This part of the new book about Rahm is not very pleasant.

[madfloridian]

From the new book called The Thumpin, which supposedly gives Rahm credit for our win in November. If he wants and needs the credit that badly, I say let him have it. This is a rude attack on a city, a state, and a 12 year governor of that state. It is inexcusable.

The Legend of Rahm

Emanuel had witnessed this struggle in Illinois, too: it was the party regulars versus the goo-goos. Emanuel, the Daley protégé, is a regular who believes money and a disciplined organization win elections. He seemed to see Dean as a goo-goo, a good-government reformer with a base of liberal idealists who are more educated and individualistic than your average Democratic machine foot soldier, but less reliable when you need someone to hand out palm cards on Election Day. The machine has been paving over goo-goos since the 19th century. As a beery alderman once put it, "Chicago ain't ready for reform."

When Emanuel and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York met with Dean to ask him to shift money to congressional races, Emanuel mocked the former Vermont governor as a political lightweight from a tiny, rural, homogenous state. "No disrespect, but some of us are arrogant enough, we come from Chicago, we think we know what it means to knock on a door," Bendavid quotes Emanuel as telling Dean. Emanuel "slammed his hand on the table," then continued his tirade: "Look, Chuck comes from Brooklyn. I come from Chicago. It ain't Burlington, Vermont. Now, we understand that Burlington knows a lot about grassroots politics and we know nothing. I know your field plan -- it doesn't exist. I've gone around the country with these races. I've seen your people. There's no plan, Howard."

According to Bendavid, Emanuel left the room vowing not to be seen with Dean if the Democrats lost on Election Day. When Dean eventually offered $20,000 a race, Emanuel told him to fuck off. (Not literally -- although it's plausible.) Eventually, Dean ponied up a $12 million nationwide get-out-the-vote drive.

I say take the credit, Rahm, if you want it so much. Howard Dean did not try to take that credit away.

Kind of sad to be that needy for power. :shrug:

And what the heck is a "goo-goo"?

[Kagemusha]

1. Sounds like "good-government idealist" (i.e. moron, tool, patsy)

Apparently the only good Democrat on the streets is the one wielding a lead pipe.

[karynnj]

4. Gee wish would you rather be called a goo goo or a member of the Daley machine?

There a lot to be said for good government. I also love the way they ignored the fact in November that many of the winners were in districts that Dean was laughed at for funding. Many of the Kerry funded candidates were also in places Rahm dared not go.

All I remember is the idiotic survey that Rahm and the DCCC had of who were the party leaders, he included himself and Carville and not Kerry.

[Justitia]

7. No shit. -eom

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaysunb]

3. " POS "

That's an apt description...

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

6. Fuck Rahm Emanuel. Fuck him right in the ear.

If the Dems had followed Rahm's lead in 2006, Congress would still be in rethug hands. Somebody needs to find this asshat a primary opponent in 2008.

[progressoid]

81. errr...No Thanks!

The fucking in the ear, that is.

I remember him trying to score points on CNN after the election. :puke:
I had to clear up a few misconceptions for a couple Democrats in my family about Rahm after that appearance.

[madfloridian]

8. The Salon writer calls it a celebration of Rahm.

" At a Clinton victory dinner in Little Rock in 1992, Emanuel celebrated by reciting a hoped-for necrology of Democrats who had "fucked" the president-elect. After every name, he stabbed a steak knife into a table and screamed, "Dead man!"

It's hard to imagine Tom Daschle carrying on like that. His strongest epithet was "I'm very disappointed." As it turned out, Emanuel was just the kind of shameless asshole the Democrats needed to win back power. As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he raised millions of dollars by browbeating donors and candidates with cellphone calls that invariably ended, "Fuck you. I love you." Emanuel was so effective that not only did his party win back Congress, he was able to get a Chicago Tribune reporter to write a book giving him most of the credit. Naftali Bendavid, the Tribune's deputy Washington bureau chief, was given "insider access" to Emanuel's operation, expecting to write a newspaper article. When the Democrats triumphed, he expanded it into "The Thumpin': How Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats Learned to Be Ruthless and Ended the Republican Revolution." It's a 218-page celebration of Rahm, as interesting for its look at how he has built his political persona as how he managed the Democrats' campaign. Emanuel comes off as one of the most colorful, driven and profane Washington characters since Lyndon Johnson. "The Jewish LBJ," political scientist Larry Sabato calls him, not only for his ambition but also for his reputation as an amoral political animal focused only on power."

Oh, well, at least Howard Dean has many of us nutroots...oops, netroots...celebrating him, even if the party has hushed his voice.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tkmorris]

10. I say harness the guy

He is everything he has been called in this thread, and then some. The fact is though that such people can be useful. He shouldn't be within a million miles of any discussion on policy, or how to run nationwide, but he could have a purpose in certain situations.

Ahh, who am I kidding. He has had a taste of real power, he'll never settle into a sled dog's role now. All we can do is try to limit the damage.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

12. I like Rahm Emanuel.

He's a smart, solid Democrat.

I don't get the in-party jihads for the most part. Way too much drama for me, but it seems rather counterproductive when viewing the bigger picture considering he worked hard (along with many, many others) to take back Congress 2006, and I appreciate his efforts.

[murielm99]

16. Thank you for that.

I like Rahm, too.

I have been a foot soldier in Illinois for awhile. I live in a rural county that is mostly repuke, but I do things on the local, county and state level.

Message board politicians crack me up. The very people who are pissing and moaning about how the Democrats need to grow a backbone are the ones condemning Rahm.

Of course Dean was a goo-goo. How do you suppose he was maneuvered out of the nomination so easily? The party did not want him, and they took care of it. I believe Dean has grown a lot since that primary, and he is very good for us where he is. People want to give him all the credit for the 50-state strategy, but I think he deserves only part of that credit.

Do you think we win anything without money and organization? Do you think we win without people calling and knocking on doors? We have a county board member here who is a Democrat in a very conservative district. He won because he talked to people who had never been contacted. He won because he had money and organization behind him. And if you think these very local races don't matter, think again. The party is based on a series of interlocking grassroots organizations and office holders.

I don't think Rahm is corrupt. I think the repukes are very corrupt, not only because they have had time since 1994 to build and do whatever they please, but also because the players themselves are truly amoral. Rahm may be called amoral, but I don't think he is. I think he is trying to build the party. Truth, justice and the American way don't cut it all by themselves. We need a few people who know how to be cutthroat, with a smile. We need some people who get things done, even if others don't like them for it. Leave the charisma to the top leadership, who need it to get elected.

Who do you think is advising Obama here in Illinois? Rahm, and Dick Durbin, who was hardened in the crucible of Chicago politics. Obama will win the primary here in Illinois. I haven't decided if I will vote for him myself, but he will win it. Will he steamroll some of his own party to win? Of course he will.

Quite a bit of the time, one has to look behind an issue to see what is really going on. We had a flapdoodle here about placing a statue on the courthouse lawn. It wasn't really about the statue. It was about jockeying for power, obtaining money for some upcoming races and projects, and a few other things that would not interest you. But it is no different on the state and national level.

I also heard two speakers recently, Tammy Duckworth and Judge Vicki Wright. Both faced very dirty races. Duckworth lost, and his now the head of veteran affairs in this state. Wright won her position. Both were very careful to tell us that they were not endorsing or talking to us about politics, because of the Hatch Act, and because of Wright's judicial position. They spoke more about leadership, and women's leadership. Both are good Democrats who know that leadership can be accomplished honestly, even in the face of losing races and corrupt opposition. But we can't be willing to settle for gracious loss by talented leadership. Look where that has gotten us.

I'll be seeing Durbin at a fundraiser near the end of the month. I am pretty sure that he will ask one more of the organizations that I belong to to endorse Obama for President. I don't want to. I believe that is what the primary is for. However, I understand what he is doing. He is trying to get a united force behind Obama in this state, to help him in the primary here, and nationally.

I wish some of you would get out in the trenches and see how things work. Rahm is one of the best things that ever happened to our party.

[wyldwolf]

34. very good post, and on your point about Howard Dean

... the Dean we have now as DNC chair resembles Governor Dean - pragmatic and moderate, not candidate Dean.

[madfloridian]

35. It was the "pragmatic"chairman Dean that Rahm was bullying.

That is why it is inexcusable.

He was in Dean's office yelling at him.

[wyldwolf]

36. poooor Dean!

[wndycty]

62. Yeah poor Dean. . .

. . .as I have said before I really don't have a problem with Dean, I have problem with his supporters who do not understand the rough and tumble nature of politics.

[SaveElmer]

64. It should be pointed out that Dean is not the one whining about Rahm...

It seems to be his supporters. I am sure Dean is well aware of the rough and tumble nature of politics, the fight for money and resources, and the differences in opinion as to strategy that are all a part of the process....

[AtomicKitten]

67. of course he's not

This intraparty jihad is the baby of the blogosphere, and quite frankly is a slap in the face to Dean. Dean is a smart, savvy player who has done a great job as DNC Chair. Testosterone flies during elections and both Emanuel and Dean are passionate, smart men who wanted the same goal - VICTORY!!

This choosing up sides based on internet chatter is childish and an epic waste of time. We have bigger fish to fry.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tigereye]

132. apparently he yells at everyone

that doesn't mean he didn't do a good job getting Dems elected this past fall.

[Morgana LaFey]

101. Are you familiar with wht Dean has been doing?

Because this sounds like you're not. Perhaps I'm reading something into it:

believe Dean has grown a lot since that primary, and he is very good for us where he is. People want to give him all the credit for the 50-state strategy, but I think he deserves only part of that credit.

Do you think we win anything without money and organization? Do you think we win without people calling and knocking on doors? We have a county board member here who is a Democrat in a very conservative district. He won because he talked to people who had never been contacted. He won because he had money and organization behind him. And if you think these very local races don't matter, think again. The party is based on a series of interlocking grassroots organizations and office holders.

The first sentence above, not bolded, makes it sound like the whole paragraph which follows is a complaint about Dean -- his faults and failings. Money and organization -- not to mention TALKING to people -- are 100% what Dean's 50 state strategy is all about. 100%, and you make it sound like he knows nothing, does nothing. Is that your intent?

I wish some of you would get out in the trenches and see how things work. Rahm is one of the best things that ever happened to our party.

Absolutely, IF you like thugs running your party, IF you want the oldstyle politics where "the people" have nothing to say about who runs and who wins. IF you like politics for power's sake and not for the people's sake. Yep, Rahm is just great for those types of Democrats, just exactly the type which were identified as Daley Democrats, machine Democrats. I'd venture to say that most of us here at DU want things to be different. Funny thing about it, WE want a say (again) in our politics and governance, since this is still (barely) a democracy and the people getting a say is what democracy is all about. You and your favorite people would eradicate that as just so much nonsense and annoyance (and yet we blame Republicans for being anti-democratic! Whew! We should get the damn beams out of our own party.)

[murielm99]

109. Nobody was criticizing your precious Dean.

Some of you Dean supporters act like cult members.

See post 63. AtomicKitten says everything I would have said, but much better.

If you don't like what is going on in our party, what are you doing to change it? What did you do yesterday and today?

Yesterday, I looked through newly obtained voter lists to find good Democrats who might buy tickets to a fundraiser we are having for five northern Illinois counties. We want to change congressional and local office holders from repuke to Democratic. Someone else will be doing the labels and mailings, because I have to work.

I can't afford the Durbin fundraiser that is going to be taking place before ours, but today, I called some of our leadership, just to make sure Durbin will be attending our fundraiser. Some people in my precinct may ask about him.

Some of the work I do takes only a few minutes. Some of it may take hours out of a weekend or evening.

Just what the hell do you think Democrats DO? Why don't you ASK someone what needs to be done? Don't sit around on a message board and snipe about the differences between two people who contribute to the party in different ways. Don't get your widdle feelings hurt when someone tells you to stop being sensitive about Dr. Dean. Accomplish something.

I have stood up to some of the people in our party when I disagreed with the way things were being done. I have won a few rounds, too. But I mean it about getting out and doing some work. It may change your perspective.

[Morgana LaFey]

117. Good grief, woman -- my QUESTION to you -- still unanswered --

didn't invite that kind of diatribe, nor am I particularly interested in it or appreciative of it. In fact: who do you think you are to lecture me like that, after making a whole series of unwarranted, unnecessary, and insulting assumptions?

Just what the hell do you think Democrats DO?

I know very well what Democrats do; I've been one longer than you've been alive, probably. My question was, do YOU?

Why don't you ASK someone what needs to be done? Don't sit around on a message board ....

Why don't you mind your own damn business? What *I* do, or don't do, or have done, isn't any of yours. And a simple question (again: still unanswered) asking you if you even understood what you were saying did NOT give you the entree for this insulting lecture.

[madfloridian]

122. That is totally enough of the "cult" crap. It is silly and childish.

There is no reason for it to continue. Dean is a power in this party now, though he may never be president. It is because so many people admire and respect him.

From now on anyone who uses the words cult or worship or anything is saying more about themselves than about us.

He is a force in the party. He knows as we do, that it is not him, it is those of us who are still behind him.

So stuff the "cult" stuff. It is overdone here so very much.

[loudsue]

48. Attomic Kitten recommends him? Now I KNOW he's on the wrong side.

Thanks for the comment! I know how you love the DLC, so I know Emmanuel must be one of the worst.

:kick::kick::kick:

[AtomicKitten]

63. your post is revealing as well, mam

... and not in a good way. Your comment is presumptuous and ham-handedly dismissive. Your criteria and skill at discerning fact vs hype are, well, lacking.

We aren't in junior high school anymore, not here at DU and not out there in the real world.

We can admire people for their qualities and what they bring to the table without feeling compelled to get down into the mud of cult of personality and choose up sides ... but you go right ahead.

And if you are going to participate in this mind-numbingly ridiculous albeit relentless campaign against another Democrat here at DU, at least have the good sense to spell his name right ... it's Emanuel.

Edited to address you appropriately as "mam."

[loudsue]

82. I've followed your posts.

I stand by my comment.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

92. duck and cover

[AtomicKitten]

91. I stand by mine.

I don't think about you at all nor follow your posts here, but in racking my brain trying to conjure up an impression that I have of your interaction with me and since you insist on making this personal, I would say for the most part your responses are prejudicial, uninformed, intolerant of other POVs and favoring personal attacks over discussion, contentious bordering on combative sometimes, and mostly just plain rude on the order of ... knowing you are a member of NAMBLA ... and a perfect example of why the ignore function was created.

So, there we are. :hi:

edited for the waving happy face

[wyldwolf]

13. ... but still very true (all insults to Dean aside)

1. He seemed to see Dean as a goo-goo, a good-government reformer with a base of liberal idealists who are more educated and individualistic than your average Democratic machine foot soldier,

A Pew Survey on Dean supporters supports most of this. According to Pew:

Dean activists are far wealthier, better educated, more secular and much less ethnically diverse than other Democrats. A disproportionate number of Dean activists are white, well-educated Baby Boomers ­ fully a third are college graduates between the ages of 45 and 64, compared with just 9% of Democrats in the general public.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=240

2. Emanuel mocked the former Vermont governor as a political lightweight from a tiny, rural, homogenous state. "No disrespect, but some of us are arrogant enough, we come from Chicago, we think we know what it means to knock on a door,"

Throughout the whole Dean "movement," non-Dean Democrats were always amazed at how Dean supporters believed canvassing was a new thing. That sentiment isn't surprising coming from folks who were, for the most part, new to politics. (As the OP freely admitted on her journal.)

3. This is a rude attack on a city, a state..

You don't know Chicago politics, obviously. Rahm is right. It ain't Burlington.

You have two issues you need to work out here, MF. Most sources give Emanuel the lion's share of credit for 2006 wins. Not everyone worships at the alter of Howard Dean.

[Kagemusha]

15. I take issue with your point #2 - maybe that applies to 2004

but in early to mid 2006, Dean was in a completely different position and was working hard to build up the party structure so that canvassing could be done in more states and more local areas. You can't canvass effectively if no one's watching the store.

And really not to be rude but, who's most sources, if you take out James Carville?

[wyldwolf]

17. #2 is for his supporters, not Dean himself

who's most sources, if you take out James Carville?

How about Nancy Pelosi? How about most, if not all, mainstream media sources? How about Progressive writer Laura Washington?

[Kagemusha]

20. So it's believe them or my lyin' eyes.

I'll take my eyes, sorry.

[wyldwolf]

21. What has your lyin' eyes seen?

bloggers claiming something else? Seems you see what you want to see.

[Kagemusha]

22. Not so much bloggers as people commenting on open blogs.

Not after the fact, but before and during the fact.

They might all be wrong, but frankly, doesn't change that Emanuel's a first class jerk and Dean isn't, so if that's biasing my view of it, too damned bad.

[wyldwolf]

23. "...people commenting on open blogs" who subscribe to that blog's POV

They might all be wrong, but frankly, doesn't change that Emanuel's a first class jerk and Dean isn't, so if that's biasing my view of it, too damned bad.

A first class jerk who gave us back the Congress.

:nopity:

[Kagemusha]

24. Gave? GAVE? Excuse me?

Even if you're correct, your wording is written expressly to offend. Just letting you know that.

Totally besides the issue of people writing on open blogs being brainwashed zombies, the thing I had sympathy for was Dean's point of view that his job and Emanuel's were not the same, were not identical, and that Dean's job was to use the money he was raising for the purpose recognized by electoral law - party building, which had long been neglected, in part because it's convenient to some parts of the party for the party structure to be weak and easily swayed by a juggernaut presidential candidate. It's not Dean's job to be Emanuel's poodle. Nor is it mine, for that matter.

[wyldwolf]

25. ... or you have a predisposition for faux outrage and veering off topic

:eyes:

[Kagemusha]

26. My outrage at the idea Congress is Emanuel's to give is quite genuine.

It smacks of...

Someday, and that day may never come, I may ask you a favor. Until that day comes, accept this... as a gift.

I mean. Come on. It's like he, and he alone, is the only one in the entire party who did anything... come on. But whatever, I guess.

[wyldwolf]

27. your faux outrage stems from you not liking my use of one word.

Yeah... it is that simple.

When a man says "I gave my wife a baby," no one takes that literally. What you're doing is picking out one little word, stomping your feet over it, and veering away from the original conversation.

[loudsue]

49. I think that was a good post, Kage....

"It's not Dean's job to be Emanuel's poodle. Nor is it mine, for that matter."

:kick:

[NoPasaran]

58. If I may speak to my friend wyldwolf's points

Most sources give Emanuel the lion's share of credit for 2006 wins. Not everyone worships at the alter of Howard Dean.

As the saying goes, success has a thousand fathers. I think that the extent of our victories in 2006 was big enough that paternity could be shared among many people. I have no doubt that Rahm Emanuel, as head of the DCCC, should get a lot of the credit for taking back the House. But we also won in many other races, many of which didn't get much national attention. For example, Democrats took over the county government in Hays County, Texas, a rural county that is becoming suburban. In Dallas County, every single Republican judge on the ballot was swept out of office. And while victories like these may not have the immediate impact on the nation that national races have, they do affect peoples' everyday lives as well as building the farm team from which our future national politicians will arise. And I'm going to insist that this is the level where Dean's "run everywhere" strategy has its impact.

To be sure, there were disagreements over allocation of resources in 2006. I view this like a military battle. Every commander on the field sees the piece of ground he's fighting over as the most important sector, the most deserving of support and reinforcement. The general commanding has to make some tough decisions about when and where to commit his reserves. If the decisions he makes are by and large good ones, the army as a whole wins. If he makes poor choices, he may "win" the sector that he reinforces while losing the overall battle because of some catastrophe elsewhere on the field.

Afterwords you can continue to argue over what might have happened if X had been done instead of Y, but I think it's hard to argue with winning the overall battle.

Dean activists are far wealthier, better educated, more secular and much less ethnically diverse than other Democrats. A disproportionate number of Dean activists are white, well-educated Baby Boomers ­ fully a third are college graduates between the ages of 45 and 64, compared with just 9% of Democrats in the general public.

I hope you're not going to hold our relative wealth, education, or whiteness against us. We are a big tent party, after all.

Throughout the whole Dean "movement," non-Dean Democrats were always amazed at how Dean supporters believed canvassing was a new thing. That sentiment isn't surprising coming from folks who were, for the most part, new to politics.

Speaking as one of those Dean supporters, canvassing WAS a new thing for a lot of us because we came from places where canvassing just wasn't being done. We had to learn to knock on doors because there had just never been Democratic machine foot soldiers to show us how it was done.

From my own experience, I bought a house in Southwestern Austin in 1996. The first time I ever saw any political flyers of any description in my neighborhood was in 2004 when I walked the precinct by myself during early voting (although back in 2000 I do recall the republican precinct chair knocking on my door and offering me some pictures of aborted fetuses). In 2004 the incumbent GOP state representative and county commissioner both were re-elected without opposition. However, the influx of new door-knockers and voter registrars and phone bankers did allow us to defeat one republican incumbent state rep, come within a few hundred votes of beating another, as well as winning every countywide race we contested. Since then, the one remaining republican judge flipped parties and we've elected a solidly Democratic legislative delegation, including winning the seat we didn't even contest in 2004. And my Republican county commissioner knows he's got a target on his back for 2008.

True, back in 2004 we were idealistic and naive. But since then those of us who have remained active have gone through several elections. We're not as new and inexperienced as we were back then. Some have gone from knocking on doors for the first time in 2004 to running campaigns in 2005 to running winning campaigns in 2006. And may I say, hurray for us! Any party that doesn't get an infusion of new, enthusiastic activists from time to time is doomed to extinction. And naturally there will be conflicts between the new people and the old. I myself am looking forward to some young know-it-alls to pry the party out of our tired, arthritic hands some ten or twenty years from now.

[madfloridian]

124. Applause.

:applause:

[LoZoccolo]

126. "Rahm is right. It ain't Burlington."

I second that, and have heard it expressed at a Chicago DFA meeting as well.

[mmonk]

14. He's not popular among democrats in NC.

He worked NOT to give money to key races here where we could have picked off more seats. He visited here recently, but the reception was cool.

[murielm99]

18. The party does not hand out money indiscriminately.

The candidate has to raise a certain amount of money on his own before a given date. If he or she cannot do that, then they don't get money from the DCCC. It is as simple as that.

They can still be on the ballot. Some of them might win, and get more support the next time around. But I don't see anything wrong with that rule. I don't want my donations given to just anyone.

[mmonk]

19. I'm talking a real chance to have picked off at least two seats

because it was that close. Nobody can convince me he doesn't have an agenda that isn't simply getting the most seats.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. He is popular with Democrats in Congress

His colleagues elected him as chairman of the DCCC to elect a Democratic majority to the House. Apperently he was successful. They jsut elected him as the Democratic Caucus Chairman.

[loudsue]

50. I'm in NC, too, mmonk...and I totally agree w/ you.

Rahm is not worth a shit.

:kick:

[NoPasaran]

29. "Goo goos" = "Good government"

Historically, reformers set up "good government clubs" to contest the power of big city machines back in the 1890s. "Goo goo" is a mildly insulting put down phrase, like "do-gooder" or "bleeding heart".

[madfloridian]

31. Thanks for the explanation.

I had never heard it.

Well, it's apparently fine for Rahm to insult us, but it is not ok if we take umbrage when he does.

I just got online, and read the thread, and oh my goodness.

Time for more coffee.

[dogman]

30. Dem bashing! I'm lowering my expectations.

The writer wrote this book, not Rahm. He co-wrote a book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America. Dems complain that we have no strategist like Rove, then hate our own pitbull, who fights for our majority. Shameful.

[madfloridian]

32. Actually, it has been clear he sad those things to Dean...other sources.

So this is not speculation.

I don't think it was nice, nor was it decent.

He treated and talked to someone who had been governor for 12 years as though he were a fool.

[dogman]

37. It's political gamesmanship.

They argued tactics, Dean borrowed the money and we won elections. Not a bad thing, overall. Dean is not the Pope and Rahm a Bishop. This is American politics. Did Rahm say the words goo-goos? Or was that the term assigned by the author of the article? We know Dean, Schumer, and Emanuel fought over strategy, so what? They came to terms and the Dems won a majority in the House. Is that a bad thing? Guess what? Rahm is not the enemy, study his history. He worked for one of the most respected politicians in Illinois, Paul Simon, mentor to Durbin and many progressive Illinois politicians. I like Dean, I like Rahm, they're on the Democratic side. Rahm helped engineer Clinton's primary win and knows some things about national politics.

[madfloridian]

38. That was not fighting. That was smearing a man in his office.

It was smearing Burlington. It was smearing Vermont. It was smearing all of us who support Dean's role in the party. Read it again.

[dogman]

40. Facts are not smears.

It seems that the latest meme has been to redefine the word smear. I know that redefining terms has been the political tactic of choice by the RWers, so I guess it is natural decision by others to try to mimic a successful strategy.

[wyldwolf]

41. dogman, I don't know your politics, and I hope I don't offend you...

...but the fact is, to many "progressives," it simply isn't "politically correct" to introduce inconvenient facts into a debate. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, now do we? :)

So, "smear" has been officially redefined as "inconvenient facts."

[dogman]

70. No offense taken.

That is why I answer Zogby poll, Liberal, not Progressive Liberal. Progressives seem to have too many hang-ups. One being persecution complex. I probably should not judge the label by some of the behavior exhibited in discussion groups. I have seen many make intelligent, thoughtful posts that I admire. I even doubt that many calling themselves progressive are really that.

[Morgana LaFey]

102. Yeah, but you go around imagining facts where there are none,

wyldwolf. So that accounts for most of your confusion on the matter.

:evilgrin:

[wyldwolf]

127. I guess facts to you means "whatever feels right."

[madfloridian]

42. But he was not saying factual stuff in that office.

He was making accusations that did not bear out. I am sorry you think what he said was factual. Does not bode well for the future of the party if too many feel that way.

He was being insulting and rude.

[wyldwolf]

43. let's examine the factuality of it, then

Emanuel "slammed his hand on the table," then continued his tirade: "Look, Chuck comes from Brooklyn. I come from Chicago. It ain't Burlington, Vermont.

There is nothing to dispute the fact Shumer is fron Brooklyn and Emanuel from Chicago. I can also say with 100% certainty that neither of those cities are Burlington, VT.

Now, we understand that Burlington knows a lot about grassroots politics and we know nothing.

A sentiment I got from netrooters online and offline - that somehow grassroots work was invented by the Howard Dean campaign and they were the masters of it. It may be anecdotal, but nothing rings untrue about that statement.

I know your field plan -- it doesn't exist. I've gone around the country with these races. I've seen your people. There's no plan, Howard."

I share this anecdotal evidence with Emanuel, though on a much smaller scale. In Georgia, where I canvassed early and often, there was no visible evidence of Dean troops on the ground. Sure, there were people inspired by Dean, but no one I knew who was put there by Dean. Further, I was involved in grassroots work (and not alone) before anyone in GA had heard of Howard Dean.

[madfloridian]

44. Right, there is no plan at all. You win.

It is all smoke and mirrors...

It was not the ones Rahm picked who won. You do know that, don't you?

I believe on 9 of the 37 the DCCC picked won, the others started off running as activists. In fact I posted a video here about it once.

But yeh, ww, there are no people there is no plan. Just like you and Rahm say. :think:

[wyldwolf]

45. you're a bit off

Rham picked a slew of candidates. The ones in particular that got the attention (the military ones) had a less than stellar win/loss ratio - but they were redstaters, anyway. To suggest more "progressive" candidates would have won those races in red states is ridiculous.

The races the DCCC threw money at is the real indicator of who was picked by Emanuel.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Justitia]

53. So, progressives are traitors. Well, that didn't take long. -eom

[wyldwolf]

55. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Wag your finger at the post I replied to.

[wyldwolf]

68. ... and chastice her for saying centrists were traitors.

[madfloridian]

56. Here is some research. And a word from the Chairman.

First the word from the Chairman, a video clip.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/899

And just a snip from it...

"Nine out of the 35 races that were selected by the DCCC were winners...the rest of them were all folks who started on their own with enormous grassroots organizations."

Here is the Hotline research they did when Carville said Dean should be fired and said he sabotaged the election. Hotline proved him wrong on figures and showed that Rahm's picks were not so effective.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/11/the_carville_cl.html

You have to read the post to get the meaning...but here is their conclusion.

"There’s realistically only four – certainly no more than six seats – that perhaps could have been won with extra cash. Extra money could have made a small difference, but certainly not to the degree that Carville has been suggesting. Dean may have made strategic blunders in the past, but his fiscal responsibility here seems like the wiser course."

My point was that those paragraphs from the book showed a contempt for Howard Dean, for Burlington, for Vermont, and for those of us who believe in what Dean is trying to do.

Key word: contempt.

[wyldwolf]

61. just a bit contradictory and too simplified

"Nine out of the 35 races that were selected by the DCCC were winners...the rest of them were all folks who started on their own with enormous grassroots organizations."

The record shows Emanuel's picks faired better than those backed by the netroots. Of Actblue's top 20 candidates, less than 10 won. Only 9 of the DCCC's top tier candidates won, but the fact you're leaving out is these were red state targets - races we were not even supposed to win.

Lower-tiered races were still financed and given strategy by the DCCC - and there were many more wins there. It is also useful to point out that district races are ALWAYS "grassroots" organizations.

Finally, as Ezra Klein pointed out, 2006 was not a statement on Howard Dean at all. The 50 State Strategy relies on funding state parties to put down infrastructure and staff to create long-term change. It simply couldn't have worked 2006, not in any meaningful way. The fact you want to ignore is money wins races. You blindly side with Dean in his cash battle with Emanuel without realizing that extra money means more TV time, more canvassing literature, etc.

[madfloridian]

65. You are misreading my post.

You do not get what was being said.

Where did anyone claim 2006 was a mandate for Dean? In all the posts I have done, I never claimed that at all.

Dean never claimed credit.

Rahm claimed the credit. He was furious because the progressives had a role to play.

I never claimed it was a mandate on Dean...there had not been time for it to be.

I need to do what I should have done long ago and stuck with it or else just leave here. Doing it now.

[wyldwolf]

66. Are people not allowed to elaborate?

[Morgana LaFey]

110. Oh, how clever

Now that the 50 State Strategy worked, and won us a lot of elections we wouldn't otherwise have won, it's suddenly a strategy that takes TIME to build momentum, and couldn't have accounted for any real margin of victory in 2006. I get it.

[wyldwolf]

128. but it did not work

The 50 state strategy is a long term plan.

[ieoeja]

90. "The races the DCCC threw money at..."

See post #95.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

39. LOL

yeah, 'cause we all know how much "winning elections" SUCKS, especially when you're a member of the "holier than thou" brigade.


Puh-leease!

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

54. well, this isn't information I usually divulge, but

34 years, 3 months, 2 days, to be exact....

[wyldwolf]

47. spot-on, Paulk

[wndycty]

59. Rahm is the man. . .

. . .I'm enjoying watching the bashing. We got a crowded presidential field and we have people fanning the Dean is persecuted flames. Oy vey.

[dogman]

69. Yeah, what does Rahm know about grassroots and precinct canvasing?

Let's see. Vermont, pop. approx. 610,000. Chicago, approx. pop. 3,000,000. Rahm, major role in successful Clinton Presidential campaign. Dean ?. Dean is a fine DNC chair, BTW.

[ieoeja]

94. So he knows how to win the (big) blue districts.

See post #95.

[dogman]

120. The Clinton Presidential victory was not a big blue district.

He asked Dean for more money, Dean borrowed it, there was success for which I credit both. I want all of the parts, not just some. That is why I like the fifty state strategy. I also know some of its failings. Time and organization may help improve those situations.

[FrenchieCat]

57. Hey, I know!

Let's take them out; these traitors! Just fucking tar and feather the lot of them! I mean, why not?

They shoot horses, don't they? :shrug:

:sarcasm:


Just not St. John, K?

[Cameron27]

60. She's vetting.

[tishaLA]

71. So is it not true that VErmont is a

tiny, rural, homogeneous state? If so, how is this an attack "on a city <and> a state?

It is so sad to see some go out of their way to bash other Democrats who have worked hard. So sad indeed. Why, the next thing I know, I'll be reading some argue that Sen. Obama wants to privatize social security...

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gaspee]

78. Exactly (N/T)

[SoxFan]

73. Rahm's NH debacle

In early 2006, Rahm Emmanuel decided to force a congressional candidate down the throats of NH Democrats. Despite the fact that three Democrats had already announced for the seat (full disclosure: I was one of them), he had the DCCC endorse State Rep. Jim Craig, the most "docile", establishment-friendly of the field. As it turned out, the move backfired badly. I dropped out of the race in July due to health reasons, but Carol-Shea Porter parlayed a strong field organization into a shocking upset victory. Despite spending about $25,000 to Craig's $450,000, she trounced him by almost 30 percentage points. In some precincts, I finished ahead of Craig, despite the fact that I had dropped out two months earlier.

It was a powerful kick in the pants to the national party and to the state Democratic old guard.

[gaspee]

79. People want

Citizen congresspeople. I can feel the change. It's easier to see in small states, like yours and mine. My goal for 2008 is getting rid of the DINO, Langevin. We've got people ready to run. And if it means taking on Emanuel and the fucking DLC to do it, then we will.

I am sick of bought and paid for shills, of either party, running the show.

[SoxFan]

114. The DLC has nothing to do with it

Rahm's chosen candidate, Jim Craig, was far from a DLC/New Dem type of guy. He was basically a Gephardt-style Democrat, ie, protectionist on trade, middle of the road on most other issues, kind of muddled on social issues. Of the three of us who were more or less serious about the campaign, I was the one most in the DLC/Tsongas mold, while Carol Shea-Porter (who ultimately won the seat) was the candidate of the Deaniacs (though she herself was a Clarkie).

[jgraz]

84. It wasn't just NH -- Rahm screwed the pooch just about everywhere

Don't forget these races:

• Jerry McNerny: Beats Richard Pombo after a primary win over DCCC-backed Steve Filson


• John Hall: Musician and environmental activist wins Sue Kelly's house seat after taking 48% of the vote in a 4-way primary.


• John Yarmuth: Progressive, independent newspaper publisher beats three moderates in the KY 3rd district primary, then beats Anne Northup with zero financial support from the DCCC.


• Zack Space: Wins Bob Ney's seat after beating three primary opponents including (wait for it...) DCCC-backed centrist Joe Sulzer.


• Tammy Duckworth: DCCC-supported, ambiguously centrist candidate loses IL house seat to Pete Roskam.

And let's not overlook Schumer's greatest hits:

• Jon Tester: Populist wins Senate seat after destroying DSCC favorite, center-right John Morrison, in the primary.


• Harold Ford, Jr.: Pro-life, anti-gay, pro-war Dem loses TN Senate race to Bob Corker.

The elecorate is ready for some true progressive candidates. Wouldn't it be nice if Rahm had to run against one in the 2008 primary?

[madfloridian]

119. Thanks for sharing that.

It happened far too often and was discouraging. My gripe with Rahm is the attack dog tactics toward members of his own party. I don't mean holding accountable, a lot do that now. But just not being aware we are here, and when made aware curses us.

He did that interference in 3 districts in Florida. One I don't know what finally happened. The other two built loads of resentment from the supporters of Democrats who were already running and most likely could have won with financial help.

[Jax]

74. Rahm is an ass

Thanks again madfloridian, these 22 percenters like Rahm are so fullk of themselves.

Then again that is what is is all about when it comes to the right wing corporate end of the Dems, it is all about them.

We will keep at it here locally and state wide. Dean got me active again. I am loving it, we are weeding out the right wingers in my district.

:thumbsup: for a class act, madfloridian, that would be YOU.

Hang in there, I know I am!!!

[quiet.american]

75. Rahm's whole rant is off the mark, given that Dean is actually a New Yorker. n/t

[gaspee]

77. I was going to

say that too *G*

[gaspee]

76. The DLC

Is poison. They're corporate whores and I will never cast a vote for any one of them. Rahn Emanuel is not someone I would ever, in a million years, vote for. Which is why I won't vote for Clinton or Obama. I want a truly progressive party. Sheesh, like that will ever happen.

[wyldwolf]

80. "I want a truly progressive party." Well start you own.

The Democratic party has always been a big tent. It isn't anyone's fault but "progressives" that they've never been able to get a solid foothole in the Democratic party.

[Alexander]

87. We're already supposed to have one...it begins with a "D".

Sure we can have a big tent, but since the Republicans are so far to the right, it would make no sense to keep the party in the middle.

Unless you want to move the country to the right, which wouldn't surprise me...

BTW, the corporate donors and the media sure do like to pick on the liberals a lot. And you wonder why they aren't doing better?

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

88. no, it begins with a "p"

Learn some Dem party history. "Progressives" like the current movement have always been hanger-ons in the party. FDR absorbed a few of their ideas then cast them aside, Truman defeated them in the '48 election, Kennedy defeated them on the 1960 convention floor. You blew your only chance in 1972.

As DU's own Magistrate once said:

"...the perennial brouha here about what constitutes a “real Democrat”, most of which is conducted along lines that bear very little relation with the actual states and history of the Democratic Party... The faction of the Democratic Party that opposed the Cold War had its politiocal trial with the campaign for President of Sec. Wallace in 1948, and failed utterly, gaining the votes of only a handful of people. What is repudiated at the polls by the overwhelming preponderance of Democratic voters cannot be the real face of the Democratic Party. It really is that simple."

[Alexander]

98. Truman was quite progressive - Mag's statement is bullshit.

Truman integrated the armed services, called for national health care and had no problem with Hubert Humphrey's civil rights plank in 1948.

Progressives have been one of the core constituencies for Democrats ever since then, along with minorities, unions and the like. And if you really want to get technical, RFK was a progressive who had a damn good chance until he was shot.

Of course, you DLC fans call them "special interests" because they don't make a CEO's pay.

Truman also had this gem:

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

You guys could stand to learn some lessons from Truman.

[wyldwolf]

104. Truman was as centrist as they come

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

Yeah, he was referring to the Dixiecrats.

After he defeated Henry Wallace, he also said was happy to have been elected without the support of the exteme leftwing.

[Alexander]

105. Yeah, that civil rights plank was real "centrist"...

At a time when neither or the two major parties was even going to consider civil rights. :eyes:

So for good measure, I'll throw Hubert Humphrey into the list of progressives.

[wyldwolf]

106. on the contrary

FDR had plans for a civil rights plank. Civil rights is not an "exclusive" progressive issue. What makes one a centrist is taking into consideration both left and right ideas.

[Alexander]

113. You refuted your own argument.

"FDR had plans for a civil rights plank."

He was quite possibly our first socialist president. You do yourself no favors by citing his support of civil rights.


"Civil rights is not an "exclusive" progressive issue."

It's a progressive issue, but not exclusively an issue for Democrats - progressive Republicans supported civil rights back in the 1870s. They were so progressive as to be called "radical".

"What makes one a centrist is taking into consideration both left and right ideas."

Oh? I'm against federal gun legislation. Am I a centrist?

Frankly I think the idea of "centrism" is a crock, and an excuse for not taking a clear stand on anything.

But that's just my opinion.

[wyldwolf]

129. probably the funniest statement ever from you

(FDR) was quite possibly our first socialist president. You do yourself no favors by citing his support of civil rights.

:rofl:

[jgraz]

93. Luckily, the "middle" is right where progressives are

An immediate end to the occupation, national health care, higher taxes on the wealthy, stricter gun laws and even impeachment are all issues supported by the majority of adults in this country. It's only through the conservative echo chamber and the implicit cooperation of cowards like Emanuel that these issues have been marginalized.

[wyldwolf]

96. Not so fast

If all of these issues are favored by the majority, how can then be "middle?"

An immediate end to the occupation,

Nope! 51% support setting a timetable, not an immediate withdrawal. ( Quinnipiac University Poll. April 25-May 1, 2007)

national health care

Sorry, this is a Democratic party hallmark. From Truman to Clinton (yep, DLC). It wasn't invented by "progressives."

stricter gun laws

Again, centrists in the DLC have always favored stricter gun laws. Not a "progressive" invention.

[Alexander]

99. Try these on for size.

The majority wants to legalize and regulate marijuana. (Zogby)

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/428/zogbypoll.shtml

The vast preponderance (90%) thinks big business has "too much" power and influence in Washington. (Harris)

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2005/business_power_poll.php

A majority (55%) says going to war in Iraq was "the wrong thing to do". (Quinnipiac)

A majority (53%) favors bringing the troops home "as soon as possible". (Pew)

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

A majority (54%) say Iran can be "contained with diplomacy". Another 18% say Iran "is not a threat". (CBS)

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

In all cases, the DLC does not hold the same view as the American public.

[wyldwolf]

103. ok, but again, how is that "in the middle?"

[Alexander]

107. Because the majority of Americans (left + center) agree with the left?

I didn't think it would be that hard to figure out.

Then again, I expect common sense from people. Maybe my expectations are too high.

[wyldwolf]

108. So, if there is a left-center- AND right... and the majority of Americans agree with the left

...that would make the left center-left, not in the middle.

Math? See. Three positions. Not two. Three.

[Alexander]

118. Your logic is entirely flawed.

The left is the left, the right is the right. Your shifting of positions makes absolutely no sense.

Most Americans support liberal positions, even though they don't self-identify as liberals. These include a swift end to the Iraq conflict, diplomacy with Iran, legalization of marijuana, and less power in the hands of big businesses. I can come up with more examples if you really want, but I hope you get the point.

Therefore, most Americans (especially younger ones, like me) are liberal on the issues. They may not call themselves liberals, but on an issue-by-issue basis, they are.

I do not understand why some would have it so neither major political party in America represents the interests of the vast majority. It just seems as natural here as in any country - one party represents the "right", another the "left". Most of our nominees have been liberals in one form or another, and our problems haven't been issue-based. They've been message-based. The Democratic party has been the party for liberals for a long time - a fundamental lurch to the center would be disastrous and alienate a good chunk of voters.

[jgraz]

85. It's happening. We just need to keep working at it.

The Rethugs weren't taken over by the extreme righties overnight. It was done by slowly building infrastructure and giving the true believers (in their case, fundies) a seat at the table. Progressives can do the same, it will just take some time. We may not have the corporations on our side, but we do have truth and morality.

[wyldwolf]

86. how so?

[SoxFan]

116. Again, this isn't a DLC issue

Rahm is a creature of process, not ideology. In NH, he went with Jim Craig because he was mild-mannered, non-threatening, a get-along, go-along sort of labor Dem. I was the New Dem in the field, Carol Shea Porter was the netroots type. NH-01 is actually more attuned to either a New Dem or Deaniac than a Mondalecrat, which explains why Craig, despite having tons of cash, crashed and burned.

Jim took lobbyist money, Carol and I didn't. Jim took a bundle of PAC money; I accepted none, and Carol received only a few donations from PACS run by Mark Warner and Wes Clark. That's why Rahm went with Craig.

[Alexander]

83. Another reason why Dean deserves much more credit for 2006.

The same people that made fun of him for putting organizers in "red" states were flabbergasted when we won House seats in Indiana, North Carolina and Arizona, and Senate seats in Montana and Virginia.

[ieoeja]

95. Do DUers have a "clue" what Rahm and Dean were fighting about?

They did not argue over which candidates to field. They did not argue over populist versus centrist campaigns. They argued over whether more money should have been targeted at "in play" districts.

Rahm blames Dean for many of his candidates not winning because Dean did not give them the money. On the other hand, we won even more districts Rahm thought were not in play than those he thought were in play.

Given the bottom line -- the 50 State Strategy won more districts not targeted by the Rahm strategy than the Rahm strategy targeted in total -- there isn't even an argument here. The 50 State Strategy did better. Period.

Ironically, in these arguments I often see the Rahmens make fun of the Deaniacs for not wanting to win.

[madfloridian]

111. Author has a post up at The Swamp.

He gives credit to both, and I totally agree with that part of it.

But I disagree with this statement.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/05/saying_rahm_des.html

"Dean supporters argue that it was his 50-state strategy that was
responsible for the Democrats' victory. By placing activists and putting
money into states the Democrats did not traditionally win, the argument
goes, they enabled the party to pick up seats in places like Indiana and
Kentucky."

That's just it. Until Carville went on TV and said Dean should be replaced
with Harold Ford.....no one I know had even thought about claiming credit.

We were all very happy and excited. So I disagree with the author on that
part and agree everyone deserves credit. If they had just reined Carville
in that fateful day things would not have been made an issue at all.

[Fabio]

112. I dont like him

from personal experience.

[Blue_Tires]

115. he's evidently good at what he does

but he is a shameless, self-promoting glory hog and rife with ethical abiguity...

why am i reminded of George C. Scott's portrayal of "Patton"?

[madfloridian]

121. This blogger has some interesting comments....

http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/rahm-emanuel-democrats-junkyard-dog.html

There have always been junkyard dogs in American politics - mean, brutal, remorseless sons-of-bitches without mercy or conscience who'll run you down like a rabbit if you get in their way. They've always been here because they've always been needed, and they probably always will be. They have a role and it's an important one.

They win.

Then he quotes from the Salon article. He further makes some interesting comments. He has an admiration for Rahm's ability.

The latest Democratic junkyard dog was Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC or D-Triple-C if you live inside the Beltway) for the 2006 election and is a rising star behind the scenes in the DLC. His name is Rahm Emanuel, and he's been called the purest no-holds-barred political animal in America. In a Salon review of a book about him, Chicago reporter Ed McClelland says he "comes off as one of the most colorful, driven and profane Washington characters since Lyndon Johnson". That may not be hyperbole.

...."That's what junkyard dogs do. They win and they don't much care what they have to do to make it happen. That's their function and that's why we need them. But you don't let them govern. You don't let them make policy. In fact, you keep them as far away from the levers of power as possible because they're as likely to embarrass you - or turn on you - as not. They're dangerous, and they have to be controlled or you'll lose three times as often as you win. They're two-edged swords, and for every friend of theirs who puts money in your coffers there will be two enemies waiting to slit your throat.

On the basis of his highly-touted wins, Emanuel gets to play power-broker, policy-maker and kingmaker. He meets regularly with Al Frum and calls Bill Clinton several times a week to "talk strategy". He has read the riot act to Howard Dean over Dean's 50-state strategy.

And one more comment. Rahm gets to control the message.

Emanuel is now Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, a powerful leadership position and precisely NOT the place you want a junkyard dog. He's helping to fashion the DLC's next campaign platform and sitting in on strategy sessions.

Now that bothers me. I wish there were a way the grassroots had more input. That is Howard Dean's goal, to bring the people at ground level back into the party decisions. But he was told from the start to "take his cues" from Reid and Pelosi and to take up no policy issues. I notice he does speak up now and then, though.

[madfloridian]

125. I was thinking....

There is a huge long post up at Kos today about how wonderful Rahm is and pointing out that Bendavid thought Dean did not do so well...time for that. Lots of space for that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/13/24629/7115

There was one very short paragraph about the outrageous Dean/Sebelius/Brownback stuff. One short paragraph.

Not a word at all that Brownback said it was all not true. Not a single major left blogger has presented that fact, that Brownback debunked it.

NRO....Brownback says the allegatons about Sebelius and Dean not true.

Funny thing, none of us claimed credit until Carville did the fire Dean thing. This party has love affairs with certain people and treats others very badly.

The right wing bloggers are keeping on, and not a single high profile left blogger had posted that Brownback came out and spoke up. Tells me where the priorities of many of our left bloggers lie.

[wyldwolf]

130. dupe

[wyldwolf]

131. BS! Weeks before the midterms "you" were already trying to spin it

..and I have the quotes to show it