Rahm Emanuel expected to quit White House

[no_hypocrisy]

I'll believe it when the Allied Vans cross the Maryland border.




Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to "bang heads together" to get policy pushed through.

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

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

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



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/7837686/Rahm-Emanuel-expected-to-quit-White-House.html

[xchrom]

1. Hmmmph-we'll see. Nt

[babylonsister]

2. Not according to this; telegraph not to be trusted...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x349408

[iamthebandfanman]

3. theres no god

so i doubt it.

[AndyA]

4. Emanuel should have never been there in the first place.

Mr. Blue Dog himself. I'll bet he's caused more than his fair share of problems.

[vi5]

5. If this happens, it will be interesting to watch...

..and to see if he was truly behind all the bogus take-the-base-for-granted-because-they'll-show up-anyway, move to the center right, don't piss off the corporations direction that the admin has taken or if he was just a convenient boogeyman and after he's gone they continue in the same direction.

That's assuming this story is true, which I doubt.

[demhistorian]

6. I'll see your right wing source and raise you one - FOX News: White House says "ludicrous"

The White House Monday dismissed reports that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel plans to leave his post after becoming frustrated with the Obama administration as "ludicrous... not worth looking into."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/21/report-rahm-emanuel-quit-obama-idealism/

[Skidmore]

7. Common sense says that if Emmanuel were leaving it would not be

until after the elections. I don't think he will go. I think he likes being close to the seat of power.

[donco6]

8. I seriously doubt it.

But we'll see.

[msanthrope]

9. The Torygraph is a winger rag---

why are we quoting it????

[krawhitham]

10. Hope you people understand how little will get done after he is gone

Be careful what you ask for

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Knew it was too good to be true.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/06/21/2010-06-21_rahm_emanuel_shoots_down_british_newspapers_claim_he_plans_to_quit_as_obamas_chi.html

[FrenchieCat]

12. Wonder who will become the new Whipping Boy in anycase.....

Having examined Rahm's voting record when he was in the Congress,
it appears quite progressive.....so I'm not sure why he is always
treated as a anything other than what his voting record represented
for those years that he was in Congress.

Does he want to nationalize everything as a way of solving every
issue? Don't think so...but then he never identified himself
as a socialist....so I wouldn't expect him to be all the way
leaning far left. I don't know why others expect that otherwise,
one is a villain!

[demhistorian]

13. because he dared defy the great and mighty Dean?

[FrenchieCat]

14. I like Howard Dean, but didn't support him in 2004 for President, cause I didn't think he would win.

I like Rahm well enough, and think that folks speculate much too much
on his range of power, and his evilness.......I don't see him as evil,
and I don't see him as perfect or always right......same as I see
Barack Obama, I guess.

[zipplewrath]

15. Duncan I'd suspect

Of course it would depend upon who his replacement was.

And most criticism of Rahm comes from 2 things. His affection for the DLC'ers and his stint at DCCC when he worked to block primary challengers. Not sure how you get anything about his voting record from that.

[FrenchieCat]

17. His voting record would tell me what's in his heart in terms of policies.

The fact that he chaired the DCCC at a time when we ended up winning the house back is not a stain on him in my book. I suspect that he understands politics well, and knows without being told that
not every single district in this country can be won by a very left leaning progressive......a fact we should all understand, no matter how idealistic we may be.

His only job while head of the DCCC was to ensure victory in order to get movement on our policies, at a time when we had a Republican President who had proven to be an asshole..... and since Rahm's policies beliefs happen to be progressive (based on his congressional record of votes for 7 years), I assume that whatever he did for the DCCC in terms of blocking primary challengers was done not as a put down but in order to win a majority Dem congress, which he accomplished. I will note that our current and recent past problems have been in the Senate and not the house, which has passed so many more bills than the Senate, all of them which have been much more progressive than anything even ever brought up in the senate, let alone passed by the senate.

[zipplewrath]

18. Do anything to win

There seems to be a conflict between "doing anything to win" which is what you describe, and conflating a voting record into anything having to do with "heart". His voting record would also be merely more "doing what he had to do to win" than anything else.

Apparently his heart doesn't believe in letting local people have a primary to choose who they want to represent them, but to assure they have no choice. Real progressive.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I didn't say Rahm was perfect.....

But again, the evidence of his votes show that he was on the right side on most issues...which you have now decided to conveniently interpret as only doing the bidding of his constituents without those policies being something that he believed in; quite a stretch and freedom of interpretation on your part....certainly meant to serve your own purpose; to make your own point.

As for "doing anything to win", I supposed that being head of the DCCC is not an easy job, and being successful at gaining a very large majority in the house couldn't have been simple and without certain pitfalls. Was all of his decisions at the time perfect? I suspect not. Were a lot of his decisions obviously accurate; many, many were. Again, there is no mention of perfection in my book, only success at attaining a goal that has effected every American; a large majority in the house since 2006.

You may not be "into that", but I will admit that I admire those who actually get shit done, as opposed to those who only talk about doing such as so many lack any tangible track record that would point to evidence that their opining is more effective than the credit they'd prefer to withhold for those who, like I said, actually get shit done.....so I'll stick to the facts, as opposed to going with the intangible opining that lack any proof of actually working. I'm not one who would claim too big a stake in speculating the "What ifs...." when I know that making tangible progress has got to be the current overarching goal if we want to get anywhere anytime soon.

[zipplewrath]

21. He was on the winning side

My point was that your assessment of him was based upon a voting record. In the process of assessing him on that measure alone, you ignored why he might have voted that way. When you look at his behavior where he was in some "control" such as the head of DCCC or in his admiration for the DLC, that conflicts with his "progressive" credentials. A very reasonable conclusion from that wider view is that he voted progressive when it served his larger purpose of confronting the GOP, but when he is actually in charge, he isn't really all that fond of them. That's pretty much the score recently. So as I say, the wider view gives a fairly self consistent picture including the narrow bit of information you based your original view upon.

I'm not an "ends justify the means" kinda guy. Your representation of him presents him as just such a thing. Obama campaigned not on just getting things done, but on doing them a certain way. And it wasn't an "anything to win" kinda way.

[vaberella]

16. This is the most absurd reporting. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

20. ROLF. Like the Telegragh would know!

That said. I sure hope not.