Rahm is gone!?!?

[Gaspar]

"growing tired of the idealism of Barack Obama's inner circle."

OMG!

[Townsend]

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

There's one of the linkies in case someone wants more info.

[Conan71]

For a second, I thought hope and change had arrived. Just a rumor.

[nathanm]

Thus far, I don't consider this anything but a rumor. Other than a couple of known right wing British rags and Fox News, I haven't seen anything on this. It seems equally possible someone is trying to get a "fleeing the sinking ship" image planted.

Or, as a Google News search turns: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/rumors-of-rahms-departure/58434/

[RecycleMichael]

Please. White house staffers tipically leave after a year or two. It happens under every Presidency.

[Townsend]

Please. White house staffers tipically leave after a year or two. It happens under every Presidency.

I do remember a huge flight of W folk as well, both terms.

[Conan71]

Please. White house staffers tipically leave after a year or two. It happens under every Presidency.

And why is that? Either they get scapegoated or they figure out the Pres. is an impotent leader and get frustrated or simply don't want the pressure. Rahm would love to be President but he's too much of a cockroach to be elected. I have a feeling he's the big policy driver and President Obama was supposed to be the pitch man. Rahm is the consummate politician, Obama the great campaigner. Now they are getting bigger opposition to their idealistic slate of initiatives than they could have imagined.
JMO 

[Gaspar]

And why is that? Either they get scapegoated or they figure out the Pres. is an impotent leader and get frustrated or simply don't want the pressure. Rahm would love to be President but he's too much of a cockroach to be elected. I have a feeling he's the big policy driver and President Obama was supposed to be the pitch man. Rahm is the consummate politician, Obama the great campaigner. Now they are getting bigger opposition to their idealistic slate of initiatives than they could have imagined.
JMO 

Rahm is also extremely close to BP execs and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.  This may actually be a move by the administration to insulate.

[we vs us]

It's an interesting theory, because the core theme (Emmanuel representing the pragmatists vs "Obama's inner circle" idealists) comes from a lefty critique of the administration, not from the right.   

A lot of blame for the watered down healthcare reform package gets placed on the idea of "pragmatism" in the Democratic caucus -- which is a Rahm thing.  Get the legislation passed no matter what you have to sacrifice to do it.  A lot of the left saw the final product as a package that in the end sold off too much of its central planks to be effective.  A victim of too much pragmatism, so to speak. 

There's a similar sense with the financial regulation package currently up for debate, and I think the left sees echoes of this kind of compromise in the pale little speech that Obama gave last week about the oil spill. 

Or put it this way:  Obama's acted in a strikingly weak manner for a president with the kind of mandate he was given.  Time and again you can see him willingly handing off boatloads of his power, and so I think Rahm's approach -- everything's a negotiation so fight a bit but keep your powder dry -- might be blamed as being behind Obama's eagerness to come to the table.   

[Gaspar]

It's an interesting theory, because the core theme (Emmanuel representing the pragmatists vs "Obama's inner circle" idealists) comes from a lefty critique of the administration, not from the right.   

A lot of blame for the watered down healthcare reform package gets placed on the idea of "pragmatism" in the Democratic caucus -- which is a Rahm thing.  Get the legislation passed no matter what you have to sacrifice to do it.  A lot of the left saw the final product as a package that in the end sold off too much of its central planks to be effective.  A victim of too much pragmatism, so to speak. 

There's a similar sense with the financial regulation package currently up for debate, and I think the left sees echoes of this kind of compromise in the pale little speech that Obama gave last week about the oil spill. 

Or put it this way:  Obama's acted in a strikingly weak manner for a president with the kind of mandate he was given.  Time and again you can see him willingly handing off boatloads of his power, and so I think Rahm's approach -- everything's a negotiation so fight a bit but keep your powder dry -- might be blamed as being behind Obama's eagerness to come to the table.   

I agree.  Rahm is a pragmatist and Obama an idealist.  I think that Rahm's Chicago style, pounce when you see blood, style of politics blended with Obama's ethereal idealism has actually been the engine behind Obama's popularity and continuing campaign.

I also agree, now that matters require executive action, Rahm is growing tired of the committee, PH.D, group-think mentality of the administration, and that the administration is growing weary of Rahm acting as a coach in the huddle.

I however feel that personalities like Emanuel and Axelrod are necessary to sell the package and protect the goal.  On his own, without these pimps, President Obama will be left with all of his idealism in a world that is now demanding a recognition of reality.

I think his speech the other day was actually the straw that broke the camel's back for Rahm.  That speech should have been strategic, but instead it was idealistic. 

I've read several blog responses to the story this morning, and slowly I can see the scapegoating coming into shape.  I have a feeling that Emanuel will be gone sooner than later.  Dems are doing a very good job of painting him as a liability today. 

I'm not sure it will help the administration to cut away the muscle. 

[Conan71]

And what is pragmatism? It's acknowledging reality.

Along the lines of Gaspar and wevus' posts President Obama needs Emanuel worse than Emanuel needs the President. By all accounts he's a ball-busting negotiator, something you need to make lofty agendas a reality. I've often thought of him as Obama's "Cheney".

[we vs us]

I agree.  Rahm is a pragmatist and Obama an idealist.  I think that Rahm's Chicago style, pounce when you see blood, style of politics blended with Obama's ethereal idealism has actually been the engine behind Obama's popularity and continuing campaign.

I also agree, now that matters require executive action, Rahm is growing tired of the committee, PH.D, group-think mentality of the administration, and that the administration is growing weary of Rahm acting as a coach in the huddle.

I however feel that personalities like Emanuel and Axelrod are necessary to sell the package and protect the goal.  On his own, without these pimps, President Obama will be left with all of his idealism in a world that is now demanding a recognition of reality.

I think his speech the other day was actually the straw that broke the camel's back for Rahm.  That speech should have been strategic, but instead it was idealistic. 

I've read several blog responses to the story this morning, and slowly I can see the scapegoating coming into shape.  I have a feeling that Emanuel will be gone sooner than later.  Dems are doing a very good job of painting him as a liability today. 

I'm not sure it will help the administration to cut away the muscle. 

You just extrapolated a WHOLE lot from what I said, and actually I think you misunderstand.  My point was, Rahm, for all his rep as a ball buster, thinks small and tactical in order to get things done.  Also, in the name of action, he's willing to give core points of the legislation (for instance, healthcare) away.  So really, he's not a big fighter, not an idealogue, and not willing to take stands.  This gets you a healthcare reform bill without a cost control centerpiece like the public option.   

It's small ball, it's triangulation, and it smacks of the entire Clinton Administration after their healthcare debacle.   Which to many on the left isn't a good thing.

[Gaspar]

You just extrapolated a WHOLE lot from what I said, and actually I think you misunderstand.  My point was, Rahm, for all his rep as a ball buster, thinks small and tactical in order to get things done.  Also, in the name of action, he's willing to give core points of the legislation (for instance, healthcare) away.  So really, he's not a big fighter, not an idealogue, and not willing to take stands.  This gets you a healthcare reform bill without a cost control centerpiece like the public option.   

It's small ball, it's triangulation, and it smacks of the entire Clinton Administration after their healthcare debacle.   Which to many on the left isn't a good thing.

Good point.  You're very right Rahm is a small time thinker.  Reminds me of a mafia thug.

[Hoss]

Good point.  You're very right Rahm is a small time thinker.  Reminds me of a mafia thug.

Yeah, kinda like Cheney or Turd Blossom...except a little smarter.

IMO, of course.

[Gaspar]

Wow! 

A. I was right about the fast and furious scapegoating and severing of Rahm from the rest of the body.

or

B. This is just some huge unfortunate coincidence. 

Rahm Traded Favors with Blago: Report
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Rahm-Traded-Favors-with-Blago-Report-96812049.html