home

Obama's New Chief of Staff: Pete Rouse

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 08:54:30 PM EST
Tags: Pete Rouse (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Pete Rouse will replace Rahm Emanuel as President Obama's Chief of Staff. Who?

A trusted adviser dating back to Obama's first days in the Senate, Rouse helped guide Obama's Washington rise. Obama once described Rouse as "completely ego-free."

He's known as a "fixer." Some insiders are skeptical.

[S]ome insiders question whether Rouse will be forceful enough to keep the rival power centers in the West Wing in check. Where Emanuel had his own base and was in many ways the dominant generator of ideas within the White House, Rouse is considered more of an arbitrator. He is also viewed as unthreatening by other senior members of the staff.

Obama will make the announcement at 11 a.m. Friday.

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | U.S. Seeks Life Sentence for Times Square Bomber >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's New Chief of Staff: Pete Rouse | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Rouse (4.25 / 4) (#2)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:00:22 AM EST
    Was the chief of Obama's Senate staff.  It was Rouse who warned Obama that voting to confirm Roberts would be a mistake.

    A real no-brainer but of course Obama needed a top advisor to tell him what even a casual observer knew.

    Eight months after Obama declared I read an article in the Washington Post that confirmed my growing suspicions about Obama.  Rouse is the principle subject of the article.  I considered that article to be the Rosetta Stone to understanding Obama.  To me it exposed Obama as an empty suit.

    Hiring Rouse may be Obama's tardy recognition that he's made catastrophic blunders.

    So the Rhamster is resigning to run for mayor of Chicago.  Isn't that something like saying you're resigning to spend more time with your family?

    lol (4.00 / 3) (#3)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 04:26:36 AM EST
    But it didn't bother you one bit that Hillary was also considering voting for Roberts.

    Parent
    LOL (4.40 / 5) (#8)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 10:15:54 AM EST
    How in hell would you have even the remotest clue about how I'd feel if Clinton had voted to confirm Roberts?  The answer is that you haven't the slightest idea.

    "I have found it is very difficult for Democrats to influence this White House on anything, and so I don't count on them paying attention to our legitimate concerns," Mrs. Clinton said, adding, "They will do what they think is in their interest, however they define it."

    ...

    Perhaps no Democrat faces as big a dilemma as Senator Clinton, who has been positioning herself as more of a centrist as she considers a possible White House bid. Republican senators are already taking pains to remind the public that many of them voted in favor of President Bill Clinton's Supreme Court nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
    Like other Democrats, Mrs. Clinton was circumspect Thursday, saying she would review the hearing transcript before deciding how to vote.
    "There are a lot of considerations and some of them are competing, so we just have to weigh each of them," she said, "and every senator might have a slightly different weight to give."

    Now where do you see Ms. Clinton say she's going to vote for him?  

    Inasmuch as Obama is concerned he said he would vote for Roberts until Rouse warned him off.  Obama indicated that he'd rubber stamp any President's nominee.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:00:32 AM EST
    Nice editing job there:

    still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice.

    Becomes:

    Inasmuch as Obama is concerned he said he would vote for Roberts

    Sure sounds to me that Clinton was considering Roberts as well..

    Perhaps no Democrat faces as big a dilemma as Senator Clinton, who has been positioning herself as more of a centrist as she considers a possible White House bid. Republican senators are already taking pains to remind the public that many of them voted in favor of President Bill Clinton's Supreme Court nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

    Like other Democrats, Mrs. Clinton was circumspect Thursday, saying she would review the hearing transcript before deciding how to vote.

    NYT

    And "like other Democrats" she acted accordingly:

    "They will do what they think is in their interest, however they define it."

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#14)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:59:52 PM EST
    You avoid the question.  How in hell do you know how I would feel?

    You're making assumptions and you're way off base.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 01:24:41 AM EST


    Parent
    Facts (1.33 / 3) (#6)
    by Politalkix on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:53:16 AM EST
    Even in 2010, more liberals among the Democrats prefer Obama while more conservatives in the party prefer Hillary. link  
    This was true in 2008, is true now, and probably will be true in 2012. The way a lot of commenters are trying to rewrite political history in this blog is almost comical.

    Parent
    Yes (2.25 / 4) (#10)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    And to think some here have become so radicalized that they will sit out all elections until Hillary gets the respect she deserves.

    It was as if a chasm existed between Hillary and Obama....

    While in fact the chasm was only in the heads of those who saw the two candidates as black and white.

    Parent

    God forbid (none / 0) (#1)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:01:50 PM EST
    the pres. should have a chief of staff who isn't threatening and is instead a facilitator.

    From everything I've heard, what's almost unprecedented was Rahm taking on the role of routinely being a forceful advocate for one side or another of policy issues.  CoS's job has traditionally been to make sure the prez. hears all sides of these things and only offers an opinion when directly asked by the boss.

    I honestly don't know what (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 08:19:45 AM EST
    the chief of staff is supposed to accomplish other than successes for the President.  It would seem at this time that the job slot was filled with a failure unless everything that was accomplished thusfar has been exactly what the President defined as the successes that he wanted achieved.

    Parent
    Chief of staff (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 10:05:53 AM EST
    Is primarily supposed to organize access to the prez., making sure he/she gets face time in an orderly way to hear the points of view of the people in his administration whose points of view he should hear in the process of making a decision.

    It's up to the president to achieve successes for the president.

    Emanuel has so distorted the whole picture that it's easy to lose sight of that.

    Parent

    I hope you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:49:06 AM EST
    about what the overall effect of having Rahm as chief of staff is.  I need something to improve for real people.

    Parent
    I hate to say it (2.00 / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:46:03 PM EST
    but for all we know, Rahm's effect was to push Obama to the left of where he would otherwise have been.  Who will end up being the primary policy influence(s) on Obama with the basically neutral Rouse is a question I don't have an answer to.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:33:35 PM EST
    Well if that is true than Hillary was really right wing. Most analysis had her slightly to the right of Obama, and that way before he got involved with Rahm.

    But good to know that you are staying on point here, as usual.

    Parent

    Analysis of what though? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:54:23 AM EST
    Obama didn't have much of a record, not much of one at all.  The analysis was based on what he said, not what he did.  Now that we have all experienced what he does it is pretty obvious where he falls into place on the left/right spectrum.

    Parent
    Analysis (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:57:57 AM EST
    Most if not all the political ranking databases based primarily on voting records, ranked Obama slightly to the left of Hillary.

    Bottom line, no tangible political difference between them, save for style.

    Parent

    Identical (or nearly identical) policy positions (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 06:17:02 PM EST
    ... do not mean that they are interchangeable, or that the only differences are those of "style", no matter how many times you repeat it.

    But the reason you repeat that silly mantra is obvious.

    Parent

    that's true (none / 0) (#18)
    by hookfan on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    Though post election didn't Obama change most of his team that got him elected and posited the corporate hack brigade in place? I'm sure there were arguments about what the positing of Timmy, Larry, Rahm, Salazar, etc. in place meant for any "progressive" agenda.
      Of course Hill could have been even more "conservative" than Bush (like Obama is on state secrets doctrine, etc), but we'll never know.
      Doesn't matter either for me as I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she'd done the exact things that Obama has.
      I do have my doubts if Hillary would have proceeded with the Bipartisan Unity bs though. Her experience would likely,imo,prevented that stupidity.

    Parent
    The "experience" meme again.. (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 02:01:01 PM EST
    if experience in and of itself were all it took to make one stand firmly on principal and transcend bipartisanship, why wasn't her voting record more liberal than it was to begin with?

     

    Parent

    Who says (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by hookfan on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 10:23:04 PM EST
    experience is all it took? I could just as easily add that Hillary approaches Republicans with some intelligence rather than stupidity and thus would never, ever,  believe in the fairy tale of "bipartisanship" and Ronald Reagan. She has never been that idiotic, especially after her whitehouse experiences of near continuous investigations.
     I mean how stupid do you think she is to not consider those experiences, regardless how conservative she supposedly is/was?
      Obama, I'm giving credit too, assuming his stupidity with bipartisanship ponies in the sky, is due to lack of experience rather than intelligence.
    Or perhaps you think he's stupid, rather than inexperienced?
      Of course it could be due to his being corrupt, rather than inexperience, or stupidity. Which factor would you choose?

    Parent
    Forgot a factor (none / 0) (#32)
    by hookfan on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:09:47 PM EST
    Since the meme heard from Obama supporters is that we should vote for Democrats because Republicans are "crazy", perhaps you think Obama is insane? Why else would he try to adjoin with the "crazy" unless he was corrupt, inexperienced, stupid, or insane?
      Perhaps he lacks judgment. But the question remains as to why?
       I think the best answer for him is: inexperienced. Of course you could settle for corrupt, stupid or insane if you wish too. But that isn't very supportive of Obama is it?
     

    Parent
    Take a deep breath (1.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 06:57:33 PM EST
    close your eyes, take a deep breath again, repeat the words "experience" and "fighter", form an image of Rocky Balboa in your mind, think of Hillary, imagine her with red boxing gloves, drink some koolaid, repeat the words experience and fighter, start posting in TL, continue with this loop.....
    HRC has to be understood through the mentioned process, what has her voting record got to do with it? Snark.

    Parent
    That's quite an imagination ... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:17:02 PM EST
    ... you have.

    Parent
    Incorrect, it was on what he did (none / 0) (#19)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 01:29:36 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    You mean ... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 05:52:59 PM EST
    ... because of the fact that he missed more votes and NJ's screwed-up methodology?

    ... 'kay.

    Parent

    What happened to 2008 :)? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 06:56:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Analysis (none / 0) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 01:49:33 PM EST
    Based on analysis of voting records of Senator Obama, he talked "bipartisan" but voted "liberal", exactly the opposite of what you are saying.


    Parent
    Dear downrating Politalkix (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 06:54:39 PM EST
    (not that downrating matters that much here), but please allow me to share some past political reality and a past link to a post from this very blog.

    In rating the most liberal Senators Clinton came in 29th out of 100 and Obama came in 43rd.  Clinton was more liberal than Obama based on voting record silly rabbit.

    Parent

    OMG (none / 0) (#28)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:16:37 PM EST
    HRC "ranked as the number 1 progressive among all Senators on Darfur, nuclear weapons, arms control treaties, military spending in general, intelligence oversight, general U.S. military intervention overseas, and the well-being of military personnel."

    Now we know why we have so much confusion regarding "progressivism".

    Parent

    Whatever you do (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:06:12 PM EST
    Don't cherry pick or anything

    Parent
    You're the only one who's confused (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:50:18 PM EST
    HRC "ranked as the number 1 progressive among all Senators on Darfur, nuclear weapons, arms control treaties, military spending in general, intelligence oversight, general U.S. military intervention overseas, and the well-being of military personnel.  Now we know why we have so much confusion regarding "progressivism

    Are you suggesting it's not possible to have progressive positions on these issues, or that they're not important?

    I guess it could just be that this runs counter to your citing of the National Journal which claimed Obama was the most liberal Senator in 2008, despite its admittedly flawed methodology and all of Obama's missed votes.  Hey, ..... wasn't that the same NJ that claimed Kerry was the "most liberal" Senator in 2004?  Even more liberal that Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders?

    Funny stuff.

    Parent

    Rival power centers indeed (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 08:16:06 AM EST
    From the lay of the land at this minute, the whole West wing ought to have its butt kicked.  Rival power centers (snort)....empowered by whom and what, at this time nothing larger than their own egos.

    Obama's New Chief of Staff: Pete Rouse | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment