Well, the healthcare situation clearly proves one thing:

[Ken Burch]

Rahm was wrong on his "recruit right-wingers if they'll CALL themselves Democrats" thing.

What's happening now proves, once and for all, that it's worthless to have a large group of Congressmembers who hate what this party stands for and will only stand with us on organizing the House. This proves organization WITHOUT control is worse than being in the minority.

And the sick thing is, the polls on healthcare prove we could have held and increased our majority in the House and Senate WITHOUT nominating anti-liberal Dems.

If healthcare fails, it's Rahm's fault for forcing us to have candidates who hate what this party really stands for.

When it comes to healthcare, the Blue Dogs=Rush Limbaugh.

[redqueen]

1. No, the Blue Dogs do not equal Rush Limbaugh... come on.

I'm not positive that Rahm is completely wrong either... for me the jury's still out. If this allows Obama to get more of our agenda through congress, then that IMO is better than getting little to none of it through.

And no, the polls do not indicate that at all... all they show is support for that one issue... you can't say for sure whether more liberal Dems would have been elected in those states or distrcits, had Rahm not chosen to go with his theory. I'm sure there is at least one example where we probably could have gotten a more liberal Dem elected, but I can't fault anyone for being shy about taking that risk. Politics involves a lot of guesswork and gamesmanship.

[Ken Burch]

3. Rahm didn't treat it as "a theory" he treated as The Way, The Truth and The Light

And would brook no dissent on the matter at the DCC.

And yes, if they do what they are now doing and either preserve the status quo or reduce us to a change that is barely noticeable(and remember, history has shown that slight changes tend to be meaningless-see the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as proof) they will have given Rush and the talk radio crowd a victory that can never be reversed.

If healthcare reform fails, it won't be possible for anything progressive to happen in this administration after that. We'll be doomed to a GOP Congress in 2010(which of course will be unremovable, as the '94 knuckledragger comeback was), followed by six years of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".

[redqueen]

6. No argument there... he treated his theory as if it were fact.

I don't necessarily agree with your predictions, though. That might happen, it might not. It depends on where the public puts the blame for this stuff... we shall see.

[DireStrike]

8. The blame for any failures now will be on the Democrats

Presidency and congress, 60 seats in the senate. There is no way around this.

And they will deserve it, if they fail.

[rucky]

2. I know you'll catch some flack for this...

but I don't see a problem with holding Rahm accountable - especially if a little heat offers him some incentive to start twisting some blue paws. "I brought you into this world and I can take you out" kind of stuff.

[truedelphi]

4. Uhm it won't just be Rahm's fault - it will be Obama's for

Having this guy as his chief of staff.

I mean, we progressives held no gun to his head demanding that he appoint Rahm.

Just as we didn't ask for Monsanto clones on important point positions at Agruiculture and FDA.

And just as we didn't want Goldman Sachs' sellouts on positon at the Fed and at Treasury.

Obama has one weird set of friends. And none of them have any ties to the middle incomed.

[Ken Burch]

5. Obama has some blame, but Rahm is the one who gave us the 'Dogs Days of summer

n/t.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Well, when you appoint a rat to a job

and (gasp!) it acts like a rat in the job, is it the rat's fault that it acts like a rat?