Rahm Emanuel for Senate?

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 13:05


I am typically loathe to quote from the Robert Novak rumor mill, but this bit about Nancy Pelosi supposedly backing Rahm Emanuel for Senate should Obama become President is particularly interesting:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is reported to be privately talking about Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, as the next senator from Illinois if Sen. Barack Obama wins the presidential election.

Emanuel told this column he is not interested in the Senate and has not talked to Pelosi about it. He also suggested that Pelosi might be saying she would regret losing him from her leadership team. However, the source quoting the speaker indicated she was enthusiastic about Emanuel's elevation to the Senate.

A footnote: The same source said Pelosi indicated that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer would be her eventual successor as speaker, even though she opposed his election to the second-ranking leadership position. Emanuel has been widely mentioned as the speaker of the next decade.

I am not ready to jump on Pelosi for this, for several reasons:

  1. It simply might not be true.
  2. Moving Emanuel out of the House would also take him out of the House leadership. Rahm Emanuel is one of the few people who would actually lose power by moving to the Senate. As such, such a move would be fine with me.
  3. Moving Emanuel out of the House would open up the potential for a progressive, post-Pelosi speaker. Sure, Hoyer is listed here as a successor to Pelosi, but he is actually one year older than Pelosi. Clyburn is the same age as Pelosi. As such, right now Emanuel, who is 19 years younger than Pelosi and Clyburn,  is clearly in line to be Speaker, starting sometime in the middle of next decade.
  4. Moving Emanuel out of the House would open up the potential for a progressive replacement in his House seat. Back in 2002, he narrowly won his primary against a grassroots progressive, from what I understand.
  5. In 2010, if he were in the Senate, Emanuel would undoubtedly receive multiple primary challenges for his seat, at least one of whom would probably be progressive. So, his place in the Senate would not even be a guarantee.

In short, moving Emanuel to the Senate following an Obama victory might actually be very good from a progressive movement perspective. It certainly presents us with more possibilities than we have right now, given that a primary challenge against Emanuel would be one of the longest longshots around. So, even if Pelosi actually is pushing Emanuel for Senate following an Obama victory, I'm not necessarily opposed to it myself. He is in line to run the Democratic caucus in the House in a few years, and moving him to a different chamber would avert that possibility well ahead of time.

So, like I said, while I usually would avoid linking to Robert Novak, this column raises interesting questions about the future Democratic leadership in the House, and Obama's potential replacement in the Senate.  
Chris Bowers :: Rahm Emanuel for Senate?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Rahm Emanuel for Senate? | 37 comments
Like Playing Probabilistic Chess With Schrodinger's Cat (0.00 / 0)
but I think you've got all the wave functions right.  Who knows how they'll collapse?

The cat ain't talking, that's for sure.

Say... couldn't Obama just make him an ambassador, or something?

"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

Van Hollen (4.00 / 3)
It's an excellent move that protects Pelosi's back and really helps the progressives substantially in the House.  Too bad that Hoyer couldn't also be slotted out but he will have to be dragged out feet first.  The man wants to be Speaker in the worst way.

Chris Van Hollen becomes the next Speaker-in-waiting.  He has Rahm's old job and this looks to be another big year.  Count the defense of the 31 new Democrats who replaced Republican and/or an independent and as many as 60 or 70 of the members may be beholden to him come January.  Van Hollen is currently 50 (he'll turn 51 on January 10).  Nobody else will have as many dibs.

Van Hollen might be interested in other things. (4.00 / 1)
Like Sen. Mikulski's seat.

John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
[ Parent ]
if it is true (4.00 / 1)
do any Democrats talk to Novak?

In any case, we need another way to bet Emanuel out of the House leadership. Somebody else can be the new Senator from Illinois.

Rahm vs Hoyer (0.00 / 0)
I have to say I'd rather have Speaker Rahm. I also think Rahm's bare-knuckle style is more suited for the House than the Senate. This seems to me to be a move by Pelosi to push one of the remaining non-Pelosi power centers out. Rahm is actually pretty good on everything except immigration, and once that fades as an issue I think he will turn out to be very good and very valuable in the House. To use the voteview rankings, Rahm is almost in the dead center of the caucus with people like Pelosi and Arcuri and Carnahan, while Hoyer is 30 or so members to the right with more blue-dog-ish members like Jack Murtha and Brad Miller. Now, these are relatively progressive blue dogs, but they're still a touch more conservative than the Caucus as a whole (but probably about where the country as a whole is).
Pelosi's Much More Progressive Than That (4.00 / 3)
Voteview is excellent, except for House Speaker.  The Speaker generally does not vote a lot.  It's just not done.  So her ranking as Speaker is misleading.  If you go back to previous years you will find she's around 40th or so.  She was a member of the Progressive Caucus before becoming Speaker.

"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
[ Parent ]
economics (0.00 / 0)
How was he on CAFTA and Bankruptcy reform?

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
[ Parent ]
My brain doesn't think that way (0.00 / 0)
But, Chris, I like the way you've plotted it out. Thanks. I'm beginning to appreciate Pelosi.
Not to mention (0.00 / 0)
Emmanuel out of the House leadership = weaker Hoyer, stronger Pelosi.  There's a part of me that thinks this might be a play to consolidate her control over the caucus, more than anything else.
Yuck (4.00 / 1)
Keep Rahm away from the Senate. If we're going to transform that reactionary body, we need progressive Senators from states like Illinois, New York, California, Massachusetts, and Maryland. Right now, only Durbin, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, and Cardin qualify. That's a bad batting average from the Democratic bastions.

I'd rather Rahm stay in the House -- we can change the voting blocs in the House much easier than the ones in the Senate.  

Promotion (4.00 / 1)
A senator is far more powerful and entrenched than a congressman. There's got to be a way to outmaneuver Emanuel without also promoting him. Once you put someone in a senate seat, it's impossible to get rid of them for decades.

Pelosi sending him to the senate strikes me as a somewhat irresponsible move: transfering a problem to another jurisdiction.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

[ Parent ]
I hope he does go to the senate. He'd do less damage there than as Speaker. (0.00 / 0)
He's way too much of a warmonger and AIPAC toady for Speaker.  Ugh.  I shudder the thought.

He also seems centrist domestically.  I hope he is never the speaker of the House.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

Wexler for speaker! n/t (4.00 / 1)

Also remember that Rahm is not an Obama ally (4.00 / 2)
Obama would likely throw his support for the Senate race behind Jan Schakowsky, who has been a tireless surrogate for him and is rumored to want the seat...
exactly, re schakowsky (0.00 / 0)
and the Senate needs more women and progressives.

also: it's absurd to think of Rahmbo in the Senate. It's simply not the kind of power he cherishes and wields. I think this Novak bit is an accurately reported wish of Pelosi's, but not something she can actually make happen. She doesn't have anything to offer him to leave the House. And I just don't see him wanting to become the 100th member in seniority, and having to run in just two years to hold his seat.

That said: I certainly would love him there to kick ass and hold the line in the awful Senate election landscapes of 2012 and 2014.

[ Parent ]
good points (0.00 / 0)
there is also the possiblity that Pelosi is feeding this to Novak to stroke Rahmbo's and Steny's egos and as a result keep them from trying to undermine her....even if she has no intentions of trying to put either of them in those positions.  Pelosi is an extremely loyal person, she will be supporting one of her loyalists for leadership many years down the road when she does retire or seek higher office...not Rahm or Steny.
[ Parent ]
I'm from Illinois and I've heard rumors... (0.00 / 0)
And the rumors are that Tammy Duckworth is being mentioned as a replacement.

For those of you who don't remember Tammy, she ran for congress in 2006 in IL-06 against Peter Roskam. She was the Iraq vet who lost her legs just days after Bush won re-election. She was a moderate-conservative Durbin-recruit who won narrowly against progressive, grassroots Christine Cegelis, then lost narrowly to Roskam. She now works in Governor Blagojevich's office.

I'd actually prefer Rahm to her. But I'd prefer Jesse Jackson Jr. or Jan Schakowsky to Rahm.

Pelosi doesn't get to pick (0.00 / 0)
Blagojevich does, although Obama would have the moral authority to overrule him if he so wished.

Rahm's got good DC connections, but what about in Illinois? What sort of influence does he have there?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

That's a good question (0.00 / 0)
Typically the power centers for statehouse Democrats and federal democrats are completely separate in IL. I even read once that state Dems like to 'promote' problem Democrats (to them) to congress in order to get them out of their hair so they can continue to have absolute power over their little fiefdoms.

Rahm did take Blago's old seat in the house when he ran for governor so I don't know if they had a report before that or not. I do still think Schakowsky has a decent relationship with Blago. Which is saying something for the toxic Democrat. And Jan was a strong Obama supporter from the beginning. So perhaps she could have an inside track? So my thinking on possibilities:

1. Rahm goes to senate: good he's out of the house...bad he's in the senate. Don't know about the dynamics between him and Blago.
2. Jan Schakowsky goes to the senate. Possible because of her relationship with both Obama and Blago. Bad because Rahm assumes speakership in 8-10 years. Good because you get another Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders in the senate.
3. Lisa Madigan goes to the senate. Blago eliminates his main competition in 2010 (but by no means his only competition). She'd be a decent progressive. Better than Rahm, probably not as good as Schakowsky. Probably somewhere between Obama (on the right) and Durbin and Schakowsky (on the left). Rahm stays in House...bad. Blago potentially wins primary?(very very very very bad).
4. Blago appoints himself. Weird and destructive. We'd have to kick him out in a primary. On the other hand, It would mean Pat Quinn would take over as governor (very very good!) and democrats would surely kick Blago out in the primary in 2010.

I have no idea which of these is most likely. Right now I'd guess 2 or 3.  

[ Parent ]
Blago or Madigan (4.00 / 1)
Are the ones I'd put money on. Blagojevich knows that his days are numbered, if not from scandal then from the fact that no one likes him. Or if he really thinks he can win and her dad is willing to give up his power then Lisa Madigan would need to be eliminated.

Remember it's Blagojevich's choice who gets the nod, and he's allowed to pick himself.

Jeff Wegerson

Why would Blago .. (0.00 / 0)
chose himself .. only to get dumped by the voters in two years?
[ Parent ]
ummm...because (0.00 / 0)
he's delusional.

he's our very own lil' george bush.

he's a progressive, but he's wired in a manner that is very reminiscent of george bush.  

[ Parent ]
He's not progressive (4.00 / 1)
in style. He may mouth progressive principles but he acts authoritarian. But mostly he's inept.

Jeff Wegerson
[ Parent ]
The health insurance thing was good (0.00 / 0)
but that's all that was good. Everything else has gotten the shaft under his administration. Environment, education, everything.

He never should have made that stupid promise not to raise taxes. And we need to amend the state constitution in Illinois so that we can actually have a progressive income tax rather than having a flat tax enshrined into state law.

[ Parent ]
that's what I meant (0.00 / 0)
that he talks like a progressive and has the big progressive ideas, but he rules like a Bush.
[ Parent ]
Wow, I didn't realize Illinois had no term limits for governor, (0.00 / 0)
but you're right.  Yikes.

One Million Strong --- Join up!
[ Parent ]
I'm a Jan fan (4.00 / 2)
The choice is up to Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who has tended to irk his own party leadership and do what is in his own self interest.  I'm not sure how Rahm and Rod get along, but that would be essential.

Personally I'm hoping for a great progressive voice in the Senate, which in my mind would be US Rep Jan Schakowsky.  She's a great pick:

- safe seat which could easily be filled by another progressive voice
- proven track record on progressive issues
- she has a great reputation with IL pols, and would team well with Durbin to push progressive legislation

And, Gov. Blago likes her, so she actually has a chance to be appointed.  Most qualified, potential candidates are aligned with foes of Blago, so they have lost some of their chances.

Luis Guitierrez, former US Rep from Chicago, would be another attractive option, especially since he is Latino, a grossly underrepresented group in the Senate.

Personally, I cannot stand Rahm - he ignores the voices of the people.  I know several respected people who have tried to discuss the war with him, and he doesn't give them the time of day.  He recruited Duckworth, a moderate Dem, to take on a progressive, Cegelis, who had run the year before in a district that had a chance to turn blue.  Instead of taking the seat, which we lost, we spent money in a tight primary and lost the organization that Cegelis had built.  Poor strategic choices.

I'd support any effort to get him out of power and put in a real progressive.  I just don't want him to move to the Senate either.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr

The Governor makes the appointment... (4.00 / 1)
he will make the appointment based on politics.

So, he will either reward one of his political allies in the state Legislature with the seat (I've heard of one guy in particular, from southern Illinois...can't recall his name).

Or

He'll use the appointment to remove a future challenger from the picture.  Lisa Madigan, Dan Hynes, or Alexi Giannoulias.  

The last possibility is that he'll use it as a cheap political stunt, and appoint someone that will be popular amongst his dwindling base, but make the rest of us scratch our heads.  

He could appoint himself.  

If he asks the future President for input, I'd bet on Giannoulias though.  Alexi and Obama are tight.  Obama backed Alexi for Treasurer, bucking the State Democratic establishment.  So, unless Alexi wants to run for Gov (what will probably be a very bloody fight against Madigan and possibly Blago), he'll take the opportunity, if its offered.  

Maybe (0.00 / 0)
But I bet Obama wouldn't want to piss of the Illinois delegation by supporting young Giannoulias. Picking Madigan would be one thing. By 2008 she'll have been around for 6 years at a statewide level. But I'm guessing all 11 congressional Democrats would be mighty mad (at Obama) if that was the pick. Especially given that there are plenty of strong Obama supporters within that delegation without going for the state treasurer.
[ Parent ]
of all the people it could be, I guarantee (0.00 / 0)
it will not be a member of the Congressional Delegation.

It will be a political ally or a strong political rival of Blago.  He will use the opportunity to reward a crony or to remove an enemy.  If he's looking at an indictment, he'll reward the crony.

If he thinks he can beat the rap and run for re-election, he'll try to remove an enemy.  I actually don't think that he'll put Madigan into the Senate.  That would look too much like he was rewarding her Daddy, who is his most bitter enemy.  Plus, he's probably spoiling for an electoral fight with the Madigans (he'll lose, but he's delusional).  

I would bet a warm apple pie that Giannoulias will be the next Senator from Illinois.  

[ Parent ]
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
If he does, it will be one hell of a primary fight in 2010.  
[ Parent ]
It seems to me (0.00 / 0)
This is weighing Rahm as Speaker or another position in the Leadership against Rahm as one of 100, including being bad on the next immigration bill. It would depend on who else springs up, including Van Hollen, as potentials for Speaker. I don't see Pelosi necessary stepping down for several more years, and in that time, several more people could emerge as leaders. For that reason, I think I'd rather he stay put than become one of several who could really fuck up legislation in the Senate.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter
Good point (0.00 / 0)
I hadn't thought of that, but you're right. The fact that Steny, Pelosi, and Clyburn are all about the same age cuts both ways and opens opportunities for new leadership posts.

Let's see the possibilities:

Current Democratic leadership that has a chance to move up the ladder in 10 years
Members of the leadership
1. Rahm Emanuel (b. 1959)
2. Xavier Becerra (b. 1958)

I left off people who will be 60 or older this year and I did not include any 'chief deputy whips'.

Now let's look at the Rules committee, another potential leadership jumping off point
Members of the Rules committee (born after 1948)
1. Jim McGovern (b. 1959)
2. dennis cardoza (b. 1959)
3. Kathy Castor (b. 1966)
4. Mike Arcuri (b. 1959)
5. Betty Sutton (b. 1963)

So there are possibilities for progressives to move up the chain. Not many, according to this metric, but still some, esp. Becerra, McGovern, Castor, and Sutton. If progressives want to really start to influence power, we should do whatever we can to promote these four people from here on out. McGovern and Sutton would be particularly good and could be around for a long time.

[ Parent ]
He isn't going to the Senate (0.00 / 0)
He'd be leaving his power base to a place where he would be relatively powerless. For him to move to the Senate would be akin to LBJ moving to the Vice-Presidency. One of the most powerful, to one of the least powerful. He accepted the DCCC chairmanship as a way to jump the line in seniority for the House, as said in the Thumpin'. I'm not exactly too fond of his policies concerning immigration or corporatism, but he is a ruthless mother fucker for sure. He is going to be Speaker at some point if the Democrats hold onto their majority. Too many members of the Caucus owe a lot to him. He ain't going nowhere, so we have to make sure he is leading as liberal a caucus as possible.
I doubt that he would be picked (0.00 / 0)
or that the rumor is true but I can see why Pelosi would do such a thing. Rahm and Hoyer have constantly obstructed her efforts to push the caucus to the left. I think the best bet for a semi-progressive replacement to Pelosi is Van Hollen. He's young, he beat out a establishment candidate in a primary to win his seat. He's going to pick up more seats then Rahm did.

I would like to see Schakowsky in the Senate and if Obama got the choice I think she would be it. But Gov. Rod gets to pick and Rahm did replace him in the House with his blessings I believe.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

There's potential for some hefty leadership fights in the future... (4.00 / 1)
If Rahm Emmanuel tried to become speaker, sure, but also if Chuck Schumer tried to move up the ranks in the Senate.  I'm sure most progressives would prefer Dick Durbin or Chris Dodd as majority leader, whenever Reid chooses to retire.

These kinds of intraparty leadership fights can have a huge impact on progressive legislation.

One Million Strong --- Join up!

"take him out of the House leadership" (0.00 / 0)
That was my initial thought.  Isn't this like failing upwards?  Or getting a promotion because your current boss can't stand working with you?

vodamusic.com
Rahm Emanuel for Senate? | 37 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox