The Rahm Emmanuel problem...

[vaberella]

Can someone, anyone, explain to me the concerted effort to demonize Rahm Emmanuel on this board? I mea seriously. This is exactly the same crap that goes on with Geithner and Summers. I understand that these guys have family or personal connections with the establishment. But in the case of Geithner and Summers---from what I can see they're doing a good job; considering what our economy would probably have been like with no actions taken.

As for Rahm...I don't get it what so ever. The impression I'm given, and this was when he was rumored to have the position he currently does have, was that people were having issues because of loyalties to Dean. And some weird Dean/Emmanue animosity that puts the President in a bad position. ie...Dean stands for the lefts ideas (which I personally don't think is true--after this whole healthcare debate.) and Rahm who's por establishment and basically Obama will go with the latter.

It's a bit exhausting because I took a break from the site with anti-Rahm talk (not because of it though) and I come to the site seeing Rahm as being of topic again. What gives?!

[Mojambo]

1. You seriously think Geithner and Summers have been doing a good job?

What Wall Street firm do you work for?

[vaberella]

4. I don't work on wallstreet---I don't like solicitation.

But yeah, considering where the economy was predicted to be and where it is currently. I think they did pretty well. Hello---do you forget what Bush left us with? They may not have done all I could want, but they did well. And even people like Krugman, who are adored here on DU, have reluctantly said they were doing fairly well.

[Romulox]

91. PS: Chris Matthews is a slobbering idiot. His show is painful to watch. nt

[jgraz]

35. I have worked on Wall Street. And I think Geithner and Summers are fucking disasters.

Even if I try to think like a greedy banker, I can't see a sustainable economy coming out of their clownish attempts at reform. I don't even think they're competent enough to maintain a decent kleptocracy.

[rateyes]

2. If you don't get it,

you haven't been paying attention.

Can you say DLC? Can you say Blue Dogs? Can you say lack of leadership--all carrot, no stick.

[vaberella]

11. I don't know what you're talking about.

Plus I was never good with the carrot/stick analogy.

[rateyes]

15. Obama has been willing to compromise on EVERYTHING

That's the CARROT. He has NOT been willing to say to a Democrat "either you get on board, or you will not get any help getting reelected (the stick).

He is a weak leader.

[leftynyc]

44. I think the OP

was wondering how the President behaving this way is Rahm's fault. It's like people simply can't bring themselves to blame the President so in their twisted minds, it must be Rahm leading him around on a leash (or something).

[vaberella]

54. I can actually understand why the President behaves in certain ways.

But as to why Rahm gets the blame---is exactly what I'm wondering and you're right on that. As I've said to a few other posters they make Rahm to be Cheney to Obama's Bush; if you get my analogy.

[leftynyc]

55. I get your analogy

It's a good one.

[emsimon33]

77. Actually, that is a good analogy!

Rahm is the bad cop which enable Obama to play the good cop. In the meantime, it is Rahm who has marginalized and demonized the very people who went into personal debt and committed countless hours volunteering to get Obama elected.

All I ask is that Obama hold to his campaign promises. So far, he is not following through very well in this area. Perhaps, Rahm is not to blame; however, given Rahm's past embrace of corporations, Wall Street, and the 1% most wealthy elite over what is best for the country, I guess that's why we want to see his influence over Obama ended and his being ousted from his present position.

As long as Rahm is playing Cheney to Obama's Bush, we will not only lose elections, we will lose our country.

[vaberella]

90. Your post is completely ridiculous, to me, unfortunately.

How is Rahm the bad cop to Obama's good cop? Rahm is barely given air time. And when he is given air time most of his points are valid. Such when he declared that they are working to get things passed and a lot of the naysayers are not in their position to understand what is going on. However, you claim he's bad but where is he in the mainstream media's face talking? He must have been on the camera 5 times during this whole year but on this board he's continously seen as the enemy---because of unnamed sources or because of his personality he's seen as probably the one doing the "armtwisting"which is utterly ridiculous.

Then you say the stupidiest thing I have ever seen posted on this board. "All I ask is that Obama hold tohis campaign promises. So far, he is not following through very well in this area." You most definitely have not been paying attention, to say something like this.

Have you been to this site: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

They are keeping track of Obama's campaign promises. He's broken 15 of them, and he's fulfilled 91 of them with 33 compromises and 275 in the works. And you're sitting there and telling me hes not following through on them?! Are you mad?! I mean seriously. This is what I can't stand with people. You know so little, and assume so much and run on that gambit. Out of 139 promises so far, including compromises and excluding those in the works. Obama's completion percentile is 89%----do you see that. If I exclude the compromises he has an 86% completion rate of coming through for us. And you can seriously sit there and tell me he's not coming through very well?! Man.


All Rahm has done is made money with good deals. WallStreet is not teh evil here. There are dirty dealers on WS, as there are dirty dealers everywhere. Actually you'll note that the real people were not WS but those who traded on WS---Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns and so on. So what he made money. His relationships shouldn't be what ties him to what he's doing now which doesn't seem that bloody bad. I don't see people pointing out what he's doing that's wrong only the impression he gives because of his relationships. What you're doing is what the Repubs did by tieing Ares to Obama. Guilt by association is dangerous game.

Further more I certainly don't believe and I think it's the stupidiest and most outrageous claim that Rahm is to Cheney as Obama is to Bush----that analogy is the impression I'm given. And I most definitely think it's an absurd thought process.

[treestar]

58. Is it really that simple?

Somehow, I doubt it.

[emsimon33]

79. Yes, Obama is a compromiser. He seems to lack the backbone

that the country needs right now in its president.

[Clio the Leo]

3. THERE YOU ARE!!!!!

I've been wondering about you during all of this Haiti stuff!!! (hope your loved ones are ok) .... and I'm feeling especially bad for not PMing you. I kept intending to. .... but I had to argue with the Tweety haters. :)

Now, about your question ... what has ALWAYS amazed me is the simple fact that if someone bashes Rahm, they're bashing the President. In the early days, no one would bash the President like they do now. They used Rahm as their scape goat.

But the simple fact of the matter is that the President is apparently happy with his COS. If folks have a problem with Rahm I dont agree but that's their prerogative. But they need to start putting on the President and not hiding their criticism behind Rahm.

I triple yella dawg dare them.

[vaberella]

7. Surprisingly my family is okay. I can honestly say I didn't have much hope.

But we talked to all of them and one of my cousins managed to come online yesterday so I'm excited and happy. It's still a mess though and after today's latest quake, it didn't help the situation. We'll see what happens though.

I've noticed this tactic as well. It's like the two are the same person of differnt coins. But what annoys me is the amount of power they give Rahm. They make me think---Rahm with a cronies, ie Geigthner/Summers and the Bluedogs, are all part of the Illuminati and Obama is the puppet. Further more, I'm sick and tired on how the President and ie Rahm is always to blame for EVERYTHING. This has not changed from the primaries.

[Clio the Leo]

9. Spot on with the puppet analogy...

.... the ONLY way their arguments work is if Barack Obama is Rahm Emanuel's spineless, brainless puppet ..... I dont think that's true but if they think that's the case ..... then COME OUT AND SAY IT.

(putting my pom pom down long enough to draw a line in the sand)

[vaberella]

12. I think that might lead to a ban from the board and they wouldn't want that.

It's better to play word games.

[Number23]

37. Vab! I am so glad that you and your family are doing well.

Firedupdem started a thread in AAIG she was so worried about you! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=258x9435

[dgibby]

28. I have ALWAYS maintained that Obama is responsible for

selecting Rahm, and therefore responsible for anything Rahm or any other member of his Admin says or does. He is NOT a puppet, he is the puppeteer.

Personally, I think he's made some poor choices, and I hold him responsible.

[Ken Burch]

75. Bashing Rahm does NOT equal "bashing the president"

Those on your side of the debate keep implying that it does because you want to dismiss any concerns about the administrations direction as being "anti-Obama" and thus something that you should never listen to.

A lot of us have issues with Rahm because we believe that, if he were gone, it would change who will and will not be listened to by the president. We believe that Rahm has pushed, continually, for the administration's policies to be as conservative as possible. He has been arrogant and dismissive of progressives. Worst of all, he made the infamous "there IS no base" comment, the argument that our party's worst actors use to argue for having it stand for nothing.

We argue against Rahm because we HAVEN'T given up on Obama becoming a better president.

The fact is, Rahm serves no positive purpose and has done nothing since coming to office that has ever been beneficial to people who VOTED for Obama.

[tularetom]

5. He seems to me to be an insufferable, big mouthed, little twit with his own agenda

But maybe he is kind to dogs and orphans.

As far as Dean is concerned, Emanuel ought to STFU and listen to what this man has to say. He's a big part of the reason the Dems have both houses of congress and the WH.

[vaberella]

10. I won't deny Dean's role in helping us get the seats in the Congress.

However, I just have some issues with Dean my self in regards to healthcare and felt he was a bigmouthed that started off alright and lost himself half way. I stopped listening to him after the first flippity-flop. As for Rahm...you seem to be spouting personal feelings and not giving me a concrete action towards what he's done. Many hate Emmanuel and have said the same...I don't see the why that feeling has started.

[tularetom]

18. You're right I do have some "personal feelings"

I'm really tired of small statured punks with redwood sized chips on their shoulder. I don't "hate" him, just like I don't "hate" an annoying gnat buzzing round my head. To hate someone like Emanuel would be to dignify him far beyond his actual worth.

As far as concrete examples go here are a couple of paraphrases (don't have the actual quotes)-

* "left wingers and liberals - they don't matter"

or the ever popular
* "Progressives have nowhere else to go"


I think Emanuel was part of some deal Obama made to forestall a Hillary Clinton challenge at the 08 Democratic convention.

[JamesA1102]

39. Can you prove that he really said that.

Or did you just read someone else claim that he said that and believed without checking if it were the truth?

[quiller4]

89. I thik Rahm is an effective chief of staff and would hate to see him

leave the White House. I prefer to have Blue Dogs representing Southern and Midwestern states than their Republican counterparts, thank you just the same.

Perhaps you want an all-Liberal Democratic Party. I prefer the big tent approach.

I consider myself a Democrat first and a Liberal second.

[treestar]

59. Conservadems and Blue Dogs from some states

Which are better than Republicans. But we still have to live with them.

We get all these unrealistic expectations they should be primaried, and no rabid foaming that Dean is a sellout for not having progressive Dems elected from places like Nebraska.

So I don't understand Dean doing all this crap to undermine us. It's hard enough as it is.

[Smashcut]

6. I stopped at "Geithner and Summers are doing a good job."

:rofl:

[vaberella]

8. Whatever...I'm comparing what Bush left us with--with what we currently have.

And what was predicted if no actions were taken. That being said...I think they did well. But that's whatever...I'm sure you'd much prefer the soup line that were predicted at the end of the Bush term.

[Cha]

14. Oh, you're dealing in reality

as opposed to making them out the boogie guys.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

16. They helped CREATE the problem we were left with.

[vaberella]

52. And so did many others...such as President Clinton and going back to Nixon.

But they have also helped to alleviate a lot of the problems that the made. So this whole problem can also be traced dating back to 20 years, years before they were around when there as massive relaxation in financial regulations. To say this entire blame lies solely with Summers and Geithner is a joke. Not to mention their real role in this problem is people's issues with the bonuses given to the CEOs not really the issues that lead to the economic failure we had. The economic failure we had was dated to many other problems in the system decades before, as I mentioned.

[Smashcut]

19. I've got news for you: a lot of people are ON the soup line, and the Dow being over 10000

doesn't help them.

In any case, what progress have we made w/ market regulation?

The shenanigans w/ derivatives markets continues. Funny money is pouring out in 7-figure banker bonuses.

We still have banks that are "too big to fail" - in fact, they have even more leverage now since the mergers post-Lehman. What happens if BofA or Citi gets into trouble again? More taxpayer billions into their coffers?

What is Geithner doing to prevent another fraud like the one perpetrated by his buddies at Goldman Sachs, i.e., short-selling the same fraudulent derivatives it was packaging for its customers as AAA-rated paper? My guess is, a big zero. Especially since Geithner defended Hank Paulson's handling of Goldman during the Lehman meltdown.

For that matter, what about Geithner's role in AIG fiasco when he was at the NY Fed? Another incident that coincidentally resulted in billions channeled to Goldman and other Wall Street firms.

Frankly I think it's a weak distinction you're making. First of all, Geithner and Summers were on the financial scene long before they were hired by Obama, and they helped create the mess we're in. As Sec. of the Treasury, it's actually arguable whether Geithner's ANY BETTER than his predecessor, whom he's defended in the past! Certainly their approaches to "fixing" things are exactly the same: throw more money at Wall Street!

[vaberella]

50. And not to seem insensitive but this economic structure has always had about 7%

on soup lines. But we're talking Depression to worse than Depression style numbers and this is what I'm detailing. What you're doing is being shortsighted because it benefits your argument. I'm looking at this whole situation at large. If nothing was done we'd have drama. Further more, a lot of these contracts were done before Obama was in Presidency and were sealed, yes, during the time of Geigthner---but the way people make it seem it's as though Geigthner ruled all and there weren't other people involved in these negotiations---such as the then President, Bush. Further more, I'm not even alleviating of his part in our economic drama, but this also dates back to the time of Clinton when problems started. So there's plenty of blame to go around. What I'm looking at is what he's done since and as I said...compared to what was expected to happen, him and Summers did well.

[donco6]

25. Me too!

Damn. When someone's that far gone, there's no hope.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[MannyGoldstein]

17. It Is Now Illegal On DU To Conjoin Obama's And Rahm's Names

As I was vigorously told by the mods.

[Dinger]

78. What?

Really?

[MannyGoldstein]

80. Yep.

The mods said it's flame bait. Others said it's racist.

[Dinger]

88. Wow, Just Wow

Weird.

[MrMickeysMom]

20. He's a criminal wanna be...

like his dad. Other than that, I'm sure he's kind to his mom.

As for Mr Geithner and Summers- now we're in a new dimension - corporatist bankers. They thought nothing of allowing the banking industry to increase under its ever-expanding girth while ignoring sub-prime loan practices, cheered on through deregulation (again, after the first depression's sting long forgotten) driving many into bankruptcy. That's a great recipe for thinking we should be happy about this "health care" bill.

None of these thugs gives a shit about Main Street. All of them pay daily tribute to Wall Street.

Yeah, it's pretty Gawd damned exhausting, alright.

[Smashcut]

21. Tim Geithner on Hank Paulson et al:

"These are deeply honorable men, great public statesmen willing to come serve their country in very challenging times and they did exceptionally good things for the country," Mr. Geithner said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125088307063549883.html

:puke:

[MrMickeysMom]

24. I think with a few edits, you must have misread this quote, I recall -

... public statesmen "willing to COME all over their country", wasn't it?

I had to laugh at this ACTUAL quote from Geithner-

"We have been forced to do just extraordinary things and, frankly, offensive things to help save the economy," Mr. Geithner said."

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Smashcut]

26. Must have been premature articulation on his part

;)

[MrMickeysMom]

29. (whiplash sound!)

Score!

[JI7]

22. it has something to do with Howard Dean

[Armstead]

23. He represents the problem with the Democratic Party's divided loyalties

Ideally, the Democratic Party is supposed to be the liberal counterpoint to the conservative Republican party, by protecting and advancing the interests of the majority over the tendency of the wealthy and powerful to abuse people and the system.

That doesn't mean Democrats are "anti-business" but the party is the party of government as a counterbalance to the excessive accumulation of wealth and power by the elites.

However, the DLC "centrists" have steadily been pushing for Democtrats to become mofre c onservative and more like republicans, and have aligned the Democratic Party too closely to the oligarchs.

Rahm is at the center of this, and is the enforcer against anyone or anything that the conservative "centrists" deem is too far "left."

[yurbud]

27. Do you're homework on the DLC & Rahm. Also, it doesn't bother you that Summers was the architect

of a lot of the deregulation that led to our economic crisis? Putting him in charge of economic policy is like putting Jeffrey Dahmer in charge of a vegetarian restaurant.

[Ex Lurker]

30. he's arrogant and incompetent. That's enough for me n/t

[boppers]

31. So, to change a political fight (or simply troll) without logic, pick on the "powerful".

Demonize those in power at every turn, complain about their failings, ignore their accomplishments. Objectify them, de-humanize them.

Depending on the political bent, the current administration bashers may go after Rahm, or Napalitano, or McChrystal, but in the end, it's all the same kind of motives (removing power) and results (a bunch of attention is given to the "noble whistle blower").

Talk radio has made a whole career out of this kind of behavior, on the left *and* the right. It sells, and people like the attention, and sense of accomplishment, when they get to feel like like their criticism was part of tearing somebody down.

This is simply part of human behavior, throughout history.

[LooseWilly]

42. "Objectify them, de-humanize them..." way to criticize in broad brush terms...

not to mention be guilty of exactly what you accuse others of being guilty of.

Hypocrisy couched in vagaries... double plus weak.

[elleng]

32. I don't know anything about a 'concerted effort,' but I question his judgment.

Best example I have is his opposition to Dean's 50-State strategy. Playing it the OLD way, which was done to a fair extent, got us the members we've got, who apparently don't have the guts to take the PEOPLE's case to DC.

Dean and Grayson have it, imo, NOT rahm.

[StreetKnowledge]

33. The Rahm Emanuel Problem is Rahm, period.

He's got to be fired. Period.

[vaberella]

49. Uh huh...very insightful, you've enlightened me.

That's like me saying HRC needs to be fired---no reason, just because.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Rahm made the mistake of recruiting moderate/conservadems

in areas where that is all that could win.

Dems don't like conservadems.....
although if there weren't that,
we'd have Republicans instead.

[w4rma]

65. Bullshit. He's got an agenda and it's bad for America. (nt)

[CreekDog]

36. Rip Van Winkle just woke up and posted that OP

:rofl:

people criticizing Rahm? my goodness, why on earth would they do that???

[vaberella]

46. The man doesn't get enough air time for me to waste my time on him.

I don't see how ever is making him out to be some demonic being who controls the government. People on this board make him out to be a Cheney-like person. Which I find to be ridiculously over the top.

[JamesA1102]

38. Dean it the god that can do know wrong.

Rahm is a demon who can do no right. I think that's in the DU guidelines.

[RememberWellstone]

40. He needs to go

He is not Karl Rove, the President does not need a Rove right now, he needs a man who can understand what people need to hear. Rham is a self-absorbed idealogue, we need a creative person who can help build not constantly tear down.

[lamp_shade]

41. Just as I anticipated, Vabarella, NOBODY WAS ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

:banghead:

[vaberella]

48. Not one person.

It seems most of the dislike just stems from just personal feelings rather than anything he's really done. They just either can't handle the guys face or presence. But it has nothing to do with what he's don in the Admin so far. And the amount of power they give him is just unbelievable to say the least. It's like they're trying to tell me. Rahm-Cheney as Obama- Bush. Which is blatantly untrue.

[TheKentuckian]

43. Rahm is an overrated never do well but is anti-liberal and loves

corporate America that seems to be fixated on turning the New Deal party into a less racist Republican party clone and that's a crappy and detrimental mix for a Democratic CoS but he's a sideshow compared to the Reagonomics loving, corporate communist enabling, trickle down, globalization promoting fuckwads that are Geithner and Summers who are both as we speak aiding and abetting generational theft of the American people to pad the pockets of the banks and big business and rolling the dice on another crash and more transfer of wealth to the robberbarons.

They did absolutely nothing that any sane economist wouldn't have done in the same situation, only less and with no thought of protection or oversight.

[wyldwolf]

45. maybe I can help

After losing five out of six presidential elections by substantial margins, Bill Clinton wins an impressive electoral college victory in 1992 running as a 'New Democrat." (No, Perot was no factor.) Liberals who are more left in their thinking are convinced the New Dem movement runs counter to what the Democratic party is "suppose to stand for." Never much for historical accuracy, a small but vocal group of "progressives" still blame the New Dem movement for all their woes. Rahm Emanuel was a fundraiser for Bill Clinton (no-no #1). He helped Clinton get elected, which ushered in the dark ages for the young progressive movement (who would have flourished, no doubt, under a second GHW Bush administration.)

After Emanuel's time in the Clinton administration, he worked in the private financial sector (no-no #2) and made lots of money (no-no #3.) Insinuations of wrongdoing by the left quickly followed.

In 2002, Emanuel ran for congress, no doubt defeating a more progressive candidate (in the left's eyes) in the primaries. (no-no #4.)

Emanuel becomes chair of the DCCC (no-no #5) and is widely credited with winning the house back for the Democrats in 2006 (no-no #6) despite Howard Dean's 50 state strategy gearing up at the same time (a strategy Dean concedes as being a long term one.) During that period, a spat between Emanuel and Dean happens (no-no #7 - Dean shall not be questioned!) because Emanuel wants the DNC to invest money in winnable races and Dean wants to invest money in areas that will bear political fruit in the future. Emanuel ridicules Dean for that thinking (no-no #8). Emanuel eventually wins the argument and Dean puts most of the money Emanuel wanted into winnable races.

Emanuel is appointed COS for President Obama, and immediately makes Obama his puppet. Every decision from the white house has been secretly made by President...uh... COS Emanuel.

[vaberella]

47. This is exactly what I thought.

The man makes money and he's a villain. I'm serious, and I've said this before...people on this sight (some people) make it seem as though Rahm is to Obama the way Cheney is to Bush. It makes no sense to me.

[alsame]

51. I'm so glad your family is okay, vab. nt

[vaberella]

53. Thanks. We were lucky.

I can honestly say that I wasn't very hopeful and lived in a state of panic until I heard from everyone. But luckily we're okay but Haiti needs so much more help.

[TheKentuckian]

57. No, the buck stops with Obama. He's responsible for his appointees

I assume if they are not corrected they speak with his voice and move at his will.

If you're a fan of corporate influence then you wouldn't get it.

[lamp_shade]

56. BRAVO.

[depakid]

63. That is one of the more impressive bits of rationalization I've read from you yet!

I'll say this- you surely have a way with sophistry, revisionist history, and disdain for progressives.

That along with an astonishing inability to learn from history or take any responsibility for the consequences of appeasement and capitualtion to failed ideology, and the destructive policies that it's bred.

Indeed- your posts are the very embodiment of Democratic failures- which led to 12 long years of minority status- and the loss of the presidency to a pathological liar and imbecile idiot in 2000- and to a lesser extent- in 2004.

[wyldwolf]

64. yeah - which part do you think isn't true?

Democrats lost five out of six presidential elections by substantial margins and Bill Clinton wins an impressive electoral college victory in 1992 running as a 'New Democrat.' Not true?

Progressives aren't convinced the New Dem movement runs counter to what the Democratic party is "suppose to stand for?" You just confirmed that in your response.

Rahm Emanuel wasn't a fundraiser for Bill Clinton? He wasn't chair of the DCCC? He isn't widely credited with winning the 2006 house elections? Dean didn't relent and give him the money he wanted for winnable house seats? All documented fact. So what part is revisionist?

[firedupdem]

66. Thanks so much....this is the only clear explanation I've ever seen

on this board. Thanks again!

[w4rma]

67. You skipped the part where Rahm was one of Clintons Senior Advisors during the 1994 Repug Revolution

Rahm is repeating his stellar performance of losing huge Democratic majorities to the Republicans, again.

(edited my dumb mistake to avoid confusion)

[wyldwolf]

69. No I didn't because he was never Clinton's Chief of Staff.

Just for the record, the poster edited the previous post after saying Emanuel was Clinton's COS. Interesting trying to have a discussion that is history centered with some people who get facts like that wrong.

[w4rma]

71. Correction: He was one of Clinton's "Senior Advisors" who advised Clinton to take the missteps that

led to the 1994 Republican Revolution which routed huge Democratic majorities. He's repeating his performance on a grander scale under Obama.

[wyldwolf]

73. interesting. your pal depakid just said "progressives" screwed the Dems in 1994

"America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns."

But most people (outside the very narrow netroots echo chamber) know it was the 28 Democratic retirements in southern districts, Republican gerrymandering, the first major mobilization of the Christian right, Newt Gingrich's exploitation of some very corrupt Dem congressman (Rubbergate) and an anti-incumbency wave that had been building since the late 80s that cause the 94 midterm results.

And if Clinton's policies were so bad, why did he win an electoral landslide in '96 and a 14 house seats before his term expired?

[bajamary]

60. One of the two Obama favorite TV shows is...

Yes, Obama LOVES to watch "Entourage" - the TV show about Rahm's sleazy Hollywood brother.

Obama's other favorite TV show is "Mad Men".

Rather revealing choices, but alas, they're not reassuring.

I wish Obama watched Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Those are my two favorite TV shows :)

[depakid]

61. Part of it is that Emmanuel- like Gaithner and Summers, has a poor track record

His advice and "expertise" contributed greatly to the 1994 debacle, just as Summers and Gaithner contributed greatly to the financial meltdown.

People with poor track records, particularly arrogant and dismissive sorts like Emmanuel and Summers, invite enmity, fail to respond to feedback- and can be expected to continue their pattern of poor decision making.

Failing to even invite physycians supporting single payer to the white house, while meeting repeatedly there with PhARMA and health insurer reps is a very good example of Rahm's anti-midas touch, as have been "warnings" to progressive groups about mobilizing media campaigns against those who were opposed to responsible compromise reforms like the public option.

[wyldwolf]

62. "His advice and "expertise" contributed greatly to the 1994 debacle" how so?

?

[depakid]

68. History lesson:

The guy was one of Clinton's top political advisors and was the force behind pro-corporate DLC, Blue Dog, Third Way principles that required them to screw their base and even Democratic legislators- with such popular and "effective" policies as NAFTA.

Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by the administration's cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns.

This helped swing the 1994 election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

And here's the kicker-

Rahm Emanuel himself had the temerity to tell the Wall Street Journal, the Clinton White House lost its way in its first two years by failing to "do what you got elected to do."

To which one can either react with this:

:rofl:

or this:

:grr:

[w4rma]

70. Very well explained, depakid. (nt)

[wyldwolf]

72. History lesson

1994 saw 28 Democratic retirements from southern states and other districts trending red. Rahm did that?

Nationwide republican gerrymandering in 1994. Rahm?

The first nation-wide mobilization of the Christian right in 1994. Mr. Emanuel?

Nine lost seats in 1992. Rahm did that?

But wait! 8 seats won in 1996. A Clinton electoral landslide in 1996. People must have liked that bad old DLC! 5 more house seats won in 1998. A net gain on 1 house seat in 2000 and a presidential election "progressives" helped steal for the GOP.

:rofl:

I thought you said "history lesson." What you gave was progressive fantasy.

[depakid]

74. There's no sense in arguing with folks who fail to learn

Sort of like discussing policy with teabaggers. The ideology is set in stone- and only invites (at times bizarre) counterfactuals and inapposite analogies that fail to take even the most obvious of dynamics into account.

Take heart though- up until now, the administration and Democatic leaders in Congress share your denialsm and are following the same pattern which worked so well in the past.

Dean is out out on the sidelines- and Emmanuel is again the cock on the roost. Surely he and his ilk will lead you to even more impressive victories in November- and beyond.

Along with public policy that's designed to improve the lot of oredinary Americans and main street- at the expense of corporate K-Street influence peddlers.

[wyldwolf]

76. that's true. facts always get in your way.

Ideology aside, the basic facts of you 1994 analysis are lacking.

[depakid]

81. The facts are as clear as they always have been- and have been discussed countless times

by both you and I on this board- and by a lot of other seasoned analysts and observers.

Those in leadership positions can either learn from past mistakes- or repeat them.

Of course, past mistakes (which many of us fought in the trenches against at the time- and warned people about) can and do compound future mistakes. Deregulatory policies in Clinton's telecommunications bill for example hastened (and cemented) the spread of far right hate radio- to the extent that in most communities, political "discourse" on the public airwaves approached the level of uniformity found in totalitarian regimes.

Similarly, financial deregulation- and non-enforcement not only increased the political power of the non-producing class- but led to the "too big to fail" institutions that ended up socializing their costs and losses onto the treasury. This in turn led to populist anger- which the aforementioned members of the administration ceded to Republicans- who capitalized on it in Massachussetts.

Add in present events (foreseen or unforeseen) like today's Supreme court announcement- and, well most readers will get the picture.

[wyldwolf]

82. if you've discussed the fact of 1994 countless times, then you keep missing the big facts

it was the 28 Democratic retirements in southern districts, Republican gerrymandering, the first major mobilization of the Christian right, Newt Gingrich's exploitation of some very corrupt Dem congressman (Rubbergate) and an anti-incumbency wave that had been building since the late 80s that cause the 94 midterm results.

And Clinton's policies were so bad, he won an electoral landslide in '96 and a 14 house seats before his term expired.

[depakid]

83. You can keep on shouting your rationalizations for failure until your face turns blue

Fact is- your policies brought ruin to the party and the nation. And continues to do so.

As to Dole- LOL. He was a sacrificial lamb who no one expected to have a chance. My bet is that Republicans won't offer up another such sap in 2012.

Then again, you never know with Republicans... astute as they are with politics, they have an even dumber, more self destructive streak in them than corporatist Dems.

[wyldwolf]

85. I'm not rationalizing failure. I'm simply posting documented facts

:shrug:

There are facts that contributed to the losses of 1994. You choose to ignore them in favor of the netroots revisionist view. Your belief that DLC policies have "ruined" the party and country are irrelevant to the fact surrounding the 1994 midterms.

[depakid]

86. You're simply in denial- and mustering whatever cherry picked (and incongruent) matters

you can.

Like political dynamics- psychological processes (like confirmation bias) aren't all that hard to recognize or assess.

This is why I tend to either laugh at- or slam folks who place the blame on progressives not turning out- voting third party, etc.

I mean- how does the leadership expect its constuencies to behave?

What's the likely effect of creating a political vacuum?

Researchers like Drew Westen and George Lakoff have been studying and writing about this for years- but in a turn of events paralleling the best of classical tragedy, the party of science fails to heed the advice- whereas the party hostile to the same puts the principles into play almost intuitively.

[wyldwolf]

87. In denial of what? Your argument is over policies, mine over events

:shrug:

I haven't denied anything you said - I haven't even commented on it - because our discussion is on the events leading to the 1994 elections. You've chosen to ignore my documented facts leading to those results.

If this is going to be our weekly DU revisit to 1994, I'll tell you now the facts of that year have not changed. There was years of pent-up popular frustration with a Democratic-dominated Congress, skillfully exploited by the GOP’s dishonest but resolute alliance with the term-limits and balanced-budget movements.

If "progressives" didn't rely on simple-simon agenda driven explanations, their memories would clear and they'd remember the early 90s gave us...

* ... rubbergate.

* ... a huge number of Democratic retirements (28 to be exact) in conservative districts.

* ... racial gerrymandering that guaranteed big southern losses in the House

* ... the first big mobilization of the Christian Right...

These are "cherry picked (and incongruent) matters?"

Oh, I know Drew Westen.

[MadBadger]

84. Yesterday was Rahm=Rove day. Which was when I realized DU jumped the shark.