The Obama administration has been in the White House for almost two years and we’re starting to see some predictable turnover. So far, Rahm Emanuel is stepping down as chief of staff to run for mayor of Chicago, Lawrence Summers is leaving the National Economic Council, and Robert Gates is leaving as secretary of defense at the end of the year. It’s been reported in the past that Senior Adviser David Axelrod will leave the White House next year and start working on the 2012 re-election campaign. Just now Emanuel is being replaced by Pete Rouse, who was Obama’s chief of staff in the Senate, and Austin Goolsbee is replacing Summers. I have not heard who might replace Gates or Axelrod. After the midterm elections more changes could be made.
So with those changes, and potentially others to follow, who is going to be in or out? What might change about the administration’s strategy and goals? Emanuel was famous for a blunt, arm-twisting style. Rouse probably won’t cut such a high-profile figure. I don’t know how much of a difference that will make but as a former Senate aide, perhaps he can help the White House establish a better relationship with Congress. Nobody seemed fond of Summers, for sure.
The rumor is to replace Gates, it’s either going to be Chuck Hagel, Richard Danzig (Cinton’s Secretary of the Navy, Chairman of The Center for a New American Security) or Jack Reed (Senator from Rhode Island).
eta. Mk. stands for Mark. The Obama Administration Mk. II would be the second version of the Obama administration.
Right. The changes aren’t on the scale you’d expect if he gets re-elected, but enough people are starting to move around that the administartion could take on a different character. And it looks like Obama won’t be surrounded to the same extent by his core group of people.
I look for the current administration to go into “Rope-a-Dope” mode until mid 2011. They know they’re probably going to lose control of at least one side of Congress in November. They’ll likely coverup, try to absorb the body blows they know are coming, and then start counter-punching in earnest after a few months, hoping to build some sort of momentum while it still matters. Once 2012 starts, the focus will shift to the election, and little of substance is going to happen.
I’m also predicting Obama loses in 2012. He’ll be remembered more favorably than Carter, but still as another failed Democratic one term POTUS.
Nobody can get cooperation from the Repubs. They will obstruct in a bloc as long as they are out of power. Then complain because congress can not get things done.
Maybe not, but we don’t know how much cooperation they’ll need from the Republicans. Getting cooperation from Democrats has been a problem for them, too. That’s more what I had in mind.
Obama is going to announce today that James Jones is leaving as national security adviser. He’ll be replaced by Thomas Donilon, who was Warren Christopher’s chief of staff and coached Obama on foreign policy during the campaign.
There is an outside chance that the WH and Washington Democrats in general might recognize that they completely underwhelmed their base. After the Howard Dean inspired sweeps of 2006 and 2008 to then rule the roost and not bring the change that was hyped, the enthusiasm gap was mostly something they created and could have been avoided. To be honest, I think they were not, in general, on the same page as the base but by now this must be clear to them. Obama has a fair share of political smarts and if he is willing to adapt and force the Senate, should they hold it, to toe a much more progressive agenda they could possibly capture some of the fire and even score some points by building on what they’ve legislated into place over the last two years. If the Democrats hold the Senate they must seriously reform the filibuster or do away with it as well, otherwise, game over.
That said, the House is pretty sure to have a Republican majority (though it may turn out not to be as large as expected) and the gridlock will become much worse and it will be harder for either side to make their case. And at the present time I’d say the odds are 2 out of 3 chances that the Democrats think their problem was that they weren’t conservative or corporatist enough which would likely seriously evaporate their base.
Also, the Republicans have promised to commit Impeachment if they get control of the House. Prepare for two years that mirror Clinton’s last term, with investigations and subpoenas and impeachment committees and unholy amounts of completely wasted time on witch hunts.
I almost hope it happens, actually. A Republican-controlled House that spends its entire term looking under rocks for proof that the president wasn’t born in the US, or proof that the president is Muslim, should finally convince a lot of people that the Republican Party is a giant mound of rotting garbage. Orly Taitz testifying before the House is just an added entertainment bonus.
I find it interesting that, after googling for news articles about Republicans impeaching Obama, the only article I could find on the whole idea came from
::: wait for it :::
The New Republic.
Got any cites for this? Or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
A little more digging found an article on the Huffington Post and a couple stories from absolute loons (Like LaRouche Democrat Kesha Rogers) but nothing from an actual, ya know, republican. Oh, and Kesha Rogers was *in favor *of impeaching Obama. So the only pol I was able to find who talked about impeaching Obama is a dem.
As the Repubs showed when Clinton was in power, they will investigate and hamstring Obama’s presidency . They will investigate his entire life, not that some of them haven’t already on the sly. If they found something ,we would have heard it by now. But they will enjoy distracting him for the next 6 years.
So this brings me to wondering if the the justice dept. with the help of Waxman, Conyers and others will have a back pocket full of investigations of Bushco that have laid dormant under what appears to be a bipartisanship-pedaling Obama administration. I’m sure there must have been a fair number of potentially criminal actions on the part of the previous administration and there must be some people in the government who have not stopped digging for evidence. Perhaps some cases may be stronger having had a couple of years following up.
I would find it hard to believe that this waste of time by the GOP couldn’t be deflected by threats of going back and digging up some actual illegalities that could potentially put some current or former high level Republicans behind bars. Of course I suppose Obama may have completely put the kabash on any such investigations though with someone like Rahm at the president’s elbow makes it hard for me to believe it. And Congress has been free to do what they want as well.
Well it is certainly something being talked about. Here Lamar Smith has talked about it and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo TANCREDO: The case for impeachment - Washington Times has also agreed. And here. There is lots of talk and if big britches worn after a big win they will be likely enough to believe their own bluster that they would use this as a tool to throw ever more monkey wrenches into the efforts of Democrats and Obama to legislate.
Asking for a ‘promise’ is naive as such a promise out loud would be likely to stir a hornet’s nest of outrage among Democrats who would find talk of impeaching Obama far more absurd than the Clinton impeachment, which still stings smartly among Democrats and would be a powerful tool to unleash against the GOP election efforts. And if you are suggesting that you have heard no such talk it would leave me to believe that you are poorly informed about current politics.
Although not a liberal, as a foreigner I hope Mr. Obama is re-elected. Then he’ll close Guantánamo.
I found it odd the Democrats never got their own back by impeaching Bushikins, they prolly could have found some transgressions if they looked hard enough.
Unless they preferred and profited from what he was doing, but didn’t want to upset their voter-base by endorsing such actions.