What is he, an Arab?

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]

Funny that 2 inverse opinions are being expressed, some republicans are happy with the appointment, a nonpartisan indication, while others say he is partisan. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Moroever, it seems Obama is not going to allow Emanuel to have free reign, as he put his cheif of staff in place to watch dog him. Aka the deputy position. Is it a case of keeping your friends close and enemies closer?[/b]

---

Or a good cop, bad cop set-up.

*says with a straight face* I have also read that it's a great appointment because supposedly Emanuel is really hot and has really nice eyes and it will bring some sexiness back to the WH, unlike the Bush years. Not really sure about the indepth political analysis on that one, but hey it's out there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]From the father of Obama's new chief of staff:

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/07/obama-white-house-barackobam... you can believe in?[/url][/b]

---

So the sins of the father are visited upon the son? As I said in the other thread, a chief of staff is there to knock heads and keep the trains running on time. Policy is generally formulated elsewhere. If he appointed Emmanuel to a forein policy post, I would be more concerned.

Right, Eliza. I hear the Allenby Bridge is for sale. If I were you I'd put in a bid.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Suddenly your Google doesn't work, remind?

When did it become acceptable here to make an assertion and put the onus on everyone else to find the supporting evidence? It's a rhetorical question.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Right, Eliza. I hear the Allenby Bridge is for sale. If I were you I'd put in a bid.

 Really, so am I take it that your suggesting that we now depend on the Israeli media and lobby for all of our interpretation of US politics and action? When did that happen? Did I miss something somewhere?

 Are you suggesting that they don't have an inherrent bias to promote their own agenda that should not be taken into consideration when reading whatever they're blabbering about. 

 That's really all I was saying in regard to FM's question which was asking why shouldn't we believe their interpretation. 

 If there is other evidence that people take into consideration to form there view on it that's fine but I'm not going to apologize or be derrided for simply saying that focusing what Israel  is saying as if they don't have an agenda in the matter  is going to form a core base of my own opinion.  

 And I also suggested that there could very well be other reasons, including reasons to do with internal DNC politics for the appointment as well.

 I have actually used 'google' quite a bit. 

 Israel is only one issue among thousands. 

 I'm not disagreeing with the the contention that it puts question of access to particular viewpoints on the table either.  It is a question. 

 It is only a question though where the answer to it will only come when the admin takes power and actually does things.  

 I don't think that there will be a major change in foreign policy regarding Isreal anyway. Never did.  It's one area where my expectations are pretty much at zero and this has as much to do with what Obama has said on the matter as it does with a bunch of other systemic reasons.  

 Neither if I presumed that if Obama's views on Israel were somehow very different then the status quo (which his rhetoric around it would indicate no they aren't much different)  would he be able to take power and change things overnight anyways. In the US the question of 'Israel' is so tied up with internal politics both internally  within the Democratic Party and without in the wider public that the political ramifications of suddenly going 'progressive' without some serious reordering internally are significant.   

My God, the Obama cult has even spread to rabble. It is deeply disturbing that folks are rushing to defend Obama's choices, when his blatant establishment tilt since he locked up the nomination has been apparent for all to see.

 I was glad to see the backside of Bush, but am also seeing more of the same. Even if you want to support the incoming administration, you need to call Obama to task for his choices, not make excuses.

What is true is that Rahm Emmanuel is not only a ultra Likudist Hawk, but is also very close to the corporations involved in the Wall Street collapse. He also actively campaigned to keep out anti-war Democrats from the nomination process. Now the issue is what is the less dangerous proposition -- keeping him in Congress or as Chief of Staff.

pogge wrote:

And I would have thought that refusing to indulge in guilt by association would be mostly applauded here. We condemn it when the right does it. It's no more acceptable coming from the left.

Even for cultists with any capacity at all for critical thought, the line between reasonable doubt and complete guilt becomes more unrecognizable as his administration starts to take shape.  For the skeptics, his intentions became clear during the primaries and election campaign, both through his associations and via the spoken words from his own mouth on foreign policy.

But then your discourse with ceti included an inference that guilt by association, which Obama critics and others here on the board would contend is an accurate and logical argument based on his record, is a right wing tactic which should be condemned.  Isn't that an ad hominen tactic designed to narrow the range of what is acceptable?

Hmm. well.

Emanuel's fathers comment may not very well be used to condemn Emanuel or Obama directly, but then Obama has made a choice, a choice to give an important and influencial position to one who has made it his business to further the interests of a society where people like his father feel perfectly comfortable making overtly racist toilet cleaner statements about Arabs.

 Arabs are often described as "hewers of wood" in Israeli society, and the image of Arabs cleaning the floors at the Whitehouse is the Israeli version of African-American's doing the same.

Quote:

Working in the Clinton White House, Emanuel helped push through NAFTA, the crime bill, the balanced budget and welfare reform. He favored the war in Iraq, and when he was chairing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 he made great efforts to knock out antiwar Democratic candidates. On this site in October and November, 2006, John Walsh documented both the efforts and Emanuel’s role in losing the Democrats seats they would otherwise have won.

Hail to the Chief of Staff

Slumberjack wrote:

It isn't reputable without evidence of course, but unfortunately, there's plenty.  Take for instance his campaign.

Just ... wow!

If guilt by association is the name of the game here then why not the consideration that it could just as easily go the other way as well.

Cueball wrote:

It's Emanuel's past actions that we are talking about.

 No it's not actually what the main crux of this convo is about.  I don't think anyone here, at least so far, is debating his past actions at all.  

Emanuel's fathers statements are his own. They stand among so many similar racist statements made by Israelis, where racism against Arabs is not only acceptable, but state policy, and this is the state that Emmanuel, has steadfastly defended. The state incidentally that Emanuel's father helped build.

I suppose it might be co-incidental.

So unless you think you can score more Obamapoints by trying to limit the discussion to a moral point, in liu of discussing the verifiable facts of Emanuel's past actions, and how those relate to what we can predict, I don't see how repetition of this point "guilt by association" when it has been conceded unviversally by everyone on this thread serves any useful purpose.

 You don't have anything to say about this, for example:

Quote:

Walsh took a hard look at the 2006 Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which had elected the disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. In 2004 Cegelis, who iwas only mildly antiwar, ran as the Democrat with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44 per cent in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in the November poll, in 2006.

Enter Rahm Emanuel, who promptly dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she remained committed to "staying the course" in Iraq. Duckworth had no political experience and did not live in the 6th District. Emanuel raised a million dollars for her and brought in Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke out a primary victory by a measly four percentage points.

It is from the rest of the article that I linked above, and that you in part quoted in your last quote from me, which it would seem you didn't bother reading. It's the background, on what you dismissed out of hand, in other words.

Past actions.

remind wrote:

Nope, I didn't bother reading it, I was too shocked to realize I missed meeting him, and thus my chance to expound on him for his negative future actions.

Thanks for saying where it came from.

 __________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

Are these more the kinds of "future actions" you expect:

 Morning in Obamerica

Quote:

What does this promise land look like?This Obamerica? Shortly after Obama is sworn in, the police, instead of subjecting blacks and Hispanics to capricious traffic stops, will only stop them to offer free tickets to the policeman’s ball.  Throughout the country, they will address blacks and Hispanics as sir and ma'm. The overcrowding prison problem will end, because all of the blacks and Hispanics who’ve been sent there as a result of prosecutorial and police misconduct, -probably half- will be set free. And all of those police who have murdered unarmed blacks only to be acquitted by all-white juries will be retried. Blacks will have the freedom to shop in department stores without being watched. 

[SNIP]

All of the blacks and Hispanics who have been driven out of New York, Oakland, and San Francisco, as a result of the policies of ethnic cleansing, advocated by Jerry Brown, Giuliani and Newsom, will be invited to return. The banks that aimed toxic mortgage loans to blacks and Hispanics, who would have qualified for conventional loans had they been white, will halt the foreclosure process and renegotiate these loans. CEOs on Wall Street will forego bonuses and golden parachutes. Sales conferences
will be held at Day’s Inn. For rent signs will go up on K street. The American Enterprise will close its doors. 

The right will stop using worn out phrases like “ political correctness, ’ and victimization” and hire Sean “Puffy” Combs to provide them with some hip language. 

An Obama administration will launch the Obama doctrine, which will advocate friendly aggression and soft diplomacy in Africa, Asia  the Middle East and other global spots where American forces are killing people.  These trouble spots wll be inundated with artists, writers, dancers and musicians, engineers, doctors and people who speak their languages. 

pogge wrote:

Now the subject of the thread is that I'm just a dumb goober who has fallen prey to the mesmerizing mind control powers of Obama and I've lost my ability to think critically.

You're taking the wait and see approach, I understand that.  And no, I haven't called you anything of the sort, nor would I.  All of these Obama threads have a common theme, with the general debate divided between gushing followers, guarded optimists, and critics.  Personally, I tend to gravitate toward the side laden with evidence and fact.  Admittedly, I've tuned in to many of Obama's speeches, and from time to time, did experience that "wow" factor you mentioned, because after all, he is a gifted orator.  Nevertheless, and I believe I mentioned this in another Obama thread, he's being held to such a high standard of expectation, and for those that adore his every word, he is charged with the unenviable task of unravelling centuries of white supremacy, all the while being held responsible, as part of his job description, for maintaining it's structures intact.  If he hasn't grasped the massive scope of what is expected of him, and the changes needed to address those expectations, his administration will be a colossal disappointment for many people.  His opening moves thus far, combined with his statements throughout the campaign, are not encouraging.

remind wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Are these more the kinds of "future actions" you expect:

Morning in Obamerica

Actually, I don't expect anything from Obama, and have not made 1 comment about any expectations of what Obama will do. Moreover, I am also not going to waste my time on negative speculations either. They are both unknowns at this point in time and as such useless. But hey, you can go ahead and waste your time creating strawmen to hold up pretending that I have said something, so that you can criticize me for what I never said.

However, from having reread your linked article, as I had read it prior, a few days ago and had dismissed it, as it had Nader giving opinions, I find that I must stand with the 1 position that I stated before. This could be, not saying it is, a case of "keeping your friends close and your enemies closer" and I find this supported by the fact that Obama has appointed his senate chief of staff as Emanuel's chief assistant, and did not let Emanuel choose his own. As such, I do believe he watch dogged Emanuel too.

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

Excelent. I guess we can dispense with putting out any negative vibe around Stephen Harpers government. Wouldn't want to jinx it. After all, new government, some of the faces are the same, so what? It's not like the past actions of past persons mean anything.

It's a whole new day!  Why ruin it with speculation?

And I entirely agree, any article which has Ralph Nader giving opinions should be dimissed. One can really tell a lot about someone by who their friends are. For instance, check out who Emanuel's friends are... I mean... family. No more need be said.