Are Chiefs-of-Staff Really THAT Powerful? (As in, Leo McGarry-powerful)

[liberalpragmatist]

I suppose it would depend on the president and his relationship with his chief of staff. But is the chief of staff really like a co-President in most administrations? That's how the West Wing depicts it and I'm curious how close this is to the truth?

How close is Bush to Andrew Card and how much does Andrew Card govern? How close were Clinton and Erskine Bowles?

[Mass]

1. I dont think so

I remember an early interview about Leo McGarry character where they said that he was a mix between the Chief of Staff and the Political Adviser. In the current situation, that would make him have the power of both Andrew Card and Karl Rove. I doubt that either Card or Bowles had all this power.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Josh is (was) really more of Karl Rove's equivalent

Granted Toby and Sam (moreso Sam) are also very involved with the political stuff.

[Mass]

7. Dont know

Just reported what Sorkin said in an interview a few years ago, that's all. As he created the character, I'd imagine he knew what he was talking about.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Yes

Bowles and Card are actually fairly weak as Chiefs of Staff. (Or is that "Chieves of Staves"?)

--p!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. I've actually wondered the same thing

I think Leo's role in running the west wing is realistic. Whether he is the president's chief advisor is up to the President. The President can really take advice from anyone.

My biggest question is does the chief of staff have such an influential role in national security matters as Leo does? I always thought the POTUS worked more closely with his national security advisor.

[DaveinMD]

6. depends on the President