Trying to put into words what disturbs me about the choice of Rahm as Chief of Staff

[madfloridian]

First let me say I really don't mind if our President-Elect picks moderate Republicans for his cabinet in some cases. My family are mostly moderate Republicans. That would not bother me nearly so much as his pick of Rahm Emanuel.

It is hard to put into words because it is pretty obvious to me that this indicates more than just moving right again. Rahm's views on many things are not comforting. Chris Bowers has a post up today at Open Left. He is one of the few bloggers on our side saying much about it.

It indicates a type of politics I thought we might be leaving behind considering the calm and assuring demeanor of Barack Obama himself.

From Open Left:

What Rahm indicates about an Obama administration

I don't like Rahm Emanuel becoming Obama's chief of staff, but I also don't think it would have mattered if he chose someone else. If Obama wanted Rahm as Chief of Staff, but Rahm had declined or been denied the slot via outside pressure, then you can be sure Obama would have simply sought someone else who was virtually identical to Rahm in terms of demeanor, tactics, and ideology. The options were basically either Rahm or some variation on Rahm. In this case, I view him as simply the vehicle or the weapon, not the person driving or pulling the trigger.

Still, that Obama was looking for a Chief of Staff in Rahm's mold is disturbing. Over the last few years, I agree with Kagro X in that it appears that Rahm's defining governing characteristic has been to approach legislation almost entirely from the perspective of how it will play in an election. That is a big negative, both because we just suffered through too much of that during the Bush administration and because it is a erroneous way of viewing the relationship between legislation and elections. People don't vote for or against you because of how you voted in legislation in the abstract. Instead, people vote for or against you because of how the legislation you voted on affected their lives. As such, the key is to pass legislation that will make most people's lives better, not legislation that will look good in the abstract the moment it is passed. The Bush administration was constantly focused on passing legislation that looked good in the abstract the moment it was passed. However, no matter how good the legislation looked once it was passed, it ended up ruining people's lives, and so those people voted against Republicans later on.

It also doesn't help that Emanuel has a very right-wing view on how to win elections. He is vehemently opposed to progressive immigration reform, arguing both that Democratic candidates should ignore immigrants because they don't vote and that women congressional candidates performed poorly in the 2006 elections because they weren't right-wing enough on immigration.

That was one of the biggest concerns to me, that he was pushing and nagging the candidates he was coaching for the DCCC to "go right" on immigration. He did the same thing on Iraq. He told them not to talk about the war on the campaign trail.

Immigrants in our country have been treated in despicable ways since the Bush administration decided to use them as a wedge issue.

Obama, Howard Dean speak up against attacks on immigrants...Rahm says "move right to win"

Obama's words:

In a speech to the crowd, Obama sharpened his rhetoric against some of the most vocal voices against immigrant workers and migrant worker programs.

“A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There’s a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year,” Obama said. “If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it’s not surprising that would happen."

Beautiful reassuring words, well-spoken.

From Howard Dean:

At a rally, Dean garnered the loudest applause when he said Republicans would make immigration a pivotal issue during upcoming elections, as they did gay marriage and affirmative action in previous elections.

"Do you know who the scapegoats are going to be? Immigrants," he said. "In Colorado, the chairman of the Republican Party endorsed Tom Tancredo (search) for re-election. That is morally reprehensible. The governor of California, a supposed moderate Republican, invited the Minutemen to visit California. We do not need vigilante justice."

Great words.

Now for Rahm's words:

Two weeks ago he sent a DCCC-connected candidate training a video of himself haranguing congressional candidates to “move right” on immigration or risk defeat at the hands of Republicans. This is similar to the terrible advice he shoved down candidates’ throats last year, although then he was demanding they move to the right on Iraq, dooming the candidacies of Lois Murphy, Francine Busby, Ken Lucas, Tammy Duckworth, Diane Farrell and several others who went along with his demands. Yesterday Markos asked a blaring question at DailyKos: Is Rahm racist, or merely scared?. While walking the picket line at the WGA strike at Fox today Jane and I came up with the idea of inviting Emanuel over to FDL to ask him why he thinks adopting Tom Tancredo’s immigration ideas is a good idea and why he’s unleashed Heath Shuler to do just that.

Moving right is the supposedly time-honored tactic for Democrats. Now as a result we have too many victims. The rights of women have been harmed, the gay community is being demeaned, immigrants are being scapegoated still. All because of "moving right to win."

Here is even more of Rahm's advice on immigration and his view that more women are not elected because they are too soft on the subject.

This isn't the first time Emanuel has publicly encouraged Democrats to take right-wing stances on immigration. Basically, he has told everyone willing to listen that this is his advice. As I have written before, he has told multiple people I know that this is the reason he thinks so many Democratic women lost close races in 2006. As Howie Klein recently reported, he also appears to have disgusted several Democratic candidates for House in 2008 by recently telling them all at the training to do the same thing this year.

What is Emanuel's problem here? Not only is it disgusting and immoral to scapegoat a national minority in order to gain power for yourself, not only do foreign-born Americans represent over 11% of the national population, but doesn't it occur to him that angering the largest growth demographics in American politics is just a stupid thing for the party to do long-term? Sure, all of 6% of the population considers immigration to be the top issue facing America in recent open-ended questions, but only are those voters almost certainly very unlikely to ever vote for Democrats anyway, but they don't represent massive growth demographics in America. Latinos and Asians represent 10% of the national voting population, and they are growing fast. Not to mention that Latinos represented the largest, pro-Democratic swing of any demographic group in 2006.
Open Left, Rahm on immigration.

I haven't even gone in to the role that Rahm played in Carville's coup to oust Dean right after a successful election in 2006. It needs to be mentioned.

Carville tells more about who was involved in his attacks on Dean

Flush with victory after the election, Rahm’s allies, led by Carville, try to mount a coup at the DNC by publicly attacking Dean and suggesting he be replaced by Harold Ford, a Tennessee moderate who just lost a Senate race. “You can’t go into 2008 having a party chairman that is completely disconnected from the congressional leadership and the campaign committees,” Carville tells me, further pounding the wedge that divides the Deaniacs and the Clintonites. When I ask if Rahm agrees, Carville says, “It’s not any secret that Rahm has expressed disdain for Dean and not very secret that Rahm and I are close. It doesn’t take a lot of dot-connecting here.”

What about the Clintons, who, given Hillary’s presidential ambitions, have more cause for concern about who runs the DNC in 2008? “Let’s just say nobody has called me telling me this is a bad idea. Sometimes silence is eloquence.” Not only did Carville’s coup fail but it arguably strengthened Dean, who, speaking before his state-party allies, mocked the attempt as a desperate attack from the “old Democratic Party.” Cutting his losses, Rahm quickly leaked word to the press that he and Dean had negotiated a truce.

We know now why only Chris Matthews has even mentioned that Dean might deserve a little credit. He probably did it because his son was with Dean's campaign and there was a sign in his yard at one time for Dean.

We now know which way the party will be moving. Choosing Rahm has made that clear.

Hubby and I have been on a very wild enthusiastic ride as Deaniacs since way early on in 2003. He has done a good job. He has traveled for 4 years building and mostly staying in the background. The only defense he got when attacked was from a few of us at various forums.

I had to say what I thought about the choice of Rahm Emanuel. I like that Chris Bowers spoke out this, and I liked what Digby said earlier. She said it is still our job to hold feet to the fire.

I was feeling a kind of warm comfortable glow about the election until Rahm was picked. It changed the atmosphere around Obama greatly.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. A Chief of Staff isn't a policy position like a Cabinet member.

He doesn't make policy. He's an administrator who manages the President's staff. I think Obama's Cabinet choices will be much more indicative of what Obama intends to do.

[madfloridian]

3. I don't think you grasped what I was saying.

It is a return to the old way. Using scapegoats, dividing us, cutting out those who want change.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. I don't think that's a complete picture.

Obama has shown he will fire someone if they don't act in a professional manner.

Also, Emanuel works at the pleasure of the President.

I think Obama will remind him privately and unmistakably if he dares abuse his office for his own agenda and not that of the office of the President.

[madfloridian]

18. I tend to see that if we don't speak up....

then soon it won't matter if we do.

[Libertyfirst]

42. And no one will listen to you if you don't understand the difference

between administrative and policy roles. Purity is a nice standard for drinking water.

[madfloridian]

46. "purity is a nice standard for drinking water."?

I can tell the difference. I can also see what's happening again to our party.

[madfloridian]

59. No one listens to me anyway.

:shrug:

[dflprincess]

70. I listen to you and I generally agree with you

and I agree with you completey about Emamnuel. I don't often have much to add to what you've already said so I don't always add a post to your threads.

[madfloridian]

178. Thanks, that was nice.

:hi:

[emilyg]

75. I listen.

[magellan]

85. I listen

You were one of the first people here to enlighten me about the fractious political world, MF.

I agree with you about Emanuel. As far as I'm concerned he's a retread and symbolic of the problem in government: corporatism. All day I've been grasping at the straw that Jesse Jackson Jr. is slated to take his seat. If that's right I don't know if it means he gets Emanuel's committee seats as well, but if so that seems the plus to me because as we know, Jackson will bring progressive Dem values to those committees. I also don't know how the empty seat in the House is filled.

Anyway, I think we all know what to expect of Emanuel. I haven't read it here, but if he was one of the major players behind the decision not to pursue impeachment it wouldn't surprise me. We don't need more of this, we need CHANGE.

[madfloridian]

86. And apparently Dean is not hearing a word.

He said he is dusting off his resume. He deserves more than just not hearing.

[magellan]

89. It's discouraging

And IMO it's happening because he (and we -- progressives) are being pushed out by the Emanuels in the party. They accept us for what we can do for them, for the leg work and of course for our votes, which they expect, but they don't want to hear from us.

And I'm completely at a loss as to what to do about it besides eventually withhold my vote.

[Le Taz Hot]

103. Yes we do!

We don't always agree (though we've already agreed on the Good Doctor), but I ALWAYS listen to you and yes, I share your concern. And now Podesta and Gates????? This is just not looking good.

[BlueJac]

109. I hear you and agree we you.......

I see other things coming I may not like.

[truedelphi]

111. What dflprincess is saying applies to me too

I don't add comments to your spiels because they need no additional comment.
But since you seem to want/need support, I will say that I am glad you brought up this subject.

[bvar22]

118. I also listen....and agree about Rahm.

It is not a good sign.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[ensho]

207. I listen, I always listen and do alot of recc and replying

:)

[Dr.Phool]

79. I don't think that you understand that the CofS is the gate keeper.

He controls what and who gets to the President. It's a very powerful position.

They used to call Haldeman and Erlichman, Nixon's two german shepards. They guarded the door to the Oval Office.

[madfloridian]

105. I remember those hearings on TV all afternoon. They guarded Nixon well.

No cable news then, it was on NBC I believe. Another time our country went to extremes. Good points.

[tavalon]

29. I think it's too early to say that

Yes, this is concerning, but it isn't a one way decision either. Do you know how many Chiefs of Staff the blivet had?

[Leopolds Ghost]

157. When did support for MIGRANT WORKER PROGRAMS become Progressive?!?

No one on the left has ever supported bringing back the
Bracero programs and creating a permanent Latino underclass
as a means of "legalizing" (but NOT unionizing) undocumented workers.

[fascisthunter]

2. I Agree with You

funny how these so-called centrists have such pinnacle roles yet do very little for the people of this country. Can you say sock puppets for the elite? I knew you could.

[tigereye]

38. yes, centrists and moderates are never involved in anything good that

ever happens... :sarcasm: It kills me how pragmatists are always seen as fronts for some bizarre agenda.


Seems to be we often need the center and the left to get things done and centrists and moderates were a strong part of folks who elected Obama.


Tally up the votes in Congress and tell me how many of each there are and then we'll talk.

[fascisthunter]

153. sorry the bad outways the good... take a look at our economy

take alook at the country and shape it's in. The right was allowed to do most of it, with the very same centrists I am talking about. When "centrists" stop stepping on liberals, I have kinder words for them.

[Metta]

4. Thanks. I, too, find his policies and reasons troubling and karmically unprofitable.

The low road for sure.

[stillcool]

5. I think I'll wait for another fish to fry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Chief_of_Staff
The duties of the White House Chief of Staff vary greatly from one administration to another. However, he has been responsible for overseeing the actions of the White House staff, managing the president's schedule, and deciding who is allowed to meet with the president.
Originally, the duties now performed by the Chief of Staff belonged to the Secretary to the President.<3> In 1946, in response to the rapid growth of the U.S. government's executive branch, the position of Assistant to the President of the United States was established, and charged with the affairs of the White House. In 1961, the president's pre-eminent assistant was designated White House Chief of Staff. "Assistant to the President" became a rank generally shared by the Chief of Staff with such senior aides as Deputy Chiefs of Staff, the White House Counsel, the White House Press Secretary, and others. Prior to the creation of this post, the Chief of Staff's job title was traditionally Appointments Secretary, as with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's aide Edwin "Pa" Watson.

Not every president has had a formal Chief of Staff (e.g., John F. Kennedy did not). Because of the stressful and demanding nature of the job, the average term-of-service for a White House Chief of Staff is a little under 2.5 years. John R. Steelman, under Harry S. Truman, was the last Chief of Staff to serve for an entire presidential administration. Steelman also holds the record for longest-serving Chief of Staff (6 years). Andrew Card and Sherman Adams tie for second-longest (5 years each).

Most White House Chiefs of Staff are former politicians, and many continue their political careers in other senior roles. Richard Nixon's Chief of Staff Alexander Haig became Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan. Gerald Ford's Chief of Staff Dick Cheney became a U.S. Representative for Wyoming, Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush and vice president under George W. Bush. Donald Rumsfeld was another Chief of Staff for the Ford administration and subsequently served as Secretary of Defense in the Ford administration and decades later in the George W. Bush administration. Job duties

The roles of the Chief of Staff are both managerial and advisory and can include the following duties, depending on the President's style of conducting business:<4>

Managerial

* Select key White House staff and supervise them
* Structure the White House staff system
* Control the flow of people into the Oval Office
* Manage the flow of information

Advisory

* Advise the President on issues of politics, policy and management issues
* Protect the interests of the President
* Negotiate with Congress, other members of the executive branch, and extragovernmental political groups to implement the President's agenda

[Mari333]

6. He will be pretty much second in command

and I read a report yesterday of some soldiers in Iraq who had voted for Obama..
their reaction when he won was "Well,I sure as HELL dont want to go to Afghanistan..and I dont want to be in Iraq anymore..just send us home.."
From their persepctive, Emanuel is a pretty grim choice I would think.

[madfloridian]

7. Rahm literally told the candidates not to discuss Iraq at all.

That's pretty rotten.

[John K]

182. Please understand how the government works before making incorrect statements

I would challenge anyone to name the past 4 chief of staffs in the White House. I am totally plugged in and couldn't name them without looking them up.

Its only been 3 days people!!! Get a grip.

There is no way you will like everything that is going to happen, but think of what we are replacing. If I agreed with everything that Obama was going to do, that would mean that I could replace him, right? I'm not sure that I've earned that and I don't think that anyone on this board has either.

[babylonsister]

8. One day and we're out for blood? I know he fights/fought with

Dean and that is upsetting. But Dean proved to be right. I wonder if there's an article around about any apologies Emanuel might have issued.

I have full faith in Obama's choice. This is a huge position that's very close to the President and was announced almost immediately. Obama had made up his mind and has his reasons; I can't start second guessing him so early.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x399274

snip//

But whatever else it says about the Obama administration, Emanuel's appointment suggests that it will be just as tightly run as the Obama campaign. Discipline is the quality that carried Obama to victory over sloppier opponents, and it's a quality sorely missed in many past Democratic administrations. With expectations for Obama as high as they are, he could do worse than having a human cudgel at his side.

**********************************

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/uselection/story.html?id=935770

snip//

"It's good for Obama," Mr. Feehery said. "He is going to spend most of his time cracking Democratic heads, getting them to move from the left to the middle. Mr. Obama is going to need a bad cop to his good cop. Mr. Emanuel fills that role nicely."

Mr. Emanuel served in the Clinton administration and helped engineer the 2006 Democratic takeover of the House, ending 12 years of Republican rule.

He has strong ties to Mr. Obama's inner circle through his close friendship with the president-elect's top political strategist, David Axelrod. Mr. Axelrod had done political consulting work for Mr. Emanuel.

As White House chief of staff, Mr. Emanuel would serve as gatekeeper to Mr. Obama, deciding who has access to the Oval Office. The duties of the position vary from administration to administration, but generally the chief of staff serves as the president's top adviser, plays a major role in selecting the president's appointees, and manages other White House officials. He would help plan the president's agenda.

[madfloridian]

11. Who is out for blood? Is that how you took my post?

I thought it was pretty sensible.

Now DU is becoming let's all not speak up anymore.

[babylonsister]

17. Did I say you shouldn't speak? Are you posting, hoping no one will

respond? I'm just saying I'm going to see how this shakes out. It might be Obama's best, most comfortable choice he'll be making.

And you are of course welcome to criticize. That's what DU is for.

[madfloridian]

21. You said I was "out for blood". That is not fair to me.

I took time to put a well-reasoned post together.

[John K]

183. Speak up all you want, but don't we even give him a weeks honeymoon

I worked my butt off to get Obama elected, I will wait until he is actually president and does something before throwing stuff. After 8 years of Bush, I would take 50 years of Rahm.

[leftchick]

37. That is a fucking joke " getting them to move from the left to the middle"???

more like from the middle to the RIGHT. Emmanuel has much more in common with repukes than with moderate Democrats. :eyes:

[redqueen]

110. Yeah, that comment is pretty telling. (nt)

[kath]

60. "He is going to spend most of his time cracking Democratic heads, getting them to move from the left

to the middle".

Well, isn't that great? Just. Fucking. Great.

[Hannah Bell]

81. esp. since what's now called "the left" used to be the middle.

[billh58]

90. Rahm is a DLC Poster Boy

Rahm Emanuel is Al From's poster boy for the DLC, you know,
the Republican Lite wing of the Democratic Party. He's right
up there with Hillary, Lieberman, Vilsack, and Harold Ford,
Jr.

[sabrina 1]

181. Eactly! We'll have to wait and see if

Obama balances this choice with someone a bit more progressive in their thinking. I hope by bi-partisan he doesn't mean bending over backwards to please the rightwing who have been resoundingly rejected by the public. But that is what Democrats seem to always mean when they use that word. I've yet to see Repubs or the Blue Dog element of the Dem Party return the favor.

A lot of people helped get Obama elected, I hope he remembers them now as they are badly in need of representation after eight long years with none.

[kaygore]

125. If Emanuel is the choice for such an important position, then we may have all worked

so hard for so long for nothing! I agree with MF! Emanuel is not the CHANGE that I worked so hard and so long for!

Emanuel is more of the same in Washington, but then, if our worse fears of Emanuel are correct, we will only have four years of something like Bush very lite and then we can perhaps get Dean to run again or some other person with a true vision of where this country has to go, someone who does not have the deep and abiding ties to special interests and big money and corporations that characterize Emanuel and would characterize the Obama administration if Emanuel were the gatekeeper.

I so hope that we are wrong about the Emanuel pick, but when I heard it, I thought, "Oh, sh*t. All those Republicans may have been right: Obama may be just rhetoric"--not that McCain was any choice at all.

[katty]

155. yes, Rahm is DLC right leaner - had enough of that

[The Magistrate]

10. Rep. Emanuel, Ma'am

Will get President Obama's legislation through the Congress, and we will increase our majorities in 2010.

[madfloridian]

12. Yes, sir, I was waiting for your post. No, that is not all that matters.

Not anymore. Things have to matter now, issues have to matter.

[cali]

20. legislation is about issues

and the Magistrate said nothing about only one thing mattering.

[madfloridian]

24. That is not what I said at all. Minds are fixed. Words are not being read.

I have been stunned here the last two days at the vitriol over questioning.

[tavalon]

33. It will take a few disappointments here before people will begin stepping into their new job

Our collective job as the liberal activists is two fold: one, we must get Obama's back but two, we must hold his feet to the fire. I think people are still having a hard time seeing how that will look in real time. We will settle in to our job, just as Obama will his. We need a few weeks, maybe even months before we will be a well oiled machine. I think it's just too early to get disheartened. And it would be too easy to overreact right now and turn into a circular firing squad, something we liberals are famous for.

Please don't take this to mean that I think we will have an incredibly progressive President in Obama. He has always been centrist and while his speeches are stirring, I think his governing will be solidly centrist. That's not my dream President but after the last 8 years, I think even someone governing from the middle will be a great relief. Also, he's got a huge amount of work to do just reversing what the asshole in chief did.

[...of J.Temperance]

23. That is all that matters, from a political point of view, President Obama needs to

Have his legislative agenda passed by Congress for the next four years....I mean what other point was he running for President on?

He was running on CHANGING POLICIES from the disasterous policies of the past eight years.

Rahm Emanuel is a pitbull, and because of that he's an excellant choice for WH CoS, he's also been a personal friend of President Obama for many many years, which is even better.

[The Magistrate]

27. Get The Bills Through, Ma'am, And The Majorities Up, Under a Popular President

The rest will follow....

[Joe Fields]

84. yes, you may be correct, but that remains to be seen.

Something else that remains to be seen, and is a question we all will have answered soon enough: is Obama's legislation our legislation? Will it be what we want? Personally, I think not. So then the second question would be, just what have we won, if we (dems) are morphing into them (reps)?

If that's what you're bucking for, Magistrate, you can have it. I won't drink that brand of child's soft drink.

[The Magistrate]

93. Let Us Be Clear, Sir, And Put The Cards Face Up On the Table

You have, throughout the campaign, engaged in sniping at President Obama, accusing him of standing for nothing, of fostering a cult of personality, and in general amounting to a Republican in Democrat's clothing. He is hardly the only leading Democrat you have disparaged in this manner. It is unlikely that you, personally, have won much of anything by his election. It is also vanishingly unlikely that your view is typical of the views of the many millions who voted for President Obama this Tuesday last. His Presidency will not turn on whether he acts in a manner you find pleasing: his Presidency will turn on whether the measures he takes improve the lives of scores of millions of our citizens, and whether they meet with the approval of the mass of people who voted for him, and even the approval of many who did not vote for him As President Obama has shown sound judgement in gauging what will move millions upon millions of our citizens to rally alongside him during this campaign, he may be expected to show similarly good judgement in the exercise of his office.

[Joe Fields]

140. and you, sir have turned it into nothing more than a game,

marking our superiority with wins and losses. No man is untouchable. When those who represent me act in a manner that is contrary to my core beliefs, then yes, you're going to hear from me. If you are suggesting that I am one of the ones who consistently trashed Obama during the campaign, then that would be a lie.

[GeorgeGist]

150. Very clever, Sir ...

except for the lack of substance to back up your position.

I trust that President Obama did NOT hire Mr. Emanuel to be a YES man ... and that Mr. Emanuel said Yes, Sir.

[eleny]

13. Maybe Rahm wasn't chosen for his views on issues but how he can get things done

And those things will have to be Obama's choosing. If Obama goes back on this election being about us, he'll pay the political price.

So Rahm really did have a huge decision to make. Obama is his boss not his protege. Rahm could be out of a job quick.

I understand that they have known each other a long time. Obama lives just south of Rahm's district.

If Obama has a completely different agenda from what we think it is, it'll become clear awfully quick. I'm willing to wait to judge this. At first, I really thought that Obama was moving to keep Rahm close enough to keep watch over his energy - and to give that energy something to do. Obama is the kind of guy who can outfox a fox.

[madfloridian]

14. That is one view.

Of course.

It is done now.

[eleny]

28. I fully expect to disagree with Obama on many issues

I'll never forgive Clinton for Nafta and the right wing welfare "reforms".

So I can wait, be vigilant and voice my opinion as issues arise. But most of all I'll wake up every day grateful for a Dem president.

[nolabels]

148. The thing about climbers is finding the correct thing for them to climb

President Clinton was a person that wanted to get things done, even if they may now seem have been the wrong things, that is and was his life's M.O.
President Obama is made out of the same stuff and will be up to rest of us to help keep him aimed in the correct direction. We all will need luck and our own voice because the pitfalls are many


P.S. Thanks also for letting me echo your comments :-)

[achtung_circus]

34. Wow, sanity

who'da thunk it. Do Democrats revert to cannibalism so very quickly?

[eleny]

36. Yes, about the cannibalism - We can be a worrying bunch

Rahm is aligned with the DLC and that's not a universal favorite around here. At least it's not with me. But I'm willing to wait and see how things roll out.

[madfloridian]

39. Oh, come on. You just called me a cannibal and questioned my sanity.

All in one post.

That is simply not fair.

[achtung_circus]

44. Well

a reversion to the worst possible and internally decisive position that can be postulated is an art. Congrats.

In 1 post? I multitask.

[Gman]

174. Yes, Democrats do revert to cannibalism very quickly

Frankly, I was wondering what took so long.

[Auggie]

117. That's my take

So much has to be done in such a short period of time.

[Castleman]

126. Exactly. Rahm isn't going to be setting policy

or writing legislation, he's there to whip the staff into shape and carry out Obama's orders. Barack's attack dog, if you will. When Obama needs to unleash the smackdown on someone, that's what Rahm is for. "Sic 'em, boy!" followed by "Sit! Stay!" and a whack over the nose with a rolled up newspaper if he strays.
Any sensible leader has one, that's part of MY job. My boss is a kindly, pleasant woman, and when she needs someone to be a real asshole, she calls on me to get it done. That was part of Palin's problem, she was her own junkyard dog. It's a job best delegated to others.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

164. Yes - and those who second-guess Obama's appointment seem to think they are smarter than Obama!!!!

I think there are plenty of smart people here, but give me a break!

Seems Obama is using Rahm's organizational skills and at the same time opening a congressional spot for someone who may be more progressive in views.

Plus, I seriously doubt Rahm would be able to subvert Obama's policies, even if he wanted to.

[bertman]

177. LonelyLRLiberal, I think you nailed it. Or, at least I hope you nailed it.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. It gets him out of policy/legislation making and into Obama policy enforcement. He serves at

the President's pleasure.

He makes sure the staff is on message and is serving the interests of the President. He shepherds the President's agenda through congress. But he doesn't decide that agenda. Obama does that.

I completely understand why you don't much care for Emanuel. Neither do I. But working for Obama is a better place for him than in the congress working on his own agenda.

[Overseas]

16. I was hoping the selection might be sort of a Keep Your Enemies Closer

kind of thing.

Hoped he was pulling Rahm close to his side because Rahm can get things done and perhaps to keep an eye on him and hold him back from those losing strategies of pushing to the right.

Perhaps keeping him close will help show Rahm how much support the Democratic left ideas have and pull him on board.

Surely Rahm must realize that if the Democrats give Americans universal single payer healthcare in a series of careful but fairly rapid steps, we'll be Democrats for life. I've experienced national health insurance in another country and it feels great, deep down, never to have to worry about the cost of medical problems or emergencies.

[eleny]

30. That's just what I was thinking about this selection

And said so above in my first reply. Keep Rahm close and very busy where he can advance Obama's agenda effectively. In a limited way, this choice was a bipartisan one. :D

[Recursion]

19. Geez... what part of "firing up" do you guys not get?

Exactly. So get him out of Congress, out of running the caucus.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[madfloridian]

22. Who is "you guys"?

?

[Two Americas]

25. if it means standing with you...

...then I want to be one of "you guys."

Good post, thanks. K and R.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

26. So, he won't decide policy...

Perhaps this is why he paused to consider his options before accepting Obama's offer...

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

31. I want to add Digby's remarks from earlier:

"If Obama wants to govern as liberally as the political circumstances allow, then we need to work to make sure that the political circumstances include a strong liberal base. Mindlessly cheerleading out of a misplaced sense of loyalty will not help him. As Roosevelt understood, politics are interlocking interests and constituencies that have to be brought to bear to achieve certain goals.

In the current political world, I believe that Obama and the Democrats need a strong left wing that is out there agitating in order that we can continue to build popular support and also give them a political excuse to do things that the political establishment finds too liberal. Being cheerleaders all the time, however enjoyable that is, is not going to help them. Leaving them out there with no left wing cripples them.

One of the problems for Democrats has been that there has not been an effective progressive voice pushing the edge of the envelope. Therefore, when they inevitably "go to the middle" as politicians often feel they must do, the middle become further and further right. It is my belief that one of the roles of the progressive movement is to keep pulling the politicians back to the left, which often means that we are not being publicly "supportive," in order that we really do end up in the middle instead of farther to the right than the country actually is.

I'm not an idiot and I know very well that Obama needs room to govern. A big historic victory, a village predisposed to at least give him a chance and a set of very serious crises to confront will give him that. My role is to make sure that the progressive agenda is pushed as well, and to make sure that the village knows that we are watching. I don't mind if they hate me, if they also have a healthy respect for the fact that I will stand up for what I believe in. I think this is necessary for successful politics. I don't expect to win all the time (or even most of the time) and I will be very, very supportive when the Democrats come through. But I believe that they need us to keep their feet to the fire. In addition, we need to start the long process of making progressivism the default political identity of the young. That requires rhetoric that stands strong and takes pride in being liberal"

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/making-him-do-it-by-digby-i-was-reading.html

[LWolf]

32. Excellent points, all, and

I am in full agreement.

:kick:

[eridani]

35. As chief of staff, he won't be picking out pro-war candidates for DCCC anymore n/t

[dwilso40641]

146. Or recruting goopoers to run as Democrats

[yellowcanine]

40. I would like to know why so many think they can second guess Obama? He has gotten it right all

along. Why do so many think they have a better judgement of who should be his Chief of Staff - a highly personal pick that only the President can make - then he does? Frankly I am flabbergasted at the chutzpa of these critics. Does Obama not get any benefit of the doubt after what he has just accomplished? I am losing patience with folks here on DU. Have we forgotten that WE WON? It is ok to put away the knives for a while. Jeez! Rant over.

[madfloridian]

41. Think about what you just said.

Think about it carefully. You expect me not to express an opinion unless I agree.

Think about that.

[yellowcanine]

43. I thought about it. I stand by what I said. Live with it.

[madfloridian]

47. It is your right to want me to hush.

It is my right not to do so.

[yellowcanine]

49. Never said you had to hush. Just said I intensely disagreed with you.

Heat.Kitchen, etc.

[Pastiche423]

45. What did we win?

A republicon lite as the CoS is NOT winning. We could have gotten the same thing from a real republicon.

It sounds like you know no history of the DLC and rahm in particular.

[yellowcanine]

48. Condescend much? You don't know me or what I know or don't know.

For what is worth, Rahm Emmanual is one of the main reasons we captured the House of Reps in 2006 and why we gained even more seats this time. And if Obama thinks he needs him as CoS that is good enough for me. This is a highly personal choice for a President to make. Obama has "gotten it right" so far, in spite of all the naysayers and armchair generals here on DU. Why don't we all just take a deep breath and wait to start second guessing until we see where things stand after Obama has had his first 100 days? See you May 2009.

[Pastiche423]

51. rahm did nothing of the sort!

All he tried to do was get blue dogs and DLCers elected. He sent out a few letters, but it was Howard Dean that did all of the hard ground work, creating Dem HQs in all fifty states.

rahm may have tried to take credit, and if he did, he lied. A divisive DLCer is not what our country needs.

Sorry, I am not a dittohead. If the president elect does something I disagree w/, then I will say something.

[yellowcanine]

54. So the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had nothing to do with the Democrats

taking over the House in 2006 other than "sending out a few letters."? Ok that's fair. NOT.

[babylonsister]

64. I hear you, yellowcanine. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

:crazy:

[babylonsister]

55. Umm, yes he did, or at least many people give him credit for this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/06/uselections2008-rahm-emanuel-obama

"He masterminded the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006 and was elected party chairman by grateful colleagues, most of whom would welcome his promotion to chief of staff.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

Ultimately the Democratic Party enjoyed considerable success in the 2006 elections, gaining 30 seats in the House. Emanuel has received considerable praise for his stewardship of the DCCC during this election cycle, even from Illinois Republican Rep. Ray LaHood who said "He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them. Rahm did what no one else could do in seven cycles."<16> Nevertheless, some of the 2006 victories came in areas that had trended strongly Republican in recent years, such as Nancy Boyda's defeat of Jim Ryun in Kansas.

[Pastiche423]

63. Yep, those DLCers love him!

[kenfrequed]

124. Oh right...

No citing of sources with who is stating that Rahm mastermineded anything. Just tossed into the concluding paragraph after a wildman biopiece. Rather sloppy for the Guardian.

[kenfrequed]

121. historical Revision much...?

Both Rahm and Ford's preferred picks in 2004 and 2006 did poorly. Very poorly. It was Deans 50 state-fight-them-everywhere tactic that worked. The DLC, cherry pick and put in right leaning democrats and republican switches failed and failed miserably.


2006 signaled a movement back towards the progressive left. A great blue wave. Had it not been for us left wing agitators we would be reading about a McCain victory today. We are the people that have been fighting and writing and ranting and raving about the excesses and illegalities of the Bushites. We were marching and protesting and calling congress and donating to Move-On, while the DLC were coordinating and triangulating and giving in on every right win push imaginable.


The DLC was formed in the early 80's as a response to the conservative movement. The response was a weak and simpering: "yeah, us too." Ronald Reagan has now been dead for over a decade. Isn't it time we buried this loser strategy that has stolen energy from our party and deprived us of our own progressive vision?


Honestly, with the gradual collapse of conservatism the very last thing we should EVER do is try to compromise further with them. We need to get them to compromise with us on a few things. I mean what are we going to give them that we haven't already? "Well I suppose you can gut civil liberites a bit more" "Sure we will lower pollution standards a bit more" "What? You wan't NAFTA II: the corporations hit harder? Sure"

[sabrina 1]

179. No, it was Howard Dean who was responsible

for that, and for the success of this election also. If Rahm Emmanuel had had his way, he would have helped to continue the string of losses the Dems had.

However, he DID try to dishonestly take credit for Dean's successes, another reason I do not like him. I share the OP's opinion of this choice and would love to know why Obama chose him.

[Rockholm]

108. Some DU'ers just have to gripe about something.

[bvar22]

120. "gotten it right all along"???

I think he got it wrong on agreeing to immunity for the telecoms.

He also got it wrong on supporting the $850 Billion dollar gift to the Wall St executives.

Now, one of the biggest BIG BUSINESS Corporate Dems as the GateKeeper?

Some of us are paying attention, and are justifiably concerned.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Here's an all too familiar word that Rahm's appointment smacks of: "triangulation".

aka: "reaching across the aisle", "bi-partisanship", "politics-as-usual", or, selling out.

[Gman]

52. MadFloridian, you typify the American progressive

as soon as progressives win an election because they haven't managed to screw it up, they're back to complaining again. Good grief, MF! It hasn't even been 48 hours since Obama won. Cut him some slack and give him a chance, please! You are the guys telling me about what a great person Obama was when I wanted Hillary. Your man won. Stay happy and give the man some credit and trust his judgement. Good grief!

[IndianaJones]

53. this deserves its own OP. excellent. nt.

[madfloridian]

73. Yes, he really should post a post about how progressive I am

I think he should do that.

I think he needs to include some of my journals, find some stuff that backs up what he is saying.

And his point? I'm not sure.

[yellowcanine]

56. Right on. What I was trying to say.

[madfloridian]

57. I am proud to be that kind of progressive.

You make it sound like a shameful thing to question.

I love Obama and his way of making us feel reassured. That is why I wrote this.

You are not going to shame me for speaking out, not at all.

[Gman]

65. No one's trying to shame you for anything, and especially not me

and I wish you wouldn't feel that way. You were one of Obama's biggest supporters here on DU during the primaries. Your candidate won. Be happy about that and have some faith in him. I was a Hillary supporter, but I have a helluva lot of faith in Obama.

Progressives did something they have never been able to do since 1968... win a presidential election. And it's precisely because they are never happy with anything. You're not happy and apparently have some big concerns about the very first thing Obama does after he gets elected. I'm sorry, but no wonder non-progressives get annoyed. It's like progressives just can't stand prosperity.

[madfloridian]

69. Yes, I do have big concerns.

But not about Obama. I think he is now pretty much in the WH bubble. Trouble is that Rahm will be the gatekeeper to the bubble.

[Moonwalk]

130. Why is questioning the questioner...

Taken as trying to shut them up? I'm not in either agreement or disagreement, MF, with what you posted. I haven't made my mind up yet and I want more information before I decide. But I'm amazed at how you're reacting to people who are calling you on this. You instantly get defensive. You say, "You mean I should shut up!"

I'm reading these posts, and very few of those who disagree with you seem to be saying "shut up!" They're usually saying, "I don't think we have enough data." Let's turn it around. You're questioning this appointment. And you feel that no one should shame you from speaking up. Why then are you trying to shame those who speak up against you? Why are you accusing them of trying to shut you up? That's the sort of accusation that is usually used to make someone who disagrees with you back down and say, "Oh, no, I didn't mean to make you feel you couldn't speak. please! Go on. Say things I disagree with and I'll quietly listen and not object at all!"

Most of your detractors seem to feel that it's too early to go into "slippery slope" mode and say that this one appointment is going to lead us all down hill. So. Address that concern. Why do you feel that you are not jumping the gun here? Putting it another way, if Obama wants a mentor to tell him what to do, we are fucked. But if he's made this man his guard dog, under his command, then we're not. If you don't know which Obama has done, isn't it a little early to imply that we're doomed? You're worried about Emanuel. But a lot of the posts questioning you--and they have every right to question your judgement--are asking you to think not of Emanuel but of Obama. They're asking: will Obama be under R.E.'s command, or will he be under Obama's command? It makes a difference.

And yes, I know you think you presented a reasoned post with plenty of evidence. That doesn't change the fact that it essentially says--and you keep implying with you're mantra "it's done!"--that you're Cassandra and the walls of Troy are about to fall and why isn't anyone listening to you? If this is really a Trojan horse situation, show us how Obama is just a vehicle of Emanuel and how we can stop him. But you can't just say that Emanuel isn't a progressive. That's a given. You have to say why Obama is a Trojan horse for Emanuel. That is what the people who disagree with you are asking you to prove. They don't want you to shut up, they want you to offer data or wait for data to support your prediction. There is no point in putting Obama's feet to the fire on this appointment if Emanuel is going to jump when Obama says "jump" and not the other way around.

[madfloridian]

58. I am not typical. Now I do resent that.

Folks here are awfully touchy. I have been one of Obama' greatest supporters in every way.

What difference does it make what I think anyway? It's done.

[Runcible Spoon]

114. oh wow

I am trying to type out a cogent, calm response to the venom and disgust you have for progressives but all I can think of through my anger is GO FUCK YOURSELF.

I will try again later but wow just WOW. Yes, us progressives never contribute anything...we just whine and screw shit up right?

on edit...the fact you think Obama progressive is quite telling. He's straight up moderate. Not that I'm knocking him for it, but let's at least just drop the disingenuous notion that he is some quasi socialist warrior for the proletariat...

[cali]

119. I'd wager that Barack Obama has done far, far more for the poor and disenfranchised

than YOU. I don't think he's an easy guy to peg at all, but one thing is clear: He's one of the few people ever elected to the office who's actually done something for the poor and disenfranchised.

[Runcible Spoon]

128. way to miss the point

Obama is moderate. Period. He's done just as much, if not more, for corporate welfare as he has for the poor. I don't even see why this is debateable.

My original point was directed at those knocking progressives as somehow disruptive or damaging because they/we keep moderates' feet to the fire and challenge the DLC status quo. But yeah, attack me if it makes you feel better. I don't have to love Obama or harbor false illusions about his policy stances, ideological leanings, cabinet posts, etc. to generally support him as a Democrat.

[John K]

184. I agree with your comment 100%

The man hasn't even spent one night in the White House and they're complaints about how its all been for naught? If we can't accept a fellow democrat in the White House what will we do when a Republican is appointed - which could very well happen? Rahm will kick butt and take names - as he has always done - but Obama will say WHO and WHEN.

[KoKo]

61. K&R....we should be wary of him. But, perhaps getting him out of Congress

where he can't do more damage and can be fired by Obama if he gets out of line is wise. I worry about Rahm's close ties to Israel being a door in for the Neo-Cons...but perhaps Obama being thoughtful and softspoken felt he could use a "Pitt Bull" like Emmanuel to frighten off some of the burglers. He might be pulling off something interesting making him COS. But, Rahm has to be watched.

I'm more worried about him appointing Larry Summers. (did you see my post about him?)

[madfloridian]

62. Give me the link to your post.

I must have missed it.

:hi:

[KoKo]

100. Here....it sunk like a stone...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4399526

[unkachuck]

66. K&R....n/t

[madfloridian]

67. Posting carefully and intelligently here no longer matters.

One is made to feel like an idiot no matter what if they differ.

I just looked through this thread. You would think I had not presented facts and quotes, that I launched a tirade with no fairness.

I find it rather sad that we are now not supposed to question the choice of one of the most divisive politicians on the hill.

I find it sad that I heard an interview with Dean on VPR today in which he says he'll probably be "dusting off his resume."

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/82772/

Why doesn't that make you wonder?

[madfloridian]

68. Dean said "I'll probably be dusting off my resume"

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/82772/

I would just as soon he would. I have some odd feelings about now about where things are going.

He will find something to do, I'm sure.

[trudyco]

72. Let's hope Obama knows what he's doing and can rule Rahm in.

Hopefully this does not mean Obama's going the way of the DLC.

And yes, Madfloridian, I listen to you. This was very informative. Seems like people can not post a concern towards whatever candidate DU'ers are in love with without getting dogpiled.

Now that candidate is Obama. And you got dogpiled. Don't let it get to you.

[madfloridian]

74. Thanks. Doesn't bother me too much buts cuts down on good discussions

on topics.

The dogpiling does happen a lot here. It sort of rolls off my back, but I see some who really get their feelings hurt.

Gets pretty rough.

[mnhtnbb]

170. The article says Dean may be under consideration for Sec'y of Health and Human Services

[madfloridian]

172. So is Tom Daschle.

.

[dysfunctional press]

71. at least it gets his dlc dino ass out of congress- maybe his seat can go to an actual democrat.

nt

[Mampula]

76. I'm ok with Rahm

I just don't see how one pick could derail a presidency. I believe some are exaggerating in trashing Obama's choice.

[madfloridian]

77. You think my post is "trashing"? Welcome to DU, I guess.

I don't think I was "trashing". I am pointing out which side won and which side is dusting off resumes. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

78. K&R ------Kinda long..back tomorrow --

[Joe Fields]

80. how can one not appreciate such an insightful post? thanks.

great job, once again, madfloridian.

[madfloridian]

83. Thank, I meant it that way....not in an ugly way. It's too important not to discuss.

:hi:

[Joe Fields]

87. It goes directly to the core issue of the idealogical direction of the party.

[madfloridian]

82. Chris Bowers has another post up tonight. Discussing Democracy is healthy.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the choices our leaders make.

More from Open Left

First, what, exactly, has Emanuel accomplished on the legislative front? Emanuel's website provides a list of his sponsored legislation for the 110th Congress. Every single piece of legislation is one of the following:

Expressing a sense of the House

Electing members to standing committees

Currently tied up in committee
This is the case for every single sponsored legislation. All of them. His legislative accomplishments appear minimal, at best.

Second, as far as just taking orders hoes, I'd like to relate a story I heard about Emanuel's s role in the Iraq supplemental fight back in early 2007. Representative Obey, who was leading the fight, was convinced that Emanuel, who as Caucus Chair was in the on the senior strategy sessions, was leaking their strategy to the press. To test this theory, Obey leaked some inaccurate information to Emanuel and Emanuel only. When that inaccurate information turned up in the media, Emanuel was kicked out of all further strategy sessions on the Iraq supplemental fight. In short, Emanuel was undermining the House leadership he was supposedly working for during the Iraq supplemental fight.

Third, covering both the "get things done" and "just taking orders" charge, keep in mind that Emanuel was organizing Democratic members of the House to vote against their own party on motions to recommit. This both stalled Democratic legislation and undermined the efforts of the rest of the House leadership. It's a double whammy against the "just taking orders" and "knows how to get things done" charge.

[Peggy Day]

91. I think he needs to be watched. When he said something against

Howard Dean, a red flag went up. A healthy watchful eye is OK. I hope I don't get anymore red flags from him. I don't want corporate Democrats forgetting the people. His "pit bull" style
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/17/magazines/fortune/politics.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2006092512

[mhatrw]

88. To sum up: Rahm Emanuel is a centrist hack. n/t

[JCMach1]

92. I agree with your concerns...

However, I have always believed that Obama was much closer to the Center than my own beliefs. I really don't have great expectations for the people he puts around him. I suspect he will surround himself with Centrists.

As a progressive, that will never make me happy.

[madfloridian]

115. I have felt the same...realized he was centrist.

I could live with that right now, but having Rahm as his official face in the media will turn me away from how I might have felt before.

I simply can not handle it.

[JCMach1]

137. Chief of Staff is usually more of a behind the scenes mechanic type of job

Literally, I think he is there as the ENFORCER for the Congress.

Please don't take that as a defense... I don't like Rahm... but I suspect there will be uglier picks to come.

For now, I will reserve judgment to see exactly how Obama handles this.

[althecat]

94. I am pleased you posted this madfloridian

I too was very uncomfortable when I heard this news.

You explain why.

[fla nocount]

95. madfloridian, you are a jewel...

that shines brighter everyday. You're getting very very good at this and though I would miss you very much, you may have outgrown the "party first" wankers at DU.

[madfloridian]

180. Few share your view...

But I will treasure it. Thank you. :hi:

[Demeter]

96. MF, Look At It As a Chess Game

Obama wins the election to highest office, and becomes titular head of the Party.

The first thing he has to do is corral, hogtie, and subdue that party to his will. So, he looks at each person, evaluating that person's skills, ambitions, character, current position, etc.

The state of Party leadership is dismal, and I don't think any observer would disagree. The party is full of prima donnas, strong egos. Some of them are simply doing the wrong jobs because that was what was available.

The good Doctor Dean has done a miracle, resuscitating a living Party out of the ashes of the last 50 years. He feels it can continue in his absence, and he's probably a bit tired of it. With any luck, he's located and trained enough staff that will provide the continuity and train the next Chairman. Fair enough, and well done, Dr. Dean! If we are even luckier, the same rebuilding has occured on the state level, too. Granted, the Clintonistas were a problem, but it appears that Hillary has reined them in, and dedicated them to Obama, with the possible exception of your home state of Florida, which has so many problems that I despair for you. Maybe, with global warming, you can move north, where you would be appreciated?

So, the next piece to examine is the Legislature. Obama drops a word in Harry Reid's ear, Reid goes after Lieberman. Good for Harry. He may be able to stay as Majority Leader, work with Biden and Obama. He can take direction and carry out projects.

Nancy Pelosi is a big problem, but she's got supporters. Undermining Nancy means removing all visible means of support. Rahm is a big one. But Rahm would not be the best Speaker, either. His talents would be much more effective as the Executive's Executioner: Chief of Staff. Furthermore, such a position puts Rahm under Obama's direct command. He can't be a loose cannon, nor a DLC DINO any more. He can't beat up on immigrants, because immigrants put Obama in office. He can't cater to corporations, because they are the villains in today's economy. So Rahm's bad habits are broken, and his interpersonal skills are put to work doing Obama's program. This is a good thing, and worthy of the experiment. Chief of Staff is dangerous work. It's a career dead ender, if previous Chiefs are anything to go by.

Oh, and about Hillary? She's got a deal, maybe Supreme Court. She'll work with Obama. Bill probably won't, but that's okay.

But what to do about Nancy? That's the next exciting development. I want to see her comeuppance. If she thinks sucking up to GM will help protect her, she's got another think coming.

And as for that Senate filibuster thing, I fully expect Obama will, by judicious application of appointments, pull it off and get 60 real Democrats in the Senate.

Then there's Justice and the Courts. Perhaps in parallel with the Treasury, Fed, and economy, but I think Obama can multitask.

And as we learned in Star Trek (the Corbomite Maneuver), when the chess rules fail, switch to poker!

[Joe Chi Minh]

101. Fascinating post, Demeter. Who's GM, though? - daft question though it doubtless is.

[Demeter]

127. GM? What Are You Referring to?

[Joe Chi Minh]

156. It was about Pelosi: "If she thinks sucking up to GM will help protect her,

she's got another think coming."

[Demeter]

165. That's General Motors

For 7 years now the auto business has been dying on the vine, but Washington couldn't be bothered to take note. All of a sudden, Pelosi is doing press conferences about how she's going to single-handedly rescue Detroit (although there's probably more auto jobs in California than Michigan nowadays). It was disgusting.

[Joe Chi Minh]

167. Thanks. The most obvious thing, and I didn't think of it!

[Joe Chi Minh]

188. Politicians can be like chameleons. Blair was the absolute paragon of

chameleons.

[droidamus2]

97. Don't worry

Unlike Bush I think Obama will truly be in charge. I actually think picking Emanuel is a good idea. Why? This way President Obama has Emanuel under his control. As others have stated Rahm will not be allowed to go off on his own agenda but will be told in not uncertain terms what the administration line is and how he is expected to do his job. It's a good idea because otherwise you have Emanuel over in the House or out in front of the media possibly causing trouble for this new administration. An added good side effect is if the person that replaces Rahm is more to the liberal side and not so much of a DLC believer. I would think that the last two elections should put to rest the ideas that one, the country is a center/right country and two that you have to move to the right to win. I think the country is at least a little center/left and to win you have to control the middle which means convince them that you won't be too extreme and will actually get things done. In the end I don't think the vast majority of the public want a right or left government they just want a functional government that can actually address the problems of the country and do something about them.

[MicaelS]

98. I think Obama wanted a pit bull

That is why he choose Emnauel. For the time I have lurked here and finally registered, I saw endless complaints, from too many members to count, about Democrats who were too nice. Who let Republicans define the agenda and didn't fight back. When the Clintons were in office they ran from opportunity to effect real change with health care as soon as their opposition started to scream. Everything I have read about Rahm Emanuel tells me he is not the type to back down from a fight. So, you don't like Rahm Emanuel position on immigration? Well I'd say that is too bad, because right now the economy is problem number one. Immigration concerns are way down on the list.

[Joe Chi Minh]

102. Obama as the soft talker, Emanuel, the big stick. I like the sound of that.

[BlooInBloo]

107. Yup. Good-cop, bad-cop is how I describe it.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

196. I totally agree with all that you said, MicaelS. I'm glad Pres Obama picked a fighter.

[Romulox]

99. Rahm Emanuel = MORE OF THE SAME

Corporations and rightwingers have been in charge of America for 30 plus years. Emanuel is their agent in Washington.

[truedelphi]

112. Yes and it is weird to think that

The new President, elected because he said he would cut ties to that, choose the one man we progressives view as a symbol of all that is wrong in Washington.

[goforit]

116. Yes, the continuing control of the illuminati. No wonder B.Clinton was so happy.

The Bildeburgers WILL get all that they desire.

[GTurck]

104. Personally...

I am not thrilled about R.E. either but Obama is a pragmatist who wants to get things done. Politics is about compromise and using whatever tool is at hand to accomplish what the politician wants. R. E. can be an effective tool in that regard and it will be telling how well Obama controls and handles that tool. Don't look for purity but certainly look for principles.

[bagrman]

113. It will depend upon who becomes the tool..

[Moonwalk]

136. Think you hit the nail on the head, GTurck!

The one thing Obama is, that we know he is, is a pragmatist. It's the position he took on drilling for oil. He didn't agree with it, but if some drilling has to be done, then he's pragmatic, let it be done. So long as the bigger picture, the one where we're running on alternative fuels, gets underway. Likewise, his objection to the Iraq war, on which he would not budge, wasn't just, I believe, principle. He also was aware of the long-term damage it would do and that it wasn't practical.

I don't have enough data on why Obama wants Emanuel in this position, or how this guy in this position will play out. Until I do, I'm not going to try and guess whether Obama is moving Dem's to the right, or is, alternately, trying to lure the Republicans onboard his ship before he sails them all Left. What I do know is that this isn't a Revolution where the common folk storm the castle, put the aristocrats to death and institute a whole new government running on a different philosophy. Everyone who was there yesterday is there today, and nearly half the population of the U.S. did not vote for Obama and is not behind him. Whichever way the ship is sailing, these people have to be lured onboard before you weigh anchor...because you can't sail the ship anywhere without them.

That's reality. If Emanuel is the sort of person who can get them onboard, then that's who a pragmatist appoints.

I don't expect to agree with everything Obama does. And I fully expect that he will make mistakes. But I voted for him because he can motivate and lead people into actually getting things done. He can, I believe, change things. I am trusting that he knows what battles are worth fighting and how best to win them. In any case, I'm not ready to predict the outcome of this new race on his first step. As we know from the story of the tortoise and the hare, those first steps can give us wrong perceptions and make us predict wrong. And Obama is most certainly a tortoise, not a hare. His method of running this race might be very different from what we or anyone else has seen before or expects.

[GTurck]

186. I think...

it is because Emmanuel knows how to fight the way the Repubs do and they are scared of their own tactics being used against themselves. The one thing bullies cannot stand is being called on their bullying and often when they are they become much more reasonable.
This is a lesson I learned on the streets of Chicago over 50 years ago and Emmanuel and Obama learned as well.:evilgrin:

[antigop]

106. madfl, I always find your posts interesting

Please keep posting your findings and keep asking questions. I have always found your posts to be respectful in your criticism and questioning.

You may find these interesting if you haven't read them:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104430/should-obama-presidency-be-bill-clintons-third-term

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/dems-kick-off-battle-for_b_139338.html

[kaygore]

122. I agree. I was deeply disappointed.

Emanuel tried to take the credit for the 2006 wins when that credit goes to Dean. I would hope that Obama has a significant place for Dean because Dean saved the Democratic Party almost single-handedly.

[leftchick]

123. this does it for me: Israel:"our man in the White House."

:(

<snip>

Democrats said Obama had asked combative Congressman and former Bill Clinton White House aide Rahm Emanuel, 48, to be his chief of staff, a vital post that helps set the tempo of the administration.

Israeli media on Thursday hailed Barack Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff, with one daily calling the Democrat of Israeli descent "our man in the White House."

Radio stations and newspapers pointed out Emanuel's Jerusalem-born father was once a member of Irgun, an ultra-nationalist Jewish terror group behind such slaughters of civilians as the bombing of the King David hotel which killed 92 people in 1946.

Emanuel himself volunteered to serve in the Israeli Army and did a two-month stint at a base in northern Israel during the 1991 Gulf war, public radio reported.

"It is obvious he will exert influence on the president to be pro-Israeli," Emanuel's father, who moved to the US in the 1960s, told the Maariv daily.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=97465

[Neil_in_Chicago]

129. in the Plus column . . .

* Word is, Emanuel wants to be Speaker of the House. This puts him a little further from that.
good
* Chief of Staff needs to be something of a brass-bound bastard. Emanuel does it like breathing. Will Obama keep him on a short enough leash? We'll see. Is this set up to be a good cop-bad cop scene? We'll see.
part good, part wait and see
* This is as official as could be an announcement that this administration's door is open to Clintonistas.
good! I'm waiting for the signals to the sane Republicans.
* Emanuel is smart. Dean's 50-state strategy paid off big. Will Emanuel learn? could be
wait and see

Yeah, there's a lot more to be said, but there's a lot of good, and a lot of we'll-have-to-wait-and-see-how-it-works.

[lebkuchen]

131. Of the 7000 or so jobs that serve at the pleasure of

with 500 being "key," (I quote CNN), we need a vicious bastard in the Chief of Staff position to cull the body politic of Bush's RW whackos who serve at the Chimp's pleasure.

One of them would have been Allison Barber, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Internal Communications, United States Department of Defense, had she not suddenly resigned on Oct. 20. She was the one who had staged that tele-conference between Bush and the ten troops in Iraq to promote the war. She is responsible for the American Supports You propaganda program, laundering taxpayer money through Stars & Stripes to support the ASY propaganda machine to keep the war going.

Wiki can tell the rest:

She is responsible for American Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS), the Defense Media Center, the Pentagon Channel, several Department of Defense websites, and the Stars and Stripes newspaper, the American Forces Press Service.

On or around June 2, 2004 Allison Barber, disclosed that AFRTS selects which programs to broadcast based on content, rather than popularity. In particular, Rush Limbaugh's radio program is broadcast, but Howard Stern's is not. <1>

On October 13, 2005 Allison Barber was videotaped while she was coaching soldiers preceding a live teleconference with President George W. Bush. <2>

Later that week (October 17), the debut of the Ed Schultz radio show on AFR was canceled. The cancellation notice came via a phone call from Barber. Schultz alleges that the cancellation was due to his criticisms over the staged troop conversation of October 13. The Pentagon alleges the Schultz show was never meant to air, that it had been scheduled by an overzealous employee.

On May 11, 2007, officials said that the Pentagon is "looking into complaints that Defense Department officials charged with building public support for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan might have been engaged in improper fundraising," David S. Cloud reported May 12, 2007, for the New York Times. <5>

*****I hope she gets indicted one day.

[desktop]

132. I haven't seen this much trashing of a Democrat since Hillary Clinton was running

I like Rahm Emanuel and I like his views also.

[madfloridian]

134. There you go with that word "trashing" again. Can't you think of a better one?

Like questioning or wondering why someone who dislikes the netroots and grassroots so much was chosen to be the gatekeeper?

I wonder.

I hate the word "trashing". It shows a limited vocabulary.

[desktop]

139. Sorry, maybe a condescending elitist like yourself prefers criticizing

eom

[madfloridian]

141. So now you say I am a "condescending elitist"? Any other names?

This is amazing stuff.

[madfloridian]

144. I am waiting to see what other names you come up with.

Just interested.

[fascisthunter]

192. elitists are those who have power, not those criticizing that power

which by the way has kept the little guy down. Rham Emanuel is an elitist who serves elitists. Enough with the Rovian-Orwellian spin.

[Martin Eden]

133. "legislation in the abstract"

"People don't vote for or against you because of how you voted in legislation in the abstract. Instead, people vote for or against you because of how the legislation you voted on affected their lives. As such, the key is to pass legislation that will make most people's lives better, not legislation that will look good in the abstract the moment it is passed."

If that is true (and I tend to agree) don't you think a politico as savvy as Rahm Emmanuel is smart enough to realize it?

Emmanuel is not Obama's chief advisor on issues. As chief of staff his drive and determination may be just what's needed -- as long as Obama sets the direction and Emmanuel follows it. I think they're both smart and communicative enough to be on the same page. Rahm will know who the boss is in this administration, and it is Barack Obama.

[madfloridian]

135. Not a matter of smart.

A matter of having our candidates being told to as much as scapegoat immigrants, and being warned not to speak about Iraq on the campaign trail.

If his nature is win at all costs, then guess who will have access to the WH. Guess who likely won't?

[Martin Eden]

169. Obama will tell Rahm which battles to fight ...

... and those will be battles we need to win.

[AtomicKitten]

138. Since Rahm won't be dealing with policy, he's a good choice for head-cracker in chief for Obama.

Your concerns are well-founded; I just think in this particular position he just might be a useful tool (double entendre intended) for Obama.

[madfloridian]

142. Yes, we all worked so hard. We really need head crackers.

Whoopee, now we can be whipped into line.

[AtomicKitten]

143. I'm not talking about whipping us in line .....

I'm referring to him executing Obama's directives and herding cats in Congress.

[diane in sf]

145. I remember the attacks on Dean and I have no use for moving right as a tactic,

hopefully in his new position Rahm will be carrying out Obama's agenda--not that of the DLC.

[katty]

152. yes, 'hope' so....

[madfloridian]

147. ABC News has reposted "Kiss the Ring" from Jan. 2007

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6201230&page=2

As I pointed out in the OP...this pick shows the way our party is going. Here is a sample from 2006 campaigning. It shows why we are getting so many conservative Dems who are anti-gay and anti-abortion. It uses Heath Shuler as an example of who was involved in picking him. Looks like they did to NC what they tried to to in FL....but in FL they went ahead and voted for the Republicans. I am getting a post together about that for later.

As this campaign took shape, it became clear that the election was going to be a referendum not just on Bush but also on this schism among the Democrats. Rahm installed his three closest friends from the Clinton era—Carville, political adviser Paul Begala, and pollster Stan Greenberg—as a strategic brain trust, and throughout the campaign he leaned heavily on Clinton for help. "We spoke often, usually once or twice a week," Bill Clinton told me via e-mail. "Early on, Rahm asked me to do a number of fund-raising and campaign appearances. As the campaign developed, he asked me to do more. I know I did every event he requested." Rahm also dispatched his former boss to trouble spots and enlisted him to recruit reluctant candidates, like North Carolina's Heath Shuler. And Rahm says Clinton often knew the individual districts better than he did. "When we wanted him to go to Cincinnati," Rahm tells me, "he calls and says, 'Are you sure you want me in Cincinnati, given the white ethnic community?' Don't (expletive) with that guy. He knows his numbers. He knows where he plays and where he doesn't play."

Shuler was really preferring to run as a Republican, but Rahm wore him down. Heath is the one Rahm used to push the immigration agenda of the racist Tancredo.

Tactics.

AT THE END of the lunch, before Rahm hops into a black Escalade and is driven to Palm Beach to see more rich guys, he gets on the phone with Carville and Greenberg to go over some new polling. In public Greenberg has been giddy about the Democrats' prospects. Two days ago, he wrote on his firm's Web site, "The polls all show a dramatic difference in engagement and demoralization.… This electorate will become more Democratic. The wave we are looking at will grow, not recede." But that's not the message he's delivering to Rahm, who paces back and forth on a street corner, throwing his arm in the air and yelling at Greenberg, "I don't know what the that means!" Apparently, Greenberg has changed his mind. "He said something on the phone that was strange," Rahm explains once we're inside the car. He's sounding slightly panicked. "He said that our voters are dropping as fast as their voters in interest, which I thought was surprising. He's all over the papers saying this is a phenomenal collapse, and then all of a sudden he was like…" His voice trails on. "I don't hear his caution in the newspapers!" Greenberg's new theory is that all the negative ads are turning off Democrats and that Rahm needs to get his candidates to soften their message, to "close positive."

But that's not Rahm's strategy. "I told him, 'Now you're beginning to sound like someone who ran the Kerry campaign,' " he says to me, and then he calls Greenberg back. "That was pretty dark, what you said," Rahm complains to him. "But there is no recommendation to the IE to go positive, by anybody. Not that I have control of it, but I'm saying I don't hear a single thing convincing me to take our foot off their necks."

The way the party goes does matter. To say that he will not have any input on policy is a fallacy. It is just not true. And tactics he is known for will be used.

I am not surprised at the vitriol directed at anyone here at DU who sees this as maybe not so positive. But it shouldn't be that way.

We can't sit back and let them handpick our candidates anymore...

I am getting that post ready about how we just about didn't make any gains in Congress in FL. It is not pretty, and it should have been different. Yet the one in charge of seeing to the races here is due to be the next DCCC chair.

Oh yeh, I am so writing that up. Get your ammo ready. I guess.

And read up on the IE:

Since Rahm coordinates everything with his House campaigns, he can't also then spend tens of millions of dollars for ads and mail to help them. That has to be done by a staff of operatives who work for a hermetically sealed committee within a committee, called the IE because it makes independent expenditures on behalf of the DCCC's top House candidates. In short, Rahm can talk to the candidates as much he wants, but the amount of money he can give them is limited, while the IE can never talk to the candidates but can spend as much money as it wants on ads and mail and anything else that might help them win. The IE is run by a 35-year-old Rahm loyalist named John Lapp. The bizarre setup means that Rahm, Washington's most famous control freak, has spent the past two years raising $122 million, only to fork over $67 million of it to Lapp. Even worse, Rahm, not known for keeping his opinions to himself, is barred by law from telling Lapp how to spend the money.

[LanternWaste]

149. For my part...

For my part, I hope I never agree with everything any one president or administration does. I also hope I never disagree with everything one president or one administration does. If that does happen, then I would be forced to consider myself a partisan hack.

[GeorgeGist]

151. If Obama earned your trust ...

then show it. Otherwise, you're a hypocrit.

[madfloridian]

154. That's a new name I've been called today. "hypocrite"

Thank you so so so very much.

It's so nice to be at a Democratic forum and be put down for having progressive thoughts.

Go for it, is that the worst you've got?

[Gman]

175. You really need to stop playing the victim

when someone questions something you post. If you're going to post you put your ideas out there for better or worse. It's very unbecoming to play the victim when someone disagrees or questions you.

[madfloridian]

176. Calling people names is not "questioning". It is being just plain rude.

Why don't you just put this "victim" on your list so you don't have to read it.

I was insulted for presenting a good case about why Rahm bothered me.

[bertman]

185. Good try, Gman. You are trying to "unvictimize" the ultimate victim. It's her chief tactic

when someone dares to disagree with her--no matter how valid the disagreement. It used to bother me, but now I just sit back and get a good laugh when she starts pulling out her "nobody loves me, everybody hates me, think I'll eat some worms" routine.

Madfloridian is a font of great posts and discussions. I avidly read them all and I often thank her for them because I usually agree with her and appreciate her contributions to DU. But it seems she often treats criticisms of her positions as personal attacks.

[Gman]

187. Can you imagine Obama in the debates with McCain

saying something like, "Oh, come on. You just called me a cannibal and questioned my sanity."?

[madfloridian]

189. It's a childish thing to do, to make fun of others at a forum and call names.

The poster did just that. Not just to me but to anyone who questions Rahm's pick.

[JuniperLea]

158. I trust our President

I've thought he was wrong before, and he proved me wrong. I think this may be another one of those times and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[BlueEyedSon]

159. Alternet: Is Obama Screwing His Base with Rahm Emanuel Selection?

http://www.alternet.org/election08/106189/is_obama_screwing_his_base_with_rahm_emanuel_selection/

[madfloridian]

205. Thanks will go read that now.

.

[madfloridian]

160. Oddly enough, there's a post here called "Jesus F**king Christ"

with over 86 recommends and about 8,000 views.

And no one is questioning the person for trying to stop rational questioning.

Maybe my post is just too mild.

We DUers do love the word "f**k".

:shrug:

I won't forget this thread, and the way a sensible post is put down now as being a troll or being undemocratic.

In fact I was even accused of being the wrong kind of progressive.

[swishyfeet]

161. A very nice collection of opinions about this at Politico

I recommend:

http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/75.html

[madfloridian]

166. The sentence that leaped out at me...he's got the goods on everyone in Congress

Oh, yeh, I love that way of running politics.

It's called blackmail.

[madfloridian]

162. Advisers say Obama is sending a message to the left.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/why_rahm_a_message_to_and_from.php

"Why Rahm, really?

Advisers say that Obama has sent a not-so-subtle message to Congress: President-Elect Obama will not cede much agenda-setting ground to liberals. While outside Democrats are interpreting Emanuel's selection as an institutional message for Nancy Pelosi, Obama advisers concede that Emanuel's ties to key party centrists and blue dog Democrats will be criticial to smoother relationships between the executive and legislative branches."

Message received.

[Bjorn Against]

163. I have reason to believe that Rahm was not Obama's choice.

I was told that Rahm Emanuel would be Chief of Staff on election day, the day before the rest of you heard of the choice. The person I heard this from is a person who has had to work with Rahm (and no she does not like him one bit), and she does know a lot about what is going on in the world. I don't want to say her name online, but if I did say her name many of you would recognize it because she is quite well known. She was right about Rahm Emanuel being Chief of Staff, and I believe she was right when she told me the reason he was chosen as well. She told me that after the primaries Obama needed to get the support of the Clintons and to help heal the party, in order to accomplish this he had to promise Rahm the Chief of Staff position. I don't like it, and I am sure many of you don't like it either but like it or not Obama will not get his personal top choice in every position. There were many people who helped him get elected, and he needs to keep the support of these people. This is politics, and unfortunately the only way a candidate can succeed is by making these sort of deals and working with people who we wish they didn't have to work with.

[cali]

191. oh bullshit. Rahm is one of Obama's closest friends.

And Emanuel didn't even endorse Clinton. There's exactly zero logic to your post.

[Bjorn Against]

197. This is not my logic, it is info from someone who knew Emanuel was chosen before it hit the news

I have no reason not to trust a person who was clearly right when she said Emanuel would be Chief of Staff, if she was right on the person she was likely right on the reason she gave as well. I can guarantee this person knows more about the situation than you do.

[cali]

199. I can guarantee that I don't buy your crap.

sorry, the I know someone who said... on the internet is wholly unreliable. And again, like it or not, Rahm is a close personal friend of Obama's.

[Bjorn Against]

200. You don't have to trust me...

I know the internet is unreliable, but I also know that I am telling the truth here. I honestly don't care if you believe me, and I understand why you wouldn't because this is the internet. I know that what I say is based on good information, and if you don't want to believe that fine. I think if you would of heard this from the person I did you would believe it, but because I don't want to say my source online you have every right to be skeptical. I am not skeptical though, because my source is much better than a random person on the internet.

[madfloridian]

168. Looks like funding for staffers in the 50 states is ending.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7825340

[Solly Mack]

171. Bookmarking

[madfloridian]

173. Remember the policy shop?

Here it is.

http://dlc.org/

The plans are all laid out. Some good some bad, but already done.

[kid a]

190. mf: put yourself in Obama's shoes and explain here what he saw as the positives in Rahm

I'm sure he didn't make this this decision lightly and I'm sure he was advanced all the concerns you have.

He made his pick based on positives.

What do you think they are?

[madfloridian]

194. Rahm knows everything about everybody in the party and in DC

He knows where the bodies are. He is knowledgeable.

He is not an outsider. He is about as inside as one can get.

All good reasons.

It is Obama's right.

Now that the DNC 50 state staffers are being laid off at the end of the month....it does make one wonder if all is going back to how it was.

It will sure save hubby and me a ton of money every month. :shrug:

[Nikki Stone1]

193. Madflo, I'm with you on this.

Emmanuel bothers me a great deal. And chief of staff is a huge position; he'll be the chief informal advisor around all the time. I am not the biggest fan of Howard Dean (as you know) but he's right about immigrants being the scapegoats.

[bobbolink]

195. "How It Will PLay In An Election"

And that's a very key issue.


I thought we were voting for "leadership"?

A big part of leadership is knowing what is BEST for the country, and explaining it to the populace in a way that creates understanding and support for the issue.

While the voice of the people need to be heard, it's also true that sometimes people aren't thinking in the best terms, and need a good leader who can "bring them around".

Legislating by polls is a lot like teaching to the test.

And we know how well that has worked out....

[leftchick]

198. Hail to the Chief of Staff

CounterPunch Diary

http://counterpunch.com/


By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

The first trumpet blast of change ushers in Rahm Emanuel as Obama’s chief of staff and gate keeper. This is the man who arranges his schedule, staffs out the agenda, includes, excludes. It’s certainly as sinister an appointment as, say, Carter’s installation of arch cold-warrior Zbigniev Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor at the dawn of his “change is here” administration in 1977.

Emanuel, as Ralph Nader points out in my interview with him below, represents the worst of the Clinton years. His profile as regards Israel is explored well on this site by lawyer John Whitbeck. He’s a former Israeli citizen, who volunteered to serve in Israel in 1991 and who made brisk millions in Wall Street. He is a super-Likudnik hawk, whose father was in the fascist Irgun in the late Forties, responsible for cold-blooded massacres of Palestinians. Dad’s unreconstructed ethnic outlook has been memorably embodied in his recent remark to the Ma’ariv newspaper that "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel… Why wouldn't he be ? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

Working in the Clinton White House, Emanuel helped push through NAFTA, the crime bill, the balanced budget and welfare reform. He favored the war in Iraq, and when he was chairing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 he made great efforts to knock out antiwar Democratic candidates. On this site in October and November, 2006, John Walsh documented both the efforts and Emanuel’s role in losing the Democrats seats they would otherwise have won.

In 2006 Emanuel had just published a book with Bruce Reed called The Plan: Big Ideas for America, with one section focused on “the war on terror”. Emanuel and Reed wrote, “We need to fortify the military's ‘thin green line ‘around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. …Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5.” Recall that Obama has been calling throughout his recent campaign for an addition of 92,000 to the US Army and US Marine Corps.

Emanuel and Reed had fond words for the mad-dog Peter Beinart, neocon warrior theoretician for the Democrats, roosting Marty Peretz's The New Republic, and author of The Good Fight where Beinart explained why a tough new national security policy is as essential to the future of of progressive politics as a united front against totalitarianism and communism was to the New Deal and the Great Society. Emanuel and Reed also commended Anne-Marie Slaughter's proposal for "a new division of labor in which the United Nations takes on economic and social assistance and an expanded NATO takes over the burden of collective security." In other words, let NATO shoot the natives and the UN clean the floors.

[dailykoff]

201. I can say it in three words: Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Rahm is not a pragmatist, he's a war hawk, and putting him in that position is an extremely disturbing signal that the Obama admin will continue the disastrous military occupations of the Bush-Cheney admin, and more.

I was hoping we could finally stop worrying about war with Iran and normalize relations with them but it doesn't look like that will be happening any time soon.

[Individualist]

202. The fact that he's DLC is disturbing.

Corporate loving, war mongering, anti-progressive DLC.

:puke:

[Political Heretic]

203. Thank you for posting tough, thoughtful analysis that few want to hear. But I don't agree.

But I am so damn glad we are having disagreement here. If this place becomes a mere Administration echo-chamber, that will be the death of it.

That's what DU groups are for! :) Places to go and relax in some small like minded place where you don't have to be stressed by dissenters.

But on the main boards, we must have discussion between us about the direction of the Obama administration.

I have written before that the Rahm pick is potentially terrible and potentially great. It entirely depends on who's really driving the Obama bus. If Obama said, "Rahm I want you on my team, I could use your tough, take-no-prisoners attitude toward getting legislation done. But I'm President, you're not and I need to know that you are comfortable carrying out my vision, not pushing your own" then great! They are friends; they may have the kind of relationship.

If on the other hand, Obama saw only the political "advantages" of the choice, and there are not clear authority lines - worse still, if Obama really is a bit inexperienced and ends up relying heavily on the prompting of those around him, then we are in serious trouble!

[Antennas]

204. I agree, 100%.

And I don't like what I'm seeing.

Rahm, Podesta, Summers, etc. Doesn't bode well.

Still, I'll give Obama 6 months or so before I start criticizing.

[Blu Dahlia]

206. thanks for your concern, but OBAMA, not Rahm, is in charge!

Obama will have the last word. Rahm was picked for his demeanor only.