How do you feel about Rahm Emanuel's statement:

[Political Heretic]

According to Rep. John Conyers, appearing on the Ed Schultz show on July 3rd, 2009, (and I am referring exclusively to that reported statement and no others) Rahm Emanuel told him and other congress persons behind closed doors that "the only thing that is not negotiable is success."

How do you feel about that? Does it not sound to you that Rahm feels that "winning" is more important that the substance of the win? Does it not sound a little bit like he's implying that his primary goal is a "win" that makes the administration "look good" regardless of whether bills actually "are good" for American people?

If your answer is "no" then do you think Rahm just spoke poorly? Or do you think that somehow having "everything" - all principles, all goals - be negotiable except success of passing a bill is somehow a good thing?

[Mojambo]

1. Depends on the scope of "success"

If he means political success then it's a big problem.

[rug]

2. It's a meaningless pseudomacho statement.

[Political Heretic]

Really? Well I'll admit I hadn't considered that, and given who made the statement I'm skeptical

[rug]

7. He's no Lombardi. Neither was Lombardi.

Too many people are hurting for politicians to continue this posturing bullshit. To quote a sneaker, 'Just do it' and cut the bullshit.

[Uzybone]

9. +1

Simple and sweet. It was nothing but a rah rah statement.

[invictus]

5. Exactly. n/t

[stray cat]

3. Success is now a bad thing? I assume success means passing a good bill and not any bill

[Political Heretic]

19. Why would you assume that?

[babylonsister]

4. Not bad at all after reading this about a partisan vote

Emanuel, making a theoretical case for a party-line vote, offered a definition of bipartisanship based not on roll-call votes but on whether Democrats have accepted Republican ideas during the process of negotiations.

And he said Democrats already have passed that test, pointing to Republican amendments that the Democratic-controlled Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has adopted.

I think he wants the bill passed, however that happens. That doesn't mean he wants to screw anyone, including us. Maybe especially us.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3968951&mesg_id=3969008

Obama Open to Partisan Vote on Health-Care Overhaul, Aides Say

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Isn't that straight outa DLC cliche 101?

Sure, we sell out the Democratic party to the point where it's goddamn unrecognizable, but as long as we "win". :eyes:

But who, in reality, is winning?

Sure as fuck isn't the American people.

[RoyGBiv]

8. I think Rahm spoke fine ...

How some interpret "success" may leave something to be desired, however.

This is assuming he is being quoted correctly by Mr. Conyers, that is. Odd that we're taking statements by people like him and using them to question our own, but whatever the case, if that is an accurate reporting, I have no problem with it.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC

DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC DLC

DLC

[bigwillq]

12. Exactly.

:mad:

[and-justice-for-all]

11. When he says "win"...

I can take it a helluva lot better than when pukes say it.

[RoyGBiv]

13. Thing is ...

He didn't say "win."

He said "success," as reported by Conyers anyway.

"Win" is the OP interpretation.

[and-justice-for-all]

14. Ooohh, I see...Then I have no issue then..LOL

[Political Heretic]

18. It was also John Conyer's interpretation, and he was there.

I also respect him far more than I ever did Rahm. So, I'll defer to his interpretation...

[solstice]

15. He needs to define "winning" and "success." Doubt if we have the same definitions.

But no, based on what I've read about him and his family, he doesn't give a shit about what's good for struggling, suffering Americans. Only thing they care about is big business and lining their own pockets. And Obama knew that when he chose him.

But Rahm and Obama don't really care about anything but their rich friends.

[Phx_Dem]

16. Oh yeah, demanding success is terrible. How dare he!

As far as "negotiating," DUH. Every White House has to negotiate to some extent to get their agenda passed -- either with the opposition party or they own party. The only way to get anything done in lockstep is to have a large majority of wingnuts and a wingnut President.

Another DU stawman argument.

[Political Heretic]

17. At any cost? Negotiating with principle is fine. Saying everything is on the table is not fine.

[Vidar]

20. Rahm -the evil king of corporate welfare..