Picking Apart Obama’s Picks
One of the things I’d like to use this blog for — as Pete will with the show — is to evaluate the president-elect’s staff and cabinet picks. First on the chopping block: Illinois congressman Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s pick for White House chief of staff. Palestine-solidarity activists are none too pleased, with good reason:
In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, sometimes more so than President Bush. In June 2003, for example, he signed a letter criticizing Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel.
They do concede he’s not purely evil on the issue, though…
Emanuel has sometimes posed as a defender of Palestinian lives, though never from the constant Israeli violence that is responsible for the vast majority of deaths and injuries.
Meanwhile, from the other side, Emanuel is seen as “brilliant ruthless shark” who may be more divisive than what Obama needs or should be looking for in a chief of staff:
Obama’s apparent selection of Rahm Emanuel for White House chief of staff is an extremely disconcerting (if not wholly surprising) first indication on the “which Obama will we get” question. It suggests both that he wants to be ruthless and partisan and that he does not have a clear sense of how the White House works.
Does this mean Obama got it just right, or is he way off?
I think he’s mainly trying to show the world (and right) that he’s not going to go easy on terrorism.
He was constantly slammed about the issue.
As far as a chief of staff pick, I think he’ll be a good one. Time will tell, to start second guessing every appointment right now is futile.
At this point, I still trust Obama’s judgment.
Big Brother Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Oh, Steve, you reveal your kool-aid-stained lips… what a disappointment
steve, jasper Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I prefer grape, tastes great!
fantasticvoyeur Reply:
November 14th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Big brother, you are watching. I can’t say what I really want to say…
No, really, can we just elect who is REALLY running the world and get it over with?!?!
I do not know enough about his pick to truly critisize, I need to do more research. However, from what I do know, I am concerned with his apperant heavy partisanship. But I also think that perhaps it is a method of symbolism, to perhaps keep those on the far reaches of the democratic party happy. It also may be simply that the man does what he says, although…as I said, I need more research on that. We’ll see if I have enough time with all the other things I’m looking into. Either way, we’ll see what happens. THere are many more offices to pick, and we may see a balance by the end. Oh, and for his Econ pick, both Summers and …Geisman? (dont think I hve that name right) both seem like ok choices to me, both have flaws, but both seem to know what they’re doing.
I know it is shallow, but, as an avid West Wing fan, he had me at this point in his wikipedia bio:
“Emanuel himself is the inspiration for the character Josh Lyman on The West Wing”
Also, interesting: “his brother Ari is a talent agent in Los Angeles who inspired Jeremy Piven’s character Ari Gold on the HBO series Entourage.”
That’s quite the family fictionalization.
-dj
I agree that this pick is a partisan. This does concern me. But I think this pick was made for Rahm’s ability to get things done. He is the architect of the 2006 election strategy. I like that he is a bit of a pitbull. If you look at the role of a COS I think this is an ok pick. Now that being said, I am looking for the rest of the picks to show me some more bi-partisanship and diversity. I would like to see him reach out to at least 3 republicans. And please find something for Powell to do.
steve, jasper Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I’m not so sure Powell will accept any position.
He is a very intelligent man and I think his experience with the Bush administration left a very bitter taste in his mouth.
I think he is fed up with politics and Washington in particular.
Big Brother Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Maybe at some point they’ll need someone to lie to the UN, and then Powell can swoop in.
steve, jasper Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I may be the most naive person in the world but I honestly believe he was also lied to, deceived, sucker punched and used as a scapegoat.
Even the smartest people can be led down the primrose path.
Bush and others betrayed his trust.
Just kool-aid drinking me!
Nick_from_IA Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I agree not his best moment. But come on, let’s be fair and not judge his entire career on that time period. I think everyone can agree that his role in the road to Iraq was not good, but I still believe he can be helpfull to the nation. Why not let him try to redeem himself?
Big Brother Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Yeah, lying a nation into a war of aggression is easily forgivable after all of the good things he did. (Which I invite you to list in the space provided below.) Since when did this country decide that if you screw up massively (Wall Street, Powell, etc), you should get a second chance to have the nation’s trust so you can fix it, and people who have not screwed up should be denied the opportunity you have already squandered. The guys was and still is seen as a patriot, yet he is largely responsible for the most significant downfall his country has suffered in its history. Second chance? No way.
Something’s messed up. My later comment has an earlier time stamp and appears further down the comments sidebar.
I gotta say I’m getting a little sick and tired of everyone calling for all this bi-partisanship. I don’t remember it in 1994 when the Newties rolled up a big majority and not since 2000 when they had control of the White House and both houses of Congress. All the bi-partisan yak started when…..oh yeah in 06. Maybe our new President should just appoint people who would do the best job and not worry what the “lefties and righties” think.
i became a Zionist in JHS when they invaded Israel during Yom Kippor…the holiest Jewish holiday there is! So don’t see nothing wrong with the choice—although the PLO might not dig it!
The REAL pick that gonna count is Treasury…i’m hoping he’s going with the Clinton dude and PRAY that he isn’t consulting Mayor-for-life Bloomberg about that pick.
Pardon me if I don’t cry for the Palestinians.
Just because one side is using suicide bombings and crude explosives and the other side is using helicopters and tanks doesn’t make one side anymore guilty than another.
As long as both sides are guilty world opinion will not change which means Palestine loses and they can change that as soon as they decide to.
The perfect analogy is MLK vs. Malcolm X. MLK constantly said turn the other cheek, do not become violent, and win through words and deeds not through violence. Malcolm X was more or less of the opposite viewpoint.
The civil rights movement of the 60’s would have never been a success with Malcolm X as its leader, but with MLK opinions changed.
As long as the world can open a newspaper or turn on the TV and see where some Palestinian has blown up a school, bus, cafe, or night club specifically to kill as many civilians as possible then very few people will have a problem supporting Israel.
Big Brother Reply:
November 10th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Grant, many historians believe that it was the threat of black nationalism that complemented the nonviolent approach of King and SNCC. You should look into that side of the history — it’s really quite fascinating.
As for the Palestinians, I think the only point here is that since, as you say, both sides are guilty, then picking a chief of staff who is rabidly in support of one side is unlikely to lead Obama down the path to peace.
What’s really odd about your logic is you seem to believe that might makes right. You say both sides are guilty in the eyes of the world, but it is the Palestinians whose responsibility it is to “turn the other cheek” and let their children get slaughtered, or grow up without basic human rights and dignity. Because they are losing. If that is what you mean, it’s an interesting value system you have…
But I’d rather give you the benefit of the doubt. Did you mean something else?
Grant in N.O. Reply:
November 11th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Both sides tend to be pretty brutal in the conflict I will give you that, but let me ask you this…..
Do you think that if Hamas and other groups like them ceased their violence that Israel would also cease theirs?
I 100% believe so because Israel would completely lose support from the world if they continued to attack Palestine when the Palestinians are not resisting.
Now, do you think that if Israel completely ceased their violence that Hamas and company would stop attacking and targeting civilians?
I seriously doubt it.
As long as one side is blatantly targeting civilians and the other side is at least making some attempt to not target civilians then I have no sympathy.
Its a war that the Palestinians could end as soon as they wanted to. But you can’t keep waging the type of war that the Palestinians wage and then whine about your civilian casualties out of the other side of your mouth.
Big Brother Reply:
November 12th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Grant, you asked: “Now, do you think that if Israel completely ceased their violence that Hamas and company would stop attacking and targeting civilians?”
First off, no, because their only incentive to deal with Palestinians is to stop the terrorist and guerrilla attacks against them. If it weren’t for those attacks, Israel would have zero complaints against the Palestinians (as you seem to admit), and therefore would have no reason to go to the bargaining table.
It would lesson the outright brutality and air strikes, etc, against Palestinian targets, to be sure. But it would not grant Palestinians any rights. Palestinians would still have to fight for their rights against an occupying army in the territories and against apartheid-like policies in Israel proper.
I have lived in the West Bank and worked there as an EMT — I can assure you, Israeli troops very often do not make any attempt to protect civilians. They regularly target civilians. And, sometimes Palestinians attack military targets. Neither side has a monopoly on terrorism or militarism.
Palestinians definitely want to end the war. Don’t kid yourself. Talk about speaking out of two sides of your mouth, Grant — Israelis whine even when they are not sustaining civilian casualties (the khassam rockets). Both sides do right and wrong, but the difference is the United States unilaterally backs the clearly stronger side. That’s the point of this topic. Do we want to continue backing the aggressor side? Do we want to continue to back the side that is in flagrant violation of numerous UN Resolutions demanding it retreat its forces from the illegally occupied territories? That’s the one thing that hasn’t changed since 1967: the US’s support for Israel’s illegal occupation. Maybe if we changed that policy, peace could be achieved. Lots of people believe that, not just me.
–brian
Tessa from WV Reply:
November 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Here, here Brian. Most people seem not to realize that Palenstinian aggression orriginates from a desire to be free. Israel controls the water for them, and often does not provide enough for thier needs. They also have check points (which in some sense I can understand, but…) which will not allow at times Palestinean people to go to work, visit family, or even go to the store. To be restricted in every move you make is an eggregeous (I think I’ve misspelled a few things here…but you get the point) trampling of rights, or what I view to be rights.
Additionally, many do not realize that the country now called Isreal was once Palenstine, but, other than extremist groups, many Palenstinian groups are willing to concede that portion of land that was stolen from its people if Isreli forces would just leave them alone, and allow them East Jeruselum.
In many ways, it is Isreal who is wrong in things, and the Palenstinians who are simple desperate.
Grant in N.O. Reply:
November 13th, 2008 at 9:42 am
So let me get this straight….
Firstly, you are saying that the Palestinians should continue to attack because that’s the only leverage they have against Israel (which by the way makes no sense). But then you admit that the Palestinians are brutal in their tactics. But then you try to paint the Palestinians as victims.
You accuse me of talking out of both sides of my mouth while you have found a 3rd side of your mouth to talk out of. Kudos to you sir.
Secondly, you claim that Israelis blatantly target civilians. I claim that the people that attack Israel are blatantly trying to blend in and pass themselves as civilians. Should the Israelis show more restraint? Probably so, but then again, when you are a combatant trying to pose as a civilian I don’t have much sympathy for you when you cry because your civilians are getting caught in the line of fire.
Also, we continue to back Israel because they are a long standing ally of ours and they are NOT the aggressor side. The policy of our government for years has been the building of an independent and peaceful Palestinian state and time and time again a handful of Palestinians make it clear that they do not want that. I believe the vast majority do want that. But as long as the vocal minority is willing to kill civilians, get their own civilians killed, and die themselves to prevent anything but a reclamation of Israel that isn’t going to happen.
BUT, then again when a vote takes place and Hamas is voted into power by sweeping majorities like the last vote, then it tells me that maybe those Palestinians want to keep that blood bath going after all.
You need to get it through your head that just because one side has better weapons than the other that doesn’t make them the aggressor. If you attack my house with a stick and I shoot you with a gun that doesn’t make me the aggressor.
Is Israel still occupying lands that it shouldn’t due to wars years past, YES.
Have those wars ever really ended? NO.
The land they are fighting over now they have been fighting over for millenia Brian. I’m sure at some point the Palestinians will get it back if the human race survives long enough.
But until you can answer my question of “if Israel withdraws from all occupied territories (aside from the actual nation of Israel which we could argue all day about) would they still face attacks from Palestinian groups” with a resounding NO, then its tough to play the victim.
I like Obama’s pick of Emmanuel. I think it symbolizes that he is going to run this country with his agenda and not the far lefts. I am also curious to see who else goes in his cabinet. I would like to see a diverse group of people. Not only Republicans but some women and minority groups also but they all have to be qualified to do their jobs. Looking back at Obama’s campaign advisors they were very good at what they did, one could say the same of his transition team. So i am hoping the same will happen with his cabinet. He seems to have surrounded himself with the right people and hopefully he’ll continue that.
Tessa from WV Reply:
November 12th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
quite right, I’m interested to see who he chooses. Whatever his choices, I am certain that he will form a cohesive group, a very important aspect. The ability to work together and acomplish great things is neccessary.
fantasticvoyeur Reply:
November 14th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Emanuel, the guy from Freddie Mac when all the BS was going down? I hope he makes up for that blunder. I’m going to reserve my thoughts really until he gets in. For all I know, they were just pretending to be fascists to get the Bush supporters’ votes. Patriot Act, FEMA, DHS, Bailouts… With friends like these…
Brzezinski has a full deck in this game, too. Isn’t that the Cold War guy? Man, Obama won’t have much say in this administration with hard line guys like this around. Look’s like a lot of Jimmy Carter’s old entourage.
Maybe they will get it right this time. Maybe I will become a panda.
Hey why can’t I listen to the show? Screw potus i want my indie talk!
This is messed up! They took an hour away from Ron Silver a man who could of had a 3 or 4 hour show. Pete’s show is an hour later and I imagine the Blog Bunker was squashed I seen it in the POTUS description but not in the line up. And I called in the Vinnie Show this morning when I turned on 110 and there was no Vinnie, the person who answered said he would be back on 108 on Monday…108? Damn it, I want Vinnie in the morning followed by Ron then Pete then Salzone, I don’t mind the merger but don’t screw shows and show times up.
davefrom north dakota Reply:
November 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
They could just as easily have turned the XM side into Indie Talk. I just like the name Indie Talk it sounds a lot better than POTUS. I too was very shocked this morning when i wanted to listen to Me and Vinnie i thought WTF is going on?!! Then i got an email from Pete about his new show. After listening to Pete’s show today my question was why did they bar him from talking about what was happening? It would’ve made a lot more sense to let him talk about it. I also don’t understand why the gave Ron only 1 hour and then they completely move Me and Vinnie off the channel. I wonder if Joe is even on Pete’s show anymore.
Joe Salzone Reply:
November 13th, 2008 at 1:27 am
>> I wonder if Joe is even on Pete’s show anymore.
I’m not.
Scott the Trucker Reply:
November 13th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Are you anywhere on POTUS? Saying POTUS is just as lame as hearing it! Either way I hope you had a descision in what happened and best of luck to you Joe your the most brilliant 24 year old I’ve heard on the political world, let us know what your up next.
Joe Salzone Reply:
November 13th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Scott,
It was not my decision. I don’t anticipate ever being on POTUS in any official capacity.
Yea, I’m thinking about possibly canceling my subscription. I drive truck and having the satelite is great but the whole xhange last night was kept a secret and it’s still a secret, Pete mentioned not being able to talk about anything. I knew I didn’t have XM for a reason and when they changed to POTUS from what it really is “Indie Talk” and made Pete change the show’s name it’s prvong politics is playing a huge role not only on satelite radio but in everyday life and at the Siruis XM studios. I want answers and specific answers. Pete’s show had a great time slot it’s nice the western coast has a better chance to listen but everything is changed and if I wanted to listen to music when I woke up I’d find an FM station or pop a cd in. I feel we lost a true Independant/individual channel> By knocking Ron down to an hour I may not even listen you can’t discuss much in an hour, hell I’ve heard Ron talk to everyday caller Greg for a half hour, which is great, but that’s now half the show! Don’t tell me you can’t give Ron an hour back “The Morning Breifing” is way too long give an hour to Ron Silver. I’m thinking the merger was a shitty idea, everyday on Vinnie, Ron, Pete and Salzone’s shows we talk about job losses, how man jobs were lost due to this damn merger? I think the concept of indie talk is done for, I would imagine everything is pretty much laid out now.
Pete said that the name change was his idea and he likes it. I’m just really happy that Pete’s still on the air and that he still has 3 hours. To be honest, Ron Silver’s voice annoys me a little and Salzone’s is even worse. The morning briefing and press pool shows are a little monotonous, but I’m sure they’ll work out all the kinks soon. Hang in there people. Change is good.
My thoughts on the new format:
Name Change: Thumbs Down
Ron Silver Change: Slight Thumbs Up (He is great, but his voice sounds too raspy on my speakers, I have to turn the speakers WAY up to hear him over road noise, then each commercial break I have to turn down)
Pete Dominic Time Change: Thumbs Down (I’m in CA so I am pulling into my driveway when his replay comes on.)
I am willing to give these new shows a chance but so far I’m not excited about the changes made.
I like the new name to, I missed that it was Pete’s choice. Ron’s voice takes time, hell he’s not young anymore! But his life experiences and his ableness to cross party lines and his intellegence amazes me. I hate the secretivness of how it all changed literally overnight and nobody can talk about it.
Pete was very upset about not being able to announce the changes, but he is happy that he was kept. Vinnie is gone, Joe is gone, and I don’t know how long Ron has left. If you are not in your car during the broadcast of Pete’s show, you can listen on your computer using the same account. Check it out. I listen nearly every day and get little done during those 3 hours.
davefrom north dakota Reply:
November 14th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
vinnie will be on ch 108 starting monday morning.same time slot just different channel.same people has before the move also.i miss vinnie’s show in the morning …thought it was better than the morning brifing we now get.
Scott the Trucker Reply:
November 15th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I called on Wednesday morning to the old “Indie” number and they did mention Vinnie would be on 108 (Sirius Maxim Radio, not sure the XM channel or if it is an XM channel) I’m glad theres a confirmation on this. What pisses me off is “The Morning Briefing” has a replay on right afterwards? This could be more to Ron’s show, and Mama Mary says she’s not sure how long Ron will be on, I don’t know if this is an instinct or if it’s something Pete may have told her but if Ron goes I may not be able to listen to POTUS anymore obviously nothing against Pete but XM really cleaned house on the original Sirius Indie Talk, the other shows are simply boring. Pete is the only one with Ron worth listening to.