Rahm Emmanuel: Don't worry about the left ("There are no Senate liberals left to get" he says)

[brentspeak]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/18/rahm-emanuel-dont-worry-about-the-left/

By Jonathan Weisman

Turn off MSNBC. Tune out Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann. The White House has its liberal wing in hand on health care, says White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

“There are no liberals left to get” in the Senate, Emanuel said in an interview, shrugging off some noise from the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) that a few liberals might bolt over the compromises made with conservative Democrats.

snip

“I don’t think the White House recognizes how much trouble they’re in,” said one former Democratic official this morning. “I think they’re miscalaculating what’s happening with progressives and the left. They feel like they’re being taken for granted.”

But Emanuel pointed to a New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=krugman&st=cse">column by economist Paul Krugman and another coming from National Journal writer Ronald Brownstein pressing for passage of the Senate health bill. “What you’re seeing is the progressive backlash against the progressive backlash,” he said.

If Ronald Brown-noser's http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/deans_blind_spot.php">smug article is partly what Emmanuel's crowing about, his confidence is badly misplaced.

[DJ13]

1. “There are no liberals left”

His statement had two too many words in it.

[villager]

8. Seem to be plenty of assholes left, however

Too bad Obama saw fit to appoint one chief of staff.

[roguevalley]

21. Rahm Emanuel elicits the same feeling from me that Karl Rove does.

and he has Obama's ear.

[Cant trust em]

2. I can't deal with this guy anymore. nt

[damntexdem]

3. Further shitting on the base.

Which is a broad swath of the Party and of the electorate, now being spoken for only by the 'left.'

[Tempest]

4. If he's using Krugman as an indicator, he's in for a real surprise

I can't believe how badly the WH is misreading progressives and liberals on the HC issue.

It will come back and haunt them in 2010.

[girl gone mad]

12. Yep. Krugman is not and has never been a progressive champion.

His track record includes backing the Centrist Hillary Clinton over the (then believed to be) more progressive Barack Obama, pushing for quick passage of TARP when most progressives opposed it, rationalizing huge deficits instead of pushing to reign in defense spending, and now supporting a corporate giveaway health bill.

I respect Krugman's opinion, but he usually does not speak for me.

[tsuki]

20. Not only progressives and liberals, but independents as well. nt

[budkin]

5. Eat shit Rahm

[WT Fuheck]

6. to hell with liberals

who needs 'em.

they're always right, which is a pain in the ass, because we want to do what makes us money or gives us power, which is pretty much always not right.

Screw 'em.

How come the right wing fascists say "screw the liberals," and now the "centrist" fascists are saying "screw the liberals"? I thought things were supposed to change.

[treestar]

7. Are they really that childish?

I doubt it. No way are they going to vote against it just because of their alleged hurt feelings. They are Senators. I doubt their feelings are even hurt. They know politics.

[ezgoingrl]

9. Rahm you can kiss my

A double Sssssssssssssss.

[IndianaGreen]

10. And I didn't vote for Hillary because of Clintonian triangulation

Boy, how wrong I was!

[janx]

11. Watch your sources, guys.

I think this is the second blog article from the WSJ--do you go for their editorials too?--that muddies the waters of the democrats.

I don't know who Weisman is, but before believing everything I read, I'd sure check him out. ;-)

[Zodiak]

13. Agreed...the WSJ is not a paragon of liberalism

However, these kinds of comments have been coming from the WH channeled through a lot more sources than the WSJ. If true, this would just be latest and more fuel on the fire.

[janx]

16. "If true..."

;-)

[Divine Discontent]

14. very valid point. although I'm sure based on the past, Rahm is everything we think he is, but yeah,

the WSJ is a nasty paper, so point well taken.

[janx]

17. I can't say it enough.

People see what they want to see sometimes, given their ideology or stance. It's self-verification. The WSJ isn't a terrible paper when it reports numbers and facts, but its editorials are always biased.

[hileeopnyn8d]

15. That is a good point

I thought his name was familiar, and a quick Google search reveals liberal bloggers have been calling him out since as far back as 2004.

He makes up his own dialog, except for during the Bush admin. then he just rewrote press releases and carefully buried or omitted the real facts.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000198.html

http://www.openleft.com/diary/14356/a-revelatory-look-at-dcs-media-matrix-yes-these-people-really-believe-they-decide-the-facts

Media Matters has a section for him too. He also called Obama "more white than black" since he didn't have any black experience/culture.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/23/weisman-obama-irony/

But hey, if it fits the meme, that's all that matters these days.

[janx]

18. I am not at all surprised!

And thank you for sniffing around a bit. That's all people have to do--what are the sources? Where is the information coming from?

:toast:

[hileeopnyn8d]

19. You're welcome

It's a habit that I picked up during the Bush administration, and especially during the Kerry campaign.

If at all possible, I look for transcripts and compare them to articles & op/eds, it's astounding how easily journalists can distort what was said. Even more astounding is when they just make shit up.

[Ildem09]

22. bleh

I didnt like Rahm back when he fought with Dean in 06 and was in the IL-05 CD. Mike Quigley is a far better representative

[m3e92man8850]

23. Stupid prick