Monday, January 9, 2012
Politics Michelle to Barack: "Get Rahm outta here!"
Posted by Ben Joravsky on Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:09 PM
- Chuck Kennedy/Wikimedia Commons
First there was Confidence Men, Ron Suskind's book that revealed Oval Office spats between the president and Emanuel, his former chief of staff.
Now there's revelations in The Obamas, a new book by Jodi Kantor, about Michelle Obama's disdain for Rahm's foulmouthed foolishness.
So not knowing what else to do with him, President Obama essentially tag teamed with the Daley brothers to usher him in as our mayor.
Just like Mick and I told you way back when . . .
Somehow or other they concluded that the man who was incapable of running the White House was up to the task of running the country's third largest city.
Thus Emanuel was free to come to Chicago and wage war on . . .
Because as everyone knows—the problem that most ails Chicago is that too many people are reading.
One more time—thanks for nothing, Mr. President!
In other words, that whole spectacle that took place when Rahm left the White House on October 1 . . .
The one where the 150 White House staffers—including ten cabinet members—gathered in the East Room . . .
And President Obama said this is a "bittersweet day" and "Rahm has exceeded all of my expectations" (after he'd told reporters "Rahm would make an excellent mayor") . . .
And Rahm hugged the president. And the president hugged Rahm . . .
You remember that thing . . .
It was all a contrivance, cooked up by the boys and girls in PR, to give Rahm a face-saving excuse to get the hell out of town.
As in—here's your hat, what's your hurry?
And, of course, Chicago's enlightened electorate was only too happy to play its part, overwhelmingly electing Rahm largely on the grounds that if he's good enough for the president, he's good enough for us.
Ah, yes, Chicago's electorate—razor sharp, as always.
Well, there's two ways of looking at this . . .
On the one hand, if electing Rahm mayor is the price we must pay to save the Obama presidency and protect America from right-wing Republicans, well, then, Mr. President, that's a price I'm proud to pay.
On the other hand . . .
Dang, man, can't somebody else pay part of the price?
I mean, c'mon, Mr. President, can't you move him somewhere else before he completely decimates our libraries and gives away all our taxes to his rich cronies?
He apparently loves South America—that's where he spent his Christmas break. Is it too late to make him ambassador to Brazil?
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
"Well, if it wasn't obvious before, it's obvious now that the main reason Rahm Emanuel was available to be mayor of Chicago was because President Obama kicked him out of the White House."
My goodness, Ben, what a ridiculous statement. Do you know the average length of time that a chief of staff to the President serves? I believe Emanuel had already surpassed it or at least was coming very close. And do you think someone really would rather be the chief of staff for years instead of mayor of the third largest city in the country? Why on earth would you think Emanuel would have wanted to continue to be the chief of staff instead of being elected mayor? In fact, Emanuel had already stated probably only around 6 to 7 months into Obama's presidency (in an interview with 60 Minutes and probably elsewhere as well) that he was only planning on staying a couple of years. He may have eventually been forced out if he had wanted to stay. But it seems pretty clear that he would not have stayed even if Obama and everyone else loved the way he was doing his job and wanted him to continue.
like
dislike
Thank you once again Ben for telling it how it is! We got stuck with a psycho!
@ IAC:
"Do you know the average length of time that a chief of staff to the President serves?"
Average: 2.64 years
"I believe Emanuel had already surpassed it or at least was coming very close."
Rahm: 1.75 years
Right. Assuming those numbers are correct that is coming very close. Rahm was on record very early on as saying he would not stay very long. And, if you were Rahm would you rather serve another several months or even a couple more years as chief of staff (even assuming everything is going well in the job) or would you rather go on to become the mayor of the country's third most populous city? I think the answer is obvious. Ben's premise, at least in the paragraph I quoted, assumes someone in his position would rather continue as chief of staff. I don't think that is correct.
2/3 is very close?
If I ran 17 miles, would I have "come very close" to a running Marathon?
Nope.
-- MrJM
That comment, MrJM, reminds me of a Saturday Night Live skit (or maybe it was a different show) from at least a decade ago where a prosecutor accuses the defendant on trial of burying his victim in a shallow grave. The defense attorney then argued that the prosecutor was lying because the grave was deeper than a deep dish pizza. He argued that since deep dish pizzas are considered deep nobody could possibly say that a grave that was deeper than a deep dish pizza could be shallow.
The fact of the matter is Emanuel had served more than a year and a half in the chief of staff's position. He then had the rare opportunity to become mayor of the third most populous city in the country. The city has ingrained in it a unique political culture that allows the mayor to basically lead the city however he wants with very little opposition (so long as he plays his cards reasonably wisely). I think the overwhelming majority of people would jump at the chance to go from only one of several people advising the President on national policy (and the chief of staff's job normally has less to do with policy than dozens of other advisers) to being able to basically chart the course of one of the nation's major cities. Many things that you are able to do will even influence other cities and perhaps the nation as a whole. Again, I'm not saying that Emanuel would have been able to continue as chief of staff if he wanted to. But I think it is highly likely that he would not have wanted to pass off the opportunity to become Mayor of Chicago even if he knew he could stay as chief of staff for another year or two. So I don't think Ben is correct that Emanuel only "as available to be mayor of Chicago" because of the troubles he was having as chief of staff.
"On the one hand, if electing Rahm mayor is the price we must pay to save the Obama presidency and protect America from right-wing Republicans"
I thought so much more of Joravsky's political insight before this reflexive Republican-bashing thing started, as if we live in a two party state where it and liberal ideals had any relevance to the game being played by the pros.
Also, as if Obama had ever endorsed anybody for any position who wasn't a ghastly mistake. Sticking us with Mayor Emanuel looks fantastic next to Blago, Alexi and the dying John Stroger and his heir.
The way Emanuel is acting lately, Brazil wouldn't have been big enough for his ego. Maybe King of some small country we needed to invade would have been more to his liking !
Latest in Bleader
-
Margaret: teach your children well
In Margaret, a teenager learns more than her teachers can ever convey
- Feb 22, 2012
-
Gig poster of the week
Francisco Ramirez's design for the Arluck Time benefit
- Feb 22, 2012
-
Kim Dotcom currently a free man
Flamboyant Megaupload founder out on bail
- Feb 22, 2012
- More »
Author Archives
-
The sword is mightier than the pen
Mayor Emanuel cuts library staff and drives out the system's biggest advocate
- Feb 2, 2012
-
Sunny's Opus—a new twist on an old story
How a charter school becomes a haven for a great teacher who should never have been "redefined"
- Feb 22, 2012
-
Muhammad Ali's gold medal
Did Muhammad Ali toss his gold medal into the river?
- Jan 23, 2012
- More »
