Is Rahm on the way out?
Richard Fernandez speculates on the news that Rahm Emanuel is planning to leave the White House by the end of the year.
As with most administrations, the true story of the inner workings of Obama’s has yet to be told, and perhaps will only be learned after the fact, if then. But his seems especially opaque and cryptic, and we are left reading tea leaves, much like the old Kremlinologists.
Here’s Fernandez’s re-write of, if not the truth, then the message Rahm wants to convey:
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is threatening to leave his job later this year unless Barack Obama gets real. Rahm has made a lot of personal sacrifices to join the White House. He gave up being a congressman, Chicago deep dish pizza and being a father to his children for what? To be blamed as abrasive when the midterm disaster unfolds. No way he’s taking the fall for that. But just to show the boss he’s not scared, not a rat ”” not until the last moment anyway ”” he’ll stay until the midterm disaster makes it absolutely clear that all his warnings about futzing around have come true. And just in case you think Emanuel is yellow, remember that’s he willing to take on Richard Daley. And think on this. When all you inner circlers are walking the streets in DC rattling pencil cups and looking for a job, Rahm’s going to be mayor of the Windy City.
And here’s the original Telegraph story on which Fernandez is elaborating. It underlines earlier reports of a rift between Emanuel the Semi-Outsider and the highly influential Gang of Three, Jarrett, Gibbs, and Axelrod, who seem to have consolidated their already-formidable power.
One of the points the Telegraph article makes is that Rahm has engendered “frustration among Mr Obama’s closest advisers that he failed to deliver a smooth ride for the president’s legislative programme that his background promised.” Speaking of wanting miracles! If that statement is true (and we do need to take it all with a grain of salt), it is unbelievable that Rahm was expected to whip the Democrats into line on these votes any more than he already had. He would had to have sent all the recalcitrant Democrats dead fish, and put a horse’s head in each of their beds, to have accomplished that daunting feat.
What an odd notion—that it’s all about discipline and that Bush just had better discipline. Could it not instead be that, for the main part, Bush’s proposals were actually less extreme— and more popular with the Republicans in Congress, their constituents, and the American people as a whole—so that those who voted for them didn’t risk being thrown out on their ears as a result?
Rahm is dead. He just hasen’t been told yet.
Jarrett and Axelrod calling the shots in the White House is good news for those of us who enjoy the unravelling of The One. It is, however, very bad news for the United States of America. It never works for a President to be exclusively surrounded by his (or her) posse from back home.
If he is, then he was never a part of the cause, but an opportunist who joines the cause as the best thing for the future. like so many others, he is going to retire and disappear, so that he can be re-branded after. he can say, when i realized x, i did y.
many examples in history of when things get hot, the despotic leave and let others do their work.
Lenin was sitting in Germany as Latvian rifle corps built him a country.
To me, one of the most confusing aspects about Obama so far is that his actions do not fall within any of the typical political motivations. Politicians usually fall in either two camps–those seeking power, prestige, money, etc. for themselves who will usually bend to the prevailing political winds if it will keep them in office. These politicians have some bedrock principles but for the most part, their ideology takes a backseat to keeping their cushy job in Washington. I feel fairly confident saying these are the majority of politicians. The second group are the true believers who are willing to sacrifice their political careers at the alters of their ideologies. This article about Emmanuel suggests that Obama belongs more in the second group than the first. The manner in which he forced healthcare reform through as well as his general thumbing of his nose at the populace seems to also suggest it. I even seem to recall reading somewhere that Obama (or someone in the administration) was quoted as saying he would be willing to risk reelection in exchange for enacting his agenda (can’t remember if that is correct though, anyone confirm?) In all, it does seem as though Obama fits in the second category.
However, a closer look at this raises more questions than it answers. Let’s assume he is a true believer and he believes his goals are more important than his own political survival. For most true believers, they have very specific goals they seek to achieve. However, Obama has taken virtually no interest in the actual nuts and bolts of his agenda. He has basically outsourced the drafting of the bulk of his agenda to Congress, with some cases resulting in a bill which contains the very provisions he claims to have opposed (i.e., mandate in the healthcare bill). Moreover, most democratic, leftist goals find their motivation in helping the poor, downtrodden, etc. and stem from that person’s compassion to help the less fortunate. While one can disagree with whether their agenda actually achieves their goals, I can at least understand their thinking. However, Obama doesn’t seem to have the underlying compassion either. Much has been made about his detachment, and it seems as though he has little in common (and seems to actively dislike) many of the “regular people.” Does anyone really think Obama has some deep seated compassion and bond with the proverbial “everyman” who he is diligently working to help? I don’t get any sense that he truly cares for these people. Thus, it seems as though we have a President willing to risk his own political career for an agenda that he takes virtually no interest in beyond the superficial level of a talking point (promising “healthcare reform” and delivering “healthcare reform” even if it bears no resemblance to the reform he promised and actually contains many of the components he opposed). In addition, he doesn’t seem to possess the underlying impetus for seeking to enact these programs (the proverbial bleeding heart that aches at other’s despair). Thus, I’m completely at a loss to figure out his motivation. To my knowledge, I can’t think of any past politician that fits his mold. He appears to be a true believer who’s not terribly sure what he truly believes in, outside of talking points.
But Obama had a vision of what things should look like, with legislation sailing through Congress, and the few dead-enders who disagreed with him seeing the light and agreeing that what he wanted was indeed the best of all possible worlds. Rahm didn’t join him in singing “Imagine” enough times, I suppose.
In your “fool or knave” debate, Rahm definitely represents the “knave” side of Obama, while the Gang of Three lean more to the dreamy “fool” side. I draw that distinction over-sharply for effect, but I think it captures much of what’s happening.
If the distribution of understanding political realities is as drawn by Fernandez, it will be avery good thing for the country for Rahm to go. A person savvy enough to actually make some of this campfire Kumbaya approach come to pass is a terrible thing. If the remaining figures withdraw increasingly into hoping and dreaming, like some 70’s commune slowly going bankrupt, they will be less dangerous.
Possible problem: the communes that survived for the long haul usually managed that by virtue of having a fanatical tyrant. We have mentioned before the early signs of liberals wistfully considering how nice a dictator (but we don’t call it that) would be.
“However, a closer look at this raises more questions than it answers.”
Not really – things become glaringly clear when you realize that Obama has never (and maybe doesn’t even have the ability) to look deeper than “agenda”.
He is a true product of our leftist Utopian educational system – good intentions are the start *and* end of it all. The nuts and bolts do not really matter, indeed they are to be avoided as that might hurt someones self esteem.
As such Obama is both a fool and a knave so people who want to make him one or the other will endlessly argue over it. Ones that want him to have a vertical understanding will be forever confused. He is quite intelligent but in his 40’s he has *never* had to face the consequences of his decisions nor has he *ever* had to do anything other than make broad sweeping ideas his central belief. He has no wisdom or ability to actually make those things happen nor has he surrounded himself with people who do (if he had then he would be in a totally different boat).
He is doing what has won him a meteoric rise to the presidency and is firmly held by the notion that like in the past it will all work out if he stays the True Course.
Neo:
Perish the thought! After all, every piece of legislation that Dubya sponsored was done with the goals in mind of establishing a theocracy in the US, putting Democratic Party leaders in concentration camps, reviving the KKK, and sponsoring germ warfare research which would subsequently subject minorities to genocide. 🙂
Joshua,
You misunderstand leftism a little.
Leftists aren’t primarily compassionate. If they were, you could use cause and effect arguments with them to compromise or turn their beliefs.
Leftists are driven primarily by a vision of society which is designed by them. The vision gives worth to their self. They won’t abandon their vision in order to decrease suffering. The vision comes first, helping the suffering comes second – and eventually not at all.
leftists find that the easiest way to make a living is to fake concern, start a money stream to it, and then skim skim skim…
its so much easier than actually having to do research and invent, or anything like that. the more you can emote and wheedle, the more you can get good people to part with their money.
its just a formalized scam, with culture helping the criminality… kind of like those baggy clothes that are the style, they prevent a good description which prevents…
Bernie maddoffs mistake was that he wasnt a politician, otherwise, he would be out and would have kept going. he would have been one in a long line of people who had literal truckloads of cash.
Plan on Rahm leading a Hillary 2012 campaign
I think something is about to come out of the Blagojevich trial, and Rahm is being preemtively thrown under the bus.
Simply amazing. Blitzkrieg in response to blitzkrieg. The charges are coming so fast and furious against Obama and the Whitehouse that one forgets what happened last week.
If you live by the sword, you’ll die by the sword. In this case, maybe “sword” should be “swords.”
I am sick and tired of reading here that some posters still buy into the bizarre concept that Baraq is *intelligent*. He is merely half Kenyan, his “blackness” opened affirm. action doors for him (Harvard), and he has coasted always to success because he has been declared a different b-word: brilliant. He used his mean side too. But he has been more a vicious and shrewd con artist than brilliant, and is utterly amoral, just like his Chicago models.
Always follow the money (if you can).
All socialists are capitalists in their private lives. Baraq and his Belle are clearly no exception.
And I still think him schizoid, with paranoid and grandiose delusional features.
“Plan on Rahm leading a Hillary 2012 campaign.”
And/or having an important place in a Clinton administration, perhaps after “kiss and tell” commences; probably only one bunch of opportunists, which definitely describes Rahm, who are more devious than B.O. and his toads, are the Clinton’s and theirs. B.O. is about to get thrown under the bus as Hillary poses as a centrist; what an incredible collection of dishonest, incompetent, duplicitous hypocrites, blowhards and their left-wing fools at the bottom, the Democrats….
Tom, none of those thing you list mean he isn’t intelligent – indeed to be as effective as he is with them he almost has to be (or at least be controlled by someone who is – the meme the BDS people clung too). There is a difference between wisdom and intelligence.
One of the reasons that the left often has run rings around the right for so long is this idea – they *are* intelligent and to go about it otherwise ends ultimately in failure. Lately the leftist have also fell for their own rhetoric and decided we are also not intelligent (obviously not true too) and can’t react let alone be proactive. Bush ran rings around them for so long despite the attacks because of this (but even then there is only so much one can do).
What you describe is someone whose motives and goals are *highly* different than ours. What they lack is wisdom, not intelligence.
Further, in response to another poster, they *are* compassionate in their own way – they are internally. For instance there was a story a while back about a farmer that had his chickens infected and had to be destroyed. He rented a large industrial wood chipper and dropped them in. It is mentally tough for us, but the chickens died about as instantly as you can take a living animal to a non living state. Lots of complaints and people calling for prosecution (do not know if there was any), PETA recommended suffocation.
That type of compassion is to ease *our* minds, not the chicken. Suffocation is less violent and easier on most peoples minds yet would be a long, slow, painful, and panicky death – not something really compassionate towards a chicken with a bad disease.
For the leftist that is paramount and is compassion – it makes *them* feel better about themselves and thus you should like the lot in life they assigned to you. Ignoring this is something else that those on the right have to blame for so many losses too.
The left is about communal power. The power to control and dominate “for the good of the masses”. It’s a self-delusion that allows them to justify the means used for the ends sought.
Liberals, the ‘useful idiots’ of the left are about false compassion, the immature protest against life’s essential inequality of circumstance and outcome.
“What an odd notion–that it’s all about discipline and that Bush just had better discipline. Could it not instead be that, for the main part, Bush’s proposals were actually less extreme– and more popular with the Republicans in Congress, their constituents, and the American people as a whole–so that those who voted for them didn’t risk being thrown out on their ears as a result?”
Not better discipline, greater consensus as to issues and the acceptable tactical options in pursuit of those issues.
The right operates or at least pays allegiance to principal, which limits means. The right thinks deductively, which requires that conclusions extend in a coherent fashion from premises.
The left thinks inductively, the sole focus of which is upon desired conclusion. Premises do not have to match conclusions when using inductive logic.
Rahm’s problems in getting legislation compiled, written and passed are not a matter of lack of discipline per se but of a far greater disparity of interests to be satisfied than those on the right have to contend with. On the left, the number of special interest groups is astronomical; everyone’s a victim and entitled.
That’s why Rahm exploded at the meeting with the liberal special interest groups and called them all a bunch of morons.
It’s why the health care reform bill was 2000+ pages, everyone in the party demands that their issue be advanced.
Other examples are the meritless Justice dept. suit against Arizona. They know its baseless but the administration has to be able to show the Hispanic interests that they’re doing something. Same thing with the ban on off-shore drilling, it can’t last but the environmental lobby eats it up.
Rahm’s leaving is significant, he’s by far the most realistic and can read the tea leaves. No more rainbows and, where have all the unicorns gone, long time passing?
I suspect he senses the shifting winds and realizes it’s time to abandon the good ship lollipop.
GB – good ship lollipop. Love it.
On the good ship lollipop
It’s a sweet trip through Agitprop
Were the communist play
At expense of nearly everyones pay.
My contribution to earworm of the day!
strcpy:
I value your thoughts, but you have not made your case for me. “Brilliant” is a high form of “Intelligent”, and I see no persuasive evidence of either in Baraq. Both are attributed to him BY OTHERS, without evidence. Like him being a chess player, because one must presumably be intelligent in order to enjoy and play the game well; but there is no evidence he plays it, or plays well.
The leftist media has laid high intelligence at the feet of its favored for generations now, never embarrassed, never rethinking when the evidence proves contrary.
The people that voted Obama into office did not do so because he was intelligent, or better, or more experienced, or a better diplomat, or had policies that they agreed with; they did it because he was black and because Scarlett Johansen and Steven Colbert thought he was cool… That was the extent of their reasoning, and they know it… They made a decision based on the color of a man’s skin, and they are so afraid of that becoming obvious that they must fire all of their guns around the clock to try and prevent people from confronting that fact…
Lefties “have” to cast republicans as racists, because they must be discredited before some begin to question just why it is that we have this man in office…Just what made “this” guy the one we had to elect… ? As his faé§ade begins to crumble, and our nation begins to pay the price for not carefully considering our leaders, the left must keep its pretty hate machine in full cycle…
Pablo,
Despite my considerable efforts, my daughter and her fiancee, both 24 and fairly thoughtful for their age, voted for Obama. My daughter was consistent in her reason; “it’s time for a change”.
Her perception was that McCain would be a continuation of Bush and was simply too old. 8 yrs of incessant propaganda from the MSM and the ‘social justice’ curriculum she was being exposed to at UCSC (psychology major) had her convinced that Obama would work with Democrats to correct Bush’s mistakes.
She got her change but I haven’t heard her yet admit she made a mistake. I’m confident that one day she will but I suspect she still hasn’t a clue about Obama and the left’s agenda.
Now that’s she’s graduated, engaged and entering the real world, hopefully reality will begin to open her eyes.
Joshua Says – June 21st, 2010 at 3:00 pm
“…Obama has taken virtually no interest in the actual nuts and bolts of his agenda. He has basically outsourced the drafting of the bulk of his agenda to Congress…”
================
It might be more illustrative to refer to him as “President PlaceHolder” or “President Front Man”. The shadowy “they” who have provided his financial backing (presumed to include George Soros; there may be others) found an ambitious minority-ish Marxist political wannabe who was “clean and articulate” and told him, essentially, “We’ll make you king– All you have to do is show up; we’ll do the policy-making and persuade the right people behind-the-scenes. All you have to do is read the words on the teleprompter.”. So now we’ve got a guy in office who ACTS like he’s king of the country –his word is command whether regarding GM or BP; he lavishes himself with expensive date nights, extravagant parties, sumptuous dinners, afternoons of golf– but policy-wise, not so much. When he finally makes his obligatory speech about the crisis of the day (Ft. Hood, or Times Square, or the oil spill) he appears disengaged, aloof, unconcerned. He doesn’t show real concern about the policies he’s putting forward, or about the effects they’ll have on people. It looks to me like –while he’s ideologically sympathetic to the policies of “his” administration– he’s not passionately committed to them; he’s committed to the good times and prestige and power he was guaranteed for being the Public Face of … whoever. He supports their policies, reads the speeches they’ve uploaded to the teleprompter, but in reality is a willing puppet.
As they say, “can you prove I’m wrong?”
“Despite my considerable efforts, my daughter and her fiancee, both 24 and fairly thoughtful for their age, voted for Obama.”
GB,
Well, you have to respect her decision. If, at that age, my parents had even off handedly hinted at who they thought I should vote for I would have gone 180 just to see them squirm…
A mind of her own, an independent streak and a smart parent. My prediction: She’ll go far.
would have gone 180 just to see them squirm…
so what your saying is that you were easily controlled…
Me no. You…? You were somehow compelled to make a statement of ridicule…pontificate on that.
no reason to pontificate the implication of a statement. anyone who blindly opposes someone else for X reason is a person who can be manipulated by someone else by their taking a opposing position to themselves.
Parents been using it for AGES…
its called REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY…
and i wasn’t ridiculing you, i was pointing out that such behavior is childish at best in how YOU described you related to your family.
if you were actually proud of that, then you wouldn’t have seen ridicule, but since you know deep down that that is a crappy way to relate to human beings that care for you and have cared for you for a long while till you could care for yourself.
You want ridicule? go someplace else, I do sarcasm.
What you do is pop psychology, and not very well. You want to know my Psyche? I doubt it. What you’re really looking for lies within.