“They flit around,” Jones said. “Rahm gets an idea at 10 a.m. and wants a briefing by 4 p.m., and I will say no,” because the work can’t be done that quickly. According to Woodward, Jones believed “the water bugs did not understand war or foreign relations . . . and were too interested in measuring the short-term political impact of the president’s decisions in these areas.”UPDATE: Jones goes.
But Emanuel turned out not to be particularly good at measuring the political impact of the president’s decisions. Or was his sage political counsel too often rejected by the president—as he has suggested on not-so-deep background to friendly journalists?
Showing posts with label Kristol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kristol. Show all posts
"According to Bob Woodward, National Security Adviser Jim Jones called Emanuel and his fellow political aides 'the water bugs.'"
Writes William Kristol:
"The crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made" — a lofty quote from Alexander Hamilton...
... quoted by William Kristol, who intones:
Add a thought bubble to the Kristol pic: Can I get a tie like that?
We are not now quite at a founding moment, or even a re-founding moment. But we have arrived at a genuine crisis, or a set of crises, and we may well be at a decisive moment for the country.A picture of Hamilton is included, and I can't help thinking Kristol's into Hamilton in part because there's a resemblance between the 2 men:
Add a thought bubble to the Kristol pic: Can I get a tie like that?
"A big debate on the Constitution, a serious debate, actually, in the Senate this year would be good for Republicans..."
And therefore Republicans will and should oppose any Supreme Court nominee Obama comes up with — even "a very respectable choice" like Elena Kagan — says Bill Kristol.
Watch/read the diavlog. It's very funny, because Juan Williams tries to push Kristol back: How is it that a conservative President gets to "nominate very conservative people to the court like the chief justice," and the conservatives expect Democratic Senators to vote for him because he's very highly qualified, and "then when a liberal president" gets his turn they get to put up opposition and won't vote for the nominee simply based merely on her very high qualifications? That sounds like a great argument, but the parry is pathetically easy:
And, of course, conservatives are always up — or should always be up — for a debate about how their approach to constitutional interpretation is properly and neutrally judicial and it's only the the liberal's approach that is political. That's not quite true, but the general public is immensely receptive, and the liberals know it. That's why, when their nominee comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, regardless of the reason why she was picked — e.g., her empathy with the poor and the unfortunate — she is not going to open up and defend liberal constitutional jurisprudence. She is going to do her best imitation of John Roberts.
And that's why Bill Kristol is crushingly right: "A big debate on the Constitution, a serious debate" will benefit Republicans.
Watch/read the diavlog. It's very funny, because Juan Williams tries to push Kristol back: How is it that a conservative President gets to "nominate very conservative people to the court like the chief justice," and the conservatives expect Democratic Senators to vote for him because he's very highly qualified, and "then when a liberal president" gets his turn they get to put up opposition and won't vote for the nominee simply based merely on her very high qualifications? That sounds like a great argument, but the parry is pathetically easy:
Who voted against Justice Roberts and Justice Alito? A senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. Also a Senator from Delaware named Joe Biden. I don't think Barack Obama and Joe Biden can very well say about these two extremely well qualified nominees they voted against that Republicans in the Senate and conservatives in the country aren't entitled to say, "We respect Elena Kagan," or, "We respect Diane Wood..." [but...]You can't say let's stop noticing how political it is now, when I've got the political power.
And, of course, conservatives are always up — or should always be up — for a debate about how their approach to constitutional interpretation is properly and neutrally judicial and it's only the the liberal's approach that is political. That's not quite true, but the general public is immensely receptive, and the liberals know it. That's why, when their nominee comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, regardless of the reason why she was picked — e.g., her empathy with the poor and the unfortunate — she is not going to open up and defend liberal constitutional jurisprudence. She is going to do her best imitation of John Roberts.
And that's why Bill Kristol is crushingly right: "A big debate on the Constitution, a serious debate" will benefit Republicans.
"Jon [Stewart] has always been a crypto-neocon."
"Could he be coming out of the closet? ... A neoconservative is a liberal mugged by reality."
Bill Kristol comments to Howard Kurtz who's trying to figure out what it means that Jon Stewart is making fun of Barack Obama.
I'd say it mainly means that Barack Obama is President of the United States. "The Daily Show" isn't going to work unless it makes fun of the powerful.
Bill Kristol comments to Howard Kurtz who's trying to figure out what it means that Jon Stewart is making fun of Barack Obama.
I'd say it mainly means that Barack Obama is President of the United States. "The Daily Show" isn't going to work unless it makes fun of the powerful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
