So it took Obama less than 18 hours to shoot a huge hole in the claim that he is a “uniter”. Rahm E is indisputably smart and experienced, but he is one of the most partisan and most abrasive people, at least by reputation, in all of Democratic leadership.
“And there’s the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting “Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!” and plunging the knife into the table after every name. “When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape,” one campaign veteran recalls. “It was like something out of The Godfather. But that’s Rahm for you.”
Rahmbo the Knife.
The position is the chief of staff. He’s not going to be engaging Republicans. The job is keeping the staff in line. Who was he going to select? DeMint? The guy has high expectations and does the work.
That is understating the role fmr Chiefs of Staff have played just a bit…consider Leon Panetta for WJC, Jim Baker for Reagan and Bush 41, Hamilton Jordan for Carter, just to name a few.
John – more people have died in Ted Kennedy’s car than died hunting with Dick Cheney.
As a politically conservative person, I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how he will govern. Let’s face it, we don’t have past experience to go on. I am sure he will find out that governing is not the same as running and that the President does have certain checks and balances on his actions.
We need to show the country what loyal opposition is and not fall prey to the same derangement that the left did during the Bush administration.
Too many people are getting their information from a poor source – Rush Limbaugh.
Barack Obama was not my choice, but he is now my President. I’ll cut him some slack. He can do no worse than the intellectually challenged occupant of the White House we’ve had for the past 8 years.
We’re all flawed human beings, so no-one ever has the ability or opportunity to pick from a pool of perfect applicants.
Yes, yes: it’s possible for one person to be more upright than another. And, ideally, the more upright fellow would also be the best person for the job – but even so, I would hope that we could all agree that uprightness is not the sole qualification for [i]any[/i] job. Every job I can think of requires more than just conscientious nature – whether that be ruthless determination, or a willingness to work hard for compromise, or the ability to communicate unusually well, or a boundless energy, or a gift for strategic planning, or an understanding of the “big picture,†or being detail-oriented, or the ability to remain calm in the midst of chaos, or what-have-you.
My point in a nutshell: The relevant inquiry is [i]not[/i] necessarily whether someone is the most impressive or honorable or upright candidate, but rather which of the candidates is best suited for the job at hand. Rahm Emmanuel undoubtedly has his flaws, but he also has his gifts – and [i]despite[/i] his flaws, it is possible that his gifts make him the right person for this job. (Terribly stunning disclosure: I think his gifts probably [i]do[/i] make him the right person for this particular job.)
President-elect Obama’s appointment of Mr. Emanuel as Chief of Staff says a lot about “change.” A Washington insider, and a political crone from Illinois, Emanual hardly looks like “anyone new.” Politics as usual, I expect.
Change doesn’t always mean “scrap everything that has worked in the past.” Mr. Emanuel brings institutional knowledge of how the White House works, and can hope to shorten President Obama’s learning curve in that area. Given the number of challenges the new administration faces, it’s an excellent choice.
Just what checks and balances are you thinking of? Congress (democrat controlled)? The judiciary (activists for the left)? Please, I need a reason to be cheerful.
(ps: when I have to explain what various cabinet people do to my mom, the only thing that works is West Wing references. I just got off the phone for the “he’s Leo, mom.” call)
Fishsticks…the problem is that by all indications we are moving into a period in which personal responsibility is being turned over to the government, meaning we are drifting into socialism…and a mean spirited guy (and most mean spirited persons appear quick and sharp tongued like Emmanuel) can quickly turn dependency on a benevolent government into the governments tyrannical insistence that you fall in line…fascism is just around the corner…trust me.
So the introduction of a fairly controlling personality like this could be dangerous given the shift from high expectations for individuals to organizing our country around the weakest links…
TEC has long organized itself around small parishes and mediocre clergy…and now the inmates are in charge of the asylum…let’s hope this doesn’t happen to America…the greatest country in history even before the election of Barrack O’Bama, and even under the leadership of George Bush.
Some folks on here need a nap. Now the choice of a chief of staff will lead us into tyranny and facism.
That’s some pretty rich hyperbole.
It would do all of us well to heed the words of Sen. McCain and his call that we support and help our new President. We don’t need another four years of what we have endured for the past 16.
Someday the Limbaugh gotcha game must come to an end. Get your head out of Fox News and smell the roses.
Jim, it is one thing to disagree with my analysis…but the persoanl attack is contrary to the new spirit of America and this web site…Elves, please do your duty and delete #23…
“We are moving into a period in which personal responsibility is being turned over to the government”
We’ve been in such a period for the past 8 years:
— Bailing out the airlines for the lax screening that made possible the Sept. 11 attacks
— Bailing out financial institutions and their investors
— Ballooning the national debt so that we could, for a few years, live even higher on the hog.
25…its only going to get worse…we need to reintroduce the concepts of sin and personal judgment that were eliminated from the ’79 Prayer Book…so we can see a system that considers Christianity an opium before we are all shut up in re-education camps…
[blockquote]We’ve been in such a period for the past 8 years:
— Bailing out the airlines for the lax screening that made possible the Sept. 11 attacks
— Bailing out financial institutions and their investors
— Ballooning the national debt so that we could, for a few years, live even higher on the hog. [/blockquote]
Are you saying Democrats wouldn’t do this? Don’t I remember seeing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid all smiles behind the microphone after making sure that this bail-out passed? It seems to me that a whole lot of folks are basically mad at the Republicans for acting like Democrats.
27…no matter, the transforamtion of America from the finest country in history has begun…and 51% of us now have our hands out, and the other 49% have our mouths hanging open…
Emmanuel or not…we still have Pelosi and Ried…the Crew and Bruno of America, to content with.
Now Caleb that is hyperbole. 51% don’t have their hands out. Colin Powell? Warren Buffet?
Turnout was 57% of those voting age.
Fox has this [url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/05/fox-news-exit-poll-summary-599974112/]exit poll summary[/url]:
The nation’s electorate was focused on the economy and change — two of Democrat Barack Obama’s biggest strengths — and that was more than enough to bring him victory over Republican John McCain.
Few items could illustrate more about this election than this: 75 percent of voters said the country is headed in the wrong direction, up from 46 percent in 2004 and 31 percent in 2000. And these voters went solidly for Obama — 62 percent to 36 percent for McCain.
30…I believe this election was about which candidate could promise to give more away for doing nothing…among other things…but it was surely about that…and that kind of hoped for governmental assistance leads to dependence on government rather than God…and that begins a slippery slope that certainly has not worked well in Europe…and I fear its outcome here.
This was a smart pick for Obama. If his agenda is going to be successfully advanced, he has to keep independent agendas in the House and Senate in check. We saw today that Pelosi has an independent agenda she wants to advance, and Hillary has also commented that she has a legislative agenda for the new year. Rahm is experienced at managing and corralling Congress. Obama will need to keep egos and agendas in check, particularly to stem an overly ambitious liberal agenda independent of his White House. We have every indication that Rahm is very qualified at this job.
#16 Jim of Lapeer – I take issue with your characterization of the current POTUS as intellectually challenged. You may not like the decisions he makes, and he arguably is not the smoothest public speaker there is, but you do not graduate from Yale undergraduate and Harvard Business School if you are intellectually challenged. Additionally, you will never get your pilot’s wings and be allowed to fly U.S. military jets if you are intellectually challenged.
#25, I was hoping that with Obama’s victory the Bush Derangement Syndrome would pass. Too soon, eh? “Bailing out the airlines for the lax screening that made possible the Sept. 11 attacks.” Please.
I am hoping that Obama will surprise me pleasantly. I voted against Clinton because I thought he would oppose free trade and welfare reform, and he ended by supporting both. I will begin to complain and write letters when Obama and the Dems propose something I thing is wrong.
Speaking of Derangement Syndrome, I expect to see the partisan and reported personal ugliness from Rahm Emmanuel and Chicago politics given a pass from the same press people who have foamed at the mouth over Karl Rove for years. Again, I hope to be wrong.
Interesting analysis from a [url=http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/default.asp?archiveID=13455]blog that Anglican Curmudgeon referenced[/url]:
[blockquote] Obama only got 52% with all his advantages. I have to admit that confirms the hypothesis that McCain would have won absent the economic meltdown and bailout, which is not something I would have said prior to reviewing the result this morning. And the Senate results are better than we deserve–It looks like Coleman hung on, Kennedy almost won in LA, Oregon is up in the air, McConnell won with some room to spare, and the CONVICTED CRIMINAL won in Alaska! Chambliss may still have a runoff in GA, contrary to the initial computer projections. [/blockquote]
Robroy,
McCain got almost 56 million votes. Not enough to beat Kerry’s 59,028,109 votes four years ago.
Obama’s 63 million votes beat George Bush’s 04 count and Bush was behind Gore in 2000.
The GOP is in a tailspin, and redemption might start with a resignation and apology from convicted felon Ted Stevens in Alaska.
Fox News has more: [url=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html]Republican Party in Tatters, Looks to Regroup[/url]
This catastrophe will be good for the conservatives for it will force them to find new ideas, new approaches, fresh faces, – in short a thorough rethinking of past philosophy. This will start a war inside the Rep party of course, but this is necessary. We can only hope that Palin will not gain political power in the party, but she certainly wants it.
And we can only hope that Emmanuel will not take this job. It may be that Obama needs an attack dog, but I am not sure he wants a Doberman. Larry
#20, RazorbackPadre: You referred to the judiciary as “activists for the left.â€
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162070,00.html]According to Fox News[/url] (July 2005), [blockquote]Since 1968, when Nixon was elected, Republican presidents have appointed 1,040 judges; Democrats have named 625. … The cumulative effect … is that [b]the last three Republican presidents’ nominees control virtually the whole judiciary.[/b] [/blockquote]
[i](emphasis mine)[/i]
When that article was written, more than three years ago, Republican presidents had appointed more than 60% of all federal judges – and more have been appointed since then. (By a Republican president.)
Also, according to one [url=http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/bush-appointed_judges_most_conservative_on_record_new_uh_study_finds_9973.html]study:[/url] [blockquote]Judges appointed by President George W. Bush are the most conservative on record when it comes to civil rights and liberties … Bush judicial appointees are significantly more conservative than even the very conservative voting record of jurists appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and [George H.W.] Bush. [/blockquote]
That same study went on to note that, of the decisions handed down by judges appointed by our current president, 33% were deemed liberal. Compare that to the “liberal decision†percentages for the appointees of his seven predecessors: Johnson = 52%; Nixon = 38%; Ford = 43%; Carter = 51%; Reagan = 36%; Bush I = 37%; and Clinton = 44%.
In other words, among federal judges appointed since 1963, the overwhelming majority of all decisions handed down have been conservative; only Johnson and Carter’s appointees managed to crack the 50%-liberal threshold, and then only barely (52% and 51%, respectively).
Not to mention that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Current_membership]seven of the nine sitting Justices on the Supreme Court [/url] were appointed by Republican presidents: Stevens (Ford); Scalia and Kennedy (Reagan); Souter and Thomas (Bush I); and Roberts and Alito (Bush II). In fact, since 1969, thirteen Justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court; [i]eleven[/i] of those appointments were made by Republican Presidents: the seven noted previously, plus Blackmun (Eisenhower); Powell and Rehnquist (Nixon); and O’Connor (Reagan).
This is why I get a little tired of hearing complaints about the supposedly liberal judiciary. And I’m a defense lawyer! (FYI: In case you don’t know too many defense lawyers, we tend to be conservative.)
Tangentially related [url=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101281.html]fun fact[/url], offered just for the heck of it: of the 109 Justices who have served on the US Supreme Court, 33 have been Episcopalians.
And now, for something completely different, [b]Go Hogs![/b] (I’m a life-long Razorback fan…)
Rove is now a respected member of the punditry. The press considered him brilliant. Granted, he has a few legal issues that Rahm doesn’t have. But given that Rush Limbaugh and others have already declared war on Obama, it is suitable he has a team that can defend his presidency well. Republicans aren’t interested in uniting that much. It only benefits Obama (and the country, perhaps).
The current POTUS isn’t stupid. He’s a personable guy, kind of average. He got into both Yale and Harvard due to family connections, and was a mediocre student at both. But what reflects his personality isn’t idiocy, as much as the combination of disinterest and entitlement.
Obama is considered, however, a world-class constitutional scholar. One does not teach at Chicago, one of the most conservative schools in the country, if you don’t know your stuff. He may just be the first real legal mind as president since Madison. If anything, he proved himself as being a high-caliber intellect at the universities he attended. We finally have a president who thinks reading is valuable. And can also read.
I would add that, when Obama got into Columbia and Harvard Law School, it was obviously [i]not[/i] thanks to his family connections, but rather the result of his intelligence and hard work.
And I’m so pleased you brought up the fact that the U. of Chicago (and, perhaps, particularly the law school) is conservative; I’m a little surprised by how many people seem to be unaware of that.
Obama’s intellect seems important to some of you, especially the elites. It is not important to me. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, and although he did some things well, he was not a great president by any stretch of the imagination. I’m concerned about this country having just elected someone we know so little about. Why was the media so reluctant to look closely into his college years, his thesis, his writings, his drug use? They certainly looked into all those things ad nauseum with Bush, which I had no problem with. I can only hope and pray that Obama will be a lot less partisan and liberal as president than he has been up to now.
Allli B. Many of Obama’s college records were sealed. There is no known copy of his birth certificate and his faternal grandmother says he was born in Kenya. The LA Times would not release a video tape of Obama at a good by dinner for Rashid Khalid. There is a video of Obama talking about a civilian defense force on the level of the US military (what did Obama mean by that?) There is a tape of Brokaw and some other media elite saying Obama is a manufactured personality. Why the media folks were silent and not insistent in vetting Obama during the election is beyond me.
Obama is aiming to avoid the organizational indiscipline that initially plagued the Clinton White House: e.g., insufficiently clear lines of authority and an overabundance of Stephanopoulos-type leakers and kibbitzers.
WHEW…SOME NEW POSTERS ADVOCATING AN O’BAMA LOVE FEST…
It was interesting yesterday when the news broke about Russia’s saber rattling the CCN reporter to whom I was listening in the airport said he hoped that Bush dealt with this before he left office…the media elites and radical leftists got O’Bama elected…but now are the first to express fear the minute a crisis comes up…why? because they know how unqualified O’Bama is to be the president.
[i] There is no reason to misspell the name of the President-elect. Additional misspellings will be edited. [/i]
[b]#43, Alli B:[/b] I’m sure we all agree that the presidency is an extraordinarily difficult and demanding job, and it requires an ability to understand nuance and complexity, among other things. So, it seems to me that intellect [i]is[/i] important.
Certainly, it’s true that extremely intelligent people can make awful decisions sometimes – but frankly, I think the chances are that someone of lower intellect will do a worse job of dealing with the delicate, nuanced, and complex issues the president must face. For example, I shudder to think what would have happened if, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the president had been possessed of a less-keen intellect and a weaker understanding of nuance and diplomacy.
But frankly, I’ve never understood this disdain Americans have for education, intellect, and “the elite.†We’re talking about the [i]presidency,[/i] for heaven’s sake – why [i]wouldn’t[/i] we want the best of the best in that position?? Besides which, Obama is someone who has [i]worked[/i] his way into the elite; unlike some other presidents I could name, he wasn’t born there. And that speaks to determination, discernment, natural ability, and hard work – all of which, I think, are good things for a president to have.
[b]#44, Dave B:[/b] Re: Obama allegedly being born in Kenya: (1) Being born to a US citizen means the baby is a US citizen, regardless of where the birth occurs. (2) But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama [i]was[/i] born in Kenya. (I have to say that it strikes me as beyond fanciful, and also smacks of grasping desperately at straws, but moving on…) Let’s also assume that being born in Kenya means he’s not a “natural born citizen.†John McCain was [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]born[/url] in the Panama Canal Zone. By your logic, if Obama’s not a natural born citizen because he was born in Kenya, then John McCain isn’t one, either – are you claiming that [i]he[/i] doesn’t meet the Constitutional eligibility requirements?
I’m perpetually astonished that people say that they know little about Obama.
If anything, its hilarious. He wrote a freaking memoir, one that was written nearly a decade ago. if you don’t knkow him, I suggest using the internet.
Dave,
Fear engendering knowledge, coupled with inneuendos is the hall mark of tyranny. Barack is a citizen, fact, and a according to him a Christian. Doubt either at your own peril.
[b]John Wilkins, in multiple posts:[/b] Once again, hear, hear!
[b]#50, Dave B:[/b] Actually, the press [i]has[/i] looked at the issue of whether McCain is a natural born citizen — if you check that link I included, you’ll see it.
[b]#51, Dave B:[/b] Re: who paid Obama’s tuition: [url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/09/michelle-obama-baracks-book-sales-paid-off-our-student-loans/]According to Fox News,[/url] both he and his wife relied on student loans throughout college and law school. After his two books became best-sellers, they were able to pay off the balances on those loans. Not exactly suspicious provenance, I must say.
[b]#53, Caleb:[/b] (1) Obama has said — repeatedly — that he doesn’t support gay marriage. (2) Show me where he said he wants to deny end-of-life care. (I won’t hold my breath…)
Actually, Caleb, the blues states pretty much subsidize the red states through taxes.
#56 Caleb says:
Show me the money John Wilkins…I simply don’t believe you on this one…
This report shows the ratio of money that goes from the Federal government to each state, over the money that goes from each state to the Federal government.
By and large, predominantly urban states are net contributors to the Federal government (they pay more in taxes than they get in return), while predominantly rural states are net recipients (they get more from the Federal government than they pay in taxes.) If you compare which way states voted, states that are net contributors of money are predominantly blue, and states that are net recipients are predominantly red.
HIs book is pretty interesting material in and of it’s self. When was the last time a publisher paided you several grand on an advance as an unknown author never before published, is that a common occurance in the publishing world?
Obama ran for the highest office in the land. Why didn’t he release is college records if all is so wonderful? I had a secret clearance as a Major (routine no big deal required for the rank), you had better bet my records were released! Why didn’t the press ask? Who set up his book deal? Any reporters want to know?
Ross. the money sent to middle America is for the social change and experimentation they want to enforce on us…and to offer programs to buy minority votes
What does it have to do with policy? [/blockquote]
Actually a lot of people care. It may have everything to do with his policies. But I guess since it’s a secret, we may never know. Also, I think your comments mirror those made by many elitists; you quite obviously look down on rural America.
[blockquote]Whereas someone who was born into wealth; generally partied during their years in college; pretty much used his connections to get everywhere he did, and failed at every corporate job given to them is considered a man of the people? It’s like supporting Paris Hilton for president. [/blockquote]
Are you talking about George Bush? I guess we’ll also never know how much Obama partied during his college years because journalists didn’t bother to research it. And when was it that he was into doing drugs, as he himself has admitted? Perhaps he was partying in college, too. Plus, if you’re referring to Bush, when did he ever fail at a corporate job? You think a higher IQ equals a better president. I prefer someone with high principles and wisdom. George Bush is no dummy. You can’t get an MBA from Harvard and be stupid, nor can you fly a fighter jet without being very bright. Also you denigrate Bush for being born into a family with influence and money. I think you should reread your posts, and perhaps you will see why they are so offensive to some of us.
[b]#62 &64;, Caleb:[/b] (1) That link you provided quoted Gene Robinson quoting Obama as saying that he supports full civil rights for homosexuals. Let’s leave aside the issue of the inherent unreliability of second- and third-hand information, as this statement is in line with Obama’s statements in other places. Let’s also leave aside the fact that the US Constitution guarantees to [i]all[/i] citizens the equal protection of the laws. [i]Nowhere does that article say that Obama supports gay marriage.[/i]
(2) You were not in the voting booth with me; don’t presume to know for whom I voted.
(3) On what basis, exactly, do you presume to know what I think about abortion? Since I know you have no basis for any such assumptions, let me give you one now: I think every abortion is a tragedy.
(4) For your information, my name, fishsticks, was the nickname given to me by the campers in my cabin when I was a counselor at a summer camp for homeless kids. For some reason, they couldn’t seem to remember my usual nickname — which was the name of a certain fish — so they started calling me Miss Fishsticks. (These were Southern homeless kids. I’ve always loved that Southern habit of prefacing a first name with a ‘Mr.’ or ‘Miss.’)
(5) Let me suggest to you that we try dialing back the personal attacks and nastiness.
[b]#59, Dave B:[/b] I’ve never written a book, nor have I considered it, so no publisher has ever paid me any kind of advance. However, according to a couple of friends of mine who happen to work in publishing, advances aren’t at all unusual in the publishing world — though, of course, not all of them are large advances.
You should consider, though, that Obama wasn’t, in fact, “an unknown author never before published;” as a member, and then president, of the Harvard Law Review, he would have written and published multiple articles. Certainly, those articles wouldn’t have had the world’s widest readership, but any publisher considering signing a book deal would have read his prior writings.
Ross. the money sent to middle America is for the social change and experimentation they want to enforce on us…and to offer programs to buy minority votes
Really.
Well, if you read the report I linked to, there isn’t a category for that… so this time, I’ll ask you to “show me the money.” Provide a link that enumerates how the money sent to “middle America” is spent on “social change and experimentation.” Until you do, I’m afraid I will have to remain unconvinced.
It’s been a long day — and a long week — so my mental train is more easily derailed than usual…
[b]#62 &64;, Caleb:[/b] I forgot a few things in my post, above.
Re: My #2, your presumption regarding how I cast my vote: I’ve long admired McCain, and agreed with him on many issues. Like many others, I was concerned by his abrupt policy reversals during the campaign, but — also like many others — I assumed that these were primarily efforts to cater to the GOP’s base, and I hoped that he would return to his old self before too long.
Regardless, I absolutely refuse to engage in efforts to demonize either Obama or McCain (or Biden or Palin, for that matter); as both Christians and civilized human beings, such behavior [i]should[/i] be beneath us. I don’t make the mistake of lionizing politicians, refusing to see their flaws; as I said above, we are all flawed human beings, so I’m not about to believe these two are perfect. Besides, I think that anyone who makes it very far in politics has got to have what might be called a healthy ego — but which I think could fairly be considered an [i]un[/i]healthy ego: a high self regard that seems almost narcissistic.
Also, I don’t understand why so many people insist on seeing absolutely everything about the “other” party in the most negative possible light — and I think this applies equally well to people on both sides. Such determined pessimism seems to me to veer awfully close to despair, because it refuses to admit hope — and I’m sure you know that despair is a sin.
Re: My #3, about abortion. Above, you wrote: “What I wonder is how can a … Christian … vote for someone who favors abortion?”
I’m going to try to stick to my suggestion, above, that we dial back the nastiness. But I have to tell you that your comment really pissed me off. I have no intention of justifying myself to you; as far as I am aware, this is not Judgment Day — and even if it were, [i]you[/i] are not the Judge. On the contrary, you are just another human being — one who seems inordinately concerned with the mote he believes he sees in my eye…
So it took Obama less than 18 hours to shoot a huge hole in the claim that he is a “uniter”. Rahm E is indisputably smart and experienced, but he is one of the most partisan and most abrasive people, at least by reputation, in all of Democratic leadership.
“And there’s the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting “Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!” and plunging the knife into the table after every name. “When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape,” one campaign veteran recalls. “It was like something out of The Godfather. But that’s Rahm for you.”
Rahmbo the Knife.
This was rumored a few days prior to the election. Yes, I believe some voters are going to be surprised by the “change” they have ushered in.
Friends:
The position is the chief of staff. He’s not going to be engaging Republicans. The job is keeping the staff in line. Who was he going to select? DeMint? The guy has high expectations and does the work.
Its a smart choice. He gets the job done.
Just don’t give him a hatchet, eh, John?
Terrific choice. He worked well for Clinton and will be a real asset to the President.
Of course, given that Obama’s been accused of being an anti-semite, I wonder how this will all pan out.
That is understating the role fmr Chiefs of Staff have played just a bit…consider Leon Panetta for WJC, Jim Baker for Reagan and Bush 41, Hamilton Jordan for Carter, just to name a few.
Wasn’t Darth Vader Ford’s Chief of Staff before going on to become our current lovable VEEP?
dwstroud, well, at least he doesn’t go duck-hunting.
Some may have forgotten already that it was former Chief of Staff Cheney, serving now as VP, who dropped the F-bomb on the Senate floor.
Abrasive would seem to be part of the personality type.
A return to the Clinton team is far better than a rush forward to a Putin approved cabinet…
#10
Quail hunting, not duck.
“The position is the chief of staff. . . . Th0e job is keeping the staff in line” —#4
And perhaps the congressional Democrats.
John – more people have died in Ted Kennedy’s car than died hunting with Dick Cheney.
As a politically conservative person, I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how he will govern. Let’s face it, we don’t have past experience to go on. I am sure he will find out that governing is not the same as running and that the President does have certain checks and balances on his actions.
We need to show the country what loyal opposition is and not fall prey to the same derangement that the left did during the Bush administration.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Too many people are getting their information from a poor source – Rush Limbaugh.
Barack Obama was not my choice, but he is now my President. I’ll cut him some slack. He can do no worse than the intellectually challenged occupant of the White House we’ve had for the past 8 years.
I second #4.
We’re all flawed human beings, so no-one ever has the ability or opportunity to pick from a pool of perfect applicants.
Yes, yes: it’s possible for one person to be more upright than another. And, ideally, the more upright fellow would also be the best person for the job – but even so, I would hope that we could all agree that uprightness is not the sole qualification for [i]any[/i] job. Every job I can think of requires more than just conscientious nature – whether that be ruthless determination, or a willingness to work hard for compromise, or the ability to communicate unusually well, or a boundless energy, or a gift for strategic planning, or an understanding of the “big picture,†or being detail-oriented, or the ability to remain calm in the midst of chaos, or what-have-you.
My point in a nutshell: The relevant inquiry is [i]not[/i] necessarily whether someone is the most impressive or honorable or upright candidate, but rather which of the candidates is best suited for the job at hand. Rahm Emmanuel undoubtedly has his flaws, but he also has his gifts – and [i]despite[/i] his flaws, it is possible that his gifts make him the right person for this job. (Terribly stunning disclosure: I think his gifts probably [i]do[/i] make him the right person for this particular job.)
President-elect Obama’s appointment of Mr. Emanuel as Chief of Staff says a lot about “change.” A Washington insider, and a political crone from Illinois, Emanual hardly looks like “anyone new.” Politics as usual, I expect.
Change doesn’t always mean “scrap everything that has worked in the past.” Mr. Emanuel brings institutional knowledge of how the White House works, and can hope to shorten President Obama’s learning curve in that area. Given the number of challenges the new administration faces, it’s an excellent choice.
Just what checks and balances are you thinking of? Congress (democrat controlled)? The judiciary (activists for the left)? Please, I need a reason to be cheerful.
(ps: when I have to explain what various cabinet people do to my mom, the only thing that works is West Wing references. I just got off the phone for the “he’s Leo, mom.” call)
Fishsticks…the problem is that by all indications we are moving into a period in which personal responsibility is being turned over to the government, meaning we are drifting into socialism…and a mean spirited guy (and most mean spirited persons appear quick and sharp tongued like Emmanuel) can quickly turn dependency on a benevolent government into the governments tyrannical insistence that you fall in line…fascism is just around the corner…trust me.
So the introduction of a fairly controlling personality like this could be dangerous given the shift from high expectations for individuals to organizing our country around the weakest links…
TEC has long organized itself around small parishes and mediocre clergy…and now the inmates are in charge of the asylum…let’s hope this doesn’t happen to America…the greatest country in history even before the election of Barrack O’Bama, and even under the leadership of George Bush.
Some folks on here need a nap. Now the choice of a chief of staff will lead us into tyranny and facism.
That’s some pretty rich hyperbole.
It would do all of us well to heed the words of Sen. McCain and his call that we support and help our new President. We don’t need another four years of what we have endured for the past 16.
Someday the Limbaugh gotcha game must come to an end. Get your head out of Fox News and smell the roses.
Jim, it is one thing to disagree with my analysis…but the persoanl attack is contrary to the new spirit of America and this web site…Elves, please do your duty and delete #23…
“We are moving into a period in which personal responsibility is being turned over to the government”
We’ve been in such a period for the past 8 years:
— Bailing out the airlines for the lax screening that made possible the Sept. 11 attacks
— Bailing out financial institutions and their investors
— Ballooning the national debt so that we could, for a few years, live even higher on the hog.
25…its only going to get worse…we need to reintroduce the concepts of sin and personal judgment that were eliminated from the ’79 Prayer Book…so we can see a system that considers Christianity an opium before we are all shut up in re-education camps…
In an email to NBC News, Emanuel spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg denies the reporting that Emanuel has accepted the chief of staff job.
CBS is also reporting that he has not accepted the job and that the earlier reports on other networks are wrong
[blockquote]We’ve been in such a period for the past 8 years:
— Bailing out the airlines for the lax screening that made possible the Sept. 11 attacks
— Bailing out financial institutions and their investors
— Ballooning the national debt so that we could, for a few years, live even higher on the hog. [/blockquote]
Are you saying Democrats wouldn’t do this? Don’t I remember seeing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid all smiles behind the microphone after making sure that this bail-out passed? It seems to me that a whole lot of folks are basically mad at the Republicans for acting like Democrats.
27…no matter, the transforamtion of America from the finest country in history has begun…and 51% of us now have our hands out, and the other 49% have our mouths hanging open…
Emmanuel or not…we still have Pelosi and Ried…the Crew and Bruno of America, to content with.
Now Caleb that is hyperbole. 51% don’t have their hands out. Colin Powell? Warren Buffet?
Turnout was 57% of those voting age.
Fox has this [url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/05/fox-news-exit-poll-summary-599974112/]exit poll summary[/url]:
30…I believe this election was about which candidate could promise to give more away for doing nothing…among other things…but it was surely about that…and that kind of hoped for governmental assistance leads to dependence on government rather than God…and that begins a slippery slope that certainly has not worked well in Europe…and I fear its outcome here.
This was a smart pick for Obama. If his agenda is going to be successfully advanced, he has to keep independent agendas in the House and Senate in check. We saw today that Pelosi has an independent agenda she wants to advance, and Hillary has also commented that she has a legislative agenda for the new year. Rahm is experienced at managing and corralling Congress. Obama will need to keep egos and agendas in check, particularly to stem an overly ambitious liberal agenda independent of his White House. We have every indication that Rahm is very qualified at this job.
A smart first move for Obama.
#16 Jim of Lapeer – I take issue with your characterization of the current POTUS as intellectually challenged. You may not like the decisions he makes, and he arguably is not the smoothest public speaker there is, but you do not graduate from Yale undergraduate and Harvard Business School if you are intellectually challenged. Additionally, you will never get your pilot’s wings and be allowed to fly U.S. military jets if you are intellectually challenged.
#33 Smart? Yes. Good? Doubtful.
#25, I was hoping that with Obama’s victory the Bush Derangement Syndrome would pass. Too soon, eh? “Bailing out the airlines for the lax screening that made possible the Sept. 11 attacks.” Please.
I am hoping that Obama will surprise me pleasantly. I voted against Clinton because I thought he would oppose free trade and welfare reform, and he ended by supporting both. I will begin to complain and write letters when Obama and the Dems propose something I thing is wrong.
Speaking of Derangement Syndrome, I expect to see the partisan and reported personal ugliness from Rahm Emmanuel and Chicago politics given a pass from the same press people who have foamed at the mouth over Karl Rove for years. Again, I hope to be wrong.
Interesting analysis from a [url=http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/default.asp?archiveID=13455]blog that Anglican Curmudgeon referenced[/url]:
[blockquote] Obama only got 52% with all his advantages. I have to admit that confirms the hypothesis that McCain would have won absent the economic meltdown and bailout, which is not something I would have said prior to reviewing the result this morning. And the Senate results are better than we deserve–It looks like Coleman hung on, Kennedy almost won in LA, Oregon is up in the air, McConnell won with some room to spare, and the CONVICTED CRIMINAL won in Alaska! Chambliss may still have a runoff in GA, contrary to the initial computer projections. [/blockquote]
Robroy,
McCain got almost 56 million votes. Not enough to beat Kerry’s 59,028,109 votes four years ago.
Obama’s 63 million votes beat George Bush’s 04 count and Bush was behind Gore in 2000.
The GOP is in a tailspin, and redemption might start with a resignation and apology from convicted felon Ted Stevens in Alaska.
Fox News has more: [url=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html]Republican Party in Tatters, Looks to Regroup[/url]
This catastrophe will be good for the conservatives for it will force them to find new ideas, new approaches, fresh faces, – in short a thorough rethinking of past philosophy. This will start a war inside the Rep party of course, but this is necessary. We can only hope that Palin will not gain political power in the party, but she certainly wants it.
And we can only hope that Emmanuel will not take this job. It may be that Obama needs an attack dog, but I am not sure he wants a Doberman. Larry
#20, RazorbackPadre: You referred to the judiciary as “activists for the left.â€
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162070,00.html]According to Fox News[/url] (July 2005), [blockquote]Since 1968, when Nixon was elected, Republican presidents have appointed 1,040 judges; Democrats have named 625. … The cumulative effect … is that [b]the last three Republican presidents’ nominees control virtually the whole judiciary.[/b] [/blockquote]
[i](emphasis mine)[/i]
When that article was written, more than three years ago, Republican presidents had appointed more than 60% of all federal judges – and more have been appointed since then. (By a Republican president.)
Also, according to one [url=http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/bush-appointed_judges_most_conservative_on_record_new_uh_study_finds_9973.html]study:[/url] [blockquote]Judges appointed by President George W. Bush are the most conservative on record when it comes to civil rights and liberties … Bush judicial appointees are significantly more conservative than even the very conservative voting record of jurists appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and [George H.W.] Bush. [/blockquote]
That same study went on to note that, of the decisions handed down by judges appointed by our current president, 33% were deemed liberal. Compare that to the “liberal decision†percentages for the appointees of his seven predecessors: Johnson = 52%; Nixon = 38%; Ford = 43%; Carter = 51%; Reagan = 36%; Bush I = 37%; and Clinton = 44%.
In other words, among federal judges appointed since 1963, the overwhelming majority of all decisions handed down have been conservative; only Johnson and Carter’s appointees managed to crack the 50%-liberal threshold, and then only barely (52% and 51%, respectively).
Not to mention that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Current_membership]seven of the nine sitting Justices on the Supreme Court [/url] were appointed by Republican presidents: Stevens (Ford); Scalia and Kennedy (Reagan); Souter and Thomas (Bush I); and Roberts and Alito (Bush II). In fact, since 1969, thirteen Justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court; [i]eleven[/i] of those appointments were made by Republican Presidents: the seven noted previously, plus Blackmun (Eisenhower); Powell and Rehnquist (Nixon); and O’Connor (Reagan).
This is why I get a little tired of hearing complaints about the supposedly liberal judiciary. And I’m a defense lawyer! (FYI: In case you don’t know too many defense lawyers, we tend to be conservative.)
Tangentially related [url=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101281.html]fun fact[/url], offered just for the heck of it: of the 109 Justices who have served on the US Supreme Court, 33 have been Episcopalians.
And now, for something completely different, [b]Go Hogs![/b] (I’m a life-long Razorback fan…)
From Chicago: Emmanuel has not yet accepted the position. And he may not.
As of 10 a.m.: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/emanuel_usually_the_vise_now_i.html
Katherine,
Rove is now a respected member of the punditry. The press considered him brilliant. Granted, he has a few legal issues that Rahm doesn’t have. But given that Rush Limbaugh and others have already declared war on Obama, it is suitable he has a team that can defend his presidency well. Republicans aren’t interested in uniting that much. It only benefits Obama (and the country, perhaps).
The current POTUS isn’t stupid. He’s a personable guy, kind of average. He got into both Yale and Harvard due to family connections, and was a mediocre student at both. But what reflects his personality isn’t idiocy, as much as the combination of disinterest and entitlement.
Obama is considered, however, a world-class constitutional scholar. One does not teach at Chicago, one of the most conservative schools in the country, if you don’t know your stuff. He may just be the first real legal mind as president since Madison. If anything, he proved himself as being a high-caliber intellect at the universities he attended. We finally have a president who thinks reading is valuable. And can also read.
#41, John Wilkins: Hear, hear!
I would add that, when Obama got into Columbia and Harvard Law School, it was obviously [i]not[/i] thanks to his family connections, but rather the result of his intelligence and hard work.
And I’m so pleased you brought up the fact that the U. of Chicago (and, perhaps, particularly the law school) is conservative; I’m a little surprised by how many people seem to be unaware of that.
Obama’s intellect seems important to some of you, especially the elites. It is not important to me. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, and although he did some things well, he was not a great president by any stretch of the imagination. I’m concerned about this country having just elected someone we know so little about. Why was the media so reluctant to look closely into his college years, his thesis, his writings, his drug use? They certainly looked into all those things ad nauseum with Bush, which I had no problem with. I can only hope and pray that Obama will be a lot less partisan and liberal as president than he has been up to now.
Allli B. Many of Obama’s college records were sealed. There is no known copy of his birth certificate and his faternal grandmother says he was born in Kenya. The LA Times would not release a video tape of Obama at a good by dinner for Rashid Khalid. There is a video of Obama talking about a civilian defense force on the level of the US military (what did Obama mean by that?) There is a tape of Brokaw and some other media elite saying Obama is a manufactured personality. Why the media folks were silent and not insistent in vetting Obama during the election is beyond me.
Obama is aiming to avoid the organizational indiscipline that initially plagued the Clinton White House: e.g., insufficiently clear lines of authority and an overabundance of Stephanopoulos-type leakers and kibbitzers.
WHEW…SOME NEW POSTERS ADVOCATING AN O’BAMA LOVE FEST…
It was interesting yesterday when the news broke about Russia’s saber rattling the CCN reporter to whom I was listening in the airport said he hoped that Bush dealt with this before he left office…the media elites and radical leftists got O’Bama elected…but now are the first to express fear the minute a crisis comes up…why? because they know how unqualified O’Bama is to be the president.
[i] There is no reason to misspell the name of the President-elect. Additional misspellings will be edited. [/i]
[b]#43, Alli B:[/b] I’m sure we all agree that the presidency is an extraordinarily difficult and demanding job, and it requires an ability to understand nuance and complexity, among other things. So, it seems to me that intellect [i]is[/i] important.
Certainly, it’s true that extremely intelligent people can make awful decisions sometimes – but frankly, I think the chances are that someone of lower intellect will do a worse job of dealing with the delicate, nuanced, and complex issues the president must face. For example, I shudder to think what would have happened if, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the president had been possessed of a less-keen intellect and a weaker understanding of nuance and diplomacy.
But frankly, I’ve never understood this disdain Americans have for education, intellect, and “the elite.†We’re talking about the [i]presidency,[/i] for heaven’s sake – why [i]wouldn’t[/i] we want the best of the best in that position?? Besides which, Obama is someone who has [i]worked[/i] his way into the elite; unlike some other presidents I could name, he wasn’t born there. And that speaks to determination, discernment, natural ability, and hard work – all of which, I think, are good things for a president to have.
[b]#44, Dave B:[/b] Re: Obama allegedly being born in Kenya: (1) Being born to a US citizen means the baby is a US citizen, regardless of where the birth occurs. (2) But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama [i]was[/i] born in Kenya. (I have to say that it strikes me as beyond fanciful, and also smacks of grasping desperately at straws, but moving on…) Let’s also assume that being born in Kenya means he’s not a “natural born citizen.†John McCain was [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]born[/url] in the Panama Canal Zone. By your logic, if Obama’s not a natural born citizen because he was born in Kenya, then John McCain isn’t one, either – are you claiming that [i]he[/i] doesn’t meet the Constitutional eligibility requirements?
Alli B and Dave B,
I’m perpetually astonished that people say that they know little about Obama.
If anything, its hilarious. He wrote a freaking memoir, one that was written nearly a decade ago. if you don’t knkow him, I suggest using the internet.
Here’s a good place to learn a little.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11chicago.html
NOW it’s a done deal: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-obama,0,240771.story
[i] Off topic comment deleted. [/i]
[i] Off topic comment deleted. [/i]
Dave,
Fear engendering knowledge, coupled with inneuendos is the hall mark of tyranny. Barack is a citizen, fact, and a according to him a Christian. Doubt either at your own peril.
[i] Off topic comment deleted. The thread is about Rep.Emmanuel, not President-elect Obama. [/i]
[i] Off topic. [/i]
[i] Off topic. [/i]
[i] Off Topic. [/i]
[b]John Wilkins, in multiple posts:[/b] Once again, hear, hear!
[b]#50, Dave B:[/b] Actually, the press [i]has[/i] looked at the issue of whether McCain is a natural born citizen — if you check that link I included, you’ll see it.
[b]#51, Dave B:[/b] Re: who paid Obama’s tuition: [url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/09/michelle-obama-baracks-book-sales-paid-off-our-student-loans/]According to Fox News,[/url] both he and his wife relied on student loans throughout college and law school. After his two books became best-sellers, they were able to pay off the balances on those loans. Not exactly suspicious provenance, I must say.
[b]#53, Caleb:[/b] (1) Obama has said — repeatedly — that he doesn’t support gay marriage. (2) Show me where he said he wants to deny end-of-life care. (I won’t hold my breath…)
#55 John Wilkins says:
#56 Caleb says:
This report shows the ratio of money that goes from the Federal government to each state, over the money that goes from each state to the Federal government.
By and large, predominantly urban states are net contributors to the Federal government (they pay more in taxes than they get in return), while predominantly rural states are net recipients (they get more from the Federal government than they pay in taxes.) If you compare which way states voted, states that are net contributors of money are predominantly blue, and states that are net recipients are predominantly red.
HIs book is pretty interesting material in and of it’s self. When was the last time a publisher paided you several grand on an advance as an unknown author never before published, is that a common occurance in the publishing world?
As I said in my post the issue of birth and citizenship was settled for McCain, not so for Obama.
Obama ran for the highest office in the land. Why didn’t he release is college records if all is so wonderful? I had a secret clearance as a Major (routine no big deal required for the rank), you had better bet my records were released! Why didn’t the press ask? Who set up his book deal? Any reporters want to know?
Fishsticks…read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5100064.ece
Ross. the money sent to middle America is for the social change and experimentation they want to enforce on us…and to offer programs to buy minority votes
What I wonder is how can a person who has the name fishsticks, indicating Christian faith, vote for someone who favors abortion?
John W says:
[blockquote]Dave B,
Who cares?
Why does it matter?
What does it have to do with policy? [/blockquote]
Actually a lot of people care. It may have everything to do with his policies. But I guess since it’s a secret, we may never know. Also, I think your comments mirror those made by many elitists; you quite obviously look down on rural America.
[blockquote]Whereas someone who was born into wealth; generally partied during their years in college; pretty much used his connections to get everywhere he did, and failed at every corporate job given to them is considered a man of the people? It’s like supporting Paris Hilton for president. [/blockquote]
Are you talking about George Bush? I guess we’ll also never know how much Obama partied during his college years because journalists didn’t bother to research it. And when was it that he was into doing drugs, as he himself has admitted? Perhaps he was partying in college, too. Plus, if you’re referring to Bush, when did he ever fail at a corporate job? You think a higher IQ equals a better president. I prefer someone with high principles and wisdom. George Bush is no dummy. You can’t get an MBA from Harvard and be stupid, nor can you fly a fighter jet without being very bright. Also you denigrate Bush for being born into a family with influence and money. I think you should reread your posts, and perhaps you will see why they are so offensive to some of us.
[b]#62 &64;, Caleb:[/b] (1) That link you provided quoted Gene Robinson quoting Obama as saying that he supports full civil rights for homosexuals. Let’s leave aside the issue of the inherent unreliability of second- and third-hand information, as this statement is in line with Obama’s statements in other places. Let’s also leave aside the fact that the US Constitution guarantees to [i]all[/i] citizens the equal protection of the laws. [i]Nowhere does that article say that Obama supports gay marriage.[/i]
(2) You were not in the voting booth with me; don’t presume to know for whom I voted.
(3) On what basis, exactly, do you presume to know what I think about abortion? Since I know you have no basis for any such assumptions, let me give you one now: I think every abortion is a tragedy.
(4) For your information, my name, fishsticks, was the nickname given to me by the campers in my cabin when I was a counselor at a summer camp for homeless kids. For some reason, they couldn’t seem to remember my usual nickname — which was the name of a certain fish — so they started calling me Miss Fishsticks. (These were Southern homeless kids. I’ve always loved that Southern habit of prefacing a first name with a ‘Mr.’ or ‘Miss.’)
(5) Let me suggest to you that we try dialing back the personal attacks and nastiness.
[b]#59, Dave B:[/b] I’ve never written a book, nor have I considered it, so no publisher has ever paid me any kind of advance. However, according to a couple of friends of mine who happen to work in publishing, advances aren’t at all unusual in the publishing world — though, of course, not all of them are large advances.
You should consider, though, that Obama wasn’t, in fact, “an unknown author never before published;” as a member, and then president, of the Harvard Law Review, he would have written and published multiple articles. Certainly, those articles wouldn’t have had the world’s widest readership, but any publisher considering signing a book deal would have read his prior writings.
#63 Caleb says:
Really.
Well, if you read the report I linked to, there isn’t a category for that… so this time, I’ll ask you to “show me the money.” Provide a link that enumerates how the money sent to “middle America” is spent on “social change and experimentation.” Until you do, I’m afraid I will have to remain unconvinced.
[b]#62 &64;, Caleb:[/b] I forgot a few things in my post, above.
Re: My #2, your presumption regarding how I cast my vote: I’ve long admired McCain, and agreed with him on many issues. Like many others, I was concerned by his abrupt policy reversals during the campaign, but — also like many others — I assumed that these were primarily efforts to cater to the GOP’s base, and I hoped that he would return to his old self before too long.
Regardless, I absolutely refuse to engage in efforts to demonize either Obama or McCain (or Biden or Palin, for that matter); as both Christians and civilized human beings, such behavior [i]should[/i] be beneath us. I don’t make the mistake of lionizing politicians, refusing to see their flaws; as I said above, we are all flawed human beings, so I’m not about to believe these two are perfect. Besides, I think that anyone who makes it very far in politics has got to have what might be called a healthy ego — but which I think could fairly be considered an [i]un[/i]healthy ego: a high self regard that seems almost narcissistic.
Also, I don’t understand why so many people insist on seeing absolutely everything about the “other” party in the most negative possible light — and I think this applies equally well to people on both sides. Such determined pessimism seems to me to veer awfully close to despair, because it refuses to admit hope — and I’m sure you know that despair is a sin.
Re: My #3, about abortion. Above, you wrote: “What I wonder is how can a … Christian … vote for someone who favors abortion?”
I’m going to try to stick to my suggestion, above, that we dial back the nastiness. But I have to tell you that your comment really pissed me off. I have no intention of justifying myself to you; as far as I am aware, this is not Judgment Day — and even if it were, [i]you[/i] are not the Judge. On the contrary, you are just another human being — one who seems inordinately concerned with the mote he believes he sees in my eye…
[i] The thread has strayed completely off topic and comments will be closed. [/i]