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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How does one define the most partisan member of Congress? And besides, it's Chief of Staff, isn't that a demotion for Rahm? Now, Bernie Sanders for Secretary of Commerce, that would be fun.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sean Hannity and Dick Morris are already going crazy over this Emanuel rumor.

Good. Dick Morris has zero political skills, so this was probably actually an excellent move by Obama.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

CoS however, isn't about Congressional Relations.  It's ultimately about managing the staff. 

It will have the GOP up in arms and is reminiscent of some early Clinton missteps. 

It's about governance and it might not be a good choice.

...

Are you going to do this for the next four years too? I thought we'd be done after the election.

Get used to it.  Democrats hated Bush from the very beginning and Republicans are going to hate Obama from the very beginning.

Wrong, Bush had an 88% approval rating among Democrats in this poll. The Democrats were strongly behind Bush until it was clear that he was terrible. Obama will never get that kind of benefit of the doubt.

http://old.911digitalarchive.org/crr/documents/1319.pdf

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.