Emanuel Blocks Debate on Trade Deal? He was following the orders of his "Progressive" boss

[wyldwolf]

In a another thread on DU, David Sirota quotes "The Hill" in his latest hit piece on Rahm Emanuel who apparently took trade deals off the agenda of a Dem caucus meeting. What Sirota (surprise!) DIDN'T quote from the Hill was this:

Six House Democrats had sought to get House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to put off the announcement of a deal until after the caucus reviewed it, but were rebuffed.

...now, we'll take up the quote from Sirota's piece:

According to sources on Capitol Hill today (that would be the 14th), after the Los Angeles Times confirmed that Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) earlier this week (actually, that would be LAST week)agreed to demands by rank-and-file congressional Democrats to debate the secret trade deal at this Tuesday's Democratic Caucus meeting, Emanuel abruptly took trade off the agenda prior to the meeting, preventing the meeting on trade from taking place.

Hmmm... Let's see. Pelosi rebuffed Six House Democrats who had sought to review the trade specifics, followed by Emanuel doing an about face on it. Yep. Sounds like Emanuel was following Pelosi's instructions. Pelosi? The "Progressive?" Former member of the Progressive Caucus??? That's her.

LET THE SPIN BEGIN!

[SaveElmer]

1. Wait you mean...

Sirota misrepresented an event in order to trash a Democrat he doesn't like...surely not!!!

:sarcasm:

[wyldwolf]

2. I'm not denying Emanuel did what was reported, but Sirota wants to cover for Pelosi

...he wants to get out ahead of the story and plant the idea in the netroots that it was Emanuel before the rest of the party catches on to the story.

[SaveElmer]

4. Exactly...

In other words, in order to make someone he personally dislikes, and that those who support him dislike,look bad, he leaves out pertinent information which would implicate one of their formerly favored progressives in the effort he describes...

[DancingBear]

3. "LET THE SPIN BEGIN!"

Why, it already has!

I mean, you're here, aren't you?

Following orders and all that.

Hee, hee, hee.

(Sorry, but this is my one and only response, so you'll just have to snark to the wind, me boy...)

[wyldwolf]

5. I should have tagged it "LET THE SPIN AND DIVERSIONS BEGIN"

[dionysus]

6. so are you saying that makes it right?

or are you trying to get a dig in on Pelosi?

What exactly is your point?

[wyldwolf]

7. LOL! No, I'm getting a dig in on rabble rouser Sirota

[dionysus]

8. okay

[wyldwolf]

9. ok!

[cally]

10. I don't agree with your implicating Pelosi in this nor the reasons why

Unlike you, I've studied Pelosi's positions for a long time. She's an astute politician and an able one. She's also very progressive. I don't know yet if she was behind the trade fiasco but I do know that there was a trade off for something important behind it. I probably won't agree with her reasoning on this, but I do trust her overall. We have to get beyond looking at each individual vote and action and instead view the overall record.

[wyldwolf]

11. So you believe the Hill's account of Emanuel but not of Pelosi?

[cally]

14. Umm...I didn't mention Emauel...Give it a rest

I'm not about to take the diversionary argument.

[wyldwolf]

15. this thread is about Emanuel and Polos and Sirota's "overlooking" of the facts

The Hill implicated Pelosi AND Emanuel. You don't agree with the characterization of Pelosi. Do you agree with Sirota's characterization of Emanuel?

[Dr Fate]

12. Pelosi also agrees with Rahm that impeachment should be off the table.

Is your DLC saying that progressives should like her more for agreeing with your DLC, or less for this?

For all I know Pelosi is following the DLC's advice on any given issue, or that she agrees with the DLC to begin with on one issue or another.

No spin from me, I agree with joint Pelosi/DLC positions every now and then, sometimes I dont.

[wyldwolf]

13. no, actually, Rahm agrees with Pelosi.. "LET THE SPINNING AND DIVERSIONS BEGIN."

[Dr Fate]

16. It's not spin to say they agree with each other on any # of issues- including impeachment.

Sorry, no spin here.

Who ever is bossing who ever around isnt really an issue for me- I can either agree with a joint DLC/Pelosi position or strategy or I can disagree....

I ask a 2nd time-Is your DLC saying that progressives should like her more when she and the DLC agree, or is your DLC saying progressives should like her less?

Is your DLC attacking her for agreeing with Rahm or praising her for it? It's hard to tell.

[wyldwolf]

17. "Sorry, no spin here." - but plenty of diversion. Do you agree or not...

...that David Sirota used selective quotes from "The Hill," ignoring Nancy Pelosi's role, in building a case against Emanuel?

[Dr Fate]

18. Why let Sirota's opinions frame the debate? All I know is that Nancy & the DLC agree on many things.

Besides, I asked you a question 1st. You responded to my question with another question.

Anyway, I could care less as to how some Journalist frames this- if he wants to suggest that the DLC as an aggregate has deal-making power and influence over Pelosi and w/i the party, then it's obviously your job to deny that.

All I'm saying is that the DLC and Pelosi agree on many things- this seems to be one of them.

[wyldwolf]

19. Sirota's yellow "journalism" is the subject of the thread.

Do you go on DLC tirades over Sunday dinner discussions about the weather?

[Dr Fate]

20. No- I just dont let DLC advocates & members frame issues in narrow terms, to meet their ends.

Sorry, this isnt FOX News, where "Dry Powder" DLCers go on their shows and let "moderate" hosts frame every issue and narrow every topic to their liking.

I can discuss any aspect of a topic on a message board thread.

You want the issue to be about Sirota's one little article- that's great-but it's much broader than that.

I ask a 4th time- is the point you are making that progressives shouldnt trust Pelosi for agreeing with the DLC, or is it that they should?

[wyldwolf]

21. what you just described is still a diversion from the point of the thread...further...

...this thread was in response to an anti-DLCer (and you'd know that if you paid attention) spinning a story. But, no, you either can't or won't see that nor will you see the recklessness of Sirota's style. To you, it's all about DLC, Iraq, DLC, Iraq...

[Dr Fate]

22. Not a diversion at all- I'm discussing the issue at hand outside of one man's article.

And I have no doubt that this thread is in response to an anti-DLC thread- seeing as how it is your job to respond to such things.

I dont care about Sirota's style or whether he is reckeless- what matters to me is that Pelosi and the DLC agree on this, as well as other things.

5th time asking- are you suggesting in your OP that progressives should trust Pelosi more, or less because of her agreement with the DLC on this?
Again, it's hard to tell if you are bashing her for this or praising her.

[wyldwolf]

23. Stay on topic. Do not jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent.

Quote from DU rules page.

[Dr Fate]

24. I'm 100% on topic when discuss whether Nancy & the DLC are in agreement over this.

Sorry, this isnt FOX news where "moderates" can strategically confine a broad topic to one narrow sub-issue.

I can discuss or bring up aspects of this issue that David Sirota touched on or I can bring in related aspects he or you did not touch on.
Doing so is in no way a violation of DU rules.

Bringing in the Rahm's DLC membership is relevant, since you say yourself that this thread is in response to an anti-DLC thread that did just that.

Shall I ask you the question again, a 6th time? Are you suggesting that progressives should trust Nancy more, or less for agreeing with your DLC on this? Is your OP putting her down for agreeing with the DLC or praising her for it?

[wyldwolf]

25. Stay on topic. Do not jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent.

Quote from DU's rules page.

[Capn Sunshine]

26. Pelosi's actions ARE the topic

why is her acquiescence to the DLC on this issue a remote "tangent"? Either Rahm is being pressured or not - isn't that what you meant in the OP?

Is there something we should know that you're not saying?

[Dr Fate]

28. Reminds me of the DLC's Lieberman supporters who claimed Iraq was not a main topic.

Oh- let me correct that- FORMER Lieberman supporters of the DLC. FORMER. Of course they all hate him now, and were crushed when he beat the Democrat. ;)

'Member that one? It went something like:

"Besides the main issue,Iraq, Joe is great- why wont you crazy nut-roots people talk about what WE want to talk about- (i.e. everything BUT Iraq)"

Basically, anything that DLC members dont want to discuss is "off topic."

Apparently the topic is not the whole of the Sirota article or anything the article touches on, but only what DLC advocates themselves say about Sirota's particular motives behind the article.

[Dr Fate]

27. Pelosi's & the DLC's actions are the topic of Sirota's piece. Maybe you should alert the mods...

...if you think that starting 100% on topic sub-threads is a rule violation.

Or perhaps you should join FOX news or some other place where forcing "progressives" to debate "moderates" w/i pre-arranged narrow confines is acceptable.

[Forkboy]

29. LMFAO

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

30. Stay on topic. Do not jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent.

DU rules quote

[Dr Fate]

31. So alert the mods then. Discussing Sirota's article is not a violation of the rules.

In any event, I apologize for starting a sub thread that dealt with my perceptions about the article your OP is based on rather than sticking to the narrow confines of your personal perceptions about the author.

Alert the mods if you must- but it looks to me like you just dont have anything else to say.

[wyldwolf]

33. Stay on topic. Do not jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent.

[Dr Fate]

32. Why is "progressive" in quotes? Are you saying that Nancy is a conservative, like most DLCers are?

It almost seems like you put "progressive" in quotes to suggest that Nancy is really a conservative-or against the Democratic base, like many of your average Joe Lieberman supporting DLCers are.

Care to clarify?

Opps- I'm sorry- I'll bet asking you to clarify particular points in your own OP is somehow off topic- I apologize in advance. ;)