Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Writers Around Town: Dave Weigel on Obama's Future Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
In the first
installment in a week-long L.A. Times dust-up with Scott
Lilly of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Associate
Editor David Weigel examines Barack Obama's selection of former
Clinton official Rahm Emanuel for evidence of a "new tone" in
Washington.
Mad Max|11.10.08 @ 6:07PM|#
The article mentions filibusters (and not in a hopeful way,
either - they seem to think a solid Democrap bloc could pick enough
Repugnican votes to stop a filibuster against an Obama judicial
nomination or an Employee Secret Ballot Abolition Act.
But we don't know - a filibuster at least means a *chance* to
oppose this sort of thing.
When the "conservative movement" wanted to abolish the filibuster
(supposedly for judicial nominations only - yeah, right!), I was
persuaded by a memo from the Gun Owners of America that the
filibuster was an essential safeguard against bad policies (I
couldn't find GOA's original memo, but here is a brief summary of their
points). Thanks folks like the good people at GOA, the
neocon-hijacked "conservative movement" was not able to abolish
this essential safeguard. This means that there's a fighting chance
in the Senate against some of the worst abuses.
|11.10.08 @ 6:07PM|#
On that exchange, even Weigel writes too many nice things about
Emanuel. The guy is a certified loon - we will see how much
ass-kissing Obama went through to get that guy in his
cabinet.
I am going to make a prediction: Anti-war Democrats will be ready
to rationalize and excuse Obama's choice for a Secretary of State
by making use of pragmatic fallacies.
Mad Max|11.10.08 @ 6:08PM|#
Oh, and credit where it is due - McCain defended the filibuster, although not for the right reasons, of course. That wouldn't have been mavericky enough.
Syd Henderson|11.10.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Francisco Torres | November 10, 2008, 6:07pm | #
On that exchange, even Weigel writes too many nice things about
Emanuel. The guy is a certified loon - we will see how much
ass-kissing Obama went through to get that guy in his
cabinet.
The Chief of Staff isn't a member of the cabinet.
Geotpf|11.10.08 @ 6:52PM|#
I think the Chief of Staff's job is an enforcer, a whip, somebody to get everybody on the same page. For that, Emanuel is a perfect choice.
|11.10.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Hmm ... let's see if Michelle's choice of curtain color
symbolizes "change", or if the Obamas were full of shit and really
just wanted to move out of Chicago. While we're at it, why don't we
rip into whatever the Obama's choice of puppy breed is, when it
happens, and analyse what that means with regard to his positions
on Guantanamo. Or better yet, let's see what kind of car they
drive, and then compare that to past Presidents' choices and see
what we can figure out about what this means for "hope" in the new
administration.
Or, why don't we simply wait until the guy takes office, as he will
certainly be doing, and discover what his policies and practices
will be when he has some authority? This premature musing about
what kind of asshole Obama will turn into is bullshit.
Lefiti|11.10.08 @ 7:21PM|#
"Obama is going to enjoy a political honeymoon comparable to the
first six months of Ronald Reagan's administration."
Okay, so Obama is the first black president. Did Reagan get a long
honeymoon as the first deeply stupid president?
matt|11.10.08 @ 7:25PM|#
Hmm ... let's see if Michelle's choice of curtain color
symbolizes "change", or if the Obamas were full of shit and really
just wanted to move out of Chicago. While we're at it, why don't we
rip into whatever the Obama's choice of puppy breed is, when it
happens, and analyse what that means with regard to his positions
on Guantanamo. Or better yet, let's see what kind of car they
drive, and then compare that to past Presidents' choices and see
what we can figure out about what this means for "hope" in the new
administration.
Way to rip the GOP shills at Reason a new one, bro. All those
people who say the Chief of Staff position is the second most
powerful in DC clearly don't know as much as you.
Lefiti|11.10.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Come on! Pay attention to me! Lick me! Lookit me! I'm dancing! I'm spinning! Watching me spinning!
|11.10.08 @ 7:43PM|#
So, matt, you agree that it's worthwhile parsing the Chief of Staff appointment for indications of "change"?
Seward|11.10.08 @ 7:43PM|#
James Butler,
This premature musing about what kind of asshole Obama will
turn into is bullshit.
So, are you suggesting that we should wait to find out what sort of
asshole he will be? :)
|11.10.08 @ 7:50PM|#
I do. Putting someone who has foreign loyalties in that position is incredibly naive, especially given our own sensitive position in the Middle East.
Freeper|11.10.08 @ 8:11PM|#
But everyone knows Obama is a secret Muslim so this choice of the Zionist and dual Israeli/US citizen Emanuel is a perfect cover for him.
MJ|11.10.08 @ 8:52PM|#
"This premature musing about what kind of asshole Obama will
turn into is bullshit."
Obama's already an asshole, the question is to what extent.
|11.10.08 @ 8:57PM|#
Chief of Staff, while powerful, isn't a policy position. It's an
administrative position.
When Bill Clinton first came into office, his adminstration was a
like a clown car.
There isn't going any clown car with Rahm running the White House
staff. That's what this pick says.
BTW, interesting line about Obama, as the first black president,
getting honeymoon. What does it mean that a remarkable,
groundbreaking Democratic presidential victory gets the type of
honeymoon that is normal when a Republican wins?
BDB|11.10.08 @ 9:26PM|#
"zoltan | November 10, 2008, 9:15pm | #
BDB:
GWB's honeymoon was postponed to September 12, 2001."
Touche.
BDB|11.10.08 @ 9:28PM|#
No, I'd say GWB had a honeymoon from 9/12 until (pick one) his Social Security gambit or Terry Schivo. Then it was ripped to shreds by Katrina.
zoltan|11.10.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Yes, Seward, I believe brevity is one of the key factors in the definition of honeymoon. No worries, though, he got a second one about 15 months later when everyone supported his quest for Middle East democracy. I mean his crusade against a dictator's access to nuclear and biochemical weapons. I mean his attempt to stabilize...oh, you get what I mean.
bill|11.10.08 @ 9:39PM|#
How can there be a "new tone" when this guy and half the others on staff are old Clinton cronies? Obama runs on a "change" platform and then hires the same people that caused the present financial problem.
Kolohe|11.10.08 @ 9:40PM|#
Bush's honeymoon ended with the capture of Saddam; more precisely a few months later when it appeared that it had no effect on the violence.
zoltan|11.10.08 @ 9:42PM|#
Bill, I think we've established Obama as 'here comes the new president, same as the old president.' It's now just for us to compile lists to see whether he can 1)spend more than Bush and prior presidents, 2)infringe on our civil liberties more than Bush and prior presidents. Those are some big shoes to fill, considering he's walking in Clinton's and Bush's footsteps.
Kolohe|11.10.08 @ 9:44PM|#
BTW, Mr Weigel good response; I agree that the premise of the LA Times question was faulty and a different question should be answered.
Seward|11.10.08 @ 9:46PM|#
zoltan,
Well, I guess Clinton got another honeymoon following the Lewinsky
deal.
zoltan|11.10.08 @ 9:47PM|#
But Kolohe, certainly it was the liberal media who turned the tide against such a beloved president?
BDB|11.10.08 @ 9:53PM|#
Lewisnky was a honeymoon?
I think he had high approval ratings both before AND after.
Kolohe|11.10.08 @ 9:58PM|#
zoltan-
I believe it's spelled "librul"
Seriously, if the Iraq thing would have worked, Bush would be
leaving with a high reputation and a republican successor. (but
ironically probably not McCain). But it didn't and so he's
not.
(n.b. to avoid any confusion, this is a descriptive not normative
statement)
BDB|11.10.08 @ 10:00PM|#
Speaking of Lewisnky, if Clinton had kept his pants zipped, Al Gore would be finishing up his second term.
Seward|11.10.08 @ 10:05PM|#
Kolohe,
Basically all they needed was a semi-decent after occupation
plan.
Kolohe|11.10.08 @ 10:09PM|#
Basically all they needed was a semi-decent after occupation
plan.
A necessary but not sufficient condition, I'd say. And like most
big gambles, it required a *really* decent plan; they had no plan
at all, but even a half-assed one I think would have made little
difference.
Kolohe|11.10.08 @ 10:11PM|#
Although a basic strategy of "fill all power vacuums, spontaneous order may not be your ally" may have been enough.
Orange Line Special|11.10.08 @ 10:56PM|#
I didn't bother reading it because - let's face it - CAP and
Weigel/Reason are basically on the same side.
There's more on CAP here: infowars.com/?p=5850
There's more on Rahm elsewhere on that site.
Note that I named CAP as one of the reasons on my list of twenty
non-partisan reasons to oppose Obama.
|11.10.08 @ 11:42PM|#
There isn't going any clown car with Rahm running the White
House staff. That's what this pick says.
See? What did I tell you? Did not have to wait long . . .
|11.11.08 @ 12:29AM|#
Francisco - Damn, son. you should take that show on the road (or
to Wall Street).
FWIW, predicting so-called liberals bending over backwards to
justify anything The One does wasn't THAT tough to do.
|11.11.08 @ 2:57AM|#
Why are two people who voted for Obama arguing?
Even weirder why are a libertarian and a lefty arguing in the LA
Times?
Did Matt have more impact there then he is letting on?
|11.11.08 @ 6:39AM|#
The filibuster is an American institution, one of the most important "checks and balances" in the US political systems. Ronald Reagan was deeply stupid? I don't think so but if the left wants to believe that, by all means carry on!
|11.11.08 @ 9:09AM|#
Not only is the filibuster rule sensible, no legislation should pass without at least 67% supermajority, for otherwise the laws will be widely disparaged, unpopular, and more than likely be destructive of minority rights.
|11.11.08 @ 9:23AM|#
"Not only is the filibuster rule sensible, no legislation should
pass without at least 67% supermajority,"
Why not one man one vote and put everything to a referendum?
REASON magazine is being used by the far Right.
|11.11.08 @ 9:25AM|#
"Why are two people who voted for Obama arguing?"
Considering that MOST voters voted for Obama, it is inevitable that
this will happen.
REASON magazine is being used by the far Right.
libertarian democrat|11.11.08 @ 9:38AM|#
PR,
I am at best confused as to where you are going with that.
|11.11.08 @ 10:24AM|#
Why not one man one vote and put everything to a
referendum?
You think we have poor voter turn-out now? Imagine if there was a
vote held weekly? You would get only interested parties (i.e.,
"special interests") voting for any given issue and we would
quickly devolve into tyranny of the minority. I.e., would you get
off your ass to vote for farming regulations? Does the average
person know enough about every minute issue to make informed
decisions?
jtuf|11.11.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Seward | November 10, 2008, 10:05pm | #
Kolohe,
Basically all they needed was a semi-decent after occupation
plan.
The original occupation plan was about as bad as it could get. Step
1: They collected all the guns. Step 2: They stayed in the safe
zones. So bassically, they made all the pro-American Iraqis (and
only the pro-American Iraqis, because anti-Americans Iraqis didn't
volunteer to hand in their guns) weaponless, then sat back to see
what would happen. The situtation got much better once we put a new
general in charge.
|11.11.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Francisco Torres, legend in his own mind, doesn't know the
difference between a Chief of Staff and a Secretary of State.
Please, sir, talk down to me more.
|11.11.08 @ 11:07AM|#
"Why are two people who voted for Obama arguing?"
Because people outside of the conservative movement you worship
don't check their individualism at the door.
Think about what it says about someone who would write that
line.
|11.11.08 @ 11:33AM|#
How can there be a "new tone" when this guy and half the
other on staff are Clinton cronies?
Another term for "Clinton crony" in this sentence is "Democrat with
executive branch experience."
The last Democratic administration before Clinton's ended 28 years
ago. Any Democrat with even mid-level experience in the executive
branch is going to have gained in the Clinton administration.
|11.11.08 @ 12:50PM|#
What?? Wiegel decides he's less plussed for the Obama
administration now, after virtually ovulating for Obama and
screaming to be his free-market/marxist abomination birthing
chamber? Shocking.
I for one am shocked.
|11.11.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Seriously, if the Iraq thing would have worked,
Actually, it looks like it did, just not soon enough.
The original occupation plan was about as bad as it could
get.
And that's why. Fotunately, occupation v. 2.0 worked a little
better.
Another term for "Clinton crony" in this sentence is "Democrat
with executive branch experience."
Potato, potahto. Its one thing to bring in people with experience
to fill administrative positions, its another to stock your policy
advisors with the same ol', same ol'.
I think that the Chief of Staff straddles the line. He runs the
White House, but can have a great deal to say about policy
priorities and directions as well.
|11.11.08 @ 6:29PM|#
Flamebait, but WTF, guys? If I remember correctly, Clinton
didn't leave office with $4trillion in debt, two badly managed wars
of questionable value and deep reductions in civil liberties.
And OF COURSE Obama's an asshole. Jesus. Everyone knows he came out
of the Chicago political skirmishes. But all you prognosticators
who failed miserably in the runup to the election are now moving
ahead with bullshit prophesying about how big an asshole Obama will
get to be based on his studied choice for Chief of Staff? That just
shows a kind of Tourette's reflex.
|11.11.08 @ 7:09PM|#
Francisco Torres, legend in his own mind, doesn't know the
difference between a Chief of Staff and a Secretary of
State.
I knew that would attract enough attention... Like a bear to
honey.
Yes, Joe, I KNOW the difference and I KNOW he's not going to be
Secretary of State but Chief of Staff. I just hope and pray to all
the gods that Emanuel KNOWS the difference. . .
Patriot|11.12.08 @ 2:30PM|#
That Communist Muslim Barack HUSSEIN Osama appointed another radical Muslim RAHIM Emanuel help take over this patriotic, Christian nation; if only the messiah Sarah Palin was here to save us....Oh, sorry, it's RAHM not RAHIM, which I've been told is an Jew name, so my apologies!!!
|11.12.08 @ 7:32PM|#
Quick note for you tea leaves readers...
Marc Ambinder over at The Atlantic has
the best rationale I've yet heard for Obama's choice of Rahm
Emanuel for Chief of Staff:
Rahm knows the White House. He knows how to make the White House work.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245