Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: The Right-Wing WSJ Editorial Page Likes Rahmbo

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Right-Wing WSJ Editorial Page Likes Rahmbo

    Interesting take from the far right ...

    [QUOTE]
    Emanuel's Elbows

    Republicans are howling about Barack Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel as his White House chief of staff, claiming the Illinois Congressman is a rough partisan who belies Mr. Obama's campaign rhetoric about comity and bipartisanship.

    [B]For our part, we like the choice. Mr. Emanuel is likely to be a restraining influence on the wackier Members of Congress.[/B] There's no doubt he's a liberal and a fierce partisan, an architect of the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. A tribute to his talents is that Democrats gave him the job of leading that campaign though he'd only been elected in 2002. [B]And one of the keys to Democratic success is that Mr. Emanuel made a point of recruiting candidates who fit their districts -- even if they disagreed with liberal orthodoxy on abortion or gun rights.[/B]

    As a veteran of the Clinton White House, Mr. Emanuel will also want to avoid the chaos of its first year. [B]He helped to negotiate the 1997 balanced budget deal that cut the capital gains tax even as it created the children's health-care entitlement. He supports expanded trade and will not want Mr. Obama to govern as a protectionist. The Chicagoan also has experience with financial markets, so he is likely to be a voice against the long-term nationalization of the U.S. banking system.[/B]

    [B]As for Mr. Emanuel's famously sharp elbows, they are as likely to be wielded against his fellow Democrats as against Republicans. With Democrats now so dominant, the fiercest fights -- and the ones that really matter -- will take place among Democratic factions in the White House and Capitol Hill.[/B] Mr. Emanuel can help Mr. Obama understand when he needs to ignore the pleas of the left and govern from the center.[/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2846853]There's [B][U]no doubt he's a liberal and a fierce partisan[/U][/B], an architect of the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. As a veteran of the Clinton White House [/QUOTE]

    So neither a Uniter in any form, nor Change in any form.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2846853]one of the keys to Democratic success is that Mr. Emanuel made a point of recruiting candidates who fit their districts -- even if they disagreed with liberal orthodoxy on abortion or gun rights.

    As for Mr. Emanuel's famously sharp elbows, they are as likely to be wielded against his fellow Democrats as against Republicans.....[/QUOTE]

    In other words, he's openly dishonest. He ran "Conservative" Democrats to win, then puts them under his not-so-gentle thumb to vote strait-party-line when in office.

    Thats called dishonesty Nuu. Cold, calculated, devious dishonesty.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2846853]There's no doubt he's a liberal and a fierce partisan....

    .....Mr. Emanuel can help Mr. Obama understand when he needs to ignore the pleas of the left and govern from the center.[/QUOTE]

    I love seeing 100% direct contradiction less that two paragraphs away from each other.

    I'm so glad to hear Lindsey Grahmnesty and the WSJ are pleased.;)

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2846863]So neither a Uniter in any form, nor Change in any form.



    In other words, he's openly dishonest. He ran "Conservative" Democrats to win, then puts them under his not-so-gentle thumb to vote strait-party-line when in office.

    Thats called dishonesty Nuu. Cold, calculated, devious dishonesty.



    I love seeing 100% direct contradiction less that two paragraphs away from each other.

    I'm so glad to hear Lindsey Grahmnesty and the WSJ are pleased.;)[/QUOTE]


    He was the legislative point man on arguably the two most important pieces of bipartisan legislation of the last two decades: welfare reform and NAFTA. A return to effective bipartisan legislation would most certainly be "change."

    Beyond that, he took the Democratic Party away from its ideological litmus tests for congressional candidates -- a major change.

    It's true he is a human (not change) and that he will try to help his guy win reelection (not change) and that he likes to win (not change), but he's also ENORMOUSLY qualified and competent, which, in the wake of the Bush years is HUGE change.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2846863]



    In other words, he's openly dishonest. He ran "Conservative" Democrats to win, then puts them under his not-so-gentle thumb to vote strait-party-line when in office.

    [/QUOTE]

    You seem to have a reading comprehension problem: The article says clearly that Emanuel is going to empower the conservative dems versus Pelosi.

    [QUOTE]Mr. Emanuel can help Mr. Obama understand when he needs to ignore the pleas of the left and govern from the center.[/QUOTE]

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2846868]IMO Republicans whining about these appointments is ridiculous

    The American people have spoken in record numbers and Obama has been given a mandate

    When you win by that kind of landslide you have been given a mandate

    Case Closed[/QUOTE]

    But wasn't the mandate 'Change'?

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2846885]He was the legislative point man on arguably the two most important pieces of bipartisan legislation of the last two decades: welfare reform and NAFTA. A return to effective bipartisan legislation would most certainly be "change."

    Beyond that, he took the Democratic Party away from its ideological litmus tests for congressional candidates -- a major change.

    It's true he is a human (not change) and that he will try to help his guy win reelection (not change) and that he likes to win (not change), but he's also ENORMOUSLY qualified and competent, which, in the wake of the Bush years is HUGE change.[/QUOTE]

    Doing anything would be a change from Bush! He was more liberal then liberal.
    He spent like a kid in a very expensive toy store!

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,412
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2846868]IMO Republicans whining about these appointments is ridiculous

    The American people have spoken in record numbers and Obama has been given a mandate

    When you win by that kind of landslide you have been given a mandate

    Case Closed[/QUOTE]

    The whole world knows the only reason Obama won in a landslide was because he didn't have a "R" next to his name. He wasn't a Neocon, so he won by default.

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2846885]He was the legislative point man on arguably the two most important pieces of bipartisan legislation of the last two decades: welfare reform and NAFTA. A return to effective bipartisan legislation would most certainly be "change."[/quote]

    I disagree with your premise. A Veteran Clinton Guy, and Hardline Liberal Partisan is not, in fact, change.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2846885]Beyond that, he took the Democratic Party away from its ideological litmus tests for congressional candidates -- a major change.[/quote]

    As stated, he did so to win a majority, not to empower Conservative Democrats.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2846885]It's true he is a human (not change) and that he will try to help his guy win reelection (not change) and that he likes to win (not change), but he's also ENORMOUSLY qualified and competent, which, in the wake of the Bush years is HUGE change.[/QUOTE]

    Your sarcasm doesn;t change the fact that he is a hardcore Partisan, is not suited for across the aisle work, is is an old head in Clintonian Washington Politics.

    Don't whine at me that your man Obama went hard-left-partisan with his very first appointment. Not change.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2846887]You seem to have a reading comprehension problem: The article says clearly that Emanuel is going to empower the conservative dems versus Pelosi.[/QUOTE]

    No, it doesn't really, not when it describes her earlier in the same piece as a hardcore partisan. And even if it did, I wouldn't buy it for a milisecond, Rahmbo has nothing in his past that shows him to be a centrist in ANY form. Rahmbo's agenda of "Con. Dems to Win Seats then Crush them into Line with Party Votes" is well known.

    I cannot wait to see what other "change" guys we get. Maybe he'll grab Madeline Albright too.;)

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2847474]I
    Your sarcasm doesn;t change the fact that he is a hardcore Partisan, is not suited for across the aisle work, is is an old head in Clintonian Washington Politics.

    Don't whine at me that your man Obama went hard-left-partisan with his very first appointment. Not change.


    [/QUOTE]

    You could not be more wrong if you said the world was flat.

    Rahm Emanuel was the point man on the two definining across-the-aisle achievements of the Clinton years: Welfare reform and NAFTA.

    He is obviously well suited to work across the aisle because he's done it, probably with more effectiveness than any Democrat of his generation.

    Ever heard the expression "only Nixon could go to China"? Because he was a staunch anticommunist so his posturing at the negotiating table was taken seriously.

    You don't sing kumbaya when working across the aisle. It's hard. You get hit from the other side and you get hit from your own. You need somebody tough to keep your flank in line, as well as to make sure your generosity doesn't get you steamrolled.

    Rahm Emanuel, or somebody like him, is exactly the guy you need.

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2847662]You could not be more wrong if you said the world was flat.

    Rahm Emanuel was the point man on the two definining across-the-aisle achievements of the Clinton years: Welfare reform and NAFTA.

    He is obviously well suited to work across the aisle because he's done it, probably with more effectiveness than any Democrat of his generation.

    Ever heard the expression "only Nixon could go to China"? Because he was a staunch anticommunist so his posturing at the negotiating table was taken seriously.

    You don't sing kumbaya when working across the aisle. It's hard. You get hit from the other side and you get hit from your own. You need somebody tough to keep your flank in line, as well as to make sure your generosity doesn't get you steamrolled.

    Rahm Emanuel, or somebody like him, is exactly the guy you need.[/QUOTE]

    No point continung to talk with a guy who's pegged Rahmbo as FDR + JFK + Ghandi all wrapped up in one.

    Better cut back on the Kool Aid Nuu, before it drowns you.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2848242]No point continung to talk with a guy who's pegged Rahmbo as FDR + JFK + Ghandi all wrapped up in one.

    Better cut back on the Kool Aid Nuu, before it drowns you.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly right. Too bad he didn't use his legendary powers to save Freddie Mac when he was on the board. Who is Obama bringing in next? Barney Frank?

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2848242]No point continung to talk with a guy who's pegged Rahmbo as FDR + JFK + Ghandi all wrapped up in one.

    Better cut back on the Kool Aid Nuu, before it drowns you.[/QUOTE]

    Yet another conservative --famed RINO Bill Kristol, this time-- who thinks you have it exactly wrong on the Emanuel appointment:

    [QUOTE]
    [B]His selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff suggests that Obama’s not going to be mindlessly leftist, and that he’s going to shape a legislative strategy that is attentive to Congressional realities while not deferring to a Congressional leadership whose interests may not be his own. [/B]Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both tripped up in their first two years by their Democratic Congresses. Obama intends for Emanuel to ensure that that doesn’t happen.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2851072]Yet another conservative --famed RINO Bill Kristol, this time-- who thinks you have it exactly wrong on the Emanuel appointment:



    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url][/QUOTE]

    You seem to be under the misunderstanding that other folks are required to eat up talking points and party lines like you do Nuu.

    I'm glad Bill Kristol likes Rahmbo. Heck, I'm glad YOU like Rahmbo.

    But despite your shared manlove for him, he is still neither change, nor a centrist. You could post acolades from the risen zombie Reagan, it still won;t change this fundamental fact (In my opinion, you, Kristol and anyone else is free to disagree).

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2852784]You seem to be under the misunderstanding that other folks are required to eat up talking points and party lines like you do Nuu.

    I'm glad Bill Kristol likes Rahmbo. Heck, I'm glad YOU like Rahmbo.

    But despite your shared manlove for him, he is still neither change, nor a centrist. You could post acolades from the risen zombie Reagan, it still won;t change this fundamental fact (In my opinion, you, Kristol and anyone else is free to disagree).[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, Bill Kristol, that great devourer of Democratic talking points.

    The fact you refuse to engage here is that Rahm Emanuel has a proven track record of working effectively across the aisle on issues like welfare reform, NAFTA and balancing the budget during the Clinton years.

    He led those across-the-aisle efforts, and the result was solid, bipartisan legislation.

    So, yes, he's a partisan. And, yes, he's abrasive. But he is effective. His job is not to define the agenda --which has already been defined through the campaign by Obama-- his job is to execute the agenda.

    Now if the cabinet --which current consists of zero people--is full of nothing but partisan warriors, there would certainly be reason for concern. But all the early reporting suggests that that will not be the case, and that this will be a diverse administration consisting of liberals, conservatives and moderates. (Today's WSJ says Obama may ask current defense secretary Robert Gates to stay in his post.)

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    The only "fact refusal" here Nuu is on your side.

    You refuse to understand that he is not "change" in ANY form.

    And you refuse to admit that he is a dedicated, extremely liberal, partisan and is in no form whatsoever "hope" for a Centrist all-encompassing Government.

    But hey, he's only one appointment, right? We'll see soon enough who else Obama will choose. I'm still holding out for Madelaine Albright.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2853103]The only "fact refusal" here Nuu is on your side.

    You refuse to understand that he is not "change" in ANY form.

    And you refuse to admit that he is a dedicated, extremely liberal, partisan and is in no form whatsoever "hope" for a Centrist all-encompassing Government.

    But hey, he's only one appointment, right? We'll see soon enough who else Obama will choose. I'm still holding out for Madelaine Albright.[/QUOTE]

    You keep using the terms "centrist" and "bipartisan" as if they mean the same things. They don't.

    Barack Obama is not a centrist, he's a liberal. But he is also a pragmatist who has promised to work with the other side once in office. Rahm Emanuel, whatever else he is, is also a political pragmatist: He's the guy who ran conservative dems in the south because they could win, hence broadening the democratic party at the expense of ideological dogma.

    And, again: Emanuel was Clinton's point man on welfare reform, NAFTA and balancing the budget. All major across-the-aisle initiatives that became very effective, widely praised law.

    The change Obama promised --in this case-- was to work across the aisle: You seem to think he's some sort of raging hypocrite --you actually called him a liar in another thread-- because he picked a chief of staff who has a record of doing that.

  17. #17
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2853142]Barack Obama is not a centrist, he's a liberal. But he is also a pragmatist who has promised to work with the other side once in office.[/quote]

    Wow, admitting he's "liberal". How generous of you.

    And yes, I think he's an outright liar when it omes to "working with the other side", and I have no doubt time will prove that out.

    [quote]Rahm Emanuel, whatever else he is, is also a political pragmatist: He's the guy who ran conservative dems in the south because they could win, hence broadening the democratic party at the expense of ideological dogma.[/quote]

    Again, running people dishonestly to gain power, then squashing those same "Consevrative" Dems and mandating party-line voting (or else) isn't noble.

    It's dishonest.

    [quote]Emanuel was Clinton's man[/quote]

    Change we can believe in.

    [quote]The change Obama promised --in this case-- was to work across the aisle: You seem to think he's some sort of raging hypocrite --you actually called him a liar in another thread-- because he picked a chief of staff who has a record of doing that.[/QUOTE]

    We'll see soon enough.

    But Nuu, do me one favor.....don;t try and sell me how "bipartisan" Obama is when he names his token Liberal-Republican to his cabinet. We all see it coming, we all know it means nothing, so lets not lie about it when it comes to pass, a'right.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]Wow, admitting he's "liberal". How generous of you.

    And yes, I think he's an outright liar when it omes to "working with the other side", and I have no doubt time will prove that out.[/QUOTE]

    I have always said he's liberal. I like that about him. (BTW, FDR and JFK were big libs, too.)




    A[QUOTE]gain, running people dishonestly to gain power, then squashing those same "Consevrative" Dems and mandating party-line voting (or else) isn't noble.

    It's dishonest.
    [/QUOTE]

    You keep saying this re: Emanuel, but it's excatly backwards. As both Kristol and the WSJ folks pointed out: Emanuel isn't there to keep the conservative dems in check, he's there to keep Pelosi and Reid in check. Say what you will about the Dem congress to date, but nobody thinks its gone wildly liberal in terms of the laws its written. Emanuel is widely credited with being a constraining influence.

    And it's not because Emanuel is some sort of great person: He's a political pragmatist whop wants to keep those conservative dems in their seats, and making them sign goofy liberal laws will result in them losing. That's what happened in 93-94. Emanuel was there and certainly remembers.

    [QUOTE]
    But Nuu, do me one favor.....don;t try and sell me how "bipartisan" Obama is when he names his token Liberal-Republican to his cabinet. We all see it coming, we all know it means nothing, so lets not lie about it when it comes to pass, a'right.
    [/QUOTE]

    Certain cabinet jobs are a bigger deal than others, of course. Bush had a token liberal in 2000 --Norm Minetta-- who he put in transportation, a pretty minor post (although one becoming more important given our crumbling infrastructure).

    If Obama puts a Republican at Defense or State or Treasury, that is absolutely not a token appointment. That is a top-level, face-of-the-administration type job.

    But let's wait and see who he picks before we judge the cabinet, ok? Who knows, there might even be more than one Republican in there?

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2853220]I have always said he's liberal. I like that about him. (BTW, FDR and JFK were big libs, too.)

    [/QUOTE]

    JFK was very conservative from a fiscal perspective, skippy.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Piper;2854626]JFK was very conservative from a fiscal perspective, skippy.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, and so was Bill Clinton. All right with you if I call him a liberal?

    JFK believed in expanding the role and size of the federal government to address inequalities in civil rights, among other things. He was clearly a liberal.

    And, btw, time to update your definitions based on the last twenty years:

    Conservative = more spending, larger deficits.

    Liberal = more spending, actually paid for.

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