Tags: chicago illinois political corruption, kill switch internet, obama nation, american middle class revolt 2011, high taxes, 17% unemployment, egypt in america, madcow political commentary, fox news 2011 commentary, incumbent president re-election campaign, frankenstein stumbling home, reverent wright, bill ayers, government corrupt chicago, rahmn emmanuel, american middle class outrage 2011, american tea party 2011, illinois politics, chicago politics criminal enterprise
3.8.2010 By Chase K. Hunter
A Few Choice Morsels Pertaining to the Current State of Affair’s in Rahm Emanuel’s “Fucknutsville”
The daily headlines about Rahm Emanuel are getting more and more bizarre. That’s never a good sign. Here are just a few that stood out this morning.
I broke out laughing while reading these headlines, and I cannot stop laughing. I just spilled coffee all over myself, laughing uncontrollably.
These are the people who run our country. These are the names they call each other. This is what’s it’s come to. It’s so sad, and utterly tragic that it’ has now become high comedy, dark comedy, no less – and truly laughable.
Speak Like A Thug, Act Like A Thug, Get “Thugged About” in the End. It’s Called Karma.
Rahm Emanuel’s so called “style” of leadership, if you want to call it that, his every day diction, the way he actually peaks to people, as quoted by those who write about him and who know him, sounds more like the everyday street “trash talk” of a mafia Don’s closest attending head thug, than it does someone who is working daily in the White House to serve the American people. [If the shoe fits….]
Turnabout is fair play, Rahm. Eat it, then leave town. You got your hands on some power again, and you went nuts with it. “Fucknuts”, to be exact. No one ever elected YOU to be the President. We’re all pretty sick to find out – thanks to the truthful writing and reporting of America’s bloggers, that you have mostly been running the country for the past year and a half, or trying to. It’s no wonder that I have seen recent headlines, asking Obama to either lead or leave. WTF. I reiterate my call for the impeachment of Barack Obama.
I’ll take Joe Biden any day of the week over this mess of an administration. It’s bringing our country to shame, danger, and a highly publicized ongoing international embarrassment, in fact, one after the next. And that is NOT GOOD for our national security. It leaves other countries with a lingering perception of weakness at the helm in America. And that’s the LAST thing we need right now. The other LAST thing we need is ay more attempts by Rahm Emanuel to be secretly leading the country from his gatekeeper’s post as Chief of Staff.
I don’t know too many successful CEOs or high executives that allow their secretaries to make policy decisions for them. But that is exactly what appears to have happened here in the first year and half of the Obama administration. I believe America needs to move forward, and impeach Barack Obama. Enough damage has been done. We cannot afford another 2.5 years of Barack Obama and his clownish, inept presidency. Enough is enough. I’m not laughing anymore.
Chase K. Hunter
[ amanuensis [əˌmænjʊˈɛnsɪs]n pl -ses [-siːz] a person employed to take dictation or to copy manuscripts ]
The Sag Harbor Express:
“Why has Obama changed his stance? Consider his two top aides: Rahm Emanuel, now Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, who as an investment banker was in the middle of the $8.2 billion merger that created Chicago-based Exelon. With 17 nuclear plants, it’s the biggest nuclear utility in the nation. David Axelrod, a senior Obama advisor, was an Exelon consultant. Candidate Obama received sizeable contributions from Exelon executives including John Rowe, Exelon president and chief executive officer.”
Now that health care reform seems to have fallen by the wayside, Democrats are doing what they do best: pointing the finger. Many are pointing it straight at Rahm “Rahmbo Dead Fish” Emanuel, blaming his lack of Senate experience for his failure to orchestra a government health care takeover.
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin put his finger on the problem, saying the president’s advisers lacked “a feeling for what’s going on around the country, the populist sentiment.”
“Dana Milbank wrote a story where he said: ‘If only the president had followed Rahm everything would be okay.’ It certainly sounds like Rahm was leaking like a sieve to Dana Milbank,” said Scarborough. “It appears that Rahm has become quite promiscuous in telling anybody who will listen to him about how he tried to coach the president.”
As gatekeeper to the Oval Office, he is the man who shapes the president’s schedule and determines who the president sees. He is in day-to-day charge of the estimated 2,000-strong staff of the Executive Office of the Presidency. He is also usually a close personal confidant of the president, sometimes even a source of policy ideas. On top of that, he is chief liaison officer of the White House with Congress and the other departments of government.
Eighteen months ago, I warned then-presidential candidate Barack Obama that should he get elected, he should not allow his administration to fall into the clutches of Washington insiders [“A Heretic’s Advice To Obama,” June 21, 2008]. The caution sign was raised based on years of observing this town’s political movers and shakers at work……the last thing Washington insiders want is association with anything resembling a bumbling failure. Their immediate concern is to salvage their reputations and maintain their A-list standing in this ever-so-status-conscious town.
There’s no war like a civil war, and one seems to have broken out in the Obama White House. Now the public is learning about it. Every president has numerous assistants, of course, and, being human, they tend to compete. Sometimes it is over ideology (as under FDR, who encouraged it), sometimes it is over tactics (as under Reagan, who couldn’t figure out how to stop it). In the Obama White House it seems to be worse–it seems to be personal revenge as well as rivalry.
“A conversation with Rahm can be as little as 30 seconds. He calls, drops a few F-bombs, makes his point and hangs up.”
From Huffington Post:
In 2008, there were millions of people “fired up and ready to go.” But after a year plus of the Beltway-Rahm Emanuel strategy of never exposing oneself to political risk the grassroots energy of the campaign has been allowed simply to dissipate.
From Donald Borsch Jr:
From Daniel Macht:
The knives are out for Rahmbo.
President Obama’s top aide, Rahm Emanuel, has become a lightening rod within his party for criticism of the administration. While liberal Democrats complain that Emanuel has failed his boss by trying to be too conciliatory with Republicans, moderates argue Obama’s agenda has stalled because Emanuel’s pragmatic advice has been ignored too often.
From Tara Lynn Thompson:
His attitude, described by political insiders as “profane” to “effective”, has yet again brought an unlikeable view of the President’s Chief of Staff to the forefront, like dross to the surface. From his “f—ing retard” comment made last month to the recent Eric Massa allegations that Rahm is the “son of the devil’s spawn”, Emanuel apparently isn’t the beloved quarterback viewed from the opposition or his own teammates. In short, no one seems to like him, not even himself.
Open war over Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s master of the dark arts
Rahm Emanuel, the president’s tough backroom operator, has found himself at the centre of a career-threatening row
Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s outspoken chief of staff, has become embroiled in a public row with his critics amid accusations that he has damaged the standing of the presidency and undermined his boss.
Emanuel has become the subject of an intense war of words between those who blame him for the failings of Obama’s tough first year in office and those who insist that Obama should have listened to him more. If the controversy deepens any further, some feel that he may be forced to resign.
The development has been remarkable for a man in Emanuel’s job, which calls for him to adopt a behind-the-scenes role similar to that of a Mafia boss’s consigliere, whispering advice in the ear of the president and then strong-arming political targets into obeying his master’s will.
But critics say the row shows just how much of a strain Obama’s first year of office has taken on his top White House team after a series of political setbacks, especially over healthcare. Officials in Obama’s administration, who once appeared so united, now seem to be in siege mode and starting to fight among themselves.
“It was inevitable that this would happen on one level. You have a president with an ambitious agenda and they have not been getting as much done as they had hoped,” said John Geer, editor of the Journal of Politics and a political scientist at Vanderbilt University.
The worsening atmosphere could become particularly difficult for Emanuel if November’s mid-term elections turn into a Democratic rout. “Rahm Emanuel is burning the candle at both ends. I would not be surprised if he steps down after the mid-terms,” Geer said.
By the standards of the Obama White House, the fight around Emanuel has been unusually public and appears to have employed many of the dirty tricks of media manipulation. It began when some public figures on the left of the party, including prominent bloggers and members of thinktanks, began to call for his resignation, accusing him of being a closet conservative who had failed to get meaningful healthcare reform and other liberal policy through Congress. One, the influential Jane Hamsher of the blog Firedoglake, even said the Justice Department should investigate him.
That growing chorus appears to have forced Emanuel – or, more likely, his supporters – to launch a counter-attack. A column in the Washington Post by the highly respected sketch-writer Dana Milbank reported that Emanuel had set up his own press outreach operation, separate to that of other top White House aides such as press secretary Robert Gibbs and top adviser Valerie Jarrett. It also stuck the knife into those aides and other senior Obama advisers, blaming them for Obama’s problems.
“Obama’s first year fell apart in large part because he didn’t follow his chief of staff’s advice on crucial matters,” Milbank wrote. The piece concluded bluntly: “Obama needs fewer acolytes and more action. Rahm should stay.”
Other pieces followed in which sources attacked Obama’s top aides and repeated the line that Emanuel was the spurned saviour of the Obama White House, not its downfall. But there was a backlash, too. Anonymous sources reported that Michelle Obama had been furious at the Milbank column. “A knife in Obama’s back?” thundered a headline in the Los Angeles Times.
There was much speculation that the pro-Emanuel pieces had done damage to Obama by undermining his authority in the frank way that they had spelled out that Obama’s first year had been a disappointment. “The defence of Rahm favoured by some Washington Democrats is evidence of everything that is wrong with Washington … no wonder people hate this city,” fumed the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein.
Indeed, the civil war between pro-Rahm and anti-Rahm forces has also dragged in the Post. Not only did Milbank’s column trigger much of the dispute, but soon Post columnists were attacking their newspaper for taking too much of a pro-Rahm line in its news stories.
At the end of last week the Post’s longstanding political columnist, David Broder, used his column to attack Milbank and his fellow reporters. Broder called the pro-Rahm argument a “remarkable fiction” and was withering in his critique of his paper’s reporting. Not surprisingly that, too, gave the story a fresh burst of life.
It was perhaps inevitable that Emanuel would end up being the centre of attention. “He is clearly a very strong chief of staff. He has very strong preferences for what should be happening,” said Geer.
Emanuel’s supporters hail him as a master of the political dark arts who gets things done. He is abrasive and renowned for his foul-mouthed tirades, like a real-life American variation on The Thick of It‘s fictional Malcolm Tucker. “Fucknutsville” is apparently his preferred nickname for Washington, and he was recently forced to apologise for referring to liberal activists as “retarded”.
Emanuel is known for his ability to dominate and intimidate politicians and cabinet members. No wonder he has made enemies. But he has also now broken one of the cardinal rules of his job: to control the story, not be the story.
20 Jan 2010
20 Mar 2009
15 Dec 2008
7 Nov 2008
- Rahm Emanuels’ Pet Term for Washington D.C. is “Fucknutsville” (americanpatriotdaily.wordpress.com)
- Eric Massa: “Rahm Emanuel Is Son Of The Devil Spawn” Who Yelled At Him While Naked (alan.com)
- Eric Massa: Rahm Emanuel Is The ‘Son Of The Devil’s Spawn,’ Lobbied Me In Shower (huffingtonpost.com)
- Obama’s Foil (politicalwire.com)
- After Massa’s 8 Month Issue, Says Rahm Is Son Of Devil’s Spawn (riehlworldview.com)
- Rahm Emanuel Is Tired and Everyone Hates Him [Politics] (gawker.com)
- Moore: Democrats are ‘going to get an a**-whoopin’ of biblical proportions’ (terry-9.newsvine.com)
- It Would All Have Been Fine if Anyone Had Listened to Rahm Emanuel [Rahmance] (gawker.com)
- Open war over Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s master of spin (guardian.co.uk)
- Salty Eric Massa Reveals Details of Supposed Harassment, Swears At Rahm Emanuel [Meltdowns] (gawker.com)
- 2010: Popular Chase Hunter Essays (2012poleshift.wetpaint.com)
Who’s afraid of Barack Obama?
The new president spent his first months in office coasting on love and popularity. In his health care speech to Congress Wednesday, he rallied after a rough summer with a new round of tough talk.
But with the moment of truth fast approaching on Capitol Hill for the signature item on his domestic policy, Obama seems to lack one item that most presidents find helpful to have in their White House tool box: Fear.
On the left and on the right, interest groups and members of Congress have been eagerly enjoying the rewards—publicity, negotiating leverage—of challenging the president or dissenting from his policies.
That’s usually a practice presidents try to discourage—especially among members of their own party—by making it clear that the long-term penalty will be greater than any short-term gains.
But the practice has been encouraged by this president’s own intellectual and political style—a preference for negotiation, combined with a disinclination toward drawing bright lines about his own bottom line.
In the speech this week, Obama rallied Democrats by saying he would not tolerate GOP distortions of his health care ideas, but also signaled unmistakably that liberals in the end will probably need to join him in caving over their hopes for a “public option” health insurance plan. Even the legendary Rahm Emanuel, cast early on as the White House enforcer, has taken a slightly more statesmanlike portfolio, with no obvious deputy hit man to step in.
It’s got some people in both parties wondering whether there really is a steel fist inside Obama’s velvet glove.
Democrats in Congress told POLITICO they’ve been surprised that there seem to be no obvious consequences for sharp criticism of the White House. Cheerleaders on the left are beginning to urge him, in the words of Maureen Dowd, to be “more Rocky, less Spocky.”
“One of the few areas of agreement on the right and left is that both sides want to see more strength of leadership from him,” notes Dan Gerstein, a Democratic political consultant. “There has to be respect – and fear.”
“His problem has been almost from the beginning that while Democrats on the Hill appreciate him, they’re occasionally inspired by him, they’re not all that impressed with him,” said Bush political advisor Karl Rove. “They appreciate his diffident attitude, but I’m not sure it’s one that inspires either fear or respect.”
Democrats, on Capitol Hill or the White House, aren’t likely to be swayed by taunting from the likes of Rove.
But it is true that as the health care debate reaches its denouement, Obama is almost certainly going to be pressuring liberals in his own party to accept less than they once expected, and conservative Democrats to spend more than they want.
When this moment comes, Obama will likely need find the power of reason is more effective when backed by a demonstrated willingness to crack heads.
“One of the things you lose the ability to do when you step back from the legislative process is to jump in there and be beefy when things don’t go the way you want,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who has criticized the White House’s plans from the left at no apparent political cost.
The decision to let Congress lead the way to health care reform was a strategic one, driven by the failures of the Clinton Administration. Come the fall, if Obama eventually signs major legislation, it may look like a brilliant one.
But the diffidence is also closely linked with Obama’s personality and his governing style: In private debates, advisors say, he likes to hear and restate arguments; he more rarely shows his own cards.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27057.html#ixzz0R2eLUGa5
And he has yet to take a tough stand, or pick a difficult fight, on many of the major policy issues of the day. He continues to search for a Goldilocks solution in Afghanistan – not too hot, not too cold, and projected nothing more than caution when Iranians took to the streets. He has allowed disfavored proposals from allies – like the Employee Free Choice Act – to die of their own accord, professing support all the while.
The question is where this personal and strategic blurriness turns into a more dangerous political sense of weakness, a dangerous perception for American presidents George H.W. Bush learned when Newsweek labeled him a “wimp” on its front page. His son labored to avoid that mistake, his obsessions about projecting strength sometimes coming off as swagger.
When Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) was reduced to abject, groveling apologies for bellowing “You lie!” at Obama during his address to a joint session of Congress, it wasn’t just an opportunity for Democrats to cast Republicans as less than constructive; it was also a reminder of presidential stature and power.
But Wilson, within 24 hours, had come back around to his own defense, and he’s a rare Republican to have paid any price for attacking the president. After early internal debates over whether accommodation would be more effective than confrontation, congressional Republicans have clearly decided that they have little to lose from a fight.
One Republican consultant, Nelson Warfield, traced that realization to the passage of energy legislation through the House over near-unified Republican opposition.
“After the uniform stand against cap and tax [as Republicans deride the bill], there was no price to be paid,” he said.
“There hasn’t been any cost for opposing him – in fact there’s been a premium ,” he added.
“He’s not meeting the basic standard of manhood,” taunted Rick Wilson, a Republican consultant whose clients include the National Republican Trust, which ran some of the earliest, most scathing anti-Obama ads.
Partisan jibes are, of course, nothing new. But Obama’s capacity to inspire fear on his own side of the aisle also remains in doubt. The House Progressive Caucus and members of its Blue Dog minority have taken steady shots at his health care views and his management of the issue without any obvious bruises to show for it, and many take his hands-off stance as a kind of license.
Obama has been accused of weakness before. In the summer and fall of 2007, he found himself reassuring even his own backers that he could face Hillary Clinton. In the summer and fall of 2008, he beat back Senator John McCain’s attempt to cast him as effete.
The Democratic consultant Paul Begala, who is close to the White House, noted that the President gives two kinds of speeches: “Olympian and even-handed ones” like talks on race and on Islam and the West; and tougher stemwinders, like his direct assault on Hillary Clinton at Iowa’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner in 2007 and his speech at last year’s Democratic National Convention.
“Given how screwed up Washington is and how deep the partisan poison runs, it’s for the most part a good thing that he’s coolly analytical and a consensus builder,” said Gerstein, the Democratic consultant. “But what we’ve seen in his first nine months in office is that there are times when that is not just the wrong approach – it’s counterproductive, because it allows people to get off the hook, or take advantage of you – as opposed to a more LBJ-style kick ass, take names way of wielding power.”
Related articles by Zemanta
- Obama’s Speech: Trapped In the Gap Between Action and Rhetoric (campaignsilo.firedoglake.com)
- Obama Urged by Centrist Dem Leader to Back Public Option With Trigger (blogs.abcnews.com)
- Obama ratchets up his health care reform pitch (dailykos.com)
- Pull the plug on Senator Death Panel (guardian.co.uk)
- Once again the Clinton Wet Dream of Triangulation is Proven Wrong – How much longer will Obama continue to chase that false rabbit down the hole? (iflizwerequeen.com)
- White House Stiffens Against Illegal Immigrants (abcnews.go.com)
- The Caucus: Apology Accepted (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Baucus, Conrad Cave To Joe Wilson In Health Care Bill (huffingtonpost.com)
- Obama Doesn’t Want to Linger on Joe Wilson (usnews.com)