Rahm Emmanuel for White House chief of staff

Obama's pick.

And the transition team:

The president-elect has signaled that he will rely heavily on former members of Clinton's administration and that he plans to include several Republicans* on his team.

His transition team will be headed by Clinton veteran John Podesta, his current Senate chief of staff Pete Rouse, and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett. Tapper reports that the team will include former Clinton Cabinet members William Daley and Fredrico Pena, as well as Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano.

Good news on Podesta, I would say.

NOTE * These would be -- by definition -- not the kind of Republicans who should "rot forever in a stench-filled pit of [their] own making.... minions of Satan." If only we could tell who the good Republicans were, and who the evil Republicans were in advance. It's just so confusing!

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lobbyists transitioning too--

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/110... --

"The day after Barack Obama won the presidency, BGR Holding, once one of Washington’s dominant Republican-only lobbying shops, announced it had acquired a Democratic firm with close ties to the incoming administration.

BGR’s acquisition of Westin Rinehart illustrates a broad restructuring on K Street that’s accelerating now that Democrats are poised to control both Congress and the White House.

Republican heads of business trade groups are bracing for pink slips, and some corporate offices are giving Democratic lobbyists promotions to co-chair their shops and help open more doors on Capitol Hill and in the new administration.

The repositioning highlights how little Washington is likely to change, despite all the anti-lobbyist rhetoric tossed around in the campaign.
..."

“Obama wants a bad cop, so he can be good cop"

“... If Emanuel — a member of the House Democratic leadership with ambitions to one day to be House speaker — were to turn it down, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) would likely get the nod, the sources said.

Some Democrats have warned that Emanuel’s take-no-prisoners style could hurt Obama. But the president-elect wants to move fast to push his legislative agenda through the Democratic-controlled Congress — and Emanuel knows the Hill and power politics as well as anyone in town.

“Obama wants a bad cop, so he can be good cop 90 percent of the time,” an adviser said.
..." -- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/110...

If we wanted all those former Clintonistas

back in the government, why didn't we just elect Clinton?

As to how to tell the good Republicans from the bad Republicans, wikipedia is helpful:

[Good Republicans] had certain characteristics by which they could be detected, such as the absence of a pulse. Nearly all were emotionless and had "mutated" fourth fingers which could not move and were bent at an unnatural angle, although there were many "deluxe models" who could manipulate this finger.

Note the past tense.

But I think your characterization of Republicans as "minions of Satan" is a little over the top. You should take the advice of this poster:

Too much hostility. Much will be lost with continued enmity; much will be gained if we can but find a way to reconcile and unite.

How true, badger, how true

[wipes tear. Wipes everal tears]

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Ah, if people would only recall quotes in context

Not nearly as much fun, I suppose, as mixing and matching to suit a predetermined agenda. That does sound delightful, exactly like the Big Boy journos do; we can all just pick out extracts and juxtapose them as we wish, misrepresentation all around, won't that be so productive and enlightening? Can someone please explain how that fits in with PB2.0?

It is the Progressive community I wish would find a way to reunite, although I have my doubts about the good intentions of some.

The Republicans can all go to hell for all I care, and Obama will rue the day he brings any on board.

Now you can both go wipe yourselves.

Looks like the DLC

will go into the memory hole. Back in the day at the big cheeto I seem to remember a great deal of righteous indignation at any mention of the DLC. I guess having the quintessential DLCer as Chief of State is the Brilliantest. Idea. Evah.

Someone at CR said that

Larry Summers is being considered for Treasury Sec. Another member of the Clinton administration.

My husband listened to National Press Club speeches by the DNC and RNC chairs today. Michael Duncan, the RNC chair, pretty much told everybody that the dem congressional leadership, Reid and Pelosi, were out-of-control liberals, and Obama had better drag them to the center and kowtow to the repubs if they wanted to get anything done.

One day after the election, after eight years of the Worst President Ever™.

He has his noive.

How's that desire for bipartisanship working out for you, Obama?

Larry Summers

You have probably seen this memo (h/t to A Tiny Revolution):

DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Distribution
FR: Lawrence H. Summers
Subject: GEP

'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:

1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.

The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.

I was wrong

I really didn't think Rahm would take this, at least not so quickly. But, euphoria is a helluvan emotion. Rahm is built for this kind of job, though. He's a much better manager, than a politician.

BTW, Obama wrote the Republicans a bipartisan check, and all should be as sure as hell to believe that they are going to attempt to cash it. They, not us, will be the ones that get to hold his feet to the fire. They are the ones he made promises to that he has to keep. Apparently, they are the ones we've been waiting for, I guess.

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...