Will the President do a better job without Rahm Emanuel ??

[kentuck]

Today, the President signalled that he would pocket veto the foreclosure bill passed by the Senate and favored by the big banks. Would Rahm have advised him to sign it? Perhaps?

Without Rahm, will the President be freed up to act more on behalf of the people? If today is any indication, the answer is "Yes". No doubt, the addition of Austan Goolsbee and Elizabeth Warren to his circle of advisers will help him.

Rahm Emanuel was not a progressive. He exhibited antipathy toward the liberal base. But, in truth, this is exactly what the President and the nation needs at this time. We have to counter the radical right message with a strong liberal voice. The President will be a different President without Rahm Emanuel, I have no doubt.

[zipplewrath]

1. You have a stronger "faith" than I

In the end, I suspect Rahm enabled the worst parts of Obama, not created them. They'll still be there. His tendency to "promote from within" results in an every tightening "bubble" of admirers who will tend to encourage more of the same, rather than create a new dynamic.

[depakid]

21. +1

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. We can only hope. nt

[DrDan]

3. beat me to it - those were going to be my words

[MuseRider]

16. Mine as well. n/t

[YOY]

4. I hope but dare not put all my chips in this basket.

n.t.

[Radical Activist]

5. Is there any evidence that Rahm would have supported signing that bill?

I read that Rahm didn't want Obama to push on health care but he did anyway. I wonder if Rahm's influence is being exaggerated. Most of the legislative disappointments were imposed by the Senate, not someone in the White House.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Who advised Obama to prevent even a mention of single-payer, and

advised him that the HC bill would be just about as good without a public option - which Obama said he wanted?

I think the hesitant baby steps we've seen for the last two years are largely due to the undue influence of the DLCers convincing Obama that he had to tread carefully - except when addressing the left of the party.

[Radical Activist]

11. Common sense and the Senate.

Pushing single payer on a Senate that won't even pass the public option would have been a moronic stunt with zero chance of passing. I'd rather have a President who gets something done than engages in futile fantasies.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. If he had backed single-payer, he could have 'let' them back him down

to a mere public option, and we'd have a halfway decent HCR bill today instead of a Health Insurance Protection Act.

Of course, many of us would then be bitching about not getting single-payer, but at least a public option would be a step toward it, unlike this POS bill which is a leap away from it.

[Radical Activist]

13. That's a fairy tail.

He also could have been laughed off the stage and gotten nothing. You don't know. It's an overly simplistic meme pushed a lot but it's unlikely that things would have turned out the way you suggest.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Well, we will never know

BECAUSE HE DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING TRY.

And he didn't try because of piss-poor advice from Rahm and other lily-livered radical activists like him. Gotta be careful and not frighten the poor corporations.

When 70% of the public supports a public option, it should not be too terribly difficult to convince politicians to listen to the overwhelming majority of their constituents.

[Radical Activist]

15. Yeah, he didn't try a hair brained strategy.

Even if it was mistake, they were using a political strategy that makes more sense. That doesn't mean there was some secret plan to sabotage what they had spent months fighting for.

You wrote: "When 70% of the public supports a public option, it should not be too terribly difficult to convince politicians to listen to the overwhelming majority of their constituents."

Then why didn't the Senate support it? Obviously it was that hard. Maybe it would have helped for progressives groups to focus on the Senate more instead of whining about Obama.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Why didn't the Senate support it?

Maybe because the WH said it wasn't all that important - giving them a clear signal that the insurance companies would have the full protection of the WH, and with the WH not supporting it, it gave the Senators the cover they needed to override the will of the people who elected them.

OTOH, how would the waverers, the fence sitters like Snow, the blue dog dems who would need the support of the WH in the coming elections, have reacted if the WH had said "the public option is the cornerstone of health care reform, and the key tool to making it work - it is not optional"?

That's what that thing called 'leadership' is all about.

A political strategy that hands the biggest gun over to the enemy before the fighting starts is NOT a strategy that 'makes more sense'.

Why do you think the teaparty exists? Because politically inarticulate people KNOW that the government was not listening to them, and their anger has been captured by anti-government radicals. Why do you think the left is so pissed? Because politically articulate people KNOW that the government was not listening to them, and their anger has been dismissed by pro-corporate New Democrats in the WH. 70% favored a public option. SEVENTY FUCKING PERCENT. That is a greater percentage than votes for ANY president or ANY senator on either side of the aisle.

This is not 'whining about Obama'. This is about the breakdown of representative government. What Jefferson said about the tree of liberty needing to be watered by the blood of tyrants was not just advice, but a warning - if the government does not listen to the people that elected it, bad shit WILL happen. When 5000 insurance company lobbyists have more influence than 200 million voters, bad shit is going to happen.

I hope that cutting Rahm loose is an indication of the WH awakening to reality.

[Radical Activist]

29. The biggest gun was US THE PEOPLE!

Did you fight or did you sit and bitch about Obama? Obama made it clear that the people had a role in this, and it wasn't to sit back and wait for Obama to do our fucking job for us. WE PRESSURE THE SENATE! Expecting Obama to do it all for you is an abandonment of your proper role as a citizen and activist. It's also pathetically subservient and authoritarian. Not waiting for a President to hand us down change on a silver platter is what democratic leadership by the people is about.

Second, Obama didn't start out saying the public option wasn't needed. He backed off after months of campaigning for it and it was obvious that it wouldn't pass the Senate. GET THE FUCK OVER IT! Or at the very least, blame the people responsible instead of someone who was fighting on your side for the things you wanted.

[treestar]

25. Amen, this contingent refuses to accept that the structure of the

Senate does not support the popular position. There are two from each State. States with low populations have a greater say. Not fair, but that's the way the founders made it.

[Radical Activist]

30. They're being very easily manipulated

while maintaining confidence in their free-thinking independence.

[dionysus]

22. how the fuck do you really know what he did or didn't do? because you didn't read it on DU?

jesus christ you guys act like you know everything that's going on in the WH because you read blogs and websites.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Ah, it's all in the public record. You know, speeches and stuff?

It is in the record that he NEVER supported single-payer since @2004. If he had spoken in favor of it, even as a political ploy, a throw-away bargaining chip, there would be a record. He DID support a public option - at points in the campaign saying it was fundamental to health care reform, and he absolutely opposed mandated insurance without a public option - that was his big point of difference with Hillary during the campaign (interesting how what we wound up with was Hillary's plan).

It is in the fucking record.

Unlike some, I don't have a 3 minute memory.

(edit)

There is one notable thing about the 'bully pulpit'. It is obvious when it is NOT being used.

[joe black]

27. I love North Carolina.

I want to move there somday. You just confirmed it for me.

[rug]

6. Only if you believe he was controlled by Rahm.

I don't think this is a case of someone being deterred from his better instincts.

[denimgirly]

7. Hope So. But being in Campaign Season Obama must Pretend to be Progressive.

I doubt he would have signed it during this period...if it were after November i am almost 100% certain he would have done what he normally does...appease the special interests and the right. But here is hoping for a miracle that he does want to fight for the people, now that Rahm's gone.

Obama confuses me...he seems like he wants to help the people but hates to fight and is always willing ot give in to massive compromises so he can say he had a win even though it ends up being a loss when u look at the details.

[FrenchieCat]

8. So much backhand negativity in the light of good news.

[Chan790]

10. I really believe he will.

Rahm was a disgrace and I think his approach probably hurt the success of the President's desired agenda by leading to unnecessary concessions.

When you piss off and alienate people you need to support your initiatives, you find yourself forced to concede to them twice: once to get their good graces and once-again to make them willing to take the hit for the leading edge of your proposals. Do I think we'd have the liberal utopia of my dreams if Rahm wasn't appointed? No. Do I think we took it in the gut on a lot of issues and achieved a lot less than we could have on account of his combativeness and stridency? Yeah, probably. Do I think he exploited his position to control the voices the President heard on issues to the benefit of himself and those he favored? Absolutely.

I think we're already seeing the differences in both the WH and Congress resulting of this move. Not just the foreclosure bill, but it's been long-rumored Emanuel was leaving and you can see the beginnings of the transitioning a few months ago. Warren? Rahm would have opposed that approach, likely against promoting the liberal Goolsbee as-well. Forcing the GOP to take a toxic position on voting down taxes on offshoring jobs? Not a move in Rahm's playbook as it probably cost us Wall St. donations down the line. (But where it's "playing" with voters as a election issue (think of it as a test-balloon), it's cutting off GOPers at the knees.)

[scheming daemons]

17. False premise.... the President has been doing an excellent job...

...not perfect, but excellent.

[vaberella]

18. +Infinity. n/t

[frazzled]

19. The President has been in charge all along ...

So nothing much will change. Except you'll have to find a new boogey man. Any candidates to suggest?

[treestar]

24. I never understood the obsession with Rahm

Or the idea that he was in charge of everything and Obama just does what Rahm says.

[joe black]

26. No

"The new boss same as the old boss".

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. For whom? The Republicans or the Democrats? It's a fine line.

The Democrats are to the right of European right-wing parties.

As was said of Rudyard Kipling, mutatis mutandis, the Republicans have moved to the end of the right wing of the political spectrum and fallen off the end.