Pelosi (4.00 / 2)

Rahm has undermined Pelosi every chance he had. And he continues to undermine her. And both the Hispanic and Black Caucus as displeased with Rahm.

---

by: AliceDem @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 16:08:20 PM UTC

Elite Illusions Are Never-Ending (4.00 / 6)

And this nails them pretty clearly.

But what's interesting is how many times losers like Bob Shrum were allowed to repeat one fumbled campaign after another. This, of course, can best be explained by assuming that winning really wasn't the point, so much as keeping the DFHs down,

Given that sort of past incompetence, it's even easier for Rahm to sell himself.  That's how one folly gets pilled on top of another.

Hence, Rahm's real genius is not winning, but winning while keeping the DFHs down.

And he really was good at that.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 16:10:43 PM UTC

Yes exactly. (4.00 / 4)

Hence, Rahm's real genius is not winning, but winning while keeping the DFHs down.

One cannot watch election after election, where the driving iissues of the day. unemployment, bank conmtrol of peoples lives, mortgages, falling wages, the threat to the economy from coercive corporations and all the other issues that people felt deeply in their lives, the issues that would form a motivated base, drive a population to change,

were all ignored.

Election after election the Democratic Party election machines churned out oatmeal, tight lips and boring machinations about policies at the margin. People were encouraged for generations to not expect anything, that ones expectations must lowered, that sights must set closer to our feet than our horizon.

"...winning while keeping the DFHs down." is the same as reducing expectations for change, keeping those would alter the power that governs the nation.

I don't care to fight about Obama's actual intentions to change anything in this, but only to say that the thing that people were excited about, the thing that brought people out of their homes and into the election in their millions was the message that things were not going to go on, that the satus quo would be overturned. Washingtonm would no longer only serve the wealthy.

I don't know if the disappointment that would come from this fight, as this fight is, as Chris said yesterday, "about who is governing" this fight being won by the Rham Emanuel blue dogs, and nothing changing, will be met by angry resolve, or dispirited resignation. But either will sweep them from office. One might question if they care, if the bought off cadre will get rewards that make even serving at that high level seem paltry.

Thats the fight we are in now, just as CB says.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 16:33:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I sure didn't turn out for Rahm Emanuel! (4.00 / 1)

All this has played out before you know, when the REPUBLICAN party around the time of Teddy Roosevelt purged itself of all it's liberal wing. Labor unions in the 50's purged themselves of "communist influence" which included any progressives -- resulting directly in the destruction of the labor movement.

From 1948-1952, rather than fighting back against right-wing extremism, Democrats ran like cowardly rats. Rather than make the case for themselves they tried to become Republicans. Result: Electoral annihilation and Republicans dominating the 1950s.

At this point, it seems like Democrats would rather go back to being in the minority and serve their corporate masters from that vantage point, than actually pass any progressive legislation.

They'd rather stay in power of course, but not if that means doing anything the base wants! And if the base is unhappy with them, then clearly, that's the fault of liberals for "demanding too much."

If they screw things up totally, and then lose because the base is angry with them, they can always blame the "liberal fringe of the party" for their defeat. "The forced us to have up or down votes on unpopular things like government run health care!" (Notice the parroting of right-wing talking points.)

Their proposed solution would be to "purge the left" and then tack right to the "moderate center."

Step 1: Beat the left up, and attack all progressive groups for "losing Congress."

Step 2: "Take back the center." Adopt an openly corporatist right-wing platform, stating "America has spoken." Obama will lead the parade saying, like Clinton "I hear you" (right-wingers).  

Then they can sit back in smug satisfaction that they're impotent to stop anything the revived right-wing juggernaut does over the next 10 years.

And at each election they will demand that everybody follow them, because "we've got to learn our lesson in the Democratic party, that the nation is basically conservative and we can't just go wildly left if we expect to be able to win."

It's enough to make you want to throw up!  

---

by: Cugel @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 20:39:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Arranging the folds in the imperial toga -- Rahm's revisionism (4.00 / 5)

I've been expecting this. The last vestiges of Deanism and 50-state strategism are being purged, or more accurately, transformed into Obamaism. Rahm has apparently always believed that the party ought to be be replaced by a cult-of-the-personality. It's just so much easier to manage that way.

Although I agree with Paul Rosenberg that third-party movements in the present political climate are quixotic enterprises at best, I also believe that Rahm's plan, which is essentially Terry McAuliffe's plan warmed over, with the Obama cult replacing the Clinton cult, is equally quixotic.

There's already plenty of evidence that reality has begun to erode Rahm's carefully built edifice, just as it did Rove's before him. It isn't just the scratching and clawing from the left; it's also the crazy and desperate remnants of the splintered right, all looking for someone on a white horse who's a little more coherent than Glenn Beck, a little smarter than Sarah Palin, and a little less self-aggrandising -- and skinnier -- than Rush Limbaugh. If, God forbid, they should actually find their Huey Long, they might very well be a lot more trouble then Mr. I'll-kick-your-ass Emanuel has foreseen. (He's nothing if not dismissive of those who look weak to him, which is itself a weakness, even in a system which was designed from the ground up to favor such bad behavior.)

The truth is, people are hurting. It almost doesn't matter at this point what their politics are; they'll keep looking for someone -- or something -- which can make the pain go away. If you read Krugman, or DeLong, or Stiglitz, this is unlikely to be anyone currently pulling the tangled strings in Washington.

The moral of this story, as I see it, is to work with the Democrats, but keep your powder dry. They aren't omniscient, omnipotent, or immortal, and Rahm Emanuel, whatever else he is, isn't as smart as the press he's getting at the moment.

---

by: William Timberman @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 16:15:59 PM UTC

third party movements (4.00 / 1)

some where out there there is another Bernie Sanders, maybe not at the federal level, but somewhere out there there is another liberal independent candidate who can win. We should be actively looking for them.

Also a pro-single payer third party candidate could win in Indiana. Bayh and his Republican challenger will split the conservative vote and the liberal independent would have the liberal vote all to themselves.

Thinking about creating a new liberal party is not realistic, looking for individual opportunities is.

---

by: AliceDem @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 16:25:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Watch the Peter Schiff race for Connecticut senate (0.00 / 0)

He could run against the Democratic Party sellout to Wall Street.

---

by: Taylor @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 19:04:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A side topic .. (4.00 / 1)

 .. on the "Great Man in History" theme: I just read some of Isaiah Berlins essays on Tolstoy and deMaistre. Great stuff, and a reminder that bullshit media narratives have always been with us.

---

by: woodyNYC @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 16:20:29 PM UTC

Yup, Chris! All evidence shows that Rahm only jumped on board ... (4.00 / 5)

..when grassroots-powered outsider candidates had already crept up within the margin of victory. If there wouldn't have been this activist and netroots support for real "long shot" challenges, plus, of course, Howard Deans genial 50 state strategy providing the framework, Rahm wouldn't have had any chances to expand the numbers of the Dem victory, because of a lack of good candidates!

So, where the eff is the alleged genius of Rahm showing? Honestly, his job could have been done by a simple computer software!

If ((%candidate(n))>45%) then sub(send.money)
...

---

by: Gray @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 16:23:36 PM UTC

Actually, the elections show that Rahm is thinking too small! (4.00 / 4)

He didn't believe in a huge Dem victory, he didn't believe that small donations could have a significant impact, and so he calculated on the base of only modest gains. Without the grassroots with their optimistic support for long shot candidates, Rahm would have been like a general who can't give the already beaten enemy the final blow because of a lack of recruits and ammunition!

And when we look at helthcare reform, it's the same again, Rahm is playing it safe, he simply doesn't believe that single payer, and not even a real publiuc option, is achievable. There are public statements from him confirming this overly cautios, almost defeatist way of thinking. With Rahm at the helm, it's simply unfeasible to achieve the best possible results. He will always fall far short of this, because of irrational caution and a lack of imagination. And that's a big part of what's hampering healthcare reform now.

---

by: Gray @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 16:32:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What we have we hold (4.00 / 5)

Rahm is about preserving and defending what belongs to him -- and by extension, what belongs to his patron. All else being equal, it's what power brokers always do, and when they're blessed with the benefits of a stable economy and political system, it always works.

The problem is that when all else isn't equal, as in our current situation, stability is revealed to be an illusion, and so is the power of elites. When you rely on bread and circuses to keep the people out of your hair, you have to deliver both in a consistent and timely fashion, and you have to be able to do it forever.

Looking at the situation now, I'd say that the bread has disappeared, and depending on who you believe, it may or may not return. In response, the circuses have gotten louder, but less coherent, and dissent is now popping up all over the map.

Emanuel isn't the first anti-democrat  to face a crisis like this, nor is he the first to lack the imagination necessary to understand and deal with it. He doesn't know this, of course -- he'd have to be somebody else entirely to know it -- but neither does he have to listen to anybody who does know it.

Yet.

---

by: William Timberman @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 17:02:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even Bismarck (4.00 / 2)

Even Bismarck knew that the way to continue in power was to co-opt the progressives by delivering real reform while retaining establishment control.  Who delivered "social security" to Germany?  Bismarck.

When Rahm and Company not only fail to measure up to Lincoln and FDR but can't measure up to Otto von Bismarck they are either really incompetent or really have sold out to the Establishment.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 21:22:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yup, Bismarck knew that denial would only increase the opposition... (4.00 / 2)

..and so he pushed for legislation that soothed the most pressing social issues and thus made his conservatives much more attractive to low income voters, especially those with authoritarian tendencies. Let's thank god that the rethuglicans don't have any Bismarck!

However, it's true, Rambo and the Bluedogs ain't no Bismarcks, either. They never deliver any real reform, just different flavors of stagnation.

---

by: Gray @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 22:21:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just imagine the situation if Rethuglicans... (4.00 / 1)

...would have understood that healthcare had become such an urgent issue that reform was inevitable, sooner or later. And that of course it's better for them to implement it on their terms, then wait for the Dems to come up with more far reaching ideas. They would have implemented legislaton that would have been to the right of Olympia snow, not even co-ops, just some regulation making sure everybody, regardless of preexisting conditions, could get into a plan. And that there would be some subsidies for the families.

Of course, it would have been private insurers only, and it would have been mandatory. A huge giveaway! But, of course, it would have been a bit better than the status quo, and it would have taken some pressure out of the issue. Would have made it much harder for the Dems to argue for yet another reform. Really, let's thank the Lord that rethuglicans are so dumb, dumb, dumb!

---

by: Gray @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 22:31:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shut Rahm out (4.00 / 5)

It is time for progressives to start playing process hardball. In our next set of whip, we should encourage our congress critters to stop taking any communications from Rahm's shop. Progressives across the board should only accept communications though Biden's shop.

Hard to get browbeaten if you don't lend an ear from the start.

---

by: Judeling @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 17:02:12 PM UTC

Give Credit Where It's Due (4.00 / 1)

Howard Dean's Fifty State Strategy and, as you say, the grassroots.
Rahm helped to elect the obstructionist Blue Dogs who are trying, at Rahm's urging, to kill any meaningful healthcare reform.
Dean helped to elect Progressives (except for a few turncoats like John Tester who didn't keep their words).
That's my take, anyway.

---

by: lefttown @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 21:02:06 PM UTC

yes (0.00 / 0)

give Dean the credit he deserves you D[L]C lackeys

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 02:38:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Emanuel blew a huge amoutn of money (0.00 / 0)

who sole effect was to elect Roskam as a Republican congressman in Illinois.  Rahm is a money politician who hates democracy so in that district he decided to kill the grass roots candidate with an exotic import and then lost the whole thing.  I think to the tune of over $3 million of DCCC and assoicated funds.   Please note Rahm was an "investment banker" who in his few years between the Clinton White House and becoming an Illinois Congressman made more than $7 million influence peddling for government regulated utilities (acting like a Bill Daley mini-me).  So please, he is DLC and corporate all the way. He likely favors BCBS over patients 'cause he knows where the money and the squeeze is.  And his legendary assholeness is total amateur to the Jesse Helms variety practiced by the Republicans.

---

by: jakeproduce @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 21:21:00 PM UTC

Rahm: best voice for money to buy (0.00 / 0)

Is Rahm something other than Tom Delay in a tutu? Rahm most consistently seems positioned for that place on the political spectrum to maximize fundraising.  

---

by: wind off the lake @ Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 21:31:06 PM UTC