Will the House to Move to the Left?

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 14:42


While it seems that the Obama White House is a mixed bag, it looks like pressure from progressive groups will have an easier time penetrating the halls of power.  It turns out Rahm was a strong bulwark against outside activism.

But it wasn't just staff. Members said he had a phenomenal knowledge of their districts, and he kept up to date well after the campaign ended. Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) said one of his supporters wrote a letter to the editor of a small paper in his district, complaining about his vote on a rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Matt Stoller :: Will the House to Move to the Left?
Walz mentioned the letter to the editor to Emanuel on the floor and was stunned by his response.

"You mean the one about how you should caucus with the Republicans?" Emanuel shot back. "That's a good letter. Makes you look bipartisan."

To this day, Walz is still amazed. "He had read the letter."

The full article discusses how Emanuel injected a 'pro-business' point of view into House leadership fights, and features Blue Dogs and New Democrats fretting about the caucus moving to the left.  And they should be worried, they lost a big ally.  Emanuel is an extraordinarily talented conservative organizer and he set his sites on making sure the freshmen class of 2006 operated according to his perceived political sensibility, which was to blur distinctions between them and Republicans.  Regardless of what you think about this as a political strategy, he probably won't have time to keep up his House duties, and other people will take over to fill the vacuum.

Rahm is going to focus on keeping the House organized, as it is very clear that Obama is running the most Congress-friendly transition in history and has ample links to both the House and the Senate.  So I don't expect Rahm's influence to go away entirely from the House, but with more responsibility in governing and just a lot more work to do, there will be new centers of power that will have to emerge.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Walz on FISA (4.00 / 2)
Important to note that Walz voted against retroactive immunity, and issued a very strong statement opposing it.

(Washington, D.C.) - Today, Congressman Tim Walz voted against H.R. 6304, legislation which makes changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):

"There are many parts of this bill that I support.  It reaffirms that FISA is the exclusive means for electronic surveillance, and it strengthens protections for Americans at home and abroad.  If this was all that this bill included, I could support it.

"Unfortunately, the bill also contains an unprecedented free pass for the Bush Administration's past actions.  It does not allow judicial review of the Administration's use of warrantless wiretaps, and the process it puts in place to review the telecommunications companies' participation in that illegal program has a predetermined outcome - immunity.

"Incredibly, this bill actually says that as long as the telecommunications companies can prove that the Bush Administration told them this action was legal, they can get off scott-free.  Today, my colleague Roy Blunt called the process of granting immunity to these telecoms 'a formality.'

"When Richard Nixon said that "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal," many Americans were horrified that any President would consider himself above the law.  This legislation is even worse, because it essentially says 'if the President tells you do so something, it's not illegal,' even if it violates the plain letter of the law.  The process set out in this bill to rubberstamp the actions of the Bush Administration is contradictory to the rule of law in this country.

"This free pass for the phone companies isn't needed to protect Americans - in fact, it protects only those in the Bush Administration who knowingly broke the law. We can protect our security while protecting our shared values and our freedoms.  Unfortunately, this bill does not do that, and I have no choice but to oppose it.

"I have repeatedly said that I could not support a bill that provides a free pass for illegal behavior, no matter who committed it.  Our laws matter, and they should be applied equally and fairly to the President, Congress, telecommunications companies, and every other citizen."

I think he should be removed from the Bush Dog list at the side of the website.  He gets a great score from progressive punch as well:  http://www.progressivepunch.or...


Most Congress-friendly transition in history? (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure how it compares to transitions from more than 40 years ago.  But in that time span, it would be reasonable to think that this transition is unusually Congress-friendly simply because no other sitting member of Congress has been elected president since JFK in '60.

Although now that I think about it, sitting members of Congress have almost never been elected president.  Who was the last one before JFK?    


not too hard (4.00 / 3)
It's amazing how easily other Congressmen are impressed by this. They should learn about google alerts.  Rahm could easily follow every freshman and interesting district.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


Rahm didn't just keep up with the House 2006 members (4.00 / 2)
He was also known to contact many of the Democrats who were running for the House in this cycle....and on a pretty close to daily basis.

His influence on them was enormous

I sure would like someone on the progressive side to act like Rahm in terms of tending to new and upcoming House candidates.  Having someone raise money and give advice to new Democratic members...would do as much to move the House to the left as anything else.

Someone already there is someone who can exert influence on a daily basis, and someone House members would respect because they know that person understands what it means to be a member of the House of Representatives.

So maybe it's a silver lining.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


Members of the progressive caucus (0.00 / 0)
have talked about doing this (Kapture in particular) but I think one problem is that they don't have access to the gobs of corporate/elite cash that Rahm and his ilk do which they can use to reward candidates who will tow their line.

And, lets face it, Rahm is really good at what he does, and we just don't have anyone like that on the progressive side (to my knowledge).  I saw a recent special about Lee Atwater that basically said he had no interest in ideology but was just interested in winning, and could have as easily been a Democrat as a Republican. I don't like what Rahm stands for but I respect his capabilities and really do wish we had them on our side. (I do NOT wish we had Atwater's abilities on our side! I just wish he had never discovered the Republican party.)

And if Matt's supposition is correct and his role as chief of staff frees up some oxygen for new, possibly more progressive, leaders to emerge perhaps we will eventually get our own Rahm.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox