Rahm Emanuel vs. Josh Lyman
EmailABC News’ Teri Finneman reports:
Who do you think is the better chief of staff: Rahm Emanuel or Josh Lyman?
The fictional Bartlet administration was on the Hill today with “The West Wing” stars Martin Sheen, Bradley Whitford and Richard Schiff promoting the Employee Free Choice Act.
For those more in tune with their TV names, that would be President Bartlet, Josh Lyman and Toby Ziegler.
All three stars jokingly drew on their fictional administration roles during the event to unveil a new ad and grass-roots campaign for the “card check” bill.
“On behalf of the acting president of the United States, thank you all for being here,” Whitford said to laughter. “By the way, I’m his, his Rahm.”
“If you want to talk to him (Sheen), you talk to me first. But I was on a network White House, so I can’t swear,” Whitford quipped about the real chief of staff’s well-known use of profanity.
Granted, Josh Lyman was actually Bartlet’s DEPUTY chief of staff, so a better comparison would be to say, Jim Messina, but now that wouldn’t be as funny, would it?
Schiff also took his turn making cracks.
“Thank you, Rahm,” he said to Whitford, who introduced him.
After Whitford and Schiff’s strong push for the bill, real politicians Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Rob Andrews, D-N.J., arrived to defend the legislation before Sheen could speak.
The fictional president waited his turn until Whitford announced “the awkward segway back to fake politician.”
We shall see if the Bartlet administration’s support for the controversial union-backed legislation makes a difference.
– ABC News’ Teri Finneman
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Josh was definitely more Stephanopolous than Rahm.
Posted by: silky | March 31, 2009, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm
Obama and his party of clowns, you realize you have never once made a compelling case for anything, right? All you do is wing rocks at the administration while offering nothing substantive as an alternative.
Posted by: silky | March 31, 2009, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm
The first four seasons of the West Wing were by and large incredible. It’s remarkable how fast the quality of the show disintegrated without the guidance of Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme.
Posted by: silky | March 31, 2009, 2:08 pm 2:08 pm
Rahmbo beats fiction any day.
Posted by: Matt | March 31, 2009, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm
Lyman was Bartlett’s Deputy Chief of Staff, and was based on Rahm’s similar role in the Clinton Administration. He becomes Santos’s COS at the end of the series, but you never see him in that role because the series ends. A small thing, but doesn’t ABCNews have any fact checkers on staff anymore?
Posted by: Brien Jackson | March 31, 2009, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm
“A small thing, but doesn’t ABCNews have any fact checkers on staff anymore?”
Read the article. She acknowledges that Josh was Deputy.
Posted by: silky | March 31, 2009, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
The late John Spencer played Leo McGarry, Chief of Staff.
Seems to me I saw a Twitter post from you recently suggesting people should use Google to check for certain basic info!
Posted by: nancyls | March 31, 2009, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
“Seems to me I saw a Twitter post from you recently suggesting people should use Google to check for certain basic info!”
Lol. Read the article, she acknowledges that Josh was Deputy.
Posted by: silky | March 31, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
Could we just trade Bartlet and his people for Obama?
Posted by: Keith | March 31, 2009, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm
Read the article. It says that Josh was actually the deputy despite the chief of staff jokes.
Posted by: tina | March 31, 2009, 2:53 pm 2:53 pm
Seems to me I saw a Twitter post from you recently suggesting people should use Google to check for certain basic info!
======
Was the Twitter from the author of this post, Teri Finneman?
Don’t forget to check for basic info!
Posted by: MayBee | March 31, 2009, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
“Don’t forget to check for basic info!”
Or to…y’know…read the piece.
Posted by: silky | March 31, 2009, 3:32 pm 3:32 pm
Josh was more likable. Rahm seems a bit too gnarly for network drama.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | March 31, 2009, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
the awkward segway???
has Bartlett’s MS progressed so far that he’s now the terror of the hallways?
Posted by: Luther Weston | March 31, 2009, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm
Oh, you’re kidding.
As long as we’re on such a nonsensical subject, one might just as well ask who’s the better national correspondent — Teri Finneman of ABC News, or the fictional New York Times reporter Greg Brock of “The West Wing”?
Posted by: Donald from Hawaii | March 31, 2009, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm
You meant to type “segue”.
And Josh was the COS for President Santos, so I guess it kind of works if you aren’t too picky.
Posted by: AJ | April 1, 2009, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
It’s ironic that the same actors who vote by secret ballot when choosing the leadership of the Screen Actors Guild, are there in DC lobbying to take the secret ballot away from millions of American workers. More than anyone, the creative community in Hollywood should understand that free speech and the right to self expression should be protected. I guess these actors believe that empowering labor bosses is more important than protecting a fundamental tenet of our democracy. It must be nice to have the luxury of applying free speech principles when it’s convenient.
Posted by: HobokenJohn | April 1, 2009, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
HobokenJohn, Employee Free Choice Act *doesn’t* take away the secret ballot from millions of workers. Read the bill – it protects workers. The act would allow the workers to decide whether to use card check or secret ballot.
Economists have come out and said that now, more than ever, is the time for a bill like this.
Given that this is about giving workers total free choice, how can anyone be against the bill?
Posted by: Jennifer | April 1, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
“It’s ironic that the same actors who vote by secret ballot when choosing the leadership of the Screen Actors Guild, are there in DC lobbying to take the secret ballot away from millions of American workers. More than anyone, the creative community in Hollywood should understand that free speech and the right to self expression should be protected. I guess these actors believe that empowering labor bosses is more important than protecting a fundamental tenet of our democracy. It must be nice to have the luxury of applying free speech principles when it’s convenient.”
How do you know what their feelings are regarding secret ballots?
Posted by: silky | April 1, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
“HobokenJohn, Employee Free Choice Act *doesn’t* take away the secret ballot from millions of workers. Read the bill – it protects workers. The act would allow the workers to decide whether to use card check or secret ballot.”
Huh? It does not “protect” workers, it provides an avenue for union-supporting thugs to harass workers (I know of what I speak – I have worked in union and non-union shops and also in anti-union campaigns – this bill is a HORRIBLE IDEA that only benefits the union stakeholders, i.e., union leadership and politicians they support)
“Economists have come out and said that now, more than ever, is the time for a bill like this.”
Really? Who? Do tell, I’m curious.
“Given that this is about giving workers total free choice, how can anyone be against the bill?”
The “choice” is not free. Workers already have a choice to organize via the secret ballot – Why is a non-secret, “card check” approach to approving a union to represent workers a more “free” choice?
Posted by: tjp612 | April 1, 2009, 5:39 pm 5:39 pm
Mój poprzednik napisal prawde oraz w 100 % moge podpisac sie pod tamtym wpisem.
Posted by: Nasze mazury to cud natury | October 14, 2011, 6:21 pm 6:21 pm