Reply #60: We agree in part [View All]

[Prism]

I'm with you when you say you do not see Jane's investment as sensible. I believe she is acting out of anger and making an unwise, ill-considered alliance. Anger is only useful when it can be channeled into practical, effective politics. I see Jane's actions as ineffective and simply bad politics. She's eroding her credibility with behavior that is very highly unlikely to produce any kind of tangible result.

The perils of lashing out.

However, I'm in sympathy with her anger. I do not much care for Rahm-style politics. Being from Chicago, I know exactly what he's always been about and despaired a touch when the President tapped him as CoS. It set a poor tone for his administration that has met exactly those low expectations I have for someone like Emmanuel. I do believe Rahm is willing and advising that the Left be thrown overboard at the first sign of intransigence to his goal of "put your name on anything, just so you can say you got a win."

It's a very Chicago thing to do, and I think it is a very wrong-headed approach to national problems, especially when we've the mountain of problems we do.

That said, I still find the massive campaign against Jane a very Rovian tactic. Pick a symbol, attach them to a generalized "opponent", smear away.

And that's precisely what this administration and its more enthusiastic supporters have done. I think they know the policy isn't as defensible as they like to claim in the media. If it was, they'd not resort to this.