FYI: Axelturf & Rahmbo exiting the WH does NOT mean Chicago Way is going anywhere

Excitement filled the air this week for a short time as CBS News reported that WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior White House advisor David Axelrod were preparing to leave the WH in the coming months. But if you’re thinking their departure means that the Chicago Way has run its course in Washington, DC, think again:

(CBS) President Obama’s inner circle will likely be losing some key players. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports that sources say David Axelrod, the president’s closest advisor, will move to Chicago next spring.

Axelrod is expected to reassume his role as campaign manager in Mr. Obama’s 2012 reelection bid. A potential, if not likely, replacement for Axelrod is current White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

The dominoes don’t stop there. Rahm Emanuel, the president’s Chief of Staff, may leave the White House as soon as next month.

Emanuel has told colleagues that he’s very likely to run for mayor of Chicago, and that could see him depart the White House in October.

“I’m not going to rule anything in or out. He’s in the process of thinking through what’s best for Rahm,” Gibbs told reporters Wednesday on Air Force One.

Which means he’ll be running for mayor.

And Robert Gibbs potentially taking his Axelrod’s place as senior advisor to President Obama? Expect more of the same Axelrod-esque partisan, vicious swipes and smears about the GOP in the months to come.

Chicago’s Greg Hinz confirmed the report about Axelrod’s “departure” this morning:

Top presidential political hand David Axelrod is confirming that he intends to leave the Obama White House and come back to Chicago “late next spring.”

But he says that always was his plan, and that, back in Chicago, he expects to participate in a major way in President Barack Obama’s presumed re-election campaign.

In a phone interview, Mr. Axelrod dismissed media chatter that he’s being pushed out of the White House because of big anticipated Democratic losses in the upcoming mid-term elections.

“Nothing I’ve said, that I’ve said privately, is different — I’d be in Washington two, two-and-a-half years,” Mr. Axelrod said. “I’ll be back late next spring — after the mayoral election.”

Mr. Axelrod did not say exactly what he would do in Mr. Obama’s campaign, but said it would be at “a high level” similar to two years ago, when someone else had the title campaign manager but Mr. Axelrod served as chief campaign strategist.

Talk that he’s a scapegoat is silly, Mr. Axelrod added. “The point is, I’m not leaving (early).”

In short, Axelrod will be in the same role he was in during the 2008 campaign, and that he’s been in for the last two years in the Obama administration: Dupe-ster Extraordinaire. He got away with the rhetorical, blustery, celebrity, healer-of-the-world campaign in 2008, but hopefully next time around – in 2012 – the GOP will be prepared for it.


Cross-posted to Right Wing News.

Mexican town resorts to mob justice

With the authorities unable to protect them, the residents of a small town in the state of Chihuahua that has suffered an average of three kidnappings per week finally had enough:

Ascension is a farming community of some 15,000 people, about 100 miles south of the border with New Mexico. In the past two years, kidnapping and extortion have been rampant.

“Our problems with public security have spoiled our progress in this town,” says Rafael Camarillo, the outgoing mayor.

The public fury happened Tuesday when an armed group allegedly kidnapped a 16-year-old girl from her family’s seafood restaurant. The kidnappers escaped down a gravel road, and word of the missing girl spread quickly.

Soon, a group of about 200 residents began the chase. Three of the alleged kidnappers were captured by the Mexican military, who have a presence in the town.

Three others fled into a nearby cotton field, where one was later found dead. The other two were hunted down and beaten by the mob from Ascension.

“When they found them, it was a direct aggression,” says Ignacio Rodriguez, a local kitchen-cabinet maker who was elected to head city council next month.

The girl was rescued unharmed by the residents.

Two of the kidnappers were taken by federal police to a nearby Mexican Army base, but the mob wasn’t done with them: they stormed the base, seized the kidnappers, and locked them in a hot car until they died.

Let’s be blunt: these three deaths were acts of murder. But it is both hard to sympathize with the victims and not hard to sympathize with the townsfolk. What are they supposed to do when their own government can’t or won’t protect them? The local force was so useless that the Mayor of Ascension fired them all after this incident. Corruption is rampant in the local, state, and federal police forces. At some point, the people are left with a choice: wait like sheep to be slaughtered or fight back. The people of Ascenscion made their choice.

Of course, fighting back against teenaged kidnappers is one thing, but striking back at heavily armed, ruthless cartels is another altogether. Mexico’s gun laws are very strict, so law-abiding citizens are effectively disarmed from the start. Yet the presence of such laws implies a clause in the social contract: in return for not bearing arms, the state promises to protect its citizens. If the government cannot do this, then the contract is broken and the state loses legitimacy. Society reverts to a state of nature and residents are forced to take justice into their own hands.

While Mexico is not yet a failed state and may never become one, the incidents at Ascension are nevertheless further signs of a fraying social fabric that, unmended, could one day fall apart.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Klavan on the Culture’s Guide to the Elections

To make sure the voting citizen is as informed and cynical as possible before November’s balloting, Andrew Klavan provides us with a guide to the election. This week’s episode features part one, on the economy:

Much better than those innumerable mailers you get in the mail and throw away unread, don’t you think?

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Please join me in demanding that liberal “feminists” get a life

Phony “outrage” alert:

If the women at the feminist group The New Agenda do not hear an apology soon from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his “sexist” comment, he will be facing more than just a few frowning fems.

At a New York fundraiser hosted by Mayor Michael Bloomberg earlier this week, Reid praised New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand for being the “hottest member” in the Senate.

When Politico asked Reid’s office for a clarification, spokesman Jim Manley said, “What can I say, she made The Hill’s ‘Most Beautiful’ list. Of course, he also went on to praise her skill and tenacity and described her as an effective member of the New York delegation as well.”

Amy Siskind, president and co-founder of The New Agenda, told The Daily Caller that if Reid does not promptly voice regret, she and her group will be building a coalition against the senator and demanding a mea culpa.

“We believe Senator Harry Reid needs to issue an apology,” Siskind said. “He had a chance to clarify his comments and instead of clarifying it his spokesperson just said, ‘yeah, that’s basically what he meant,’ and in this day and age if that is the way he is going to refer to one of the seventeen women in the Senate, then you know he should just get back on his dinosaur and go back to Nevada and stay there.”

Mai Shiozaki, spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women (NOW), said that Reid’s comments were inappropriate, but that Republicans are more guilty of sexism.

“Senator Reid should not have said that,” Shiozaki wrote TheDC in an email. “It was inappropriate and sexist. However, to be fair, so was the comment Bruce Blakeman, who was Sen. Gillibrand’s then-Republican challenger, said in a debate when asked to say one nice thing about Gillibrand. Blakeman said she was, ‘an attractive, bright woman who I believe is a good mom.’ And, might I remind people about Bush’s ‘Massage-Gate’ back in 2006 when he infamously rubbed German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s shoulders. That was equally, if not, worse because that crossed the line of sexual harassment.”

Oh, good GRIEF! Do these feminitwits not understand that for a comment or action to be considered “sexual harassment” that there has to be a sexual intent behind the it? From the EEOC’s website:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Now, raise your hand if you believe that there was a sexual intent behind Bush’s brief shoulder rub of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Right. Didn’t think so. In retrospect, he probably wishes he hadn’t done it if for no other reason than to get the perpetually outraged on the left off his back, but as we all know – and as the world knew at the time – Bush was not exactly skilled in social graces and he likely gave her the quick shoulder rub in the same way he would to a male colleague. That said, to my knowledge, this is not something he ever did again.

Back to Reid, none of us are fans of his and we all would love to see him exit stage left in the fall elections, but for “feminist leaders” to suggest that Reid was being “sexist” with his remarks about Gillibrand defies all logic and cheapens the commonly understood definition of “sexism” which is to judge a man or woman solely based on their looks/sex. A recap of Reid’s remarks suggests that in addition to calling Gillibrand “hot” he also extensively praised her on policy matters. As I wrote back in June in response to the faux liberal “concern” that conservative women were being “objectified” by conservative men, the heart of the issue really wasn’t concern over “objectification” at all:

Even more so than the so-called “objectifying,” I think at the heart of all this as far as liberal complaints are concerned is an uncomfortableness with gender compliments. Gender feminists in particular are particularly so because they want to erase gender lines and differences all together – an impossible task but shhh! we won’t tell them that. It’s so much fun watching them spinning around in circles trying to explain why women are “no different” than men – while at the same time hypocritically attempting to not only be the dominant sex (“if it a woman was in charge there’d be no wars!”) but also demanding special treatment for women in many fields, especially those specifically geared for the rough and tumble that men are accustomed to (like serving on the front lines, etc). The apparently don’t stop to think that the very fact that they have to ask for the special treatment (aka a “modification” in requirements) is because women are indeed different than men.

And thank God for it, right? How boring would this world be if there were no differences between the two sexes?

And how boring would it be if we let the uber-left wing feministas dictate every syllable a man utters about a woman based on the left’s watered down definitions of sexism, sexual harassment, and misogyny? Do we really want “sexism” to be defined as anything complimentary a man says about a woman? I sure as heck don’t!

Unfortunately, there are always liberal feminist activist groups on standby ready to become outraged, and ready to launch “demand apologies!!” campaigns for any perceived slight, whether the alleged “slight” comes from a politician, pundit, journalist, etc. I just think it would be a better use of their time to, instead of wasting time on non-issues like Reid’s “hottest” comment, they stand up en masse when real sexism takes place, as it has for the last two-plus years with Sarah Palin and the obsession the far left has with her looks, and their belief that she is nothing more than a pretty face.

Won’t hold my breath on that one, though, because – even though you might see a small scattering of liberal feminists decrying the rampant sexism over Sarah Palin coming from the so-called “tolerant” left – the vast majority of them will ignore it because Sarah Palin, to them, is not “pro-woman” so that means she is not a “real woman” and as a result is, to them, not really worthy of defending.

No bigs. Conservatives don’t really need nor want the help of far left so-called “women’s rights advocates” in dealing with sexist attacks against conservative women like Sarah Palin. But that sure as heck won’t stop us from pointing out their hypocrisy on the issue – not to mention their pettiness on non-issues like the Gillibrand compliment – time and time again.