TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
25.11.2008
Republicans Worship at Rahm's Altar

Ever since Obama picked his chief of staff, I haven't been able to open my email inbox without being inundated by a tide of huffy, anti-Rahm Emanuel emails from conservative pals or relatives: Rahm's so "mean," he's "partisan," he indiscriminately drops the f-bomb, boo hoo, and doesn't this all reflect so badly on Obama, who, with his selection of Rahm, failed his first test of his ability to offer "change you can believe in"?

But evidently Washington Republicans aren't so dismissive of the Rahm pick. The always-interesting National Journal Insiders' Poll found that, while 96 percent of the Democratic movers and shakers the mag surveyed thought Rahm would be effective in his new gig -- no surprise there -- 93 percent of Republican insiders thought he was a good choice, too. In fact, the quotes from GOP respondents are more adulatory than the responses from the Democrats. Here's just one from the GOP section of the survey:

Rahm was a brilliant choice. He is tough enough to deal with congressional Democrats, smart enough to reach out to Republicans, pragmatic enough to keep the administration from veering too far to the left, and controversial enough to become the lightning rod that Obama needs to keep the heat off the president and on the staff. Rahm is doing this at considerable self-sacrifice. Had he stayed in the House, he would have become speaker. He is trading future power for immediate influence. He is also putting the good of his team above his own career interests. That is a rare quality among politicians.

Quick, hire this guy as a White House p.r. man!

--Eve Fairbanks

Posted: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:57 AM with 13 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

nikkiwhite said:

My sentiments exactly. Not only is Rahm a talented and ambitious guy but a real patriot as well. He would have been great as speaker, but he accepted the chief of staff post and made a sacrifice for his country. I've been a Rahm fan since his days with Cllinton, He impressed me right away as someone to watch. His skills are to be admired by people of all political persuasions. Hell, I'm a Democrat and even I can "appreciate" the work of Karl Rove.

November 25, 2008 12:01 PM

a_long said:

Serious suggestion: Maybe you guys should rename this blog The Podium: Obsessive coverage of the Obama Administration.

November 25, 2008 1:51 PM

drdannyu said:

I do wonder if maybe this blog could be folded back into The Plank?

November 25, 2008 1:59 PM

lsernoff said:

The R insiders know that Rahm will be dropping more "f-bombs" on the likes of Henry Waxman and Barney Frank than on them, at least until the current economic crisis abates.

November 25, 2008 3:23 PM

jwl2672 said:

"Ballet bo" is an uncouth, foul-mouthed partisan hack who screams and yells and would destroy someone in his party's career just to make a point.  This is truly "change we can believe in. " When W adopts strong rational tactics ("you're either with us or against us"), he's a simpleton.  When Gaybo uses it, he's a highly effective leader.

You call Republicans hypocrites? Why don't you look in the mirror?

November 25, 2008 4:03 PM

clumsymohel said:

Hmmm hold on guys some races are still ongoing. Let's not forget Norm and Al fighting it out in MN!

November 25, 2008 4:06 PM

mmathog said:

I agree with jwl that Emanuel's hobbies are both suggestive of his political and managerial competence as well as his sexual proclivities. The fact that Emanuel might be gay should instantly disqualify him to serve in high public office.

November 25, 2008 4:55 PM

iambiguous said:

Generally when someone attacks another in the political sphere the disagreements fall into one of two categories.

The first kind revolves around a contention that the guilty party is a practitioner of the politics of convenience. In other words, the only thing he or she really cares about is an expedient and opportune reward. All others be damned.

The second kind revolves around the accusation that the guilty party is a practitioner of the politics of conviction. In other words, the whole world revolves around his or her narrow-minded political or relgious goals. All others be damned.

Therefore, the most egregious quagmires we tend to fall into are those that involve both practitioners of conviction and convenience.

The war in Iraq leaps to mind.

So, it's really hard to tell which faction is the most dangerous.

george walton

November 25, 2008 5:36 PM

mmathog said:

The latter is probably more dangerous George, but that was nicely said.

To me, the most dangerous political phenomenon on earth is when a group that has power thinks it has no power.

November 25, 2008 5:56 PM

iambiguous said:

mmathog writes:

The latter is probably more dangerous George, but that was nicely said.

To me, the most dangerous political phenomenon on earth is when a group that has power thinks it has no power.

George:

Looking back at the 20th century, I would have to agree the practitioners of the politics of conviction were probably the most dangerous. And oddly enough those who embraced either fascism or communism did not feel compelled to tap God for an endorsement. Instead, they merely twisted their own dogmatic point of view into a fierce secular religion.

Armed to the teeth, of course.  

Is this less dangerous than a group in power that thinks it has no power?

I don't know. You'd have to give me some historical examples first.

george walton

November 25, 2008 10:14 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Great dialouge mmathog and iambiguos.

It was very telling to watch the clips of the roast of Rahm given in DC a few years ago - the audience was filled with members of both parties - from far left to far right and everything in between.  That pretty much speaks for itself.  No one cares about Rahm's screaming but the dead enders who still stamp their feet and wet the bed because they can't grow up and accept losing gracefully.

*Effective* high level government officials have thick hides and don't whine. It isn't just that its dignified and statesmanlike, it gives them power.  Obama has been called a Muslim, ni**** socialist terrorist - and I'm sure he will continue to be - and doesn't even bother to mention it.

Just having a highly intelligent, pragmatic President who can speak english and listens to America will be very radical change.  Throwing around "how is this change?" whining says zero about Obama. He signaled long ago he that has no intention of being a chump and that he's in DC to get big things done and he's getting ready to do just that.

November 26, 2008 5:32 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

oops, that roast was held in Chicago of course.

November 26, 2008 5:56 AM

desertdog said:

Rahm is a meat-eating predator at the top of the food chain.  No-nonsense, extremely intelligent and willing to do the hard work of getting things implemented.  That's one thing Republicans admire and respect.  Especially Rove-style Republicans.

November 26, 2008 9:36 AM