home

Rahmbo's Loyalty

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:16:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This bit from a TNR puff piece on 'poor Rahmbo' made me laugh:

As Obama closed in on the presidency, he and his top aides turned to Obamaland’s unofficial head-knocker for the role of chief of staff. [. . .] Emanuel not only had the right sensibility. His loyalty and Washington know-how were beyond question. [. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) Heh. Indeed, Rahmbo's loyalties are unquestionable -- they are to burnishing Rahmbo's image and power. That is precisely why he should never have been picked to be White House Chief of Staff. A WH Chief of Staff should have no personal agenda -- his agenda must be the President's. To be honest, I do not blame Rahmbo for this blunder. He is who he is and makes no secret of it. This is President Obama's mistake.

Speaking for me only

< It's On All Of Them: Do You Trust The Senate? | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rahmbo's Loyalty | 28 comments (28 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    When (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    are the other losers like Axelrod going to get the Rahm treatment I'm wondering?

    It seems there's a large number of people who can't seem to deal with the heart of the matter: the problem is Obama but it's easier to avoid that ugly truth and blame Rahm.

    Here is Jonah Goldberg's (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:42:41 AM EST
    opinion:  LAT

    Goldberg says Obama and his advisors should listen to Emanuel.  Of course, Goldberg also says U.S. is center-right.  

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:46:17 AM EST
    what's wrong with these people. yes, these other advisors are bad but too but I've yet to figure out why they love Rahm so much other than he's part of the establishment in DC and they all protect each other regardless of party mabye?

    Parent
    IDF wannabes, that's all. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salo on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:48:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Israel Defense Forces? (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:50:23 AM EST


    Parent
    No, pretend hard men. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Salo on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:03:11 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm amazingly close to being (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:43:20 PM EST
    "Millenial," per last week's quiz.  But this one escapes me.  Tried googling ID F*ck.  Got porn.

    Parent
    It's a British ism (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:25:01 PM EST
    You are well hard! Or he's a hardman. Look up Vinnie Jones. It's a monicker associated with him.  

    Parent
    Thanks. (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:39:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Have to give it to Axelrod (none / 0) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:40:06 AM EST
    He hasn't been promoting himself, only Obama.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:50:05 AM EST
    but he's still a nexus of horrible advice. Of course, that's really more Obama's problem that Axelrod's. Obama chose him like he chose Rahm and it was another poor choice.

    Parent
    Not his mistake. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by robotalk on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:38:36 AM EST
    His weakness.  Or, rather, his reality.

    That's the trouble with greenhorns... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    they don't know what they don't know, including who to trust.

    Parent
    I thought (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:07:47 AM EST
    experience didn't matter?

    Parent
    You thought wrong. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:08:59 AM EST


    Parent
    I would blame the Democratic (3.67 / 3) (#14)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    voters who chose Obama in the primaries---except they didn't.

    If only we'd elected a Democrat as President! (3.50 / 2) (#9)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:02:54 AM EST
    Oh, wait...

    Who do you think should be COS? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Buckeye on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:43:51 AM EST


    My guess (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:05:09 AM EST
    Someone who will be a complete "yes-man" in the mold of Axelrod or Plouffe.

    Parent
    Valerie Jarrett? (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:28:14 AM EST


    Parent
    Solis Doyle??? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Buckeye on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:21:43 PM EST
    (just kidding...)

    Parent
    Tough as nails (none / 0) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:42:26 AM EST
    but maybe too loyal.  He needs somebody willing to tell him stuff he doesn't want to hear, and I don't think Jarrett is likely to do that much.  I'd actually vote for Axelrod.  Don't like him much, but he's loyal in a pragmatic sense, not meshugah.

    Parent
    Maybe a real rival in that team of (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 01:45:21 PM EST
    rivals sense - maybe someone who isn't totally obsessed with "centerism" and someone who is interested in actual pragmatism where a good policy is viewed as politically viable because it is good policy.

    That would be someone who might actually be able to judge a policy on its merits and build a political case for it rather than someone who picks policies based solely on the basis of (often erroneous) political calculations.

    I mean, I think most people would have to admit that the bipartisanship experiment hasn't been a success - and the reality is that all it has done is to weaken Obama's stature because he looks like he's been had - and on top of all of that he may end up with nothing to show for it - or worse something that is incredibly unpopular.

    The worst part is that if the Democrats really suffer serious losses in the next election cycle, that effort to be bipartisan won't inspire the GOP members to be nice back when they control more votes.  It will more likely just embolden their side to keep the assualts up and to continue to obstruct.

    Parent

    He needs someone who will (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:24:42 PM EST
    convince him that he will lose in 2012 if the Dems lose Congress this year.
    He is way too cavalier about the status of any election except his own.

    Parent
    Rambo (none / 0) (#20)
    by wrensis on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:05:52 PM EST
    Face it.  The Chicago Machine duped us into this election and we are suffering the reality of being "sold" hope.

    If Obama is serious he will replace the entire bunch. Including Axlerod who does have a private agenda.  With our luck he would choose people like Mitch McConnel.  

    Face it ...we really screwed up on this election.
    Maybe in the future we could actually get informed.

    Froomkin weighs in on Emanuel: (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:09:34 PM EST
    link

    I don't have a particular (none / 0) (#23)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    issue with Rahmbo(mbed) but rather with what he represents...which is clearly the prevailing WH attitude.  They f*cked up their calculations on how bad the recession would be for whatever reason, and now feel comfortable projecting these insane numbers

    [CEA Chair Christina Romer] then gave the unemployment forecast. At the end of 2010, the unemployment rate, according to the administration's forecast, will be 9.8%. At the end of 2011, the rate will be at 8.9%. And at the end of 2012, after the next presidential election, the unemployment rate will be 7.9%

    and doing diddly squat about it.  They are going to sell the stimulus as a success well after passage of the bill, instead of selling a bigger stimulus that could be successful before it was passed.  And they're going to take the same sell-after-passage approach on the health bill!  The WH just seems to be lacking seriousness when addressing domestic issues.  They are not fighting for anything...they are just convincing me to take my medicine because it's good for me.

    to quote a well known wag: (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 01:46:12 PM EST
    "pols are pols, and they do what they do"

    can't remember the guy's name that said this...........

    Rahmbo's Loyalty | 28 comments (28 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment