Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Sure enough, and as usual, right-wingbloggersareleapingtoRahm's defense.

I've noted on multiple occasions the whiny tendencies of Rahm Emanuel.  Rather than running on a progressive winning set of messeages, Rahm has decided that primping before the press as 'Rahmbo' while whining about progressives will give him a win-win.  If we win the house, he's a hero.  If we lose the House, it's because of bloggers/Al Sharpton/Lamont/ Moveon/Soros/Pelosi.

Rahm snipes at Dean.  He snipes at bloggers.  He snipes at Al Sharpton.  He writes a book, 'The Plan', that argues there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans while running the party committee designed to get Democrats elected.

And he does it in public, to journalists.

Now he's lying about Moveon.org, and bitching about George Soros's political giving.

"MoveOn goes into four districts, advertises, does a great job in each of those districts, and they literally moved on. The election is in November, and they moved on in June," he said. "I'm like, `What is going on here?' I don't get it. I'm bewildered. Do you think for a moment the Chamber of Commerce will not run another ad in one of these campaigns?"

MoveOn.org's Washington director, Tom Matzzie, responded sharply to Emanuel's criticism, saying the group had made an early impact in key races and plans to spend $25 million this year.

"I don't like him litigating election business through the newspapers. I think that's in poor taste," Matzzie said of Emanuel. Emanuel - who is in a similar feud with Democratic Party chief Howard Dean over the issue of spending on congressional races - expressed particular frustration with Soros, who personally spent more than $23 million in 2004, and wrote recently of the importance of "a resounding Democratic victory in 2006."

Is there anyone Rahm Emanuel isn't fighting with?  I'm sure he's going to imagine that he's just saying what everyone's thinking, that's he's a strategist, a 'Rahmbo' who gets the job done.  

And I hear a lot that even though progressives don't agree with him, he's at least a strategist.  Let me just say that no he is not.  Party strategists do not scream at major donors in public to journalists, because if they do then they create a disincentive for participation.  Party strategists do not attack progressives in a progressive year and create policy platforms that immediately discount Democratic ability to accomplish anything.  Party strategists do not race-bait against African-American leaders.  Party strategists force candidates to do a good job, not to hire the right consultants.  Party strategists do not call a right-wing Independent that needs Republican votes to win in Connecticut a 'Democrat'.

Rahm Emanuel is not a party strategist.  He is an extremist ideologue, a Bourbon Democrat, and he will be a huge problem for progressives moving forward.  Progressives would do well to develop our own set of strategic coordinators, rather than thinking that someone like Rahm Emanuel is at this point anything but destructive and selfish.

Tags: Emanuel, Media, rahm, rahm emanuel, triangulation (all tags)

Comments

54 Comments

Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Amen.

by Bob Brigham 2006-08-28 09:19AM | 0 recs
How is Rahm Emanuel "lying"?

Do you know which four districts he's talking about?  Do you know that MoveOn is still advertising in those districts?

by EricJaffa 2006-08-28 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: How is Rahm Emanuel "lying"?

They aired ads against Chocola (IN), Pryce (OH), Drake (VA), and Johnson (CT) a few months ago.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-08-28 09:41AM | 0 recs
So

Can we find someone to run against Rahm in the primary in 2008?  Every cycle there should be at least one of these DLC'ers we focus on for special attention in a primary.

by kaleidescope 2006-08-28 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: So

Indeed. Emanuel is the problem, not the solution.

by Bob Brigham 2006-08-28 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: So

At the very least, challenging Emanuel would pin him down during the primaries so he wouldn't fuck up other primaries.

by Bob Brigham 2006-08-28 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: So

Rahm has done so much for this party in such a short amount of time.  Most notably, the conventional wisdom that Democrats have a good chance or are even likely to take back the House is due in large part to Rahm's excellent recruiting of candidates.

It all comes down to a choice between Rahm's sometimes distasteful rhetoric or a rubberstamp Congress for George Bush.  Nobody's perfect, but this is a guy who overall has been kicking ass for Democrats.

On a side note, Matt neglectfully omitted Rahm's hilariously whimsical statement following Lieberman's loss: "This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means."

by malkori 2006-08-28 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: So

One of our FDL commenters just said he's setting aside $1k for any good primary challenge against Rahm.

by Pachacutec 2006-08-28 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

An extremist ideologue?  I'm not sure that such hyperbolic rhetoric is (a) accurate or (b) useful for your argument.  Bush, Cheney, Frist, etc. are extremist ideologues, not Rahm.  Using such a phrase against any and all who disagree with you dampens the effectiveness of such language.

Also, aren't we the big tent party?  Don't we relish opportunities to constructively criticize ourselves and thusly improve our politics and our electoral appeal?  Seems to me that this is what Rahm is doing.  If you believe otherwise, that Democrats should all kowtow the party line, isn't it a bit hypocritical to then attack a fellow Democrat?

by malkori 2006-08-28 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

I disagree about your conclusion. Rahm is big problem (I swear, that Lieberman is Bush's love-child quote had me fooled.  Maybe he found a horse's head in his bed sheets).

But, you are correct that Rahm is not an extremist ideologue.  His problem, if anything is his lack of ideas.  (Anyone who has difficulty distinguishing the parties has some serious idea problems.)

Regarding Rahm's lack of strategic skills: It is always good to distinguish yourself from your political opponents.  Always.

The GOP understands that you MUST define yourself against the opposition.

Not that the two parties don't have huge differences, but if the only difference was that Republicans liked Coke and Democrats like Pepsi, you would hear Dick Cheney say:

"There is a fundamental difference of opinion between the Republican approach, which is to use subtle flavors like caramel and lemon to augment the food experience, and the Democratic approach, which is to say, 'hey, if it tastes okay to add sugar, pour it on!'

They want to mask their imperfections with more sweetness.  We want our flavors to be judged on their own merits.  That's just a basic difference in philosophy."

The GOP will always, always, always do this.  Rahm will never, ever, ever, ever understand this.

by space 2006-08-28 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

I certainly agree with you on the need to make distinctions between yourself and your opponent.  Where I take issue is Rahm's role in all of this.  I see his position as mainly a recruiter/fundraiser.  Effective political rhetoric from Rahm would be great, but it seems like that is an arena where it is more the onus of the candidate to properly distinguish his/herself from the opponent.  Voters don't see Rahm's name on the ballot.  Rahm's role is to make sure voters see a viable name on the ballot who had enough money to make his or her name known.

by malkori 2006-08-28 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

"The GOP understands that you MUST define yourself against the opposition."

Exactly right.

The DLC Dems come out and basically say, "Look, we're just like them, but not quite as mean."  It worked exactly once, with one of the most gifted politicians in memory as the face of the strategy.

The GOP says, "They're nothing like us.  We're strong, they're weak.  We'll cut your taxes, they'll raise your taxes.  They're a bunch of wimps and sissies.  They like perverts, we hate them.  They hate God, we're chosen by God to govern - if you love God, vote for us."  It's all a bunch of BS, but when the opposition is so rhetorically weak, it works.

Progressive messaging breaks through this moronic crap, and talks to issues that affect people throughout the country (and the world).  That's why it works.

by libdevil 2006-08-28 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

     What's more important is to develop progressive leadership within the Democratic caucus to challenge Emanuel's promotion. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Mike Thompson have shown the ability to raise large amounts of money for progressive candidates, while supporting rather than undercutting our policies. Not only Emanuel, but also Steny Hoyer needs to be replaced by a tough progressive who's not afraid of a fight--against the Republicans, not just other Democrats.

by Ron Thompson 2006-08-28 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Ideologue? Rahm? Rahm is not an ideologue. Bush, Cheney, Gingrich, Delay.... those are ideologues. Emmanuel is a panderer. He's too milquetoast for you and i, but he's not an extremist ideologue. sheesh. Who are you, Ann Coulter for the left?

by AaronE 2006-08-28 10:02AM | 0 recs
It could be a goading strategy by Rahm

Bicker in public to "shame" Soros and co. into ponying up? who knows?

The RNC vs DNC cash-on-hand numbers is indeed a problem.

by rosebowl 2006-08-28 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Rahm's problem is not that he's an ideologue -- he's not.  Rahm's problem is that he panders to the "business class." He's never left the 90s.  He has not only has no idea what's going on outside of Washington, he doesn't want to know.   He has no use for the grassroots as they threaten his power base.  He is all about himself, and building himself a power base in Washington. Period.  He thinks you can run campaigns from Washington.  I'm not sure he's a very good recruiter if all he's doing is recruiting milquetoast candidates who don't actually stand for anything -- the candidates who are doing extremely well this cycle are not the ones he's recruited but the ones who have risen up from the grassroots -- the ones he isn't bothered with funding or supporting.  

And really, he should have learned from Lieberman: if there's one thing grassroots Dems can't stand, its someone who bashes our Party in the media.

by Maven 2006-08-28 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Darcy Burner is a milquetoast candidate who doesn't stand for anything?  Heath Shuler doesn't stand for anything? Baron Hill? Patricia Madrid? Tammy Duckworth?

Don't get it twisted.  Even if you think they don't stand for anything simply for the fact that they may not stand for exactly what you stand for, their victories will enable Democrats as a whole to enact legislation that you will appreciate much more than the current dribble.

by malkori 2006-08-28 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Remains to be seen.

Many of us were less than impressed by what the Rahms of the world were able to "accomplish" in 1993-2001.

Better than what's happen since? Sure. But comparing an organic shit sandwich to a radioactive shit sandwich doesn't change the basic, underlying fact that we are talking about shit sandwiches either way.

by redstar67 2006-08-28 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

While I somewhat agree with your last statement, we have a winner-take-all system.  Maybe once in our lifetime will there be a perfect storm that brings in a Congress that is as progressive as most MyDDers are.  That having been said, do we just want Republicans to rule until that day comes?

This is the same fallacy that Nader voters made in 2000, making no distinction between Al Gore and George Bush.  Two Supreme Court Justices, one less Kyoto Protocol, one unnecessary war, and billions of dollars of debt later, are they still carrying the same tune?  Would we really be in the same place if the Nader voters had backed Gore instead?

In other words, I'd rather have an imperfect Democratic Congress than no Democratic Congress at all.  

by malkori 2006-08-28 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

I don't disagree.

This being said, if we cannot withhold support from those in the party closest to our values who do not reflect those values in order to improve that party, we're going to go nowhere fast.

Rahm represents the same Dem playbook which got us permanent minority status. We've seen this losing strategy before, so we have to end-run around him and give to Dean, to individual candidates via ActBlue and direct contributions, and to Moveon. Rahm dislikes this, and rails against all of this.

He also plays as if his part of the caucus (the corporate wing) still controls the hearts and minds of the rank and file both of the Democratic party and of its constituent bases. He's wrong about this as well.

As with Lieberman, getting rid of the Rahms of the party is perhaps even more important than ensuring we win an extra seat or two here or there.

Why? Because with an Emanuel or a Lieberman in place at the helm of the Dem party, we as progressives are certain that our views will not be represented, because neither party will voice them. We know that the GOP won't. And we've seen, over the better part of the past two decades, that the Democrats, under the tutelage of their corporate wing, won't either.

OTOH, get rid of these clowns, and while we may stay in the minority for another election or two, our views will be represented, and we will get far more permanent mandates in future than the nickel-and-dime triangulation these clowns represent.

One can only stand for "lesser of two evils" for so long. After awhile, we need to improve the evil nearest us. Got any other solutions than what was just done to Lieberman?

Matt nails it here imho. Which includes withholding support for Emanuel's power base as well.

by redstar67 2006-08-28 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

I'm just curious, do you not think it's possible to start making Congress more progressive after we retake the majority?  Or is it that you think the current Democratic leadership won't be able to become the majority unless they become more progressive?

My feeling is that it's important for us to focus our efforts, particularly in this favorable election cycle, on first entering in the majority and then making our representation more progressive in later election cycles.  It's like a gunshot wound; first let's stop the bleeding, then focus on removing the bullet.  Do you think that's possible to accomplish?

by malkori 2006-08-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

I'm skeptical of the prospects of getting the caucus to move to the left once we've gotten a majority. Especially if we get thin majorities bankrolled by the type of revenue streams the Rahms of the party bring to the plate, and those very same folks take credit. We'll get more of what we saw in the '90's, and let's face it, the leadership of the party came to power in the '90's.

I'm also skeptical of the Dems, once they take power with a thin majority, enacting much of anything of use to working-class folks, judging from the timidity, to date, of the campaign, to address bread & butter issues. We hear much of the same Clintonian incrementalism with respect to Health Care and other core economic issues, (read on Rahm's recent magnus opus on the subject), and we hear about Paygo, which is not exactly a working class issue. Iraq? Avoid the subject.

Worst case scenario for me? A do-nothing Democratic-held House and Senate between Jan 2007 and November 2008, severe economic weakness and joblessness starting in 2007 and worsening in '08 with Dems finding it harder and harder to blame on the GOP, troops still in Iraq despite a significant portion of the Democratic party in power bleating about how it's Dubya's fault even though they've not been able to effectively hold him accountable for 2 years, and a Buchananite insurgent GOP campaign in November '08. You think Bush was bad? Wait till you see a 7-2 Supreme Court.

This kind of strategy, the one we're seeing, is a one-step forward, three steps backward strategy. We've seen it in action since the early nineties, as we've seen the Dems lose three out of four federal elections. By the time Dean starts using Statehouse control to redistrict into Democratic favor for 2012, the game could be over. The time to set the goalposts to the left and get a mandate is now, not later. Problem is that the DC Dem establishment is centre-right, so they are temperamentally ill-suited to moving those goalposts, Rahm being a particularly obnoxious example.

I'm waiting to be surprised at this point, but given whose running the election, I'm not exactly holding my breath.

by redstar67 2006-08-28 12:22PM | 0 recs
life's a long song

playing for the short term by conceding ideological ground for the past 20 years has resulted in a situation where the Democratic leadership of today is further to the right than President Nixon was.

"Maybe once in our lifetime will there be a perfect storm that brings in a Congress that is as progressive as most MyDDers are."

I'm sure Goldwater followers thought similarly in 1964.  And now Goldwater would be considered a leftist.  

by RickD 2006-08-29 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Don't get it twisted.  Even if you think they don't stand for anything simply for the fact that they may not stand for exactly what you stand for, their victories will enable Democrats as a whole to enact legislation that you will appreciate much more than the current dribble.

You mean kinda like way Bean stood up against the GOP on the Bankruptcy bill, the Estate Tax repeal, CAFTA...

by michael in chicago 2006-08-28 01:23PM | 0 recs
A little dose of reality

What is your alternative to Bean? No liberal will ever be elected from that district, unless you Illinois Dems grow some balls and redistrict there.

If you want Phil Crane back, just give the word. At least Bean is pro-choice.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-08-28 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: A little dose of reality

Dems grow balls and redistrict?

Hah!

by redstar67 2006-08-28 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Strategically speaking, it's good to have big tent and try to make interested and working towards a common goal, like removing this Prez and changing this do-nothing Congress. It's OK to have disagreements. I'm very liberal and I know I'm in the minority in the Dem party. But, the question is how to affect change, progressive change that is?

Rahm and others like him have made the Dem party a shade of the Repubs, thinking that the American public can only travel a short distance. Perhaps the DC culture of the "insiders" is so strong that people like Rahm lose the forest for the tree. It becomes like a game, maybe picking a sports team, a horse at the racetrack....  Besides all those DC insiders have much more in common with eachother than with the rest of America.

I realize that gradualism is reality in politics, and progressive movement is slow (many people give up because they don't see the rapid changes they'd prefer towards their ideal position).  I think having two very different parties, with the Dems being much more progressive in stance/practice IS a winning strategy, especially if you have committed people to the cause, not afraid to take a progressive position and defend it!  

The bug of Republicanism have taken hold in the minds of many Dems, like Rahm. Don't rock the boat too much, I voted for it before I voted against it, yes to war, no to ..Rummie, etc, etc....  That's why voters (many of whom admittedly prefer simplistic arguments) prefer the Repubs over the softies Dems... It's ridiculous that we have so many far wing (lunatic fringe really) Repubs in our politics...

A big tent yes, but if we keep putting too many elephants under it, then it's another version of a Republican circus.

by Andros 2006-08-28 10:38AM | 0 recs
We don't need elephants in our own living rooms

I spent 2 months in 04 going to 38 swing states with a project registering progressive voters. From what I saw, MoveOn.org and George Soros did a lot more for the Democratic party, especially at the grass roots, than did the Dem Party apparatchiks and politicians. They seem entirely status-quo oriented, happy to gobble up the leavings of the Republican trough.

otoh, I think we have to work hard to capture our trailing edge...but they're not the slicko beltway internationalists -- they're the yellow dog Dems who don't like whiners and bootlickers much more than progressives do.

Roadette

by roadette 2006-08-28 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Gawd he sucks.

Only quibble: you say "he will be a huge problem for progressives moving forward."

He already is a problem, and has been for some time now. Duckworth/Cegelis anyone?

by redstar67 2006-08-28 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Yes, I'm still upset about Duckworth/Cegelis too. Nothing against Duckworth, but she should have run in a different district instead of taking out a quality Progressive.

Is there anything we can do to keep Rahm/The DCCC out of primaries?

by blue in tampa 2006-08-28 01:02PM | 0 recs
Progressive "strategy coordinators"

Matt,

I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on your critique of Emanuel, but will read this thread more carefully when I've got time.  But I'm intrigued by your comment that "progressives would do well to develop our own set of strategic coordinators."  It strikes me as a good idea in principle, but I'm not sure I really understand what it means.

Could you elaborate on the practical steps and goals this would entail?...what exactly would a progressive "strategic coordinator" do, and where would they fit in the context of existing and emerging organizations/networks/movements?

by mitchipd 2006-08-28 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Progressive "strategy coordinators"

To follow up briefly on my last comment/question...Is there a good, concise written discussion anywhere of the current structure/system of "strategic coordinating" in the Democratic party and related organizations, particularly as it relates to the evolution of the progressive netroots and Dean's move to the DNC?  

If not, it might be worth writing by someone who understands it reasonably well.  For a lot of people, including me, there's only a strong sense that the current system is pretty dysfunctional, but not a real sense of how it works, how we'd like it to work, and how to get from status quo to a more desirable system.  Matt's post highlights the value of that understanding and also of acting on it.

by mitchipd 2006-08-28 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Emanuel is destructive and I'm so ticked I could just slap him. Everybody call his Congressional office (202) 225-4061 and leave a message that he needs to zip it.

In my state, Dean's 50-state strategy is working like gangbusters. We're set to win more seats than we have in 15 year, thanks to money to staff and fundraise. The old target-only-the-hottest-races strategy that Emanuel espouses was a FAILURE. It seems so obvious, no?

Here is a blog/website http://www.newwest.net covering Idaho's 1st Congressional District race between Dem. Larry Grant and R. Bill Sali, a true nutcase. Grant has been named "winnable" by everyone except Sali.  Please add to blogroll under Larry Grant - ID.

by murgatroyd 2006-08-28 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

YES! Thanks for calling out destructive, self-aggrandizing leaders in our own party. The sooner they get on board or go away, the better.

by mrobinsong 2006-08-28 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

In the primary, Tammy Duckworth stood for one thing one night and something else a week later.  Perhaps she's gotten better since: I haven't been watching the campaign -- and yes, I really hope she wins, as Roskam is a complete loser.

I think that if we take back Congress, it will be more due to Dean's 50 state strategy than anything else.  I think Rahm's DCCC may pull off some of their targeted wins -- one hopes they really do know how to pull off elections, despite previous results -- but I bet we win in more places than Rahm ever thought we could, in places where the DCCC won't touch as they don't think they're competitive enough.  I hope Rahm wins the races he's targeted: I also hope we win more than that.

by Maven 2006-08-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Is there anyone Rahm Emanuel isn't fighting with?

You mean publicly?

Well, he hasn't bashed the Republicans recently, as far as I can tell.

Oh, and he seems to have made up with Lieberman as well. After the "love-child" crack, Rahm got back in line pretty quick, telling the press that Lieberman's campaign can only help the other Dem races in CT.

Some big donors must have yanked his choke-chain but good.  

by justathought 2006-08-28 11:27AM | 0 recs
The 'bloggers and Al Sharpton' comment

was enough for me to officially Rahm off my Rosh Hashanah card list.

To attack bloggers with that slick-produced jab is a marker of cultural and political decadence.  

I couldn't agree more that "Rahm Emanuel is not a party strategist."  I'd call him the last of the soon-to-be extict-losing-Democratic-tacticians.  More a demagogue than an ideologue, but I can sit with 'ideologue' if it means an ideology of 'win or become a Republican trying.'

Personally, I think the way to drive the last nail into Rahm's political coffin forever is this:  Next time out, tack on two more zeros to the goal for the Netroots fundraising campaign--and then accomplish it.  I am 100% confident that you guys can do it even though it seems ridiculously high from where we sit right now.  

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-08-28 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

I can't believe these big shots who keep attacking MoveOn and Netroots and then turn around and complain about circular firing squads.

I think it is great MoveOn is spending in 4 districts. I mean, if a group comes up with money and spends it in a way that benefits Democrats, why look a gift horse in the mouth? Couldn't he attack Club for Growth as extremist?

I think part of the problem is that MoveOn sponsored speeches by Gore and netroots is not pro-Hillary. But he is not doing her any favors with this.

by Alice Marshall 2006-08-28 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Don't underestimate the damage that Rahm Emmanuel is doing to Howard Dean.  I fear that Emmanuel is winning the Beltway press battle.  And many Netroots supporters of Dean don't seem to understand the damage that is being done via the DCCC.

by JoeRoss 2006-08-28 12:50PM | 0 recs
Tell me something I don't know

ahm Emanuel is not a party strategist.  He is an extremist ideologue, a Bourbon Democrat, and he will be a huge problem for progressives moving forward.

by michael in chicago 2006-08-28 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Rahm is lying about MoveOn? Where's the evidence for that?

by MHS 2006-08-28 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

"In the 2004 election there were some very active players who, as far as I can tell, have now decided they're neither going to be involved in the field, advertising or anything," Emanuel told the Daily News. "Do you know where they are?"

And then he hits Moveon.

by Matt Stoller 2006-08-28 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

dude, it was the frikin daily news.  no doubt they pieced together the quotes to make the hit look worse.  even if they didn't, rahm was just wrong, and he's an intense guy with an intense interest in winning.  he's pissed because he actually thought moveon was pulling back.  now he knows better, but moveon didn't give him any reason to think otherwise.  if he actually did know from direct knowledge what moveon was planning, that would be an indication he was in violation of the law.

by beyondo98 2006-08-28 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

First of all, I think you should be more careful inferring meaning from the way his comments are structured, given that his quotes were broken up based on the structure of the post that Smith was writing.

Beyond that, though I think it's pretty clear from the context of the post that he's hitting Soros there; look how Smith frames his attack as being two-pronged against Soros and MoveOn, puts in a quote that fits Soros very well, sets off his comments about MoveOn as being about the one group that is spending money this cycle, and then goes back to Soros.  The quote you're talking about simply makes more sense within the article's structure if it's about Soros and ACT and the other '04 527s, rather than MoveOn.  (Never mind that his line about people spending money in '04 but not '06 doesn't make any sense if read as an attack on MoveOn, given that his whole criticism of them is of how they're spending their money in '06).  When I read the article, I didn't even consider the possibility that you were attacking him for the first quote; I figured you were saying he was lying about MoveOn's current strategy. FW that's W.

If you want to critique his notion that one ad in a bunch of districts is better than a sustained campaign in those districts, or in fewer districts, that's a different issue entirely.  But don't say he's lying based on the structure of one blog post.

by MHS 2006-08-29 04:13AM | 0 recs
Can we make friends

DCCC and netroots have the same goal.

Democratic Majority.

It is time all parties should shake hands.

by jasmine 2006-08-28 05:24PM | 0 recs
Rove can't beat us

But we can beat ourselves.

Rahm is snarling for blood, and so is the blogosphere, but can't we figure out whose blood we're supposed to spill?

If you don't have anything good to say about another Democrat, please, say it later.

by stevehigh 2006-08-28 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

What I've noticed as the big bickering point between folks like DailyKos and the DLC is not so much ideology but campaign strategy.  

Rahm is a good example of this.  I agree, he has no strategy, but he's a tactical genius.  He raises us a ton of money (more than repugs at times) and gives the appearance  (at least) as an example of us being the big tent party.  

So when  I hear people talking about purging him, this frustrates me so much.   Can we quit this and start concentrating our money and time on BEATING REPUBLICANS??

jasmine has it right too.  Rahm is still working for what holds us together, a Democratic Majority.  Get on board or get off.

by ira13ping 2006-08-28 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

What I've noticed as the big bickering point between folks like DailyKos and the DLC is not so much ideology but campaign strategy.

You mean, Crash The Gate vs. What We Did Last Time? Aye, there's friction there, no doubt.

I agree, he has no strategy, but he's a tactical genius.

Regrettably, one cannot be 'tactically' anything without having some concept of strategy. That's like calling him a 'hand grenade.'

Rahm is still working for what holds us together, a Democratic Majority.  Get on board or get off.

Then I'm off. I sent the DCCC $100 early on. The DCCC started sending me fundraising pleas on a monthly, and then a WEEKLY basis. I wrote back and told them I was sending money directly to candidates, and to tell Rahm to fuck off. Why? Because of crap like this:


""MoveOn goes into four districts, advertises, does a great job in each of those districts, and they literally moved on. The election is in November, and they moved on in June," he said. "I'm like, `What is going on here?' I don't get it. I'm bewildered."

""He says his No. 1 priority is taking back the House. I say, `Okay, I'm into that. So what are we going to do?'" Emanuel said. Soros spokesman Michael Vachon declined to respond directly to Emanuel, but confirmed that the billionaire is spending a tiny fraction of what he laid out in 2004.

"He thinks the midterm elections are important and he's funding various 527s," Vachon said, saying Soros had given $1.5 million to one, America Votes."

Soros and I are doing the same thing - NOT giving all of our $ to the DCCC, because Rahm can't or won't 'get on board.'

You're the DCCC chairman, man. Tactically, every single thing out of your office, your PR, your own mouth should be either HELPING Democrats or HURTING Republicans, because strategically, you want to burnish your own image and tarnish your opponent.

If he's smart tactically, he'll figure that out, and soon, if for no other reason than to save his own ass.

-GFO

by GuyFromOhio 2006-08-29 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

what the buck?!  ok, the guy's a bit douchey, but his complaint about moveOn was something he was simply mistaken about.  he was complaining that they weren't focused enough without knowing all the facts.  OK, bad snipe, stupid snipe, but the guy recruited more challengers than we've ever had.  about soros, he's just trying to dig that guy out of his hole.  it's a good question:  WHERE IS SOROS THIS CYCLE?

this is just going way over the top.  all he's done thus far is flap his toungue...if he starts to actually fight us in a way that affects our interests, as did lieberman, that's when to worry.

by beyondo98 2006-08-28 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

Re George Soros: Maybe he has switched sides - DLC
(Emanuel) to DNC (Dean).

Here's my evidence:

"Open season out east
Clintons to hit Hamptons during the height of Dems' annual fundraising blitz

BY GLENN THRUSH
Newsday Washington Bureau

August 8, 2006

<snip>
This year's Hamptons political schedule is unusually hectic for a nonpresidential
election year...

On Aug. 19, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean hosts a
$10,000-per-guest fundraiser at the Southampton estate of financier George Soros.
<snip>"

Wouldn't it be nice if the other big donors follow
his lead?  

by Sweet Sue 2006-08-28 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

I've got to agree with most others, Matt.  I think you missed the ball here.

by malkori 2006-08-29 04:02AM | 0 recs
most?

I don't "most" is the right word there.

by RickD 2006-08-29 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: most?

Nor do I.

by redstar67 2006-08-29 06:23AM | 0 recs
Gingerly to Rahm's defense...

...because he's obviously as guilty as anyone of talking shit, probably more, but two points:

1. The "two Democrats" remark about CT was, I believe, an attempt to win the spin against the "boy genius." The prevailing DC horseshit is that Rove is a genius for exploiting the Lamont-Lieberman chasm--which might be one if all the Democrats weren't for Lamont--to help CT House Republicans. Lieberman's candidacy, so runs the legend, will drag  upper-middle-class, highly-educated, well-to-do, moderate Republican voters to the polls. First, they probably get there anyway. Second, Lieb does nothing to help with GOP's real turnout problem, the disenfranchised lunatic right. Third, traditional Lieberman habitual Democrats WILL come out for both him and the down-ballot Democrats. So show ME, as well as Rahm, how Lieberman and Lamont on the ticket hurt the House Democrats in CT. Rahm was right to push back here against the Rove/Beltway fiction, and he wasn't claiming Holy Joe was a good guy to bolt the party.

2. The Hissy fit. Like the feud with Dean, this may have the effect of poking a stick up the butt of some big contributors. Not that it will motivate Soros or MoveOn, but that it will get others who are waiting for them to carry the ball to realize they better open their wallets pronto. (This goes for me too, doesn't it? Better send my cockamamie $25). Both the Dean Hissy fit and the current one may have been Rahm performances to frighten contributors into action--because Mrs. Emmanuel didn't raise any stupid children--but I think more likely simply reactions to lots of sleepless nights and the churning stomach acid of rising expectations. He wants to win as badly as you do.

3. "You Don't Have to Sleep With the Guy." Most campaign manager types like Rahm, when you really get to know them well, have the personality of shithouse rats--smart, treacherous, easily angered, mostly just plain low-down and mean. But we need guys and gals like this on our team.

Bottom Line: Rahm is in charge until the first Tuesday in November. Changing that circumstance would lead to a total cluster fuck, much worse than anything we have seen today.

For god's sake, shut up about him until the first Wednesday, and if anybody knows him at all (I don't), tell HIM to shut the fuck up too.

by stevehigh 2006-08-29 06:54AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads