President-Elect Obama does not watch 24. He said as much. Probably.
As noted in the Chicago Tribune of Emanuel, "his politics are centrist, but his [political] tactics are extremest."
There's no shortage of coverage in the mainstream (for lack of a better term) media on Emanuel's tactics. That stuff is important, sure. However, it is an unfortunate yet entertaining fact that our most accessible media finds Larry Craig's (remember? Senator "I'm not gay, I never have been gay" (R) - MN?) bathroom stall procedures more important than his voting and sponsorship record in Congress. Sexual orientation aside, perhaps Mr. Craig co-wrote legislation that turned out to have a positive effect on society? Maybe, but you and I are too lazy to look it up.
Larry Craig will not be the next White House Chief of staff. Rahm Emanuel was once a congressman as well. Here's how he voted on a few issues in the last couple of years:
- yes on regulating the subprime mortgage industry (Nov 2007)
- yes on allowing human embryonic stem-cell research (may 2005)
- no on a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
- yes on making the Patriot Act permanent (Dec 2005)
- no on deterring foreign arms transfers to China (Jul 2005)
- yes on protecting whistleblowers from employer discrimination (Mar 2007)
- no on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
- yes on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
- no on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
- yes on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
So if you're a whistleblower who likes his/her guns, hates Mexicans, is losing your home because of bad loan terms, don't value your privacy, and can't be bothered with a 3 1/2 hour bus ride to the Indian casino, Rahm's your man. Kind of.
"Centrist" "Blue Dog Democrat" "Tenacious" He was Bill Clinton's man, too. Now he belongs to the Obama Administration.
Emanuel spoke to a Washington Post reporter in Jan of 07 as (yes he's still) President Bush spoke on the then new surge. (Aside: Man, doesn't that seem like a long time ago?) He went over the game plan for the recently elected 108th congress: policies that "belong" to the Democrats, minimum wage hike, perscription drug cost slashes, the small domestic stuff was all on the table for the new (read: old) majority. Big stuff like Iraq and Social Security? Put that on Bush and the Republicans. Always look ahead to the next election.
In a political sense, its savvy, cunning, even fair. In a Frank Capra sense, it's disgusting. Why go to Washington?
The answer to that graced the headlines last Wednesday. Play to win.
"Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solution's in Iraq.", David Ignatius wrote in Jan 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101575.html
Shall we look to Obama's Emanuel for those solutions? Or is the President-Elect on an island on this one?
Conventional wisdom is shouting two things at us right now: 1) President-Elect Obama is making strides to surround himself with a staff of varying opinions, and 2) the position of White House Chief of Staff is the 2nd most powerful office in the executive branch (assuming Dick Cheney's interpretation of the Constitution is conventional wisdom, and that it shouts f you when it's finished.)
From the Chicago Tribune 11/7/08: "'I'll tell you this', Emanuel shouted out to his staff. 'The Republicans may have the 72-hour program. But they have not seen the 22-month program!
'Since my kids are gone, I can say it: They can go ---- themselves!'"
Have you ever had a job where a person, or perhaps a few people around you scream expletives constantly when the work day is going a tad sour, or even well? You chose that job, yes, but you don't pick the people with whom you work.
If you were President, you would.
Quoting the great Harry Shearer, "You have to wonder about the people who want this job."
No comments:
Post a Comment