READ FULL PIECE AT:
http://huff.to/9Zg8GO (full text + includes links & citations)
by John Wellington Ennis
Director, PAY 2 PLAY (
http://kck.st/cAOSkM)
In a Rockwell-ian retrospective softening of Rahm Emmanuel in the New York Times, David Brooks relates his personal experiences of a kinder, gentler Rahm, one that does not cuss or bully others into submission, as Rahm is regularly described as, even by President Obama. That the only fond thoughts on Rahm's departure are coming from a conservative Beltway columnist reveals the inefficacy of Rahm as Chief of Staff under the first two years of Obama.
It is tempting to oversimplify Rahm's impact on the Obama Administration as a short-sighted bully who may well have screwed what could have been a great presidency with his belligerence to cover up his lack of political acumen. So let me dispense with the platitudes and give in to temptation.
Where Karl Rove was "The Architect," Rahm was more like the shady Chicago contractor you can't get on the phone. I admonish Rahm because I am sick of bullies, especially ones that stand in the way of work getting done while they flail about abrasively. He chose to intimidate those around him and the base he could take for granted, avoided fights with those provoking a fight, and cut favorable deals for the ones he should have been fighting.
I do not begrudge Rahm his lack of progressive alignment, as many have. Rahm's well-known contempt for the liberal base that catapulted him into the White House reveals not just a deep disassociation with Middle Class America, but a glaring indication that no matter how loudly he swears, he doesn't understand how shit works.
When told that progressive groups were considering running ads for a more progressive candidate in a Democratic primary, Rahm called them "f-king retarded!" When Sarah Palin demanded that Obama fire Rahm and managed to make the subject about her, while Rahm had to acquiesce into some special-needs charity gestures. Rahm really should have been required to work for the progressive groups he was cursing out -- collecting signatures on the street, having to listen to others' ideas, and not having anyone from Big Money give a crap about you.
Rahm's wrath was on display after the fierce primary earlier this year in Arkansas for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat held by Blanche Lincoln. Bill Halter drew widespread support from progressives and unions to unseat the blue dog Democrat, but incumbents tend to work for other incumbents. The night of Lincoln's narrow win, a statement smacking of Rahm was issued from the White House: "Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise." In Pennsylvania, when the progressive-backed Joe Sestak won the Democratic primary and retired the White House-backed Sen. Arlen Specter, despite Rahm's dissuasion via Bill Clinton, those campaign dollars apparently did not go to waste.
It's not that I am so outraged like Michael Moore that Rahm is so contemptuous of the progressive base of his own party, he would flippantly interject "Fuck the UAW" in a bailout meeting, dismissing the middle class families that comprise it because they lack clout. But I would think Rahm might at least consider the opportunity of appealing to the votes of unemployed auto-workers -- they are going to vote for something that improves their situation. Or, you could blow them off and ponder the swelling ranks of the Tea Party.
While famously barbed in his meetings and deal making, it is apparent that Rahm simply doesn't deal with people or issues he doesn't want to deal with. Perhaps it is rationalized as go-it-alone or defining new priorities, or showing people up by touting disregard to try to make them feel small. But Rahm's shoddy record of tenure reveals how small time he really is. Our country languishes today in atrophy from pay to play politics. Rahm is just another player in this, but more like a coach for the neighborhood bar's softball team, not a Yankee.
Here is the simple truth: Rahm was never thinking about voters. He was thinking about donors. Campaign money means more than votes in his old school mind, so as long as the big donors were getting heard, those liberal losers with websites were just going to have to suck it up and still vote Democratic, because there is no other option.
And so in the course of financial and health care overhaul, concessions were made to giants in insurance, pharmaceutical, banking, and brokerage, after unprecedented bailouts to the financial industry. Even David Brooks alludes to this in his one critique of Rahm: "He made some big mistakes: Trying to use the financial crisis as an opportunity to do everything at once." Interesting way of putting it -- 'doing' it for whom?
Come election season, shocker: Republicans are getting more money than Democrats at almost 6 to 1. Karl Rove is sitting on a $50 million dollar slush fund of anonymous cash. Was Rahm actually expecting gratitude, even deference, compared to the party that lives only to de-regulate big businesses? From these titans of greed? Rahm's savoir-faire is like expecting flowers from the frat guy that told you he had a girlfriend before he date-raped you.
CONTINUED (at length!)
http://huff.to/9Zg8GOD.U.ers, if you can, please help me meet the fundraising deadline for my film PAY 2 PLAY about Citizens United and this Big Money Mess in 2010:
http://kck.st/cAOSkM
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(477 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
