Reply #23: No, context says it all.

[Moosepoop]

Daley was not opposing the health care bill when he issued that quote to the New York Times. He was speaking to why he felt the bill had lost support among the general public. The NYT article was about "The Limits of Rahmism" and detailed, among other things, the health care fight, including the machinations of the Republicans and the loss of public support for the measure along the way.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/magazine/14emanuel-t.html?pagewanted=6&_r=1

While many of the provisions of the health care bill were individually popular with the public, the collective size of the package — roughly $1 trillion over a decade — left some voters with sticker shock. Even though the plan was, at least in theory, paid for by spending cuts, cost savings and new taxes on wealthier Americans or expensive insurance plans, the idea of an enormous project coming after the hundreds and hundreds of billions already devoted to bank bailouts, auto bailouts and the stimulus package amid skyrocketing deficits proved too much for a lot of the public.

“They miscalculated on health care,” Daley, the former commerce secretary, told me. “The election of ’08 sent a message that after 30 years of center-right governing, we had moved to center left — not left.” Other Democrats say Obama simply overestimated his capacity to bring Republicans into the fold. “They were duped,” said a Democratic member of Congress who did not want to be identified criticizing the White House. “Maybe a little naïve. I don’t think Rahm was, but the president himself.”

As for "failing to back" the creation of a consumer protection agency, let's look at Huffpo's quote from the Wall Street Journal again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/bill-daley-chief-of-staff_n_805184.html

But when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called a top J.P. Morgan executive to ask for the bank's support in creating a new consumer-protection agency, the executive--former Commerce Secretary William Daley--said no, according to people familiar with the conversation. His boss believed that sufficient consumer safeguards were already on the books.

So he receives a request, as a bank executive, for the bank he works for to back the creation of the consumer protection agency, and he replies that the bank will not do so because of what his boss says. He was following his boss's orders, which is what an employee (even a high-ranking executive) is supposed to do. Notice that he was not offering his own opinion on the matter -- perhaps it was the same as his boss's, perhaps he felt differently. Either way he cited the boss as his reason for the bank saying no to the request.

All the moaning and wailing is over two old out-of-context statements, which don't amount to a hill of beans. But the moaning and wailing will continue, I'm sure. Tempests in teapots (and moaning and wailing) are rather enjoyable for some.