NYT article on Rahm Emanuel

[Lemon law]

The opening sentence suggests Rahn Emanuel is perhaps the most effective white house chief of staff in decades.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08...jgREPjFijj7b28reNe7a4g

And while I want to limit comments because everyone has a right to their own take,
I still come away with my own takes.

And the first is, is Rahm too aggressive or not aggressive enough. I wonder if he should be using his hands on the levers of power to enforce better party discipline
while making some of his low road opponents pay the price. Not in a Karl Rove dirty tricks sense, but in a if you do not play ball fairly, your pet projects will not go through and similar tactics.

And the other NYT times take seems to be that the Rahm pile driver approach may not be a good fit with the Obama laid back style, and hence he may not last.

But as team Obama is being driven back on health care due to the users of FUD,
and low life FUD is thus making reasoned debate impossible, it may be time for a
pile driver super hero to sow despair and fair retribution into the enemy camp. Many in the GOP have a genius for dishing it out but very few are willing to have the same it dished out back to them in return. And a little visit to the woodshed may bring them some enlightenment, those that are slow learners may need repeat visits.

 

[LunarRay]

Emanuel is a pretty good choice in that he follows directions, it seems. I liked JFK/LBJ's no Chief of Staff administration... Sorenson, O'Donnell and JFK's friend.. Powers I think it was.
advised JFK.. They both used their appointment sec'y etc...

I don't think Emanuel could aspire to a Haldeman or even a Baker, Cheney, Rumsfeld but he is sure more organizing than Haig. Clinton's McLarty comes to mind as a match for Emanuel in terms of functionality for the occasion.

I'd, therefore, opine that Emanuel is just about right for this administration.

 

[ZeGermans]

Rahm is a childish piece of shit that gives liberals a bad name.

 

[glenn1]

IIRC, one of the main reasons he was brought on was that he knew how things worked on Capital Hill, and could ride herd on legislation to get things done. So far, some mid-grade legislative work has been done ($700B economic package, cash for clunkers, and Sotomayor confirmed) but some of the bigger stuff is still a work in progress (Cap and Trade, Healthcare, etc). With that being said, we're probably better off waiting to give him a grade until we see how those bigger issues pan out - for example, it'll be hard to call him a complete success if Healtcare goes down in flames.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And the first is, is Rahm too aggressive or not aggressive enough. I wonder if he should be using his hands on the levers of power to enforce better party discipline
while making some of his low road opponents pay the price. Not in a Karl Rove dirty tricks sense, but in a if you do not play ball fairly, your pet projects will not go through and similar tactics.

Oh... so the 'do what I say or you lose your pet project' isn't playing dirty in your view???

Are you that clueless. That is about as dirty as it gets. It is essentially a form of extortion. It is exactly the kind of dirty politics that this country needs to move away from.

And BTW if Rham is so damn effective then why are Obama's approval ratings in a free fall??

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And the first is, is Rahm too aggressive or not aggressive enough. I wonder if he should be using his hands on the levers of power to enforce better party discipline
while making some of his low road opponents pay the price. Not in a Karl Rove dirty tricks sense, but in a if you do not play ball fairly, your pet projects will not go through and similar tactics.

Oh... so the 'do what I say or you lose your pet project' isn't playing dirty in your view???

Are you that clueless. That is about as dirty as it gets. It is essentially a form of extortion. It is exactly the kind of dirty politics that this country needs to move away from.

And BTW if Rham is so damn effective then why are Obama's approval ratings in a free fall??

Geez, the same shit I've been reading since February. This must be one hell of a freefall that it has gone to negative 90% by now.

 

[nageov3t]

I wonder if he should be using his hands on the levers of power to enforce better party discipline while making some of his low road opponents pay the price. Not in a Karl Rove dirty tricks sense, but in a if you do not play ball fairly, your pet projects will not go through and similar tactics.

so you want Tom Delay serving as the second most powerful man in washington?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And the first is, is Rahm too aggressive or not aggressive enough. I wonder if he should be using his hands on the levers of power to enforce better party discipline
while making some of his low road opponents pay the price. Not in a Karl Rove dirty tricks sense, but in a if you do not play ball fairly, your pet projects will not go through and similar tactics.

Oh... so the 'do what I say or you lose your pet project' isn't playing dirty in your view???

Are you that clueless. That is about as dirty as it gets. It is essentially a form of extortion. It is exactly the kind of dirty politics that this country needs to move away from.

And BTW if Rham is so damn effective then why are Obama's approval ratings in a free fall??

Geez, the same shit I've been reading since February. This must be one hell of a freefall that it has gone to negative 90% by now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...idential_tracking_poll
He has gone from a 65% approval rating to a 47% approval rating.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113...bama-Job-Approval.aspx
Gallup has him at 54% down from a high of nearly 70%

Obama's current approval numbers are almost the same as Bush's after 8 months in office.

Anything below 50% becomes dangerous for the Democrats and anything below 45% spell disaster come election day. Luckily Obama has another year for the economy to turn around.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh... so the 'do what I say or you lose your pet project' isn't playing dirty in your view???

Are you that clueless. That is about as dirty as it gets. It is essentially a form of extortion. It is exactly the kind of dirty politics that this country needs to move away from.

I think this is an excellent example of the absurd entitlement mentality this country needs to move away from.

Originally posted by: ProfJohnhttp://www.rasmussenreports.co...idential_tracking_poll
He has gone from a 65% approval rating to a 47% approval rating.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113...bama-Job-Approval.aspx
Gallup has him at 54% down from a high of nearly 70%

One would have to look at those graphs from a rather distorted perspective to suggest they exemplify freefall.

 

[Lemon law]

Non Prof John who now says, "Obama's current approval numbers are almost the same as Bush's after 8 months in office.

Anything below 50% becomes dangerous for the Democrats and anything below 45% spell disaster come election day. Luckily Obama has another year for the economy to turn around."

Funny thing Jonney, GWB's spent his last years wallowing at 32% approval or lower.

And part of the Obama loss in ratings is failure to get health reforms passed. We both know its a few republirats using dirty tactics and lies to stir up problems and torpedo debate, and yes, in that event, it calls for someone tough to restore a balance.

 

[ProfJohn]

His drop in ratings has nothing to do with his failure to pass healthcare reform. The drop is BECAUSE of his efforts on healthcare reform.

When he started he had wide based support with Democrats, independents and some Republicans liking him.

Now he has lost nearly all Republican support and nearly half of the independents. That is because those groups don't like what they see when it comes to spending and government growth.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The opening sentence suggests Rahn Emanuel is perhaps the most effective white house chief of staff in decades.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08...jgREPjFijj7b28reNe7a4g

And while I want to limit comments because everyone has a right to their own take,
I still come away with my own takes.

And the first is, is Rahm too aggressive or not aggressive enough. I wonder if he should be using his hands on the levers of power to enforce better party discipline
while making some of his low road opponents pay the price. Not in a Karl Rove dirty tricks sense, but in a if you do not play ball fairly, your pet projects will not go through and similar tactics.

And the other NYT times take seems to be that the Rahm pile driver approach may not be a good fit with the Obama laid back style, and hence he may not last.

But as team Obama is being driven back on health care due to the users of FUD,
and low life FUD is thus making reasoned debate impossible, it may be time for a
pile driver super hero to sow despair and fair retribution into the enemy camp. Many in the GOP have a genius for dishing it out but very few are willing to have the same it dished out back to them in return. And a little visit to the woodshed may bring them some enlightenment, those that are slow learners may need repeat visits.

I know that is the way the system does and has worked but every time I read/hear something like that I can't help but think that its a bunch of bullshit. Projects should be considered on their merit and not on the actions of some politician.

Do you think we will ever have a Congress made up of true statesmen in our lifetime?

 

[Lemon law]

Darwin333 asks, "Do you think we will ever have a Congress made up of true statesmen in our lifetime?"

And to some extent its only half the problem. On one hand we have plenty of political nuts, additional out of office nuts like Dick Armey, and a bunch of chicken little types from the disrupt the town hall movement making all kinds of extraneous noises designed to drown out all rational debate. But on the other hand, if the American people don't want to listen to idiots, there is no shortage of experts on the subject with fairly good cost comparatives to aid us in making rational comparisons between the health care system we have now and the wide variety of other options we also have.

But since it is seemingly more "entertaining" to watch the former rather than the latter, the American people keep screwing themselves. Thus breeding another generation of idiot voters who can not tell the difference between a statesman and an idiot.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Rahm is a childish piece of shit that gives liberals a bad name.

Well said!

 

[FerrelGeek]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And the first is, is Rahm too aggressive or not aggressive enough. I wonder if he should be using his hands on the levers of power to enforce better party discipline
while making some of his low road opponents pay the price. Not in a Karl Rove dirty tricks sense, but in a if you do not play ball fairly, your pet projects will not go through and similar tactics.

Oh... so the 'do what I say or you lose your pet project' isn't playing dirty in your view???

Are you that clueless. That is about as dirty as it gets. It is essentially a form of extortion. It is exactly the kind of dirty politics that this country needs to move away from.

And BTW if Rham is so damn effective then why are Obama's approval ratings in a free fall??

This is why non obamaphiles use the cliche 'Chicago-sytle politics' when it comes to the current administration. This guy is a two-bit thug.

 

[Lemon law]

There may be some validity to FerrelGeek saying, "This is why non obamaphiles use the cliche 'Chicago-sytle politics' when it comes to the current administration. This guy is a two-bit thug."

But in the grander scheme of things, people like Dick Armey don't even amount to the intellectual level of one bit thugs, and we can not allow the tyranny of the extreme minority to paralyze all governmental processes. Because then we do not have a government, we have total anarchy and an inability to make any rational choices.

And then, if the American people like the choices made by a government that functions makes, they can re-elect the existing government, if they don't, they are then free to throw the rascals out, which basically happened to GWB&co and the GOP in the last two elections, and that process FerrelGeek is called democracy. What is undemocratic is drowning out rational debate using one bit thugs. And sad to say, sometimes it takes a two bit thug to stop one bit ones that can't lead, can't follow, and refuse to get out of the way.

We only need look at the dinosaurs to see that those who can't adapt to change, perish.