Why is EVERY Hate Post for Rahm Emanuel...

[berni_mccoy]

just nothing but hate? I've never seen a substantiated thread to say why DUers here don't like Rahm. All I hear is he's a DLCer and hates progressives.

I've never actually seen anything that would lead me to believe those claims. Should these type of hate posts be tolerated here?

[dbonds]

1. Isn't being from the DLC enough?

[JamesA1102]

5. So in other words your arguement is intolerance

for people that don't agree with you in 100% lockstep. And all this time I thought being liberal meant keeping an open mind.

[YOY]

7. Yes it does. It also doesn't mean bending over to the "Republican Lites"

As we are always expected to do.

[JamesA1102]

12. To me Republican-lites are people who

resort to the same type of tactics like demonizing anyone who has a different opinion.

[YOY]

15. Funny. His and the DLC's "different opinion" has been the Repug status quo for the past 30 years.

If the "Reagan Democrats" want to fix a party there's a far more broken one than ours.

They've been pushing the same policies with the proper "fiscal/corporate conservative" terms instead of the jingoism and flat out BS that the Far Right pushes.

Then again you're also presuming the non-DLC has gotten anything but scraps and leftovers for the past X years.

[JamesA1102]

38. Nice little rant.

Not backed up with one fact but nice rant none the less. You've learned well from Rush and Sean.

[YOY]

42. Nice poorly constructed comparison.

Now if you'd like to show me just how the DLC is anything remotely left wing/progressive and tell me all the "progressive poltics" that the DLC has blessed us with...I'll bear your half-assed insult with grace.

Statistics "factual" enough for you?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

But shit...if you want to call right "left" and far right "right" and anyone who denys it some form of left-wing dittohead looney on a pundit trip be my guest...I've only got political science as a global whole on my side...

[JamesA1102]

45. Wow that chart is useless and

says nothing about the "evil" DLC. Are all your facts this suspect?

[YOY]

47. Not very good at this are you?

Better call up every political scientist on the planet. Tell them the non-validity of the political compass and of your inability to read it.

[JamesA1102]

49. No I'm very good at detecting BS

And since that chart is a total non-sequitar, saying nothing about the "evil" DLC, it is just a lame attempt to divert from the original point, thus, it's BS.

[YOY]

53. I'd say you are very good at ignoring facts and asking that people prove negatives.

But hey...call BS until you are blue in the face. It's easy to call someone else's facts BS with a loud voice and have nothing but pomp and insults to back it up.

The chart is far from non-sequitar as it pretty much sinks it rock solid (look at the historical data and not just the single link) about the Democratic Party sliding to the right and the involvement of the DLC is simply a matter of knowing which Democrats have been DLC and which have not historically is pretty much fact.

The policies pushed have all been fiscal sector growth enabling and not labor/wage enabling (little things like say...raising the minimum wage...). All very fine but that's the other side's job were they not batshit insane I'm sure they'd be right on it.

If you can't make the connection feel free to keep nailing the poor little DLC and their blue dog bullshit to cross for us to all pity.

Clearly those of us who disagree must subscribe to some left-wing version of the birther theorists...first you whine of non-acceptance of opinions then you insult/marginalize those who do not share your opinion. Now who else does that?

:eyes:

[JamesA1102]

79. It's not about the DLC.

You're desperately trying to make it about the DLC but I'm not buying it.

[YOY]

80. I ain't the desperate one baby...and it's all about the DLC.

:crazy:

[JamesA1102]

83. Could have fooled me. nt

[YOY]

85. "Could have" and did so both unintentionally & obviously!

But I'm not too concerned as it's probably not very hard to do so...

[JamesA1102]

89. In your dreams. nt

[YOY]

104. Come back of the year AWARD WINNER!!!

[JamesA1102]

115. Thanks. nt

[Jim Sagle]

223. That's really sad when you lose to a five buck an hour DLC hogwash dispenser.

;)

[JamesA1102]

227. Not hogwash just keeping an open mind.

Something a lot around here are unwilling to do.

[Jim Sagle]

238. We get enough corporatism at work and on the teebee.

We're here for something else - the truth.

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Oh, come on, admit it -

you just have no idea who on those charts espouses DLC 'principles'.

[JamesA1102]

78. The chart is a non-sequitar

It says nothing about the DLC and doens't prove that it is 'evil'.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

63. nice job of stating it so clearly.

[sui generis]

74. you're a nasty form of distruptor.

and snarky name calling and idiotic comparisons make you look like an ugly fourth grader. Shouldn't you be in school?

[JamesA1102]

81. Wow!

First you denouce snarky name calling then you engage in it. I believe that is called hypocrisy.

[sui generis]

108. now THAT sounded adolescent.

You started it. :P

[JamesA1102]

116. Guess you would know better than me. nt

[sui generis]

129. *pout*

:eyes:

[dbonds]

18. Not all opinions are valid points.

DLC is destructive. It isn't an opinion, its a sell out to corporations. Greed rules and all that.

[JamesA1102]

39. And you've proven that not all opinions are not valid points

some are just demagoguery.

[dbonds]

90. If not understanding the DLC is destructive is demogoguery to you have at it.

If you don't understand then you just don't understand.

[JamesA1102]

92. Well sorry I don't understand demogoguery or intolerance. nt

[dbonds]

94. Or what the words mean.

You are just trying to label something with a term to try to weaken the facts.

[JamesA1102]

96. Sorry but I don't see what being in a lifeboat had to do with

the DLC being demonized.

[dbonds]

99. DLC is the idiot with the idea to drill a hole in the boat.

DLC is why the democrats lost so much power in the 90's. They are republicans in blue clothing. We need to purge the democratic party of all their silly destructiveness.

[JamesA1102]

117. Purge? See words like that sound more like Bush, Cheney

and the GOP.

[dbonds]

134. That is an old tactic everyone knows, ...

You are diverting attention from an argument by trying to equate it to a known bad.

And the DLC; you don't tolerate a disease, you don't tolerate invading horde. You get rid of them. They are destructive. They almost killed the democratic party in the 90s and they support all the bad corporatist agenda of the republicans. They should not be tolerated, they are the bad guys.

[JamesA1102]

142. Not a tactic.

And from what I can see you're vitiolic rhetoric is more destructive than anything the DLC has ever done.

[dbonds]

151. So now you say you know the DLC destructive past.

So do you have a point? Or you here just sit on a high horse and try to piss on people?

[JamesA1102]

154. Now you're putting words in my mouth. nt

[sui generis]

32. off topic actually. Rahm is pushing a socially conservative agenda

It's anti-liberal and certainly anti-progressive. We are not required to "tolerate", much less "accept" wolves in our midst.

[JamesA1102]

40. Gotta love that intolerance!

Sounding more and more like teabaggers every day!

[PVnRT]

67. Funny, I hear the same argument

from right-wingers who complain about how "intolerant" liberals are for not agreeing with them, all the while calling anything leftist "socialist" or "communist" or "evil."

Quack quack quack.

[JamesA1102]

88. Exactly right!!!

As Democrats we should be open to other who don't always agree with us and not denoucing those who disagree as evil.

[PVnRT]

110. Wow, that flew right over your head

[YOY]

113. See post #85

n/t

[JamesA1102]

118. No was just turning it back on you.

I'm for inclusiveness not intolerance.

[WinkyDink]

201. You are being deliberately obtuse, insisting "Liberal" means "without strong principle; malleable."

Sorry, but you don't get to define "Liberal". YOU don't get to insist we must "tolerate" non-progressive "opinions." And you most decidedly do not get to determine what EVIL is and WHEN and HOW oe even IF it can be "denounced."

THAT resembles a Right-winger's attempt to make Liberals into panty-waist, after-you-Alphonse, Casper Milquetoasts.

[JamesA1102]

225. Didn't say without strong principle

but keeping and open mind. And I'm not the one playing judge proclaiming anyone evil.

[sui generis]

73. that just sounded childish

teabaggers? Next you'll accuse me of being a troll. :eyes:

Why is this forum so full of stupid people? Are you a former republican? Are you a teabagger? Are you "tolerant"?

What the fuck is tolerant? We tolerate you. I am intolerant of social conservatives, regardless of their party affiliations. And if you don't like it, then you'd best avoid me.

[YOY]

76. C'mon Sui!

Intolerance of the intolerant is intolerable!!!

We're just like the FReeper Teabaggers...with better spelling...and educations...and lifetime experience...and our own opinions that are not those of pundits...and we vote for our own self interests...and there are facts to back us up...

BUT OTHER THAN THAT WE ARE JUST LIKE THEM!!!

Why can't we leave the poor little DLC alone?!?!?!?

[dbonds]

93. Tollerate those that will cause your destruction, is that really your point?

No thanks. It is not about tolerance, that is the wrong concept to apply. That is that same crap that is causing MSM to present dem vs loony right wing arguments as if both sides are equally valid. Every thought and idea is not equal, and some are destructive - especially when they support corporate person-hood.

[JamesA1102]

98. See it's the "Cause your destruction" rhetoric that loses me.

It's just demonizing the other side like the GOPers do.

[dbonds]

103. It isn't just rhetoric. Thats the point.

[JamesA1102]

120. It's rhetoric until someone shows some factual support

which no one has, just vitriol instead.

[dbonds]

136. For factual support read some history.

It is not my job to teach you history you should know. Do your own research. If you know then history and still support the DLC then I feel sorry for you. Then you either don't understand, or you are part of the greed system. But don't sit on a high horse and tell those of us that lived through it and know what is going on to tolerate a disease.

[JamesA1102]

143. So you're saying that you can't prove what you say. nt

[dbonds]

153. I didn't say anything needing proof. I said common knowledge stuff.

[JamesA1102]

157. Common knowledge????

So you're opinion is now common knowledge?

[dbonds]

158. No, not opinion, the history.

[JamesA1102]

160. Well prove some of this history. NT

[dbonds]

165. Read your damn history book, the one you have for your 2nd period class.

[JamesA1102]

169. Wow! Now resorting to insults.

But still not offering any support for the accusations that you made.

[Raineyb]

148. When you insist on stamping your feet, closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your

ears while yelling "La la la I can't hear you" you're not likely to hear the factual support when it's presented to you.

[JamesA1102]

156. But none has been presented.

Just a lot of vitriol.

[YOY]

186. and the history books.

That you don't want to read.

[JamesA1102]

188. Like I said

You the one making the accusation. It's not up to me to investigate the validity of your statements. It's up to you.

[YOY]

191. Actually it is up to you to educate yourself. To insinuate otherwise is asinine.

You have asked about things quite rudimentary and in simple history books. You have been presented statistical evidence about the slide of the Democratic party to the right ala the DLC. You have a wealth of materials at your fingertips on the more reputable sites on the internet. Yet, you insist on playing little conversational games and changing the topic. You truly exist here to stir shit up.

There is no comeback beyond the horrible idiocy of what you have already said. Instead of thinking of a catchy comeback I recommend you actually think about what you have written. If capable.

Now please bugger off. I've had enough of you. You're a Democrat like I'm a ghostbuster.

[JamesA1102]

192. Not when you are the one making the accusation

and the fact that you're resorted to cursing shows that you can't back up what you've said.

[Raineyb]

198. Exhibit A n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

109. Ninety five million people uninsured or underinsured.

10% unemployment.

Sounds sorta like 'destruction' to me.

The DLC supports and promotes the Republican agenda which gave us today's economy.

Sounds sorta like 'destruction' to me.

[JamesA1102]

119. See that's either your with us or against us logic.

As a Democrat I don't believe in that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

127. Please, explain how describing how the DLC works against

the principles of the Democratic Party - when they themselves position themselves as in opposition to the Democratic Party by advocating a 'Third Way' which may sound nice in theory, but in reality hands the reins of government over to the corporations - is "with us or against us" logic.

If someone takes a punch a me, it is not I who starts a fight by hitting back. As a Democrat, I don't believe in that.

[JamesA1102]

144. See all I hear is you making the accusation

without backing it up with facts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

180. Try some very simple logic.

One way - Democratic party.

Second way - Republican party. Second way does not = Democratic party. Pretty self obvious.

Third way - DLC. By their own self-description. Something which is NEITHER Democratic NOR Republican. They self-describe as being something 'other'. Pretty self obvious.

All I'm doing is pointing out the simple fact that THEY have declared against US. Fine. If they want to oppose us, they can go sit at their own table. I feel no obligation to make room for them at mine.

[JamesA1102]

189. Not logic but facts

And by there own self-description they don't say neigher Democratic nor Republican but neither right or left. Nor have I seen them say that they have declared against us. But it seems that many here have declared against them.

[Critters2]

128. The problem is that DLCers see Progressives as "the other side". nt

[dbonds]

16. Lol, over extrapolate much?

DLC is republican lite. They are corporatist. That is destructive to our country and I want to put a stop to it. Corporations need to have their person-hood revoked. And they need to be restricted in how much power they can have. Right now they have more than any tyrant government. So, its not the man, but what he does that is the problem.

[JamesA1102]

35. So you support intolerance as well.

Can't have different people with different ideas running around.

[dbonds]

87. Some people don't understand what intollerance is.

If you are in a boat half full of water stranded at sea, so I let the guy that has the opinion to drill a hole in the bottom of the boat to let the water drain out have his way. No, something are just not valid positions.

[JamesA1102]

91. Wow that was a non-sequitar! nt

[dbonds]

95. Ah, we have one who doesn't understand the purpose of metaphor.

[JamesA1102]

97. Understand metaphors. That one just didn't make sense. nt

[dbonds]

101. That doesn't surprise me it didn't make sense to you.

You don't seem on top of it, with the silly labels and not understanding why the DLC is destructive.

[JamesA1102]

121. No one has shown how it is destructive.

Just saying that it is hundred times over doesn't make it true.

[dbonds]

137. Open a history book, your ignorance is no excuse.

[JamesA1102]

145. No you're making the accusation

and in America the burden of proof is on those making an accusation. All I'm asking is that you prove what you've stated. Why do you have so much trouble doing that.

[dbonds]

152. Ah, I see you learned the most vile of the tactics.

Asking people to prove things that you should have common knowledge of claiming the other person is making a claim. Forget it. If you want to learn open a history book, it is not my job to spoon feed you stuff you should know.

[JamesA1102]

162. Asking for proof of an accusation is not a vile tactic.

It is merely asking for proof. Interesting that you continue to duck supplying any.

[dbonds]

164. The accusation is in your mind.

I'm done with you. I don't think you are here to learn, just to try to muddy waters - which you haven't done well but you have tried.

[JamesA1102]

170. So I guess you can't prove what you said. nt

[dbonds]

171. You are still trying those over used supression techniques.

Get a new playbook. You are either just trying to stir up trouble or you need to grow up.

[JamesA1102]

172. Not supressing anything.

In fact asking you to do the opposite and provide support for your accusations.

[dbonds]

173. Are you playing dumb or is it real?

You are using all the techniques of those who deny the obvious and try to muddy waters. The info you seek is in your history books, if you are not too damn lazy to read them. It is not my job or anyone else here to do that for you. Take the responsibility yourself. You seem to be the only troublemaker in this thread, hmmmmm.

[JamesA1102]

174. Not trying to muddy anything.

Just asking you to support the accusations that you've made. Why are you so unwilling to do so?

[dbonds]

184. There you go with the dumb again...

I didn't make an accusation. You are trying to twist what I said into some type of claim. I assume you are just too lazy or dumb to read your history book. So this is the end of this thread for me. You are incapable of doing the background work needed and trying to make others do your work for you. I really think you are here for nothing but being a shit stirrer.

[JamesA1102]

190. You just refuse to support what you've said so

instead of admitting that you're making this about me.

[Sebastian Doyle]

100. Corporatism is not a "different idea" It's a fucking cancer.

Would you allow cancer to exist in your body? Hey, those cells just have "different ideas" than the other cells, right? :eyes:

[JamesA1102]

122. Another bad metaphor.

Yet still not facts to back it up.

[Sebastian Doyle]

135. The fact is that cancer, if left untreated, will eventually take over the entire body

Or at least enough of the body required for it to kill the host.

Which is EXACTLY what the DLC has done to the Democratic party.

Dr. Dean prescribed the chemo beginning in 2003, and it appeared to be in remission for a while, but sadly, the cancer came back. :evilfrown:

[JamesA1102]

146. More rhetoric

but still no proof to back it up.

[Sebastian Doyle]

150. The proof is self-evident from all the corporate fellation from so-called "Democrats"

Not to mention the warmongering.

[JamesA1102]

159. That's not an answer.

All you're saying is that I should just think in lockstep with you just because. You're not proving your case. You're not even making a case.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Actually, being liberal mean NOT being DLC. nt

[JamesA1102]

36. So since they don't agree with them 100%

kick 'em out and shut them up. How liberal of you.

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. No, what I mean is you CANNOT talk DLC and liberal in the same breath.

DLC is, by denifition, NOT liberal.

DLC = Liberal about as much as RNC = Liberal. They are fundamentally opposed concepts.

DLC is conservative in international affairs; in economics; in projection of military power and American empire; and MAY be slightly less conservative in a few social sectors, such as GLBT issues, race, 'lifestyle' issues (though they tend to be firmly against liberalizing the war on drugs, and tend to be strongly pro-religion).

So, where is the 'liberal' in that?

MANDATING PRIVATE INSURANCE IS NOT LIBERAL.

[JamesA1102]

82. So are you saying that only liberals be allowed

in the Democratic party? That we should kick out anyone who doesn't agree 100% in lockstep?

[RaleighNCDUer]

106. Didn't say that at all -

I'm saying that the so-called centrists of the so-called 'new democrats' do not espouse Democratic party principles. The DLC is not progressive, and that is reason enough to oppose them. Frankly, if they want to call themselves 'Democrats' they need to prove it to me. If they will back the party, instead of oppose it; if they will support the president, instead of undercutting him; if they will work for the party, instead of acting as obstructionists, fine.

The DLC Democratic party is NOT the party of Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy and LBJ and Carter. Their whole purpose is to reshape the party and guide it AWAY from the principles held by them, as evidenced below.

http://www.issues2000.org/IL/Rahm_Emanuel_Principles_+_Values.htm

Every good thing the Democratic party has done for the last 70 years was born of progressive ideals. The DLC gave us NAFTA, and DOMA, and collusion with AIPAC, and aggression against EVERYBODY in the middle east, and subordination of our rights to the war on terror and the war on drugs.

Our government is based on checks and balances, but the intent of the DLC is tilt the balance away from progressivism. There is room in the party for conservatives, but there is no place in the party for corporate sellouts.

I'm all for cooperation - but if THEY can't cooperate with US, it's time for them to go away.

[JamesA1102]

125. Thanks.

You've given the most intelligent response in this entire thread.

However, I do dispute some of the points you did make. First, I think you have a skewed view of the history of the Democratic party. At the time of FDR, Truman and JFK the party had a large base of southern conservatives. It was not as liberal or progressive as you contend. FDR interned Japanese-Americans illegally during WWII. Truman started the cold war. JFK helped build the military industrial complex & arms race by campaigning on the alleged 'missle gap' with Russia. JFK also pushed through a huge corporate tax cut. And let's not forget that LBJ started the Viet Nam war. None of that is very progressive.

Secondly, while your link did support that the DLC is more centrist, it did not prove it was destructive or evil or even corporate sellouts.

Finally, statements like "I'm all for cooperation - but if THEY can't cooperate with US, it's time for them to go away." is just engaging in 'either you're with us or against us' thinking which I reject whether it comes from the right or the left.

[demwing]

50. There's a difference between broadminded and openminded

IMO, broadminded implies that one considers a variety of ideas, but still cotrols the flow of input. Openminded implies that one allows every nonsense thought and regurgitated concept to have full access and free entry.

One of the things that people don't like about RE is that they see him as the reason Howard Dean is not the Secretary of HHS. The two have butted heads in the past over the value of Dean's 50 States plan, and there is is some bad blood.

[JamesA1102]

86. Well no one here seems broadminded or openminded

I just see a lot of vitriol and intolerance without any facts to back up what they are saying.

[rollingrock]

124. The DLC is INTOLERANT of progressives

which is why Rahm is always telling the progressives in the party to literally 'sit down and shut up' while he treats the Blue Dogs with kid gloves.

[Orsino]

212. "Intolerance" is a word better applied to hatred of people.

Dislike for DLCers is generally founded in policy. It's not "intolerance" for me to hate corporatism.

[JamesA1102]

226. When you read the posts here

many seem to hate the DLC. That is being intolerant of people.

[Orsino]

229. No, it's really not. n/t

[JamesA1102]

231. Yes it is. nt

[me b zola]

228. The dlc is the corporate wing of the Democratic party

...and no, I'm not tolerant of corporate interests that have infested the People's Party.

FWIW, I haven't bashed Rahm since he was tapped as the President's COS.

[JamesA1102]

230. Intolerance is still intolerance nt

[me b zola]

232. That's what racists say when they aren't tolerated

No, I'm not suggesting that you are a racist nor am I comparing the two issues. My point is that there are some things that we should not tolerate. Taking someone's boot off of your neck does not make a person intolerant.

[JamesA1102]

234. No one's boot is on my neck.

Certainly not the DLC's.

[treestar]

56. Isn't this site for Democrats?

If Greens and other progressives can be on it, why can't even Blue Dogs be here? They are Democrats.

[JamesA1102]

84. Well said nt

[hileeopnyn8d]

57. Al Gore was DLC

So were both Clintons, as well as Kerry and Edwards.

[Critters2]

126. + 1. nt

[question everything]

149. Were it not for DLC, we would have had close to 30 years of Republican rules

Politics is the art of compromise. The sooner DUers realize it the better they will feel.

[dbonds]

155. No, you make the assumption that only clinton could have got elected in 92...

There were other candidates capable of winning. I liked Jerry Brown that year. It was an easy win for democrats after Pat Buchanan's speech at the republican convention.

[PVnRT]

168. Who gained control of Congress in 1994 again?

My mind is hazy.

[YOY]

187. Because of the DLC we have had close to 30 years of Republican rules.

The third way is their old way. Our new way is the third way. Therefore our new way is their old way.

Whatever happened to our old way? It wasn't broken. Repeat that "it's unelectable" until nauseous.

[Raineyb]

199. What are you talking about? We have had close to 30 years of

Republican rules.

[Recursion]

237. No, Gore is popular here. So is Bill Clinton.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. I think he is very effective and is an asset

[Barack_America]

3. Honestly, I think people are using him as a foil for Obama.

Attributing all of the disappointment to Rahm so their image of Obama can remain intact.

Rahm is Obama's "evil twin".

[stevenleser]

6. Lincoln had very much the same thing with Seward

They (most people outside AND inside the administration) thought Seward was leading honest Abe around by the nose to make every bad decision that initially came out of the White House in the first year or two. It is instructive to note that Lincoln didn't have that great of a first or second year. Presidents, even brilliant and fantastic ones, need some time to figure the whole thing out.

[davidpdx]

179. delete

[Raineyb]

41. I disliked him before he became Cheif of Staff

He was the one who pushed out more progressive candidates in primaries only to have his DLC Republican lite pick LOSE the election. In addition, he also held money back from more progressive candidates since HE didn't think they had a chance to win, never mind letting the people who live in the district make that decision for themselves. And his opposition to the 50 state strategy means he's currently taking credit for the success of a plan he opposed.

[Barack_America]

51. Fair enough. nt

[pink-o]

48. Rahm was meant to be Obama's Golem

...and he would know immediately what that meant. In Jewish mythology, a Golem is a clay sculpture, built to take on tasks that leave a human out of the fray.

And yes, I know Rahm is DLC, his politics are far more conservative than mine, but I also think he gets more shit than he deserves. Remember when he insisted that the Dems run Sherrod Brown as Senator in Ohio? Everyone at DU was all atwitter, saying someone more progressive should run for that seat. But Brown won handily, and IMO he's been a good voice for progressive causes.

And don't you all think that if Rahm were working his own agenda, one that didn't gel with the President's, Barack would be pulling him back into line? You all are attributing far too much power to one man with a cabinet post!

[Sebastian Doyle]

61. Good that you explained that Golem thing.

Before I read that, I was thinking "Gollum". And I was about to say, that's not Rahm, that's Carville!

[pink-o]

102. LOL....

It might be that's where JRR Tolkien got the name, but he was a devout Catholic!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

65. you make great points.

We will see tonight.

And you are right, Obama, and any president needs a headcracker, an enforcer, a bully behind the scenes. In that role, rahm is probably outstanding and very effective.

[Xipe Totec]

4. "Sit Down and Shut Up"

"The problem is the Democratic Party," said Moyers. "This is a party that has told its progressives - who are the most outspoken champions of health care reform - to sit down and shut up. That's what Rahm Emanuel, in effect, the chief of staff of the White House, told progressives when they stood up as a unit in Congress and said, no public insurance option, no health care reforms."

http://www.truthout.org/083009U

[stevenleser]

10. That is pretty much the job of the Chief of Staff from either party when a part of that party...

becomes a problem for the President. Chief of Staff's job is to try to beat them down and get them behind the POTUS regardless of what the POTUS is saying or doing.

[redqueen]

11. So when the potus says we need a public option... it's Rahm's job

to tell them to shut up about it and bend over for conservadems?

Really?

[stevenleser]

17. Please dont put words in my mouth. We both know what I mean. n/t

[redqueen]

21. No, I don't know what you mean. You said it's his job to get people behind the POTUS.

It seems like he's been doing the exact opposite wrt healthcare.

[Xipe Totec]

14. So, progressives are now "The Problem"?

Well, at least we know were we stand now.

[stevenleser]

19. Its the Chief of Staff's job to act that way if he perceives a group to be an issue in getting

policy passed. Yes.

Incidentally, I am sure Rahm is also giving the blue dogs the same treatment.

[PVnRT]

68. Yes, I'm "sure" that they are

:eyes:

[Xipe Totec]

147. So getting policy passed is the important thing here?

Does it matter what policy?

If not, why do we need Democrats in office?

Republicans can pass policy as good or better than Democrats.

Crappy, stupid, counterproductive policies but, hey, who cares?

As long as we pass something.


Right?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

27. So at some point I'm expecting to read that he uses his Joe Pesci wannabe shtick

to get the Blue Poodles in line. Yeah, that would be great.

[katandmoon]

31. They why does Rahm only go after liberals/progressives while bending over for blue dogs and repugs?

[stevenleser]

37. I think that is your perception. None of us really know.

But what I know from history is that this seems a lot like the Lincoln/Seward thing that I mentioned a few times in this thread.

[Raineyb]

43. Really? Because from what we see it's only the Progressives he goes after

Even now, he doesn't bother to push the Blue Cross Dogs to get in line with a public option (the compromise) but he's pushing Progressives to sell out their principals to possibly go without one. But he goes after both sides right? When the hell did that happen?

[stevenleser]

55. Yes. Again, that is your perception. Are you there seeing everything he does

and to whom he speaks? No, neither of us are.

[Raineyb]

58. So he's strategically disrespecting only a subset of the base? The same one he's always

disrespected? Spare me, his track record with the progressive wing predates his current position and his behavior towards progressives has not changed one whit. He only goes after the progressives and doesn't go after the Blue (Cross) Dogs because those are the ones he prefers. That's why he shunted progressive candidates to the side to get his Republican Lite picks into races. Perception? You should pay closer attention to what's going on instead of insisting on seeing balance where there isn't any.

[rudy23]

70. Here's your proof, for all who accuse the Rahm bashers of making shit up.

Not to mention that he told progressives that running ads against the Blue Dogs he recruited (who are blocking true healthcare reform) was "fucking stupid."

Then there's his feud with Howard Dean, and the way they tried to take credit for Dean's 50 state strategy. Then they shut him out of the cabinet in favor of...Sanjay Gupta, and Tom Daschle?

We're not pulling stuff out of thin air. I remember Rahm going on talk shows during the '06 elections and insisting that no one wanted to talk about the Iraq war. Really? It's not b/c so many of your Blue Dog and DLC homies voted for the war? What an asshole.

I don't mind the idea of Obama having a bad cop to do his dirty work, I just wish that he were fighting for the progressives who put Obama in office, instead of against.

I understand moderate Democrats, but I cannot fathom why anyone outside the beltway, or anyone not working for the DLC would be in favor of that wing of the party. There's moderate, and there are those who stand in direct opposition to Democratic values who call themselves Democrats. If you aren't in the fundraising game, why would you pull for the DLC to serve lobbyists' agendas if you are a Democrat? Why would an outside the beltway person be DLC, and not just identify as a Republican?

[rollingrock]

123. The DLC is INTOLERANT of progressives

which is why Rahm is always telling the progressives in the party to literally 'sit down and shut up' while he treats the Blue Dogs with kid gloves.

[vi5]

8. I don't hate him...

...but I do believe he's been a net negative influence in the administration with regards to the more liberal and progressive and grassroots interests and contingent in the democratic party.

It's no secret that his more beltway oriented, insidery, and moderate DLC style was at odds with Howard Deans grassroots, liberal, 50 state approach. So when Dean was seemingly shut out of any substantial role within the administration and Rahm was essentially handed the reins (at least with regard to political strategy), many of us feared that this mean Obama would be going in a much more centrist, concilliatory, "bipartisan", corporate interest based approach to issues. And based off of the stimulus, the wars, and now healthcare it seems as though that is proving to be true. Especially since Rahm has made a few public statements saying that progressives and liberals should stop targeting corporate minded blue dogs and centrist dems.

None of us have any "evidence" of anything not being in the administration, but that goes for Rahm defenders and supporters as well.

[redqueen]

9. You haven't been paying attention. (nt)

[Jennicut]

13. There is an obsession with hating him and blaming him for every decision that people don't like

that the administration makes. Its kind of ridiculous. Obama is President...direct your anger at him.

[stevenleser]

22. Right, but, I am sorta happy with the misdirected anger

it helps Obama just like the misdirected anger at Seward helped Lincoln. Every POTUS needs a break and having people angry at someone else instead of the President is a good thing.

[Jennicut]

24. True...I just find it amusing that Rahm is seen as making all the decisions for Obama.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Some people hate what Obama is doing but cannot bring themselves to hate Obama

So they blame Rahm Emanuel instead.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

23. Is it too much to ask that he use his fake tough guy act on the right wing assholes

in the Democratic party who are supposedly opposing the President's agenda?........... This question is directed to the President himself.

[fadedrose]

25. Rahm is the one (lot of us think ) who shut Dean out of the administration..nt

[berni_mccoy]

46. And you have no evidence supporting that baseless claim.

[rudy23]

72. Besides his words about Dean on the record.

Something about Dean being an idiot for spending money in red states, then taking credit for Dean's strategy.

[fadedrose]

105. They didn't even speak from what I recall, when Obama took office..

Dean was heavily criticized by the DLC, and he didn't have much regard for them either. When the new chair (Kane?) took over the DLC they didn't even invite Howard Dean, the former chair, to attend the ceremony.

There's a lot of websites if you look them up, and also on DU there's discussions.

[Malikshah]

26. Hmmm. He had a well-publicized feud with Dean over the 50-state strategy.

Who won that debate? Who was ass-backwards wrong on it?

Rahm is the wrong kind of Democrat in my eyes. I am sorry Obama cannot see that; he needs to realize the reality of the American landscape and the potential for the future.

Rahm will not help in this regard.

More importantly, though, why not just do a little research? The whiny "you hate him, you really really hate him" is pretty old-hat.

[redqueen]

29. +1

[HamdenRice]

30. I hate to say it, but there is some anti-Israel aspect of this

When Rahm was first proposed, lots of the early anti-Rahm rhetoric was based on the fact that he had served as a civilian volunteer in the Israeli Defense Force during the first Gulf War. Also that his father had been a hardline Zionist.

I'm NOT saying this is anti-Semitism.

But given the scandals of the Bush administration and its interpentration with the neo-cons, there were lots of posts fearing he represented more of the same.

That kind of suspicious attitude has lingered.

[Doctor_J]

163. go away

this has nothing to do with his religion

[HamdenRice]

177. Rofl!

Neither Israel nor Zionism are a religion.

:silly: :crazy: :silly:

[dionysus]

33. i'm not a big fan of him, but there's a poster today calling for him imprisonment.

it's unreal...

[GeorgeGist]

34. Rahm Emmanual is NOT progressive ...

nor is his boss. Clear enough?

[S_E_Fudd]

44. Rahm Emmanuel is NOT President...

If you truly believe he is behind Obama's strategy then the only conclusion you can draw is Obama is meekly following his chief of staff...that he has no mind of his own and is just following the orders of his puppet master...

If you don't like the way things are going...Obama is the one to blame, not his advisors.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

64. Actually, we can do both, for different reasons.

On today's HuffPost front page, even Obama apologizes for dropping the ball on health care. Which he did. Which several of us here bitched about. Which earned us attacks for complaining about Obama's inaction.

Rahm is a different person, with his own agenda, although, I must admit that I have seen no sign that he ignores his boss' instructions in order to further the silly Bass-ackwards DLC goals. And we are certainly entitled to criticize him and his positions.

Now, can we also guess that he has Obama's ear, and gives him advice? Absolutely. Is that advice tainted with DLC ideas? of that I have no doubts. But, can we believe that Obama has enough intestinal fortitude to ignore bad DLC advice? frankly, I think that tonight's speech will let us know the answer to that. It is that important of a speech.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

59. Do your research --

back in the late 80s Rahm was instrumental in pushing the Dems to compete for the corporate cash the GOP had been receiving. He believed that in order for us to win elections, we needed more money then that given by the traditional Dem individual or PAC donors. But in order to compete for that money, the Dems had to be much more corporate friendly at the expense of the very groups that had been supporting them all those years.

He was also responsible for the strategy of running ultra conservative "Dems" in hard red areas instead of going with Dem populists -- which is how we were able to take the House and the Senate but still LOSE things like real healthcare reform (thank you fucking Blue Dogs and New Dems!)

Rahm is a fucking disgrace to the party, and that Obama brought him on as COS was, frankly, disgusting.

If you like bending over for Corporate Healthcare, then thank ol' Rahm.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/Emanuel_Will_be_Wall_Streets_Man_in_the_Obama_White_House.html

Emanuel Will be Wall Street's Man in the Obama White House

By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
November 7, 2008

Sixteen years ago, when Bill Clinton was moving into the White House, good-government liberals were disheartened that the President-elect named his campaign’s top fundraiser, Rahm Emanuel, as White House political director. They
read this as a sign that cash would be king in the Clinton Administration. They were right.

Four elections later, after getting rich in a brief stint in finance, Emanuel is the favorite congressman of Wall Street, measuring by campaign contributions. In the midst of a financial crisis that President-elect Barack Obama blames on Wall Street’s greed and excessive influence in Washington, Emanuel is once again headed to a perch of power in a Democratic White House, this time as chief of staff.

snip...

Back in 1993, Fred Wertheimer lamented fundraiser Emanuel’s top spot in the Clinton White House, calling it “a very dangerous appointment for the Clinton administration because it places in the White House an individual whose principal responsibility has been to raise huge sums of money from special interests seeking influence over government decisions.”

Indeed, Emanuel had been crucial in steering Wall Street money into Clinton’s campaign. His record suggests he will the financial industry’s man inside the Obama White House. At a time when the Washington-Wall Street relationship is changing rapidly, will Emanuel be the man to guarantee it’s change the Wall Street firms need?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/10/midterms2006.usa





Pro-gun, anti-abortion and fiscally conservative: meet the neo-Dems

Ed Pilkington in New York
The Guardian, Friday 10 November 2006

The forging of a cohesive domestic reform agenda will be complicated by the fact that several of the new intake of Democrats in the Congress are socially conservative and in favour of policies traditionally associated with the Republicans they ousted. Some of them are pro-guns while others are anti-abortion. Some oppose stem cell research using human embryos, and many are on the wing of the Democratic party that believes in fiscal rectitude and tight control on public spending.The conservative Democrats, or new Democrats as they are sometimes called, were disproportionately represented in the most highly contested races against Republicans, and are likely to form a substantial bloc within the new members.

Heath Shuler, a former American football celebrity who now holds a House of Representatives' seat for North Carolina, is representative of the group. He has an evangelical Christian background and is on the right of the argument on many social issues such as abortion.Democratic party leaders deny that they had an official strategy to plant right-wing candidates in vulnerable Republican seats as a way of winning over voters. But Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the campaign to win back the House of Representatives, has said that when they searched for candidates with the best hopes of winning, they ended up with several with a moderate approach. "As a group, they are moderate in temperament and reformers in spirit," he said

snip...

The number of conservative Democrats among the 28 who wrestled house seats from Republican incumbents has yet to emerge, but with 27 of the 40 candidates in the most contested seats falling into this category, the figure could be substantial. They will join an already sizeable caucus within the Democrats in Congress who are on the right of the party and will be encouraged to line up formally with the two existing sub-groups: the New Democrats and the Blue Dog Coalition.

[Sebastian Doyle]

60. Because it was Rahm's DLC stranglehold on the DCCC

that put a lot of these blue balled cowards in congress. And because he tried to take credit for Howard Dean's success in rebuilding the Democratic party (when the DLC were the ones who destroyed it in the first place)

And because he HATES Liberals and Progressives and is obviously one of the fools "advising" the President to ignore the very people who put him in the White House.

[invictus]

196. +1

[polichick]

62. imo it's just a way to blame someone other than the prez - he's the scapegoat. nt

[Beacool]

66. Because they think that Rahm is leading Obama astray.

Poor little Obama, he's such an innocent babe in the woods that Rahm can manipulate him to his will.

:eyes:

It's far easier to blame Rahm for Obama's shortcomings.

;)

[katandmoon]

75. For me it's exactly the other way around. I blame Obama for Rahm. I doubt Obama would have picked

as his COF someone with whom he was NOT simpatico.

[Beacool]

77. That was my point.

I was being sarcastic. Some people would rather blame Rahm, and anyone else, other than Obama.

[Milo_Bloom]

69. Because the group he alligns himself with is the reason we are in the mess we are in today!

You can thank the DLC for the fact that Clinton was unable to reverse the path started under Reagan. What we saw during the Clinton administration was MORE corporate consolodation, MORE outsourcing, MORE free trade w/o labor restrictions.

The DLC has actively faught REAL progressives for years (e.g. Howard Dean in 2004).

If not for the DLC and their special brand of progress (also known as getting into bed with corporate interests and allowing them to dictate policy), we may have been able to stop the slide in the 90's and not given bush so much rope from which to hang the country.

This mess we are in didn't happen overnight and unfortunately isn't the fault of one idiot president (although he certain contributed to it), it is the fault of 4 presidents in a row bowing down to corporate masters and allowing their profit and greed to dictate our policy.

THAT is where we are today and you can thank the DLC for allowing it to continue through a democratic administration.

[hileeopnyn8d]

138. Some would say you can

thank Clinton for the DLC/New Democrats.

[invictus]

183. +1

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. He's telling the base of the Democratic Party--the ones who were responsible for Obama's success---

to be "good soldiers". I think we already have been good soldiers. I think that despite the Democrats' continued caving and cowardice, the Democratic Party can always count on the good liberals/progressives to be good soldiers. I think we're sick and tired of going along to whatever the Democratic Party wants, while at the same time, being marginalized and demonized by the likes of the DLCers and Blue Dogs, both groups who seem to insult the liberal wing of the party every chance it gets. They are too concerned with not hurting the feelings of the Republicans and too scared of being labeled a liberal that they do everything they can to distance themselves from us...


....until they want our votes, of course.

[Umbral]

107. He's a corporatist, he makes no bones about it. That he's 'unpopular' here, shouldn't be surprising.

[madfloridian]

111. Here you go....something to make it clear to you. Leaking lies to the press about Dean.

Rahm warns liberal groups to stop ads.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel warned liberal groups this week to stop running ads against Democratic member of Congress. The powerful top aide to President Obama made his feelings known at the weekly closed-door strategy session of an array of progressive organizations, according to two sources who were there.

Emanuel’s request came on the same day that Obama himself told a meeting
of Democratic senators that he didn’t like seeing dollars used by liberal groups to target congressional Democrats.

More

Rahm says not enough votes for immigration reform. Yet he told candidates "go right" to win.

Here is more and a very interesting one.

Kiss the Ring

."Rahm had only one more option for pressuring Dean: start leaking to the press. A senior aide to Rahm says Rahm believed that if there were enough newspaper accounts filled with details about how Dean’s stinginess was going to cost Democrats the House, Dean would have to cave. But the stories came and went, and Dean held firm. “What I think Rahm didn’t recognize,” Dean’s aide says, “was that’s exactly the wrong way to move Dean.” In the end, Rahm—or rather his staff¬, because at this point he refused to talk to Dean—had to go crawling back to the DNC chairman and accept Dean’s offer of $2.4 million. Even worse, Dean refused to give the money directly to Rahm. “Governor Dean had concerns that Rahm was going to spend it all on TV,” Dean’s aide says. Instead, it would be funneled through the state parties."

Leaking lies to the press about the party chairman?

[berni_mccoy]

130. You're Citing Politico and Gentlemen's Quarterly as Fact and expect to be taken seriously?

O.K. :eyes:

[Justitia]

132. berni, seriously, it's well-established history. See my post a little further down.

Rahm has used this nasty tactic forever - about his own bosses (!), while working "for" them (!) - it's a trademark of his.

[madfloridian]

133. Yes, I am. They had access to Carville and Rahm for that CQ interview.

They are just as credible on this issue as CNN or MSNBC or WP or NYT....

[madfloridian]

139. Here's more from another source.

A new book examines Rahm Emanuel's hardball strategy in the midterm elections, and wonders if it's the right direction for Dems.

"Certainly Emanuel holds no such romantic notions that there even exists such a base of voters loyal to core Democratic values. He is adamant that "we have no base!," a view that clearly guided his strategy for selecting candidates. As Bendavid writes, "he would not support the most loyal Democrats, or those whose populism was purist. His only criterion, he said, was who could win." This kind of single-minded, values-be-damned vision is anathema to some on the party's left."

Rahm said not to let liberal wing have much say...2006...WP

"In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year."

I have a lot more if you are interested.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Justitia]

131. Rahm has a looooong history of undermining the party. Remember when Clinton demoted him?

Rahm was seriously in jeopardy of losing his job forever - he was sandbagging his own boss - Clinton!

I wish we could have jettisoned him then. Clinton brought him back into the fold a year later, big mistake.

He has had very serious run-ins with lots of Democrats & republicans alike. I remember a very public contretemps w/Moynihan, he made a very powerful enemy there, which made life absolutely hell for Clinton w/Moynihan. Rahm got caught leaking & lying - his specialty - to both Moynihan & Clinton, and overestimating his own importance, extremely cocksure.
Moynihan showed him what's what, and took it out on his boss. What a f'in mess.

He has a very long and storied history of subterfuge, double dealings & back-stabbings in the party.

There's really too much to go into here, but google just a bit, you'll find tons of info.

He has already started his shit full swing w/this administration - look at all the negative leaks to the press - that is Rahm's hallmark maneuver.

Trust me, he's poison.

[tomg]

166. Thanks so much for the background history.

Pretty much says it all.

[invictus]

182. +1,000,000,000,000

[Justitia]

140. Here is something VERY current: his secret dealings w/Snowe on "triggers"

yes, if Rahm gets his way on this, we're fucked:

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/02/rahm-pushing-triggers-through-olympia-snowe/

[undeterred]

141. He looks pretty good in tights.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/Smp_tPZlH_I/AAAAAAAAWek/I0J5oEFa_8E/s400/Rahm-bow+The+Tiny+Dancer.png

[Doctor_J]

161. His advice sank what could have been an epic presidency

isn't that enough?

[Doctor_J]

167. Remember in The West Wing on the way to the SOTU, SEC AG has to

stay back in case something goes wrong. Jed's giving his advice on what to do in case he suddenly becomes POTUS. Do you have a best friend? Yes. Is he smarter than you? Yes. Trust him with your life? Yes. That's your Chief Of Staff. Do you think Rahm is Barrack's best friend? That he trusts him implicitly?

[Clintonista2]

175. The Rahm hate is tied to the anti-israel sentiment

It has nothing to do with the "DLC" (the left wing version of "communist" or "socialist" - used to smear anyone you disagree with). It's just something I've picked up on. The most ferverent anti-Rahm posters are also the most ferverent anti-israel posters around.

[RaleighNCDUer]

194. FYI, the DLC is a very real organization, and they have, from the start,

opted to NOT be Democrats. They chose to pursue a 'third way'. They are doing to the Democrats what the christian right did to the Republicans - infiltrate, influence, then take over.

DLC does not support unions - it supports corporate management, because that's who gives them their money. DLC supports 'free trade', rather than fair trade - neo-liberal imperialism which is largely to blame for the abandonment of US labor in favor of having brown skinned foreigners make everything we buy at a fraction of the cost.

And Rahm epitomizes the DLC.

It has NOTHING to do with Israel. It has to do with the deliberate destruction of the US economy to line the pockets of the few.

[hileeopnyn8d]

195. FYI - Both Clintons

Gore, Kerry and Edwards were all DLC.

[RaleighNCDUer]

210. Gore repuditated the DLC - which is why 'Democrats' didn't back him

in 2000 - it was not the lefties abandoning him that made it close, it was the corporatists that left him dangling. Remember when he was accused of 'changing his image', of going to earth tones? That was framed as his trying to 'bring back Carter' - an anathema to the DLC.

Edwards ALSO left the DLC. He was always anti-corporatist, and once he realized how deeply the corporate control of the DLC was, he had nothing more to do with them. This came to a head in the '04 election, when he saw how the DLC was treating the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Clinton was practically running a counter-campaign with his book tour, stealing the limelight from the candidate.

Kerry was never a member of the DLC - being a long-term senator he had connection with DLCers, but he had connections with everyone.

The Clintons - yeah, they were, are, and always will be DLC. As evidenced by their positions against Democratic populism (Hillary, more than Bill - with Bill it was mostly just networking). Which is why I never want to see another Clinton in the White House.

[wyldwolf]

217. No he didn't

:shrug: Got a link to that?

Kerry was, in fact, a DLC member.

[RaleighNCDUer]

219. He who?

Gore, or Edwards?

As for links, they are not necessary because the repudiation was not is "I am no longer with the DLC" but in the taking of populist stances which the DLC find abhorrent. Gore stopped taking advice from his DLC advisors in the last months of his campaign, and because of it was on an upswing, after languishing for months. If he'd pushed them aside just a month earlier, the entire election may have turned out differently.

Edwards, the same. He was popular and charming and all at the start of the 2004 campaign, but it wasn't until he started sounding like a populist that he began to take off. He clearly advocated cutting loose from the economic errors of the corporatists, and so they turned on him. By the 08 election he was so far removed from the DLC that he was pointed to as an example of what a populist campaign should look like.

And it is your assertion that Kerry was (why do you say 'was' rather than 'is'?) a DLC member - show me evidence. I sure can't find any.

[wyldwolf]

222. I was replying to a post with "Gore" in the title.

As for links, they are not necessary because the repudiation was not is "I am no longer with the DLC" but in the taking of populist stances which the DLC find abhorrent.

See? I didn't think you could prove your point. Gore took the populist approach because he thought he would win with it.

Columnist Salena Zito wrote a piece on Al Gore back in March 2007 in which she quoted Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democratic Network, as saying: "As a member of the Democratic Leadership Council he (Gore) has centrist credentials without forsaking his leftist credentials."

I noticed right away that was said in the present tense so I called Salena who confirmed with me that Rosenberg, indeed, said it.

I called Rosenberg but got connected to Aaron Banks, chief editor of the New Democratic Network. He told me that Gore still holds the same position on most issues he held while Clinton's VP but that his opposition to the Iraq war and his new way of speaking the language of "progressives" have led many to believe he has moved further left.

However, he could not confirm or deny that Gore was still a member of the DLC. Keep in mind, though, that all it takes to join the DLC is pay the yearly dues.

I then e-mailed Donna Brazille who said she wasn't sure of Gore's membership status with the DLC but she, too, reaffirmed that Gore was still essentially the pragmatic New Democrat he'd always been.

<--- snip of the typical "progressive" revolutionary tripe ---->

And it is your assertion that Kerry was (why do you say 'was' rather than 'is'?) a DLC member - show me evidence.

The last time the DLC posted their membership roster, he was on it.

Then there is this:

http://www.ontheissues.org/john_kerry.htm

"Member of Democratic Leadership Council. (Nov 2007)"

I'll also refer you to this website, a favorite of some progressives:

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Democratic_Leadership_Council

"The DLC comprises three main clusters of New Democrats. The largest is a group of nearly 400 national, state, and local legislators and officials. This contingent includes a wide range of centrist and conservative Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts..."

[invictus]

197. +1

[wyldwolf]

218. not true

they have, from the start, opted to NOT be Democrats.

On the contrary, they opted not to follow the New Left's mentality the permeated much of the party from '68 into the 1990s. It was the New Left, their forefathers (the "progressives" of the 1930s and 1940s) and their heirs today that have opted not to be Democrats.

[RaleighNCDUer]

220. You mean those starry-eyed fools who gave us the minimum wage,

Social Security, labor laws, Medicare, and the principles followed by Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, and LBJ? Those guys opted to NOT be Democrats?

You want maybe we should bring back the high ideals of the Dixiecrats?

It is the progressives who have given this country virtually every good it has, from independence, through abolition, to the now long lost 40 hour work week, to security from poverty in our old age.

Are you sure you're talking about the same party?

[wyldwolf]

221. No, not them. Democrats gave us that in '38

"those starry-eyed fools" have very rarely held national elective office and the times they have, they've had very limited power.

You don't have to like the facts, but you shouldn't deny them.

[Forkboy]

203. oy vey

[berni_mccoy]

206. I tend to be anti-Israel but I like Rahm... I'm just a conundrum. LOL.

[Jim Sagle]

224. And I "tend" to be pro-Israel but I LOATHE Rahm. So I guess we cancel each other out.

;)

[ima_sinnic]

214. yeah, right--that's really based in fact

NOT

[BlooInBloo]

176. Because it's a "safer" way to whine about Obama.

[davidpdx]

178. You mean Josh?

*snickers*

[saltpoint]

181. For what it's worth, I ran into Rahm at O'Hare a few months before the Iowa

caucus.

I liked him.

He's the Chief of Staff. Pretty important job.

He was Obama's choice.

He does play rough, but damn it all with sprinkles, how did f'ing Karl Rove play when he worked under Dubya? He lied and lied and lied and subverted and subverted and suberted and we squawked that we needed to throw a few elbows ourselves and fight back.

If you want a tough, scrappy, smart shortstop in the infield, Rahm plays the position quite well, IMO.

[marshall]

185. One of Rahm's functions is to take the heat

So that Obama can lead.

[keepthemhonest]

193. myabe I dont know enough...

but I don't have a problem with him.He is the Bad cop.

[TheKentuckian]

200. The DLC is a relic of the past that once was a necessary tool to survive Reaganisim

Make no mistake that no real liberal had a chance and even a "centrist" needed a STRONG 3rd party to leech votes from Poppy but I think they've really outlived their usefulness unless they want to eliminate the batshit Republicans and become the loyal opposition. I think the true legitimate right is represented by the DLC.

[salguine]

202. "Why is EVERY Hate Post for Rahm Emanuel just nothing but hate?" is a

silly question when you look at it. That's what a hate post is for! It's like saying "why is every Christmas song about Christmas".

[berni_mccoy]

207. Well, ok, but they could back their hate up with facts. Sometimes you can channel hate

into work energy.

[MasonJar]

204. I suppose one could start with his ill-treatment of Howard Dean, just

because Dean wanted a 50 state strategy and Emmanuel wanted the money Dean was "wasting" on that strategy for his Blue Dog candidatess (of which he is decidedly one.) Rahm apparently had so much influence in the matter that not only was Dean not invited to take any part in the administration, but he was not even invited to the swearing in of his successor. Bah, on Obama for allowing that. Then one could move on to his right wing agenda and his extraordinarily poor advice to Obama on issues too numerous to mention here, but of public record. Then one could include getting his brother in as advisor to Obama on healthcare, a brother who apparently doesn't even believe in Medicare much less a public option. ETCS.

[polichick]

205. Good summary - his treatment of Howard Dean especially hits home with me...

What a tiny little man Rahm is ~ and I'm not talking physically.

[berni_mccoy]

208. I never understood this particular feud. It was clear it was Dean's strategy and

I remember clearly Rahm trying to take credit for it. But I can see past this spat. I think Dean does too.

[wyldwolf]

209. then your memory is not that clear

Emanuel is given credit for the wins in 2006 by everyone except the small progressive netroots. No one has even been able to pinpoint specifically what Dean was supposed to have done in 2006. Explain how the 50 state strategy worked in 2006. Who did Dean have in each state in 2006 and what did they do? Surely there is a record of it or are we to just accept it without evidence?

I'm not denying Dean's very important role in 2008. But in 2006, what Dean termed as a "long term strategy" simply did not have time to work, which is why I don't expect any specific answers from anyone.

The feud was over the allocation of funds. Emanuel wanted to pump more money into winnable races. Dean wanted to build for future races, possibly sacrificing wins in 2006. Emanuel won. Dean allocated the money.

[polichick]

213. You mean Rahm wanted to pump money to Blue Dogs - Republicans in disguise...

While Dean wanted to build a more progressive party.

(edit - typing too fast and missing letters)

[invictus]

215. +1

[wyldwolf]

216. How would YOU know what I mean?

There were non-blue dogs in the mix as well, including Tammy Duckworth who was backed by not only Emanuel but David Axelrod and President Obama, too.

Imagine the coversations: "Howard won't give us the money to try to win this race because he wants to use it to build the party up in Alaska." No wonder Dean isn't in their good graces. He was willing to blow the 2006 election to appease state party leaders in red states who wanted more DNC money.

[invictus]

211. +1

[georgian style]

233. Rahm is doing what he has to do: Work with what's possible

We should give him time until late October until the final outcome of the health bill will be known.

[Hippo_Tron]

235. If memory serves it goes back to 2006, particularly the Duckworth vs Cegelis primary

Rahm was seen by his critics as using his position as head of the DCCC to push out progressive candidates like Cegelis in favor of moderates like Duckworth.

[1Hippiechick]

236. IBTL. LOL n/t