Correct me if i'm wrong, but this not a good sign for future bipartisanship
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15371.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15371.html
Emanuel accepts White House job
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
And those detractors of our relationship with Israel, what do they think of this important decision?
OTB
OTB
political payback is on the way. This choice however is a good one and will insulate Obama from a lot of the insiders who want to handle him
Yeah, I'd say.....Other Wanderer said:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035128.html
"Rep. Emanuel is also a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools," Daroff concluded.
Ira N. Forman, Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), echoed Daroff's approval, saying in a statement Thursday that "Obama made an outstanding selection. Emanuel has been a forceful and effective leader within the Democratic Party. His voting record and leadership in support of the U.S.-Israel relationship are outstanding."
"Emanuel has deep Jewish roots and strong ties to the Jewish community. Emanuel, the son of an Israeli immigrant, has a proven commitment to Israel's security and served as civilian volunteer on an Israeli military base during the Persian Gulf War of 1991," the statement continued.
Not really.Other Wanderer said:
All he has to do is not march in lockstep with the Jewish Lobby and these charges will surface immediately.
Count on it!...
Well, Emanuel's father was a member of the Irgun. To have some insight into the atmosphere of his upbringing, here's quote from good old terrorist dad in the Jerusalem Post:
"Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910047157&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Rahm Emanuel himself served as a volunteer in the Israeli Army during the 1991 Gulf War.
"Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910047157&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Rahm Emanuel himself served as a volunteer in the Israeli Army during the 1991 Gulf War.
Oh I suspect Cinelli and friends will have something nasty to say when they find that the U.S. hasn't sold Israel down the river.gryfin said:
This....
...is so...so...so...so important.
That is why Obama was the right choice REGARDLESS of race and every otherthing the sore losers want to attribute to his success.
George Bush...in my heart of hearts...I do not believe was an evil man. At least no more evil than the typical pol who wants to make sure his friends are taken care of.
What was his failing was that he was idealistic in a very "simple" way...he saw the world as black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. This was a reflection of his evangelical background...where the goals and mission are crystal clear, and the means absolutely justifies the end. It was also a reflection of the culture and world he grew up in - where things ARE simple...and diversity of experience and perspectives is really limited.
Because he wasn't one to question if shades of gray existed, he was easily manipulated by those who were his intellectual superior and who had a specific agenda...one that was architected well before Bush came into office. The Cheney / Rumsfeld / Wolfowitz evil triumvirate needed a sucker to manipulate into carrying out their grand plan, and in Bush they found a really, really big one. They could...and did...get anything they wanted, simply by framing it is philosophically and morally as good versus evil...an Bush..while not a stupid man...did not have the breath of world experience nor the intellectual horsepower to call "bullshit" on them. Add to that his stubbornness and close-mindedness, which prevented him from even listening to an alternate POV once the three headed dragon got him pointed in the way they wanted, and...well...there you go.
Obama could not be more opposite of this. Extremely intelligent, and extremely worldly. Diverse in his background personally, and in his life experiences. Prone to welcome ideas that differ from his almost to a fault.
Bush did surround himself with smart people. But he didn't listen to them if they said anything he didn't want to hear.
Obama will not make the same mistake.
Other Wanderer said:
...is so...so...so...so important.
That is why Obama was the right choice REGARDLESS of race and every otherthing the sore losers want to attribute to his success.
George Bush...in my heart of hearts...I do not believe was an evil man. At least no more evil than the typical pol who wants to make sure his friends are taken care of.
What was his failing was that he was idealistic in a very "simple" way...he saw the world as black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. This was a reflection of his evangelical background...where the goals and mission are crystal clear, and the means absolutely justifies the end. It was also a reflection of the culture and world he grew up in - where things ARE simple...and diversity of experience and perspectives is really limited.
Because he wasn't one to question if shades of gray existed, he was easily manipulated by those who were his intellectual superior and who had a specific agenda...one that was architected well before Bush came into office. The Cheney / Rumsfeld / Wolfowitz evil triumvirate needed a sucker to manipulate into carrying out their grand plan, and in Bush they found a really, really big one. They could...and did...get anything they wanted, simply by framing it is philosophically and morally as good versus evil...an Bush..while not a stupid man...did not have the breath of world experience nor the intellectual horsepower to call "bullshit" on them. Add to that his stubbornness and close-mindedness, which prevented him from even listening to an alternate POV once the three headed dragon got him pointed in the way they wanted, and...well...there you go.
Obama could not be more opposite of this. Extremely intelligent, and extremely worldly. Diverse in his background personally, and in his life experiences. Prone to welcome ideas that differ from his almost to a fault.
Bush did surround himself with smart people. But he didn't listen to them if they said anything he didn't want to hear.
Obama will not make the same mistake.
Good point. Its a great time to have a smart guy at the wheel.Other Wanderer said:Well, at least he'll get over the charge that he's too pro-Muslim
Actually, I think Obama will be fine ... he'll have a bunch of voices around the table, and try to do the rational thing ... he's not a prisoner of his advisers intellectually, and knows way more about the world than they do, having lived in places where things are now happening.
CNN's Ed Rollins today - " This is the most difficult time, a modern President ever had. "
Let's remeber that Jimmy Carter handed Ronald Reagan 12% unemployment and 19% interest rates.....Mcluhan said:
In an interesting note, it seems Ole Reagan is schooling the young Obama on his transition - his (Reagan's) is widely considered the best yet.
So, how do we score the "Change" factor on moving a conservative Orthodox Israeli supporter into the Chief of Staff Job?
I say Obama scores 0 change points on the blind-support-of-Israel policy.
OTB
Please. You're reaching here.onthebottom said:
We both know Obama can't bring change without a competent team. Emanuel is about as competent as they come. He understands both the legislative and executive branches better than most. He was an exceptional choice.
Unlike your pal carabou Barbie, Emanuel is a REAL pitbull. A pitbull with teeth, not lipstick.
But who is he to control, 40 Republican Senators or Reid and Pelosi?lookingforitallthetime said:
OTB
The WH Chief of Staff controls executive branch staffers. He is responsible for the staffers who work with Congress to promote the Presidents policies and agenda on the Hill (BTW, the WH Chief of Staff is a relatively new position. Nixon was the first president to use one). This would make him the most important figure in ensuring the president's agenda is carried through, whatever agenda that may be.onthebottom said:
I was merely pointing out the folly of your argument that somehow the appointment of Emanuel flys in the face of implementing change in Washington.
Apples and oranges. Carter didn't hand over a country involved in two wars costing $Billions a week. Or a housing market in complete collaspe. Or a coming personal credit crisis that could be massive. Or an energy crisis that will take decades to correct. Or a bailout of banking institutions to the tune of 1 $Trillion, that no one ever imagined could fail. Or a staggering national debt that is going to get bigger before it gets smaller. What Reagan inherited was a dress rehearsal to where we are now. The next administration is going to have a far more difficult task to turn this around.onthebottom said:
Poor bottie, he's in a delusional obsession comparing Carter to Obama.
It must be the latest talking points from Rove....
It must be the latest talking points from Rove....
