Obama's Disappointing First Choice

posted by John Nichols on 11/06/2008 @ 8:05pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (100)

Subscribe Now

House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican insiders in Washington are griping about President-elect Barack Obama's selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to serve as White House chief of staff. Emanuel, they complain, is too partisan.

If only that were the case.

Partisan true believers stand strong for the ideals and principles of a party, they want to follow the dictates of the platform and stay in tune with grassroots activists.

That's not a description of Rahm Emanuel.

In fact, Emanuel is the opposite of a partisan. He is someone who has worked very hard for a very long time – first in the Clinton administration and then in Congress -- to change the Democratic party into a more cautious, centrist and compromised institution. As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, he actually undercut efforts by progressive candidates who had a chance to win in order to advance the candidacies of more conservative candidates who lost.

Why? Because on the most vital issues--economic and trade policy, war and peace, civil liberties--this true believer in the worst compromises of the Clinton era has frequently been at odds with labor and progressive forces within the party.

So how worried should Democrats who want change they can believe in be about Obama's decision to make Emanuel the face of the transition process?

Emanuel is best understood as a disappointing choice rather than a definitional selection.

If Emanuel was in line for a key Cabinet position (Treasury, Commerce, Labor or Agriculture), or for the job of US Trade Representative, there would be every reason to fret. In fact, it might well be appropriate to openly and aggressively challenge the appointment of someone so at odds with Democratic values and policy goals to any of those posts.

But a White House chief of staff is not, traditionally, a policy maker or implementer. Rather, the chief of staff is the member of the president's inner circle who gets things done. A chief of staff who goes against the president's instincts or goals, or who cannot work with people who hold views different from his own, does not last long.

Rahm Emanuel – whose selection owes more to shared Chicago connections than to shared ideology -- is not being brought on to define the Obama administration.

It is Barack Obama's job to do that. Emanuel's job is to make sure that what the president wants done actually gets done. He's good at that, and that is why the new president picked the congressman from his hometown.

Obama wanted someone he knew well, someone he had worked with in the past and someone who he was sure could get the job done to serve as his chief of staff.

He gets all that with Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. But Emanuel is not going to be the president, Obama is. And if this administration adopts Emanuel's compromised positions, it will not be the fault of the chief of staff. It will be the fault of the president.

Comments (100)

I couldn't agree more. I just posted on NYT that he will last a year before he is replaced.

Posted by jackwells at 11/06/2008 @ 8:14pm
So...I'm missing the part that makes Emanuel a bad pick. Because Boehner jumped on his partisan horse and got of a good soundbite in?

Obama could have picked the Dalai Lama and somebody would have said the pick was too "fill in the blank." I think Emanuel is a great pick to do what a CoS is supposed to do, and that's to make sure the West Wing is a highly functioning, highly competent engine that projects the intent and leverage of the Oval Office.

Posted by Egalitare at 11/06/2008 @ 8:18pm
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence.

Emanuel adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade": Build a Public Consensus Supporting US Global Leadership The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to "America First" isolationism.

Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.

A strong, technologically superior defense is the foundation for US global leadership. Yet the US continues to employ defense strategies, military missions, and force structures left over from the Cold War, creating a defense establishment that is ill-prepared to meet new threats to our security. The US must speed up the "revolution in military affairs" that uses our technological advantage to project force in many different contingencies involving uncertain and rapidly changing security threats -- including terrorism and information warfare.

http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Rahm_Emanuel_Foreign_Policy.htm

Posted by OneVote at 11/06/2008 @ 8:22pm
If JOHN BOEHNER....and JOHN NICHOLS...both think Emmanuel is a bad choice...

it must be a GREAT choice!

In fact, after the pissy "Not pure enough on progressivism"....John Nichols ADMITS he's a good choice-

"Emanuel's job is to make sure that what the president wants done actually gets done. He's good at that, and that is why the new president picked the congressman from his hometown."

Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 8:24pm
'Emanuel adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade": Build a Public Consensus Supporting US Global Leadership The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum.'

Note the above paragraph from the previous post. "The internationalist outlook that has served America and the world so well the second half of the century." Are you kidding? Are you talking Bay of Pigs, Korea, Vietnam, and a host of other CIA sponsored adventures?

This is Emanuel on foreign policy. Note not on our military posture, but on foreign policy which he stresses and revolves around military policy rather than diplomacy. His "Progressive Internationalism" is just another word for the same insane neocon BS that has and continues to pull us down.

What a nightmare.

Posted by OneVote at 11/06/2008 @ 8:30pm
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 8:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

What was Dick Cheney's job again?

Posted by OneVote at 11/06/2008 @ 8:31pm
I don't usually bag much on John Nichols, but it makes little sense to attack a choice without offering an alternative that would be more "acceptable". I mean, would Nichols prefer Obama chose a barely qualified crony?

Posted by yutsano at 11/06/2008 @ 8:55pm
What a nightmare.

Posted by OneVote at 11/06/2008 @ 8:30pm

Not afraid of Freddy Krueger are ya?

Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 8:58pm
the chief of staff does not make foreign policy, or any kind of policy for that matter. he is a glorified secretary. or an office manager.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 9:14pm
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 9:14pm

Like Karl Rove and Scooter Libby?

Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2008 @ 9:47pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/06/2008 @ 8:31pm

Vice-President of the United States...officially.

BTW, if you want to compare Rahm Emmanuel to Dick Cheney and that's your standard?...

you're in for a miserable 4-8 years...and a miserable life, because you are NEVER going to get somebody "pure" enough for you in the White House.

Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 9:49pm
I dunno... I'm trusting Obama on this one. He's been in the soup with all these characters. Has learned to smile and get along. But he's got to have formed a strong read by now on who gets in the inner circle.

Speaking of witch, is Hillary not being floated for anything?

Posted by winyahn at 11/06/2008 @ 10:18pm
Posted by winyahn at 11/06/2008 @ 10:18pm

Harry Reid furitively looking over his shoulder!

Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 10:43pm
""The internationalist outlook that has served America and the world so well the second half of the century." Are you kidding? Are you talking Bay of Pigs, Korea, Vietnam, and a host of other CIA sponsored adventures? "

The internationalist outlook of the US that has served *Israel* so well for 40 plus years.

Israel, not even an ally of the US. No alliance treaty exists between the 2 countries, because Israel rejected LBJ's offer of a treaty in '67, not willing to define its permanent borders nor give the US notice of an Israeli attack on another country. Both are alliance requirements.

But Emanuel did volunteer for military service when he was 30 years old, during the '91 Gulf War. No, not for the US. But for his 1st loyalty, Israel.

Bad choice, disastrously compromising.

Posted by sloper at 11/06/2008 @ 11:06pm
It is documented that while Rahm Emanuel was the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he twisted arms and redirected campaign fund to support the pro Iraq War Candidates, while depriving and expelling those candidates who opposed the war.

There a bit in Irony in the fact that President Obama who predicated his campaign on putting an end to the War in Iraq would hire such a war hawk to be his Chief of Staff. These is, indeed, a change that we can't afford.

Posted by CripThink at 11/06/2008 @ 11:37pm
Secretary of State Chuck Hagel

Secretary of State John Kerry

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Secretary of State Bono

Hmmmmmmm. Never slowed down to think about it and it's critical. No time to waste on close misses.

Posted by winyahn at 11/07/2008 @ 12:14am
So Pres Elect H as in Hussein first chooses the Jew?

Emanuel's CSPAN interview is impressive in terms of big ideas, flexibility, intelligence, humor. Way quick on calling neocons on their lunacy. So Pres Elect H as in Hussein first chooses the Jew?

Posted by winyahn at 11/07/2008 @ 12:25am
Mr Nichols,

Are you saying Emanuel is the best man for the job, darnit?

Seems right to me. Speak softly and let your guard dog growl.

Wise choice. Your point of view praises with faint damnation.

Posted by JFHill at 11/07/2008 @ 12:34am
I can't imagine that anyone is going to make President Obama's policies for him - Joe Biden was right, the man's got steel in his spine. I think that Barack would like to avoid the chaotic transitions that happened in the Clinton administration, and in Massachusetts with the administration of his good friend Gov. Patrick. And that requires people with some experience. There really isn't any time to waste with the horrible state in which Bush is leaving this country, and to deal with the sort of problems that are caused by haphazard and undisciplined transitions is a waste of not just time but good will. I've never been a huge fan of Rahm (though his characterization before the final debate of McCain as the grumpy old man in the robe and slippers yelling at the kids to get off his grass still cracks me up), but it's hard to question the wisdom of having a COS who can get stuff done. Barack remains the smartest and most focused guy in the room. If Rahm gets the job done, the President can then get the job done.

Posted by jmusolino at 11/07/2008 @ 12:58am
All of the above criticisms of Emmanuel are accurate. He withheld help to any progressive candidates. He is like a corporate Republican on most issues. He is one of the most craven tools of the Israeli lobby. This is what is wrong with the Democratic Party. A terrible and troubling choice.

Posted by philbq at 11/07/2008 @ 01:12am
The king and queen woke up along with the entire court, and they all looked at each other in amazement. Soon the horses in the courtyard stood up and shook themselves. The hunting dogs jumped around and wagged their tails. The pigeons on the roof lifted their heads from under their wings, looked around, and flew off into the fields. The flies on the wall continued crawling. The fire in the kitchen flared up, flickered, and cooked the meat. The roast began to sizzle again, and the cook gave the kitchen boy such a box on the ear that he let out a cry, while the Maid finished plucking the chicken.

In Other Words: Even after waking up from the 100 year sleep of Bush, it's back to normal.

Posted by mikecope at 11/07/2008 @ 01:17am
Emmanuel is a good choice because he will keep the staff focused and defend Obama. He does not need to be progressive, only effective.

Posted by jcward at 11/07/2008 @ 04:30am
I guess even in the electronic world, reporters have to fill space every day. What was the point of this article? Emmanuel gets things done. He WILL carry out the President's policies or he WILL find himself under the nearest bus in 2 minutes. Although any member of Congress is a media hound (more of less), Emmanuel doesn't have to hog the spotlight. If this White House is run like the campaign was--no leaks, no problems, no drama, no drama queens, all business--then this is the beginning of an interesting period. Now can we begin to discuss policy and quit wasting time on stuff like this?

Posted by Hamiltonian at 11/07/2008 @ 04:33am
Earth to the Nation Magazine. Obama was elected to govern; not to implement the fondest wishes espoused on your editorial pages. He will govern from the center, like a Clinton, and dare I say FDR? I had said this during the primaries when you guys were piling on HRC.

Now let the President Elect govern and stop sniping from the sidelines.

Posted by dasgupta at 11/07/2008 @ 06:47am
Boy, the honeymoon didn't last long. Of course, if we don't get idealism from The Nation we might have to do without it altogether. Rahm Emanuel is tough, focused and extremely quick-witted. Send your diplomats to the embassies and your visionaries to the think tanks. If you want to manage the White House, get a grunt with a game face.

Posted by tonyzito at 11/07/2008 @ 06:56am
At first I have to admit that I reacted negatively to this move, but after some thought, wondered if it could be a strategic manuever to signal to the Republican bullies that Obama would play hardball. We may respond to Emanuel's policy position, but what does it say to the Republicans so accustumed to kicking Democrats around that first pick is a pitbull? If Obama runs his Whitehouse the way he ran his campaign, no complaints from me.

Posted by Lil at 11/07/2008 @ 07:08am
He picked Rahm because Obama has no experience in dealing with the Congress or foreign affairs or the economy or.... well let's just say that Obama is inexperienced.

Posted by abell12ct at 11/07/2008 @ 08:06am
Rahm Emmanuel, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers...it's a rerun of the Clinton administration. Progressives and labor gets the shaft in a Eisenhower presidency. Not the vision we want or need.

Posted by philbq at 11/07/2008 @ 08:15am
Posted by abell12ct at 11/07/2008 @ 08:06am

Brings up an interesting point, abell...

what are you guys going to say about "Obama's inexperience"...

in four years?!?!??!?!?

heheh

Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 08:55am
'Emanuel, a former Bill Clinton adviser, is the son of a Jerusalem-born pediatrician who was a member of the Irgun (Etzel or IZL), a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948.' -- http:// www.haaretz.com/ hasen/spages/ 1034855.html

'Rahm's surname was adopted by his family in 1933, after Rahm's paternal uncle, Emanuel Auerbach, was killed in a skirmish with Arabs in Jerusalem. His father, the Jerusalem-born Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician and former member of the Irgun' -- Wikipedia

'McCain and Palin whipped up live mobs by accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists," ' -- Leslie Savan -- The Nation -- 10 October, 2008

Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/07/2008 @ 09:27am
I have learned my lesson. I always complain about Obama's choices and question some of the decisions he makes but I"ve always been proven wrong over and over again and now I give him the benefit of the doubt until he gives me reason not to. He's got good instincts and he doesnt pick his choices simply because they are good guys he picks them because they can get things done. He is interested in results so if there is some kind of controversy surrounding someone or in the past they said something terrible Obama doesnt care all he cares about is that person COMPETENT. He is strategic in his choices he is not guided by drama. He doesnt look at people as black and white good and bad he looks at them based on their intelligence and qualifications. Until folks realize that they are going to have problems with all his picks.

Carol

Posted by harriscrl3 at 11/07/2008 @ 09:48am
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 9:14pm Like Karl Rove and Scooter Libby? Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2008 @ 9:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

neither one of them was chief of staff, so what's yer point.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 09:49am
what are you guys going to say about "Obama's inexperience"... in four years?!?!??!?!? heheh Posted by Mask

We will have to wait and see if his inexperience hurts the country or not.

Posted by abell12ct at 11/07/2008 @ 10:01am
We should be more concerned that Obama's economic transition team includes, among others, lawrence summers are robert rubin

Posted by penguins1 at 11/07/2008 @ 10:14am
Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/07/2008 @ 09:27am

Yes, HL...."Obama associations" worked so well on Tuesday...

please keep trying it!

LOL

Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 10:23am
The CoS controls the President's schedule, access t the President and in may ways filters what the President sees. To have someone so closely tied to the financial services industry, the pitifully poor trade deals from Bush and Clinton, etc is not a good sign as far as I am concerned.

I have no doubts as to Emanuel's political savvy, street smarts and intelligence- those are unquestioned. My concern is that slowly, over time, he will isolate access to Obama from people he needs to hear from- both within and outside government. The Oval Office and Presidency is such a big and busy job that it can easily isolate someone from much of their grounding. Having someone such as Emanuel in such a position of proximity and control to the President assures that the DLC sell-outs will have a voice and access. It does not for the progressives of the party.

Make no mistake, the DLC Democrats have plenty of blood on their hands regarding the hollowing out of our economy, the financial crisis, the unabashed union busting and the Iraq War and other things largely credited to the NeoCons. They were the enablers. Clinton is the one who pushed NAFTA across the finish line, signed the gutting of Glass-Stegal and other atrocities. Rahm was right in the middle of all that.

Being tone deaf was (and is) one of Bush's greatest weaknesses and sins. Let's hope it is not one of Obama's. Emanuel is a Republican with a D behind his name and should be nowhere near the White House.

Posted by NoPCZone at 11/07/2008 @ 10:25am
Posted by abell12ct at 11/07/2008 @ 10:01am

Ahhh, but see there's your problem, abell.

More than HALF the attacks on Obama THIS time...

won't work NEXT time.

"inexperience"...out.

"fear of what he'll do"....out.

"radical associates as top cabinet officials"....out.

etc., etc., etc.

So unless he plunges us into a GREATER Depression (than the 30s) and surrenders Israel to the Syrians (nope, sorry, he's not)....

there won't be any issue attacks...and you CAN'T use any character attacks.

Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 10:26am
BTW, if you want to compare Rahm Emmanuel to Dick Cheney and that's your standard?...

you're in for a miserable 4-8 years...and a miserable life, because you are NEVER going to get somebody "pure" enough for you in the White House.

Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 9:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Your standard is don't worry....a chief of staff only is an errand boy to carry out the President's will. You never addressed the question on whether "job titles" are deceiving. I believe you have posted a few comments relating to Cheney exceeding his so called Vice Presidential powers.

As an apparent critic of Clinton, you have done an amazing about face with your pragmatic politics theory, not unlike what we are going to get from Obama.

Posted by OneVote at 11/07/2008 @ 10:51am
it was the intellectually feeble and weak willed Bush that gave Cheney the unprecedented powers.

Eisenhower did not let Nixon near him, same with Kennedy and Johnson

the constitution gives the vice no powers at all, aside from that of presidential succession and breaking a tie in the Senate. none.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 11:06am
Jeez - here come the naysayers. Can we at least wait until the inauguration or a few months in office to pass judgment?

Reread the last five paragraphs - closely.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/07/2008 @ 11:22am
Jeez - here come the naysayers. Can we at least wait until the inauguration or a few months in office to pass judgment?

Reread the last five paragraphs - closely.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/07/2008 @ 11:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

Why not wait 4 years? Are you fricking kidding? You think we got plenty of time to get this right? I am going to opt for the garbage in - garbage out theory of predictive outcomes. I won't be disappointed then. Same old 2006 Democrats Kool-Aide....."we won't be fooled again"

Posted by OneVote at 11/07/2008 @ 11:48am
The only concern here is the possible restriction of access (NoPCZone at 11/07/2008 @ 10:25am). And I have full confidence that Obama, having done just about everything right so far, will fire Emanuel the nanosecond he gets too big for his shorts.

And I like it that The Nation is wasting no time in switching from cheerleader to critic. The fact that both Obama and Emanuel have taken major cash from the financial sector is something that needs to be regarded with great suspicion.

Posted by MyParadigm at 11/07/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by OneVote at 11/07/2008 @ 10:51am

I'M an "apparent critic of Clinton"!??!!?!?

Where the heck have YOU been, OV?

I LIKED Bill Clinton (odd, given the peace and prosperity we had, huh?) and said I'd support whoever the Dem nominee is...even Hillary.

And I also predicted that the Hard Left would be more disappointed in Obama than the Hard Right...or the majority of America that's in the Center.

And that prediction is coming to pass. And will continue to come to pass unless Obama gets stupid and starts appointing Howard Zinn to Secretary of State or Dennis Kucinich to Secretary of Defense.

Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 11:57am
The fact that both Obama and Emanuel have taken major cash from the financial sector is something that needs to be regarded with great suspicion. Posted by MyParadigm at 11/07/2008 @ 11:56am | ignore this person | warn this person

why?

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 11:59am
The only 'hope' remaining for the new con repub dream of perpetual dic'tatorship not slipping through their cold dead fingers, is to sabotage the Obama/Biden admin every which way they can. Any downside to every step the Obama/Biden admin take no matter how small or large will be a majorly bad step via the new con repub talking points.

Problem for them is if the Obama/Biden admin is effective and affect our way of life (middle class) in a positive direction. If the majority of the people feel the direction of the country takes a flip flop, and 80% feel it's heading in the right direction after 4 years, the new con repub's outreached clasping dead arms will even yield substantially less a following than it does today.

All I can say about Emmanuel as Obama's 3rd pick, is that Obama has a pretty good track record as far as important picks go. His most important 1st pick, Michelle was a great one. Biden, surely has many positives and was a distinct contrast to McCain't's. So for what Obama needs to move our nation forward now I think will be someone that's pragmatic, positive, hard working, knowledgeable and honest, but not the same ideological bent-- in order to reveal what's in the balance between the positive shapes or rather political substance(s). Like a composition made up of positive and negative shapes and spaces, some alliances are strong and can be stretched, others are weak and need additional media support and emphasis for better focus.

It's judgement. Against the Iraq war when most fell into line. Do not forget that Obama ran when many told him it wasn't his time. Many told him to go more neg. Many told him he couldn't win w/out Billary as VP... Where's evidence to counter that his judgement is weak?

Did we elect his judgement 1st of all?

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2008 @ 12:11pm
Is Obama a republicrat? Is this the man we elected to office? I see Emanuel as a terrible choice.What happened to the idea of a new way of doing things in Washington...and of bringing in new fresh thinkers and doers to government?

Emanuel will act as Gatekeeper and no one(progressives)will have the ear of President Obama that does'nt jive with the ol "new dems" way of doing things..ala Clinton-right.

Sad but seemingly true.

Posted by Senatorobrien at 11/07/2008 @ 12:31pm
ONEVOTE:

You and others are overreacting. Emmanuel is slated for Chief of Staff. Even Mr. Nichols admits he is well-suited to that role.

If Obama is so weak that he will take direction on policy from his Chief of Staff, that calls into serious question Obama's ability to step into the job.

I could be wrong, but Obama doesn't fit this mold.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/07/2008 @ 12:32pm
I normally love The Nation and I certainly support "free speech" to the fullest. I admit I do not know John Nichol's well. But as a professional marketing consultant and avid political pundit and founder of DearDemocrat.com, I do have some kind of credentials to criticize this mediocre opinion piece posing as fact-based journalism.

That said...

(1) there should be no reason to even think that Barack Obama will adopt any contra positions proposed by anyone, including his friend Rahm Emanuel...

(2) now is the time to keep your mouth shut if you don't have anything good to say, and read and, maybe even learn from DearDemocrat.com, instead...

(3) that the Republicans don't like Rahm Emanuel is a good thing. The chief of staff is not designated to be a buddy to the GOP...

(4) taking the dozens of "up-close" musings about Rahm Emanuel, so far, we should have every reason to believe he will be a well focused choice for the job he has been given...

(5) though I beleve Emanuel will last and do well, our brilliant young President, will not allow the contrary to happen for more than a moment.

Take away John Nichols' pen for a week, The Nation, and keep up the otherwise grand work!

RonP@DearDemocrat.com

Posted by deardemocrat at 11/07/2008 @ 12:36pm
I could not agree with this article more, I think the selection of Emanuel was actually a very wise and politically savvy move on Obama's part. The chief-of-staff is the one person who always needs to have the president's back, and I think that having that person be a bit of a bulldog who is not afraid of pushing for you when you need something to be pushed is a good thing. They have a good balance of personalities as well, I want my president to be cool, calm and collected, but I think its good for him to have very trusted people on his side who have the guts and passion to fight for you, I think Emanuel is just the right person for this job, and I am glad that Obama is not making Clinton's mistake of waiting until the last minute to select a staff and not looking for someone who will always just try to make nice, when maybe with such tough issues ahead, being a bit of fighter is better. In the end, this article is right, Obama is the president, not Emanuel, the policies that will be pushed by Emanuel through the Congress will not be his own.

Posted by steck76 at 11/07/2008 @ 12:46pm
Posted by Hamiltonian at 11/07/2008 @ 04:33am

Ditto.

Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 12:52pm
I could be wrong, but Obama doesn't fit this mold.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/07/2008 @ 12:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Emanuel's profile doesn't fit the mold of a "yes" man, but rather a strong willed individual used to getting his way. The fact that Emanuel and Obama go way back is indicative of patronage politics. The strength of Obama's will that you speak of may be more David Axelrod's road to the White House than the strength of Obama's character. While Rahm's record on social issues doesn't cause me concern, his Progressive Internationalism agenda on foreign policy causes me grave concern. While Obama promised not be beholden to special interest groups, I don't recall Emanuel ever making such pledge. We will see. I fear we are going to have a Clinton like redoux.

Posted by OneVote at 11/07/2008 @ 12:54pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/07/2008 @ 12:54pm

Let it ride for now. Obama is no Clinton. Hide and Watch.

Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 1:05pm
emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 11:59am

Because the financial sector needs to be re-regulated, that's why. The last thing we need is more bookies trooping through Washington and selling snake oil like "mortgage-backed securities" and "credit default swaps". Call me old fashioned, but back in the 80's we had terms like "junk bonds" to describe this kind of thing to the average news consumer. When someone says "derivatives", I think "junk". And right now I want the people making decisions to be thinking like that. Skeptical. Show me the money.

We demand accounting transparency from developing countries when the World Bank loans them money. We also should be transparent. It would be a great way to get back into a position of global leadership.

Posted by MyParadigm at 11/07/2008 @ 1:06pm
I'm sorry, I'm just about to drown in a tsunami of IRONY here...

we had the Right direly warning of "Obama is a pure socialist who will pal around with radicals if elected"....

now we have the Left direly warning of "Obama ISN'T a pure socialist and is palling around with moderates since elected!"

Somebody throw me a life preserver!

LOL

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/07/2008 @ 1:10pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 11/07/2008 @ 1:10pm

>Tossing Maskdelta a life preserver from the Good Ship "Irony">

Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 1:15pm
I hope that you're right about Rahm Emanuel's duties. It was not encouraging to read in this morning's New York Times the following quote: "The president-elect said he had made that choice because Mr. Emanuel had ‘deep insights into the challenging economic issues that will be front and center for our administration.'"

Having just read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine", it was even more disturbing to read: "'You don't ever want a crisis to go to waste; it's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid,' Mr. Emanuel said in an interview."

Posted by michaeld at 11/07/2008 @ 1:27pm
Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 1:15pm

I didn't even notice that....I'm back on the old new nick....better fix that....

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/07/2008 @ 1:41pm
Ahhhhhh.....much better.

Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 1:42pm
We just elected a new president who has not yet even been inaugurated. Many of these posts already have the "Chicken Little" syndrome sprinkled with a little "Buyers Remorse", written all over them.

Why not wait until at least 4 to 6 months after the inauguration to start criticizing? In any case there is nothing to be done at the moment anyway.

Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 1:45pm
Hey, Gore always uses that old (not really ) Chinese crisis/opportunity symbol spiel to motivate people to take action when it would be simpler to depress and anger them into just being counter to opposition.

I'd rather we do some problem-solving and reap the benefit of success than the new con repub pessimistic passivity route to delusional power grabs that leave our nation in tatters.

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2008 @ 1:46pm
Oh but so did Kennedy, Nixon,...

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2008 @ 1:46pm
Title for a new book.

"Election to Inauguration - The 75 Days That Can Kill You!"

Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 1:55pm
Front Page of "The Washington Post" 01/19/2009

"75% of Americans believe Barack Obama is a Do Nothing President!" or

"75% of Americans feel that Obama hasn't brought about Change we can Believe in!"

Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 2:04pm
Emanuel's profile doesn't fit the mold of a "yes" man, but rather a strong willed individual used to getting his way.

Posted by OneVote at 11/07/2008 @ 12:54pm

If so, he will quickly find himself without a job. I am willing wait and see. So should everyone else.

Posted by Hman23 at 11/07/2008 @ 2:07pm
>>>the chief of staff does not make foreign policy, or any kind of policy for that matter. he is a glorified secretary. or an office manager.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 9:14pm<<<

For those of you like EMILE that are under the illusion that the Chief of Staff is some glorified clerk of office manager, here is an interesting account of the actual role of the Chief of Staff by Andrew Card, who held that position.

http://tinyurl.com/5j65bl

Pay close attention to the "gatekeeper role", "policy formulation", "appointments short list", and "prioritization and timing of policy initiatives".

This is clearly one of the most powerful positions in the White House, and provides much more power than the position of vice president.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 2:16pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2008 @ 1:46pm

HSUB, at some point, with your constant references to Al Gore...

don't even YOU realize how much of a cultist for the man you sound like????

Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 2:18pm
The problem I have with Rahm is not his political skill - and he would make a great chief of staff based on his political skill and knowledge of how Washington works - it is his VERY CLOSE ties to AIPAC.

AIPAC has been one of the big underminers of the political process in the US, circumventing the will of the American people with their own agenda. AIPAC seems to be completely clueless that greater instability in the Middle East is NOT in Israel's best interest or that of the world.

AIPAC was one of chief instigators and fabricators of evidence concerning WMD to make the case to go to war in Iraq, even though they knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Their agenda was - and still is - a much more powerful Israel by weakening all of their neighbors through economic sanctions and military action, and this agenda took precedence over all other interests in the region and the world.

AIPAC has also been the chief instigator of action against Iran, even though the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) - which is an estimate of 16 separate US intelligence agencies - has shown that Iran has abandoned its nuclear program 5 years ago.

And on the nuclear issue, AIPAC has been an obstruction to getting Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - the same treaty signed by Iran. The problem with this is that it is the existence of Israeli nukes that is motivating Iran, Syria and other countries in the region to develop nukes to deter Israeli aggression. If Israel can't sign the NPT, it can hardly claim any moral authority to enforce this treaty against other countries.

(continued below)

Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 2:23pm
Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 2:16pm

The mistake you can make there is that "Andy" Card was the Chief of Staff for Bush until 2006.

Bush was an is an imbecile. Are you saying that Obama is also an imbecile? I would hope not.

You are caught in the trap of comparing the likes of Bush to Obama.

Hell, that not even "Apples and Oranges."

Get real..

Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 2:23pm
This is a perfect place for Rahm to be. The place where the "Scrappy Senator" can keep an eye on him and a place where he can do little damage. He can be very damaging where he is now. Remember folks this guy "President Elect Obama", is one of the most intelligent people in the country.

Posted by lachatte at 11/07/2008 @ 2:30pm
Finally, on the Palestinian question, AIPAC has been the stumbling block of negotiating peace by insisting that all interested parties - like Hamas - not be included at the bargaining table. This makes no sense at all since the Gaza strip Hamas controls represents more than half of the land and population of Palestine.

So in Rahm's Chief of Staff role as the guy who prioritizes the timing of Obama policy initiatives, will he once again put of peace with between Israel and Palestine until the waning moments of Obama's second term?

In his role as "gatekeeper", will he let the AIPACers dominate the ear of Obama at the expense of the Palestinians?

And what about appointments? Is he going to follow Rove's example of "politicizing" key branches of government in the DLC mode that continues the missteps of Bush?

These are legitimate concerns.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 2:31pm
Oh God here go the "pure progressives". Already criticizing the guy before he has even composed his team and before he shows his governing style. I wouldn't mind if he put a few Republican's in his Cabinet too. The guy ran on a platform of trying to unite the parties and listen to both sides of the argument. Why are you complaining now that he is actually composing his administration in that style. I frankly would be worried if he went purely partisan progressive because that's not what his administration is supposed to be about. I want him to have Republican's, Progressives and Centrist Dem's in his Cabinet because that way he has to actually argue his positions to strengthen his knowledge of an issue and make sure that the decision he is making is the best one. You got the person you want and so far he is simply doing what he promised to do.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/07/2008 @ 2:32pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/07/2008 @ 2:32pm

The issue CCC, is that we see the DLC centrist appointments, but NO progressive ones. If there is going to be a balance, let's see it!

Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 2:41pm
Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 2:23pm

Obama is not an imbecile, but he obviously cannot control who has access to him (far too many people want access), that is the role of his Chief of Staff. Who the Chief of Staff grants access to shapes what Obama hears or doesn't hear.

I'm not saying Rahm is gong to "run" Obama, but he will have enormous influence, a lot more than many posters on this board realize.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 2:48pm
Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 2:41pm

Jesus Christ man, it will probably take 5 weeks before many of the appointments are made.

He was only elected 3 days ago. Patience after all is a virtue last time I checked.

This is what becomes of an instant gratification society..

Who would you have appointed for Chief of Staff Mett?

Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 2:49pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2008 @ 1:46pm

YOU realize how much of a cultist for the man you sound like????

Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 2:18pm

ksaM, it was in response to:

Having just read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine", it was even more disturbing to read: "'You don't ever want a crisis to go to waste; it's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid,' Mr. Emanuel said in an interview."

Posted by michaeld at 11/07/2008 @ 1:27pm

Thusly:

"Hey, Gore always uses that old (not really) Chinese crisis/opportunity symbol spiel to motivate people to take action when it would be simpler to depress and anger them into just being counter to opposition."

-------

Oh but so did Kennedy, Nixon,...

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2008 @ 1:46pm

Or were you mad about:

"I'd rather we do some problem-solving and reap the benefit of success than the new con repub pessimistic passivity route to delusional power grabs that leave our nation in tatters."

As you do take the 'pessimistic passivity' route a lot yourself.

It's just the sign of the times. You'll get it out of your system eventually... or not.

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2008 @ 3:02pm
Where the heck have YOU been, OV?

I LIKED Bill Clinton (odd, given the peace and prosperity we had, huh?) and said I'd support whoever the Dem nominee is...even Hillary.

Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 11:57am | ignore this person | warn this person

Oh yeah....."She Who Must Be Obeyed," I forgot. Sorry Mask. Clearly, that was meant as a compliment. "I'd support whoever the Dem nominese is"...."She Who Must Be Obeyed".....it all makes sense now.

Posted by OneVote at 11/07/2008 @ 3:13pm
Let it ride for now. Obama is no Clinton. Hide and Watch.

Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

All I can do really. Good advice.

Posted by OneVote at 11/07/2008 @ 3:15pm
Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 2:49pm

I am a "very" patient person.

This discussion on this thread was on the wisdom of Obama's first pick, and whether that portends or suggests a DLC Administration. The Chief of Staff shapes the short list of other appointments, so I think there is a legitimate concern here.

Sec of State and Defense will probably be the first Cabinet picks. Kerry or Richardson would be truly great in the Sec of State role. Both are "natural" diplomats, and have a keen sense of where the world needs to go to dramatically improve America's image and end a lot of the unnecessary conflicts around the world.

For Sec. Defense, even as a progressive I would support a Republican like Chuck Hagel.

It is too late for Chief of Staff, but my pick would have been Pete Rouse. It looks like Rouse will be a deputy instead.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 3:19pm
First, using "Pure Progressive" as a derogatory slam toward someone on a supposedly progressive website is more than a little ironic.

Second, in a democracy it's up to the people, to keep the leaders they've chosen to represent them honest and true to the principles they've set forth. Making an honest, and hopefully productive criticism of a political leader you support is part of being engaged in the process.

The fact that people are critical of the decision to appoint the odious Rahm Emanuel to a potentially very influential position in the new administration shouldn't be looked at as some kind of puritanical leftism. It's pointing out that this particular appointment is not the "change" we need.

Posted by Suttree at 11/07/2008 @ 3:28pm
Perfect Selection!

Perfect Gatekeeper!

Beside being an extremly intelligent individual, President Elect Obama has the good habit of surrounding himself with other intelligent people from both sides of the ideological spector, then he listens, considers, compares, decides and then act. We saw this process in action over a period of 2 years orchestrated with military precision, and (Mission Accomplished)

Rham "Action" Emanuel, get things done, and defends his boss and his intentions, thus the COS position. He also has some insight and ideas about trade and economics, but he is not the President, he serves at his pleasure and certainly he understands as much. (Good luck getting something like the snakeoil Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 on his desk.)

Sen Obama was labeled "uber Liberal" by those who wished for his defeat, Rham has never been seen as such and nobody knows this better than congressional Dems. So, unlike Clinton I don't see the potential for an Obama administration to concede to a liberal agenda, force fed by fellow democratic legislators during his first two years, and losing seats in 2010, think long term people, long term.

If economic progessive is visible and or foreseeable in 2010, Iraq hasn't collasped into chaos, Israel hasn't attacked Iran, Russia hasn't invaded Poland, and a workable solution to the mortagage crisis has been developed, then I expect to see that magic "60" in the senate. After that I expect to see a progressive pursuit of transformative alternative energy policies, including nuclear energy. If all that can be accomplished or started by 2012, sorry Sarah maybe 2016 if Michelle Obama doesn't run.

Michelle Obama 2016 (If it ain't Broke..don't gamble with your vote)

That ones on the house Michelle

Posted by MalstromSalvi at 11/07/2008 @ 3:43pm
Posted by MalstromSalvi at 11/07/2008 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

good, except for the part about Michelle, that's nonsense.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 3:46pm
Your probably right, but could she be worst than George Bush though?

Posted by MalstromSalvi at 11/07/2008 @ 3:49pm
CALL TO CENTRAL CASTING:

Regardless of Emanuel's politics, etc, one thing is clear - when Oliver Stone does the "Obama Story" in a few years, Emanuel will be played by:

ROBERT DOWNEY, JR.

... perfect, eh? The look, the 'always on the edge' personality, a hint of psychosis ... perfect!!!

EV

Posted by EnviroVarmint at 11/07/2008 @ 4:03pm
The issue CCC, is that we see the DLC centrist appointments, but NO progressive ones. If there is going to be a balance, let's see it!

Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 2:41pm

This is based on a sampling of, what . . . one appointment?

And to others, if Rahm is so powerful, influential (and objectionable based on your view), is it not better to have him in a position where Obama has a greater ability to control him . . . as his boss?

Posted by Hman23 at 11/07/2008 @ 4:03pm
For Sec. Defense, even as a progressive I would support a Republican like Chuck Hagel. Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 3:19pm

That would be my choice aswell. Although there are others. Like General Wesley Clark or Jim Webb that would also be excellent.

Pete Rouse has been named Deputy White House Chief of Staff. So he is waiting in the wings if Rahm Emanuel doesn't work out.

Things are looking pretty good so far. Don't worry so much. Obama ran a campaign like clockwork. It will be referenced as a groundbreaking campaign for many years to come.

If he can run a campaign like that, chances are he can run the country like a tight ship aswell..

Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 4:13pm
>>>So, unlike Clinton I don't see the potential for an Obama administration to concede to a liberal agenda

Posted by MalstromSalvi at 11/07/2008 @ 3:43pm<<<

I hardly think the Clinton Administration can be characterized as "conceding to the the liberal agenda". Bill Clinton, himself, was the "chairman" of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council and was known as "closet Republican".

Clinton was merely a reaction to the success Ronald Reagan, a sense that "we have to be like them" in order to get elected.

Obama has changed this dynamic. It is now OK to be openly progressive AND get elected. The trick is to identify "progressive" polices with broad popular support and run on them. Universal healthcare, ending the war in Iraq, ending corruption in Washington based on the influence of moneyed interests - these are just a few examples of "progressive" initiatives have broad appeal that lead to electoral success.

Rahm Emanuel is a throwback to the "we have to be like them to get elected" days of Bill Clinton, and his actions in 2006 in pushing pro-war Democrats over more electable anti-war candidates demonstrates this. Rahm's AIPAC questionares were offensive to many congressional candidates who felt compelled to fill out the questionare the "right way" (100% support for the AIPAC agenda) in order to get financial support from the Democratic Party.

Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 4:14pm
Posted by Suttree at 11/07/2008 @ 3:28pm

Hardly ironic.

It IS possible to be a progressive and not a "purist". Somebody who holds their principles, but knows that politics and change are incremental processes in American politics (typically).

And who DOESN'T begin attacking the most progressive President (the most progressive ELECTABLE in the USA) in decades 48 hours after he's elected, because he doesn't pick a "Norman Thomas" at Treasury or a "Eugene V. Debs" at Secretary of Defense.

Progressives?...fine. Purists?....that's how the Republicans are tearing themselves apart right now.

Want to imitate that???

Posted by Mask at 11/07/2008 @ 4:15pm
The issue CCC, is that we see the DLC centrist appointments, but NO progressive ones. If there is going to be a balance, let's see it! Posted by Metteyya at 11/07/2008 @ 2:41p

He's appointed ONE person.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/07/2008 @ 4:17pm
He's appointed ONE person. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/07/2008 @ 4:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

good point, let's not get hysterical.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 4:32pm
But ... but ... we're liberals! Just because our candidate's been elected, we can't get hysterical? This is going to be so much less fun than I thought.

Posted by MyParadigm at 11/07/2008 @ 4:43pm
We are moving in the right direction. That is what is important. Any move towards a totally Liberal (Progressive) agenda would be disastrous in 4 years.

The repugs are waiting and rubbing their slimy hands together at the prospect.

This is America and many Americans are afraid right now. Any sudden change in direction at this point could cause a backlash. And thats the last thing we need. We live in a country that has to be romanced a bit before consummation.

This country is chock full of ignorant people who will bolt at the first sign of any significant change. Look what happened with Prop 8 in California.

We (Progressives) have to take it slow with these Virgins of Political Enlightenment. Once we show them the way in a slow and mature manner they will be "In Love" with our Socialist principles and will comply willingly.

Sorry about the sexual references, but sex often gets peoples attention..

Posted by chaoszen at 11/07/2008 @ 4:44pm
Posted by MyParadigm at 11/07/2008 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

you have to pick your battles, and your hysterias.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 4:54pm
Hey ksaM, sounds like WSJ are cultists too:

"Some commentators point out that Tuesday's tea leaves suggest there isn't popular support for an ambitious government program to curb carbon emissions; Planet Gore quipped that the U.S. "did not elect Al Gore." That seems debatable, since both campaigns pledged serious action on climate change."

http://tinyurl.com/5hoev8

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2008 @ 5:09pm
It bothers me when members of a foreign intelligence service holds positions in government. On face, it is a National Security Breach.

Sorry to my zionist friends, but the U.S. needs legislation banning government positions to anyone holding two passports.

"Emanuel was born in Israel and nationalized US citizen when he was 18. He was a volunteer in the first Gulf War and reached influential positions in the White House under Clinton.

During the Gulf War he was deployed and worked in the special military dispositive to protect Israel in case of war. At the time, there were assertions that he became member of Tsahal, the Israeli army, while other sources claim he became a member of the Mossad and he remains as such.

According to some sources now becoming public Emanuel was recruited without much of a problem since he has a family tradition. His father was a Israeli terrorist, I believe under the Stern Gang or the right wing of the Irgun, and was a participant on terrorist attacks against european diplomats."archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2006w50/msg00043.htm There are many markers that makes one think America is under Israeli occupation.

I resent Mossad. I abhor anyone in government with two passports and dual loyalties.

Posted by beijingyank at 11/08/2008 @ 2:39pm
It bothers me when members of a foreign intelligence service holds positions in government. On face, it is a National Security Breach.

Sorry to my zionist friends, but the U.S. needs legislation banning government positions to anyone holding two passports.

"Emanuel was born in Israel and nationalized US citizen when he was 18. He was a volunteer in the first Gulf War and reached influential positions in the White House under Clinton.

During the Gulf War he was deployed and worked in the special military dispositive to protect Israel in case of war. At the time, there were assertions that he became member of Tsahal, the Israeli army, while other sources claim he became a member of the Mossad and he remains as such.

According to some sources now becoming public Emanuel was recruited without much of a problem since he has a family tradition. His father was a Israeli terrorist, I believe under the Stern Gang or the right wing of the Irgun, and was a participant on terrorist attacks against european diplomats."archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2006w50/msg00043.htm There are many markers that makes one think America is under Israeli occupation.

I resent Mossad. I abhor anyone in government with two passports and dual loyalties.

Posted by beijingyank at 11/08/2008 @ 2:40pm
It bothers me when members of a foreign intelligence service holds positions in government. On face, it is a National Security Breach.

Sorry to my zionist friends, but the U.S. needs legislation banning government positions to anyone holding two passports.

"Emanuel was born in Israel and nationalized US citizen when he was 18. He was a volunteer in the first Gulf War and reached influential positions in the White House under Clinton.

During the Gulf War he was deployed and worked in the special military dispositive to protect Israel in case of war. At the time, there were assertions that he became member of Tsahal, the Israeli army, while other sources claim he became a member of the Mossad and he remains as such.

According to some sources now becoming public Emanuel was recruited without much of a problem since he has a family tradition. His father was a Israeli terrorist, I believe under the Stern Gang or the right wing of the Irgun, and was a participant on terrorist attacks against european diplomats." (Found at hotlink www.archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2006w50/msg00043.htm) There are many markers that makes one think America is under Israeli occupation.

I resent Mossad. I abhor anyone in government with two passports and dual loyalties.

Posted by beijingyank at 11/08/2008 @ 2:42pm
Excuse me for the double post.

Posted by beijingyank at 11/08/2008 @ 2:44pm
HEY YOU ALL BEWARE OF MASK HE IS A RIGHT-WINGER, A CLINTONISTA FASCIST AND ZIONIST WHO HATES NADER AND SOCIALISTS, i dont know what the hell is he doing in this website !!

Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/09/2008 @ 9:34pm
CHOOZEN: BEWARE, THERE ARE MANY THIRD WAY NEOLIBERALS IN THIS WEBSITE. THERE IS A CAPITALIST, NEOLIBERAL, TONY BLAIR, CLINTONISTA WITH THE NICK OF 'MASK' WHO LABELED ME A "RADICAL" (GO FIGURE!!) THIS COUNTRY LIKE YOU SAID IS FULL OF IGNORANT BUBBAS !!

MASK EVEN SAID THAT HUGO CHAVEZ IS A TERRORIST AND VENEZUELA IS A TERRORIST NATION !!

WITH SO MANY GUN TOTTING BEER DRINKING BUBBAS, WE WILL ELECT ANOTHER FASCIST LIKE BUSH IN 2012.

"Americans spend more on cigarettes and alcohol than they do on education." -Jim Morrison, The Doors

Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/09/2008 @ 9:54pm
BY THE WAY 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB !! I DON'T KNOW WHY THERE ARE SO MANY IN THE STATUS QUO ELITIST LIBERAL SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT LEFT WHO SAY THAT THE 9-11 US GOVERNMENT STATEMENT IS THE RIGHT ONE !!

I DON'T TRUST ANY THING THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF THE NEOCONS GOVERNMENT, I DON'T KNOW WHY THESE PEOPLE TRUST NEOCONS MORE THAN 9-11 TRUTH AND LEFTISTS.

.

Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/09/2008 @ 9:57pm