MyDD :: Rahm Emanuel is <s>a Bad Man</s> Unwise

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

Let's see who is most behind in fundraising...while being ahead of the previous Chair. Rahm or Dean?

I don't have the stats.

by BigDog on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:54:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rahm Emanuel is a Bad Man (3.00 / 4)

Stoller's comment is yet another example of the circular firing squad. I'm one of the new donors Rahm was referring to. I've met one on one with both him and Schumer. There was never even a suggestion of any quid pro quo. They are enormous assets to the party: they realize politics can't be just a protest movement. Winning matters.

by swampdredger on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by phillies8093 on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 01:50:22 PM EST

How is campaign fundraising corrupt? Although the process has become disgusting, very true, why did you choose to single out Emanuel. A primary candidate? You've gotta be kidding...

- University of Wisconsin Democrats

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not fundraising. It's suggesting that these financial institutions should give him money because he has the power to legislate them. That's solicitation of bribery.

Matt Stoller can't read (3.00 / 5)

The passage he cites quotes Emanuel as saying, simply, that the DCCC is raising money from non-traditional-democratic donors. It's the authors of the article who point out that some of these people, like many major donors, might be trying to buy influence now that a Democratic House is a legitimate possibility.

Read it again, paying special attention to where the internal quotes are placed:

"As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Emanuel teamed with Senate campaign chair Chuck Schumer to tap uncharted donor fields in the financial industry. 'We're working outside of traditional banks,' he says proudly, 'into the private-equity world, the hedge-fund world, the distressed-debt world.' These 'worlds' know they are talking to a guy who not only runs the campaign committee, but who could be in the majority of the key financial committee--and maybe even majority leader."

The bold fragments are the only things Emanuel says. Everything else is just the musings of authors Howard Fineman and Holly Bailey.

Does anyone actually think that making up false and scurrilous charges against your own candidates/leadership is an effective campaign strategy? Because that's really the only explanation for Stoller writing this nonsense.

By the way, the article itself is actually a general profile of Democratic House campaign tactics. Oh, and Sirota's link is wrong. The article can actually be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14871152/sit e/newsweek/

by SGoo on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:15:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt Stoller can't read (3.00 / 2)

well said.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

by BigDog on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:52:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Matt Stoller can't read (3.00 / 1)

He should delete the diary because
he got the basic facts of the matter
so completely messed up.

by Woody on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 10:14:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We should not (none / 0)

We should not hamstring our own party. I may not agree with RE but we need in your face fighters and I have to say his is one. As far as raising money, by all means, to paraphrase Rumsfeld 'we fight with the army we got not by the army we wish we had'. Raise money with current laws and change them later.

by tchoup on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 10:36:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

How did that happen? Try reading the quote...then the interpetation by the authors....didn't come from our Leaders. Who you hate.

They are merely raising money. Be a Democrat and take back the House for no other reason than to stop the instanity of Bush.

by BigDog on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 11:45:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rahm gives a reason why these new donors would/should be interested in contributing. Rahm suggests that his ability to fundraise is tied directly to his power to influence regulation and legislation. How is that not sleazy?

Reading-Comprehension (3.00 / 1)

"As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Emanuel teamed with Senate campaign chair Chuck Schumer to tap uncharted donor fields in the financial industry. 'We're working outside of traditional banks,' he says proudly, 'into the private-equity world, the hedge-fund world, the distressed-debt world.' These 'worlds' know they are talking to a guy who not only runs the campaign committee, but who could be in the majority of the key financial committee--and maybe even majority leader."

The bold words are Emanuel's. The ones which follow are not his - they are those of authors of the piece.

by PantherDem on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 12:37:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rahm Emanuel is a Bad Man (3.00 / 4)

Really, Matt. Why don't you at least wait until the Dems actually take the House before you line them up and shoot their leaders?

by Mimikatz on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

Total Machine Guy....an effective White House manager that needed a Machine to get elected in a District that is tailor made for Democrats. Sure...

Boy I bet he really needed a lot of help. I mean I'm sure he had no 'rolodex' or anything or any help from his former boss. Yep a real amatuer.

Maybe you should run, Matt. You don't have to live in the District to run there. You only have to move in if you win. With your indepth political knowledge I bet you'd have him for dinner.

Sorry,Matt...just couldn't stop myself. You're a good man. It's just you go off and think you already know, conclusively, with no room for error the political world. That takes a lifetime and no one ever knows it all.

by BigDog on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:23:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by firestorm on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 01:56:26 PM EST

Matt is mad.

We need more Emanuel, not less. If he can win, he will be our hero. Swallow it.

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what an absurd argument. Bush won, he's not my hero. Lieberman could win, he's not my hero. If we win this year at the expense of having a viable party going forward, then what, exactly, have we accomplished?

Win at any costs (3.00 / 2)

That's right. If Emanuel can win, no matter how he does it, he's great. So what if we repeat the Republican corrupt model. We'll be in power. We'd never be as corrupt as they are, right?

Selling access is what Emanuel is about. This is wrong no matter the party.

by michael in chicago on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:33:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rahm Emanuel is a Bad Man (1.50 / 2)

Well gee the other choice in IL-06 was DLC'er Cegelis and on the gopee side its a DeLay apprentice and christian rightwinger named Roskam. I don't agree with everything coming out of Rahm but the other options were (are) worse.

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." Dalai Lama

by Predictor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:00:50 PM EST

Re: Rahm Emanuel is a Bad Man (2.50 / 2)

how is Cegelis a DLCer?

by Lucas O'Connor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (2.00 / 3)

Pull you head out of your ass man. Cegelis was about as DLC as Bush is Democratic. If you don't know what you're talking about, step away from the keyboard.

by michael in chicago on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

I may have made an error in reading those endorsements but I suggest you stick your head up your ass and you'll be able to verify that it stinks also.

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." Dalai Lama

by Predictor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 10:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rahm Emanuel is a Bad Man (1.00 / 1)

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." Dalai Lama

by Predictor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:02:25 PM EST

Re: Rahm Emanuel is a Bad Man (3.00 / 1)

Predictor -
I think you may be confusing DLC (hopelessly archaic failure-oriented politicking) with DFA (Democracy for America) which endorsed Christine Cegelis for Congress.

by Rosi in NJ on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:35:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." Dalai Lama

Yup, I sure did and should wear glasses or get a better monitor. Although I'm much more likely to support a DFA candidate over a DLC one, I do not believe that Cegelis could have pulled this one off, I think Duckworth was the best fit for getting elected in this district. And the constant Duckworth bashing from Demos is unecessary and counter-productive.

by Predictor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 08:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rahm Emanuel is a Bad Man (2.75 / 4)

Until now, I have generally been a defender of Rahm, for tactical reasons. For example, I don't think that recruiting Tammy Duckworth in IL-6 was a bad call. But it fucking drives me crazy that he would be willing to offer corporate moguls easy access to our emerging Democratic majority with the implied promise that a Democratic Congress would take it easy on Big Finance.

Maybe Rahm's big fundraising will help us retake the House this cycle, but I agree with Matt that he should be primaried when possible, if only to head off the annoying media rumblings about "Speaker Rahm." He's not the kind of Democrat I want building our majority.

by lorax on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:09:43 PM EST

For example, I don't think that recruiting Tammy Duckworth in IL-6 was a bad call. But it fucking drives me crazy that he would be willing to offer corporate moguls easy access to our emerging Democratic majority with the implied promise that a Democratic Congress would take it easy on Big Finance.

Did you follow any of the IL-06 primary? This was the fundraising model for Rahm's pick. Wake up people.

by michael in chicago on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:37:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by lorax on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes I followed the IL-6 primary but that's not really the point. I'm trying to agree with you and you nitpick one point of my statement. The point I'm trying to make is that while even though I have agreed with some of Rahm's strategic decisions, if he is going to back a strategy of selling access to the Democratic majority to big moneyed interests, then I have no faith in him. This is a much worse offense than recruiting a strong candidate to run in a neighboring district and then encouraging big donors to support her.

by mildewmaximilian on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely. We're going to see the emergence of a de facto "Finance Industry Caucus" within the Democratic majority, led by Rahm Emanuel, that will include most of the little piglets he's funding with money from the "worlds" of hedge funds, distressed debt and "traditional" banking. We can count on this bloc to oppose or water down any and all initiatives seeking to benefit the working class majority of this country at the short-term expense of the Finance Industry.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

yep. and wanna bet that the bankruptcy bill never gets repealed?

Those wall street types are anathema to what we stand for...clearly.

by jgarcia on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 08:46:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One good thing (none / 0)

I dislike Rahm, but if he signals he can be bought, it may slow down the willingness of Big Money to buy Republican influence, which may frustrate GOP fundraising.

by Crablaw on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:20:43 PM EST

You're kidding, right? (3.00 / 1)

"Hey, GOP funders - us Democrats are just as corrupt, err, willing to work with you, as all those GOP lawmakers just put in prison for working so closely with you."

Ya, that will slow their fundraising.

by michael in chicago on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:38:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're kidding, right? (3.00 / 1)

Funders who are seeing the writing on the wall for a possible Democratic House takeover may move from funding the GOP to splitting their money. These are hedge fund operators, they are in the full time business of organizing risk credit risk swaps and total return, that's how they think. Not to choke the GOP but to make them live off of Slim Fast while the Dems get some money.

One way to get money is to say that you want it.

Emanuel is the head of the DCCC, screwing over GOP fundraising is 40% of his job. Might also be a head game to make the GOP funding machine blink. I don't like Rahm but this may be a smart move to say this. Actually taking the money is another matter.

by Crablaw on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ScottC on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:28:35 PM EST

He's certainly NOT stupid. And it's his job to raise money. The party can't fight for what's important by relying on 5 dollar checks from grandmas on fixed incomes. If you want to raise money you have to deal with people who actually have money.

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." Dalai Lama

You're correct, my error, chalk it up to momentary dyslexia (DLC'er). Substitute "soreloser" who may seal the fate of electing a real prick (Roskam) in this Cook rated R+3 district.

by Predictor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:29:18 PM EST

Soreloser? How? (none / 0)

Christine Cegelis has supported Duckworth. She has even campaigned for her. Do you think the reverse would have been true?

Quit trashing a real grassroots candidate.

by antiHyde on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 07:39:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Soreloser? How? (none / 0)

Cegelis did not initially endorse Duckworth and at best has given recent lukewarm support, her "Thank You" letter on her website attests to that: http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/
If she is truly actively helping the campaign then I'll certainly retract the "soreloser", but she clearly embraced that image after the primary.
The only people I see being "trashed" here are Duckworth & Rahm E. Maybe you should be more concerned about that as it plays right into the hands of the Illinois gopee and Roskam.

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." Dalai Lama

by Predictor on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 08:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Soreloser? How? (none / 0)

I supported Cegelis in the primary but suspect Duckworth would have supported Cegelis in the general had she lost.

Duckworth may have Rahm as a patron but that does mean she is not a good candidate in her own right. Duckworth will be a much better choice for the constituents of her district than would Roskam.

by Curt Matlock on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:54:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

It's very discouraging to read a thread like this and see how many ordinary Democrats don't care if their party is as corrupted by corporate cash as the GOP is.

It's bribery. It's wrong. And the stupidity of Emanuel bragging about being corruptable is secondary to the corruption itself.

I want good Democrats to win their campaigns this fall. But the prospect of slimeballs like Emanuel and Schumer running Congress and smearing the Democratic brand name even further in the process makes me less and less interested in an overall Democratic win.

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:37:58 PM EST

Is it bribery (3.00 / 1)

or does Newsweek just want us to think it is bribery?

by Alice Marshall on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is it bribery (3.00 / 1)

When corporations give money to politicians, especially committee chairs, they expect something in return. To think otherwise is....well, I'll let someone else characterize it.

And as far as I know Newsweek didn't call it bribery -- that's just what people who care about honest government call it.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:30:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm no fan but... (3.00 / 2)

I'd like to think that the Dems could raise their cash from millions of Joe Sixpacks giving tens and twenties.

Never gonna happen.

PACs, bundling, soft money - that's the way it's done. Hell, yes - it's corrupt! (Legal but corrupt.)

But Rahmbo didn't invent the system.

Seems to me that some Dems would be happy for fatcats to volunteer fat checks, and for the Dem pols to come over all Jimmy Stewart gee whiz; but their sensitive souls suffer when Rahmbo's acts like a pro and goes out and asks fatcats for their dough.

by skeptic06 on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 02:56:04 PM EST

Re: Idealism without MONEY will NOT get us anywher (3.00 / 3)

HERE WE GO AGAIN!

We have some of our Left Wing " Idealistic" activist attacking a Democratic party leader.

Let me ask you. When people like Wall Street CEO George Soros gave $24 million to the Democrat party in 2004 & $12 million in 2000, did you people REJECT the money or did our party use the money for GOTV? When CEO Warren Buffet, Microsoft Co-Founder Peter Lewis, Apple huncho Steve Jobs, Savings & Loan Barron Herb Sandler, Entertainment Mogul Steve Bing all combined gave the Democratic Party a total of $125 million in 2004 alone, DID WE AS A PARTY USE THE MONEY to FINANCE our WHOLE Operation????

This is the STUPIDITY & the HYPOCRISY of some " Left Wing" Activists within our party.

And by the way, INSPITE of the Wealthiest 80 Democratic High Net Worth Donors giving HISTORIC RECORD AMOUNTS in 2004, the REPUBLICAN PARTY STILL OUTRAISED the Democratic Party by over $45 million dollars !

Do you fucking people think we are going to take back the majority & start winning national elections based on 10,000 or 15,000 individual donations of $18 dollars from the netroots & their grandma????

Since when was there a DISTINCTION between CORPORATE MONEY COMING from Soros, Bing, Cohen, Buffet Acceptable to some democratic activistsbut " OTHER" Corporate Money from others Unacceptable????

MAKE UP YOUR freeking minds people? DO YOU WANT TO CONTROL THE DESTINY OF THIS COUNTRY by being the Decision Makers in Congress and the Presidency or do you want to REMAIN as the "loud", All talk but NO POWER minority party.

The whining by some here reminds me of the DIFFERENCE in " Thinking" between " Employees" in a Company & " Employers" in the company.

The Democratic Party needs much more Small & Medium Size Business Owners who will "EDUCATE" these small thinking people on how WEALTH & MONEY can bring POSITIVE CHANGE to this World ! As opposed to all these " Money is Evil, Emmanuel & Schumer are Evil Bullshit)

Do people here know that 85% of today's Democratic & Republican Senators are multi-millionaires. And that 75% of ALL House members of both parties are Millionairies?

Do you think Democrats Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Jon Corzine, Mark Warner, Frank Lautenberg, Chuck Schumer, Bill Nelson, Bill Richardson, Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh, Maria Cantwell would be in POWER today if they had NO MONEY & were not WEALTHY????

WAKE-UP! Stop Dreaming! This is the Real World!

If we as a party CANNOT win in 2006 & 2008 with the Worst President in History, WE ARE FINISHED !
( I guarantee you that it will take MANY YEARS to Find another Republican President like Bush! )

by labanman on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 03:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Idealism without MONEY will NOT get us anywher (none / 0)

Please stop leaning on and off the CAPS LOCK key. It's really tiresome. Effective writing is based on word choice, not capitalization.

by RickD on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Idealism without MONEY will NOT get us anywher (none / 0)

i We have some of our Left Wing " Idealistic" activist attacking a Democratic party leader.

Damned right! What we also have is some of our right wing cynics making excuses for bribery.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Idealism without MONEY will NOT get us anywher (none / 0)

you make people think you're a troll when you type, "DemocrAT Party", in lieu of "DemocratIC Party."

Stop following Bush and FoxNews' way of saying it.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 08:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Count them and be fair (3.00 / 1)

He used the word "Democratic" seven
times but once in his excitement
he spelled it "Democrat."

You overreact more than a bit to
respond using hate words like "troll,"
"Bush," and "FoxNews."

I don't the use of the word "Democrat"
either but this 7:1 instance seems
a simple error.

by Woody on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Count them and be fair (3.00 / 1)

He used the word "Democratic" seven
times but once in his excitement
he spelled it "Democrat."

You overreact more than a bit to
respond using hate words like "troll,"
"Bush," and "FoxNews."

I don't like the use of "Democrat" as
an adjective either, but this 1 in 7 case
seems a simple error.

by Woody on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep DFA never happened (3.00 / 1)

"I'd like to think that the Dems could raise their cash from millions of Joe Sixpacks giving tens and twenties.

Never gonna happen."

Well except it did and increasingly is. DFA was not a figment of your imagination. Individual candidates are raising large amounts of money and as such are less beholden to the DCCC than in years before.

I never gave campaign donations prior to the 2004 cycle. Well Sestak has $200 from me and so does Darcy Burner. And I am not alone. Are you guys even paying attention? Is ActBlue just seven letters? Do you really want to line up behind a guy that put on an allout assault on the 50 State Project and is now pandering to financial instutions that prey on poor workers?

by Bruce Webb on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep DFA never happened (3.00 / 1)

Didn't raise enought to win anything...sure not the entire election operation financing.

Did good for an individual candidate in the primary...but when 200 Million was necessary for the General.....missing in action in terms of effectiveness.

The Net is a highly effective mechanism. But not the one that gets the maxed out donors on a federal scale or the Party donors with huge checks. All three are needed.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

by BigDog on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by easternshoredem on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 03:05:58 PM EST

where do u think candidates get money ? bake sales ? Rahm has done a masterful job getting Democrats close to actually WINNING a majority. Stop whining.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

where do u think candidates get money ? bake sales ?

Obviously not from people like you who would rather let corporations buy and own Democratic politicians.

Stop whining.

That's a nice Limbaugh-like comeback.

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm British, but our politics bores me.

Guys, let's focus on the winning first. The Republicans are basically destroying all you hold dear. Shouldn't stopping them be your overriding priority?

by Illustrious on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 03:30:40 PM EST

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

Nah....let's form the Democratic Circular Firing Squad and attack each other instead of fostering unity in the face of an enemy that wants to change everything about our country.

The Democratic Circular Firing Squad is much more fun and easy to write about....as is attacking people rather than finding ways to be useful to the Party as a whole.

by BigDog on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:43:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

Guys, let's focus on the winning first.

What's the point of replacing the corupt with the corrupt?

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:35:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by DemocraticBass on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 03:37:51 PM EST

This diary is as delusional as it is irrational. Rahm is just trying to scare these corporate donors out of giving to Republicans. That is a good thing.

Also, Matt why does everything you write have to be riddled with arrogance and vitriol? Who are you to call Rahm stupid? He was White House political director in a very politically astute White House. I'm not sure you've earned the right to be casting stones quite yet.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

Oh thank you! I've said the same before about the delivery. It's almost driven me off MyDD but I refuse to allow an inexperienced writer with inaccurate opinions to do that.

by BigDog on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unless Matt has a Financial Solution (3.00 / 3)

Unless Matt & people who agree with him have the money for the Democratic party that we need in order to Compete with the Republican Party, you guys better THINK first before publicly attacking people like Emmanuel.

The millions from a Hedge Fund co. that George Soros owns is GOOD MONEY but a Hedge Fund donation from another Less known donor is considered Evil Corporate Money? What a Hypocrite!

Do you think we are going to win this election hands down without enough money, just because Bush is screwing up?

This is the problem with " Small thinking" hourly wage mentality that some in our party have.

by labanman on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 03:38:05 PM EST

Re: Unless Matt has a Financial Solution (3.00 / 1)

Well said. $25 donations ain't going to get it.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

by BigDog on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:07:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unless Matt has a Financial Solution (3.00 / 2)

$25 donations raised over $50M for Howard Dean. If people believe, they'll give. Unfortunately, crooks like Emanual give us nothing to believe in except more of the same.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unless Matt has a Financial Solution (none / 0)

He's not a crook. Get real or cite your sources. He's aggressive and has some rough edges.

by markt on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 10:29:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unless Matt has a Financial Solution (none / 0)

If you can cite anything honest about corporate bribery of public officials -- or anything smart about them bragging of it -- please do.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 10:35:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by theshelldog on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 03:51:36 PM EST

unbelievable. literally, impossible to believe.

A primary challenge to Rahm.

Sometimes you guys make it so difficult to be a member of the left.

The armchair analysis of bloggerkids who have maybe three or four years in NYC politics sometimes makes me want to pull my hair out.

A primary challenge to Rahm. Step away from the keyboard, take a nap, have some water, then go back to blogging about how Democrats can win control of Congress.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

Bloggerkids with NO experience in the staff functions of winning campaigns. Someday we will have to hold these 'guru's' that have the biggest press to the flame and find out EXACTLY how much experience they have in the real world of politics.

This diary would indicate...not much.

by BigDog on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

unbelievable. literally, impossible to believe. A primary challenge to Rahm.

I'll bet you said the same about Nomentum.

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:50:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

Fundraising from sources that actually have money isn't stupid...it's smart.

An old saying from a powerful late politician in California that is as true today as it was when Jesse Unrah said it, "Money is the mothers milk of politics."

Without it, and right now we are badly behind and have said, from the DNC. that we are counting on our friends and AFL-CIO has committed 40 mil. That will about approximate the numbers the RNC etc have.

Except they have friends too. And those friends will be throwing money by the truckload at this race.

To think that Fundraising by an officeholder that may have a future is somehow unethical or BAD MAN...means you don't accept politics.

You want an idealistic concept that will result in underfunded GOTV efforts, Advertising and result in races lost that needs not have been lost.

Of all the posts, this may be the dumbest yet.

by BigDog on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:05:22 PM EST

Emanuel is a Bad Man (none / 0)

Article on the competition between Emmanuel and Clyburn for the House leadership job.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/T heHill/News/Frontpage/091406/whip.html

by global yokel on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:36:03 PM EST

by Bush Bites on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:45:59 PM EST

I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of Emmanuel--and I certainly see the need for the Dems to get more money from the financial services industry--but the only way he's going to be purged is if he is, in fact, corrupt.

So, either he's corrupt and will pay the price, or he's not corrupt and the party will benefit.

Not sure what the other options are:

Purge him because he may be corrupt down the road? I don't think so....

Re: Rahm Emanuel is a Bad Man (3.00 / 2)

To answer your question Matt, about how Rahm is percieved in the district... Well, you said it best, "He's blunt and persistent, with loads of energy". You sure are right about that, and that is why a LOT of people like him a lot. He makes a lot of time for his district, and is percieved as doing much for the people. This, and his connections with the local machines mean that he won't be a serious challenger to him from the democratic side. On the republican side... ain't gonna happen either as his district wouldn't vote republican, period.

by Legionnaire on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:56:05 PM EST

I've said it before and I'll say it again (3.00 / 1)

Chicago Alderman Tom Tunney could beat Emanuel in a primary.
Tom, as the owner of Ann Sather restaurants, is a respected businessman. He's gay and has the undying loyalty of that community. And he has a long history of opening his facilities to meetings of various community groups.
He's a good, honest guy who is respected by both progressives and traditional party players.

by ChgoSteve on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:05:37 PM EST

Ann Sather...yum, yum (none / 0)

He get's my vote. Love those pancakes.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've said it before and I'll say it again (none / 0)

Ann Sather's is a great restaurant too, a must when in the Windy City.

by howardpark on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tunney is not all that progressive but (none / 0)

he would be left of Emanuel. Which isn't saying all that much

Jeff Wegerson - PrairieStateBlue

by wegerje on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 08:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've said it before and I'll say it again (none / 0)

I second all the above, AND he's smart enough to know Rahm's an ally, not an opponent.

by markt on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 10:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rahm Emanuel is a Bad Man (2.00 / 2)

Is Matt really this stupid or is he on meth? He is getting really ridiculous.

by firestorm on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:06:56 PM EST

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

Stupid is bragging about being a corrupt corporatist-- and so is condoning it.

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Curt Matlock on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:57:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd agree with you except you seem to reject the caviat that there is a time and a place for everything.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

I do reject the caveat that their is ever a time and place for corporate bribes and corruption of the principles of the Democratic Party.

If you think there is a time and place for it, please explain.

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 10:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Curt Matlock on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:37:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You should concentrate on actually making the case that Rahm Emmanuel takes bribes before smearing his name. Or perhaps the real problem is that you don't like the fundraising structure we have in place in this country? Well you aren't alone there but calling Rahm Emmanuel names won't do much to change that fact.

To clarify, the proper time and place would be sometime AFTER there is something more than out-of-context quotes upon which to base your charges.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

You should concentrate on actually making the case that Rahm Emmanuel takes bribes before smearing his name.

For goodness sakes! He BRAGGED about doing it -- selling access to committee chairs. Take off the party-issue blinders.

Or perhaps the real problem is that you don't like the fundraising structure we have in place in this country?

As a matter of fact, I don't like bribery by moneyed interests. If the Democratic Party would openbly forbid it among its members, Democrats would probably own the presidency and 90% of the seats in Congress.

Why can't Democrats use the GOP's blatant corruption against them this year? Because everyone knows it would be blatant hypocrisy and hurt all Democrats -- even the many honest ones.

Well you aren't alone there but calling Rahm Emmanuel names won't do much to change that fact.

Please quote the name which you claim I called Emanuel. I don't think I did. But as the accuser, the burden of proof is on you.

But you're right about me not being alone. The number of people who come to see the omnipresent need to reform the Democratic Party increases every day.

by Sitkah on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 12:46:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Curt Matlock on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here it is:

"But the prospect of slimeballs like Emanuel and Schumer running Congress a .... "

Regarding Emanuel bragging ... here's the quote :

We're working outside of traditional banks,' he says proudly, 'into the private-equity world, the hedge-fund world, the distressed-debt world.'

How is that bragging about bribery? You may infer a quid pro quo offer but based on this quote I sure don't see any proof. What I do see is Emanuel laying out where he'll seek funds which of course is what he is tasked to do. Granted, this sort of fundraising causes all kinds of ethical problems but the problem is systemic and is not limited to Emanuel.

But you're right about me not being alone. The number of people who come to see the omnipresent need to reform the Democratic Party increases every day.

We don't disagree on that point at all.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

We don't disagree on that point at all.

And reforming the Democratic party means putting corporate slimeballs like Emanuel and Schumer out to pasture.

by Sitkah on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 02:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Matt Stoller is a hack (2.60 / 5)

who can't tell the difference between a quote and the reporter's characterization.

by PantherDem on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:12:25 PM EST

by Crablaw on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:33:49 PM EST

Until campaign finance reform comes with public financing, which will come 23 minutes after the arrival of the Messiah, campaigns need fuel and only donors have that fuel. There is no immaculate conception of money, no parthogenesis in the campaign bank accounts.

And Matt Stoller is... (3.00 / 2)

Color me confused.

The influence of big donors is obviously a valid topic of discussion, and a cause for concern.

What I can't for the life of me do is get from there to Rahm Emanuel is a bad man.

I mean, if you think what he's doing is wrong, or counterproductive, or whatever, why not use those words to say it?

(Leaving aside the guys upthread point about Matt's misreading the article - or indeed whether he read the whole article, given that he was using Sirota's bum link.)

Matt's stuff is often insightful and thought-provoking (though I tend not to agree with his judgements in a lot of it).

Then, from time to time, he just seems to flip out.

I'm happy to accept that that goes with the territory and move on. Casual readers might be more alarmed.

(It would help if he'd discuss criticisms in the comments more often.

Just saying...)

by skeptic06 on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:42:29 PM EST

by RBH on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:54:27 PM EST

Nah, Stoller is more like Bob Brigham, only slightly less charming.

Ha. ;)

Re: Rahm Emanuel is a Bad Man (2.00 / 1)

It's hard to tell the cheap putdowns of the Democratic Right from thos of the Republican Right.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not the time for this (3.00 / 2)

Do you want to read your headline floating across the screen on a $13 million GOP TV buy?

Right or wrong--and I think you're wrong--this ain't the time to fight over the spoils of a war we haven't won yet.

You don't have to sleep with the guy.

steve

by stevehigh on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:57:05 PM EST

Will someone (3.00 / 3)

within arm's reach please give Matt .5 mg of epinephrine, stat. I think he's just slumped over in his chair.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 05:59:09 PM EST

by howardpark on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:30:08 PM EST

I think this is a great discussion to have after Nov. 7. It will be nice when & if Democrats have real power and have a leadership fight that means something.

by RickD on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:33:03 PM EST

The level of so many of the comments here is really disappointing.

by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, I'll bite: What might a comment at an uplifting level have looked like? Since you troll rated me, the least you could do is show us how it's done....

Re: Rahm Emanuel is a Bad Man (1.50 / 2)

Yeah, it's shameful to be associated with so many utterly amoral people as those who back the corrupted corporate wing of the Democratic Party.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 06:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by global yokel on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 08:07:03 PM EST

I see we have a serious troll infestation here. It too, shall pass.

by BrianDallas on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 08:07:11 PM EST

I think that this debate should occur after the election. Regardless of how you feel about Emanuel, attacking a fellow Democrat this late in the game is counterproductive. There are plenty of Republicans out there to go after, and they're far more deserving of your scorn than someone like Emanuel. There will likely be a challenge to Emanuel, (if we take the House) so people opposed to him can go to work then. Emanuel could be too much of a corporatist to be Majority Leader, but that is something that should be decided after the election.

by padraig26 on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 08:25:01 PM EST

There is a difference between engaging and listening to corporate donors and being totally in the bag and corrupted by them. This is very important, and should not be so easily muddled.

Rahm and Schumer may not be the two biggest progressive champions out there. I doubt I agree with any Dem leader on 100% of the issues. This does not mean I won't follow them. Rahm and Schumer are both brilliant and experienced politicians who are totally relentless (just ask their staff!) to changing the direction of the country and having democrats win.

Now my praise should not be read as a permanent endorsement. Any politicians who does wrong deserves to be prosecuted. But it will take more than the first, slightest, potential appearance of wrong doing/corruption for me to start calling for an end to Rahm's career.

I am suspect of corporate politics, but I can not stress enough the danger of equating engaging them with being corrupted by them.
Until there is something beyond this, I don't see how this really warrants a blog post 'Rahm is a bad man'.

It's amazing that so many of Rahms supporters here (none / 0)

spell his name with two ems.

Jeff Wegerson - PrairieStateBlue

by wegerje on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 08:51:47 PM EST

Reliability of the Source? (none / 0)

by jasmine on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:12:27 PM EST

Re: Sitkah, Com'on now--Go home & take a nap (3.00 / 3)

Its take a lifetime to be an expert in politics. 3-5 years of netroots blogging doesn't make you an expert.

PLEASE! And Sitkah, Stop insulting people here who disagree with Matt. Your $25 dollar donation combined with your yelling and screaming will not get you even a council seat anywhere in America.

Corporate this, Corporate that- Why don't you sell some cookies Sitkah! LOL! Unbelievable.

Sitkah, You sound like a minimum wage high school dropout who actually believes he can be the next CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Man!

by labanman on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:27:21 PM EST