The Choice of Rahm Emanuel is a declaration of war on Republicans

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Like many have previously stated, Obama's selection of Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff is an excellent decision. Its the most logical choice Obama could have made when selecting a Chief of Staff. In conclusion, I agree with Torie's comments regarding the selection of Emanuel as Chief of Staff and believe he will serve as an effective and pragmatic one at that.

[Wakie]

But if you had a dollar for every Democrat I had named most partisan, you'd only have one dollar, wouldn't you?

I can honestly say I haven't read every one of your posts and even if I had I doubt I'd remember every detail.  But I can speak in generalities regarding things I've heard before from conservatives.  And frankly during this election cycle some conservatives called Obama "the most liberal member of Congress" only a few months after they called Hillary the same thing and only 4 years after they called John Kerry the same thing.  The point is, charging someone as "the most" whatever has become a tired and old charge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that we're less than 100 hrs removed from the election and you aren't an insider to the Obama camp I think it is ridiculous for you to say that you know how strong or weak of a CoS Emanuel will be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here you admit that how much power a CoS has is dependent on the President.  As Obama is not yet in office and you're not part of his inner circle I think you're not qualified to say how much power he will give to his CoS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A selection of a CoS is a "first step in a plan to exact revenge out of pure bitterness"?  Are you next going to say there is a vast left-wing conspiracy??

I can honestly say I have no idea if Obama and the Dem Congress plan on "exacting revenge".  My bet is that they will not (because doing so will ensure they lose office in the next 2-4 years and politicians care MOST about staying in office).

I think it is telling though that Republicans are afraid that Democrats will do the same things which THEY did while THEY were in office.  It more or less tells you that Republicans were knowingly acting improperly and sometimes to the detriment of the nation.  Yeah, I just can't wait to return someone like THAT to power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL ... you're basing this outlandish statement on who he picked as CoS???  48 hours after the election and you're already condemning him.
[/quote]

You clearly don't get how important the Chief of Staff is.  With the exception of GW Bush's administration and the first half of the Carter administration, the Chief of Staff is basically co-President.
[/quote]

Do you really think any of Bill Clinton's CoS's were "co-President"??  Do you think Alexander Haig was co-President for Nixon??

As you've pointed out, the CoS's power is largely dependent on the President.  I think it is too early for you to say that Obama will just be a yes man for his CoS.  And for my 2 cents, Obama doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who will just say yes to whatever one of his people tells him. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

He'll do just fine in the official job description - managing the President's schedule and who sees him, overseeing the White House staff, etc...

When Obama wants a message delivered to Congress or his appointees in no uncertain terms, Emanuel will deliver it in more than no uncertain terms.   

Whatever "authority" Obama cedes to him will be unquestioned.

[Brittain33]

He'll do just fine in the official job description - managing the President's schedule and who sees him, overseeing the White House staff, etc...

When Obama wants a message delivered to Congress or his appointees in no uncertain terms, Emanuel will deliver it in more than no uncertain terms.   

Whatever "authority" Obama cedes to him will be unquestioned.

Yes. I don't see where people are reading deeper motives into this choice. Rahm is simply the best guy for the job where the job is getting sh!t done Obama wants done.

The psychodrama of the last 16 years is over. New psychodrama will take its place, but not yet.

[minionofmidas]

A far bigger outrage is Obama's promise to bring a puppy into the White House.  This is a declaration of war against all cat-lovers in this great nation.

All catlovers of all great nations, actually. And all cats.

We have four years to bring the goggie-hugger to heel, though!

[Lunar]

Here are my thoughts on Rahmbo:

1) He's brutally effective.  He's a perfectionist and a hard bargainer, but he DOES bargain and compromise (thus he's effective).  He was chosen to negotiate the presidential debate formats for a reason.  I can't think of a politician in Washington who could be told to do something within their capabilities and be able to accomplish it easier than Rahm.
2) He knows how laws are passed and almost always knows the perfect balance of politics and policy. 
3) He's a center-right Democrat and has always encouraged his colleagues to adopt more centrist positions to win more elections. 
4) He's incredibly loyal, crazy style.  If he was stabbing his steak knife into the table in '96 again and again as he declares which "betrayers" are "DEAD" - imagine what he'll do for his fellow Windy City homeboy.
5) He leaks to the press, but strategically.  I saw a Politico article noting how Obama's job offer to Rahmbo was one of the first leaks in the last two years.
6) But this is a product of the fact that he talks to everyone, the Republicans and the press.  He has mad connections
7) His partisan loyalties and past accomplishments could ease Obama's inevitable but slight move to the center (like Clinton).  When Obama buts heads with the Dems, it'd be best for Obama to have Rahm there explaining it.
8 ) It represents and outreach to the Jewish/Israeli community.  Israeli newspapers love the pick and AIPAC digs it.  Obama could use their political support now to entrench support of his Middle-East policy (which will likely be to remove forces from Iraq).  It's one of Obama's signature themes that he's a "staunch supporter of Israel" and frankly, this pick proves it.
9) This pick shows a departure from the "cool, calm" style of Obama's campaigning into a "get the job done" style of governing.   Rahm is profanity-laced and brutally honest.  This pick shows that Obama prioritizes an independent thought and blunt truth.  "You got it backwards," Emanuel, who is Jewish, reportedly told Clinton at the time. "You messed around with a Jewish girl, and now you're paying a goyish [non-Jewish] lawyer. You should have messed around with a goyishe girl, and gotten a Jewish lawyer."
10) Rahm would have only accepted the job if he felt like it was not only a promotion, but enough of a promotion that he'd sacrifice his plum spot in the House for a temp job.  I truly think that he intends on being a player more than Card or Bolton or anyone else ever was and redefine the role of what the Chief of Staff can do.
11) It antagonizes Republicans who would have preferred a chief of staff who represented bipartisanship at its finest [all of them].  Does that outweigh the other benefits?  Rahm still talks to Republicans, he just beats them down as much as he can during negotiations.  He does the same for his own party compared to where he thinks they should go.  Personally, I think the GOP is upset about the pick because it shows a doubling-down on Chicago insider politics combined, more importantly, with the fact that Rahmbo has a very good chance at "winning" political fights, more than any other selection.
12) How does this relate to the "50 State Strategy" that Rahm opposed strongly?


Most of all.  It shows that the Obama administration is in it to win it.  They would rather step on some toes and accomplish twice as much than offer bipartisan platitudes and offer the other side little in direct ammo.  You don't choose someone like Rahmbo if you don't have grand plans.

I can't help but if Rahmbo will make a bigger role for himself than Card or Bolton had.  Why else would he be tempted to leave the House leadership if he didn't think this?

[MODU]

Rahm is a hardcore Democrat, and one with a dark reputation.  However, I think he could be quite efficient as Chief.  It takes someone with a spine to keep egos in check. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This thread is suggestive that Republicans are going to attack every single thing that Obama does. I don't remember people complaining about whichever right-wing hack Bush appointed as Chief of staff.

[paul718]

This thread is suggestive that Republicans are going to attack every single thing that Obama does. I don't remember people complaining about whichever right-wing hack Bush appointed as Chief of staff.

I don't remember President Bush appointing Tom Delay to a cabinet-level position. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This thread is suggestive that Republicans are going to attack every single thing that Obama does. I don't remember people complaining about whichever right-wing hack Bush appointed as Chief of staff.

I don't remember President Bush appointing Tom Delay to a cabinet-level position. 

Chief of staff isn't a cabinet-level position.

[exopolitician]

Why does it matter? Its not like he was going to chose a Republican for the position anyways. He didn't choose him to piss off Republicans, he chose him cause he knows how to get sh!t done.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Rahm will be an excellent CoS; he can get stuff done.  My only regret is that it is now unlikely that he'll ever be Speaker.

[paul718]

This thread is suggestive that Republicans are going to attack every single thing that Obama does. I don't remember people complaining about whichever right-wing hack Bush appointed as Chief of staff.

I don't remember President Bush appointing Tom Delay to a cabinet-level position. 

Chief of staff isn't a cabinet-level position.

I don't remember President Bush appointing Tom Delay to Chief of Staff.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

$10 says Obama appoints no Republicans to his cabinet. This isn't about hope, he just wants to let the Democrats run the show. He won't reach across the isle; he'll stand in the way of that happening.

[Lief 🗽]

$10 says Obama appoints no Republicans to his cabinet. This isn't about hope, he just wants to let the Democrats run the show. He won't reach across the isle; he'll stand in the way of that happening.

Good. Republicans lost. Why should they be rewarded?

[Lief 🗽]

$10 says Obama appoints no Republicans to his cabinet. This isn't about hope, he just wants to let the Democrats run the show. He won't reach across the isle; he'll stand in the way of that happening.

Good. Republicans lost. Why should they be rewarded?

Uh ... you do realize that your guy campaigned on 'working across the aisle' and tossing aside partisanship, right?  Or was he being a liar?

But seriously, if he appoints any Republicans, it'll be very moderate Republicans (Obamacans) in the form of Lincoln Chafee, et cetera.  He will never reach across the aisle to conservatives because Obama's 'bipartisanship' doesn't extend that far.

And because the far-right conservatives that make up the Republican party are way out of the mainstream. The American people did not vote for divided government; they very solidly voted for a Democratic President, a Democratic Congress, and a Democratic Senate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

$10 says Obama appoints no Republicans to his cabinet. This isn't about hope, he just wants to let the Democrats run the show. He won't reach across the isle; he'll stand in the way of that happening.

Good. Republicans lost. Why should they be rewarded?

Uh ... you do realize that your guy campaigned on 'working across the aisle' and tossing aside partisanship, right?  Or was he being a liar?

But seriously, if he appoints any Republicans, it'll be very moderate Republicans (Obamacans) in the form of Lincoln Chafee, et cetera.  He will never reach across the aisle to conservatives because Obama's 'bipartisanship' doesn't extend that far.

And because the far-right conservatives that make up the Republican party are way out of the mainstream. The American people did not vote for divided government; they very solidly voted for a Democratic President, a Democratic Congress, and a Democratic Senate.

About 46% of America voted for a Republican for the highest office in the land.  Should we ignore them?  This is the EXACT same rhetoric of the Republicans post-2004. 

And you still didn't address my point.  Why should Obama not be bipartisan when that's what he campaigned on?  You know it and I know it that he did not campaign as a liberal, did not campaign as a socialist, he campaigned as a "uniter".  Will he follow through on his promise, or is he going to represent more of the same?

Gore got 0.5% more than Bush, and Bush still screwed over Democrats. Your party is unreasonable, and deserves as little influence over the government as possible.

[JSojourner]

$10 says Obama appoints no Republicans to his cabinet. This isn't about hope, he just wants to let the Democrats run the show. He won't reach across the isle; he'll stand in the way of that happening.

Good. Republicans lost. Why should they be rewarded?

Uh ... you do realize that your guy campaigned on 'working across the aisle' and tossing aside partisanship, right?  Or was he being a liar?

But seriously, if he appoints any Republicans, it'll be very moderate Republicans (Obamacans) in the form of Lincoln Chafee, et cetera.  He will never reach across the aisle to conservatives because Obama's 'bipartisanship' doesn't extend that far.

And because the far-right conservatives that make up the Republican party are way out of the mainstream. The American people did not vote for divided government; they very solidly voted for a Democratic President, a Democratic Congress, and a Democratic Senate.

About 46% of America voted for a Republican for the highest office in the land.  Should we ignore them?  This is the EXACT same rhetoric of the Republicans post-2004. 

And you still didn't address my point.  Why should Obama not be bipartisan when that's what he campaigned on?  You know it and I know it that he did not campaign as a liberal, did not campaign as a socialist, he campaigned as a "uniter".  Will he follow through on his promise, or is he going to represent more of the same?

Gore got 0.5% more than Bush, and Bush still screwed over Democrats. Your party is unreasonable, and deserves as little influence over the government as possible.

And he only very narrowly beat Kerry in 2004, but claimed a "mandate" and "political capital he intended to spend".

[opebo]

There has still not been a single liberal who has answered my question.  Was Obama's calls for unity just talk? 

Yes, I think so, and I certainly hope so.  You have to remember, VB, that the Republican Party is the enemy of the vast majority of americans, whether they voted for it or not.

[Edu]

It strikes me as funny to discuss this right now. The guy just won the election 3 days ago and as far as i know hasn't even named his whole cabinet and it's still 2 months till he starts actually ruling the country.

If his "unity" calls are going to be true i don't really know, but it amazes me that people in a political forum would be outraged when a politician running for office makes campaign promises he can't or won't keep.

[Eleanor Martins]

There has still not been a single liberal who has answered my question.  Was Obama's calls for unity just talk?  Was he talking about uniting everyone (except Republicans)?  Was he lying?  And since the Republicans did it in 2004, should the Democrats do it now, especially when Obama campaigned as someone who would 'listen to the other side'?

Politics of change my ass.  Obama may belong to a different party, but it's still more of the same.

You know what, let's look at his appointments before we start jumping on his ass, alright?

[Third Party]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How? Rahm Emanuel is a right-wing DLCer.

[J. J.]

This thread is suggestive that Republicans are going to attack every single thing that Obama does. I don't remember people complaining about whichever right-wing hack Bush appointed as Chief of staff.

And I've never heard Andrew Card referred to as a "right wing hack."  Here is what someone said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Card

Now, that said:

A.  A CoS is an intensely personal choice and I'll defend Obama's right to make it.

B.  It is, unfortunately, a choice that makes a President, who claimed to be inclusive, look exclusive.

C.  Rohm, on merits, might be a very good choice.  I'll reserve judgment.  He is experienced in management, both political, and in business.

[Wall St. Wiz]

No surprise that Emanuel was picked, as Obama has never been a uniter.  He has never demonstrated bipartisanship.  It's all feel good garbage that appeals to the masses.  The most bipartisan member of Congress was thrashed on Tuesday night.

This is a disturbing selection, but lets see who else he picks and if a pattern of selecting hard core partisans is established.  I bet most of his picks will be in the same vain. 

[frihetsivrare]

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m11d6-Obamas-chief-of-staff-choice-favors-compulsory-universal-service

Enough said.