief of staff who is going to encourage the president and congressional Republicans to be more like an SUV, or a Prius?

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

RECENT VIDEOS