On Rahm

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 18:08


I just heard Michelle Bernard on MSNBC laud Obama's Rahm Emanuel pick because he'll be able to reign in the left.  Marc Ambinder echoes this point: "Advisers say that Obama has sent a not-so-subtle message to Congress: President-Elect Obama will not cede much agenda-setting ground to liberals."

So get ready to be kicked in the face, which progressives have clearly argued is why Rahm is the ideal pick, ushering in a new spirit of take-no-prisoners Democrats.  He'll also effectively protect Obama from attacks from the right, since they'll be way too scared of him to mention Emanuel's tenure on the board of Freddie Mac.

Matt Stoller :: On Rahm
President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot "red flags," according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.com.

According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002.

Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."

Nope, no problems here.  Rahm's just a take no prisoners effective fighter who knows both sides of Pennsylvania avenue and the business community.  

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
On Rahm | 60 comments
Well if Michele Bernard said it (4.00 / 7)
 it must be true.  My apologies for adopting a wait and see posture.  Clearly that was an error.
Right. (0.00 / 0)
I also heard that Obama was concerned about an internal poll in Pennsylvania. PSYCHE.

I think this clinches it. I think it's time for me to stop reading blogs again. You guys have basically lost your schtick now that we got the big win.

But such is life: bound to repeat the errors of the past.  

[ Parent ]
Everybody needs to take a deep breath! (0.00 / 0)
The FIRST thing Obama is going to do is pass a stimulus package.

Is this a Liberal or a Conservative idea?

Remember how Newt Gingrich made every Republican vote against the pitiful Clinton stimulus package and used that to pole-vault his "Contract on America?"

Right now, the times demand liberal economic programs. And that's what we're going to get. Conservatives aren't going to like it, but many of them will vote for it and then complain later.

But, Obama is NOT a social liberal. He's not going to champion gay rights or gun control. He's not going to use the IRS to crack down on political activity by the mega-churches.

In short, he's going to keep his eyes on the ball and try and right the economy. If he can do that he'll go a long way.

If on top of that he can raise taxes on the rich and pass his middle-class tax cut, that's better.

If, in addition, he can make health care more affordable, great.

Exactly what more do people want? I don't see any signs he'll use the anti-trust legislation to force media and corporate divestiture. We're going to have to force that kind of change if we want it, and ram it down Democrats' throats.

He will tackle energy policy, but he's not going to attack the coal industry, no matter how little sense "clean coal" makes economically.

In short, he's going to be moderately progressive on economic policy, socially conservative, and will move the ball about 10" to the left, not 100 yards the way progressives may want him to do.

Just the way he campaigned! NOT the idea people may have in their fevered imaginings.

The very idea that a President can and should carry our water is false. Government can do only what there's an organized lobby demanding! Obama is not going to save us from ourselves!

Example: If we want tax policies that favor the poor for instance, and to go back to the high tax rates on the rich that prevailed in the Eisenhower administration, then we have to form an effective lobbying group and force that item onto the agenda.

[ Parent ]
Wait and see, indeed (4.00 / 3)
I'll reserve my anger for slights real, rather than perceived.
Ha! (2.40 / 5)
Don't you get it???

Obama turned into a Republican the moment he got 270 EVs and all of the support from the left now evaporates because...

...sorry still working on that part.

Obama's got my support until he actually DOES something wrong. Until then, this kind of concern trolling from the left is pure douchery.

[ Parent ]
Get Real (4.00 / 3)
If you spent time actually dealing with your opponents rather than straw man charicatures, your comments might be worth something.  Well if you stop saying adolescent things like 'douchery'.

As a more abstract worry, what possible conception of action could you have on which selecting someone for an office does not rise to the level of doing something?  He did do something.  He picked Emmanuel rather than someone more progressive.  There are a variety of reasons he might have done this.  Some of them suggest nothing very bad about Obama, most suggest something worrying (worrying if you are a progressive that is).  If there is something I have written you disagree with, please respond.

Or, you know, pretend I am calling Obama a republican like you are pretending Stoller is.

[ Parent ]
Just a point. (0.00 / 0)
Your calling out a fallacy: straw man. Then you pick at my choice of words. Picking at my choice of words is not an argument. In fact, in redoubles into its own implicit ad hominem.

Let me ask you this: did you vote for Obama, and do you now wish you hadn't?

[ Parent ]
And let me also ask… (0.00 / 0)
...Is the ONLY way to move the ball towards a progressive agenda to only have Party Approved® people in all positions? I don't. I think Obama will be good for progressives, and so far I agree with his methods.

I will eat crow if he moves the country further to the right. You can take pictures of me eating it if he does.

[ Parent ]
You eating crow. (0.00 / 0)
That makes me for one feel a lot better.  I was worried that Obama might favor clean coal, nuclear energy, offshore drilling, telecom immunity, but even if he supports such things or worse during his presidency, I will feel better just knowing that you had to eat crow.
[ Parent ]
Some substance (4.00 / 1)
Good.  I like the direction you are going now.  First I wonder what you mean by 'party approved'.  Certainly Rahm counts as approved by the Democratic party, he is part of the leadership.  I wonder what party you think he is not approved by.  You might claim that progressive democrats form their own party, but this would only be in a very loose sense.  So loose in fact that you might want to try to run your argument a different way.

Let me suggest that the better way to ask your question is whether I think, to count as a progressive, Obama must only appoint people with a record of defending progressive ideas and supporting progressive policies.  The answer, in my case, would be 'no'.  But I think it is clear, when the question is asked like this, that the 'yes' answer should have no stigma attached to it.

I think it is possible that what Obama is doing is pre-empting shenanigans by the Clinton wing of the party. The idea might be to give some of them a taste of the power to keep them from going rogue and undermining Obama.  A progressive might do this.  But what that certainly does not show is that on his merits Rahm is a good progressive pick.  

[ Parent ]
Basic knowldedge of logic (4.00 / 1)
Questioning word choice is not an ad hominem, and if you think different you might want to go over your freshman philosophy notes again.  

And just so that I am clear, in response to my claim that you were arguing against a straw man, you replied that I was making an ad hominem attack, and you said nothing else about the substance of my comment.

Now this particular case was an ad hominem, I was suggesting that you were acting in a juvenile fashion.  Now if all I had done was suggest you were acting like a child, maybe your response would count as actually addressing the issue.  But I didn't, and so it didn't.

[ Parent ]
I hope we aren't forced to witness (4.00 / 1)
any impure douchery here.
[ Parent ]
or pure douchery either! (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
OH NOES! (2.67 / 6)
PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT RIP 11-7-09

Irony is, survived eight years of Bush but not even 8 days of Obama. So sad.

Nice. (4.00 / 1)
This gets TR'd by Bowers. You guys really can't tolerate any dissent, can you? I mean, why don't you just post the Ideological Purity test on the front page and pass it out to all of the Obama appointees, and Obama, and start up your attack engines as soon as you get anything less than a 100% back.

Pathetic.

[ Parent ]
I'm with Chris (4.00 / 1)
Do you think that your comment in any way advanced the discussion?

Do you think the implicit characterization of Matt's position was in any way accurate?

[ Parent ]
Well, imho this a good humored way of criticizing dramatization... (0.00 / 0)
and certainly not a candidate for a troll rating. Pressuring Obama to support progressive ideas and to chose progressive staffers, fine, but the constant implying that he is selling out to centrist and even republican interests is really ridiculous. Let's assume good faith, and not flame him for every single decision that isn't in line with progressive mainstream.
[ Parent ]
Assuming good faith is fine (0.00 / 0)
I'm sure Obama is trying to make the best decisions for the country and acting according to his values.

The thing is, I already have a pretty good idea where Obama stands on many values, and they are inimical to mine. The FISA vote is an example often brought up; so is flogging for the bailout package without listening to people like Nouryani, Stiglitz, Baker, and Krugman. The fact that the likes of those weren't at his economics conference yesterday is another clue.

We have lots of clues as to Obama's position relative to progressivism, and Matt and Chris have been paying attention to them. We can't keep our slates blank and assuming good faith forever, and we can't act effectively if we don't have a realistic picture of our elected leaders.

Having laid bare some of our premises, we can see how we have come to different conclusions.  I don't think Matt is being overly dramatic.

[ Parent ]
You make some good points... (0.00 / 0)
but still, let's not start an infighting again like in the primaries. Becoming too eager to troll rate someone doesn't help the discussion at all.
[ Parent ]
OK, I promise not to start any infighting (0.00 / 0)
I don't believe I'm the one who should be admonished about manners or infighting in this case.

[ Parent ]
Well, fine... (0.00 / 0)
but you DID troll rate that comment upthread, remember?
However, ok, no big deal, let's just leave it at that.
[ Parent ]
generic subject line (4.00 / 1)
There is this tendency conservatives have to assume that anyone who expresses displeasure with what they say must in some way be irrationally biased, that they must have a problem with the individual qua conservative.  It does not occur to them that people may have legitimate disagreements with the content of what is being said.  So they assume that professors must just dislike republicans, and it never occurs to them that it might be that the relevant experts in the field not liking what you say might be because what you say has no basis in any empirically verified facts.  Something similar happens when they whine about the press.

I think you are guilty of something similar here.  The problem with your comment is how little it has to do with what Matt is saying, and how little intellectual content it has.  In a prior thread I actually advanced a position not disimilar from yours (that picking non-progressives for cabinet spots did not show that Obama was not going to rule as a progressive), but I did not get low ratings or any kind of backlash.  It might be because I did not represent people like Matt as being engaged in stupid histrionics

[ Parent ]
What led you to... (4.00 / 2)

pick random pro-Rahm comments from dKos posters of no special reputation or merit?

Even the recommenders are nobodies.

I particularly like (4.00 / 1)
the one which consists entirely of "I think he'll do a great job." It plainly deserves to be mocked on the front page of Open Left.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Well... (4.00 / 2)

I'm actually genuinely puzzled.

It's not that there isn't a lot of SYFPH, but these particular people are not opinion leaders.

I can find 16 diaries in about the same number of minutes that more effectively make the point.

[ Parent ]
Personally I feel like you are kicking me in the face Matt (4.00 / 1)
Why aren't you agreeing with me?  You should agree with me.  Any disagreement or being nice to other people is unacceptable.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....
I think it is a clear indication that (4.00 / 5)
he's going to reign in the right wing of the party as well.

The appointment shows that the agenda that Congress will be enacting is the agenda that Obama wants.

Obama is not going to accept the party bickering and fighting and won't allow any faction of the party to torpedo his agenda.

I don't see the President-Elect ceding any agenda setting ground to anyone.  I expect that Obama will be running a shadow government as far as the Lame-Duck session goes.

Rahm's job, I expect, is to keep Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer in line (effectively keeping all party factions in line).

And quoting Michelle Bernard (who?) doesn't change that.  

Obama isn't going to let Rahm set any agendas or act of his own accord.  Rahm will get kicked to the curb if he pulls any crap.

That's what I hope (4.00 / 1)

 Rahm could have been a serious pain in the ass in the House, acting as a right-wing roadblock to a number of progressive Obama initiatives. It could be possible that Obama "promoted" Rahn to COS precisely to get him out of the way -- and who knows, we might get a much better Dem in Rahm's old seat to boot.

 I don't KNOW what Obama's plan here is. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
If you have been following (4.00 / 1)
downwith tyranny, you know rahm is not the man for this job because in the real world he always sides with Hoyer.  Having said that, I am getting disturbed that he hasn't appointed any progressives to his administration yet.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
his job isn't going to be to side (4.00 / 1)
with hoyer or pelosi though.

his job is to tell hoyer and pelosi what Obama wants.  

Hoyer and Pelosi and the blue dogs and the progressives are rarely on the same page.

Rahm's job is going to be to push them to advance Obama's agenda and keep the Democratic caucus unified.  

This is a bit O/T, but instead of fighting over Emmanuel, shouldn't we be directing our energies toward trying to stop Summers, to kicking Lieberman out, and trying to positively influence Obama's cabinet?  Instead of complaining that Obama's not being there for us, lets get out there and demand that he give us our due.

[ Parent ]
Everything good for the right (4.00 / 3)
I think this is just another example of how the press spins everything as being good for the right and bad for the left.  Sad you fall for it.
Argh. . . (4.00 / 8)
Will you guys WAIT until Obama gets sworn in before screaming that he's abandoned progressives?  We have no idea how he's going to govern, nor do we know if Emmanuel will have an impact on his policies.

I like this pick for two reasons: 1) Obama gets the energies of one of the best operators in the Democratic Party to work for him; and 2) Obama prevents one of the best operators in the Democratic Party from working against him.

Read your Machiavelli people: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.  Emmanuel has the potential to be one or the other.  

bone throwing (4.00 / 1)
we will wait if you can name one bone he's thrown to progressives since, say, the nomination, as opposed to the bag of bones he's offered the center - and fairly substantial ones at that.
[ Parent ]
don't dignify this strawman with an answer (0.00 / 0)
.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
some wxamples (0.00 / 0)
Well here's a few post-nomination bones I could cite...

1. Filming an ad endorsing Jeff Merkley

2. Going on the record opposing Prop 8 in CA, despite this being politically risky (his opposition was then trumpeted in anti-8 ads)

3. Setting up an economic transition team that includes, yes, a number of centrists, but also a bunch of progressives like Bonior, Reich, Villaraigosa and Laura Tyson.

[ Parent ]
true, that's a start, but... (0.00 / 0)
1) What about Al Franken?  As someone else mentioned, if Obama had done some very easy work, he could have helped many more progressives get elected.

2) Nothing in electorally-safe CA is politically risky for Obama.

3) Bringing people to the table is quite different from appointing them to influential posts.  In fact, it can often be an effective method for stifling criticism.  That said, there's still obviously the possibility that he'll appoint a progressive to a token cabinet post, like, say, Labor, HHS, HUD or EPA.  But don't dare to mention the possibility of a progressive being appointed to HLS, Energy, AG, State, Treasury, or Defense.

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't call Labor a token post (4.00 / 1)
Bush has gutted and destroyed the Labor department, turning it into the department of screwing workers over left and right.

The next labor secretary has a lot of work to do.

[ Parent ]
response (0.00 / 0)
1. What about Al Franken, indeed? I was just pointing out that he had taken the time to cut an ad for another candidate in another state, which he didn't have to do, and it looks like the margin in OR was close enough that it might well have made a difference.

2. Not risky in CA, but it could have gotten played in the national media and it would have hurt him in swing states.

3. Nobody has been appointed to a cabinet position yet, so this is completely moot. We don't know all the names Obama's considering for AG or Defense or State etc. For the moment, there seems to me to be no reason to think he won't have someone progressive in one or more major cabinet posts. And something like Labor or Energy can be more or less important depending on what the administration's priorities are. I want to see the Dept. of Labor rebuilt from the mess Bush made of it, and I couldn't be happier if Obama named someone like David Bonior to head the effort.

[ Parent ]
I didn't like it... (0.00 / 0)
but several Minnesota bloggers had been saying that because of Franken's past, there were risks to Obama being seen as being too close to Franken before the election.  I dunno, I saw some comments from progressive Minnesota blogs and bloggers saying Obama was correct in keeping his distance from Franken.  Of course, those comments were from the summer.
[ Parent ]
Really, really, early posts here (0.00 / 0)
I mean, wait til he is in.  

Look, Obama's been pretty candida about what his policies will be.  

He is going to attempt those, pure and simple.

Wrong (4.00 / 2)
I don't have any problems with Rahm, but I disagree completely with this generic suggestion to wait.  (What happened to "wait until the election is over"?)  Now is a perfect time extract as much influence as we can.

I think it is funny that some are claiming Rahm is proof Obama plans to be ultra-partisan and bash the Republicans while others claiming, like Chris and Matt, almost the opposite.  I gotta go with Yglesias on this:

Meanwhile, from where I sit it's hard to read these tea leaves. Emanuel has extensive high-level experience as a White House staffer and as a congressional leader and has a personal relationship with Obama. Those are, generically, good qualifications for a chief of staff. If there were three people with that kind of background all with different ideological leanings, then the choice of person could be seen as having great ideological significance. But that's not the situation.

But I'm 100% behind the attempt to prevent Summers becoming SoT.

[ Parent ]
You beat me to it... (4.00 / 1)
I was about to post the same quote.

I think Yglesias has presented the most level-headed opinion on the Emanuel pick for CoS.  We just don't know, yet, what this portends, and reading the "tea leaves" of it all is ineffective as there is no valid comparison for the pick.

Every other reaction is mere speculation, with a lot of hyperbole thrown in for effect.

[ Parent ]
Why progressives lose, Part MMDVIII (4.00 / 5)
Don't apologize, Stoller!  Keep up the good work.

A lot of liberals are going to have stunned "what the fuck just happened?" looks on their faces in a couple of years if all they do is declare victory and go home.  Meanwhile Obama is pressured to move to the Right and the base is too sensitive to push back ("SYFPH! Obama is smarter than you.")

Politics is an unending 24/7/365 exercise.  I don't see the GOP taking a "wait and see" approach.  I don't see the Blue Dogs taking a "wait and see" approach.  I don't see the Villagers taking a "wait and see" approach.  They are all busy applying pressure.  Creating political narratives.  Setting the goalposts.

The point isn't that something is true if Michele Bernard says it.  It is that it becomes true if Michele Bernard says it and their is no counter or alternative narrative.


bernard (0.00 / 0)
let's just face it:  we're all just figments of Michele Bernard's vivid imagination anyway.
[ Parent ]
This is ridiculous (4.00 / 3)
I'm already hearing from progressives that Obama has somehow "betrayed" them. They seemed to think that he was some sort of liberal icon, and I have no idea why. He's not. He never pretended he was.

I am a progressive, and I voted for Obama knowing full well what I was getting: A competent centrist. Yes, I would have preferred to see a progressive in the White House, but that wasn't possible in this election. The choice was between the competent centrism of Obama and the batshit right-wing insanity of McCain and the Wasilla Wingnut. Given those choices, I was happy to vote for competent centrism. And I am not at all surprised that that is what I am getting.

He is a centrist that promised to listen (0.00 / 0)
to us and give us a seat the table.  How is he fullfilling that promise if we are not in his administration?

My blog  
[ Parent ]
a seat at the table (4.00 / 1)
As I mention above, Obama literally gave David Bonior, Robert Reich, Antonio Villaraigosa and Laura Tyson a seat at the economic conference table today. How are we getting left out, exactly?
[ Parent ]
Bonior and Reich (0.00 / 0)
have not been active in the netroots, so I don't consider them representative of me.  They haven't cultivated a relationship with the postclinton progressive movement. Villaraigosa is an accolite of the manhattan institute and is employing Giuliani's broken window theory against the LA Homeless.  He is not a progressive my view.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Active in the netroots? (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure I understand... Are you suggesting that Obama, rather than just assembling a bunch of smart progressives and smart centrists, should make a special effort to include bloggers on his team of advisors?
[ Parent ]
Seriously?? (0.00 / 0)
Reich has his own blog, you know.  Just because they haven't been active enough in the netroots for your liking doesn't mean they aren't progressives.  I mean, what, you won't be satisfied until Matt or Chris themselves are part of Obama's team?
[ Parent ]
How about Krugman (0.00 / 0)
Stiglitz, Andy Stern, or Galbraith?  These are people that have been active in the post Clinton era.


My blog  
[ Parent ]
then we need to get off our duffs and get organizing to push for (4.00 / 1)
progressive choices for the various secretaries and department heads.

If Obama and Rahm are close, they would be close regardless of whether Rahm works for Obama or works as a House Member.

This, however, allows Obama to utilize his talents and to keep his negatives under control.  Chris has talked about Rahm leaking information that he shouldn't have been leaking.  Well, now there's a consequence.  Obama can fire him.  If he makes political mistakes or pushes Obama's policies poorly or undermines Obama, Obama can fire him.

If Rahm is a Representative, he can be a loose cannon.  His interest will be his own agenda.  Obama's agenda has to be Rahm's concern now.  If it's not, Obama fires him.

In the grand scheme, Rahm seems rather minor.  We should be pressing for progressive appointees not only to the "sexy" cabinet positions, but to the meat and potatoes cabinet positions and department head positions.

Why aren't we organizing a push for a progressive Attorney General?  For a Secretary of State who will break with the Bush foreign policy approach.  Where's the effort to get a transportation secretary who will work to enact greater mass transit options and push for better cafe standards?  How about an effort to get someone in at TSA who will remove all the bullcrap security theater?  Or a homeland security secretary who will clean up that disaster of a department?

There are so many things going on right now, and we're getting consumed with...the Chief of Staff?

[ Parent ]
seriously (0.00 / 0)
we're fighting over Andy Card's replacement.

There are so many bigger issues.

Obama could easily appoint a bunch of poor Secretaries and Department heads.  Or we can positively influence those choices so that we don't have to sit back and complain later on.

[ Parent ]
Hard to shed the fighting/gatecrashing habitus (0.00 / 0)
Hard for people like Bowers, Stoller, Sirota & Co. Which in the big scheme of things is probably not a bad thing. What do you expect, that they join the establishment now and defend the White House? Ask yourself this: if that were in the cards, would you be reading this blog?  

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!
[ Parent ]
I don't expect us to give up the fight and defend the white house (4.00 / 2)
but I would like us to pick the right battles.  

This does not seem that important compared to things like Summers or offering the Sec of State to Chuck Hagel.

This feels more personal rather than strategic...

And if you want to get personal, lets get personal with Joe Lieberman.  Why isn't there a strong coordinated campaign to call our Senators and demand Joe's proverbial head on a pike?

[ Parent ]
All good points, can't say I disagree n/t (0.00 / 0)


Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!
[ Parent ]
I don't get it (0.00 / 0)
Michelle Bernard and Marc Armbinder are now official spokespeople for Obama? And if not, who cares what they think about Obama tapping Emanuel?

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!
Has ANYBODY considered that Obama may be a bit Machiavelli? (0.00 / 0)
As fas as I know, Emanuel's position in the House is strong. Even though he certainly isn't popular (because of his horrible temper), there have been no reports that he is likely to lose his job. At the same time, the well known centrist Emanuel sure isn't the best advocat for Obama's programs. So, what should Obama do about this, to ensure that there isn't a strong force in the House standing in the way of getting the reform bills thorough? Well, promoting the obstacle to a prominent position in the White House may be a good idea. Of course, this sounds a bit like exchanging Scylla for Charybdis, but you shouldn't forget that executive officals serve at the pleasure of the president. And if Obama should become displeasured with Rahmbo, he could be fired in an instant. Problem solved.

So, imho in this discussion about Emanel, we should concentrate more on the question of what would be worse for progressives: Rahmbo in the House, or in the White House?
Obama seems to favor the second option. And we should be careful before judging that's simply because he wants to follow a centrist policy.  

No misunderstanding, pls... (0.00 / 0)
I posted this before reading the other comments (ok, not a good idea). Now I see that others had the same idea, even down to the Machiavelli comparison...
[ Parent ]
The Right whines about partisanship (0.00 / 0)
The Left complains period. Some things never change.  
On Rahm | 60 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox