This guy is as....
 

bipartisan as a pitbull with a litter of kittens.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081105/D9492S2O0.html


Good luck to us with working accross the isle. :down:

Saw that ... disturbing really.

Add to that list John Kerry, Robert Kennedy Jr., and some others I cant remember.

"Lead from the center"... right... "Checks and balances"... Sigh...

Im going to **** can my 401K and stuff all my meager savings in a mattres. Ill probably have to spend it all on food now.

He has been likened to a hemmoroid and a tooth ache.

You make it sound like WH Chief of Staff is a legislative post, rather than a position that is given to someone the President-elect knows and trusts.

That Obama pledged to work with Republicans does not make the appointment of one Democrat by another a surprise. At all.

There is no story here.

It's interesting that you judge so quickly.

So Obama picks the Clinton boys one by one.
So much for "Change"
I guess you have to sacrifice something if you want power, even if it is all you stand for
:damn::rotfl:

Don't get me wrong, I like Obama, but I think he would've recruited a better team out of the Southside Chicago neighbourhood councils than out of the Clinton ivy league brigade.
The same people who were so eager to bomb Yugoslavia and Susan Rice who more or less is responsible for around half the bloodshed in Kongo.

Rahm Emanuel is not exactly a friend of Israel. He is more proof that liberals from any persuasion, background, or race are ideology driven first and foremost. National integrity and security is never a concern to these people, ideology always is. I wonder if an Obama administration will throw Israeli security under the bus. There is a view that it is very feasible unfortunately.

Is it just me or do you not read the history of this man NOT working across the isle? Quick to judge? He has been around since the Clinton Admin and he was an attack dog then.

A chief of staff is meant to cover the back of a president and keep it free from personal unloyalty, to get his demands for info, proceedings and personell being processed in time, so that the president must not waste time with figuring out questions of methodology, but can focus on the substance of issues. A chief of staff HAS to be an attack dog, at least a dog with a terrifying display of teeth and the ability to bite right through the bone - if needed. Lord Vader would be my pick for this special job. Compared to that, an experienced person like Obama'S choice, who already knows the job and is described as being well-linked in washington and in the structures of bureaucracy as well, is a harmless but still competent choice. Obama does not wish to waste time with needing to train his staff once he is in office, the transition should be smooth and fast. By what I read about the man - good choice, I say, also somebody who does not accept to be intimidated easily. When Hillary Hlionton tried to fire him because of him using tough language too often, he is said to have snapped back at her, saying that this is not up t her to decide, but the president. Bill kept him. - I would consider to keep Gates for defense. The rumour of Schwarzenegger for environment or energy also is not a bad option, I think. Hillary Clinton for health and social things, reform of the health system is an unfinished vision of her and her husband, thus she may show welcomed - and needed - enthusiasm to fight for it. Kerry for foreign policy is something I can live without. Before Kerry, better Powell.

From my personal view, there's no such thing as an anti-israeli jew.
Most jews I know are pretty liberal, opposed to settlements and the wall and whatever, but when Eretz Israel is threatened, they are loyal.
Suppose the same applies to Axelrod and this guy.
The only anti-israeli jews I know are those strange sects who think that founding Israel before the coming of the messiah is a sin...
:rotfl:

The problem is that the average american conservative thinks anyone who is not constantly killing his neighbours (or at least talking about it :D) is a weakling and a coward.

ha, I saw that news quote too.:rotfl:

Mikhayl, don't be an idiot. I understand how difficult that may be for you. There is a very good reason for saying what I've said. Emanuel has shown to have a stake and interest in Israel when it suited political gains. That's what I've seen regarding his political career. He has done good work for Israel in deed (very commendable), yet has been silent when people in his party (in ideology) have done things that contradict Israeli security in general. I see that as putting ideology (or at least political party) before one of our Democratic allies security interests. I said nothing about Jewish voters not caring about Israel. And yes, when it comes to National Security issues, our liberals here just don't perform very well. It is what it is.

Do they?
I'm an outsider, but from my opinion this largely comes from the fact that:
Democrats do not beat their chests in public as often.
From an outsider's view, Clinton did pretty much the same as Bush, with a much better public relations department. Clinton could get away with flattening a aspirin factory in Sudan with Tomahawks, after all...
The military is staunchly republican:
It alway amazed me how Clinton was blamed for the "Blackhawk down" fiasco while he basically gave the military a free hand while Reagan was not blamed for the Lebanon fiasco despite micromanaging both the troop deployment and the air raids from Washington.
Basically, if the dems screw up a war, its the administration, if the republicans do the same, it is tragic circumstances.
:rotfl:

Yes. The Democrat Party was the one that invited members of the Chinese military to go to our Los Alamos and Sandia Labratories. The environment of the Clinto era also enabled some very sensitive space technologies to be passed directly and indirectly to PLA sources. Stuff like radiation hardened chips, improved rocket guidance systems (good for missile accuracy), militarized fiber optics technology, super-computers used for nuclear weapons designs, etc. Not only that but look at the actions Clinton waged. Absolute disaster from the aspects of military resource utilization. He wasted Precious Tomahawks on targets of little significance, made aircraft fly higher than they should have flown against Serb targets to prevent aircraft loss.....most likely for political reasons. He cut back the military iin the 90's to unnacceptable levels. I served in that military and remember the "doing more with less" stuff. I believe he did that as a means to help with obtaining a budget surplus. Absolutely dangerous to lives of people in uniform. Going back further, the Tip O'Neil Congress in the 80's was rather burdened by the very military programs that helped us keep the edge on the Soviet Union. Jimmy Carter as President was like a subservient dog in his dealings with General Secretary Brezhnev. And Jimmy Carter, like Clinton, cut vital programs but for other reasons. I believe part of it was that he thought he could temper Soviet aggression through a compassionate approach. Proved to be naive any way you look at it. And last but not least, liberal Dems during our time of war during the last few years have shown themselves to be totally attrocious people, and counter-productive to support of our troops in the field during that time of war. They obviously hate Bush (the C-in-C), but have done everything they could to destroy national unity and morale, to the detriment of securing a win and creating new conditions of peace. I don't care if they don't like the war. Nor do I care if they voice it. But the false charges, BS propaganda (Haditha Marines) (Comparing our troops to Nazis),threatening to defund troops in a time of war are not the acts of people who care about national security interests. They actually act counter to it. Need I go on?

Then perhaps you might not want to improperly attribute statements to me that I have not said. Secondly, I don't give any newspaper (Israeli - and especially Palestinian) too much clout. I am capable of forming an opinion independently of newspaper editorials based on my own observations. I'm sure US newspapers have a number of views regarding Mr. Emanuel.

Well.. well.... well..

http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...106133228.aspx