CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Rahm Emanuel supposedly expected to quit White House.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rahm Emanuel supposedly expected to quit White House.

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
Huh.

Quote:
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is expected to leave his job later this year after growing tired of the "idealism" of Barack Obama's inner circle.

Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to "bang heads together" to get policy pushed through.
post #2 of 22
Oh the horror of people doing what they promised and believe in.*

*disclaimer: I have no idea if President Obama and his inner circle are doing any such thing or not.
post #3 of 22
Those two quotes seem kind of contradictory. I mean, wouldn't an idealist want to do anything to get their policies pushed through? Or maybe he means the idealism is in the belief that don't have the resort to that?
post #4 of 22
So is this a "Let Bartlet be Bartlet" situation or rather WW season 5?
post #5 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Those two quotes seem kind of contradictory. I mean, wouldn't an idealist want to do anything to get their policies pushed through? Or maybe he means the idealism is in the belief that don't have the resort to that?
I assumed it was a "let's really try to be bipartisan and make everyone happy" type of idealism.
post #6 of 22
Is he frustrated they won't play dirty to get what they want?
post #7 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
I assumed it was a "let's really try to be bipartisan and make everyone happy" type of idealism.
Sort of yes, sort of no. Rahm will become useless once the GOP takes over the house come November. The plan right now is to pass sweeping legislation from the lame duck congress after the elections. They aren't even passing a budget for 2011 (which, tecnhically starts in October 2010) until after the mid-terms. The WH will need a fall guy... Rahm's head is on the block.

Keep in mind, Rep Issa (R) has promised to hire a bunch of investigators to go after the White House for their illegal dealings after the mid-terms, when he is up for a chairman position. So another alternative, they're getting rid of Scooter Libby. Because "Rahm" asked his old buddy Clinton to "offer" a job to Sestak(sp) to keep him out of the PA congress race. Now, you're nuts if you think that's the real story but that's for another thread.
post #8 of 22
Funny enough is there even a thread on that subject? Emanuel is just getting out and waiting for Daley to just stop running for Mayor in Chicago. Then again this news is most likely BS
post #9 of 22
PLEASE, GOD, LET THIS BE TRUE. Emanuel is the Lucifer of this White House. He latches on to anyone who still has principles or a conscience and sucks it out of them either through force, corruption, or temptation.
post #10 of 22
Snaieke, "once" the GOP takes over in the fall? Counting our chickens, are we?

Also, I agree with The Closer on the idealism they're talking about, not, unfortunately, the FDR brand of idealism.

Lastly, he evidently wants to run for Mayor of Chicago.
post #11 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
I assumed it was a "let's really try to be bipartisan and make everyone happy" type of idealism.
So... what happens when this doesn't work (since it's clearly never going to)? What are we left with then? Civil War?

I mean, what do you do when you honestly try to work with the "other side" and they prove, time and time again, that they just want to crush you at all costs rather than accept that A WHOLE OTHER HALF of the fucking country doesn't see eye to eye?
post #12 of 22
Given his tendency to latch onto and either corrupt or destroy anyone who actually has his or her principles intact--see: Eric Holder--I think they're literally talking about idealism. Not the bullshit post-partisan Messiah role Obama seems to fancy for himself but the kind of idealism that instructs the person who inhabits it that there is such a thing as a rule of law, that we shouldn't torture people, or that the administration should do more than pay lip service to health care reform or gay rights, which are all things Emanuel opposed. He only lost HIR because Obama actually stuck to his principles for once and he only lost gay rights because the gay rights advocates started to fuck with DNC fundraising.
post #13 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeypants View Post
So... what happens when this doesn't work (since it's clearly never going to)? What are we left with then? Civil War?

I mean, what do you do when you honestly try to work with the "other side" and they prove, time and time again, that they just want to crush you at all costs rather than accept that A WHOLE OTHER HALF of the fucking country doesn't see eye to eye?
I would just say put me in charge and let me run the show.

Unfortunately that's pretty much the best answer I have right now.
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
Given his tendency to latch onto and either corrupt or destroy anyone who actually has his or her principles intact--see: Eric Holder--I think they're literally talking about idealism. Not the bullshit post-partisan Messiah role Obama seems to fancy for himself but the kind of idealism that instructs the person who inhabits it that there is such a thing as a rule of law, that we shouldn't torture people, or that the administration should do more than pay lip service to health care reform or gay rights, which are all things Emanuel opposed. He only lost HIR because Obama actually stuck to his principles for once and he only lost gay rights because the gay rights advocates started to fuck with DNC fundraising.
I hope this is true. I hope you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
I would just say put me in charge and let me run the show.
Lord help us! ;-)
post #15 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post


Lord help us! ;-)
You can be ambassador to Uruguay if it'll seal the deal.
post #16 of 22
Wasn't this first reported in the British Tabloids? If so, I can see why everyone's taking this to the bank.
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Snaieke, "once" the GOP takes over in the fall? Counting our chickens, are we?

Also, I agree with The Closer on the idealism they're talking about, not, unfortunately, the FDR brand of idealism.

Lastly, he evidently wants to run for Mayor of Chicago.
Whatever gets you through the night, YT. Act shocked on Nov 5th.
post #18 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeypants View Post
So... what happens when this doesn't work (since it's clearly never going to)? What are we left with then? Civil War?

I mean, what do you do when you honestly try to work with the "other side" and they prove, time and time again, that they just want to crush you at all costs rather than accept that A WHOLE OTHER HALF of the fucking country doesn't see eye to eye?
Please. Obama's arrogance cost him any shot at bipartisanship. Might I remind you of this moment. Not to mention that the GOP house members were shut out of the discussions. Look, Obama, Pelosi and Reid felt with their super majority and the legacy of George W. Bush that they had the ability to do whatever they wanted, so they did. They were disrespectful to the GOP at every turn and then they're shocked when they wouldn't vote for them. You can't vilify your enemy and expect them to break bread with you.

The President is supposed to be above partisan bickering and shepherd both parties into some sort of an agreement to get his agenda passed. Sure there are public swipes now and again, that's just politics but Obama has continued to vilify the GOP time and time again and then gone back to them with a "So, you on board?" It doesn't work that way. You can't expect the other side to go with you when you're knocking them around. They have to go back to their constituents with these votes and quite frankly, if you're a GOP member in congress right now... after two straight congressional election losses... your constituents aren't fans of the Obama agenda.
post #19 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Please. Obama's arrogance cost him any shot at bipartisanship. Might I remind you of this moment. Not to mention that the GOP house members were shut out of the discussions. Look, Obama, Pelosi and Reid felt with their super majority and the legacy of George W. Bush that they had the ability to do whatever they wanted, so they did. They were disrespectful to the GOP at every turn and then they're shocked when they wouldn't vote for them. You can't vilify your enemy and expect them to break bread with you.

The President is supposed to be above partisan bickering and shepherd both parties into some sort of an agreement to get his agenda passed. Sure there are public swipes now and again, that's just politics but Obama has continued to vilify the GOP time and time again and then gone back to them with a "So, you on board?" It doesn't work that way. You can't expect the other side to go with you when you're knocking them around. They have to go back to their constituents with these votes and quite frankly, if you're a GOP member in congress right now... after two straight congressional election losses... your constituents aren't fans of the Obama agenda.
Oh Christ, will you just shut the fuck up or at least live on the same planet as the rest of us. For the love of god...

I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense.
post #20 of 22
I'm amazed people still engage Snaike at all in the politics forum, let alone try to meet him on any kind of rational level.
post #21 of 22
Ordinarily I'd agree Rain Dog, but that last post is just mindboggling.
post #22 of 22
That was the single funniest post I think I've read on the boards.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Rahm Emanuel supposedly expected to quit White House.