Rahm Emanuel loses his temper with a reporter

[Playinghardball]

Source: RawReplay
By Kase Wickman

Rahm Emanuel, current mayor of Chicago and former chief of staff to President Barack Obama, is notorious for his foul mouth and quick temper.

Mary Ann Ahern, a reporter with NBC Chicago, pressed Emanuel about where his children would attend school in Chicago, which Emanuel was not too pleased to answer.

“My children are not in a public position. I am,” he said. “My children are not an instrument of me being mayor. My children are my children, and that may be news to you, and that may be new to you, Mary Ann, but you have to understand that I’m making this decision as a father.”

Then, he stood, pulled off his microphone and ended the interview.

According to Mediaite, when Ahern later tried to contact him to clear the air, he responded, “You are wrong and a bully. I care deeply for my family. I don’t care about you.”

Embedded via NBC Chicago

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/rahm-emanuel-loses-his-temper-with-a-reporter/

[Taverner]

1. Did he send him a dead fish in the mail?

[roguevalley]

60. no wonder obama is indifferent to the suffering his going to

legislate. he has personally surrounded himself with assholes like this. little man syndrome. fucker.

[kenny blankenship]

2. "I don’t care about you" I think we all knew this, but it's good now&then for them to repeat it.

He cares deeply for himself and his. Everyone else can eat shit and die.

[Schema Thing]

4. what?

he was speaking specifically to a reporter.



Why engage in dishonesty? You can dislike and criticize Rahm without lying or distorting his words and actions.

[kenny blankenship]

7. I think his words are unintentionally revealing and characteristic

The immediate context is obvious. You would have to be illiterate not to know from the short excerpt what the immediate and obvious context of "speaking specifically to a reporter" was.

[Wait Wut]

23. Agreed.

To be honest, if I had children, was a public official and had the money, I'd send my kid's to private school, as well. Do I support public education? Absolutely! I pray for the day when our public schools are run as well and with the same amount of care that private schools are.

Oh...and if I sent my kids to private schools, I wouldn't be one of those assholes whining about tax increases for public schools. I'd be fighting for tax increases.

[dameocrat67]

62. rahm does bitch about taxes for public schools

and he closes them or fires their teachers, and busts their unions. He has no interests in public schools for other peoples children either. he also coopts the formerlly elected school board and appoints his fellow right wing public school haters to serve on it.

[sabrina 1]

83. The press represents the people. He was asked a very pertinent

question, of great interest to the public, considering the role this administration has played in destorying the Public School system while claiming they are making it better. If they have so much faith in what they are doing to the Public School system, then why are THEIR children not attending Public School?

He is a jerk, always was, always will be and that is being kind. He is dishonest, his 'I don't care about you' is exactly what he feels, about everyone outside his privileged circle. And we do not need this kind of individual entrusted with the country's welfare. He is not capable nor is he interested in the general welfare. They are for their 'class' which imho, is the lower class, the mean-spirited, selfish, nasty, corrupt, incompetent class.

I'd like to see him leave politics, or join the party he appears to have more in common with. But he has done great harm, and continues to, to the Democratic Party.

[StarsInHerHair]

68. & THAT is the hallmark of a follower, a LEADER cares about people unrelated

to him/her, a LEADER can put him/herself in others' shoes & do their best to anticipate other people's needs & act to accordingly.

[Gman]

3. Rahm did the right thing

The reporter was way out of bounds on that one.

[Fumesucker]

Rahm is making choices that effect other people's children..

I see no problem in determining why he makes different choices for his own children than he does for those of other people.

[MADem]

12. That's absurd. He's a public figure who makes a good wage.

If he can afford the tuition at a private school, let him pay it. His children have a right to privacy.

They pulled this same shit with Jimmy Carter. They tried it with Obama as well.

If Rahm Emmanuel makes crappy decisions that affect other people's children negatively, he should be made to account for that at the ballot box. His kids didn't ask for the life they're leading. They should be left alone.

[Fumesucker]

19. It wasn't about his kids but rather his decisions..

He seems to think that one sort of schooling is desirable for his constituent's children and another sort is desirable for his own children.

This really wouldn't be an issue if Rahm wasn't heavily involved with the whole reforming public education movement.

With the children of presidents security becomes a big issue, not so much for a mayor's kids.

[MADem]

25. His decisions should be analyzed on their own merits. His kids should not be dragged into the

equation.

What if he made the same decisions, and had no children? Or grown kids?

When you start pointing to innocent little children to bolster an argument, or tear one down, it suggests a shortage of credible arguments. There's no need to personalize these issues, especially when you're dragging private, minor citizens into the fray against their wishes.

Rich people can ALWAYS afford to send their kids to private schools, even if they are rich people who pass laws that benefit public school kids. That's not a surprise. Everyone with money does it.

I think security is a huge issue too, even for a Mayor's children, but the greatest issue is that the children are INNOCENT and do not deserve the harassment caused by their father's decisions.

Leave kids out of it. If you can't argue an idea without pointing to children to make the argument stick, you've lost already.

[Arkana]

34. Almost every political figure with any kind of money

has sent their kids to private school regardless of how they feel about public education.

Dislike Rahm's politics or his cutthroat manner if you want but his parental decisions should be out of bounds to the public.

[LanternWaste]

106. I imagine to maintain moral consistency

I imagine to maintain moral consistency, you also believe the mayor should also feed his children only what food stamps can purchase.

As one "seems to think that one sort of food is desirable for his constituent's children and another sort is desirable for his own children..."

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. :shrug:

[MADem]

109. Delete--wrong place, sorry. nt

[Remember Me]

36. Asking where they'll go to school isn't bothering them at all

But it clearly bothers Rahm to reveal himself as the hypocrite he is.

Our public school system needs to be "good enough" for ALL our children, not just those who can't afford a "better" option. And he knows it, else wouldn't have been so upset to simply answer "public" or "private."

[MADem]

39. Yes it is, because you know full well the press will not leave it at that.

And if you think they will, you are quite naive.

They'll chase after the children, looking for photos and quotes from their "friends." They will expose them to unwanted scrutiny that impacts their privacy.

If you have to screw with someone's kids to prove that they are "wrong," you've lost.

I don't know many wealthy people who DON'T send their children to private school. Rahm is a wealthy man. It wouldn't matter if Rahm double-funded the Chicago schools and made them a nationwide model, the odds are good to excellent--for security as well as privacy--that his children would not go to any public school in the system.

I always thought the left had more respect for the privacy of minor children.

[dameocrat67]

65. there is no indication that their are more armed guards

at private school than public so you are being silly.

[MADem]

75. OK, you try going to a play at Sidwell Friends and tell me how easy it is to get in.

There are METAL DETECTORS at that school, depending on what's going on at the venue.

There are guards all over, and there are, at times, Secret Service you don't even see.

No one necessarily said anything about "armed" guards, but you can bet that your child is safer at Sidwell than at an inner city facility.

Same goes for pretty much any private school worth its tuition. You do, in fact, get what you pay for.

When people who are rich and/or famous want privacy for their little ones, they choose schools that are able to provide that level of security. It's why parents will pay twenty to forty grand a year for private schooling. It's not just the small class size and teachers with grad degrees, it's safety, it's security and it is privacy.

[LooseWilly]

95. Keep up with the snooty details, please! We, the Hoi Polloi are just DYING to hear...

Tell us more about the lifestyles of the rich and famous that travel in your circuit. ;)

Do they have to eat their apricots around the pits?... Or do they have "people" to extricate the pits for them?

Do their children have to chew their own food? Or are there "masticators" on duty, with evidence of their shots, on hand to chew food for the kiddies of the rich and famous who pay more for their kids education—rather than risk them on the public education system— than most teachers make in a year?...

Do forgive the Hoi Polloi for deigning to question why the politicians aren't willing to put that money, and that sort of resources, into the public education system... rather than starve the public education system and pay the private system on the side...

Or maybe these politicians should go fuck themselves and answer the fucking questions already?...

[MADem]

99. Now, that's just a silly little whine. You're getting personal with me because you don't

like what I'm saying. You don't have any facts right, either, but that's par for the course, I suppose.

But like it or not, what I'm saying is the truth. Rich people will pay big money to send their little darlings to expensive private schools. Why? Because they want them to have a good education in a safe, sheltered, PRIVATE environment, where they can be kids, screw up, and not be scrutinized unduly solely because of who their parents happen to be.

Sorry to bust your childish little "Hoi Polloi" rant/meme, but I've never paid a cent in K-12 tuition....so you're 100 percent wrong on that score, as well.

Children are off limits. The only people low enough to go after children are cretins like Limbaugh and the insane right wing, who used to tell disgusting jokes about Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton.

When you go after children, you debase yourself.

[LooseWilly]

101. Heh, you're right... I'm employing sarcasm to illustrate my dislike of what you're saying.

You can try to label it a "whine" and hope that dismisses it. You can also pretend that a lack of "facts" in my hyperbolic sarcasm is a valid basis for dismissing it. You might also attack a number of comics for a faulty "factuality" when employing sarcasm to pillory someone making an offensive point.

Yes, I said "making an offensive point".

Your casual acceptance, and even embracing, of the system of private school education for the rich... I frankly find offensive. I find anyone who embraces the system to be repugnant as a pig fart, including you, and I frankly feel so offended by the process that I am unable to feel any sympathy for any of the parents or children when catastrophe, man-made or act-of-god, should strike and turn said children into worm-food.

You can say that such admissions debase me... I, contrariwise, assert that your defense of this "special treatment" process debases you.

I've never said you paid for private school... but your defense of the obvious class-difference involved is enough for me to despise you and all of your descendents in perpetuity. Of course, your obvious intimate knowledge of the ins-and-outs means that you have nothing to fear from my enmity... since you have the Powers-That-Be in your corner.

Right?

Enjoy your access... ;)

[MADem]

110. No, you're not employing sarcasm--you are making shit up and getting personal with me.

Rahm Emmanuel is the democratically elected Mayor of Chicago. He is not "Chairman Mao," who lives by example and has to appeal to the lowest common denominator to display an attitude of phony "shared sacrifice."

He is a wealthy man. That is no secret. People knew he was rich when he was running for office. He can afford to keep his children safe and secure from crazy people who write hateful crap about him on the internet, some of which sounds, if not threatening, at least somewhat hostile.

This is not communist China. The state does not force all children (save Party members, of course) to go to the same schools and get the same education. In America, people are free to CHOOSE where they want to educate their kids. They can even do it at home if they so desire (and way too many people who have no business doing so actually do just that). Until there is a law that mandates public education for all, you are completely out of line demanding, in totalitarian fashion, that all children go to public schools.

The mayor was elected to govern--not serve as your personal Communist Party leader, eating the thin turnip soup because there is no meat and wrapping his feet in reeds because there is no shoe leather available at the central shoemaking factory--and then returning home to eat steak in silk slippers.

People who are rich have a RIGHT to spend their money as they please. If I were rich, I would not want anonymous asswipes telling me what I "should" do with my money "for the greater good"--which usually benefits the specific agendas of said anonymous asswipes.

If people want to do good with their wealth, I truly admire that. I also think people who don't help out their fellow humans are shits....but that's their decision to make, not mine.

I don't "casually embrace" anything--but there you go--AGAIN, making shit up because you have no real argument for harrassing a guy's minor kids because you don't happen to like his POV or his political choices--and apparently, do not have the wherewithal to challenge the guy's policies on their own merits, without bringing in his kids.

I happen to like good public schools, and I live in a town where a lot of the tax dollars are spent on them. Ted Kennedy liked public schools, too, just like me--and he sent every single one of his kids to the most expensive private schools in the nation. So, was he an asshole too? Or are we going to hear a load of 'But, but...' from you?

You don't like the mayor of Chicago? Vote his ass out. Recall him. Challenge his policies vis a vis public school management.

But leave his CHILDREN alone. You DO debase yourself when you pick on kids to try (and fail) to make a point.

[LooseWilly]

115. Apparently you are not very well versed in the true dimensions of sarcasm...

It can, in fact, become personal... without failing to remain sarcasm.

Maybe you should enroll in Rahm's kid's school and see if a teacher there is willing to teach you something on the subject between coachings for standardized tests (NCLB) championed by Ted Kennedy... who loved public schools so much he fucked them all in the ass (metaphorically... No School Child Asses Were Harmed In the Metaphorical Fucking Herein Referred To... except metaphorically) by partnering with W. to pass NCLB.

Probably seemed like a fine idea... while deluding himself into believing that W and ilk would actually raise the funding at public schools to the levels of the private schools Kennedy was sending his (grand)children to...

He must've been pretty fucking deluded to think that might happen without it being explicitly written into the bill.

So... sure... Ted Kennedy was an asshole too. ;) Happy now? Did you think I wouldn't say it?...

Did you think that I am not perfectly willing to embrace being an asshole myself?

The amusing part though, was when you said this: "People who are rich have a RIGHT to spend their money as they please." Does that include the Koch brothers? Does that include the corporate "people"? ... hell, does that include the "RIGHT" to spend money on hookers and heroin?

And... what the fuck have you got against China?

—He is not "Chairman Mao," who lives by example and has to appeal to the lowest common denominator to display an attitude of phony "shared sacrifice."

—This is not communist China.

—The state does not force all children (save Party members, of course) to go to the same schools and get the same education.

—Until there is a law that mandates public education for all, you are completely out of line demanding, in totalitarian fashion, that all children go to public schools.

(Are you implying that I am some sort of agent of a Chinese communist plot to force children into public education?)

—The mayor was elected to govern--not serve as your personal Communist Party leader, eating the thin turnip soup because there is no meat and wrapping his feet in reeds because there is no shoe leather available at the central shoemaking factory--and then returning home to eat steak in silk slippers. (Ok, seriously... WTF are you on here?... really?...)

—People who are rich have a RIGHT to spend their money as they please. If I were rich, I would not want anonymous asswipes telling me what I "should" do with my money "for the greater good"--which usually benefits the specific agendas of said anonymous asswipes.


So... you don't believe in regulation or accountability or the efficacy of any public agency... but you're a... good anti-communist Democrat... devoted to the notion that a public official shouldn't have to fuckin' answer questions from us "asswipes" who might be critical of a member of a party which is supposedly dedicated to the empowerment of public institutions to help those who don't have the resources to buy services without the benefit of the "economy of scale" values obtainable only through public services... and you think us "asswipes" should shut up when faced with politicians who obviously think so little of what they've provided the "asswipes" that they wouldn't be caught dead putting their children into those institutions... is that about right?

We're not harassing his minor kids... we're hassling him... because his behavior demonstrates that he's not willing to put his minor kids into the same institutions that not-rich folk are putting their kids into.

We all know rich assholes don't put their kids into the same schools as "asswipes" do... it's just fucking funny when the rich assholes lose the nerve to tell us that we're just asswipes who don't deserve any better.

Come on Rahm... where're those balls we've heard about... you fucking asshole?

[MADem]

116. You not only fail to understand the meaning of sarcasm, you also can't argue your points

without resorting to bloviation and excess, really lousy straw men, and coming up with a couple of specific criminals to robustly fail to make a larger point. What do the Koch brothers have to do with the wealthy Ted Kennedy, who also spent his money as he pleased? Whitey Bulger spent his ill-gotten gains as he pleased, too. They have nothing to do with this discussion, but your reach demonstrates your desperation.

Why even try to drag them into this discussion?

I have nothing "against" China but this isn't China, now, is it? And thank goodness for that! We have our own laws, see, and those laws include freedoms that include allowing people CHOICE to educate their children. One more time--the Mayor is free to educate his children privately (just all the Kennedys, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, every Senator in recent memory on both sides of the aisle, etc.), and he is not OBLIGATED to educate them publicly--least of all to please YOU. It's just not your business.

When you bother RE about the private lives of his children, you ARE bothering his children. You have no right to the details of their private lives. Ask Chelsea about that. Or go down that nasty Rush Limbaugh road and pretend that you're championing some 'greater good' when in actual fact, the goal is to discomfit the Mayor by making targets of his kids. When you can't do that, you have nothing of substance to say, except to attack me with pure fiction and supposition. The only thing you have had to say to argue against the proposals of the Mayor of Chicago is "Waaah, he is sending his kids to the same private school the Obama kids went to!!!"

The rest of your suppositions are pure crap. You make stuff up, but it doesn't make it true. You don't know me, so don't tell me how I feel about things. The only things you truly "know" about me is that I think people who attack small children and deprive them of their privacy and innocence in the name of political one-upmanship are small little weasels, deserving of absolute scorn. And, in case you missed it whilst spinning so enthusiastically, I do favor strong public schools and am willing to (and do) pay the taxes to get them.

Make your points--if you even can. Leave his kids alone.

[LooseWilly]

120. "You not only fail to understand the meaning of sarcasm, you also can't argue..."? My point is made

:rofl: :rofl:

Are you... under the impression that sarcasm is a form of rhetoric that requires the making of "points"?

Really? :rofl:

"... resorting to bloviation and excess, really lousy straw men, and coming up with a couple of specific criminals to robustly fail to make a larger point."?, yes... sarcastic bloviation, excess... and they're not really straw men when they're not set up as serious points to argue against... are they?

And all you respond with is "Leave his children alone!", reminiscent of that Leave Britney Alone! youtube classic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc).

Point well made?

My suppositions are crap? I'm not the one trying to make serious points... :+ You are. Maybe you'd care to make a few?

"I have nothing "against" China but this isn't China, now, is it? And thank goodness for that! We have our own laws, see, and those laws include freedoms that include allowing people CHOICE to educate their children. One more time--the Mayor is free to educate his children privately (just all the Kennedys, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, every Senator in recent memory on both sides of the aisle, etc.), and he is not OBLIGATED to educate them publicly--least of all to please YOU. It's just not your business." —You call that a rhetorical "point"?

"We have our own laws"? "he is not OBLIGATED to educate them publicly--least of all to please YOU." ...

So your... "point" is that, unlike China (thank goodness we're not them!) rich people aren't legally required to have their children educated with poor children? (And Rahm shouldn't be blamed because other Democratic Rich Folk do it too.) And rich people in public office shouldn't be OBLIGATED to have their kids taught in the same schools as poor people... to please ME? :rofl:

Now who's getting personal? And that's not a sarcastic personal... that's just plain asserting that I'm too lowly to be worth consideration by the likes of the "high and mighty" Emmanuel (heh... and that's not a straw man... that's a sarcastic extrapolation based on the connotations contained within your own derogatory and dismissive tone regarding the importance of my opinion... but see—when I am forced to explain the sarcasm... for the less perspicacious... it just ruins the effect :))

—By the way, a judgement about a politician based upon what he/she does, as a parent, as a reflection of whether said politician is willing to be "among" his/her constituents (i.e. in choosing a school for his children) is not actually bothering his children... though it may bother his/her liberal guilt... or yours... or other voters... the question is... is said politician game for taking the heat for declining to be "among" his constituents in this case... hehe... and the hysterical denial just screams: "Methinks thou dost protest too much"

[MADem]

122. Your point is decidedly not made. You and Rush are two of a kind.

He likes to pick on minor children of politicians, too.

And all the little ROFL guys in the world on your absurdly lengthy (and childish) post don't change that simple fact.

You think dragging minor children into the public square to make a political point is "cool," and even more so if you don't like the politicians who are the parents of said children.

It's dispicable conduct.

You have some major growing up to do.

[LooseWilly]

123. "You and Rush are two of a kind."?... resorting to ad hominems, while telling ME I'm not grown up?

You are not making points... which is rather ironic since you seem to be the one fixated on making a point.

"You think dragging minor children into the public square to make a political point is 'cool' "?.... Why is cool in quotes? You're not quoting me... so I can only assume you are making a judgement about the tone I'm using... and the quotes are somehow meant to... show that it's a mistaken notion?... but if so—shouldn't you have provided some sort of support for the argument that I had somehow demonstrated that I thought it was "cool"... as opposed to, say, "justified"... or, perhaps more accurately "delusional to think that it is the kids, rather than the parents, being dragged into the public square"...

:+ Weren't you the one twitching over the need to make "points"? (Hey... you wanna ascribe bloviation to me, I'll ascribe twitching to you... "You trow the ball against me, I trow the ball against you.")

So make a point, rather than making childish assertions like a remedial middle schooler who can't grasp the concept of "supporting evidence for a point".

"It's dispicable {sic} conduct."?... How so? No one has even mentioned the kids names... how are they being dragged into "the public square"? I could probably find them, if I wanted... but I haven't. How is talking about Rahm's behavior as a parent despicable? ... when he's thrust himself into the "public square" by becoming a politician.

I don't need to do any growing up... you just need to re-examine the holiness of the rubber-baby-buggy-bumpers that you think the rest of us ought to venerate just because you say so.

The tastiest irony of all is that Rahm himself seemed to recognize that it was his choice that was being questioned... and rather than suggest that any reporters "grow up" he just told them he was doing what he was doing and that everyone could just fuck off (a paraphrase). He didn't complain about how his children were being treated... he just said "I’m making this decision as a father"... and I'm just saying that voters should judge him based on how his behavior as a father matches up—or doesn't match up—with how he fights for the interests of (potential) constituents who don't have the same resources to bring to bear when they "make decisions as a father", or as a mother.

:rofl: But here you are arguing that no constituent should draw the parallel... no constituent should consider how willing Emmanuel is to make the schools that the not-rich have access to good enough that even the rich might consider attending... No, instead you are getting bent out of shape that someone might suggest that Emmanuel should consider subjecting his kids to the shitty facilities he, in his role as a public official, offers up to his constituents.

Ohh, the humanity!! Won't someone please think of the children!! (Well, the rich children at least...)

:rofl:

And you don't even see the irony...

[indurancevile]

72. For heavens sake, Jimmy Carter was asked about sending his kids to public school. It's not like

Rahm is the first politician that's been asked the question.

[MADem]

77. And look at the mess it got him in. Rahm learned from that debacle. nt

[Skittles]

37. so why doesn't he just answer the fucking question?

[MADem]

40. It is NOT germane to his decision making process.

As I have said elsewhere, it would not matter if he double-funded the schools and made them a model for all to emulate, he'd STILL send his kids to private school. That is what wealthy people do, when they are concerned for their children's security, safety and privacy.

The kids have nothing to do with this. Argue that he's doing the wrong thing on the strengths/weaknesses of his decision-making process. Don't wave his kids about and yell "See? See?"

Champions of public education, like Ted Kennedy, sent their kids to private schools. It's what rich folk do. Don't single Rahm's children out because you don't like what the father said--it's just the weakest possible argument, and engenders sympathy for him and his family. It serves to completely derail the discussion on the basis of the issues, and switch the conversation instead to "What bastards!! Going after his KIDS because they don't like his policies!!! How LOW!"

[coalition_unwilling]

61. Rahm is a fucking rich prick hypocrite who called progressives like

me 'fucking retarded'. So, as far as I'm concerned, he gets no free pass. He (and his wing of the Democratic Party) can go fuck himself\themselves.

[MADem]

78. You just proved his point. How could someone feel that their

children could be safe in public schools when there are people with your level of anger out there shrieking that he can go fuck himself?

You can dislike the Mayor all you want. That's your right. But leave his kids alone.

My point, and my ONLY point, is that you are cowardly if you drag his children into your disagreements with him. They are innocents. They should be left alone and where they go to school is no one's business. Argue with him on the merits, don't use his kids to try to piss him off. All that does is end interviews.

[coalition_unwilling]

88. speaking of 'shrieking,' you're shriekingly creating straw men, the

latest being that I'm somehow bothering Rahm's kids.

Au contraire.

I'm insisting that Rahm must explain to the public why via his policies he can adversely affect public education but meanwhile use his wealth and influence to send his children to private schools where they are not affected in the slightest by the decisions he so blithely makes for those less fortunate. He gets no 'free pass' on the question. He's a fucking rich prick hypocrite who, just like most of the rich, thinks his shit doesn't stink. And he needs to be hammered on it over and over again.

[MADem]

89. Now, don't "invent" straw men in your own head to try to rebut. That's not on.

You were the one with all the fuck Rahm talk, not me. And I never said YOU were going to screw with his kids, so just cut the victim crap.

People LIKE you, with that same level of vitriol, are out there, and sometimes those people have ill will in their hearts. Some get so upset that they will do crazy things, and the Mayor has every right to protect his children, who were NOT on the ballot.

Rahm didn't run up a seven hundred million dollar school deficit, ya know. That's on previous administrations. If you have issues about how he's going to whack that mole, then you should address his tactics on their merits, not try to "fuck" with his kids--or even mention them. They aren't running the city.

His children are private citizens. Private schools are on private property. He has a right to ensure that his children are not hectored or threatened by people who don't happen to like him.

Your argument that it is "OK" to drag his kids into a public policy debate is just wrong. Why can't you challenge his decisions without mentioning his innocent children? Doesn't say much for your ability to articulate any points of disagreement, frankly, if all you can do is say "Waaah, you send your kids to private school!"

So do most politicians. Rahm Emmanuel is not at all unique in that regard.

[coalition_unwilling]

90. Your original post insinuated that my 'shrieking' was somehow

bothering Rahm's kids.

I never said it was OK to bring his kids into the public debate and your assertion that I did so does not make it so. But it does mean you are creating a straw man so you can knock it down.

Rather than debate this further with you, I'll just bid you a hasty adieu.

[MADem]

91. No it didn't, but nice distraction. See ya. nt

[Recursion]

102. It's regularly asked of every mayor and councilperson in every city

And of every President since Carter with kids the right age. It's something he should have expected -- there's a much more effective way to tell a reporter to fuck off, something like "that's a decision we're coming to as a family and politics will play no part in it."

[MADem]

111. And he, like the Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas, do not have to justify their decisions.

Carter was the last poor fool who got wrapped around that axle, and other politicians since then LEARNED from his mistake. Amy sat in a classroom surrounded by police and secret service personnel at recess, while her classmates played in the schoolyard.

It wasn't just one question. The reporter "repeatedly pressed" Rahm about his decision.

Leave kids out of it; that way, you get real answers to policy questions. Attack a person's family, and they'll get understandably annoyed.

[Gman]

50. Sorry, because it's none of the press' business

if the press is rude enough to ask that question, he can be rude enough to walk out. I don't blame him.

[fishwax]

55. as others have said, questioning the decision to enroll his kids in private school isn't invading

the children's privacy.

[MADem]

56. I disagree. And the reporter had no "right" to an answer either.

What wealthy politicians who live in large, urban areas don't enroll their children in private schools?

[fishwax]

57. I don't know what politicians don't, but that doesn't make the question out of line

If rahm didn't want to answer, of course, I suppose he didn't have to. But he's an important public figure, so I don't see the question as out of line in any way.

[MADem]

58. About the only time I think it is "fair" to ask public figures about where and how

their children are educated is in a case like Santorum's, where he was billing the state a FORTUNE for distance learning education and did not possess a habitable home in the state that was footing the bill, but instead his entire family was living, full-time, year round, in a manse in McLean VA. When you're defrauding the state to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, questions are appropriate.

If the Mayor is paying the tuition, not charging the state a dime, not burdening the state for the education of his children, it's no one's damn business. If anything, he's saving the city money by paying taxes into the city coffers, that are spent on the schools, yet not availing himself of the services of said schools. His children are not public servants, they are private citizens. They were not on the ballot.

You're free to gripe at him about his POLICIES regarding public education--I don't argue that aspect at all. But don't use his children as a cudgel to beat him about the head and shoulders--that's just not on.

[dameocrat67]

64. jimmy carter sent his kids to public schools and criticized clinton

for not doing so.

[MADem]

79. Amy Carter was lonely, miserable and isolated. Her school years were

an uncomfortable disaster, both for herself and her classmates.

The DC schools are a shitpit, among the worst in the nation. And the President is not the Superintendent of Schools, nor does he fund them. That's a local government by way of Congress exercise. I don't blame Clinton for avoiding the public schools, he was smart to listen to Maya Angelou, who recommended Sidwell to them.

As Bill Clinton said:

"My daughter is not a public figure. She does not want to be a public figure. She does not like getting a lot of publicity, and frankly she has more privacy and more control over her destiny where she is than she would if she were at public school," Clinton said in a two-hour "Town Meeting" broadcast on CBS.

And as Hillary Clinton said:

...Already, Bill and I had taken a measure of the public's interest in Chelsea and the national fascination with a child growing up in the White House. Our decision about where to send Chelsea to school had inspired passionate debate inside and outside the Beltway, largely because of its symbolic significance. I understood the disappointment felt by advocates of public education when we chose Sidwell Friends, a private Quaker school, particularly after Chelsea had attended public schools in Arkansas. But the decision for Bill and me rested on one fact: Private schools were private property, hence off-limits to the news media. Public schools were not. The last thing we wanted was television cameras and news reporters following our daughter throughout the school day, as they had when President Carter's daughter, Amy, attended public school." Living History, pgs. 135-136

http://mediamatters.org/research/200707250004

[Nailzberg]

42. I'd be worried that they'd get grades they didn't earn in public school.

CPS teachers may not want to give a C for C work to the Mayors kid.

But I do think Rahm should have had a better response. You have to know that question would come.

[Gman]

49. It's none of the press' business

or anyone else's business where Rahm or anyone else sends their kids.

[Remember Me]

73. If someone has a role OVER the school system, it for darned sure IS

germane -- and the public's right to know -- where they send their own kids. Absolutely.

Just as it's germane where and how they invest if they have a role over the nation's securities, or banks and other financial institutions.

[MADem]

80. When his CHILDREN are in charge of the school system, then, you'd have a point.

Your argument that it is OK to screw with his kids because you don't like his policies is just wrong.

As Hillary Clinton said when articulating why she sent Chelsea to Sidwell: "Private schools are private property. Public schools are not."

[Remember Me]

97. Hah! You wish.

No, its relevant that HE is exercising deleterious power over the school system.

Further, I'm not advocating "screwing with" them, just getting information about them -- information that reveals his own estimation of Chicago schools, and his own sense of privilege and entitlement for himself and his family.

I don't give a flyin' flip what Hillary said in rationalizing her decision to send Chelsea to Sidwell Friends, nor is it germane in any way. Neither she nor Bill were expected to do much if any hands-on improvement of the D.C. schools. In fact, the very idea is laughable.

3 extremely weak arguments all in one brief post. Well done.

[MADem]

100. "Just getting INFORMATION about them"....eh?

It's already public knowledge where his kids are going to school.

If you want to know what Rahm's "estimation of Chicago schools" is, then that is the question that you ask him. And leave his kids out of it. You don't need to drag them into the conversation to get that information. Dragging them into the conversation IS "screwing with them." If you can't see that, you're pretty obtuse.

My arguments aren't weak--but your justifications sure are. You don't NEED his kids to get your answers--you just want to USE them to piss the guy off.

What that says about you isn't very nice. Rushbo used to do that shit with Chelsea Clinton, and it didn't look very nice on him, either.

[Remember Me]

105. Well, now you've gone abusive on me, haven't you?

Tsk, tsk.

Patently untrue: You don't NEED his kids to get your answers--you just want to USE them to piss the guy off.

Not my style. But I seem to have pissed you off.

I also didn't gather, from the earlier discussion on the thread, that it was already public knowledge where he kids went to school. I still say the question is germane, shows his hypocrisy, and his over-reaction (and yours, I'm beginning to think) validate that.

YMMV.

[MADem]

112. How is it abusive to state the obvious? Who, except someone who wants to piss a guy off, would

bring their CHILDREN into a public policy argument? And persist in defending the "rightness" of such a crass decision?

It's in one of the cited articles, where his kids are going to school. It was known when the reporter asked the question. It's the University of Chicago Lab School, which, as an aside, is the very same school once attended by the OBAMA children.

It helps to read the whole thread.

I'm not "pissed off" but I am flabbergasted that people who claim to be on somewhere on the left of the political spectrum, be they liberals, progressives, even Blue Dogs, can think, for even a second, that it is "OK" to start questioning anyone about their private, legal choices for their MINOR CHILDREN. Now, if Rahm wanted to send his eighteen year old kid to "FUCK THE POOR" University, that's a different issue, but when children are MINORS, they should be left alone.

I didn't like it when Rush Limbaugh went after Chelsea Clinton, or every asshole in the universe made fun of Amy Carter, so why would I think it is "OK" in this case to start in on RE's children? It's important to be consistent, even more so when dealing with the privacy of innocent children, to avoid perceptions of hypocrisy, you see.

[ejpoeta]

8. not sure why if he is dismantling public schools. i think where he is sending his kids may be

important because he is wealthy and he leaves those who can't afford rich people schools while he is dooming their kids to something that his kids won't be subject to. in general, no... his kids are not something to be discussed. but specifically in relation to the school situation i think it is something that IS pertinent in a very specific context.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Sprat]

51. Not in the least. Rahm just showed what

a punk does when he's caught being condescending to the general population. He's a super-hypocrite. He's a hyper-hypocrite. During his tenure as COS, he managed to negate a majority in Congress.

[dameocrat67]

63. not so since Rahm is openly hostile to public schools.

n/t

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[marmar]

5. “You are wrong and a bully."

[Divernan]

6. Being called a bully is high praise coming from a bully like Rahm.

[kenny blankenship]

9. "praise from Caesar!"

[MADem]

10. I don't really see anything wrong with aggressively sheltering one's children from public glare

Sarah Palin should take a page from Rahm's book. Instead, she pushes them out there like little money-making props.

If you tell people "Don't f with my kids or I'll knife you" they tend to 'get' it.

I'll bet reporters in future will stow that topic, and stick to questions of governance, when dealing with the Mayor.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. I see something wrong with sheltering your children from

the destructive consequences of policies that you choose to inflict on the children of others.

[MADem]

16. For the sake of argument, let's say RE enacts policies that are HORRIBLE for

children. Your counter-argument is that his innocent children--who had absolutely nothing to do with his decisions-- should be exposed to scrutiny, harassment, unwanted media hounding, and stress because....why? You don't like their FATHER's policies?

How is that fair? What did the children do to deserve having to deal with that kind of crap?

What if RE had no kids at all? Gee, there'd be no children to harangue at all, in that case.

Let his decisions stand on their own, good or bad. Let him take responsibility for them. Don't rake children over the coals to prove a point. The GOP love to shove the kids up front; I think it's a ghastly practice.

RE was right to be aggressive about his children's privacy, even if you don't agree with his policies.

[booley]

17. I can se a flaw there

The question was where would Rahm's children got to school at.

His kids do not make that decision.

Rahm and his wife do.

So the answer reflects on Rahm Emanual, not his children.

His children aren't even involved except in reference to the question.

They aren't' being "raked" over any coals.

[MADem]

The children still suffer. Their privacy is violated.

Just because the parents make the decision, doesn't mean the children's lives should be compromised. Their names were not on the ballot.

Sorry, you will not convince me that this is not a private matter.

What if RE had no kids at all? You'd then have to argue his decisions on their own merits, and not use his kids as unwilling footballs in a game of gotcha.

[Fumesucker]

20. But Rahm does have children..

And he is making decisions for other people's children and then making different ones for his own children.

Clearly he doesn't think much of the decisions he's making for the children of his constituents.

[MADem]

24. And his children are INNOCENT. Your argument is that it's OK to screw with the kids because Dad is

a "bad guy."

That's not a terribly good position, IMO.

Bottom line--the kids did nothing wrong, and they should be left alone. It isn't 'OK' to visit the 'sins of the father' on them.

If you do this, they will be harassed in their schoolyards, followed, pestered, and not be allowed to live a private life like every other minor child in their community.

There's no justification for messing with minor children because you don't like what their parents do.

None whatsoever.

I always thought the left was on the side of kids...

[Fumesucker]

31. Who said anything about "screwing with the kids"?

Pointing out that Rahm makes a different set of choices for his own children has everything to do with his decision making.

Part of our political problem we have in this country now is that we have one set of rules for the rule makers and another set for the rest of us.

Frankly I'd be a lot more comfortable with the decisions Rahm is making regarding the schools if his own kids were subject to the results of his decisions.

[MADem]

38. If you expose the children to public scrutiny because of the actions of the parents, you are

screwing with the kids.

The children are not the "rule makers." They have no say, no power, no influence. Yet if you expose them, set the press after them to stalk them and harass them, you're screwing with them. It's just not right.

If you cannot make your case that Rahm made a 'bad call' because of how it will affect the general population without dragging his children--who had no part in his decision-making--into the argument, you have failed.

His children are pawns--if you go down that road.

How would you feel if someone targeted your children as a consequence of a decision you made? It's just a lousy thing to do. Leave the kids OUT of it. Speak to his decision as a matter of general public policy, without pushing his kids into the spotlight to make your point.

[The Big Vetolski]

26. Sorry, Rahm's children are fair game.

"How is that fair? What did the children do to deserve having to deal with that kind of crap?"

Short answer: They were born. Rahm just screwed over thousands of children with his layoffs. Why shouldn't his own children be subject to at least a little bit of scrutiny? Of course, his precious little darlings are too good to rub shoulders with the Great Unwashed who attend public schools. In fact, they are going to private schools, as Rahm himself told a rival news outlet in a fit of pique. And, they are members of Rahm's social and political class.

[MADem]

28. Other children of wealthy parents don't have to deal with the scrutiny, so why make his kids suffer?

Sorry, your argument is ghastly.

All children are NOT created equal--the rich kids of parents in private industry don't get screwed over by this decision, so why should Rahm's kids?

I can't believe you are 'endorsing' fucking with the kids because Daddy made a bad call.

It leaves a rather sick taste, frankly. Children don't have options. They weren't on the ballot. They didn't make any decisions.

Argue your points on the merits, not by sticking it to the guy's kids.

[dameocrat67]

69. if the wealthy people are elected officials who

make bad decisions that hurt the public schools they should get it too. nobodies singling out rahm. christy and obama were asked the same question. christy blew up and the peasants and has become rightfully unpopular obama fessed up.

[MADem]

74. Obama "fessed up?" Please.

If he wants to send his kids to private schools, especially in DC where the schools (which are run by the DC government that is controlled by CONGRESS--not the President) absolutely suck stink from a dead dog's ass, well, that's his business. I think he made the smart call. Same deal with Rahm--with all the hate he's catching, even just here, on this board, he's smart to put his kid's in a safe environment, where crazies who say nasty things about him can't attack his family. Same with that idiot Christy. He may be a jerk, but his children are innocent.

It's no one's business what the CHILDREN are up to. The children need to be left alone.

If you cannot argue that a politician made a bad call without resorting to personal questions that involve his family, you've lost the argument.

Look, anyone with a brain knows that cuts to a school system have effects and they are almost never good (the exception being when they cut the salaries of bloated do-nothings who aren't in the classroom and wouldn't know what a blackboard was if they were hit in the face with one). The thing to do is itemize the negative effects and put the politicians on the spot about them, not use their children to 'get a rise' out of them. It's sleazy. It's what the GOP does. It's how you END an interview without getting any answers.

If you can agree that it isn't right to invade the privacy of people as to their sex lives, their choice of marital partner, their birth control decisions, and things of that nature, one should not bother a public official about his private life or the private life of his family--so long as they are not breaking any laws.

Last time I checked, it was not illegal to send your kids to private school. You don't stop having the right to manage your family and private life as you see fit when you assume public office. And since children are not on the ballot, they need to be left alone.

[tammywammy]

46. I completely disagree. Children should always be off limits. n/t

[dameocrat67]

67. a simple question over whether someone sends their kids

to public schools does not subject them to harassment and it is absurd to say it does. Why is public knowlege that Clinton/Obama send their kids to sidwell friends.

[MADem]

85. But that wasn't the question, now, was it?

It was "Why are you sending your kids to 'X' private school?"

Clinton did a wave-off on the question, too, at a town hall on CBS, and he also said his daughter was not a public figure and did not want to become one.

Rahm is famous for his temper. Why is this surprising?

The only difference between Rahm's answer and Clinton's is that Clinton said it with a smile.

[Remember Me]

114. Here's the problem --

with your ENTIRE argument, your entire position on this issue:

his innocent children--who had absolutely nothing to do with his decisions-- should be exposed to scrutiny, harassment, unwanted media hounding, and stress because....why? You don't like their FATHER's policies?

AFAIC, that characterization of what is going on is so far over the top that it's a caricature. I've wondered why you're so invested in this -- and to some extent I still do wonder -- but basically, if you believe that a mere question by the press about his kids' education is equivalent (or even would reasonably lead to) "scrutiny, harassment, unwanted media hounding, and stress" for them, then for my part, there's literally nothing to further discuss. You keep over-reacting to your own over-reaction and, I believe, severe mischaracterization (caricature) of the situation at hand.

I know you disagree.

But this realization brings me to the point that this is no longer even interesting to dicuss with you.

So I'm out.

[MADem]

118. How weak--question my "motives" because you have no rebuttal.

I'm "invested" in this because I think people who target children (Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, any right wing talking head or radio asswipe, for example, who famously targeted Chelsea Clinton) are absolutely dispicable.

But do go on, and invent some nefarious "reason" why I am "invested." You can "wonder" till the cows come home, but I have absolutely no agenda beyond a strong belief that decent people don't fuck with minor children to make political points.

I'd also suggest that you go over the entire timeline of events. It wasn't just one question, it was repeated questions, a walk-out, and a phone call with a "bullying" charge by the reporter, and then more questions about his children. The guy made it clear he wasn't going to answer questions about his kids. How many times must he repeat that? The reporter got her story, though, didn't she? Made her ABC-Disney bosses proud.

FWIW, the only time I've spent in Chicago was at O'Hare. And I've logged many hours there, but it doesn't qualify me to be an expert on Chicago politics. I think it's interesting that no one can say why they don't like RE's policy decisions on their own merits. They can only whine about where his kids go to school (a choice made by both him and his wife, but never mind that, either).

I'm glad you're "out" because your contributions were pretty much limited to insinuations that bear no fruit--but you're still WRONG. Children are innocent, and even the minor children of politicians are private citizens who deserve a right to privacy.

[Remember Me]

119. This is getting bizarre

I have no idea what your "reason" for what I perceive as over-investment and over-reaction. I don't even care, haven't thought about it and certainly haven't speculated about it.

What I said is that what I consider an unremitting over-reaction to the whole thing -- and the language you use to couch the subject in -- makes it impossible for someone to have a rational discussion with you about it.

YOU'RE the one who started ascribing motives when you claimed I just wanted to piss Rahm off -- also not true.

This conversation has come to an end for me. As I said, it just isn't interesting to discuss something with someone whose picture of reality seems so skewed, or who seems to be constantly enraged.

[MADem]

121. You're wrong, still.....but I thought you were "out" a post ago.

Keep singing "Goodbye I Must Be Going" if you'd like, you're still wrong about targeting children for political gain. It's never a good idea, both ethically and as a point-scoring technique. It's what small people do.

I think my comments are quite "rational"--as in, only someone IRRATIONAL would screw with someone's minor children, but there ya go again--if anyone's having an 'unremitting over-reaction' (along with a decided inability to defend one's position) it's you, with your motive-ascribing, and absurd descriptions of how you think I feel (constantly enraged? You're the one who keeps saying you're leaving, and then comes back for another pathetic little 'dig'--check your mirror, kid).

Skewed reality, indeed! You can't defend your position, because it's a disgraceful one! No one with any dignity goes after a person's children. It's the ultimate low blow.

[Fearless]

29. +10000

[Jackpine Radical]

35. What public glare?

Rahm is the one being discomfited by this question, not his kids.

[MADem]

44. The minute he engages the press on matters concerning his children, they become

targets for the press. If he says they are in private school, the press will hunt them down and photograph them. It's just wrong.

I must say, I'm astounded that anyone would think it is OK to screw with anyone's kids, when privacy is demanded.

It's one thing for Sarah Palin to shove her kids into the spotlight like dancing bears in a perverse circus--at that point, she's insisting that they become public figures-- but when anyone--Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, even the Bushes--asks for privacy for minor children, it's pretty shitty when it's not given.

If the kids are 21 and acting up, that's another story--but when they're children, they should be left alone.

I think it's pretty lame that the only argument anyone seems able to muster about this matter is "Get the KIDS!!!" Why not engage the Mayor on the merits/lack thereof of his proposals, and leave his kids out of it?

[dameocrat67]

70. They did not bother obama or clintons kids and everyone

knows they go to sidwell friends. they did not bother carters even though he sent his kids to public school.

[MADem]

86. Yes, they did. Both the Obamas and the Clintons "caught shit" for sending their

children to Sidwell Friends. They were forced to repeatedly justify their positions.

Carter's daughter--and I was alive and aware and sometimes in DC during that period of time--was harrassed mercilessly. She went to school in a fishbowl. It would have been worse if there had been a zillion cable news channels, but it was bad enough with just the Big Three.

[dameocrat67]

92. That happened because she was the presidents daughter

not because she went to public schools.

[MADem]

94. Yes, she was singled out ONLY because she was the child of a politician.

This is why you don't find national politician's kids in the DC public schools....aside from the fact that they are among the shittiest schools in the land. Private schools are just that--private.

If she'd just been any old kid, she wouldn't have had to deal with the motorcades to school, the security, or the restrictions (to say nothing of background checks) on everyone working at the school while she was in the building. Odds are, if she'd been "any old kid," her dad would have been living in Northern VA and she would have been going to a school in Fairfax County, not DC.

She was not allowed to ever go outside to recess or field trips with her classmates because it was unsafe, so she sat, ALONE, while the children went off to trips or out to play. The children in the classroom viewed her as an object of curiosity, she had a hard time making friends because the Secret Service were all over the place. The staff walked on eggshells around her. It was a shitty, stupid idea on President Carter's part to use his little girl to set an example (which didn't help the situation, at the end of the day). His kid got a substandard education and was miserable for his one term in office. She would have been better off at Sidwell where the security protocols are well established and they know how to handle the children of high-visibility parents.

[riderinthestorm]

41. Sarah Palin's children attend public school nt.

[MADem]

45. They also sell books about virtue after getting knocked up, they

get their girlfriend pregnant and then hurry down the aisle while Sarah still plays the morality card, they appear on television dance contests, and are shoved "out there" by their mother like public figures. The mother made a conscious decision to expose them to the scrutiny of the press.

Rahm is not doing this with his kids. He has insisted upon privacy for his minor children and he should get it.

His kids are NOT "the Mayor." They're kids. They should be left alone, unless and until they start hawking books about virtue or dancing on ABC variety shows.

If the only case you can make about his policies is that he's into "Do as I say, not as I do" then you've lost the argument. However would you counter his moves if he had no children at all?

FWIW, Sarah pulled Willow OUT of school, according to this report, and will homeschool her if she runs--I'm betting the other kid will enjoy the same fate: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393378/Palin-pulls-daughter-Willow-school-doesnt-ruin-presidential-hopes.html

[riderinthestorm]

48. Sarah's kids have been in public school all along, even when she was governor

Rahm's kids would, could and should have been able to maintain the same level of privacy in public schools as any other.

Sorry but Emanuel is playing with fire with CPS schools and won't walk the walk with his own kids. Considering Emanuel's emphasis on education "reform" in his first few months of office it's very, very telling he won't put his kids into CPS.

[MADem]

53. Sarah's kids were in "Distance Learning" programs--not classrooms.

They weren't walking to the little red schoolhouse and being hounded by photographers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-brown/and-she-homeschools-10-re_b_123077.html

That's besides the point, anyway. The point is that when you go after a minor child--for ANY reason-- to make a political point, you've LOST the argument.

Why is it so hard to argue against Rahm's POV without beating up his children in the process? That's a question no one seems to want to answer.

[dameocrat67]

66. he is not agressively sheltering them

he is using them as human shields to cover his hypocrisy over defunding public education.

[MADem]

82. No--he's keeping them on PRIVATE PROPERTY, where the press can't mess with them.

They are not celebrities or public figures, they are private citizens.

He's not "using" them--sheesh. If he were using them, he'd sacrifice their privacy and send them to a public school, to be hounded and endangered by people who are hateful because they don't like his policies.

What you said makes no sense. He's catching shit precisely because he won't talk about his children's private education (and he's doing the right thing--they were not on the ballot). If he were using them as "human shields" he'd be sending them to PS Shithole and saying "See? Shuddup. My kids are going to PS Shithole."

[Kaleva]

13. I think this would be newsworthy if he was reported to be calm.

[defendandprotect]

14. Koch Bros DLC Rahm calling someone else a "bully" -- ????

[FLAprogressive]

76. Projection

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Obviously they are in an absudly luxurious private school.

He should have just said so. What a tool he is.

[MADem]

87. The interviewer named the school. He objected to her getting into the personal lives of his kids.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/honeymoon-over-chicago-mayor-rahm-emanuel-faces-scrutiny


In his first media flap, Emanuel stormed out of an interview with NBC affiliate reporter Mary Ann Ahern, showing his famous temper for the first time since leaving Washington. Ms. Ahern had pressed the mayor to explain why his three children would be attending The University of Chicago Lab School, one of Chicago’s most elite and costly private schools, despite calling public school reform a priority of his administration.

After stating that his “children are not in a public position” and that he was “making this decision as a father,” Emanuel dropped the microphone and walked off. On the video he could be heard saying, “I’m done. Especially after that.” The mayor’s office declined to comment on the incident.

[dionysus]

18. thats pretty tame for rahm, isn't it?

[ThomWV]

21. Good for him. I don't see a single thing wrong with that.

[NuttyFluffers]

22. how telling...

can't even endure the thought of his family sharing the same consequences of his decisions.

the question was very simple: will you share the pain of those for whom you make policy?

and can't even answer it with dignity... my sympathies Chicago; you bought a party platform and instead found a party hack that doesn't "care about you."

[JanMichael]

30. "You are wrong and a bully." sounds SOOOO right wing.

Always play and talk the talk of the victim as they victimize others. Asshat.

[Larkspur]

32. Rahm is just another wealthy a-hole who likes beating the peasants

and doesn't like being called out on his own hypocrisy.

[MouseFitzgerald]

33. Straight up Chris Christy style

These politicians dont seem to understand that the question is of enormous importance when people like Chris and Rahm attack public schools and teachers unions and then send their kids to private schools.

[Jack Sprat]

52. The odd couple, Rahm and Christie.

Despite the obvious differences in physical appearance, their hearts and souls are one.

[riderinthestorm]

43. He's wrong on this. He should send his children to public school

The message he's sending is crap. Sorry but it is. He's basically saying he won't send his kids into the same education environment as other Chicagoans because it's inferior. Security could be dealt with appropriately, that's a weasel excuse.

We're rural. Our local school isn't the best (or the worst). My kids attend BUT they also get supplemental educational activities from me to enhance their education: family trips to museums, the arts, abroad, concerts and more. Rahm Emanuel's children could take the same route, especially as the Mayor has special opportunities to enrich his children's lives so much more than the rest of us.

It's bullshit and sends a terrible message that Rahm Emanuel won't even TRY his kids there first. In light of his heinous education deform measures, it's telling how much he's avoiding exposing his own kids to his own medicine.

The reporter was right to ask.

[MADem]

54. Ted Kennedy didn't. Barack Obama didn't. Bill Clinton didn't.

John Kerry didn't.

No one who makes important money, who is wealthy, who is in the public eye, who could potentially be a target of criminals or blackmailers or kidnappers or general crazies, is going to risk their child's safety in a public school in a city environment. If they added extra police to patrol the public school because the child is a potential target, the public would scream about that, too, because it would be an extra expenditure of taxpayer money. The very presence of the child in the school makes the school a more dangerous place for all the children attending, because the school becomes a target for people who have a beef with the Mayor.

If the Mayor wants to spend the money to send his kids to a private school, where they will be shielded from prying eyes, protected from people who want to exploit them or do them harm, AND pay for it HIMSELF, without involving the taxpayer, that is HIS business and no one else's.

He was elected to be Mayor of the city, not to be an "example" like the Queen of England, and not to pretend that his kids are "the same" as anonymous children attending public schools--because they aren't. They are "The Mayor's Kids" and as such, are targets of curiosity, of scrutiny, and of people who might wish them ill. They didn't ask for that attention. The Mayor, as a parent, is right to protect his kids--they were not on the ballot and they deserve privacy, as they are private citizens.

The reporter can ask till the cows come home; Rahm's refusal to respond was appropriate, even if some didn't like his tone.

Kids are OFF LIMITS. If you can't prove a point without picking on a minor child, you have lost the argument before you've even started.

[dameocrat67]

71. well Carter did send each and everyone of his children to public schools

as for the others, if the knowlege of them not going to public schools is so threatening why did they share this with you per say?

[MADem]

84. The only one who went to crappy DC schools was Amy, and she suffered for it.

She was hounded, her life was miserable, her classmates were scrutinized, her teachers made uncomfortable, it was an absolute mess.

I don't understand what you're saying in your sentence in the message portion of your post.

[dameocrat67]

93. They are crappy largely because of crappy elite politicians who

underfund them because they can go to private school and the peasants kids arent as friggin important as there own.

[MADem]

96. The President of the United States is not the National Superintendent of Schools

Local governments are the ones that do the allocating of funds.

And it's not JUST politicians--it's anyone who makes good money. Do you think Sidwell makes most of their money from the children of politicians? Of course not. And they are a DC school!

Everyone insists that they want better schools, but no one wants their taxes to go up. That's why people run like hell to shitty states like Florida and Texas and NH, where there are no state income taxes. The burden then falls on the property owners to fund those crappy schools, and the reason they are so crappy is because the Republicans running those states don't want to totally rape the property owners with their tax bills, so they don't get enough MONEY to run the schools with those property tax remittances.

You want quality schools? We need to institute a "school tax," then, and make it on INCOME, not property. Why should renters catch a break, when that spinster in the home she bought forty years ago, with no children, has to take the brunt of the load? So get out your checkbook and get ready to kick in your share. And it needs to be a thousand bucks a person just for the schools, on top of any income or property taxes, at least, and much more if you actually have children in the schools....how's that?

Starting to sound like a plan??? Ready to write that "school tax" check?

Yeah, that'll go over like a lead balloon.

Everyone wants more. No one wants to pay more.

[unkachuck]

47. "...I’m making this decision as a father."

....are you making this decision as a 'rich' Chicago father or as an average, typical Chicago father? Is being a 'rich' Chicago father better for your childs' education than being a typical Chicago father? Does the child of a typical Chicago father suffer an educational penalty that a 'rich' Chicago fathers' child doesn't?

....rahmbone, with all your pro-corporate groveling and ass-sucking, with all your anti-Union/Union-busting tactics, and now with this 'Chicago schools are okay for your child but not for mine' attitude, you're going to become a one-term mayor....

....I can't imagine the honorable Carol Moseley Braun displaying such attitudes and tactics, can you?

[yurbud]

59. Rahm is a fucking crybaby who hates being called on his corruption and hyprocrisy.

for such a ''tough'' guy, he bailed on a question that was only 5% harder than Katie Couric asking Sarah Palin what newspapers she reads.

If you're in the middle of eviscerating public schools, you better fucking expect that question and have an answer ready, or you're going to be tearing off a lot of microphones and storming out of a lot of interviews.

[Marr]

81. Whatever-- politicians know they can blow up over questions like that

and be lionized for it, and so he did so in order to avoid answering a relevant question.

[Autumn]

98. That's one hell of a campaign snippet

"I don’t care about you.” I am going to laugh my ass off when that one plays. That's just too stupid to be real.

[Scottybeamer70]

103. "I don't care about you."..............

That pretty much says it all. How dare someone question his highness!!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

104. The fact that some people even here on DU seems to think his kids are a valid target

to use to attack him pretty much says all I need to know about them(and none of it good).

And I pretty much would agree with him if I had had a kid, I care greatly for my family(parents and siblings), i don't tend to care one iota about reporters(of the few I've spoken to), with a kid that protectiveness woulda been magnified i think

[MADem]

117. I'm astounded, myself. I always thought those who tended towards the liberal end of the

spectrum believed that innocent children shouldn't be used as pawns or targets. We're in "Rush Limbaugh/Chelsea Clinton jokes" territory when that kind of shit takes place.

Also, it's not like the reporter asked him one question and let it go. She "pressed" him, and he'd had enough. How many times does anyone have to say that kids are off-limits? Then, when she called him to claim that she felt "bullied" (because he left the interview) and repeated her line of inquiry, that's when he blew up.

The guy IS famous for his temper, and he should have just said "You can talk to my staff from here on out" and quietly hung up, but I can't help but think that the reporter got "a" story, and it was one she trolled for, after she got shut out of that interview. Gotcha journalism at it's most obvious. At least she had something to turn in to her Disney-ABC bosses.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[and-justice-for-all]

113. That is a irrelevant question and I would be pissed too..nt