Obama's Broken Promise

www.gop.com...

Obama Selects Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) To Serve As Chief Of Staff In The White House:

"Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel Has, As Expected, Accepted The Job As Chief Of Staff To President-Elect Barack Obama, According To Informed Democratic Sources." (Chris Cilliza, "Rahm Accepts," voices.washingtonpost.com..., Accessed 11/6/08)

Obama Promised To Change The Partisan Tone In Washington:

Obama's Election Night Speech: "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Election Night, Chicago, IL, 11/4/08)

Obama: "I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected, but I really don't think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party, and I don't think it is good for our country, and I think that the American people will reject it in this election." (Ben Smith, "Obama: Clinton Rewrites History," The Politico's "Ben Smith" Blog, www.politico.com, 1/13/08)

But Emanuel Famously Earned The Title "Rahmbo" For His Hyper-Partisanship And Bare-Knuckle Tactics:

"Emanuel's Reputation For Political Ruthlessness Earned Him The Nickname 'Rahmbo,' An Image Reinforced By A Legendary Episode When He Sent A Dead Fish To A Pollster Who Displeased Him." (Janet Hook, "Meet The Powers Behind The Democrats' Strategy," Los Angeles Times, 7/5/06)

Emanuel Calls Himself A "Vince Lombardi Democrat," Because He Believes "Winning Isn't Everything. It's The Only Thing." "Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), earlier this year called himself a 'Vince Lombardi Democrat.' It was Lombardi, the Hall of Fame football coach, who said, 'Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing.'" ("Chairman Rahm," The Hill, 12/14/05)

So, yeah. Some more of the bull$#it Obama has been carrying out. It starts (or continues depending on opinion) here. Shall we be keeping a tally of these and like things?
Discuss, both sides of it.

Obama will do horrible things.

Get real, the guy isnt even president yet and you are saying he broke a promise because one of his staff was called "rahmbo" by the republican media.

At least give him chance to get into office before criticising hi presidential promises.

This is breaking political news?

I agree with this point:

Originally posted by Waldy
Get real, the guy isnt even president yet and you are saying he broke a promise because one of his staff was called "rahmbo" by the republican media.

At least give him chance to get into office before criticising hi presidential promises.

Peace


[edit on 10-11-2008 by HIFIGUY]

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe


What promise did he break again?

I'm not sure the point of your post... Can you be more specific? Thanks.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Obama's Election Night Speech: "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Election Night, Chicago, IL, 11/4/08)

Editted to add: The guy he chose is extremely partisan for the Democrats. Unlike the facts that Obama has been calling for bi-partisanship repeatedly.

But Emanuel Famously Earned The Title "Rahmbo" For His Hyper-Partisanship And Bare-Knuckle Tactics:

Basically his hypocrisy in choices of people he is putting in his cabinet.



[edit on 10-11-2008 by spec_ops_wannabe]

he didn't break a promise. this is expected anyway, he's being what you call partisian because all the people he elects with his office will do and hold the same actions and points of views as him. we all saw this coming. it is hypocrcy but i don't think he promised to really put someone into office and thus so far hasn't.... just my thoughts

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe


Obamas cheif of staff is pretty far from the promises of a bi-partisan relationship with congress and one guy does not the whole of his cabinet make. Give it all a little time before you start casting stones.

You do know that Rahm is Obama's Chief if Staff, right? In that position, he will not be setting policy AT ALL. He will be doing what Obama tells him to do. So, whether Rohm is partisan or not doesn't apply in his new job.

From what I've been reading and hearing (from people who have worked in DC) Rahm will likely be convincing people like Pelosi and Reid to be more centrist and work across the aisle, because that's what Obama's wants to do.

So, Emanuel's past partisanship has nothing to do with Obama having broken any promises.

What promise did he break again? Did he promise not to appoint any partisan politicians to his cabinet? If not, then no promises have been broken.

reply to post by Witness2008


Well, considering how high up on the ladder the (future) C.o.S. is. And taking a look at the track record of the guy, I am pretty sure waiting until later won't make much of a difference.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I would take it as one of the implied items of his campaign.

I think there is a very high possibility that Obama is going to select Republican Richard Lugar as Secretary of State. Lugar would be a phenomenal choice in my opinion.

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe


Maybe we should wait...threads that criticize before there is anything to criticize seems a little desperate. If you see partisinship in the actions of the administration once he is in office then you have a point.

Of course you see no 'broken promise.' You see absolutely nothing wrong with the tenor that his 'body politic' demonstrates. That's a telling point in and of itself. There is no foul in accepting the 'kind' of politician that exists within our executive branch is already of the same ilk as the former administration. But somehow that's all that matters isn't it, the politics?

I am betting that he names (or had an under-the-table agreement to name) Hilary Clinton as one of the replacement Supreme Court Justices and that it has already been discussed with incumbent Congressional members.

This would explain why the Clintons so radically changed their tune during the election and actually came out to campaign for Obama so hard, especially Bill, who at one point accused the Obama campaign of undermining his wife's "good" name.

Wow. There's alot of sour-grapes-whining going on here but this post has to be eligible for some kind of award. So the OP's interpretation of 'bipartisanship' means he only gets to appoint Republicans? Or Deocrats like Joe Lieberman? What a joke. Move on people. Give the man a chance to do something to criticize. This sort of thing makes all you disenfranchised McCainiacs look shallow and petty.

Originally posted by sos37
I am betting that he names (or had an under-the-table agreement to name) Hilary Clinton as one of the replacement Supreme Court Justices and that it has already been discussed with incumbent Congressional members.

This would explain why the Clintons so radically changed their tune during the election and actually came out to campaign for Obama so hard, especially Bill, who at one point accused the Obama campaign of undermining his wife's "good" name.

Interesting theory, and one that could well explain the Clintons recent "silence". Of course, obama may well have considered such a deal with the Clintons necessary to protect himself - considering their legacy of taking care of opponents.

The other possibilty is tha obama isn't making any of these choices at all. Due to his gross inexperience, this may all be being dictated to him (and us) by the "powers that be".

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
I would take it as one of the implied items of his campaign.

So, because he said, ""Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship..." you assumed he wasn't going to hire anyone who has a reputation of being partisan? So, the assumption you made indicates that Obama broke a promise? Is he only supposed to appoint Independents? Or people who don't know anything about politics?

Does it matter to you that Emanuel won't be making policy in his position, so it doesn't matter WHAT his politics are????

See, that's how I'm finding really ALL of the complaints about Obama. He hasn't even started his job yet and people are accusing him of all sorts of things.

I see no broken promise. He didn't promise to only appoint centrists or independents. He said NOTHING about the politics of the person he would appoint as his Chief of Staff. You guys are ASSUMING what he should be doing and then saying he broke his promise (that he never made) when he doesn't act like you think he should. It's BS.

When he actually DOES something, then we'll see.

round_eyed_dog, I believe Lugar has already said he doesn't want the job. He wasn't asked, he just said he doesn't want to do it.

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe


I notice your source is a Republican website. So you're preaching that the Democrats are partisan? Obama appoints one person to be on his staff and the GOP is already complaining. This is the sort of petty, immature bickering the president-elect was referring to.