Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85

Thread: More Obama Appointment News: Emmanuel, Gibbs sign on

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like

    More Obama Appointment News: Emmanuel, Gibbs sign on

    So Rahmbo will be chief of staff, and Robert Gibbs will apparently be press secretary.

    [url]http://www.politico.com/politico44/[/url]

    I have been pulling for Gibbs as press secretary ever since he tied Hannity in knots by pointing out his "association" with anti-semite Andy Martin. Good pick.

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2845306]So Rahmbo will be chief of staff, and Robert Gibbs will apparently be press secretary.

    [url]http://www.politico.com/politico44/[/url]

    I have been pulling for Gibbs as press secretary ever since he tied Hannity in knots by pointing out his "association" with anti-semite Andy Martin. Good pick.[/QUOTE]

    Do you belive "Rahmbo" Emanuel will be good for "reaching across the aisle" and "uniting" in the era of "post-race" "nonpartisonship" Obama wishes to lead?

    As for Gibbs, I am not familiar. Do you have a link to his experience?

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2845311]Do you belive "Rahmbo" Emanuel will be good for "reaching across the aisle" and "uniting" in the era of "post-race" "nonpartisonship" Obama wishes to lead?

    As for Gibbs, I am not familiar. Do you have a link to his experience?[/QUOTE]

    suddenly the Chief of Staff is a very powerful position...I guess the last..say four or five COS are household names who wielded incredible influence over the president they worked for.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2845311]Do you belive "Rahmbo" Emanuel will be good for "reaching across the aisle" and "uniting" in the era of "post-race" "nonpartisonship" Obama wishes to lead?

    As for Gibbs, I am not familiar. Do you have a link to his experience?[/QUOTE]

    Gibbs was the primary spokesman for the campaign. And now he'll be the primary spokesman for the administration. Reporters ask questions, he answers them. Pretty much the extent of the gig.

    As for Rahmbo, he is definitely a tough dude --served in the Israeli Army-- and a fighter. But he is no doctrinaire liberal. He was the Clinton White House's point man on both welfare reform and NAFTA, and he was the driving force behind the recruitment of conservative democrats who bucked party orthodoxy on abortion and gun rights to run for southern congressional seats (like Heath Shuler).

    So, yes, however combative he is, he does have a record of bucking party orthodoxy to get stuff done.

    His job as chief of staff will be to keep members of Obama's administration --and the Democratic congress-- in line and on time.

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=piney;2845315]suddenly the Chief of Staff is a very powerful position...I guess the last..say four or five COS are household names who wielded incredible influence over the president they worked for.[/QUOTE]

    You do realize you didn't address my question in any form.....right?

    Is it an inappropriate question, in your mind? Or do you really think teh White House Chief of Staff is a non-influential uninportant job?

    And yes, many we know of, Sununu, Baker & Podesta in recent years for me, and of course Bolton (we we discussed at length here). And one could add Karl Rove, since he certainly acted (at times0 as if he had that job, even if he didn't.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,953
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2845306]

    I have been pulling for Gibbs as press secretary ever since he tied Hannity in knots by pointing out his "association" with anti-semite Andy Martin. Good pick.[/QUOTE]

    I've kind of liked Shabazz since he called him out on his Hal Turner association as well. Which was hilarious to see live.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2845319]Gibbs was the primary spokesman for the campaign. And now he'll be the primary spokesman for the administration. Reporters ask questions, he answers them. Pretty much the extent of the gig.[/quote]

    Interesting. Under Bush, this position seemed to be considered far more by those who disagreed with Bsh than you describe it. I assume you think it will return to this almost meaningless description under Obama then.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2845319]As for Rahmbo, he is definitely a tough dude --served in the Israeli Army-- and a fighter. But he is no doctrinaire liberal. He was the Clinton White House's point man on both welfare reform and NAFTA, and he was the driving force behind the recruitment of conservative democrats who bucked party orthodoxy on abortion and gun rights to run for southern congressional seats (like Heath Shuler).

    So, yes, however combative he is, he does have a record of bucking party orthodoxy to get stuff done.

    His job as chief of staff will be to keep members of Obama's administration --and the Democratic congress-- in line and on time.[/QUOTE]

    So the stories about him related by the Rushies of the world (Table, Knife, Stabbing, saying "dead" about his political enemies) is either false ( a right-wing radio lie), or unimportant as a reflection of him and his abillity to deal with those he disagrees with?

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2845324]You do realize you didn't address my question in any form.....right?

    Is it an inappropriate question, in your mind? Or do you really think teh White House Chief of Staff is a non-influential uninportant job?

    And yes, many we know of, Sununu, Baker & Podesta in recent years for me, and of course Bolton (we we discussed at length here). And one could add Karl Rove, since he certainly acted (at times0 as if he had that job, even if he didn't.[/QUOTE]

    well...I think this isn't enough to begin to question how it affects Obama's plans for reaching across the isle...

    I would like to see his cabinet appointees before deciding that he failed.

    This is a position that generally falls on party line...who should he have appointed? Fred Thompson?

    My opinion, this isn't enough...lets see who he fills out his staff with.

  9. #9
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    714
    Post Thanks / Like
    if Obama picks John Kerry as secretary of state ill be dissapointed. Emmanuel was a great choice by the way.

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=piney;2845328]well...I think this isn't enough to begin to question how it affects Obama's plans for reaching across the isle...

    I would like to see his cabinet appointees before deciding that he failed.

    This is a position that generally falls on party line...who should he have appointed? Fred Thompson?

    My opinion, this isn't enough...lets see who he fills out his staff with.[/QUOTE]

    Of course, we can (and will) review each important cabinet choice in turn. Doesn't mean we cannot ponder this choice as well, same as we all did when Bush chose Bolton.

    And who said he "failed"? I know I didn't. I'm simply reacting to the word I hear that "Rahmbo" is not known for his abillity to work with those he disagrees with (remind you of anyone?). I think asking, especially asking those who may know more about him, is appropriate....don't you think?

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2845311]Do you belive "Rahmbo" Emanuel will be good for "reaching across the aisle" and "uniting" in the era of "post-race" "nonpartisonship" Obama wishes to lead?

    As for Gibbs, I am not familiar. Do you have a link to his experience?[/QUOTE]
    The Chief of Staff is a postion of power within the inner workings of the White House. He controls access to the President and sets his schedule. It is not exactly a position that calls for reaching accross the aisle.

    I never heard of or saw Gibbs before his appearance on Hannity. He was terrific.
    [IMG]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c[/IMG]

    Here is his wikipedia
    [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gibbs"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gibbs[/URL]

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2845335]The Chief of Staff is a postion of power within the inner workings of the White House. He controls access to the President and sets his schedule. It is not exactly a position that calls for reaching accross the aisle.[/QUOTE]

    So the man who has the Presidents ear, and controls who sees him, when and for how long........doesn't need to work with Republicans?

    Do Republicans never want/get to see or speak with the President?

    *sigh* It's gonna be like this with every pick, isn't it. Questions about the pick will not be tolerated, eh? Or they'll be deflected with this kind of "you don;t even know what he does" talk.

    Ok.

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2845332]Of course, we can (and will) review each important cabinet choice in turn. Doesn't mean we cannot ponder this choice as well, same as we all did when Bush chose Bolton.

    And who said he "failed"? I know I didn't. I'm simply reacting to the word I hear that "Rahmbo" is not known for his abillity to work with those he disagrees with (remind you of anyone?). I think asking, especially asking those who may know more about him, is appropriate....don't you think?[/QUOTE]

    well..I am extrapolating a bit...since there have been some real quick judgments about this. I wish I could remember the name of the Republican Senator who blasted this about five seconds after it was announced that Emanuel was offered the spot with the exact same phrases you used in your post.

    So, it gives me the impression that this will be a talking point for a few days..to try and lend even greater scrutiny to each appointment Obama makes.

    Of course it is a valid question to ask...but my answer remains the same...I don't think this appointment is enough to begin to doubt Obama's intention of having a bipartisan staff.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2845327]Interesting. Under Bush, this position seemed to be considered far more by those who disagreed with Bsh than you describe it. I assume you think it will return to this almost meaningless description under Obama then.



    So the stories about him related by the Rushies of the world (Table, Knife, Stabbing, saying "dead" about his political enemies) is either false ( a right-wing radio lie), or unimportant as a reflection of him and his abillity to deal with those he disagrees with?[/QUOTE]

    One reason why Ari Fleischer took on more importance under Bush was because Bush himself almost never held press conferences and his administration provided very little media access.

    Obama is likely to make himself more available --as Clinton did-- which means the press secretary won't be as front-and-center all the time.

    The table-knife-dead story is certainly true. And there's no question that Emmanuel is a tough, gruff, combative, partisan, etc... But he has a clear track record from his Clinton days of also working across the aisle, which often requires a lot of tough negotiating, frankly. (There is a difference between bipartisan and "nonpartisan," because the latter is impossible as long two parties exist, which they do. Bipartisanship requires outreach, but also tough negotiating.) He was the point man on NAFTA and welfare reform, which I think many conservatives would point to as the best things Clinton did.

    In the house, he has been ruthless in pursuit of obtaining a Democratic majority, but the way he did it was interesting: He told the party's powerful interest groups to suck it and he ran pro-gun, and in some cases pro-life candidates in conservative districts, broadening the party's power base.

    As chief of staff, you may see his famous temper aimed as much, and maybe more, at Democrats in congress as Republicans. His job will be to keep Obama's senior staff --and congressional allies-- in line.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2845345]

    *sigh* It's gonna be like this with every pick, isn't it. Questions about the pick will not be tolerated, eh? Or they'll be deflected with this kind of "you don;t even know what he does" talk.

    Ok.[/QUOTE]

    funny, I was thinking the same thing, but the other way around;

    now we will have people immediately judging Obama's appointments poorly, bringing in crazy assumptions about how they will do their job and make insinuations that it is politics as usual. We then should use these appointments to defend Bush appointments made in the past to try and show that only the left is hypocritical.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2845345]So the man who has the Presidents ear, and controls who sees him, when and for how long........doesn't need to work with Republicans?

    Do Republicans never want/get to see or speak with the President?

    *sigh* It's gonna be like this with every pick, isn't it. Questions about the pick will not be tolerated, eh? Or they'll be deflected with this kind of "you don;t even know what he does" talk.

    Ok.[/QUOTE]
    My how you are extrapolating. Of course he needs to work with Republicans. We were talking about reaching accross the aisle. The COS is not the one to do the reaching, but obviously he needs to be able to talk. If for example Obama has an energy proposal that he wants to discuss with Republicans he would have his Energy Czar do that, not his COS.

    Also, who says that because Emmanuel is a partisan he can't talk to Republicans?

  17. #17
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=piney;2845357]funny, I was thinking the same thing, but the other way around;

    now we will have people immediately judging Obama's appointments poorly, bringing in crazy assumptions about how they will do their job and make insinuations that it is politics as usual. We then should use these appointments to defend Bush appointments made in the past to try and show that only the left is hypocritical.[/QUOTE]

    Well, we have no way to judge them other than for what they are today, right? Sure, we can judge them again in 4 or 8 years too, but right now we can only look at who he picks as a guide for what the next 8 years will hold for us.

    And you said "politics as usual" not me. But since you raised it, it does seem (from all reports) that the "Change" Candidate is planning or looking at bringing in a rather large number of veteran Clinton Administration political players. If that constitutes "change" so be it (and I am sure his supporters will explain that at some point), but asking about such things is hardly bad.

    Or is it?

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2845355]In the house, he has been ruthless in pursuit of obtaining a Democratic majority, but the way he did it was interesting: He told the party's powerful interest groups to suck it and he ran pro-gun, and in some cases pro-life candidates in conservative districts, broadening the party's power base.

    As chief of staff, you may see his famous temper aimed as much, and maybe more, at Democrats in congress as Republicans. His job will be to keep Obama's senior staff --and congressional allies-- in line.[/QUOTE]

    So his role in "keeping them in line" means what? No dissention, no voting against Obama? And the penalty for such will be what, removal of party support (something he is well known for from what I hear) for any dissenting voice?

    Is that good, as you see it, to have a "pitbull" who ensures 100% Party-line voting?

  19. #19
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    fish, before more selections are made, i want to break some news to you - obama will not fill every position with middle of the road, bipartisan faves. i know that's what you expected, but it's just not going to happen. there will be some democrats and even some liberals amongst his appointments. we should all be happy if his most partisan selection is to the most internal of positions.

  20. #20
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=Warfish;2845371]it does seem (from all reports) that the "Change" Candidate is planning or looking at bringing in a rather large number of veteran Clinton Administration political players. If that constitutes "change" so be it (and I am sure his supporters will explain that at some point), but asking about such things is hardly bad.[/quote]I don't understand the complaints here - would you disagree that, even if he rebuilt clinton's administration man-for-man, it would be a dramatic change from the last 8 years? and a change for the better?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us