Rahm Emanuel takes heat over Dana Milbank column

[Beacool]

By GLENN THRUSH | 2/22/10

Critics left and right are accusing Rahm Emanuel of disloyalty-by-proxy after a Dana Milbank column in Sunday’s Washington Post defended the White House chief of staff – while trashing reputed Emanuel rivals Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs.


There’s not a shred of proof that Emanuel fed Milbank the Rahm-friendly intel included in the piece – or that he was the source of a tart comparison of President Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter. But critics from MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough to widely-read D.C. blogger Steve Clemons see telltale signs of Emanuel’s involvement.

On Monday’s “Morning Joe,” Scarborough, an Emanuel opponent of long standing, all but accused him of blaming Obama for not following his advice to move ahead more aggressively on jobs and recovery bills after health reform stalled in the Senate.


"Dana Milbank wrote a story where he said: 'If only the president had followed Rahm everything would be okay.' It certainly sounds like Rahm was leaking like a sieve to Dana Milbank,” said Scarborough. “It appears that Rahm has become quite promiscuous in telling anybody who will listen to him about how he tried to coach the president."

-------

The reaction from Democrats was swifter and less measured, with many progressives still blaming Emanuel for counseling the president to ditch the public option on health care reform – and smarting over the revelation that the chief of staff called liberal attacks against moderate lawmakers “F—-ing retarded.”


"Wow, what a hatchet job on Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod!" wrote Huffington Post contributor Cenk Uygur, host of the syndicated “Young Turks” podcast.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33276.html

I don't know if Rahm leaked information to Milbank, but Milbank's column has sure caused a lot of sturm und drung.

:(

[WI_DEM]

1. The best thing Obama could do in the short term is to get rid of Raum.

[Beacool]

3. I'm not so sure.

Every WH needs a realist ball-buster. In this WH that person is Rahm. He may be more centrist than some would like, but he was pretty effective in Congress. I think that both Milbank and Cenk made some valid points in their respective columns.

[Bullet1987]

4. Rahm is not the only realist in Washington

And I challenge the notion that he's a realist anyway. Unless to you realism equals corporatism

[zipplewrath]

10. How has he succeeded here?

We can argue about how well he did in congress, but really, what has he accomplished here other than pissing off the base? No matter how you look at it, this guy is a failure. Obama's apparently not taking his advice on big issues, or he isn't capable of executing Obama's plans. Either way why keep him around?

[Beacool]

14. I think that Obama keeps him around because he deflects the heat off him.

It's easier to blame Rahm than to blame Obama. That's one of the purposes of a Chief of Staff. If Obama didn't approve of Rahm's tactics, he would have been gone long ago.

:shrug:

[zipplewrath]

15. 'Tain't workin'

Obama's numbers are down, his base is demoralized (calling them retarded will do that). And now the press is busy explaining how it's all Obama's fault for not listening to Rahm. Rahm's suppose to take the fall, not shift blame to Obama. In any other administration, he'd be gone by now for abject failure to deliver.

[Alcibiades]

30. The problem is that he's not a ball buster

At least not when it comes to progressive issues. Emmanuel served in the House, and I think the House leadership has done a fine job: it's the Senate where we need help. An experienced Senate staffer might be a good bet for a replacement.

[Beacool]

31. Anybody in mind?

The senate is far more tricky to manipulate. They are far more ensconced in their archaic protocol and take it as a point of pride to piss off every president.

[Alcibiades]

32. No, no one in mind

Any effective senior member of a Democratic senator's staff might be a good bet--preferably someone who's in the job now, so their contacts are current.

[zipplewrath]

8. +1

Either he's a failure, or he has no ability to implement Obama's vision. Either way he should be gone.

[sharp_stick]

2. Widely read blogger Steve Clemons?

not so widely read if the idiots at Politico have to refer to him as "widely read". Who the hell is Steve Clemons and why oh why is this "widely read blogger" considered a source at Politico now?

Dana Milbank is an asshole plain and simple, I wouldn't treat anything put down on paper by him to a birdcage never mind as a fact until it's been documented by at least 3 real journalists.

[Beacool]

5. Maybe so, but was everything he wrote inaccurate?

Idealists are not always the best people to get things done. I think that Obama chose Rahm precisely because he has an abrasive personality and can, figuratively speaking, break some kneecaps to accomplish his goals (or rather the president's goals). If Obama wasn't happy with Rahm, he would have long been gone.

;)

[grasswire]

11. Dana Milbank is Skull & Bones, too

I never trust anything one of those snakes says.

[wyldwolf]

6. yep, because Joe Scarborough, Steve Clemons, and Cenk (who?) says so.

[Beacool]

9. Rahm is despised here, but I think that he serves a purpose.

If he didn't, Obama wouldn't have chosen him in the first place. Rahm tends to take the heat that normally would have been directed at the president. How many times haven't we read here posts that blame Rahm for various things as if Obama wasn't the person in charge? Deflecting the heat off Obama seems to be one of Rahm's main responsibilities.

;-)

[zipplewrath]

13. Then he's failing

Exactly how has he succeeded? Think about it. Obama's popularity is way down, so he hasn't deflected any of that. He's pissed off the base, and their mad at Obama. And, oh yeah, how'd that election in Massachusetts going for him?

At some point it isn't about how hard Rahm is trying, it's whether he is succeeding.

[Beacool]

16. Do you think that Axelrod and Jarrett are proving to be more effective than Rahm?

Also Gibbs, his sarcastic and dismissive style has managed to tick off many reporters, regardless of political vent.

No one doubts that Obama's inner circle was very effective at running a political campaign, but that doesn't necessarily make them effective at governing. They are two completely different animals.

:shrug:

[zipplewrath]

18. I think they're not chief of staff.

Don't play into Rahm's game. He's chief of staff, not them. If he doesn't like how the White House is functioning, he's got the access to the one guy that can change all that. What I think is that we need an effective chief of staff. How effective has Rahm been and who can do better? That is the question.

[Beacool]

21. True.........

My point is that the left despises Rahm and blames him for far too many things, when in reality if his boss didn't agree with the way he is handling his job he would have gotten rid of him. Therefore, I tend to think that Obama approves of what Rahm has done so far.

[zipplewrath]

23. Hard to tell

The Milbank article is now trying to portray him as the "guy no one listens to". Kinda strange if he is some major Obama confidant. Why would Obama keep him around if he constantly gives bad advice? I tend to suspect Obama does listen to him alot, which is why the public option was dead last July. Whether he is "doing what Obama wants him to", that is hard to judge. Obama presumably doesn't want a "yes man". So one suspects that Rahm has a certain amount of freedom to act independently. "No Drama Obama" isn't likely to fire folks too quickly either, so I'm not sure what Rahm's longevity is. I presume Obama isn't pleased that Rahm called the base "retarded". And I suspect Rahm had far more to do with Dean being locked out completely that Obama did.

So in the end, criticism of Rahm as a chief of staff is legitimate, unless one wants to presume that he is just some clerk shuffling papers. Of course, it is possible to attribute too much to Rahm, but that doesn't mean that nothing should be either.

[rudy23]

7. The article must have struck a nerve if Rahm's PR team is countering so strongly today

That snarky diary countering Cenk's analysis of Milbank's piece is proof to me that Cenk (and others who are trying to read the tea leaves) have struck a nerve with Rahm.

[Beacool]

12. Hmmm, he doesn't strike me as someone who cares what people think of him.

He actually probably enjoys perpetuating the idea that he's a tough guy.

:D

[tularetom]

17. I kinda think he cares what republicans think of him

I read somewhere that he was pressuring the Attorney General Holder to back off the civilian trial of the underpants bomber because he was afraid Lindsey Grahm would be pissed off.

Of course we know he thinks liberals are "fucking retards".

He has shown time after time that he is not furthering the President's agenda, that he has his own agenda which seems to be to make the Democratic party indistinguishable from the republicans.

Plus I think Obama did not freely select him as COS, it was part of a deal with the DLC wing of the party to get Hillary Clinton to go quietly at the 2008 party convention.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but as far as I'm concerned he is a piece o shit and needs to find work elsewhere.

[Beacool]

19. It's not that he cares about Republicans,

but he knows that we may need some Republicans on our side on most of the issues. The most effective legislators learned how to work with the other side. We don't live in a dictatorship and one side will always have to seek some common ground with the opposing party. Rahm knows how Congress operates far more than some of the political crowd in the WH.

I'm neutral on him, I neither hate him nor am I a big fan, but I think that around here he sometimes gets blamed for way too many things. People are directing their anger at Rahm when they should be looking more closely at his boss, after all, the buck stops with the president.

:eyes:

[rudy23]

20. He's in politics, of course he cares what people think of him!

Especially Republicans! LOL. I've seen even subtler plants than this diary, too. Like an article in Psychology Today explaining how hypomania helps Rahm get a lot done in a day. I've done a lot of work in PR, and those smell like plants to me. I could be wrong, but that's the overall impression I get.

[Beacool]

22. Interesting.

What's hypomania?

[rudy23]

24. Hypomania - a mood state characterized by persistent and pervasive elevated or irritable mood

Hypomania (literally, below mania) is a mood state characterized by persistent and pervasive elevated or irritable mood, and thoughts and behaviors that are consistent with such a mood state. People experiencing hypomanic symptoms typically have a flight of ideas, a decreased need for sleep and/or rest, are extremely outgoing and daring, and have a great deal of energy.


I could be wrong about the plant, but I have a stronger gut feeling about the slambook style, "What is the sexiest thing about Rahm?" polls I've seen planted in mags/blogs like Gawker. I do PR for bands and a few other celebs, and these (along with this response to Cenk's diary) REEK of PR plants.

[Beacool]

26. Thank you for your insight.

I had never heard of that term. Sounds almost like manic depression, but not quite.

:(

[JamesA1102]

25. Milbank lied about Obama

He can't be trusted. He's a right wing shill.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002220023

[Beacool]

27. Oh, I'm not a fan of Milbank.

I still remember he and Cillizza's “Mouthpiece Theater” and the "Mad Bitch" comment about Hillary.

;(

[Phx_Dem]

28. Milbank's always been a huge troublemaking dick. He doesn't

need Rahm to feed him anything. Not one item in that column appears to be "confidential" or something that anyone couldn't dredge up. Whether any of it's true or not is a totally different issue, and one that Milbank likely does not care about.

While I think Milbank is a piece of shit and this article is mostly a hatchet job, I tend to agree with his basic premise: Rahm provides a good balance for Obama.

[Beacool]

29. That's pretty much my take too.

And that's why Obama convinced Rahm to take the job. People forget that Rahm didn't jump at the opportunity to be in the WH, he was angling to have Nancy's job at some point in the future. Obama had to persuade two people to accept their current positions, one was Hillary and the other one was Rahm. I don't get why people think that Rahm is off the reservation, most of the actions he has taken probably meet with Obama's approval. Otherwise, he would have been smacked down by now.