Rahm: I never believed in bipartisanship

[kpete]

Source: The Plum Line

Posted at 1:02 PM ET, 11/16/2010
Rahm: I never believed in bipartisanship
By Greg Sargent

Is the left's enduring caricature of Rahm Emanuel -- as the primary advocate for the White House's futile and self-damaging quest for bipartisanship -- all wrong?

In a new book, Rahm claims he privately argued to Obama that he shouldn't pursue bipartisan support for health reform, because it would take too much time, instead insisting that the lesson of Clinton's failure to pass reform was that it was imperative to put a premium on getting it done quickly. That cuts strongly against the image of Rahm as the chief internal advocate of the White House's strategy of deal-making and accommodation with Republicans.

Rahm makes the claim in interviews with journalist Richard Wolffe, in his new book, "Revival: The Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House," which was released today. From page 102:

*****Unlike his boss, Emanuel wasn't interested in looking reasonable with Republicans; he wanted to look victorious. He didn't care much for uniting red and blue America; he wanted blue America to beat its red rival...

*****Obama was prepared to sacrifice time and political capital to make his policy bipartisan and more ambitious; Emanuel believed Obama did not have that luxury. "Time is your commodity. That answers everything," Emanuel said. "But a lot of us thought we didn't have the amount of time that was being dedicated. If you abandon the bipartisan talks you get blamed. He still wanted to try to achieve it that way. But that's one of a series of things you can look back on and be a genius about.




Read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/rahm_i_never_believed_in_bipar.html

[Mimosa]

1. Uh oh... if true, I've been wrong...

And i'm more scared than before.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. Me too. And I share your fear. God helps us all. eom

[RainDog]

2. so now he's saying Obama was an F-ing youknowwhat?

or does he just want to get elected in Chicago?

[polichick]

3. I don't recall people thinking Rahm was into bipartisanship...

That always seemed like Obama's gig. My own complains about Rahm were about his pro-DLC/pro-corporate/anti-liberal attitude.

Glad bits and pieces of this book are getting out - fun stuff!

[KittyWampus]

9. LOL! Trying to redefine "DLC" to not mean bipartian capitulation to Republicans!

Good try though.

[polichick]

11. Bipartisanship is not what I think of when I hear "DLC" - I think corporate...

Good try though.

[mazzarro]

51. You Are Wrong Then

Because being pro-corporate also entails working in cooperation with corporate natural allies - the teabuplicans to push through corporate agenda! Which in turn means being bipartisan to the nth-degree.

[polichick]

54. Oh, you really showed me! lol - I don't think of bipartisanship when I hear "DLC"...

...because that's not the motivation or the goal.

I'd say "You're wrong" but that would sound as stupid as you just did.

[glitch]

88. Ayup. Republican is a Republican by any other name.

For Rahm bipartisan would mean a willingness to work with progressive democrats. Of course he's not interested.

[zipplewrath]

21. Rahm wasn't bipartisanship

He was triangulation. He was the guy that wanted to negotiate with Big Pharma and the Hospitals to try to take them out of the equation. He wanted to avoid money going to the GOP over HCR. He was the guy that wanted to back the Blue Dogs over the progressives.

Obama was the guy that thought that could be achieved by negotiating and capitulating to the GOP. Rahm was the guy that figured out that giving up the PO would get the hospitals on board. Obama was the guy that "bought" that deal because he thought it would get the blue dogs and conservatives on board. Rahm was the guy that negotiated it.

[Recursion]

28. "The DLC" is Al From and the Clintons

The New Democrat Coalition is largely along those lines; I think Kerry is running the caucus now.

[Dr Fate]

31. And Joe Lieberman. Al From even ran Joe's campaign against a Democrat. n/t

n/t

[Recursion]

32. Right, but on DU "DLC" has become a codeword for many things

Some of which seem to contradict the others.

The New Democrat Coalition is just your basic "third way" movement that thinks we won't keep a majority in Congress or win the white house if we run candidates that are too liberal.

It's fine to disagree with that, but then that gets mixed up with the idea of "corporatism", which I'm still somewhat unclear about what it means, and "blue dogs" (a completely different caucus) get thrown in too.

[polichick]

33. Actually, the DLC, Third Way and Blue Dogs all place an emphasis on...

Dems working well with corporate entities - that's why they get thrown together.

[Dr Fate]

36. Blue Dogs, DLCers, "New Democrats"- whatever they are calling themselves this week.

Throw in Lieberman's "Independent Democrat" faction for good measure. They seem to call the shots, and the shots they have called have been wrong.

Any failure on the left to identify "far center" (LOL!) Democrats by their proper centrist group affiliation is the least of our concerns.

You dont understand how opposing Liberal economic policies gets mixed up with the idea of advancing "corporatism?" Really?


I do agree with you that it is fine to disagree with people who have been wrong on every single major issue of the day.

Yes- it is fine to disagree with the people who were and are wrong on the war(s), wrong as to supporting certain Bush economic polices, wrong on general, long-term winning strategy, soon to be wrong on tax cuts, etc, etc, etc.

Let's remember that moderate & independent voters also felt it was "fine to disagree" with these strategic geniuses.

[Recursion]

39. Just factually Blue Dogs and New Democrats are two different groups

There is only one person in both caucuses in the House, Jane Harman.

[Dr Fate]

40. Right- just like Liberals and Lefties are two different groups. n/t

n/t

[Recursion]

45. I don't even see how you can be arguing this. It's two different groups of people

There's the Blue Dog Coalition, member list here:
http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html

And there's the New Democrat Coalition, member list here:
http://ndc.crowley.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=54

OK, looks like it's Harman and two back-benchers I don't know, but just as a point of fact these are different groups of people.

[Dr Fate]

47. New Democrats, DLCers, Blue Dogs, Lieberman's Independent Democrats, Reagan Democrats, Centrists....

Like I said, learning which centrists are in which centrist clubhouse is the least of my worries.

I'm sure there are lots of subtleties b/t New Democrats, DLCers, Blue Dogs, Lieberman's Independent Democrats, Reagan Democrats, Centrists, far-centrists (LOL!) Moderates, Conservative Democrats, whatever they are calling themselves this week.

Lots and lots of subtle differences for you to parse out there. Have fun.

[Recursion]

52. But you say "whatever they are calling themselves this week"

Again, as if these were the same groups of people rather than two different groups with different priorities (which your attempt to pretend these are all the same people doesn't change).

[No Elephants]

65. Ever hear the expression, "A distinction without a difference?"

Regardless of their formal affiliations (if any), or their alleged goals or motives DLC, Third Way, New Democrats, etc. all end up acting more like each other than they do like classic Democrats (populist), or liberals or socialists. There was a time, for example, when EFCA would never have languished in a Congress with a Dem majority under a Dem President. (Conversely, there was a time when no self-respecting union member would have voted Repubicon. Not surprisingly, that has changed.)

[Dr Fate]

80. Thank you for crystalizing my thoughts. n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

79. Right- just like Liberals and Lefties are two diff groups with different priorities.

Yes- whatever "they" (Centrists)are calling themselves, and whatever club "they" are listed as members of- "they" still get it wrong.

The Far Center is seems to be shoveling the same shit at us, no matter which centrist from which centrist club is holding the shovel.

[guruoo]

82. Perhaps this is the definition that would best apply here:

Liberal corporatism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberal corporatism refers to the application of economic corporatism by liberal political parties and organizations, that recognizes the bargaining interests of multiple groups within society, such as in the business, labour, and agricultural sectors and licenses them to engage in bargaining over economic policy with the state.<1> Liberal corporatism is often in conflict from proponents of liberal pluralism that opposes the granting of power to organized interest groups.<2> English liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill supported corporatist-like economic associations as needing to predominate in society to create equality for labourers and give them a voice in management through democratic economic rights.<3> Unlike a number of other forms of corporatism, liberal corporatism unlike a number of other corporatists, does not reject capitalism or individualism, but believes that the capitalist firm is a social institution that requires its managers to go beyond achieving the bottom line, by recognizing the needs of their members.<4> This liberal corporatist ethic was similar to Taylorism but called for democratization of the capitalism firm.<5> Liberal corporatists believed that inclusion of all members in the election of management would bring them into the process of management and in effect "reconcile ethics and efficiency, freedom and order, liberty and rationality".<6>

Liberal corporatism was an influential component of the Progressivism in the United States that has been referred to as "interest group liberalism".<7> The support by labour leaders' advocacy of liberal corporatism of the U.S. progressives is believed to have been influenced by an attraction to the syndicalism and particularly the anarcho-syndicalism at the time in Europe.<8> In the United States, economic corporatism involving capital-labour cooperation was influential in the New Deal economic program of the United States in the 1930s as well as in Fordism and Keynesianism.<9> Liberal corporatism is commonly supported by proponents in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.<10>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_corporatism

[Dr Fate]

92. I get it - I was mixing up the terms Corporatocracy & corporatism.

I'm not sure how splitting hairs over semantics and academic terms is going to get us back in power, but thanks for the correction...

[saigon68]

89. The Disease of Joementum Limpmann is alive and Well

[No Elephants]

61. From, Marshall, Hillary, Bubba and 41 others......

"Founding and early history
The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 in the wake of incumbent President Ronald Reagan's defeat of Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election. Other founders include Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri).<4>

The model on which the Democratic Leadership Council was built was the Coalition for a Democratic Majority. Founded by "Scoop" Jackson Democrats in response to George McGovern's massive loss to Richard Nixon in 1972, the CDM was dismayed by two presidential election losses and the organization's goal was to steer the party away from the New Left influence that had permeated the Democratic party since the late 1960s and back to the policies that made the FDR coalition electorally successful for close to 40 years. Although Senator Jackson declined to endorse the organization, believing the timing was "inappropriate", future DLC founders and early members were involved like Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Charles S. Robb.

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.<5> The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."<6>

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal of reclaiming the Democratic Party from the left's influence prevalent since the late 1960s. Their original focus was to secure the 1988 presidential nomination of a southern conservative Democrat such as Nunn or Robb. After the success of Jesse Jackson, a vocal critic of the DLC, in winning a number of southern states in 1988's "Super Tuesday" primary, the group began to shift its focus towards influencing public debate. In 1989, Marshall founded the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank which has since turned out policy blueprints for the DLC. Its most extensive series of papers is the series of New Economy Policy Reports."

<snip>


Chairs
Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri (1985 - 1986)
Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia (1986 - 1988)
Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia (1988 - 1990)
Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas (1990 - 1991)
Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana (1991 - 1993)
Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma (1993 - 1995)
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (1995 - 2001)
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana (2001 - 2005)
Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa (2005 - 2007)
Former Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee (2007 - present)
(Titles listed are those held at time of assuming chair.)




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

And now, DNC and DLC are almost interchangeable terms.

I recommend the entire article. Good reading.

[Dr Fate]

81. Zell Miller is also a DLCer. They have a history of turn coats and traitors.

Zell spoke at the GOP convention on behalf of BUsh in 2004- and Joe Lieberman and Al From ran a campaign against legit, capital "D" Democrat. Lieberman, former DLC chairman then went on to CAMPAIGN FOR SARAH PALIN.

LOL! And I'm supposed to sit here at DU and listen to "centrists" lecture me about a damn thing?

While the voices of the "far center" (LOL) scream "Stop being disloyal to Democrats"-It is important to remind Liberal Democrats about how TRULY disloyal centrist movements have been.

[mazzarro]

49. Exactly - my friend!

When did DLC not mean bipartisanship? The corporate arm of the Democratic party - DLC - has always sort to appease the natural allies of big business - the teapublicans - all the time. And to claim that he has never been for bipartisanship is absolute nonsense. Can he explain all the DINOs he recruited to run as democrats too?

[mistertrickster]

95. EXACTLY RIGHT! Rahm wasn't too conciliatory . . . he was too dogged about bad shit. nt

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[sufrommich]

10. Yep. nt

[kenfrequed]

14. Uhm yeah

And I have no idea why any potential candidate for Mayor of Chicago wouldn't want to respin events to suit his purposes and try to deflect (honest) blame from progressive activists that might seek to quash his attempts to get the Democratic endorsement for that office.

All I can think of is Rahm throwing a fit with Howard Dean and trying to get the credit for the 50 state strategy.

[Dr Fate]

37. Everything they said about his losing strategies turned out to be so "erroneous and cartoon like."

n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Rahm is the blue Dog Democrats love to hate...

Because they believe that Democrats are RBAN. The idea that Obama was the person pushing bipartisanship at all costs was too much to accept in those long forgotten days of health care reform.

People are always willing to say, "Oh if Obama/Bush/Name that President quite listening to his low life, too liberal/hyperconservative/Blue Dog/Rino/Dino" we would have the liberal/conservative polices we deserve.

I find it interesting that things are more complex than they seem.

[No Elephants]

77. Not really all that complex,,,,,,

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. That's not my problem with Rahm

My problem with him is that he sucks corporate dick., :shrug:

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. Rahm then asked...

"Is it bi-partisanship if the GOP is equally in bed with corporate interests"?

[No Elephants]

66. Menage a trois does usually involve at least a bit o' bi. ( I've heard.)

*blush*

[sufrommich]

8. Sounds like Obama should have listened to Rahm.

I always thought Rahm seemed like the type who enjoyed the bloodsport of politics a little too much to council bipartisanship.

[No Elephants]

63. He did. We got the worst of both worlds (assuming the poster was right

about divergence between Rahm and Obama)>

As I see it, the industries were ready with their bill or bills. Then Obama started making deals with PHRMA, hospitals and insurers. Then the Republicons got their hands on the hot mess. And then, they passed it, wait for it, via reconiliation.


(Btw, if Rahm said time was the enemy, he was so right.)

[Dr Fate]

12. Rahm: I never believed in bipartisanship...between Liberals and Centrists.

Sue me if I dont beleive a single freaking word he says.

It's almost like the "Not Me" ghost from those corny Family Circus comics is running around every where.

I'll bet he's just trying to get Liberal support for his political "future."

Does not really matter one way or the other- Obama either failed to listen to the person he hired, or he hired the wrong person. We got the same results either way.

[polichick]

13. Yeah, why join up with those "retarded" lefties! I'm sure he's campaigning too. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

18. VERY well said...

He is doing a little CYA for his future in politics, I guess.

[fascisthunter]

25. Rahm doesn't have a good track record, so I won't be Believing Him

[Dr Fate]

30. Good choice. Judge them by the results, not by what they now say. n/t

[No Elephants]

76. You nailed it!

[Mimosa]

16. OMG, could Rahm be trying to make Obama sound like a naive wimp?

He wouldn't do that to Barack, would he?

[Deep13]

53. I rather think Obama has managed that on his own. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

17. The who the hell was Obama taking advice from????????????

[polichick]

19. imo Obama really believes in bipartisanship - there's a thread out there now about...

...how he's going to redouble his efforts in that regard.

[BrklynLiberal]

24. -puke- ad infinitum

[polichick]

27. I know - Rahm is a corporate hack but Obama owns the bipartisanshit. nt

[Poll_Blind]

20. If not Rahm, my second choice (and what gives me greater fear)...

The Evil Clown from Poltergeist. Actually, wait, I've never seen the two in the same room so that could also be Rahm.

PB

[No Elephants]

71. Check his fingers!!!!!

[Botany]

22. So says they man running for mayor in Democratic Chicago

:grr:

[tularetom]

23. That's bullshit - he didn't want Dems to COMPROMISE with republicans

He wanted Dems to BE republicans.

He wanted Democrats to adopt Republican policies and then take credit for it.

Maybe he doesn't call that bipartisan. I call it self serving revisionist crap.

[girl gone mad]

26. Precisely.

[yourout]

29. And that is why he never gave the left anything.

[BlueMTexpat]

34. Sorry, Rahm, when you put the kibosh on Howard Dean for HHS

Secretary, you showed your true colors. And you did do exactly that.

Don't even bother to try to rewrite history now.

[Recursion]

55. Howard Dean, the moderate governor...

...who did more than anyone else to elect blue dogs to office?

Sometimes the DU narrative gets hard to sit through.

[polichick]

58. You need to study which candidates Rahm recruited and which Dean recruited. nt

[Recursion]

59. I'm pretty familiar with Dean's picks

He backed conservative Democrats to run in conservative districts. Hell, his poster boy was Jim Webb.

And for that matter, he didn't do much picking; he gave state party committees the resources to do it.

[polichick]

68. Webb's a liberal angel compared with the wonderful guys Rahm dug up...

Check out Tim Mahoney, the ex-Republican Rahm recruited - he turned out swell. And Heath Shuler, of the C-Street Family - he's a real gem too.

That's just two of them.

Dean had the right idea - build the party all around the country and let the locals draft candidates.

Rahm was all about wheeling and dealing for a quick majority - and according to some Congresspeople (Waters was one, I think), Rahm promised his recruits that they could vote however they wanted instead of working with the other Dems.

[No Elephants]

67. How is your post responsive to Reply 34?

[Dr Fate]

94. It is arguably off topic per DU's new rules. n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

93. You make such a strong argument in favor of Rahm's "far-center" tactics.

Or at least I bet you could. Just not here in this thread.

Maybe people trust Dean more than Rahm b/c we know it was NOT Dean who was going around calling people who wanted the PO "F$^%&*%*^ retards." It was just one tiny clue that maybe Rahm was not on our side. Meanwhile, Dean encouraged putting preassure on anti-PO DEMS.

It was not Dean who came up with the bright idea of mandates as an replacement for the PO- again, that was the cons-errr, I mean "far-center" (LOL!) wing of the party.

[obxhead]

35. It is true. Rahm was in full support of the GOP

agenda. He really didn't want to work with the Dems. ;)

[Angry Dragon]

38. I just want to know who is in charge at the White House

[Dr Fate]

41. The Far Center. (LOL) n/t

n/t

[nyy1998]

42. I know this article is just to make me buy his book, but you know what, it worked,

Just added it to my Amazon Wish list.

[Dr Fate]

44. I would wait for it to show up in the cut out bin, or Good Will. It wont be a very long wait. n/t

n/t

[No Elephants]

74. Please consider borrowing it from the library instead.

[davidwparker]

43. Yep. If true, I was wrong as well. In all things, the buck

stops with Obama. If true, the blame goes to Obama in double time.

No executive skills and naive. Primary.

[Dr Fate]

46. Exactly- Rahm has nothing to lose by lying about this.

And it does not make Obama look good whether it is the truth or not.

I guess Rahm has now joined the ranks of the "Obama Bashers" one way or another.

[lonestarnot]

48. Doesn't he in fact have something to gain there in Chicaga?

[Dr Fate]

50. We agree- nothing to lose, possibly something to gain. n/t

n/t

[bvar22]

56. For Rahm, "Bi-Partisan" would be working with traditional Democrats....

...instead of his economic allies, The Republicans.

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."
---Paul Wellstone

[jwirr]

57. Actually I believe him. The real problem with Rahm was that he was

DLC and wanted to ride the center rail instead of listen to a more liberal populace. Polls showed clearly that the American people wanted a national Medicare-like health program. He did not want to option or the Medicare alternative. The DLC thought they knew better than the American people. So be it.

[herbm]

60. I've never believed in Rahm Emanuel. Chicago is a good place for him.

[Blue_Tires]

62. I'm having a difficult time believing this

If Emanuel was such a crush-the-GOP hardliner, his words and actions would have proven it; and he'd have a history of work (and a reputation) backing him up...This is from the person who had more venom for his own party's base rather than the GOP.

I know he was good at his job, but now he's trying to craft himself into someone he never was after the fact.

[bc3000]

70. I concur.

[No Elephants]

75. Cut him some slack. How else would the President's Chief of Staff run as an outsider?

Reminds me of Dummya's saying recently of the decision to invade Iraq; I was one of the dissenting voices..."

[LiberalLovinLug]

64. So we got the worst possible partnership

If there are three parties that the White House had a choice to potentially appease:

1. Republican colleagues (to gain political capital)
2. Big Corporate donor interests (to gain..uh...capital)
3. Democratic base (to gain respect ie.votes)

Sounds like Obama was all about #1, and Rahm was all about #2

No one to fight for #3 :shrug:

[polichick]

72. Maybe that's Biden's job. :)

[No Elephants]

78. Hence, Senator Brown and the midterms?

[madrchsod]

69. oh bullshit....

[bemildred]

73. Liars lie.

With political hacks it's a necessary job skill.

[harun]

83. He was bi-partisan with Corporate interests, not the Repukes.

[onehandle]

84. I knew he didn't want that bullshit. That's why I was thrilled when Obama tapped him.

Obama was too nice and needed an attack dog.

Somebody muzzled him and advised Obama poorly.

[unkachuck]

85. hey rahmbone....

"...Rahm claims he privately argued to Obama that he shouldn't pursue bipartisan support for health reform..."

....Why this, why now? Am I detecting a hint of desperation?....good, you're gonna lose, you're gonna lose big!

[Skittles]

86. certainly not with the left

:(

[underpants]

87. That is pretty evident that you did what was right....and made it happen

[xchrom]

90. While it may be true -- I've shaken out a few grains of salt

Into my hand considering the source.

[The Uncola]

91. Why would ANYONE believe a word...

.. that freakin' worm says? I hope that little bastard loses his election bid and gets sent off the political Siberia, where he belongs. Asshole.

[ProudDad]

96. WTF -- head exploding!!!

:nuke: