Rahm’s fingerprints all over package, tactics

[Wetzelbill]

This is an interesting article. Rahm has his good and bad points. He's hard working, knows his way around and is good at getting Democrats to compromise with Republicans and work things out. But he also will capitulate to Republicans on policy every time and make bills weaker than they should be.

I asked this question in another thread today: "How much do you want to bet Rahm was for watering down the stimulus bill?"

It turns out he was. But did it have to be that way? I don't think so, I think there are other ways to get things done than to capitulate to bad policy at the detriment of the country time and time again. -WB

Rahm’s fingerprints all over package, tactics

By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/11/09 08:16 PM
Rahm Emanuel may have moved his office down Pennsylvania Avenue, but to stand in the hallways of the Capitol lately, it seems he never left.


And if anyone’s fingerprints are on the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus package being sorted out in Congress this week, they belong to Emanuel, the former Illinois House member who is now the White House chief of staff.




http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rahms-fingerprints-all-over-package-tactics-2009-02-11.html

[Captain Hilts]

1. He's got Obama's blessing to do what he does. The buck stops there. nt

[Wetzelbill]

2. That doesn't mean it's above question

And no way is gutting what they gutted out of the Senate bill a good thing. I don't care whose blessing he has, bad policy is bad policy.

[Captain Hilts]

3. I don't like it either. But the buck stops with Obama, not Emmanuel.

Obama gets credit for things people like and Emmanuel gets blamed for everything people don't like.

Emmanuel works for Obama and works on his behest.

[Wetzelbill]

8. lol

That's what it says in the article. No that's a fair point, but in this particular instance, those type of capitulations are exactly the sort of thing that Rahm has been for all his career. Obama's blessing or not, that's typical Rahm. Now somebody could argue that without it the bill wouldn't have gotten through etc, that's fair too, I just don't think that was the only way to go. In the end, I think Obama made a mistake starting so small and then giving up so much just to get 3 votes in the Senate for it.

However, Obama always seems a few steps ahead of the rest of us. And in the future he's probably going to use this as a way to get his foot in the door to continue to pass big idea legislation, especially for health care and education. And Rahm is a good guy to have on your team for that stuff, because you know he's going to work hard to get it done. But am I being picky? Yeah I am, I'm a policy wonk, it's my nature, I always think we could do better.

[poverlay]

5. I've no doubt whatsoever that Rahm has some top notch ideas and arguments or

Obama would never let him pass GO. These pundits are still living in blivet world. This is what it's like to have a REAL President.

[pinto]

4. Here in the *4th week* of Obama's Presidency it might be worth asking -

What was better? A compromised bill that passed or a stronger bill that failed and had to be reconsidered, in toto?

Rahm has his well known pluses and minuses as far as policy and political negotiation are concerned. Yet, Chiefs of Staff are often given Machiavellian attributes that overlook their supervisor, the President. This article seems more of the latter.

I don't see Obama as an administrator that would give free rein to Rahm, for better or for worse. That Rahm played a role in the negotiations on the Hill is no big surprise. Regardless of some of the side quotes about that role, I assume he carried the intent of the President to help find a passable compromise on this one.

And, I assume the President knows there are other fish to fry in the next 4 weeks, 4 months and 4 years.

[firedupdem]

9. Thank You...

President Obama has stated that the bill may not be perfect. It was difficult enough to get this one as quickly as we did. We are not in a position to wait too long for economic relief. Why Rahm get's so much credit is beyond me. I don't see our Prez as some sort of weakling sitting in the corner taking orders from Rahm.

[Wetzelbill]

15. I should be clear

I'm not saying Rahm deserves all the blame he gets or anything like that. Nor am I saying this article is 100 percent right on everything. It's actually quite favorable to Rahm, it shows a guy who is working hard to get things done. I'm just pointing out that while Rahm has his good points, his basic philosophy is to capitulate to Republicans when it comes to compromising on legislation. So when I said you can bet he was in favor of watering it down, well I'm right, he definitely was in favor of that. And Obama said the other day that he could have went about it differently, because now he knows Republicans are going to ask for even more tax cuts even when he already was proposing some. There were other ways to get this passed just as quickly too, but the bill started from such a weak position it was compromised from the beginning. In the end, those final Senate cuts will cost 500,000 to 600,000 thousand jobs. Was that worth it for three Republican votes that they probably could have gotten with a better bill if they didn't give up so much to begin with? No it wasn't.

[Wetzelbill]

13. you automatically assume a stronger one would have failed

There isn't a viable case for that. Especially when all Dems managed to get were three votes with a substantially watered down bill. You have a highly popular president, a highly popular concept for a bill, that alone makes for a better environment to pass it. If Obama started bigger on it, allowed some of it to be whittled down to what he knew would still work and then named it something like the "American Job Security Bill" and went on a PR offensive like he's done, I would dare somebody like Arlen Specter who is up for reelection to vote against it. No way.

And are there really that much bigger fish to fry? Risk another Great Depression on a watered down bill that wouldn't work or pass a good one because it means millions and millions of jobs? I don't know about you or what kind of living situation you have, but having a good job and avoiding a depression is a pretty damn big fish to fry for most of the country.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

27. IMO getting tough with the Rs should come later. Now's the time to convert

as many Rs as possible to the President's agenda.

Look where Obama has gone to play Oprah in town meetings this week. Elkhart and Ft. Myers were Republican strongholds in November, but, with the help of Henrietta, Julio, and local media coverage of the President's plans, millions of "sheep" lost to Reagan a generation ago may find their way home to our side in six months or so.

Then it might be time to put pressure on somewhat more hard-core Republicans. From his time on Wall Street, Rahm Emanuel knows them well and will have developed a playbook for twisting the arms of the "sponsors" of Republican Senators like Lugar, Voinovich, Grassley, and a few others who still can feel which way political winds are blowing.

And, at the state level, money talks. Many of the billions for states in the Recovery and Reinvestment package will go to Republican governors. In six months, Team Obama will have become one of their most important "sponsors". More Republican Governors will, like Charlie Crist in Ft. Myers this week, seek photo-ops with a popular and generous President. Once that dynamic is in play, another Democratic landslide may start building for the many Republican Senate seats up for grabs in 2010.

Timing is everything at this point, IMO.

[glitch]

29. Good point. This isn't just about working with Congress, it's about working with all power centers

including Wall Street and the States.

And IMO a lot of what Obama is doing right now is calming fears, which means giving a lot of sops to the fearful.

[depakid]

39. No one is going to "convert"

Anyone who thinks so after all that's gone on the past 20 years is beyond naive.

That's not how these folks operate.

You don't "reach out" to those who've proven that they'll chop your hand off.

[rwheeler31]

6. It passed good on him.

He is working for our prez.

[Clio the Leo]

7. "he also will capitulate to Republicans on policy every time"?

Seriously!? EVERY time?

Hyperbole much? ;)

[Wetzelbill]

11. no it's not

That's the basic Third Way philosophy, to make Dems more like Republicans on policy. He will by definition compromise to the Right every single time. I can't think of one time ever that Rahm has ever gotten Republicans to sign on to liberal policy that is clearly left of center.

[MADem]

10. Obama is the President. NOT Rahm Emmanuel.

I don't know how long it will take before people start figuring that out.

Here's how it works--Rahm does OBAMA's bidding. Not the other way around.

If Rahm's "fingerprints" are anywhere, it's because OBAMA told him to put his paws there. The two unnamed sources in that piece, though, seem to want to attach a little nefariousness to his actions, rather than acknowledge that he was hired precisely because, unlike Obama, he excels at this kind of thing.

You can't have a Brave New Leader President who is also a puppet. It's not how it rolls. Obama gave RE his marching orders, and he carried them out.

[Wetzelbill]

12. you don't think an advisor has influence on a president?

Wow. A person doesn't have to be a puppet to be influenced by others. You look at the Geithner TARP plan and there was a rift between Geithner and Axelrod on that, and Obama went with Geithner for now. Do you think that makes him a Geithner puppet? Obama makes the decision, but he does so on more information than what he comes up on his own. If he has somebody advising him who has a certain philosophy than he cannot help but be influenced by that somewhat. You think Rahm just sits around and let's Obama run all over him and without giving input? Nobody does that. Yeah, his fingerprints are literally all over it because that's his job, but they are also philosophically all over it too.

[MADem]

17. He can't make a President do what he doesn't want to do. He can't bully a President

into following a path that the President doesn't want to go down.

Obama told Rahm to get his ass over to the Hill and move that fucking legislation. That's what Rahm is good at, and that is what Rahm did. Obama needs to demonstrate progress on this package, and he can't afford to have it stalled over bickering and petty bullshit.

This attempt to pump RE up on the one hand, and then ascribe a Rovian quality to him on the other, has the same effect as saying that Obama is a clueless tool--rather like Bush was during his first term.

Of course Obama takes advice. But this article is suggesting a bit more than that. And everytime Obama does something people here don't like, the "Blame Rahm" crowd comes out in force.

My point remains--Obama's the President. He's responsible and accountable. Not Rahm. The Captain of the Ship doesn't blame the cabin boy when the shit hits the fan.

[Wetzelbill]

25. of course the article would say that

They always allude to that sort of thing. And Rahm and his buddies promoted himself as a kingmaker after the 2006 election, famously in the Ryan Lizza piece in The New Republic. He cultivated an image that will both help and hurt him with the media. That Rovian quality attached to him is as much Rahm's creation as anybody's, it benefits him to be thought of as a tough guy mover and shaker. I am not so sure that this article suggests he is that though, not as much as it says that he's a hands on guy who physically went down and got into the mix with everybody. But axing almost 100 billion in productive spending to appease Republicans is something that's typical Rahm, it's his philosophy and his history backs it up. I'm just saying it's no surprise and that I usually disagree with that particular tactic.

[MADem]

36. Axing almost any amount of money could not have been accomplished by "Rahm"

--to appease Republicans or Captain Kangaroo--without the express consent of the PRESIDENT.

That's my point, here. Rahm is NOT the boogeyman. He's just doing what his boss tells him to do. If Obama wasn't ready to make those cuts to move that bill, those cuts would NOT have been made.

If the press, from Lizza to Woodward to any frigging idiot with a notepad, want to focus on "Rahm," and people here are stupid enough to believe the press, who have lied to us for what, eight years now, well, I just have little patience for that.

Obama is the President. He's driving this ship of state, not "Rahm." Rahm is carrying out his boss's wishes. His boss gives him a certain amount of latitude, sure, but Rahm isn't doing anything without Obama's approval. Put the responsibility for these changes where they belong. Obama is not a victim or a puppet. He's a President who understands that compromises have to happen sometimes when you want to move legislation. You can love that or hate it, but blaming "Rahm" is just bullshit.

[camera obscura]

14. Thanks for the article. I'm not sure why people are so defensive.

We have to be able to criticize the president's advisers, otherwise we're just like the people who refuse to see anything wrong with the Republicans.

[getthefacts]

18. Absolutely!

Second that

[Wetzelbill]

20. I like Rahm, for the most part

I don't agree with anybody all the time. I'm glad he's on our side, I just don't believe in his general philosophy of watering down good policy and blurring the lines between Republicans and Democrats. Sometimes he is right though, and it is better to pass something than nothing. But in this case I think they could have done much better. I'm sure of it. Look at the Republicans, they had no power in the House, but managed to get the bill watered down, then they have little power in the Senate, but managed to make almost half the bill into tax cuts for only 3 votes. They started with the DeMint amendment which proposed an insane 3 trillion in tax cuts, and somehow managed to get the Dems to give up almost half of the spending in this bill to suit their radical and proven failed agenda. And they didn't have to vote for it.

We could learn from that. I'm a policy guy, I believe in it and I believe in good policy. When George Bush and Andy Card and Karl Rove passed policy I didn't like I said so. Now if Obama, Rahm and say David Axelrod do something I don't like either, well I'll critique that as well. Do I like them better? Well yeah, I sure do and I'm glad they're working for us. That doesn't mean they get a free pass.

[Political Heretic]

16. I pretty happy with the most progressive spending bill of my lifetime. If Rahm had a hand in that,

great.

This "could have been more" stuff seems to completely ignore just how historic this massive, extremely left-of-center spending package really is.

Even the tax cuts, down to only 35% of the total sum in the final bill, are almost entirely comprised of Obama's signature tax cuts for the middle class, which while not in and of themselves the most effective short term economy stimulators, are still something I strongly support overall.

People don't realize some of the things in this bill, such as a huge, huge increase in federal spending on education. In the original house bill federal education spending was tripled. It was then scaled back in the Senate, but now in the joint compromise some of that money was returned to the bill - so it is still a huge increase.

Expansion of unemployment and increased funding for CDBGs, hunger programs, child care, early childhood education, increased funding to states for medicaid, and on and on. This is a great bill. It looked a little hairy there for a bit in the Senate, but at the end of the day, I really feel like we got a huge win.

So that means I'm fine with whatever Rahm did.

[Wetzelbill]

22. I think you're right for the most part

But I didn't ignore those things, I've looked through the bill the other day. Over 700 pages of it. Plenty to be happy about. But if you throw a starving man a few crackers he'd be happy for that too, the fact of the matter is, this bill isn't as good as it should have been, and we gave up too much to get only three votes when it was probably unnecessary. Almost assuredly. And Obama even said something to that point the other day. A huge win? No. A win? Well yes. Right now, it's iffy whether it will work or not. We almost assuredly could have passed a bill that was almost guaranteed to work, instead we got something that is still a gamble. I don't think it's that big of a win to gamble on whether we're going to have a depression or not.

Something that could change that would be say if Obama was able to pass something good on health care in the next year and a half, because that in conjunction with this could just work.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

28. Exactly. An 80-20 Rule corollary applies. 80% success beats 100% failure

every time.

[4lbs]

19. I view this $800 billion as just an initial step of a multi-step process on the road to

economic recovery.

There will be a dozen spending and budget bills over the next two years.

[Wetzelbill]

23. there you go

Now that would be great. Right now, I'm still nervous, taking this one bill on it's on merit, I am thinking it's good but not enough. But if Obama can get these other things done, then I will be feeling better about the policy effectiveness of it all. And I have said before, Rahm is just the guy to help get those passed. I disagree with him on policy, but he outworks just about everybody and he's passionate.

[Laelth]

31. I agree. The President has signaled that he will push later for the goodies he can't get now.

But he still intends to get them. This is just the first step. Like FDR ...

"If we can not do this one way, we will do it another, but do it we will."

:dem:

-Laelth

[backscatter712]

34. That's what I'm thinking.

President Obama pushed for a stimulus bill from the beginning that's about the size that he's getting. Economists have said from the beginning there needs to be far more.

I think Obama's strategy is to push stimulus through a piece at a time, and this is just the first piece. Next might be health care reform, or an energy bill, or a highway bill, or a schools bill - all set to spend hundreds of billions building infrastructure and things the people need - perfect for stimulating the economy.

[AtomicKitten]

21. Capitulation versus compromise is in the eye of the beholder.

IMO Emanuel did his job which is moving this legislation through Congress fast. I don't blame him for the crap cuts. I blame the Blue Dogs and the 3 Republican Senators who stomped their feet and demanded them. That was the price paid to move the bill quickly.

[Wetzelbill]

24. that's a fair argument

I think they started the bill in a bad position in the first place, it was small and, as Obama said, already included tax cuts when no matter what the GOP would request more. I don't think there was only one way to move it quickly either though.

[Wetzelbill]

26. Hey thank you everybody for the reasonable discussion on this thread

Thanks for the votes and thanks for replying. I'm glad that some of us can agree and disagree without getting all angry and fighting over every little comment. I respect that.

[KittyWampus]

30. Apparently Rahm Emmanuel has become the new boogieman. It's silly.

[northernlights]

32. This is Obama's bill, not Rahm's

Obama's priorities were clear in the beginning. The pieces that were removed arguably did not belong in the stimulus package to begin with, and will be dealt with later.

Obama would have preferred bipartisan support, but in the end that's the rethugs choice and not in his control. His real priorities were 1. the optimum blend of spending and tax cuts...and 2. timing.

He wanted the bill on his desk by President's Day. It's happening.

And the bill very closely matches his original mix of tax cuts and spending. The tax cuts are targeted where they are most needed AND will provide the most stimulus (i.e. not at the wealthy). The spending is targeted where it will create jobs immediately on projects that pay long term dividends, at training people for jobs of the future, and at the most vulnerable people in our society.

I know that a couple days before the senate vote, I called Senator Collins office and I laid it on the line. I ended up choking on my rage at the travesty of the last 8 years, and her aide ended up choking back tears. I tried calling Senator Snowe's office, but her line was continuously busy.

I'd like to think that those of us who made kept those phone lines busy helped make a difference.

[Uzybone]

33. I guess the simpletons in media miss having an overlord working behind the scenes

Since Rove and Cheney are gone they have to find someone. Now Rahm is filling the script of the mastermind pulling all the strings. I guess it makes for a better story, even if its not true.

I don't always agree with Bob Somerby but one thing he always has right is that the media approach a story with a predetermined script, and then force the characters and events to fit that script. Its mostly done out of laziness and lack of imagination.

[wyldwolf]

35. LA Times positive take: Rahm Emanuel: Obama's not-so-secret weapon

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/rahm-emanuel-ob.html

[Warren Stupidity]

37. "good at getting Democrats to compromise with Republicans"

How's that been working out? Isn't it completely obvious that this is a one way street, that 'compromise' for them is and has been for quite some time 'do it our way'? Three votes. That was it. And the compromises for those three votes were dismaying and huge.

Perhaps for this first major bill, an immediate success was the best idea, but how is this going to continue? From now on every legislative initiative is going to face the same roadblock - near lockstep opposition from them and wavering clueless dithering from us.

[depakid]

38. "the unrequited courtship of Republican centrists by Emanuel"

This appears to be the pattern- just as it was with Clinton up til 1995 (and even afterwards).

With Rahm and Reid, Republicans must be laughing at their good fortunate.

If the shoe were on the other foot- they'd be all but irrelevant.

Which they should be- at least, if anyone is interested in effective public policy.

[Phx_Dem]

40. He works for the President, so ultimately it's the President's tactic.