Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rahm: I never believed in bipartisanship
Washington Post ^ | November 16, 2010 | Greg Sargent

Posted on 11/16/2010 6:11:37 PM PST by george76

Is the left's enduring caricature of Rahm Emanuel -- as the primary advocate for the White House's futile and self-damaging quest for bipartisanship -- all wrong?

In a new book, Rahm claims he privately argued to Obama that he shouldn't pursue bipartisan support for health reform, because it would take too much time, instead insisting that the lesson of Clinton's failure to pass reform was that it was imperative to put a premium on getting it done quickly. That cuts strongly against the image of Rahm as the chief internal advocate of the White House's strategy of deal-making and accommodation with Republicans.

(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: bipartisanship; emanuel; rahm; rahmemanuel

1 posted on 11/16/2010 6:11:39 PM PST by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: george76
No! Weawwy?
2 posted on 11/16/2010 6:12:52 PM PST by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
and without asking for any bipartisanship the new house members had better halt funding to it
3 posted on 11/16/2010 6:15:29 PM PST by reefdiver ("Let His day's be few And another takes His office")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

I wish more of the GOP were equally ruthless.


4 posted on 11/16/2010 6:17:25 PM PST by Magic Fingers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

I agree with Rhambo on this one. Wouldn’t bipartisanship (except in times of war) just produce a bunch of moderates? More or less one party?

I may be simple, but I think politicians should clearly state their beliefs, and stand or fall by them. There are two parties, and that should mean two clear and different choices.


5 posted on 11/16/2010 6:19:25 PM PST by JudyinCanada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

He agrees with Limbaugh. And for a change, he admits it.


6 posted on 11/16/2010 6:19:45 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Magic Fingers

Time to get there,,for our country, our children and our grandchildren...


7 posted on 11/16/2010 6:20:43 PM PST by aces
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: george76

I can finally agree with him about something.

If your opponent is going the wrong way and you meet him halfway...... which way are you going? We have not seen a single GOP President since Ronaldus Magnus that is willing to tell the rats that they are wrong. Whichever GOP candidate figures this out wins in 2012.


8 posted on 11/16/2010 6:22:01 PM PST by volunbeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
That cuts strongly against the image of Rahm as the chief internal advocate of the White House's strategy of deal-making and accommodation with Republicans.

So, which delusion libtards in the MSM ever had THIS "image?" News to me.

9 posted on 11/16/2010 6:27:19 PM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: volunbeer

You hear Gov Bobby Jindal on Hannity yesterday? He said when 0bama and Rahm arrived to meet with them about the oil spill that Rahm spewed obscenities at Jindal’s chief of staff. Real class act.


10 posted on 11/16/2010 6:28:02 PM PST by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: george76

Rahm never believed in anything. He’s the poster boy for unprincipled Might Makes Right. So, for once he’s honest. He never believed.


11 posted on 11/16/2010 6:28:16 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Funny, I don’t remember any deal-making and accomodations being made with/for Republicans. As I recall, they had to dealmake and accomodate to get their own Democrat Party members on board. Somebody is re-writing history again!


12 posted on 11/16/2010 6:29:40 PM PST by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JudyinCanada

I agree 100%.


13 posted on 11/16/2010 6:29:50 PM PST by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


14 posted on 11/16/2010 6:31:29 PM PST by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
the lesson of Clinton's failure to pass reform was that it was imperative to put a premium on getting it done quickly. <<

Hey Rahm...We feel the same way about hanging u commie ba$tards after we take back the country....but luckily for u..the Constitution will stand in our way and you'll get a trial...

15 posted on 11/16/2010 6:32:25 PM PST by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC

We always said its RAHM it through, even as progressives complained about his blue dogs and bipartisanship.


16 posted on 11/16/2010 6:34:47 PM PST by omega4179 (Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ

I think Rahm is one of the biggest jerks in America. However, he is right about bi-partisanship. Give credit where credit is due. Bi-partisanship has consistently taken the progressives where they wanted to go, albeit a little slower than they would have liked. It has done nothing for conservatism.


17 posted on 11/16/2010 6:35:42 PM PST by volunbeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: george76

Rahm still smoking crack, I see.


18 posted on 11/16/2010 6:37:20 PM PST by Carley (WE SAW NOVEMBER FROM OUR HOUSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: utahagen

Thanks - I would think it would be rather liberating, as a politician, to not have to adjust the content of your speeches depending on your audience. Nobody can, or should, be all things to all people.


19 posted on 11/16/2010 6:38:11 PM PST by JudyinCanada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

>>He agrees with Limbaugh. And for a change, he admits it.<<

I may despise him, but at least he is honest about his hate for the USA.


20 posted on 11/16/2010 6:39:05 PM PST by freedumb2003 (In case you don't know, everything I post is IMHO -- YOU JACKWAGON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: george76
In a new book, Rahm claims he privately argued to Obama that he shouldn't pursue bipartisan support for health reform, because it would take too much time, instead insisting that the lesson of Clinton's failure to pass reform was that it was imperative to put a premium on getting it done quickly. That cuts strongly against the image of Rahm as the chief internal advocate of the White House's strategy of deal-making and accommodation with Republicans.

What the eff planet is the ComPost on? It was the most partisan effort of a whole slew of partisan efforts. They held private meetings, locked republicans out, and shoved this down Americas throat on a partisan vote. They even broke congressional rules to do so.

21 posted on 11/16/2010 6:41:48 PM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Rahm: Win at all cost with no regard for the damage to the economy.

Brilliant!

Have fun in Chicago, Putz!


22 posted on 11/16/2010 6:42:08 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard .. Obama: Epic Fail or Bust!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: volunbeer

One thing I noticed about Rahm was that his fingernails are bitten down so short that it looks painful. When he first started shaking hands in the subway stations in Chicago a little while ago, he put his hand on someone’s shoulder and I was quite shocked to see his nails. I don’t think I have ever seen that before....he must be a very up-tight fellow.


23 posted on 11/16/2010 6:42:32 PM PST by JudyinCanada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Bipartisanship is spelled c-o-m-p-r-o-m-i-s-e. There is no such thing as compromising with the RADICAL Left who more than ever are in control of the Democrat Party.
24 posted on 11/16/2010 7:04:36 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: george76

neither do I Rahm.


25 posted on 11/16/2010 7:06:13 PM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Rahm and me, agree! Me neither!


26 posted on 11/16/2010 7:06:48 PM PST by TeachableMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

OMG !!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO WAY!!!!!!!!!

/EPIC sarc


27 posted on 11/16/2010 7:42:25 PM PST by Danae (Anail nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ
You hear Gov Bobby Jindal on Hannity yesterday? He said when 0bama and Rahm arrived to meet with them about the oil spill that Rahm spewed obscenities at Jindal’s chief of staff. Real class act.

I was starting to find Governor Jindal interesting. Now I wonder if I should be disappointed.

Manners were much better when rudeness was likely to provoke a response that at once gave satisfaction and deterrence against repetition of the offense.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Rahm acted like this toward Governors John Connolly, Huey long, or George Wallace.

I know what would have happened had he been close to Governor J.Bracken Lee of Utah. Brack would have personally beat him until he apologized.

Since the punk wannabe bullies, like the Rahms of the day knew this to be so , it was rarely needed.

People separated in time , distance , and experience might wonder if the threat was real. I have a basis for this knowing this to be a fact.

Yes I know, another day another time, but Jindal complaining on TV begs the question.

What did you do in response?

28 posted on 11/16/2010 7:59:37 PM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: george76
Rahm: I never believed in bipartisanship

Well damn!

Now I have something in common with Rahm!

29 posted on 11/17/2010 7:30:04 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

No compromise with Democrats. Period.

Partisanship, partisanship, partisanship!

No compromise with progressive, communist phalluses.

IMHO


30 posted on 11/17/2010 7:44:27 AM PST by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ripley

Totalitarianism is diametrically opposed to bipartisanship.


31 posted on 11/17/2010 7:47:25 AM PST by Hoodat ( Don't touch my junk, Bro !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Guess the closest Rahm got to BIpartisMANship is when
he got in the shower with the tickler-wrestler.

Come to think of it - is the ballerina married?


32 posted on 11/17/2010 7:55:50 AM PST by A'elian' nation ( America is Exceptional - the only nation of people who escaped from theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: george76
"That cuts strongly against the image of Rahm as the chief internal advocate of the White House's strategy of deal-making and accommodation with Republicans."

Bizarre. Who ever even suggested that this was the case?

33 posted on 11/17/2010 8:07:25 AM PST by Sloth (Civil disobedience? I'm afraid only the uncivil kind is going to cut it this time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ
when 0bama and Rahm arrived to meet with them about the oil spill that Rahm spewed obscenities at Jindal’s chief of staff.

Rahm Emanuel = Frank Nitti in a cheaper suit.

34 posted on 11/17/2010 10:59:12 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Totalitarianism is what the Democrats have been doing for four years. Remember the words of the President when he said, “I won”, in answer to a call for bipartisanship by REpublicans.

No compromise with Democrats means stick to ones’ guns and do not give in to their demands for leftward movement.

No compromise with Democrats does not mean totalitarianism, it means not becoming poisoned with their demogogic
rantings and setting up loyal opposition to their mischief.

IMHO


35 posted on 11/17/2010 12:02:18 PM PST by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Condor51; stephenjohnbanker; TommyDale
Rahm got the bum's rush out of DC before Midterms, as the WH hoped to save a few seats.

4-term "Congressman (gag) Rahm" was beatified as the man who masterminded Dems takeover of Congress and WH.

AND GET THIS Cong Rahm ran "Our Common Values PAC" and chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 2006-07.

Rahm had Dems winning in solid Republican districts running as "true believers."

The GOOD NEWS is ALL those Rahmified Dems are gone in the blitz of Nov 2.

NEXT UP FOR EXPULSION---OBAMA Rahm duped the voters again and again----he had Maoist Candidate Ohaha saying things like, "I want to be another Reagan."

36 posted on 11/17/2010 1:04:23 PM PST by Liz (Marxist O/Care provides two brands of toothpaste---mint and plain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Liz

” he had Maoist Candidate Ohaha saying things like, “I want to be another Reagan.”

At least Obaba is a dual citizen

Mao

Mau Mau

;-)


37 posted on 11/17/2010 3:31:57 PM PST by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: george76

“bipartisanship” is to Democrats what “detente” was to the Soviets. It didn’t mean there was any intention to give ground. It was just the seductive siren call to the squishy moderates that the enemy means us no harm.


38 posted on 11/17/2010 3:59:30 PM PST by OrangeHoof (Washington, we Texans want a divorce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ
Yet I heard Jindal on the radio today with Ingraham....stating he thought that Obama was a smart man.

To her credit....Laura skewered Jindal...and told him..she thought he was wrong. Obama isn't a smart guy at all....

Now I happen to think Jindal was just trying to be nice...but I agree with Ingraham. It's a myth that Obama is a smart man. And that myth is being exposed over and over....

39 posted on 11/17/2010 4:39:10 PM PST by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson