Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull politician

[wyldwolf]

He's a killler strategist and nonstop fundraiser, with a style one ally likens to a "toothache." Meet the Chicago Congressman who's one of the big reasons the Democrats have a shot to retake the house.

On a wretchedly hot August day outside the Caterpillar tractor plant in Montgomery, Ill., President Bush and the state's congressional delegation gather for the signing of the massive transportation bill. This is 2005, the calm before the Katrina storm, and a rigorous mountain-biking schedule has the President in top shape.

In off-camera chitchat with the shirt-sleeved lawmakers, Bush takes note of Democratic Congressman Rahm Emanuel's deep tan, prompting the 46-year-old Emanuel to boast about the miles of swimming and biking in his triathlon training schedule. Testosterone oozes into the humid air space between the two men. Bush invites Emanuel down to Texas to do some real biking. "So I said, 'I'll make you a deal, Mr. President. I'll bike if you swim.' Now he didn't exactly say swimming was a wussy sport, but you could tell.... So I said, 'Mr. President, Laura can put your water wings next to the lake. You can have your water wings.' "



At that point you might think this graduate of the Evanston School of Ballet-a man whose office features sunset photos and who has the mellow chords of David Gray playing on his iPod-would leave well enough alone. But Emanuel is hard-wired to go for the jugular: Politics Chicago-style are part of his DNA. So he sharpens his drill bit on the leader of the free world. "I said to him, 'You're not one of those tribathletes, are you, Mr. President? You know-steam, sauna, shower?'

"And Bush goes, 'That's g-o-o-d.' "

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/17/magazines/fortune/politics.fortune/?postversion=2006091806

[acmejack]

1. The Prima Donnas Endangering a Democratic Victory in 2006

Last week, in response to an awful article in Roll Call newspaper, I posted an open letter to Nancy Pelosi asking her to tell her fellow House Democrats to stop running to reporters bragging about how they are shaking down Big Money interests for cash. As I said in the letter, such behavior insults the intelligence of voters, since it is happening at the very same time Democrats are hammering the GOP for its "culture of corruption." Two Republican Congressmen have been sent to jail on corruption charges, a U.S. Senator running in a tight race for reelection is under federal investigation, Democrats are correctly making the "clean up Washington" message part of their pitch - yet some self-important, its-all-about-me lawmakers nonetheless are only too eager to tell any Beltway reporter they can corner about how they are vacuuming in cash from special interests.

Sadly, if you read Newsweek this week, you'll see that my letter was ignored. In a giant piece, the magazine transcribes Rep. Rahm Emanuel's diarrhea of the mouth, where he gushes about how great he's been at leveraging the prospect of him as a chief lawmaker on a powerful committee to rake in cash from special interests. Here's just one of the key excerpts:

"As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Emanuel teamed with Senate campaign chair Chuck Schumer to tap uncharted donor fields in the financial industry. 'We're working outside of traditional banks,' he says proudly, 'into the private-equity world, the hedge-fund world, the distressed-debt world.' These 'worlds' know they are talking to a guy who not only runs the campaign committee, but who could be in the majority of the key financial committee—and maybe even majority leader."

Not surprisingly, Newsweek drinks up the Rahm-is-such-a-tough-guy act, never bothering to question whether his self-aggrandizing poses any dangers to Democratic candidates across the country who are trying to make corruption and the GOP's pay-to-play behavior a key election issue. But the question remains: why are there Democrats in key campaign positions who are willing to jeopardize their party's message by bragging to reporters about Democratic Party corruption? Why are there no consequences for Democrats like Emanuel when he runs to his good buddy Howard Fineman and screams at the top of his lungs about how great a corporate shakedown artist he is?

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0917-31.htm

[wyldwolf]

2. but as usual, David Sirota gets it wrong

David Sirota (is) exercised about a passage in Newsweek, which (he) says makes the Democrats look corrupt. The passage quotes Rahm Emmanual about his efforts to raise funds from financial professionals in heretofore untapped industries, such as hedge funds and private equity funds. The passage reads as follows:

As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Emanuel teamed with Senate campaign chair Chuck Schumer to tap uncharted donor fields in the financial industry. "We're working outside of traditional banks,' he says proudly, 'into the private-equity world, the hedge-fund world, the distressed-debt world." These 'worlds' know they are talking to a guy who not only runs the campaign committee, but who could be in the majority of the key financial committee--and maybe even majority leader.

From this passage, Sirota draws the conclusion that Emmanual is:

gushing about how great he's been at leveraging the prospect of him as a chief lawmaker on a powerful committee to rake in cash from special interests.

And that Emmanual is:

bragging to reporters about Democratic Party corruption

unfortunately, (he) lacks basic reading comprehension skills. If you read the passage again, you'll see that all Emmanual actually says is the following:

"We're working outside of traditional banks,' he says proudly, 'into the private-equity world, the hedge-fund world, the distressed-debt world."

That's it. The additional language about Emanual being on key financial committess comes entirely from the Newsweek reporter, who, in typical MSM media fashion, is offering his negative take on Emmanual's comment, and is trying to imply, without any evidence whatsoever, that Emanuel is engaged in some kind of implicit shakedown.

Rahm is doing exactly what we want a Democratic House leader to do. He is reaching out to people of means in a relatively new industry -- hedge funds and private equity funds -- and soliciting donations. Many of these people are highly progressive and hostile to the Iraq war and the Bush administration's incompetant reign of error. To bash Rahm because a MSM media twerp wants to put a negative spin on Emanual's comment, and to accuse him of bragging about bribing these people -- when such an accusation is patently false -- is not only morally wrong but also extremely counterproductive, considering we're within 60 days of the election.

Sirota, who failed to even link to the correct Newsweek article, should be a little more careful next time before shooting from the hip at elected Democrats.

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/9/17/173620/020

[SaveElmer]

26. Sirota is nothing but a professional Democrat basher...

It's his bread and butter...what keeps him in business.

He consistently gets it wrong. He is the left's version of Dick Morris if you ask me. Take what he says and assume the opposite is the truth!

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

85. Yes it is. I'll explain the difference to you

SaveElmer isn't a public figure who devotes his life to trashing the people who wouldn't give him a job.

[jackbourassa]

118. Rahm should spend more time promoting others...

...and less time promoting himself.

[wyldwolf]

126. how has he promoted himself?

[SaveElmer]

86. Well I guess I did have one thing in common with Benchley...

Neither one of us makes our living bashing Democrats...unlike Mr. Sirota!

[KoKo]

21. So Rahm's PR Agent gets an article in Newsweek and in Fortune...all

praising his abilities. That's interesting, isn't it...given how much the DLC Dems enjoy flexing their muscles against the Grassroots Activists who support Howard Dean.

If Rahm is such a great fundraiser then why did he need to go begging to Howard Dean.

Is he campaigning to replace Nancy Pelosi after the election? Who is trying to "buy" him that both Newsweek and Fortune run back to back articles portraying him as a whizz kid with incredible fund raising ability from a hardworking family who lived in Israel for awhile and has deep roots in labor and Chicago style politics?

Agree with your view. This makes us look as bad as the Repugs. Emmanuel helped push NAFTA through. That's all I need to know about where he would lead the Dem Party if he gets his claws into a Leadership position by shaking down Dean and Hedge Funds for money.

[KoKo]

22. Emmanuel made 18 Million in two years in the "Private Sector." Hmmmmm

From the article:


Emanuel has rejuvenated the hopes of House Democrats in no small part by applying the money-raising acumen he used when Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign nearly sank under the weight of Gennifer Flowers' accusations. With a penchant for networking and making deals-honed during a stint at Wasserstein Perella (which netted him more than $18 million in just over two years)-Emanuel has put the party's House campaign coffers on a par with the Republicans' for the first time in years.

[wyldwolf]

24. uh... so?

Most fortunes are made in the private sector.

[SaveElmer]

27. Better than making 18 million in the public sector...eh?

You have something against success?

[OzarkDem]

44. Its kind of the same thing as making it in the public sector

GOP does it all the time - they consider it "payment in advance of services rendered".

[SaveElmer]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever...

That Rahm made his money in an unethical or illegal manner? Any at all?

[wyldwolf]

61. of course he doesn't.

As we can see from this thread, Ozarkdem likes to fill flesh out the details with his version of "truthiness."

[Moochy]

82. Whats the opposite of a circular firing squad?

[Moochy]

129. Answer: A DLC hug circle

:grouphug:
arent we great? yeah we are. Thanks! I thought so, me too!

[wyldwolf]

29. So KoKo01 has a problem with someone making money... hmmmm

[KoKo]

31. One might say making 18 mil in two years is a little extravagant!

:D If he was a Repug...one might find it very questionable as to HOW....

[wyldwolf]

32. ...or not.

[Moochy]

131. 36 million ... now THAT would have been too much.

but what's 9 million a year between friends? Heck I've got that much in loose change in my couch.

PS I'm Warren Buffet.

[Greyhound]

97. Blasphemer! How dare you question the ethics of such a prominent

DINO! I'm certain this couldn't have anything to do with his unwavering support for destroying the middle-class. Being a corporate whore pays much better than advocating "little people". :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

98. thats right! If you're a Democrat with money, you must be...

... a corporate whore! Just ask Ted Kennedy and John Kerry!

[Greyhound]

100. Of course anybody can go and "work hard" & get $18 million.

I'm sure thats all on the up and up.

I'm sure your blind faith is greatly appreciated. :think:

BTW any idea what Rahm's net worth was before he got into office?

[wyldwolf]

102. yes, they can, with the right skills. Of course, it helps to be a Kennedy

...or even a Dean.

Right place. Right time. Right skills. Thankfully we live in the land of opportunity.

[Greyhound]

104. and the ridiculous evasions continue...

Kennedy's made their fortune as smugglers (nothing like a good prohibition to create an empire, eh?), Dean was rich before politics too (Dean Witter Reynolds).

and before getting to the trough Rahm was worth how much?

We live in the land of corruption, always has been.

[wyldwolf]

106. If by "evasion" you mean I just won't agree with you, then yes

In post 100, you said, "Of course anybody can go and "work hard" & get $18 million. I'm sure thats all on the up and up."

Your caveat then was not "before" or during politics.

So I guess Dean didn't get rich on the up and up. Obviously Kennedy didn't. George Soros? Nope!

[Greyhound]

108. and Rahm was worth how much before getting to the trough?

As I previously pointed out, both Kennedy & Dean were very rich before getting into politics.

Funny how a poor boy from Chicago (a city well-known for it's upstanding and impeccably honest politics) with no connections, no resources, and a pedestrian degree from NW, gets involved with the now infamous Ryan machine Mk II (6 1/2 years), can make $18 million in two years. No, not suspicious at all.

Interested in buying some beach-front property I'm selling in AZ, I'm telling you, this land is going to just take off any day now?

and Rahm was worth how much before getting to the trough?

and Rahm was worth how much before getting to the trough?

and Rahm was worth how much before getting to the trough?

[wyldwolf]

109. repeating the question over and over won't get you the answer you want

Making money after entering politics does not equal corruption - and you can't prove the implication.

Making money after entering politics does not equal corruption - and you can't prove the implication.

Making money after entering politics does not equal corruption - and you can't prove the implication.

Making money after entering politics does not equal corruption - and you can't prove the implication.

[Greyhound]

110. Apparently it won't get any answer at all.

Face it, he's bent. He isn't alone, quite the contrary in fact, he's found his true calling.

$18 million in two years (while in office), nope nothing suspicious here, nothing to see, move along now. That's a good sheep.

[wyldwolf]

112. unless you have specific proof, then you won't get the answer you want.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

114. will you give me tonight's winning lottery numbers?

You must have some crystal ball there! You just "know" things. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Greyhound]

115. I'm telling you that land is going up as we write, better get in fast.

:rofl:

BTW, what's up with your other buddy Lieberman, another example of the virtuous, but misunderstood, politician that you supported to the hilt. :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

119. that is a factually challenged statement

I never supported Lieberman to the hilt.

[Greyhound]

116. I've lived in Chicago as well as the northeast,

southeast, west, southwest, and west coast, and no place comes even close to the blatant corruption that is a way of life there (Chicago), from the beat cop all the way to Springfield.

Let's not forget that Ryan the first, was one of the architects of the Democratic demise of the 70's, and his son, whom Rahm served as senior advisor and chief fundraiser in 1989, followed in daddy's footsteps all the way to prison for, wait for it... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060417ryantrial,0,4525779.story?coll=chi-homepagepromo440-fea">steering state business to cronies for bribes, of gutting corruption-fighting efforts to protect political fundraising and of misusing state resources for political gain.

[The Magistrate]

117. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

Please provide some account of the political career of Ryan's son in politics, and Rep. Emmanuel's connection with it.

There are a lot of Ryans in Illinois politics, you know....

[Greyhound]

120. You are correct and in a multitasking snafu I typed Ryan here and Daley

there. The link is to the Trib's story on Daley, for whom Emanuel served as senior adviser and chief fundraiser in 1989.

Though I switched the names, the fact remains that a sitting Representative received $18 million in two years from a http://www.wasserco.com/view/overview/overview.aspx">Private equity and investment firm with $2 billion in equity and assets, and no Illinois office.

The idea that Rahm, a nobody from nowhere (a ballet dancer with a speech and communications degree, not wealthy, not connected, didn't even get into the Ivy League), could even get in the door at Wasserstein Perella without his House Seat, let alone be paid $18 million...

[wyldwolf]

121. my father-in-law, a NY City school teacher

... made over 1 mill in a year in the stock market.

You are wrong - Emanuel is well connected.

It is not far fetched to believe a well connected congressman could make a fortune quick and legal.

[Greyhound]

123. Of course not, happens every day...

just so sad...

Good luck with that.

[wyldwolf]

125. doesn't happen everyday, but it happens

say, you must have had bad luck in the money department.

[The Magistrate]

122. What Concerns You Though, Sir, Remains Quite Unclear To Me

Working for Mayor Daley hardly establishes someone is not a "good" or a "real" Democrat.

The fact is that Rep. Emmanuel is a skilled and ruthless political operative. He has been charged by the Party with directing its campaign for the House of Representatives nationwide. He is doing a pretty good job, so far as can be told in advance of the casting of ballots. Should we take the House, he may well contest Rep. Pelosi for the Speaker's post, or become the Majority Leader. He would be excellent in either post.

[Greyhound]

124. I can't agree, I have some issues with Rep. Pelosi, but she would be

several orders of magnitude better than the corporatist Emanuel. His ilk have brought this Party down and the longer they retain power within it, the less we will see done for the Citizens of our country.

We have been in a crisis for going on six years and I don't know how much more we can take. At some point it will be too late, maybe it already is.

[wyldwolf]

127. another repeat of the myth

There is no evidence the DLC brought the party down. The far left is an island unto itself in that belief.

[The Magistrate]

128. Your Problem, Sir, Seems To Be With The Democratic Party

Rep. Emmanuel is a protege of the Daleys at the local level, and of the Clintons at the national level. To say these patrons have damaged the Party, or dragged it down from a past utopian condition, is in the "if my grandma had wheels she'd be a wagon" class of observation, for taking it as true depends on taking as actuality things that are not so.

Real Democrats, and the Democratic base, are those that support the Party, and can be relied on to do so in the actual political condition of the present.

[OzarkDem]

23. What is the point of this self-promotion so close to the election

particularly when you're not in a race but you're talking trash about Dems.

Emanuel and Rahm have both been on this subversive campaign bandwagon the last couple of weeks and the benefit for Dems is not clear.

Where are they getting these talking points?

How is it they are getting more media coverage than the Dem candidates running for office?

Who is paying for all this?

Are they going to support Dem candidates or not?

I'm beginning to wonder if Emanuel and Obama are part of Rove's strategy.

[wyldwolf]

25. Not sure what you're trying to say here

[welshTerrier2]

3. before you offer Emanuel a sainthood ...

this is from this week's Newsweek ...

you've heard the allegations about certain Dems selling out to corporate America ... you've heard the allegations about big money buying themselves a legislature ... you've seen the corruption of democracy as mega-corporations are served and the best interests of "just plain folks" are pushed aside ...

here's what Newsweek had to say ... i won't endorse the comment ... i will say that it raises very serious concerns ... when big money pours into either party from commercial interests, is it ever reasonable to assume they have the best interests of the country at heart? or is it more reasonable to assume they contribute because they have THEIR INTERESTS at heart?

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14871152/site/newsweek/page/3/

As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Emanuel teamed with Senate campaign chair Chuck Schumer to tap uncharted donor fields in the financial industry. "We're working outside of traditional banks," he says proudly, "into the private-equity world, the hedge-fund world, the distressed-debt world." These "worlds" know they are talking to a guy who not only runs the campaign committee, but who could be in the majority of the key financial committee—and maybe even majority leader.

added on edit: i posted this before reading any other replies to the OP ... i saw your defense of Emanuel relative to the passage i cited ... my response is that your response appropriately delineates between what Emanuel said versus what Newsweek said ... i was aware of this distinction ... the concern, however, remains ... the essential question is: can we expect contributions from commercial ventures to come without strings attached? and are we willing to sellout the interests of American citizens to adhere to those strings? this is exactly what many of us believe is happening ...

[wyldwolf]

4. perhaps you should read it again

If you read the passage again, you'll see that all Emmanual actually says is the following:

"We're working outside of traditional banks,' he says proudly, 'into the private-equity world, the hedge-fund world, the distressed-debt world."

That's it. The additional language about Emanual being on key financial committess comes entirely from the Newsweek reporter, who, in typical MSM media fashion, is offering his negative take on Emmanual's comment, and is trying to imply, without any evidence whatsoever, that Emanuel is engaged in some kind of implicit shakedown.

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/9/17/173620/020

[welshTerrier2]

5. see my: "added on edit"

i did not need to reread the article ...

btw, that's why i said i would NOT endorse the comment ...

[wyldwolf]

6. all contributions come with strings

I don't believe contributions of any kind come without some kind of strings attached - even "grassroots" contributions where the contributors whine daily "not another dime" or "I won't donate anything to ___________ unless they do what I want them to do."

But this in no way excuses Newsweek from embellishing the article nor does it excuse Sirota from "overlooking" the embellishment as he continures his jihad against Democrats.

[madfloridian]

7. Sirota does NOT have a jihad against Democrats. Just posers.

Some people see jihads everywhere, don't they?

[wyldwolf]

8. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama - posers?

Some people see jihads everywhere, don't they?

Yep! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2832531&mesg_id=2832531

[madfloridian]

10. I call it truth, you call it seeing a jihad.

That is what our party has become for so long that the real truth unspun is not bearable....and must be attacked.

And attacked it was. I was treated like an idiot and a fool for posting a fact that the DNC outraised the other groups, which very few seemed to realize.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/282

[wyldwolf]

11. fundamentalists call it "truth."

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

83. wasn't me who called Bill Clinton and Barack Obama posers

...it was madfloridian.

[madfloridian]

92. Rahm Is the one I referred to. I have a question for you.

I think an alert must go out when I post anything at all. Am I right?

[wyldwolf]

94. Sirota has trashed Clinton and Obama - you said he only trashes posers...

...logical conclusion to be drawn?

Wait... sorry ... you said he only has a jihad against posers. Want to make sure I use your exact words.

I think an alert must go out when I post anything at all. Am I right?

I have no idea what you are referring to.

[lyonn]

9. Good food for thought, Wyldwolf.

Guess it depends who you are "owing".

[welshTerrier2]

13. strings ...

i did not post Sirota's comments because, while I often agree with his perspective of the internecine battles inside the Party, i agree with your assessment of his use of this particular comment from Newsweek ...

but i also take issue with your "even grassroots contributions" observation ...

let's not conflate the power and influence, and its resultant corruption of democracy (remember, a corporation is not a citizen), that mega-monied corrupt interests can bring to bear on the process of government with citizens making a nickel and dime contribution ... and let's not demean the actions of principled citizens as "whining" ... that's just not necessary at all ...

i'll use myself as an example ... i gave a bunch of bucks to Kerry ... i called Kerry's office and told them i hated his position on the war and wanted to see him call for immediate withdrawal ... that was it ... did i have the same expectations that he would honor my request because i was a contributor as, for example, the financial services industry might have had? OF COURSE NOT ... my little contribution could not hope to compete with powerful, corporate interests ... and i don't have a fancy office on K Street or anywhere even close to Washington ...

and, just to be clear, i will not (and have not since 2004) contribute to any war supporter ... i don't see this at all in the same way that i see corporate contributions ... yes, i'm trying to influence the actions of my Party ... but there's a huge difference here ... ending the war does not provide me with any personal, direct benefit ... i'm not "in the war" ... the truth is, i don't know anyone who is ... i won't gain personally from having the war end; i oppose the war because i believe it is NOT in the best interest of the country ... let's not compare my beliefs, whether you agree with them or not, to the REASON corporations and industries make political contributions ... let's call it what it is: GREED !!! they are not making contributions at all; they are making INVESTMENTS which they hope will yield more money and legislation to benefit THEIR STOCKHOLDERS ... it would be most helpful if you would support this point of view ...

and if you want to make a case that "the other side is doing it" so we have to do it, fine ... it's a point worthy of real discussion ... perhaps we cannot unilaterally make the changes we seek because they would not be "politically pragmatic" ... this may or may not be the case ... but, if we can't get there today, we damned well should be highlighting the tragedy our current system causes ...

let's be honest about the problem with big money corrupting our democracy ... it's just plain wrong to put the "whining grassroots" on a par with huge corporations and even whole industries that have the resources to "collect on their contributions" ... this is a very, very serious problem that needs to recognize that corporate corruption has provided us with a government of the corporations, for the corporations and by the corporations ... it's time to make the changes we need to put power back in the hands of "the people" ... that's what all those fancy documents say, isn't it?

[wyldwolf]

14. let's try to summarize this

let's not conflate the power and influence and its resultant corruption of democracy (remember, a corporation is not a citizen) that mega-monied corrupt interest can bring to bear on the process of government with citizens making a nickel and dime contribution ... and let's not demean the actions of principled citizens as "whining" ... that's just not necessary at all ...

As we have seen of late, "grassroots" organizations like MoveOn and the newfound influence of bloggers like KOS no longer constitute "citizens making a nickel and dime contribution." They want the politicians to ask "how high?" whenever they say "jump" as well.

[welshTerrier2]

16. summarizing is fine ... that summary misses the point ...

well, you've introduced the idea of "grassroots organizations" where you had previously referenced "the grassroots" ... those are two different arguments ...

as for the organizations, such as MoveOn and Kos, i still see a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the gathering together of like minded individuals to support a point of view from what we get from corporate contributions ...

if you're going to summarize, let's include this important point ... corporations are making contributions for the financial gain of THEIR STOCKHOLDERS ... they don't care one way or the other about what is good for the country ... they are NOT HUMAN ... they have no concern about right and wrong ... they have no concern about values ... they have no concerns about the national interest or its citizens ... because of these factors, the contributions are BADLY TAINTED ... that's the point ...

corporate contributions are BADLY TAINTED not because they seek to influence the government, as contributions from MoveOn or Kos also do, but because they seek only to provide a financial benefit to a narrow segment of the population regardless of whether it harms the country or not ... to compare corporations to political interest groups badly omits this important distinction ...

[wyldwolf]

17. I think the point is spot on

The difference you and I have is you believe donations from financial institutions is inherently bad and influence from ideologues is not.

[OzarkDem]

28. So Rahm's trying to run for Speaker of the House if Dems win?

Congressmen campaign for Speaker by getting Dems support through helping them raise money for their campaigns.

Problem is, Rahm can't get enough votes to support his candidacy because his corporate buddies aren't coughing up enough to help the Dem candidates he's trying to win over.

So he badgers Howard Dean to give money from DNC to these campaigns, hoping he can capitolize on grassroots Dem contributions. The fly in the ointment is that Rahm isn't very likely to represent the interests of grassroots Dems over the wishes of corporate donors, even if he relied on DNC money to get the job.

Rahm's little game of 3 card monte is pretty sad.

We don't need corporate ownership of the Democratic Party and we sure don't need corporate ownership of a Dem Speaker of the House if Dems win a majority again. And I'm afraid that's what Rahm is peddling.

[wyldwolf]

30. again, an odd little post

void of much of anything resembling fact. Hey... are you really David Sirota?

[KoKo]

33. Actually Ozark Dem and myself were on the "same page" and I don't

even know "Ozark Dem" but posted in thread above the same speculation that Rham is working on the Speaker Chair. I guess he wants to make himself the next Denny Hastert and enjoy the fruits of K-Streets labor just like the Repugs.

It's certainly a valid question...given the glowing articles about Rahm's amazing fundraising prowess.

[wyldwolf]

34. which certainly doesn't bolster his case

[OzarkDem]

38. Yep.

It pretty much says that in the linked article - Rahm is running for leadership and using his fundraising skills to buy votes from fellow Dems. That's all ok, but do we want a leader who is obligated primarily to corporate interests in control of a Dem majority in Congress? I don't think so.

[OzarkDem]

35. Speaking of odd, you forgot to read the article

"Along the way Emanuel has widened his core of admirers-and made powerful enemies. Nervous about being swamped by Republican money this fall, he spent the summer locked in a bitter dispute with Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean over the allocation of election resources-the political equivalent of Microsoft executives arguing over how many Xboxes to ship where for the Christmas season.

In private Emanuel told off Dean. In public he's aimed similar messages at liberal financiers like George Soros for being stingy and at the leftist activists in MoveOn.org for being ineffective. "Is there anyone Rahm Emanuel isn't fighting with?" asks a MyDD blogger. A straw poll by another leftist blog, Daily Kos, gave Emanuel a 58% disapproval rating.

All this matters, of course, only if the Democrats lose. "Holy Christ, his butt is on the line," says Democratic strategist Paul Begala, who describes Emanuel's aggressive style as a "cross between a hemorrhoid and a toothache." Begala continues, "I love Rahm, but that's a small group of us. He's not a beloved figure like Tip O'Neill or Dick Gephardt. Rahm's there because they want to win."

If Emanuel does succeed in returning House Democrats to power for the first time in 12 years, it's a safe bet that this one-time investment banker will vault up the House leadership ranks and eventually be in a position to bid for the Speaker's title that Chicagoans once hoped would be held by their legendary Dan Rostenkowski."

Rahm is wanting to run for "house leadership".

He's done most of his fundraising through from corporations, corporate lobbyists and GOP donors.

He wasn't able to raise enough money, so he started badgering Dean to give some to the Dem congressional candidates

He has a long record of placing the needs of corporations over middle class Americans and rank and file Dems.

Think of it as evidence - based governing and fiscal and public policy. The last 6 years have shown us that corporate control of government policy is bad for the country and bad for average Americans. Why would we want more of the same if Dems regain a majority in Congress?

[wyldwolf]

36. which is a bit different than your spin of it.

How you got this out of that article is beyond me. The David Sirota school of ... something...

Problem is, Rahm can't get enough votes to support his candidacy because his corporate buddies aren't coughing up enough to help the Dem candidates he's trying to win over.

So he badgers Howard Dean to give money from DNC to these campaigns, hoping he can capitolize on grassroots Dem contributions. The fly in the ointment is that Rahm isn't very likely to represent the interests of grassroots Dems over the wishes of corporate donors, even if he relied on DNC money to get the job.

:crazy:

[OzarkDem]

39. How so?

[wyldwolf]

41. compare your quote above to the article...

For example:

Article: Nervous about being swamped by Republican money this fall, he spent the summer locked in a bitter dispute with Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean over the allocation of election resources

You: Problem is, Rahm can't get enough votes to support his candidacy because his corporate buddies aren't coughing up enough to help the Dem candidates he's trying to win over.

So he badgers Howard Dean to give money from DNC to these campaigns, hoping he can capitolize on grassroots Dem contributions. The fly in the ointment is that Rahm isn't very likely to represent the interests of grassroots Dems over the wishes of corporate donors, even if he relied on DNC money to get the job.


Your quote relies on a lot of fantasy.

[OzarkDem]

49. Its Rahm's spin, not mine

who really knows why? But I can tell you grassoroots Dems trust Dean much more than the trust Rahm, who has made no attempt to hide his disdain for them.

What was it someone said recently? Dems voters and local leaders are tired of being treated like a house in the Hamptons by Beltway Dem leaders.

Combined with the $18 mil Rahm "earned" in the last 2 years on Wall Street, I'd say it doesn't look good.

[wyldwolf]

51. but it's your spin

[OzarkDem]

53. Rahm's spin

sorry I'm not buying it.

[wyldwolf]

58. YOUR spin. YOUR words as opposed to what the article says.

[OzarkDem]

60. Let him prove it, then

He can show us what an exemplary Democrat he is during the next 4 years, then he can run for leadership. Right now, his record and his attitude aren't helping him.

[wyldwolf]

62. the burden of proof is on you. YOU made the assertions

[OzarkDem]

72. You can't have it both ways

You can't support corporate control of the Dem party and try to pretend you're a mainstream Dem. Neither can Emanuel. You also can't throw all of us out of the party and start a new one with a handful of DLC'ers.

I'm also not proposing an either/or argument. I've worked for corporations all my life. But we can't let them call all the shots and control the legislative agenda in Congress. Corporations don't think of the world in a long-term view, they don't look at the collateral affects of their actions. They don't always support what's good for the country or even their own employees, but sometimes support only what's good for their own bottom line. Their opinions and needs are certainly important, but they can't govern and they can't control the future of our country any more. They've had their chance to prove they could during the last 6 years and it didn't work.

Emanuel should accept that and the idea that corporate control the Dem party should be curtailed. Some of the visions they had for more corporate involvement in Dem policy back during the 1990's have been proven wrong, I'm sorry. It was a nice try, but we've seen it doesn't work very well. Its a different world than it was in 1992 or 1996.

[wyldwolf]

78. I'm not having it both ways

You can't support corporate control of the Dem party and try to pretend you're a mainstream Dem.

I don't and I am.

You also can't throw all of us out of the party and start a new one with a handful of DLC'ers.

That is a progressive fantasy.

[KoKo]

43. ahhh....but what you missed in the article was if dems WIN Rahm wants

to vault into the leadership and become the next Rostenkowski. It's right there in Ozark's post.

[wyldwolf]

46. ahhh but did Rahm say that?

[OzarkDem]

52. Doesn't need to

Let's make you an offer. Get Rahm to say he has no intention of running for a House leadership post or switching party affiliation in the next few years and we'll start to feel better about him.

[wyldwolf]

55. for it to be factual it does, or else I can write my summary of your posts

... and credit the words as coming from your mouth.

Let's make you an offer. Get Rahm to say he has no intention of running for a House leadership post or switching party affiliation in the next few years and we'll start to feel better about him.

1. Those on the far left have a better chance of switching party affiliation than Emanuel does...

2. The Democratic party probably couldn't care less how "you" feel about him. But we know how the elected Dems will feel about him in November when we win.

[OzarkDem]

59. Let me explain something to you

My family have been active Democrats for five generations. You and I have inherited the party they built and its our job to be good stewards and make it work the way they intended. They didn't build it by letting corporations control it and they intended for it to work for everyone, not just a few. There has never been corporate control in the history of the Democratic Party and there is no reason to change that policy.

Our Dem forefathers didn't get where they were by ignoring how average Americans felt about them and they didn't succeed by letting corporate America call all the shots. If Emanuel doesn't like that, he can leave. And if he doesn't care about what rank and file Dems think of him, he really needs to leave. I'm not alone in that assessment.

[wyldwolf]

64. I don't give a rat's ass if you grandpa was Thomas Jefferson

misinterpreting and spinning things to fit you agenda is wrong regardless of who or what you are.

[OzarkDem]

68. We've been here before

ad hominem attacks instead of arguments.

[wyldwolf]

70. you've made no logical argument

And if you believe I have attacked you, hit alert.

[OzarkDem]

73. You don't offend me

and I don't think you're a bad person, not at all. You're a fellow Dem, and I know you're loyal to the DLC and I respect that. But this just isn't the time for DLC policies.

[wyldwolf]

77. good

But I disagree.

[H2O Man]

12. Regarding Rahm Emanuel .....

I'm from NYS, and so perhaps my opinion is of no significance. However, I have had the opportunity to speak to a person who works in Emanuel's office about my concerns with the role that VP Cheney played in the Plame scandal. Although I'm not able to cast a vote in his state, Mr. Emanuel's aide was more than willing to take the time to have an in-depth conversation with me. The aide was extremely well informed as far as the complexities of that case go. I felt encouraged by the experience of discussing an important issue at length with someone who was interested in hearing what I had to say, and who had obviously put a lot of thought into the topic long before talking to me.

[KoKo]

15. Assume this is PR from Emmanuel's Talent Agent?

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

18. is the writer Emanuel's talent agent?

:eyes:

[Moochy]

80. talent agent or sock puppet... you decide.

[wyldwolf]

84. now a well known CNN writer is really Rahm Emanuel? LOLOLOLOL!

[Totally Committed]

19. "Ari" the "Super-Agent" on ENTOURAGE is based on Rham's

real-life brother, Ari, who is an agent in Hollywood. Jeremy Piven, who plays Ari, has always maintained that he was told to "tone down" the real Ari's personality in order to be able to be believeable. Anyone who has watched ENTOURAGE knows what the real Ari must be like if Piven plays him "toned-down"! My guess is that strong personalities, entitlement, self-aggrandizement, total obnoxiousness, and a certain reverence for the almighty $ run in the family. If that were not enough, his "Third Way/DLC" status makes him doubly problematic -- for me, anyway.

IMO, we need more people like him in politics like we need a hole in the head.


TC

[wyldwolf]

20. so, you want to attack his brother?

LOL!

If you have a problem with strong personalities, entitlement, self-aggrandizement, total obnoxiousness, etc., why are you on the left?

[AtomicKitten]

37. No doubt this won't be received well by some.

... but I view Emanuel from afar and rather enjoy his hardball politics. I don't expect to agree with all of his decisions, but such is life when it comes to decision-making in leadership. Many here complain about spineless Democrats and then complain when one shows some backbone. I would rather have an Emanuel on my side whom I disagree with sometimes than an ineffectual, impotent, mealy-mouth leader. But that's me.

[wyldwolf]

40. November, 2006 on DU

Dems lose: It's Emanuel's fault!
Dems win: Don't give Rahm credit...

[AtomicKitten]

45. that is pretty much how it goes

around here, which is unfortunate. It's a predetermined bias that no amount of actual information will change. That's the kind of closed-mind thinking that is detrimental to Democrats seeking to take back the country. All I would ask for is fairness, but that is in short supply here. If we could harness that negativity and focus it on the Republicans, the Dems would be an awesome sight to behold. Instead we bicker like chained dogs over scraps. Same shit, different election. Feh.

[KoKo]

48. No....some of us will believe he pried that money out of DNC's Grassroots

funding. If we WIN it will be because of DNC/Dean's Grassroots Funding BEFORE Emmanuel got his greedy hands on it.

[wyldwolf]

50. LOL!

And you'll be the only ones who believe such a fanciful tale.

Tell me, how much money had the DNC poured into the pivotal House races in question BEFORE Emanuel fought for some?

[OzarkDem]

75. That's true

If Dems win this year, it will be because of Dean's 50 state strategy and the grassroots fundraising support from Dem voters.

[paulk]

87. and will you hold the reverse to be true

if the Dems don't do as well as expected?

[OzarkDem]

42. Its nice that he has backbone

but what concerns me is where his allegiances lie. He comes off as an egoist whose only interest is in promoting himself and his friends. I'm not sure that's what we need for Dem leadership. Hopefully, if he's sincere and interested in grassroots Dems, he'll find a way to show that.

[wyldwolf]

47. "what concerns me is where his allegiances lie."

With the Democratic party, of course.

Did you speak the same of Howard Dean on the run-ups to his failed bid for President and successful bid for DNC chair when his face and name were everywhere in the media?







It's becoming clear the left is petrified of Emanuel getting the credit when the Dems win the House in November

[OzarkDem]

56. I agree with you - Dems don't want Emanuel as leader

We've had enough of corporate control of Congress. We know it doesn't work and the last thing we want is a Dem leader who will keep corporations in control.

Sorry, but there are a lot of problems that need to be fixed. We need to fix our economy, stop being reliant on China to finance our debt, balance the budget, get out from under the crushing burden of $2 million a week in Iraq, shore up and protect Social Security and Medicare, develop universal access to health care for Americans, fix our infrastructure and get rid of the massive, massive amounts of corporate welfare and theft of taxpayer funds.

That's a really big agenda to turn the country around. Do you really think corporate control of Congress is going to accomplish that?

[wyldwolf]

57. you must be agreeing with yourself because I didn't say that

See how you spin? Or in this case, it was "severe misunderstanding."

We've had enough of corporate control of Congress. We know it doesn't work and the last thing we want is a Dem leader who will keep corporations in control.

You have proof and polling data on that?

[OzarkDem]

66. Yes

Dems (and most Americans) don't want corporations to control our country and they also think our economy is bad and that we're headed in the wrong direction. Here's how they feel about our corporate controlled country right now. It doesn't look like voters want more of the same.

http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm#NBC

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/work.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006a.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm

[wyldwolf]

69. then we agree. You're agreeing with yourself then

We weren't discussing the economy or the country headed in the wrong direction.

Stay on topic. Give me specific polling data that says Democrats believe that Rahm Emanuel winning the House is equivalent to corporations controlling congress.

[OzarkDem]

74. That's not the argument I made

I said Dems don't support corporate control of Congress. Rahm is a person who is heavily financially invested in corporate America. He supports corporate America and he's proud of that fact and that's ok for him, he's entitled to his opinion. But its not what Dems want and its not what's best for our country right now. He has to take that into consideration. I don't know how much more simple I can make it.

[wyldwolf]

76. yes it is.

you said, :

"We've had enough of corporate control of Congress. We know it doesn't work and the last thing we want is a Dem leader who will keep corporations in control."

Your implication is Rahm Emanuel and the elected Democrats will keep corporations in congress.

[ieoeja]

88. wyldwolf, I admit that *I* am petrified of that.

Yes. I *am* petrified that Rahm will be given credit for a House victory. Why?

I believe in the 50-State Strategy.

Winning the elections gain us NOTHING if the public does not want us to do what we want done. Look at the State Board of Education in Kansas. Running stealth campaigns religous nutjobs took over that board and forced their agenda into the schools. Next election they were kicked out of office and their agenda overturned.

This isn't exactly a once-in-a-lifetime example. Because other nutjobs in Kansas managed to pull the exact same stunt a second time. And a second time they were booted from office and their agenda overturned.

So, yes, we can win elections by finding out what the people want, then promising to do just that. But if we're doing that while the other guy is convincing the people that they should want what that other guy wants, then the best we can hope to accomplish is a slow victory for that other guy's agenda instead of a fast one.

What is the fucking point of that?

The 50-State Strategy isn't just about winning elections. It helps, especially with getting out the voter. But it is also about educating the public about our agenda.


Back to the question as you asked it, if Rahm gets credit instead of the 50-State Strategy, then that would mean crediting his strategy. What is his strategy? I know raising more money than his opponent is a part of it. Is there anything else? Is that the whole strategy you hope to credit for victory?

If so, let me remind you of Terry McAuliffe's bragging about victory in 2004 because the DNC outraised the RNC. I don't recall that election being such a wonderful victory. But Terry sure did.

It made me seriously wonder if the DNC Chair is paid on commission.


So, yes. I *am* petrified that Rahm will be given credit for a House victory. Because I believe that credit will do nothing to help Democrats advance our agenda in the future.

[wyldwolf]

90. It isn't about the credit

It's about winning. Without winning, there is no advancing of the Democratic agenda.

You want to win in November, right?

So the problem must be with Rahm Emanual. We're not going to win in spite of him, we're going to win (in part) because of him. YOUR problem is either giving Rahm specifically the credit or that winning in November might upstage Howard Dean.

Election cycles are sprints. It is Emanuel's job to get to the finish line first. Howard Dean is our marathon runner. He might win it all eventually, but "pacing" for the long haul won't get us across the finish line first in November.

Back to the question as you asked it, if Rahm gets credit instead of the 50-State Strategy,

Hmmm? I didn't raise that question.

[ieoeja]

99. The enemy of my ally?

Great! Then you support the 50 State Strategy.

The problem is that there is an element inside the DNC that does oppose the 50-State Strategy. Everyone knows they will credit Rahm for winning the House while ignoring the contributions of the 50-States Strategy. And THAT bothers me.

[wyldwolf]

101. I support both

See, that is the beauty of being a centrist. We don't live in an either-or/black or white world.

I can want Emanuel to sprint to the finish line this November and want Dean to run the marathon for us into '08, '10, '12, and beyond.

The problem is that there is an element inside the DNC that does oppose the 50-State Strategy.

Just as their is an element that opposes concentrating on the House races most likely to give us wins in November.

Everyone knows they will credit Rahm for winning the House while ignoring the contributions of the 50-States Strategy. And THAT bothers me.

Glad to see you admit that.

[AtomicKitten]

54. again

did it occur to you that what you call egotism may actually be that backbone Dems pine for? His allegiance lies with the Democratic Party en masse, the problem being he can't please all the people all the time. It is the unwillingness to compromise, to actually practice the notion of democracy within the party, that hamstrings the Dems, but, again, that's nothing new. In the words of George Carlin, "If your needs aren't being met, drop some of your needs." Compromise is the key, the answer, the mantra, the way and the light. And some Dems just aren't having any of it.

[OzarkDem]

63. The missing piece

I'm not seeing anything in what he says or does that indicates he is supporting the Dem party "en masse". In fact, some of his recent remarks have indicated the opposite.

Believe me, I want a fighter in Congress, but someone who fights for Dem principles.

[wyldwolf]

65. his job is winning the House of Representatives

Fortunatly for us all, we don't have to pass your litmus tests.

[OzarkDem]

67. So he expects to show disrespect for Dem voters

and still get them to contribute to and vote for his candidates? Interesting.

[wyldwolf]

71. Where has he shown disrespect for Dem voters?

[ieoeja]

89. Why do you want to win?

We know why OzarkDem wants to win. He wants to advance Democratic issues. Why do you want to win?

[wyldwolf]

91. Which is why I want to win

...but my interpretation of Democratic issue are grounded in history and reality whereas his are grounded in some progressive utopian vision of what he imagines the Democratic party should be.

There is the difference and the reason a very liberal person has never been elected president and a very liberal agenda has never been on the DNC's plate.

You're setting up an a scenario whereas if the Dems win in November, we must NOT want to see the Dem agenda put forth.

[ieoeja]

103. You want historical issues?

How about privatization? That goes right to the core differences. Republicans want to privatize everything because they claim government can not work well. While New Deal Democrats know otherwise.

Where does Rahm and his buddies come down on the issues of privatization? Solidly in the Republican camp. Along with "only vaguely a Democrat" Daley and a whole host of Third Way Democrats.

How does that square with what you claim to be old timey Democratic values? Or when you say traditional, are you harkening all the way back to the Civil War? I pretty much stop at the New Deal. I view anything older than that as pretty anachronistic.

[wyldwolf]

105. not what I said

I said my interpretation of Democratic issues is grounded in history - meaning I have no false assumption of what Dem issues are and are not.

Where does Rahm and his buddies come down on the issues of privatization? Solidly in the Republican camp.

Show me an example of this.

How does that square with what you claim to be old timey Democratic values? Or when you say traditional, are you harkening all the way back to the Civil War? I pretty much stop at the New Deal.

LOL! Don't recall using those exact words, but whatever. Do you want to discuss the New Deal with me and how it relates to today's New Democrats?

Let's start by you proving your assertion on Emanuel and privatization.

[ieoeja]

107. You're right.

I appear to have been judging him by his friends. I can not find any words from him online regarding privatization outside of Social Security (which even he opposed). Certainly the people he is closely related to, Mayor Daley and Governor Blagojevich whose open seat he took as Representative, have a strong track record of privatizing things.

Rahm was point man on NAFTA. But I'd rather see NAFTA fixed than tossed out. How does Rahm feel on that? As you would point out, he hasn't said anything. So I guess you would say I can't complain.

He was also a leader on passage of the Brady Bill and the 1994 crime bill that caused Democrats to lose the House that year. If the goal is just winning, I guess we should be happy he is only raising money now instead of making legislative decisions based on his past record.

But, no, I can't find him saying much of anything about anything. I guess I should not judge him by anything except exact quotes from the man himself. No trend analysis allowed.

[wyldwolf]

111. of course I am...

I appear to have been judging him by his friends. I can not find any words from him online regarding privatization outside of Social Security (which even he opposed).

Which ones of his "friends" proposed privatization of social security? I do recall him hammering Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) on his less-than-total opposition to Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security. Don't you?

For a Democrat to be "ok" in your book, must he have a stated position on everything?

Certainly the people he is closely related to, Mayor Daley and Governor Blagojevich whose open seat he took as Representative, have a strong track record of privatizing things.

You specifically said said "a whole host of Third Way Democrats" in relation to privatization, and now you mention two Democrats. Hmm. So, exactly what did they privatize and why was it a bad thing?

Rahm was point man on NAFTA.

Al Gore was THE point man on NAFTA.

How does Rahm feel on that?

Why not research it?

He was also a leader on passage of the Brady Bill and the 1994 crime bill that caused Democrats to lose the House that year.

Yes he was - an ill conceived bill meant to satisfy the liberal faction of the party. The failed Healthcare plan also figured into that loss.

I guess I should not judge him by anything except exact quotes from the man himself. No trend analysis allowed.

Well, if you want to judge him on his positions on liberal issues like the assualt weapons ban, universal healthcare, etc., then trend analysis is certainly allowed. But putting words in his mouth are not. Sorry.

So... New Deal?

[AX10]

93. We will need all the help we can get to win.

[LoZoccolo]

95. I'm proud of my rep!

[wyldwolf]

96. I'm proud of your rep!

[Moochy]

130. NOT Another pitbull thread!!

:yoiks: