This morning in the Washington Post, Dana Milbank challenges Edward Luce, Leslie Gelb, Jane Hamsher and me on our recent pieces explicating the management and policymaking mess among Barack Obama's core team. (Here is my piece.)
Let's set aside for another post the fact that Milbank's column seems to channel Rahm directly. The piece conveys a detailed knowledge of what exactly Rahm advised Obama to do -- and how exactly Obama allegedly rebuffed Emanuel.
So, Rahm, or Milbank on his behalf, seems to be appealing to President Obama to just listen to Rahm more and all will be well.
But then Milbank jumps on the bandwagon of those he starts his piece by rebuffing, and suggests that the White House dump Gibbs, Axelrod, and Jarrett.
Not even my essay went that far.
This reminds me of a vignette at the tail end of Richard Wolffe's interesting profile of the Obama campaign titled Renegade: The Making of a President in which Emanuel tried to "export" Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate to fill Obama's seat and to pry her away from such constant, intimate proximity to the President.
Seems like via Dana Milbank, Rahm Emanuel is still trying to pry them away.
Today's column starts:
Let us now praise Rahm Emanuel.
No, seriously.
I wondered if there was a foundation in their relationship for this kind of adoration. Well, maybe.
I found this June 2009 profile of Rahm Emanuel by Milbank. Read the whole thing, but here's a bit slug that could explain why Emanuel would send some sizzle Milbank's direction:
For a disciplinarian, Rahm Emanuel was remarkably loose as he sat down to breakfast at the St. Regis hotel yesterday.
On South Carolina's adulterous governor, Mark Sanford: "There's a guy that needed a cigarette."On talking with his mouth full: "If this was more of a Jewish family, I'd feel fine."
On the woman he wants to run for Senate in Illinois: "She is the 800-pound gorilla here."
Then there was this unusual aphorism coming from a man who worked in the West Wing when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke: "What happens in the Oval Office stays in the Oval Office."
What made this all the more surprising was that President Obama's chief of staff gave this performance at a table with 40 journalists, their tape recorders running, in an on-the-record forum hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note. Clemons can be followed on Twitter @SCClemons
Follow Steve Clemons on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCClemons
His "run to the middle" philosophy neglects that not all independents are right-leaning. His compromise-away-the-worthwhile-to-get-the-bill gets us nowhere, not even the intended bill. He did not want lefties to run commercials to get the right-wing dems in line, "retards."
Why have another party?
It truly is SIMPLY about keeping power if there are no differences in your platform.
Power.
Politics is secondary.
Still, he seems to be a fighter. Maybe, there's hope.
President Obama needs to fire that failed strategist, man-up and take on the obstructionist GOP with the super-majority he still has. That we.ak.li.ng called Harry Reid needs to take some pointers from Nancy Pelosi on how to pass legislation effectively. Pelosi needs to give lessons to both Reid and Obama because from what I've seen she's the only person in the Democratic led DC government that has actually gotten something done.
The Republicans have taken the filibuster to a new level, defying the Democrats to treat them as they deserve, content they can then make a case that they are abused, or, perhaps, just content that they are arousing their base. I don't blame Harry Reid for trying to operate within the old rules and not doing so well -- provided, he learns the necessary lessons whatever these might be. Obama's threat to use recess appointments to put in people the right really won't like shows they are capable of learning to use their powers more aggressively.
Either way, the party that tries to do the right thing is better than the party that merely games the system and doesn't care about the practical problems of the people or the future of the nation. When Democrats are ineffectual, we question their sincerity, but none of that matters so much as that the Republicans encourage the worst of them.
Nothing wrong with being a fighter, as long as you know how to pick your battles, know how to distinguish between your friends and enemies, and aren't always looking out for yourself first.
What's the point of having an attack dog who manages to offend everyone, but can't even get the job done?
Lose him.