Cogitamus: Why does Rahm Emanuel still have a job?

Open Left: On neoliberalism and 'moral cowardice'

alicublog: Annals of Libertarianism, cont.

The Bobblespeak Translations: Meet The Press - September 5, 2010

The Big Picture: Downgrading the Ratings Agencies

Zandar Versus The Stupid: Rangel's got company...

Of course, it's an anonymously sourced article and it's in the Telegraph, which is a right wing rag. But you never know, they might be right:

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.

Mr Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term.

Friends say he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of most high profile jobs in US politics.

"I would bet he will go after the midterms," said a leading Democratic consultant in Washington. "Nobody thinks it's working but they can't get rid of him – that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go to but the consensus is he'll go."

An official from the Bill Clinton era said that "no one will be surprised" if Mr Emanuel left after the midterm elections in November, when the Democratic party will battle to save its majorities in the house of representatives and the senate.

It is well known in Washington that arguments have developed between pragmatic Mr Emanuel, a veteran in Congress where he was known for driving through compromises, and the idealistic inner circle who followed Mr Obama to the White House.

His abrasive style has rubbed some people the wrong way, while there has been frustration among Mr Obama's closest advisers that he failed to deliver a smooth ride for the president's legislative that his background promised.

"It might not be his fault, but the perception is there," said the consultant, who asked not to be named. "Every vote has been tough, from health care to energy to financial reform.

"Democrats have not stood behind the president in the way Republicans did for George W Bush, and that was meant to be Rahm's job."

The tone, of course, is that Rahm is the "bad" guy and the rest of the inner circle are the "good" guys. I don't think it's that simple. I think Obama's choices reflect his own philosophies, and you simply can't pin everything on Rahm. We have a Democratic president who's trying to gut public education, Social Security and Medicare and who refuses to deal with the national tragedy of long-term unemployment. Are we supposed to believe Rahm tied the president to a chair and hypnotized him? I'm not buying it.

Matt Stoller of MyDD is reviewing The Thumpin': How Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats Learned to Be Ruthless and Ended the Republican Revolution , at FDL's Book Salon.

Check it out, it looks like a fascinating study of the 2006 elections.

Isn't that his job?

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

I wonder if that person will have to be a graduate of Regent University? Where's Lieberman?

I heard this from the gaggle this morning and Duncan has the text: Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel reminds us that once upon a time the "war czar" was called the "Commander in Chief," that is until the boy king decided it was hard work.

The Washington Post reports that the White House wants to appoint a war czar to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but they can't find anyone to do it. Someone needs to tell Steve Hadley that position is filled, it's the Commander in Chief, unless the decider's become the delegator.

Atrios:

CHICAGO, IL - Today Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) issued the following statement in response to Representative Virgil Goode's (R-VA) continued efforts to undermine the First Amendment by condemning Keith Ellison's (D.-Minn.) right to take his oath of office on the Koran.

"Tolerance for different religions speaks to the very character of this country and the precepts on which it was founded," said Emanuel. "President Bush has reminded us time and again that freedom of religion is a fundamental American value. As such, I call on President Bush to be consistent and denounce Congressman Goode's intolerance."

I have a lot of issues with this essay, especially how it generalizes the entire Democratic party by citing isolated cases. However, the author makes some good points on the general cluelessness about Americans' attitudes on the part of representatives like Rahm Emmanuel and how the Democratic Party is divided on the issue that landed them the majority after the election.

Harper's:

Sometimes it's great to be wrong. When the Democrats took the House and the Senate-contrary to my published expectations-I breathed a sigh of relief. So what if James Webb is a pulp-fiction-writing former Reaganite. The senator-elect from Virginia and his Democratic colleagues have pledged renewed scrutiny of the Iraq catastrophe, and that's reason enough to celebrate.

Then again, was my pessimism so misguided? I wanted the Democrats to win so they might get us out of Iraq, but I thought that they would fall short because of their steadfast refusal to condemn the war with a unified voice. Too often during the campaign, I couldn't tell the difference between the Democratic and the Republican positions on Iraq.
[..]To analyze this paradox it's necessary to consider the work of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D.-Ill.), the hatchetman for Bill and Hillary Clinton and boss of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel labored hard to keep strongly anti-war candidates off the Democratic line and slate Iraq equivocators instead. Read full article here

It bodes well for Pelosi that was willing to spend her political capital right off the bat -- especially on the issue that will define her time at the helm. Far too many modern politicians save theirpolitical capital until it's lost all its value.

Chuck Todd

But the fascinating storyline in this scenario will be Pelosi's fate. Will, say, 220 House Democrats stay united and elect Pelosi speaker, or will enough conservative House Democrats break and elect a compromise Democrat as speaker? Even the threat of Democrats peeling off and working in collaboration with the Republicans to do so might be enough to encourage a serious challenge to Pelosi inside the Democratic caucus. For some reason Pelosi has a terrible relationship with the liberal blogs. There's a pretty decent chance liberal bloggers could start a grassroots effort to get behind Emanuel for speaker.

This is so off the wall I wouldn't know where to start.

It looks like Rahm Emanuel will let Bill Napoli get away with it...
"Republicans are going to be the ones who look like extremists," says former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his seat in 2004 after being beaten up on the abortion issue for years. That does not mean, however, that Democrats are rushing to call attention to the Republicans' dilemma. In the upcoming midterm elections, the Democrats don't plan to spend a dime on ads highlighting the abortion issue, according to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the savvy Chicago pol who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He wouldn't spell out the reasons, but a top party staffer (who declined to be quoted out of deference to his bosses) told NEWSWEEK: "These guys are gun-shy because they're used to getting clobbered on the issue...read on"

Rahm Emanuel defends against Delay's charges

Emanuel went on MTP to defend the DCCC against allegations made by Tom Delay saying this is a democratic plot against him

Download | play -WMP low res

Bittorrent-WMP Hi Res

Rahm: This may come as breaking news…websites don't indict members of Congress, grand juries do. Websites don’t admonish a member, not once, not twice, three times, which is what happened to Tom DeLay. The highest ranking official in the history of the House of Representatives to be indicted. All that website does is reflect a culture, in my view, of corruption and cronyism that pervades the political system....read on