Mayor Rahm?

Rumor has it that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel will announce his departure from the West Wing to pursue mayoral aspirations in Chicago. If he does go, then from now on, it's no excuses.

Is Rahm Done?

If true, I can only view this as good news.

Washington insiders are saying that the White House chief of staff will quit his post within six to eight months because he is frustrated by Obama's closest advisers' idealism and their unwillingness to push through legislation. "Friends say he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of the most high profile jobs in U.S. politics," the London Telegraph reported.

Quote of the Day

"The Rahm Emanuel that Obama hired is the poster child for the timid, pseudo-pragmatism that is inimical to the idealistic Obama agenda so many excited voters responded to last November. And it's a pragmatism that is absolutely killing the Democratic Party in the long run, because American voters have an intrinsic distrust of politicians they see as tacking with the polls or shying away from a fight."

~Dan Froomkin on the latest Obama administration sabotage and the recent Washington Post love affair with Rahm Emanuel.

Government is Just Like High School - UPDATED

Ho. Ly. Shit.

No wonder Palin continues to criticize President Obama for using a teleprompter. He hasn't mastered the fine art of scribbling on his body.  I guess because he never had to.

Even in my sleep I can tell you that "Drill, Baby, Drill!", tax cuts and smaller government are the cornerstone talking points of the GOP and conservatives.  But Sarah Palin needs to write them down on the palm of her hand like a high schooler with crib notes to get through an hour with an adoring crowd.  She's eventually going to get sent to the Principal's office.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

Update (1:45pm): A commenter at another blog posted the following regarding this story: "I honest-to-God do not get what the big deal is about this. You folks MAKE her a big deal with all the attention you pay her." ...to which I felt a response was needed.

You've got to be kidding. The "big deal" is that [Sarah Palin] is who the wingnuts have chosen to be their leader, and while she criticizes the president for using a teleprompter that presidents have been using for the last 30+ years including [Ronald] Reagan, who she mentioned at least a dozen times last night, [Palin]'s acting like a high school cheerleader writing down talking points on the palm of her hand (that everyone else can recite in their sleep) so she doesn't fail her pop quiz even though she knew the questions beforehand.

She has a Down Syndrome baby and is appalled at Rahm Emanuel's use of the word "retarded" [to the point of calling for his firing,] but has no problem with Rush Limbaugh using it and is even making excuses for him.

You don't think that hypocrisy has to be called out?!

Adding... Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News bet wrong in her last Countdown appearance when she said of the whole "retarded" issue, "I'm gonna go out on a limb here - I think because it is a matter of the heart for her, I don't think she wears this child on her sleeve... I bet that Rush Limbaugh quickly apologizes himself knowing that she will have to treat him the same way."

Dems Cave To Lieberman

Via TPC:

Senate Democrats "emerged from a special caucus meeting Monday night determined to pass a health-care bill by Christmas -- but without the Medicare buy-in plan that liberals had sought as an alternative to a government insurance option," the Washington Post reports.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg notes Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman on the Senate health committee, said he would be willing to drop a "public option" government insurance program to win passage of a health-care overhaul.

Said Harkin: "This bill, without public option, without Medicare buy-in, is a giant step forward toward transforming American health care. That's reality, there is enough good stuff in that bill that we should move ahead with it."

Gee, Tom, that was a quick turnaround. I have to say I thought the party would hold Lieberman's feet to the fire and not cave in ONE DAY. Also, does this Christmas deadline seem like bullshit to anyone else? What's the fucking point if any form of public option, including the Medicare buy-in, is dead?

Yes, I know that the consumer protection rules that (hopefully) everyone in the Senate agree with are important steps in overall reform, but I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I feel right now. My only hope is that progressives will give a big FUCK YOU to Rahm, and anyone else in the White House that thinks this is good idea.

Strip Lieberman now.

ADDING... Now that Lieberman is allegedly appeased, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop and have the Senate include Stupak abortion language to win Ben Nelson's vote. I'm really disgusted right about now. C'mon, progressives. Fight back!

Also... Don't for a second think that this is anything other than the Senator from Aetna sucking the cock of his corporate insurance masters based in Hartford. Joe Lieberman is not about cost containment. Joe Lieberman is not about saving the dying Medicare system. Joe Lieberman is about Joe Lieberman.

Rahm Meeting With Reid About Senate Health Care Bill

This is going to be a very telling meeting.

TPM: At 2:30 this afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will host Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in the first of several meetings presaging the merger of two major health care bills. The foursome is expected to discuss key issues at the heart of the reform process--affordability, Medicare, the public option, revenues--but no decisions are expected today.

The talk has been about Reid and how he'd better not exclude a public option in the bill they are proposing, but just a couple of hours ago I heard Ed Shultz on his radio show saying he trusted Reid and quoting him as saying this on the Senate Judiciary Committee floor:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) joined the push to eliminate the [insurance industry's anti-trust] exemption Wednesday morning, saying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, “It’s something that should have been done a long time ago.”

As for insurance companies, “There isn’t anything we could do to satisfy them in this health care bill. Nothing,” Reid said. “They are so anti-competitive. Why? Because they make more money than any other business in America today. . . .What a sweet deal they have.”

So it would seem that Harry Reid, being in favor of revoking anti-trust exemption laws favoring the insurance companies, would have no trouble increasing competition and adding a public option to the bill. Unless Rahm helps him changed his mind.

Rahm Got The Message

It's been extremely frustrating to hear non-definitive talk from White House officials when it comes to a strong public option for healthcare reform. Especially if it comes from the supposed arm-twister, Rahm Emanuel. Yesterday, Emanuel seemed to be a little mealy mouthed when discussing the possibility of a final healthcare plan without a public option. Now this was according to the Wall Street Journal, which is now owned by Rupert Murdoch. Enough said. But the doubts still lingered - enough for President Obama to make a statement from Russia (with love):

"I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest. I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals."

So what was with Rahm and the mixed signals? Why is the possibility of accepting a compromise like a trigger or a co-op even being thought about? I know that in the world of Obama being The Great Mediator, they can't just say flat out that the President will veto any bill that doesn't contain a strong public option. They at least have to act as if all options are on the table rather than piss people off and slow things down to a crawl. But still, be firm and consistent with your message.

Well it looks like Rahm got the message.

After initially indicating his support for a public plan “trigger,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel reassured House Democrats tonight that he strongly backs a public plan. Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) said she told Emanuel that support for a “trigger” would cause health reform to lose Democratic votes:

“We have compromised enough, and we are not going to compromise on any kind of trigger game,” Woolsey said she told Emanuel. “People clapped all over the place. We mean it, and not just progressives.”

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) said Emanuel reassured him that he “doesn’t stand by that trigger.”

It's gotten to the point that the bill would lose more Democratic votes than gain Repubican ones if a public option is not part of the plan. This combined with Harry Reid's instructions to Max Baucus to drop the proposal of taxing health benefits and stop trying to garner GOP votes looks promising for the public option.

In Defense of the Obama Application

What if John Edwards was chosen to be Poverty Czar or Attorney General by the Obama Administration and then it was revealed that he had an affair? Or what if the affair came to light during the vetting process?

This is what I ask myself as I see grumblings and outrage over the news this week that the Obama transition team has asked prospective applicants for cabinet or other high ranking positions to fill out what some are calling an extensive and even invasive questionnaire.

Jesse Wendel, Group News Blog:

Like it makes sense to give professional political operatives, HR people no less, your deepest, darkest, most personal secrets, along with your medical and tax records going back years. Then TRUST THEM. Because they work for the President-Elect, so they won't fuck you over, no Sir, nuh-uh.
Other than the on the transition website, which goes further than the Bush Administration's, there's no assurance, absolutely none that they won't use everything you tell them to fuck you...

...So go ahead, hand some 20-30 year old political staff the political equivalent of blackmail video-tapes of you having a torrid affair with Bill O'Reilly, surrounded by luffas and candy you stole from children.

Wendel goes on to say that it's all about checks and balances.

"No one should be forced to submit to political vetting (and trust their public identity to non-existent assurances that their identity won't be destroyed by a trial balloon or a tactical leak for political purposes by the Obama team) on hiring decisions PRIOR to initial hiring."

He uses the phrase "tactical leak for political purposes" immediately after after saying how he knows some of the people on the transition team and trusts them deeply.

Wendel doesn't like the idea of the untrained eye - this is the first Obama Administration after all - going over personal information and compares it to the FBI's years of experience, as if the FBI has a pristine record and would never use information for political purposes. He calls it hypocrisy, something the Republicans would do, and even questions the legality of it.

Is this even legal? I know it wouldn't be anywhere else. Or is this another one of those bullshit situations where the Executive and Congress have exempted themselves from the same laws the rest of the United States must live under. Because if I were hiring people for GNB, I sure as shit couldn't ask a potential hire these questions and base hiring decisions on them. I'd get my ass sued and rightly so.

...If President-Elect Obama with his cocaine use is too much of a chicken-shit to use me and grownups like me, then really, he and the transition team can shove it up their hypocritical asses.

Well, I think you've just blown your chance with that last paragraph, Jesse. And by the way, you're wrong about the legal issue, but we'll get to that in a second. I get where you're coming from but you gotta lighten up.

Let's go back to my initial hypothetical question. Imagine if Edwards was chosen as AG and then the affair came out because there wasn't full disclosure? Game. Fucking. Over. While some see this questionnaire as over the line, and while it may be overprotective, I think it's a smart move on the Obama team's part because of all the bullshit attacks they need to defend themselves from daily just on the stuff that's made up. The last thing they need is to put out fires in their administration before getting off the ground.

As far as the legality of the application, here's a comment from "Myrtle Hussein June":

In 1980 I worked for a government contractor on the space shuttle mission at an air force base. I had to fill out a 10 year history, not unlike Obama's questions except no e-mail/internet stuff, for a security clearance and had to pass a drug test for that job.

Today, where I currently work, every single applicant has to submit to a 10 year background check/security.... for a state university. Every single person no matter the position.

Another blogger just got hired and reported having to answer some highly personal questions.

So, it's not JUST the Obama application or just for the federal government. I think no matter where you go these days there are more and more "security" measures connected with getting employment. Thank you Patriot Act.

... I'm applying to the Obama admin, got the app right here. I'm going to fill it out honestly. I'm not going to judge anything I've ever said or done to qualify as being an "embarrassment" to Obama. It just is what it is.

I don't think it's "chicken-shit"; I think it's the laws that have been passed. It's the crazy right wing extremists, or maybe left wing extremists, they're looking out for. And no, I don't consider fighting for our country to take a hard left BACK to the center "extremist" of any sort. I don't think they do either. The Obama transition team is NOT the Bush Administration.

Sorry, I don't think this is all that unusual for government workers. At least, that's not been my experience since 1980.

And that's how I see it as well - you can't be too careful when there's a world of wingnuts looking for that one opportunity to stab you in the back 24/7. Is it a little over the top? Perhaps. But if more than a little intrusion into your privacy when applying for a government job in a post 9/11 America is not your cup of tea, then don't apply. No one is forcing you to divulge information. If you've got nothing to hide then go for it; if you know you have skeletons in your closet that you don't want people to find out about but still want a job in politics, then go work for the RNC. Apply or don't apply - it's up to the applicant and they have full knowledge of what's being asked of them before they apply.

It's also matter of getting things done in a straight forward, organized fashion. Remember that the Obama camp dubbed the President-elect, "No drama Obama." It's not just a catchphrase. They don't abide any distracting bullshit. It rarely happened during their campaign, but the second there was a distraction - like foreign policy advisor Samantha Power calling Clinton a monster for example - she was gone before the end of the day. Look at how the delayed reaction regarding the Rev. Wright mess affected the campaign. It took weeks for them to shake that off. If you don't nip it in the bud early enough, all you'll be doing is fighting off bullshit distractions and never concentrate on real issues. Case in point is the McCain camp for fuck's sake - they got a poll bump from the Sarah Palin pick and then when she became the distraction, they couldn't get rid of her and they sunk like a stone.

I might tend to lean more towards Wendel's argument if the Obama Administration were walking into a "peace and prosperity" White House, but let's face it: shit has never been more fucked up than it is now and they have to hit the ground running. This will just narrow the search earlier than later. It'll shoo away those that are hesitant to apply if they think they have something to hide and cull the herd. Also, no one's 100% kosher, and I'm sure that having something on your record like a traffic violation isn't going to automatically disqualify you, but it's not so bad that it'll ruin your career if it should be nefariously leaked.

Now for those who thought Barack Obama was a lefty liberal's dream, one only need look at the FISA vote long before the election took place, or the $700 billion bailout approval to tell you that with Obama you get a pragmatist who is maybe just slightly left of center on issues that have broad bipartisan appeal. We all knew that coming in and anyone who thought he was a 21st century Che Guevara was deluding themselves.

We can't lose sight of the bigger picture. Change doesn't come in eight days. We just broke the Ronald Reagan deathgrip on this country for the last 28 years - it can't all happen in one day. Baby steps. Already there are those who are pissed at Obama for the Rahm Emanuel pick, or the possibility of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, or the incredibly invasive application questionnaire. But I think I might wait til maybe Inauguration Day before I start flying off the handle. The fact that his was one of the best run campaigns in American politics wasn't a happy accident. I doubt that his entire staff went "Teh Stupid" on November 5th.

But like I said, I just don't think they can be too careful with all the loonies out there. It's not like they're trolling for information to hold against you like the other side does (see 'illegal wiretapping'). And yes, ultimately we don't know who peeks into those files, so if you like instant messaging minors in a sexual fashion, if you rail against gays while picking up men in airport bathroom stalls, if you killed someone and buried them in your backyard, then maybe you shouldn't fill out an application. But if you think you have what it takes, still like your mom and don't fuck your cat Fluffy on a Saturday night bender, then go for it! Make change happen!