Meet Obama's New Chief of Staff: Rahm Emmanuel

[elprincipe]

akuma587 said:

elprincipe said:

akuma587 said:

elprincipe said:
It's sad, although not unexpected, that a "post-partisan/bipartisan" President-elect Obama has chosen one of the most vicious partisan hacks in the House of Representatives as his chief of staff. What next, Barbara Boxer for EPA? Jim McDermott for Defense? Jim Moran for HUD? I can't wait to see what hypocrisy surfaces next, or on second thought maybe I can.

I guess you also missed that Obama plans on keeping the current Secretary of Defense, at least until Robert Gates chooses to retire.  He wants to voluntarily retire probably within the next year as he feels he is "Too old for this shit" (his own words, he's a Lethal Weapon fan).

Oh wait, you probably never even looked.

 

 

Actually that's not determined yet.  There is some thought he might keep Gates, who after all has done a fantastic job and moved the department from a highly partisan target under Rumsfeld to bipartisan consensus where it should be in most cases.  But this has nothing to do with Emanuel, and I don't appreciate the insipid comment at the end which stupidly and lamely attempts to paint me as a blind partisan.

Well you did make the assumption that every one one of Obama's other appointments would be a partisan one.  Hell, there is a decent chance he will appoint Colin Powell as the Secretary of the Department of Education.  Its a little early to start pissing in the well.

It has everything to do with your assumption that Obama has turned into a recalcitrant liberal as soon as he got elected though.  If you were aware of that Gates might stay on why did you even mention the Department of Defense?  I mean you are blaming Obama for his intentions when he has already manifested an intention that is counter to the one you are claiming he has.

 

The problem with many people, including yourself in this and other posts, is that once someone expresses an opinion you assume that certain things follow from that opinion instead of actually reading what is written.  I expressed wonder at hypocrisy and wondered what hypocrisy would follow, but I never said anything about an "assumption that every one of Obama's other appointments would be a partisan one."  That is your quote, not mine, and I'll thank you to not speak for me or tell me what I said when it's not what I said.

Similarly, you assume again in your second paragraph that since I have a certain opinion about Rahm Emanuel that "Obama has turned into a recalcitrant liberal."  Again that is what you said, not me.  See a pattern?

This is why I despise partisans so much, because they assume that everyone else is a partisan (kind of like fanboys, come to think of it), and thus assume that because they hold one position or opinion they hew to the orthodoxy of every conservative or liberal position.  As we see in your example, because I express a knowledgeable viewpoint that doesn't adhere to your liberal viewpoint, you assume I have a down-the-line conservative viewpoint.  I guess it's the only option since you can't argue with me about Emanuel other than to point to the recent fawning articles (again, designed to ingratiate reporters with the new chief of staff).