Hamsher: Lessons Learned in VA, CA and NJ: Is Rahm Emanuel Orchestrating 2010 Democratic Massacre?

[seafan]

Jane Hamsher, on the front line in this mother of all battles:


November 4, 2009 7:32 am


(See link for embedded hyperlinks throughout this piece)

1993: Rahm is the architect of NAFTA

1994: Unions stay home after NAFTA. Democratic turnout poor, Democrats give up 54 seats in House.

2005: Rahm as head of DCCC recruits pro-war Dems, threatens to cut funds for any Dem who runs opposing the war

2006: Ned Lamont beats Joe Lieberman by opposing the war, opens the floodgates for candidates to buck Rahm & fuel Democratic takeover of House. Rahm’s pro-war candidates lose.

2007: Rahm blames failure of his pet pro-war candidates on immigration. Makes Freshmen co-sponsor anti-immigrant SAVE act.

2007: SAVE Act triggers Hispanic Caucus revolt on the floor of the House

2007: Rahm demands Democratic candidates inoculate themselves against expected GOP attacks by moving to the right on immigration.” Says Hispanics “don’t vote, ignore ‘em.”

2008: Hispanics provide Obama’s margin of victory in Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

2009: Rahm Emanuel pushing “triggers” to kill President’s campaign promise of a public option in January

2009: Creigh Deeds reinacts Little Bighorn in Virgina after saying he’ll “opt-out” of public option and Democrats stay home

2009: Bill Owens endorses public option, pulls off surprising upset in district with GOP advantage

2009: John Garamendi defies beltway conventional wisdom that Democrat in CA-10 had to be conservative like Ellen Tausher to hold the seat, says he’ll vote against any bill that doesn’t have a public option (or has triggers), scores decisive win

2009: On behalf of banks, Rahm helps Democrats water down post-Enron investor protections in Sarbanes-Oxley

2009: Jon Corzine loses in the wake of “growing anti-Goldman ” sentiment.”

2009: The day after the election, Senate Dems still pushing triggers.



Rahm doesn’t think about Democratic turnout. His reputation for “winning a Democratic majority” rests on his ability as a self-promoter to take credit for victories that happened in spite of him. The truth is that his “act more like Republicans” strategy just hasn’t worked out, and we’re getting whiffs of the disaster it spells for Democrats who follow it.

Thank you, Ms. Hamsher, for your fearless leadership.


There is a tsunami on the horizon.

[FLAprogressive]

1. K&R -- Fuck you Rahm, you corporate pig.

[Vincardog]

4. +1 K&R -- Fuck you Rahm, you corporate pig. Tell Obama kick him to the curb

[FLAprogressive]

6. Obama won't because he's corporate just like Rahm.

[Vincardog]

7. Maybe we can make him do the right thing

[FLAprogressive]

8. I've pretty much given up on that thought. The majority on the "left" are still in love with their

image of the guy. these people still think he's a progressive. Therefore unless there's a massive awakening nothing's gonna happen.

[Vincardog]

22. The majority of his support seems to come from 'the Center is the way' crowd. It is hard to see how

to make progress when no one is supposed to push for REAL REFORM.

[liberation]

71. Many of the people I know who are enmoured with the image of Obama are not of the left persuassion

mostly centrist or moderate conservatives... at least in my personal experience.

[Le Taz Hot]

97. No, the majority on the left (progressives) do NOT love him.

The majority on the left feel betrayed and that's going to have serious consequences in 2010 and 2012. You're thinking of the party faithful who bow down to this guy and who will support him no matter what he does. He's got a "D" next to his name, don't 'cha know.

[fasttense]

112. When will these Democratic politicians learn that the more liberal they are

the more the people vote for them and their approval numbers go up?

There is a huge anti-corporate, pro-populist rage among Americans. The Republicons are trying to tap into it with the teabagging thing but there is such a disconnect in their logic that it only attracts the right wing-nuts. How can you be a populist when your protests are funded by corporations? How can you be a populist when you have spent the last 30 years attacking the middle class, and poor worker?

When Democratic politicians act in a populist, liberal, way they tap into that rage and win. They win because, let's face it, populism is at the core of liberalism. Anti-corporatism is the foundation of a liberal, unions, welfare for the people, help for the little guy. Populism is the opposite of what the GOP stands for.

But, it seems Democratic leaders like Rohm think they have to be conservative to win. When even Republicons are acting like populists, Obama's advisers are telling him to act like a corporatist. The landscape has changed and they don't seem to notice.

But Obama is a very intelligent man and I still have hope he will see, understand and act on what is plainly obvious to us who are being crushed by corporations.

[joeycola]

35. Why would Obama do that. Obama likes the way Rahm thinks.

[JDPriestly]

76. How about because he wants to be re-elected?

[pmorlan1]

80. How about because he wants to be re-elected?

You've got to be kidding me. How is he going to get re-elected if a large chunk of his base ends up supporting a third party candidate? I've never voted for a 3rd party Presidential candidate but I'm sick and tired of electing these people and then watching them not only ignore what they ran on but do things that they specifically ran against. There are far too many serious issues where Obama has adopted a different view since gaining the WH. I'm especially incensed about the way he has helped to cover up war crimes. If I wanted a president to cover up what the Bush administration did I would have voted for McCain. If the Democratic candidate acts like a Republican what makes a difference if I vote for a 3rd party candidate and the Republican ends up winning?

[Golden Raisin]

109. My whole life (and I'm not young anymore)

I've always felt like I voted for the proverbial "lesser of two evils" and I'm so sick of that feeling. I had such hopes for Obama but he's losing me fast. There's a long and diverse list but refusing to release the torture pictures is near the top for me. That's Bush/Cheney territory pure and simple and part of my vote for Obama was revulsion for and a repudiation of Bush/Cheney.

[pmorlan1]

82. Sorry

Sorry for my first comment. I misread your post. I see further down in the thread that you and I are in agreement. LOL

[bjobotts]

103. People are starting to refer to the Rahm Emanuel Obama presidency. He forgets

[bjobotts]

104. Obama forgets...no one voted for Rahm for president or even advisor.

[bjobotts]

105. There's a good reason few people like him.He stands for nothing but campaign donations

[Techn0Girl]

107. What ... are you two getting the same talking points....

Language and reactionary hysteria like that give progressives a bad name. I'm putting both of you on ignore. I don't need to waste my time with people who talk like that.

FYI - I think that Hampsher has a point and has opened my eyes to a few things.

[Bitwit1234]

33. WHY WHY WHY

can't Obama see what he is doing to his presidency...Clinton didn't let him run him. And I don't think Hillary would have either.

[Jax]

45. That scum was never "Change"

anyone with a brain would believe in.

Corporate sellout pig (apologies for insulting pigs).

Alyce

[leftynyc]

The President disagrees

with you so much he gave him the most important job in the White House. Are you ready to call President Obama a corporate sellout pig? You know, for the sake of consistency and honesty?

[jonnyblitz]

61. are you trying to bait her into getting in trouble?

aren't you just PRECIOUS and TYPICAL.

[leftynyc]

120. I'm sick of everyone

trashing the employee for the employers actions. Asking for consistency and honesty is baiting? If typical means consistent, I'll wear that with pride.

[Segami]

122. Its not fair to ALL PIGS being associated with Rahm. Obama needs to question and address the advice

he receives from Rahm and the underlaying motives behind them.

[yurbud]

2. Rahm is about ensuring a corporate Democratic party, even at the expense of winning elections

[TornadoTN]

11. You hit it out of the park with that assessment

That's the best one sentence explanation of the current Democratic leadership that's out there.

[tomp]

102. agreed. nt

[Enthusiast]

3. Jane, I agree completely!

Rahm must go!

[Individualist]

5. The above list leaves out one important fact - Rahm is a DLC member

Corporate loving, MIC loving, neocon enabling DLC. Obama knew this when he selected Rahm as his chief of staff.

[FLAprogressive]

9. "Obama isn't DLC, he just put Rahm in there because he gets things done! Go team!!!"

[Individualist]

17. You seem to have misinterpreted my post

I said Obama knew that Rahm was DLC when he selected him. I've never repeated the meme that he just put Rahm in there because he gets things done. As another DUer recently said, "The only difference between Obama and a card carrying DLC member is the card."

[FLAprogressive]

20. oh no, I was just pretending to be one of those apologists. No worries, I knew what you were saying.

:)

[ooglymoogly]

68. O was a DLC'r before he wasn't nt

[still_one]

49. Obama is responsible who he chooses to be on his team period /nt

[liberation]

72. Except when he isn't... such is the magic of his 3D chess skills

Somehow Obama gets credited for the great things he is yet to do, and never has to face any of the consequences for what he actually does, because... wait for it, the great things he is yet to do.

The circular way of thinking is somewhat genius if you think about it.

[ooglymoogly]

67. Yeah you are right...Its the things he is getting done

and for whom they are getting done that are so revealing and not in a good way. Rahm and Lie-berman are two heads of the same venomous snake. However as pimps they have the power to get O into the good ol' boy club of shadow governors (you know the one Big Dog is in) and that is what O is slicing and dicing for. If you could see the dream balloon above O's head it would read; Ah to be in with the big shots, the gods of money...I'd give my soul.....Oh wait I already did that.

[JDPriestly]

77. What has Obama done that is not DLC?

[mod mom]

28. I'm still hoping Obama placed Rahm to diffuse his power, just like he did w Hillary.

[Individualist]

29. See post #17

[JackRiddler]

73. How does adding to his power defuse his power?

Running the White House staff and agenda is quite a touch up from running the DLC.

HRC, by the way, I can sort of justify: she got 18 million votes, so it's democratic to include her in the administration. But Rahm? Gates? Geithner? Bernanke? What do you think those picks mean?

[Justitia]

10. Jane Hamsher is Spot On. Rahm is a poison pill, way back to Clinton days.

He cuts our legs off at every turn.

Silly me, I thought we had neutralized his destructive tendencies by taking him out of Congress & making him COS.

I fully support our President, but he has a real blind spot in his admin. here.

[FLAprogressive]

12. Obama is not naive. He didn't just pick Rahm innocently. He picked Rahm for a reason.

[Justitia]

15. I don't think he is "naive", I think it has more to do w/their Chicago ties. And it's a blind spot.

There is a reason Clinton demoted him the first year he was in his administration.

Too bad he brought him back into the fold, or we might be rid of him now.

[Hannah Bell]

38. i think it has more to do with the big (chicago & elsewhere) money that

put obama into the white house.

if you look into what that money's been pushing elsewhere, it's neoliberalism dressed up to look vaguely progressive.

[rudy23]

16. Someone needs to ask Obama point blank about his University of Chicago days.

I want to hear him clearly renounce Milton Friedman and that whole school of economic thought that his school is famous for. Nothing in his actions has renounced that, IMO.

[FLAprogressive]

18. he yammers about how bad "protectionism" is....

[placton]

64. UofC Law School makes Friedman

look liberal

[joeybee12]

13. Rahm tried to take credit for Dean's work in 2006...

...he's a pitbull who is incompetent.

[yurbud]

23. the media did give him credit for Dean's work

[JCMach1]

114. That still pisses me off

[yurbud]

126. Rahm and media ho for the same pimp, what would you expect?

[yurbud]

24. he's not incompetent, he's corporate compliant first and foremost even when it means losing

[debbierlus]

14. kick

[cali]

19. silly stuff. And sorry, Janie but beltway wisdom was overwhelmingly

that Garamendi was the prohibitive favorite.

[sabrina 1]

46. He was, but if he had come out against a public

option, he would not have been. As happened elsewhere, Virginia, Democrats would have stayed home. He went against the party by standing up for it.

Same thing with Owens in NY. He is very conservative on some issues and Dems were not very enthusiastic about him, but he too came out for a strong PO. Granted the teabaggers helped in that race, but definitely both of these candidates were helped by ignoring the Rahm contingency in the party, and listening to the people.

[yurbud]

21. LINK: send that Rahm resume to the White House

here's my letter to Obama:

In light of Rahm Emanuel's track record of back pro-corporate policies and candidates even when it's clear it will lead to electoral support, I would urge you to fire him or at a minimum, keep him away from giving any policy advice or picking candidates.

Maybe just use him to browbeat congress for votes and to fetch your coffee.

Was he the genius that told you to diss Patterson in New York but personally campaign for former Goldman Sachs exec Corzine in New Jersey?

Common sense should have told you that anyone connected to Goldman Sachs couldn't be elected dog catcher now unless they were high profile whistle-blowers.

Further kid glove treatment of Goldman Sachs including keeping their execs as your economic team will give you a glass jaw the GOP will be glad to smash in the next election.

Rahm's corporate toadying may have seemed successful and made a kind of sense in the Clinton years when most of America was still in the thrall of Reaganism.

That is no longer the case today. As you can see by the poll numbers in favor of a real public option (not token one designed to fail)and the clear public revulsion at the bailout without accountability or reregulation of Wall Street, America wants and needs another FDR, not someone to give CPR to the GOP corpse just so you can pretend they are twisting your arm to force you to surrender to Wall Street, insurance companies, or whatever other corporate interests Rahm and the Blue Dogs hope to eventually work for as lobbyists, CEO's, and board members.

You cannot serve two masters, both the average Americans and the rapacious, sociopathic trust fund babies of Wall Street. On at least a couple of issues, you need to make them your bitch, so the public will trust you enough to re-elect you and preserves Democratic majorities in Congress in 2010.

Here's the way Rahm's political genius looks to most of us:

(followed by that resume in the OP)

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

39. yurbud

:applause:

great letter!

[sabrina 1]

78. Excellent letter. It should be in the NYT as they probably

don't read anything from the little people any more.

[inna]

85. great letter!!

:applause:

:yourock:

[mod mom]

25. Here's one swing state voter that will refuse to vote for corporate candidates even w D's after

their names. I'm sure hoping Jennifer Brunner gets the Democratic nomination rather than Lee Fisher so I can vote D, but if not, I'll venture w the Greens. I'm a progressive 1st and Dem second!

Jane hits the mark!

[bertman]

26. Hear!!! Hear!!! Ms. Firedoglake is my HERO. Rec.

[spanone]

27. if the democrats don't give the people who elected them what they want, rahm won't matter

[geek tragedy]

30. So now Rahm is the real reason we lost in 1994?

Jesus, the stupid is strong with her.

[depakid]

50. One of many contributing factors with a common theme

the politics of disappointment.

Create expectations in the campaign, then through subsequent actions- create a perception of betrayal of your supporters by pandering to the right.

Next time out, folks stay home.

[yurbud]

56. Democrats learned the wrong lessons in the 80, 84, & 88 elections

They seemed to think the lesson was they needed to become the other corporate white meat, when instead, they needed to fight harder and smarter.

The problem was, even back then, too many were already on the corporate gravy train which made it harder for progressives to brand the party effectively because their rhetoric didn't match the reality of what they did.

[Ignis]

88. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

You're damn right they learned the wrong lessons.

And then they learned them again.

And again.

:crazy:

[bvar22]

96. You can also include 2000 under :

Elections The Democrats FAILED to learn from.

[yurbud]

125. that was one thing they captured perfectly in HBO's RECOUNT

The Democrats were playing by Queensbury rules and the GOP was fighting like they were in a cage match to the death.

Democrats are always handicapped though, not by being nice, but by trying not to offend the PATRONS of the GOP they hope to win over as donors or at least not earn their wrath and be ridiculed out of office or have an unfortunate traffic accident, plane crash, or double shot gun blast suicide.

[Nikki Stone1]

31. The fact that Obama really wanted Rahm worries me

....

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

32. Most of those links are illegitimate

They're opinion pieces. Jane has very little actual evidence for any of those propositions. It's basically another vintage Jane Hamsher slime job. She has no credibility, in my book.

[inna]

86. facepalm

:thumbsdown:

[Generator]

34. Yep, Rahm is the new Rove

[Winterblues]

36. Rahm was NOT the architect of NAFTA

NAFTA goes back to Reagan. democrats had enough of a Majority in congress to defeat it every time it was introduced. It wasn't until Republicans took Congress in 1994 that NAFTA was passed. It is true that Clinton signed it inot Law though.

[mod mom]

37. Read this-he certainly had his grimey hand in it:

Rahm Emanuel, Immigrant Bogeymen and NAFTA Profiteers
By: Jane Hamsher Monday November 19, 2007 4:30 pm
As Rahm Emanuel continues his campaign to demonize immigrants, I think it’s valuable to place these actions in the larger context of his continuing support for the corporate welfare otherwise known as “free trade.” Sirota has an excellent piece connecting the dots:

The fact is, both Democrats and Republicans know that exploitation is at the heart of illegal immigration, but neither party is really willing to confront that exploitation because that would mean confronting their big corporate donors who are profiting off the status quo. And so, taking a scapegoat play out of the Reagan and Clinton playbooks, the con artists in both parties are trying to channel Americans’ intense anger at Big Money interests into a rage at illegal immigrants.

This is particularly disgusting on the Democratic side, mainly because the Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of the little guy, and of fairness. Instead, it is becoming the party of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) – the former investment banker and NAFTA architect who is cravenly trying to protect the moneyed interests that have underwritten his political career by playing to the ugliest societal instincts. The whole debate is about how much or little to punish undocumented workers - rather than about how to punish the moneyed interests that are abusing all workers, undocumented or otherwise.

Clearly, illegal immigration is a serious issue that needs to be addressed – but simply bashing illegal immigrants or proposing punitive measures against them doesn’t go the root problem, nor will it solve the issue.

But then, perhaps neither party wants to get to the root of the problem. Maybe both parties want a scapegoat to take take heat off the interests writing the big campaign checks. That would be a real tragedy, especially considering polls show that the American public is ready to embrace the kind of populist power-challenging politics that would be required to beef up wage/workplace safety enforcement and reform our globalization policies so that they lift up all workers, rather than crushing them and exacerbating the illegal immigration problem.

NAFTA was Rahm’s baby, and his reward was the congressional seat he now holds. He recruits Republicans for Democratic seats because he knows they will be reliable votes for the trade- and corporate-friendly legislation he promotes (drill down into the immigration bill he put forward through his puppet Heath Shuler and you’ll find yet another corporate boondoggle to privatize/raid more of the public sphere through the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security that the taxpayers underwrite). He’s a portrait of everything Naomi Klein warns about, and to do his dirty work he needs a convenient scapegoat for his narrative that immigrants serve well.

-snip
http://firedoglake.com/2007/11/19/rahm-emanuel-immigrant-bogeymen-and-nafta-profiteers/

[anigbrowl]

53. That just repeats the charge without providing any actual evidence.

Blogger says Emanuel was behind NAFTA. Proof? Another post from the same blogger saying the same thing. All that tells us is that Ms Hamsher holds the same opinion two days in a row.

[mod mom]

57. Here's a PBS interview w rahm from June, 2000:

-snip

There is a sense in Congress, and a lot of people have spoken and written about it, that this new president and his White House staff can be rolled. They're going to cave in to whatever constituency is pressing them at the time. What is your thought about that? Did this administration cave in too easily because it had made a lot of promises in those early days?

You know, politics is about mending and tacking and so on, and setting your priorities. We were a very determined administration. We made a lot of compromises to get NAFTA passed and a lot of deals to get NAFTA passed. Did we cave in or not? We got it done. I don't think so.

Did we make changes in his overall economic plan? Yeah. That's the art of sausage baking. That's what passing legislation is about. Did the principles of his deficit reduction plan get passed and priorities both on where you were going to spend money get changed within the government? Yeah. ... Did it change from the beginning? Yeah. Did we make compromises along the way? Darn right. Do them again. But did the ball get across the end zone line? Did a budget get passed according to plan? Did NAFTA get passed according to plan? Did money get shifted to education according to plan? Did we pass a crime bill according to plan? Did we institute six new education programs that had never been on the books according to plan? Yes. Did the basic written legislation change? Yeah. But did the ball get across the goal line? Yup.

-snip

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/emmanuel.html

[harkadog]

60. Completely untrue

The agreement was signed into law in the U.S. on December 8, 1993, by President Bill Clinton and went into effect on January 1, 1994. Democrats controlled the congress until January, 1995.

[mmonk]

40. Yep. Another Jane Hamsher truth moment.

[philly_bob]

41. Like Hamsher, I am disappointed by Rahm Emanuel's leadership so far.

I fear she might be right on possible 2010 losses and erosion of progressive base.

However, as for Jane Hamsher's "fearless leadership," I withhold judgment.

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

[cadmium]

42. I think it has less to do with issues than it does with

communicating and organizing - and giving a shit. One major area of Dem capitulation that hurts us electorally is doing things like selling out ACORN or firing people because Glenn Beck says to.

[sasquatch]

43. Maybe someone should tell the president to neuter Rahm or maybe show Rahm the door

[sabrina 1]

44. Excellent assessment!

2009: Creigh Deeds reinacts Little Bighorn in Virgina after saying he’ll “opt-out” of public option and Democrats stay home

I wonder if it matters to them which party is wins? I mean the Corporates who are the real leaders of this country?

Imagine if Bush had tried to push through some of the things Obama has done, like the Wall St. bail-outs. Democrats would be screaming.

I think now, that they just allow a change of 'face' from time to time, to keep the illusion going that really is a choice between two parties.

The presidency eg, is unattainable unless a candidate is supported by Corporate money and is willing to look out for their interests. I'm beginning to see the president (all of them) as just a super salesman for big business.

Our only hope of changing the status quo is not in the WH, but in Congress. It is easier to get a non-corporate tool elected to Congress.

[tritsofme]

47. Sounds like Jane found her Emmanuel Goldstein.

I'm sure it's very tough for Rahm to sleep at night knowing that every single problem in the modern Democratic Party is his fault.

[sabrina 1]

54. I don't think it's tough for him to sleep at all as he doesn't see

dragging the party further and further to the right as a problem. He would not view these as 'problems' but as 'successes' and that is the problem with Rahm Emanuel.

I see the DLC has lots of defenders in this thread, showing their support with anonymous recs.

[still_one]

48. We didn't lose Va and NJ because Rahm, but if you need your scape goat go for it

We had bad candidates in those races

It is far more significant what happened in Congress. We gained to seats, one in a district that hadn't been won by a Democrat since the Civil War

As for a blaming Rahm, bullshit, blame Obama, he hired him, and he is responsible

[sabrina 1]

51. Well, I agree with your last sentence.

As far as the two congressional races, the one in NY Dist 23 was won for us by the teabaggers, who pushed the Republican out of the race. Andhelped by the fact that Owens, the Dem stood up for the Public Option, ingoring the Dem party's position on that. Also, he didn't become a Dem until he entered this race.

The California Dem also stood up for the PO. It's very doubtful that Dems are going to come out to vote for a candidate who goes along with the party's corporate solution to health care. Both these candidates, iow, went against Rahm Emanuel's stand on what is the most important issue to voters right now.

[still_one]

52. Dist 23, in my view was very significant. The palin/becks/teabaggers are not

helping the republicans, that is what this election showed

I agree with your observations

[sabrina 1]

59. Yes, very significant.

Some analysts said it would be better for Dems if the teabaggers had won that race, leading the Republican Party to do what they did there, back only extremely conservative candidates. In the rest of the country, they said, that would harm Republicans as moderates would not vote for extremists nor could they attract any Dem votes that way.

Since it seemed impossible for a Dem to win in such a Republican district, the fact that it happened will now alert the previously scared-of-teabagger Republicans to the fact that they really don't have to listen to them anymore.

Regardless though, I'm very glad they lost ~ :-)

[DainBramaged]

55. And we wonder why Obama's promises are shit........

[Liberal_Dog]

58. K & R

[Blue_In_AK]

62. Rahm Emanuel did no favors for Alaska

when he failed to offer any national support for progressive House candidate Diane Benson in 2006. I have no respect for the man, personally.

[Kermitt Gribble]

63. K&R! Thank you, Jane! n/t

[dpbrown]

65. Rahm will turn Obama into a one-term Carter

The corporate pigs stab the Democrats in the back every time.

[rudy23]

66. But he'll keep the Democratic Party corporate--which is more important in the long term .

To them, I mean.

[liberation]

74. A lot of people dismiss Carter's legacy as just being an one term bomb

Mr. Carter was responsible, in a very significant way, for the turn to the right that the Dem party has taken. For crying out loud, if we objectively evaluate Clinton's policies, we could make a very good case that a overwhelming number of them were to the right of Nixon's.

I don't think Mr. Carter's track record as an ex-president can make up for the hubris he was somewhat responsible for visiting on the Dem platform. Don't get me wrong, he is a great human being, but as a president and Dem politician, not so much.

The interesting thing, is that unabashedly liberal electoral platforms have been shunned by the Dems. And the main reason was the single electoral debacle of McGovern, while the Dems have been shovelling timid conservative platforms ever since, even if they have resulted in a far larger number of losses. Funny that.

[bbgrunt]

100. thank you. who, after all, started a lot of the deregulation--Carter

[rpannier]

130. Count me as agreeing with you and I will add to it

I live in Korea and if you say his name around leftists/liberals in this country you'll get the ugliest looks.
His timidity allowed the crushing of the pro-Democracy demonstrations in Korea, most notably the Gwang-ju Massacre, in which a few thousand people died, many disappeared, were tortured and sere sent to prison.
Former Korean President, the late Kim Dae-jeong was a major figure in the pro-Democracy movement and went to jail.
When Carter was chosen as the representative to mediate the talks between the North and South, Yonhap News reported he told Carter off camera, "I find you a cowardly person who I have nothing but contempt for. But, these meetings are too important to both Koreas to allow that to interfere."

[BrklynLiberal]

69. Rahm puts his own self-agrandizement ahead of what is best for the ocutnry.

[bvar22]

70. !... K&R

Decide for yourself who The White House is working for.

The DLC New Team
Progressives Need Not Apply


Screen Capped from the DLC Website.

[JDPriestly]

75. The Blue Dogs buy into the meme that independents decide elections.

Actually, turn-out by the base decides elections. When the base is excited by a cause or a candidate, they talk to their friends and neighbors many of whom are independent. That is how independents decide what candidate they will vote for.

It's hard for life-long real Democrats to get excited about what Obama is doing in D.C. We do not back his support for Goldman Sachs and the bail-out. He has taken that to an extreme. We don't like the fact that so many compromises have been made on health care reform and the time passage of that bill is taking.

Rahm Emmanuel's strategy is simply wrong, very, very wrong. Get the base excited and you will fare better in elections.

That is what the Republicans are doing. They got their base excited and look what happened: they won Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races.

The Obama administration can pout and claim that those victories were due to local issues all they wish. The fact is that if Democrats were really pleased about what is happening in D.C. on the big issues like health care, the economy, Afghanistan and the environment, they would be bringing independents with them to the polls to vote Democratic. That is what happened in 2008.

[leveymg]

124. The numbers in the VA Gov race support what you say.

The 60/40 defeat of Deeds is not typical of VA Governor's races. Nor was the comparatively low Dem turnout.

In 2008, Obama received 52.6 percent of the nearly 3.7 million votes cast in Virginia's presidential contest, about 2 million votes. He is now viewed favorably by 44 percent of Virginians, down about 8 percent. By comparison, Deeds polled only 815,000 votes, only 41 percent of the total votes cast last night, and a mere 40 percent of the total votes Obama received in Virginia last year. That is a huge drop-off, even considering the lower turnout in the Governor's race compared to the '08 Presidential race.

Historically, VA Governor's races turn out somewhat fewer voters than Presidential contests, averaging about a 15 point difference. The turnout in the state for the '04 and '08 Presidential elections was 62 and 68 percent of the registered voters, while across the state in the 2005 gubernatorial election, turnout was approximately 45 percent. Last night, voter total was about 3 million votes, out of the 5.4 million registered voters, about 55 percent turnout, which is a relatively high turnout for a Gubenatorial race. Historically low turnouts were in '97, when turnout was about 48 percent of registered voters, the lowest for a Virginia governor's race since 1965. Unfortunately, a disproportionate percentage voted Republican for state-wide offices, which is a big change from four years ago when Tim Kaine won with 52 percent about the same percentage polled by Mark Warner in 2001.

The last candidate for Virginia governor to win more than 60 percent of the vote was Democrat Albertis S. Harrison Jr., who in 1961 won 63.8 percent.

Lessons learned from VA - 1) turn on the base or the Dems will lose more elections; 2) this was not a typical VA election by recent standards. Lots of Republicans turned out, while Democratic-leaning voters didn't. The reason is obvious - Democratic candidates lose when they run toward the almighty center, and the Progressive base doesn't turn out the vote.

The Blue Dog strategy of steering toward the center is now a proven election-loser. As the GOP has shown, keeping the base mobilized wins elections - only a Progressive agenda will mobilize the Democratic base. If the Dem leadership continues on this course, we will lose again, and again, until we are once more the minority party in America. I am beginning to believe that is all that the DLC types know how to be or even want to be. They're Losers.

[JDPriestly]

127. Please post your message separately. It should be read by more DUers.

[pleah]

79. K&R

When are we going to get the share feature back? :(

[natrat]

81. fuck you rahm and sadly fuck you obama

[Techn0Girl]

108. I keep wondering ....

How many people who write things like you do are really right wing plants. 1000 posts .... Geez....
With friends writing things like you do .... who need Republicans.
(Oh and you go on the ignore list as well)

[EVDebs]

83. The Obama's got a dog. This is the "change" we're supposed to be fighting for

Excuse me but Bill Maher hit the nail right on the head. The country is in a national emergency, the great recession (depression ?) is on us with 8,000 more jobs being lost in today's paper...

Johnson & Johnson plans to cut up to 8,000 jobs in reorganization
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-johnson-and-johnson4-2009nov04,0,3325247.story

while we're supposed to cheer his getting the Nobel Prize (for something, we aren't quite sure yet) the house is on fire and they just don't get it yet.

[Canuckistanian]

84. Wow, Rahm is the "anti-Howard Dean"

Two strategists, two VERY different results.

Bring back Howard Dean.

[Major Hogwash]

87. Does Jane Hamsher post here at DU?

Does anyone know?

[ProSense]

89. Dear Jane, it certainly looks like the all powerful Rahm

is doing exactly that

:rofl:

[janet118]

90. Tell me again why he's Obama's Chief of Staff . . .

As soon as he was appointed, I started getting a sick feeling in my stomach. It's still there.

[peacetalksforall]

91. If Dems organized a protest against Rahm I would be there - I would march. With a sign. And I

would suggest the signs follow the list prepared above. And more.

President Obama - WE DON"T WANT HIM!

We don't want GIETNER or BERNANKE, either.

Throw then out. CLEAN HOUSE!!!!!!

2010 - MUST ACT NOW!

[peacetalksforall]

92. It seems that we can look back and almost create the meeting that must have been held

near the end of the campaign - the old timers got together and told Obama that he could be the candidate if he allowed the DLC to be co-leaders in the Oval Room.

Something went wrong that we got Rahm..

[Arkana]

93. Rahm's not DCCC head anymore, so no. I don't think he is.

Christ, the way you people talk about Rahm you'd think he was fucking Emperor Palpatine.

[Vidar]

94. Who needs Karl Rove when you have Rahm Emmanuel?

[invictus]

95. K&R

[Horse with no Name]

98. He is such a slimeball

I wouldn't buy a used bicycle from that crook.

[The Wizard]

99. Rahm is a Republican mole

He's wrong about everything.
Yesterday's election results proved that Democratic leadership is flawed and ineffective. While they were busy extorting cash for their Swiss accounts from the insurance lobby they lost sight of why they were elected.
Rahm is paving the way for another 1994 Democratic melt down.
If Obama doesn't fire Rahm and replace him with a real Democrat he will not win reelection.
Rahm likes to piss on all of us who do the leg work during the campaigns. He's the Leona Helmsley of Democratic politics.

[cascadiance]

101. Time to END the Rahm-per-room in the White House!

[Egnever]

106. LOL The stupid it hurts!

Way to buy into the msm bullshit there janie.

Ned lamont leads the antiwar charge :rofl:

[Greyhound]

110. The same people try to defend him or derail the thread every time

someone notices what he is.

Hmmm.

[democracy1st]

111. K & R The Goldman Sachs admin has been exposed lets see if they change their wicked ways!

[RBInMaine]

113. Rahm's the chief of staff. Congressional Dems and the DNC will determine 2010.

Rahm is being overblown here. He's busy being chief of staff. If Dems focus and UNITE on getting a health bill, working on the economy, and smashing down the RePUKES by ATTACKING them and CLEARLY showing the DIFFERENCES between their agenda and ours, then we energize the rank and file, win the Indys, and beat the Pukes in 2010. If Dems instead choose to STUPIDLY infight, they will be seen as ineffectual, the rank and file will stay home, and Indys will go with the PUKES. It is up to Dems in congress mainly. Message to them: GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER, GET THE BUSINESS OF THE PEOPLE DONE, and SMASH the PUKES hard in the mouth at every turn while super-gluing them to the Tea-Bagger crowd. Do that, and the base and Indies NEEDED to win will be there.

[scentopine]

115. Liberals? To back of bus. This admin is for rich conservatives . -nt

[seafan]

116. 2007: Truthout Special Report: Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives

Special Report: Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives

By Matt Renner
September 6, 2007

.....

In May 2004, a former candidate for the New York State Legislature named Cynthia Pooler founded November Victories and Democrat Unity, online forums for new candidates who were running for Congress as Democrats.

"Before you knew it, candidates started talking about the difficulties they were having with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic leadership," Pooler said.

According to Democratic candidates who ran for House of Representative seats in 2006, Rahm Emanuel, then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, took sides during the Democratic primary elections, favoring conservative candidates, including former Republicans, and sidelining candidates who were running in favor of withdrawal from Iraq.

Appointed as head of the DCCC by then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel spearheaded the Democratic Party effort to regain control of the House of Representatives during the 2006 election cycle. Emanuel claimed credit for the Democratic takeover and was promoted to chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the fourth-highest ranking position in the House. But his election tactics have been criticized by progressive activists and former Congressional candidates.

According to his critics, Emanuel played kingmaker by financially supporting his favored candidates during primary contests with other Democrats. His critics say that this interference was in direct contradiction of a DCCC policy to "remain neutral" in party primaries.

According to Doug Thornell, spokesperson for the DCCC, "The policy of the DCCC is not to get involved in primaries, unless there is an unusual circumstance that demands it. I cannot speculate on what those circumstances might be. The majority of these cases <2008 primaries> will be left up to the voters on the ground. Meddling hasn't taken place this cycle, and for the most part last cycle. That isn't an accurate way to describe what happened. We are cognizant of having local support for our candidates."

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, would not comment on the DCCC's alleged interference.

However, a source close to the DNC indicated that there was disagreement between Dean and Emanuel over election tactics. In his recent book, "The Thumpin'," Naftali Bendavid, a journalist who spent months inside the DCCC operation and at Emanuel's side, reported a heated conversation between Dean, Emanuel and Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) regarding election strategies of the DCCC and the DNC. At the time, Dean was focusing on helping local organizations across the country to mobilize their communities to support Democrats. Emanuel wanted to focus the resources of the national party on specific races that were the most likely to be competitive for Democrats. According to Bendavid, Emanuel said to Dean, "You're nowhere, Howard. Your field plan is not a field plan. That's fucking bullshit ... I know your field plan - it doesn't exist. I've gone around the country with these races. I've seen your people. There is no plan, Howard."

How Emanuel came to his decisions about which candidates to support against Democratic opponents is known only to Emanuel and his staff. Emanuel declined direct comment on this story. But an examination of individual races reveals a pattern of financial and political support for wealthy conservative candidates and an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who were running on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

.....

Illinois's 6th District: Christine Cegelis vs. Tammy Duckworth

.....

"To tell you I didn't take it personally is wrong," Cegelis said, adding, "this was the wrong way to choose a representative. It is wrong of parties to exclude people from the primary elections. The primary is the time for the people to choose who is on the ballot; those decisions should not be made in back rooms."

Bendavid goes on to quote Emanuel saying of Cegelis, "If she would only work as hard as she would goddamn whine.... She's the only one who says, 'What can you do for me?" adding, " could absolutely win. She's just not doing it."

Emanuel's assertion about Cegelis's work ethic was hotly contested by members of her campaign.

.....


Florida's 13th District: Jan Schneider vs. Christine Jennings

.....


California's 11th District: Jerry McNerney vs. Steve Filson

.....


Florida's 16th District: David Lutrin vs. Tim Mahoney


.....


While Emanuel is given credit for turning power over to the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, the majority is fractured.

Many of the candidates that Emanuel helped elect have joined with a group of self-styled conservative Blue Dog Democrats and have cast key votes with Republicans and stymied Democratic efforts to end the occupation of Iraq and the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Thirteen of the Democratic members of the House elected in 2006 joined The Blue Dog Coalition; a group that, according to its spokesperson, has no official stance on withdrawal from Iraq or the president's warrantless wiretapping program. However, 30 out of 47 of the Blue Dog members broke with the majority of Democrats and cast votes in favor of the recent Protect America Act, a bill that greatly expanded the power of the executive branch to spy on Americans. The caucus also broke with the majority of Democrats when 40 of the Blue Dog members voted to continue funding the occupation of Iraq without a timetable for withdrawal.

In an interview shortly after his election, freshman Blue Dog member Tim Mahoney told the Charlotte Sun, a local paper from his district, that he attended a meeting with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and told her "The president should be free to maintain troops in Iraq, if the purpose is to thwart terrorism."

Postcript to the fate of Tim Mahoney (who was a Republican until 2005; shortly thereafter, appearing on Rahm's radar screen):


Mahoney's Florida District Has Sex-Scandal Déjà Vu, October 16, 2008


Sex Scandal Fells Florida Democrat in Former Mark Foley District, November 4, 2008



Mahoney lost re-election in 2008. The result? Another Republican sitting in Mark Foley's disgraced seat.


Thanks, Rahm.



The Chief of Staff appointment is the second largest mistake Obama has made since his election.

[Jennicut]

117. Oh please. Rahm is just an easy scapegoat.

Can't blame Obama for anything? Rahm is President?

Deeds did everything to get away from Obama and health care reform in general. He was for opting out in his state is it came to pass. And Corzine was not exactly a blue dog...its NJ, not too far from me. The last Repub gov in NJ was a moderate not an ultra conservative. Corzine was a Goldman Sachs guy and total idiot as a Governor but people there freaked out over high property taxes more then anything.

2010 will not be like 1994. Obama's approval is higher and there is no New Gingrich around to unify the Rethugs as we saw in NY 23. The Rethugs are split. We are vulnerable in certain areas as most parties in charge of the Presidency are in mid terms. FDR lost seats in mid term elections but not control of Congress. I doubt the ability of some here to weather the not so easy battles of politics. Sometimes, we will lose. We used to lose all the time. We have won a lot more lately.

Rahm is an asshole at times but he is against sending more troops to Afghanistan. Not everything is black and white.

[Gormy Cuss]

118. The bullet about Garamendi/Tauscher is just wrong.

The demographics of CA-10 have changed dramatically. Tauscher won in 1997 and held the seat only because she was blue dog. At that time CA-10 was a Republican stronghold.

Two things changed that: the redistricting in 2001 shifted some of the reddest areas to CA-11 but more importantly many Democrats and DTS left-leaners moved into the district, changing the balance. Tauscher would have had the seat as long as she wanted it, but the winds of change made this a more Dem-friendly district. During this election cycle there was never a question of a Republican taking this seat. It was only a matter of which Democrat would become the candidate. As it happened, the primary voters chose Garamendi in spite of the fact that he doesn't even live in the district.

BTW, even CA-11 (where the redder areas of the old CA-10 were moved to solidify the Republican base in what was then Richard Pombo's district) now has a Democrat (Jerry McNerney) as its MOC.

[Overseas]

119. K&R. //nt

[Eric J in MN]

121. Creigh Deeds & Bill Owens were both lukewarm about a public option,

...giving mixed messages.

Deeds lost and Owens won, and that doesn't send a clear message that the public option must be embraced-or-rejected for a candidate to win an election.

[DesertDiamond]

123. Which makes me ask again: WTF is he doing in this administration??? Get him OUT!!!!

[rpannier]

128. Some perspective here on CA

That is a district that includes Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord, etc.
I grew up in the area in the 70's and 80's. It was represented by George Miller (D-CA) until Wilie Brown gerrymandered it for Republikkan Bill Baker.
That Garamendi won is NOT that gigantic a surprise since the district (has large swaths of Republicans) is not a hotbed for the Republican-Taliban.

[Sebastian Doyle]

129. Real Democrats will win in 2010. DLC phonies will not.

End of story. Fuck the DLC. Fuck Rahm.