What, Exactly, Has Rahm "Gotten Done?"

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 22:25


I'm not sensing a lot of agreement with my skepticism about the utility of Rahm Emanuel becoming Obama's first chief of staff. Part of it, I'm sure, is that people are in a celebratory, optimistic mood right now, and willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Part of it, I am even more sure, is that I hold a personal antipathy toward Rahm Emanuel because he seems to stand for most of the things that made me want to reform the Democratic Party in the first place. So, we are starting from opposite positions when it comes to giving out the benefit of the doubt on this one.

However, I still want to challenge the two main reasons why many in the blogosphere, including Open Left commenters, are arguing that Emanuel is a strong choice. First, there is a general sense that Emanuel will help Obama "get things done" in the House. Second, a commonly expressed viewpoint is that he will just be taking orders from Obama, and not making any decisions himself. I believe that Emanuel's record fails to support either claim.

More in the extended entry.
Chris Bowers :: What, Exactly, Has Rahm "Gotten Done?"
First, what, exactly, has Emanuel accomplished on the legislative front? Emanuel's website provides a list of his sponsored legislation for the 110th Congress. Every single piece of legislation is one of the following:
  1. Expressing a sense of the House
  2. Electing members to standing committees
  3. Currently tied up in committee
This is the case for every single sponsored legislation. All of them. His legislative accomplishments appear minimal, at best.

Second, as far as just taking orders hoes, I'd like to relate a story I heard about Emanuel's s role in the Iraq supplemental fight back in early 2007. Representative Obey, who was leading the fight, was convinced that Emanuel, who as Caucus Chair was in the on the senior strategy sessions, was leaking their strategy to the press. To test this theory, Obey leaked some inaccurate information to Emanuel and Emanuel only. When that inaccurate information turned up in the media, Emanuel was kicked out of all further strategy sessions on the Iraq supplemental fight. In short, Emanuel was undermining the House leadership he was supposedly working for during the Iraq supplemental fight.

Third, covering both the "get things done" and "just taking orders" charge, keep in mind that Emanuel was organizing Democratic members of the House to vote against their own party on motions to recommit. This both stalled Democratic legislation and undermined the efforts of the rest of the House leadership. It's a double whammy against the "just taking orders" and "knows how to get things done" charge.

Now, as an example of his accomplishments, I'm sure people will point out that Emanuel had a successful stint as the chairman of the DCCC. This is certainly true, as Democrats picked up 30 net seats during his tenure, and took back the House. However, there is more than one way to win elections, as Chris Van Hollen has since proven during his successful stint as DCCC chair. As I documented in my original post on this subject, I dislike Emanuel's methods, and prefer Van Hollen's. Further, the Chief of Staff is not an electoral position, and should not be one. We have the political director for electoral concerns, and we should not be running the White House simply to get re-elected. The goal should be to improve people's lives (which will itself result in getting re-elected).

I simply don't accept that Rahm Emanuel is adept at "getting things done," just because I keep hearing big media pundits say he is. Everyone here should hold that same skepticism. I also don't accept that he will simply be a vessel for Obama's decisions and orders, because his history over the last two years includes several examples of undermining the House leadership. If you want to argue that Emanuel is a good choice because he is good at getting stuff done, then please show what his legislative accomplishments actually are. And, if you want to argue that Emanuel will simply be taking orders from Obama, please provide examples where he has been a dutiful soldier of his previous superior officers. If he is going to undermine Pelosi, he might very well undermine Obama, too.

Now, as I said at the start of this essay, I am aware that I am coming from the opposite end of the spectrum on benefit of the doubt on this one. Many progressives want to trust Obama right now, and I understand that urge. However, I don't trust Rahm Emanuel as far as I can throw him, and I am a pretty wimpy dude. I don't know why Obama picked him--I'm sure the Chicago connection helped--but given what I know and have written about Rahm Emanuel, I don't like what it says about Obama.

However, as I said, at the very least, it does mean Rahm Emanuel will never be Speaker. Also, given my early pessimism, at least I will either by confirmed in my views or pleasantly surprised. That's a positive of sorts.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What, Exactly, Has Rahm "Gotten Done?" | 107 comments
craziness (4.00 / 10)
Sideshow Bob explains:

"Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king."

If Rahm were a progressive, people would consider him an excessively emotional extremist asshole.  But he's a conservative Beltway villager, so they think he's a take charge get things done kind of guy.  It's stupid and proof that a good number of progressive activists just can't resist the propaganda they are fed by Democratic leaders and the mass media.  Rahm got NAFTA through by allying himself with the Chamber of Commerce at the height of their power, in 1993, and he laundered money through a Democratic media consulting firm to essentially pay off liberal surrogates.  

Here's Digby pointing to this WaPost piece:

"This beautiful capital," President Clinton said in his first inaugural address, "is often a place of intrigue and calculation. Powerful people maneuver for position and worry endlessly about who is in and who is out, who is up and who is down, forgetting those people whose toil and sweat sends us here and pays our way." With that, the new president sent a clear challenge to an already suspicious Washington Establishment.

And now, five years later, here was Clinton's trusted adviser Rahm Emanuel, finishing up a speech at a fund-raiser to fight spina bifida before a gathering that could only be described as Establishment Washington.

"There are a lot of people in America who look at what we do here in Washington with nothing but cynicism," said Emanuel. "Heck, there are a lot of people in Washington who look at us with nothing but cynicism." But, he went on, "there are good people here. Decent people on both sides of the political aisle and on both sides of the reporter's notebook."

Emanuel, unlike the president, had become part of the Washington Establishment. "This is one of those extraordinary moments," he said at the fund-raiser, "when we come together as a community here in Washington -- setting aside personal, political and professional differences."

And looky looky, here's Rahm voting to condemn Moveon.  No worries, he gets things done.

I want to ask a cynical question... (4.00 / 3)
I respect your and chris's view on this even if I think you are jumping the gun a bit on it.  

My question is this...  What are Chris's articles and your comment going to accomplish in this?

By that I mean, I don't see you guys calling for protests or letter writing or petitions to Obama about his staffing picks.   Instead it comes off more like you are blowing off steam by bitching and moaning about this choice.   And if that's what you are doing... just editorializing... then that's cool.  But your comment's and chris's articles seem to come off as if you guys feel by simply writing them you will affect policy in an active way, whereas really it seems like a passive aggressive bit of venting.

Again though... Lets see what happens.   I'm all for letter writing and petitions for pushing specific policies to the front of the line... but I am also willing to give a guy who isn't even sworn in yet... a chance to see what he can do.    He ran a smart campaign that made few mistakes.  These guys aren't rubes fresh off the turnip truck... if they feel a guy like Emanuel is what they need, then lets see.   If he sucks, then we do what Obama said to do...    make our voices be heard.

[ Parent ]
You are not going to be privy to the inside info (4.00 / 4)
that will allow you to independently judge whether Rahm has been good for the things we care about or not.

And I have long learned that you give people too long a rope they get away from you.

You are like this diary on Dkos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

TRUE STORY!: Obama is Smarter Than You (Updated

There is a genuine difference in criticizing Obama on policy and criticizing Obama because his cabinet picks don't pass your litmus test with a 100% progressive record

That is of course terribly wrong...people do represent policy...Or why did we all complain about Rumsfeld?  Why does it matter if we picked Alito or not? Why was it wrong for a Democrat to vote for Ashcroft for AG and why did we all rightly criticize Schumer for pushing Mukasey? Because people implement, effect and execute policy. Put Republicans in charge of FEMA and the EEOC or the NLRB and they operate in ways to negate the mission of those organizations.

That diary has wisely been counterd by Meteor Blades...who also has been around a very long time.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...
Enough Already with SYFPH
by Meteor Blades [Subscribe]

But I don't believe in compromising before expressing my point of view, before trying to move party policies at least a few inches in my direction, before objecting when I think the party is surrendering more than it should or that it needs to. Compromise means that all parties to the deal get something in return. To get that something means pushing one's point of view, without disrespect, but forcefully and with clarity. Speaking truth to power is not something to do only when the other party is in power

Now is the time to chime in...or you will continue to keep you mouth shut, your influence at naught and your aims unaccomplished.



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

[ Parent ]
You missed the central point... (0.00 / 0)
THESE COMMENTS AND POSTS ARE SIMPLY VENTING!  THEY ACCOMPLISH NOTHING BECAUSE THEY MAKE NO CALL OR ATTEMPT TO ORGANIZE IN A WAY TO INFLUENCE.

Now if they were pushing a "use it or lose it" type campaign of letter writing, petitions, etc, that's something I think is cool and could be effective.   But blog posts bitching about a pick IS NOT CHIMING IN.  Its not doing what Meteor Blades calls for in pushing a POV; not in the way a call to arms, organized campaign does... THE EXACT TYPE OF ACTIONS OBAMA ENCOURAGED!  But thanks for posting that as you proved my point 100%.

I'm not saying Obama is smarter than everyone else.... I am saying that politics is their business and so far they have run their business very well at least in the terms of campaigning.  You aren't subject to any more info than I am in regards to Emanuel.  Its very obvious though that they have a plan to get legislation passed.  TO many people, the Emanuel pick would seem to be part of that plan, rather than just picking an advisor with like minded ideals, which publicly do not seem to be the same as Obamas.   Now it may end up being the WRONG choice, but it could easily end up being the right choice.   Taking orders from Pelosi when voters directly control you ability to return to your job and taking orders from Obama who directly controls you job status are two different things.  We don't know how this ends up...  We all have opinions and mine is that Emanuel will be used to whip up support for Obama's platform in the house.  You may disagree but that doesn't make either of us more correct than the other.

If you don't like Emanuel as a pick, ORGANIZE... DON'T SIT AND BITCH ABOUT IT.   Write letters, emails, etc in an attempt to make your voice heard.   That's not making your voice heard, especially since the amount of readers of this blog and others are a very small percentage of the population.

[ Parent ]
some info (0.00 / 0)
You aren't subject to any more info than I am in regards to Emanuel.

I have known Rahm Emanuel for 15 years.

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

[ Parent ]
Good? (4.00 / 5)
How about pointing out the obvious to the oblivious?  People in this country, left and right, are naive and believe whatever they are told, particularly when it is alleged to be the "common wisdom".   Since JFK, I have seen no proof that Democrats have a clue - any clue.  If I had wanted a return to the Clinton presidency, I would have supported Hillary.  When Obama brings in "new" talent instead of recycling the trash, I'll be as quick to compliment as I am to criticize.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
don't you remember clinton 92 (4.00 / 1)
he brought in all people from arkansas and people he knew. hardly anyone from washington. And it was a damn circus. You want a mix of people who know washington, and people who have new ideas; but most importantly is the leadership.  
[ Parent ]
There are lots of good people out there that had nothing (0.00 / 0)
to do with the Clinton presidency.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
That's a laugh... (4.00 / 2)
I love Open Left and many other blogs... but remember a few things...

1) These are OPINIONS.  Mine nor yours nor Bowers are any more correct than the others.  Only time will tell.  Claiming to point stuff out to the oblivious is a pretty fucking condescending and ignorant thing to claim and say.  

2)  The readership of blogs is a minor minor minor part of the general electorate.  Most of the readers are pretty high info voters.   They don't need things pointed out to them; they develop opinions based on the circumstances.

3)  The value of the blogosphere ISN'T as an editorial page, its as an ORGANIZATION TOOL.   If the Emanuel pick so offends you or Bowers, THEN ORGANIZE a campaign to influence the future picks.  That is making your voice heard.

[ Parent ]
Hillary doesn't like Rahm (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
I see you are getting flak for your astute analysis here (4.00 / 4)
I don't have much astute analysis to add because you and Chris have covered most of the salient matters.   Rahm indeed is a right wing Democrat, and he is also someone who is willing to be a freelancer on his own.  There is more than one way to undermine a policy or bill you don't like.  Rahm may be told to deal with members of Congress to get a bill passed.  Putatively he complies....but he sits on some people so hard they get angry and rebellious...and don't vote for the bill. Rahm is smart...and he can use his notorious toughness to kill things as well as make them happen.

So I just want you to read in these comments that there are members of the Open Left community who agree with you.

Chris is right to worry what this says about Obama and how he will govern. Rahm is very much of the Clinton era, when the country was still in the middle of the right wing reaction and control of the agenda.  He still has that fundamental insecurity.  Big things are dangerous.  Small change is best...or you might lose. He doesn't understand that the world has changed and we have begun a new progressive era....That the fear in terms of getting reelected should be that if you don't accomplish the big things that will make peoples' lives better, then you lose.  

Rahm is behind the times.  Just like my boomer troubadour said..."The times they are achangin'"  

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

[ Parent ]
If Rahm is making centrist Dems happy shouldn't he at least give us pause? (4.00 / 6)
From Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic

« It's Official: Rahm

Why Rahm: A Message To -- And From -- The Center
06 Nov 2008 04:46 pm

Why Rahm, really?

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. While outside Democrats are interpreting Emanuel's selection as an institutional message for Nancy Pelosi, Obama advisers concede that Emanuel's ties to key party centrists and blue dog Democrats will be criticial to smoother relationships between the executive and legislative branches.  (Emanuel is more liberal than these centrists, but he's not nearly the ideologue that people seem to think he is.)

Behind the scenes, Obama himself and many key aides have been making overtures to conservative Democrats.  These Democrats want budget off-sets included with every expensive piece of legislation that Obama sends to the Hill; at the very least, they want the White House to incorporate centrists in decision-making.  



"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
THese aren't bad things (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately we need centrists and blue dogs to govern. If the blue dogs rebel the Obama domestic agenda is over. Our chance for change is lost. No universal health care, no legislation to stop Global Warming. Its dead on arrival without the Blue Dogs. That doesn't mean we give up all our principles but we need a guy who understands their concerns.

[ Parent ]
these centrists? Just who and what is that? (4.00 / 5)
Blue Dogs and the so called Clinton centrists are right of center, not center, and plan to stay there.  

The way to get change is not to compromise it away to the people who want to maintain the status quo.  The way to get change is to command it.  It is to use the bully pulpit to intimidate them into supporting the national referendum.  You remember, the landslide election?  Or, was a vote for Obama's change really just a vote for Hillary?  At the rate Obama is going, Obama or Hillary won't make a hill of beans worth of difference because either way, we got Bill.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
have you been paying attention to how obama works? (0.00 / 0)
one of the most commonly noted things is that he listens to people who disagree with him. the guy in the primary who said "COMMAND IT" was edwards. ANd the article says "he's more liberal than these centrists" - the working with is a relational thing, not a 'compromise'.  
[ Parent ]
Assumptions (0.00 / 0)
You make assumptions... don't promote them as facts.

And I didn't give Matt flak for his belief... I gave him flak for the complaint posts without a real call to organize opposition to the emanuel pick.

[ Parent ]
All This (and more) tells me Rahm won't last (4.00 / 4)
I'm glad you and Chris are bringing all this up. But if you add all this up, not to mention his well-known combativeness and contempt for most of the Democratic rank and file, um, I don't think he will last.

Rahmbo is likely too problematic over the long term.

He's served with the IDF and he's quite a fan of AIPAC, so one might think he's potentially an Israeli spy, no? I'm not saying he is, because I have no way of knowing, but this strikes me as a potential issue when Iran is put on the menu. Iran will be on the menu all too quickly, if Dennis Ross has any pull.

He has a severe distaste, putting it politely, for liberals, progressives and Republicans. So basically only corporate-wing DLC types will have access to WH as far as he is concerned, no? Not exactly the all-inclusive environment Obama is looking for.

IF the only people getting access to WH will be corporate lobbyists with big check books for the DLC-wing of the party, how will Obama's image fare?

On top of all this, we're beset with the biggest economic crisis in 70 years and the utter meltdown of American foreign policy. The empire can not be taken for granted anymore. That won't stop some people from doing it anyway, but facts are facts.

Does anyone really think Rahmbo will somehow flourish in this environment?

Likewise, consider Obama's economic advisors, as laid out for the transisition. Most of them are the same hacks that designed the financial system that is sinking our entire economy and cheered loudly as the New Deal regs were trashed. Does anyone really think these jokers have anything positive to offer NOW?

Events will overtake them all. Obama will have to broaden his thinking and his staff as all this unfolds. If he doesn't, he'll be a one-termer.

There's way too much suffering coming down the pike and nothing is being done to ameliorate it thus far. Well, the suffering CEO-class is certainly getting a big helping hand, courtesy of you and me!

Obama somewhat surprised me (in a good way) in exhorting people to help him change things. He raised people's expectations, instead of lowering them. I enjoyed that moment a great deal. But his staffing choices thus far are saying, "status quo all the way," probably because he cares about continuity and experience while he gets his sea-legs. He would probably prefer that the current crowd solves the big problems. Problem is, they're the same ones that caused them. BushCO only made them a lot worse and really quickly. But the Grand Ponzi Scheme would have busted, Bush or no Bush.

This cannot last, because reality will overwhelm any effort at "tinkering around edges" while calling that "change." The Clintonoids currently in favor don't have any answers beyond making the not-rich pay through the nose to prop up the rich. It's a bit like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound and calling that "healthcare reform."

I'm worried about a lot of things right now, but Rahmbo isn't one of them.

He's a temp. He's proven that he doesn't really care for anything outside his own agenda. It just so happens his agenda sucks and will prove a net downer for the country. This will be measured in the Misery Index, Unemployment Rate and negative GDP. Forget ideology. It won't matter all that much to most people, as they watch their children's future being flushed down the loo.



When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

[ Parent ]
You may be right... (0.00 / 0)
I actually was surprised Rahm gave up his seat.... he is so high up in the house it seems rather dumb.  I wonder if he is planning a run for Governor in 2010.
[ Parent ]
Three for Three (4.00 / 7)
Since he started his run for the presidency, through today, there have been three instances where Obama has had to make a decision that had significant ramifications--FISA, the Wall Street bailout, and now, his first decision as president. choosing a chief of staff. In each instance, he has NOT made the progressive choice, to say the least. (In the case of the bailout, he actively pushed for it.) If, in the next few days, we get someone like Summers for Treasury, or Hagel for S of S, we can put to rest any notion that Obama intends to govern in a progressive manner.

My feeling is that on so-called smaller issues with less media focus--i.e. the environment, the workings of the government (like the DOJ)--Obama will govern in a more progressive manner. However, with regards to the major issues, like the economy and defense, he will govern from center to right of center. In this way, he is going to be just like Bill Clinton. Now, this style of governing is certainly preferable to what we have had for the past eight years, but it does not make Obama a progressive. Sadly, we are going to watch people twist themselves into pretzels over the next few years trying to convince themselves that Obama is a progressive when in fact he is not.

how'd you pick your three decisions? (0.00 / 0)
Surely picked a VP is more important than a chief of staff.  Or were we lying when we talked about Palin?


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Biden was not a progressive choice either (4.00 / 7)
Better than Bayh or Kaine, but nothing spectacular. He was a "don't ruffle any feathers" pick.
[ Parent ]
Bullshit... (4.00 / 2)
It amazes that you guys are making such a straw man argument on this and haven't seen the guy in an Executive type role to know if that is in fact true... You just stupidly assume it is.   On the other hand, there are tons of stories about how Obama likes to surround himself with people of all kinds of opinions to advise him.   Your being an ideological purest... please point me to a politician who is ideologically pure?  Because the only one that I can think of is maybe Sanders.  Feingold sure doesn't get it, based on some his votes on  political appointments.   Ideological purity doesn't happen and if you expect it, then you will have a miserable... well however much longer you are alive.

Obama made a pragmatic decision on the Bailout.  He felt something needed to be done and this was the best deal that was out there.    That doesn't mean he was right, but in the current climate it was the best out there and at the time, just as many people thought there was going to be meltdown and the bail was needed as thought the bailout wasn't.

On FISA, Obama made a political calculation...   My feeling is Fisa will be changed in the next 6 months.

As for Emanuel.... well you continue to make an ass out of U and Me by assuming you know what will happen.   THAT is true craziness

[ Parent ]
COS is not an "advisor" (4.00 / 8)
The Chief of Staff is not an advisor.  They're the deputy president.  They run the White House operations and are not just offering up advice, they are in charge of executing the vision.  

I think you're setting up the straw man argument here.  Ideological purity versus non-purity?  No one is calling for purity, we're calling for some ideological mooring on the critical pieces.  

Count me a skeptic of Rahm as COS.  But I'm open to seeing what he can and will do.

But also count me as a skeptic of an Obama presidency advancing the progressive movement and actualizing some of its vision.

[ Parent ]
Still an Advisor... (4.00 / 1)
Yes the COS fills the role you describe, but he still advises the president.  

There seems to be some call for ideological purity.  I strongly disagree with you on that.

I'm fine with skepticism....   And I applaud you being open as well.

What I objected too was two front page posts bitching about Emanuel with absolutely no call to action to try an influence future agenda or picks.    One post cool.... two posts overkill.... Its the same thing that pissed me off when Dave sirota would post something, people didn't like it and then we'd see a post bitching about the comments.   It accomplishes NOTHING.

[ Parent ]
Andrew Card and (0.00 / 0)
Josh Bolten were deputy presidents?

Maybe so, but if you can back up that argument, I'd love to hear more.

[ Parent ]
Pragmatic? (0.00 / 0)
"That doesn't mean he was right, but in the current climate it was the best out there and at the time, just as many people thought there was going to be meltdown and the bail was needed as thought the bailout wasn't."

Many people didn't think the bailout was necessary--like the majority of the American people.

On both the bailout and FISA, Obama supported the position taken by George Bush.

As for Emanuel--look at his track record.  

[ Parent ]
Reinvent history much... (0.00 / 0)
Sorry Sparky, but yes, by the end when it was passed a majority felt it was necessary.
[ Parent ]
Bullshit swings both ways. (4.00 / 2)
There are phrases that set off alarm bells.  The list starts with "we don't have sixty votes", includes "it isn't perfect, but" and ends with "pragamatic decision".  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
the bailout was conservative? (4.00 / 1)
it entirely depends on how it is implemented. I don't see how sitting by while the banking system dies and takes down the real economy is some progressive goal.
[ Parent ]
The bailout is being implemented as we speak (4.00 / 5)
Treasury decided that they would not announce the names of the banks who came to them for funding, and instead to allow the banks to choose if and when to announce it, so it may not be in the news but the banks have been taking the capital injections.  So far, we've had a number of banks who requested money from Treasury, and then instead of extending credit (to ease that credit crisis), went out and bought other banks in order to make themselves larger and more powerful.

So When Will Banks Give Loans?
..."Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase," he began. "What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...

Your $3 trillion bailout
...Cash injections: With financial institutions desperate for liquidity, the Treasury has sent out about $250 billion worth of checks to banks. In turn, the government will get an equity stake in the banks in the form of senior preferred shares.

Regulators hope that the capital injections will spur lenders to dole out loans to consumers and businesses in need of credit. But some of the biggest, most stable banks got the biggest checks. For instance, JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) led the pack with $25 billion in federal funding. Smaller banks are getting far less, and,some banks are using their loans to purchase smaller banks.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/0...

The Bailout: More Changes, More Questions
s it too soon to wonder whether the government's $700 billion financial rescue program has gone off track? The U.S. Treasury has taken a lot of flack in the past few weeks for shifting the focus of the plan from buying distressed assets off banks' balance sheets to direct capital injections into financial institutions that may or may not need it, Meanwhile, critics say there are no indications that lending has increased, which was the original objective of the whole plan.

Indeed, some financial institutions that have received government money seem to be using the capital for other purposes, such as acquisitions of other banks, while the methods used in the rescue-and the purpose behind it-seem to be changing every week. And that has made even some of the legislation's original champions take notice.

Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, went so far as to say on Oct. 31 that any use of the cash from the rescue plan by banks for acquisitions, executive bonuses, or other purposes besides lending is "a violation of the terms of the act."
http://www.businessweek.com/in...

How's that for progressive?  Face it, the bailout is a swindle.

[ Parent ]
obama isn't president yet (4.00 / 1)
bush is.
what do you want, just stop the government for the next couple of months? There wasn't an option for 'have competent democratic administration fix financial crisis'
[ Parent ]
He has the biggest megaphone in the world (0.00 / 0)
and he used it to help sell the bailout.  He can certainly use it to help shine a light on what's happening, and to do something about the abuse of the bailout money.

There is no person in this country, perhaps the world, who has more political power than Barack Obama.  He needs to use it to benefit the people who gave him that power.

Don't make excuses for him.  Hold him accountable, or he will lose that power in the same kind of record time that he gained it.

[ Parent ]
I'm not thrilled, but (4.00 / 4)
who am I to second guess him at this point and CoS is different than legislative leader.

I don't mind his reputation for being cutthroat, I just don't know if he's on our side.  At least he's not his own boss anymore.

John McCain won't insure children

DIng Ding Ding (0.00 / 0)
THIS hits the nail on the head.    
[ Parent ]
keep your friends close (0.00 / 0)
and your (potential?) enemies closer.

I like that this assignment takes him out of Congress. I like that it puts him where he'll be under tight reign, where he can't afford to screw around (e.g., going rouge with leaks). I don't like that he may be deciding who gets an audience with Obama.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

[ Parent ]
My concern (4.00 / 5)
Regarding Rahm's evident center-right ideology is that CoS is literally in the room for all the big stuff.  Whatever decisions are being made, he is in all things a key advisor to the president.

No one is immune to the influence of those around them, and even a progressive president will be made less so by mere psychological weight of contrarian advice.  

on another note (4.00 / 2)
M.J. Rosenberg:


As a Member of Congress, Emanuel was not all that hawkish either. He supports Israel (so do I) but he definitely supports the peace process too. My guess: he'll be the one encouraging Obama to go for an Israeli-Palestinian deal the first year. And, when the rightwing Jews complain, he'll tell them to stick it up their ass.

And they will.



[ Parent ]
I hope to God (4.00 / 3)
Obama does not get drawn into leading a mid-east peace process.  

It is a low reward high risk issue for Obama to wade into.

It would not rank in the top 10 of issues that Obama should be working on.

[ Parent ]
I agree Rahm is not going to lead Obama astray on Israel (4.00 / 1)
It's domestic issues one needs to be concerned about.  And I'm more of Peace Now person than Rahm.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
I just don't think (4.00 / 2)
Rahm has a center right ideology. I think he has a center left ideology that is almost constantly displaced in favor of political concerns. He has been first and foremost concerned with keeping Democrats in power. That would be a bad trait for a president but its not a bad trait for an adviser to the president so long as the President has other input.

And really, I think we might be so used to George Bush that we're forgetting that competent presidents can listen to people they disagree with without conceding ground to them.

[ Parent ]
I don't think Rahm has an ideology period (0.00 / 0)
he's a Chicago politician.  Most Chicago Democrats are all over the map ideologically.  The primary concern is maintaining power.  

His appointment removes him as a third sphere of influence in an already divided Democratic caucus.  It also gives Obama a very forceful (and unpleasant) person to ram the Obama agenda through the House.  

Rahm's ideology is whatever he thinks will benefit him and the Democrats politically.  Unfortunately for him, he's a political dim-wit.  

[ Parent ]
Just a point regarding your "just taking orders" charge Chris (4.00 / 4)
You are effectively comparing apples to oranges...

Rahm's time in the House is not representative of his role as a loyal staffer.  In Congress he is an independently elected Representative of his district.  His role in the leadership, as an elected caucus position, is also still a relatively independent role that while nominally supportive of the leadership is also significantly dependent on the support of other members and not just the Speaker.  

His leaking of info while involved in negotiations, while rather seedy, is also par for the course.  Heck, see my Quick Hit regarding Reid's staff member leaking Reid's plans for Lieberman... if that wasn't approved in advance, then that is a more reprehensible leak coming from a direct staffer not just a member of the negotiating team.

Basically, in Congress he was one among equals, and while not necessarily the most reliable supporter of the leadership, not in any way a disloyal staffer.

The White House position is a different animal altogether.  If you want to show his lack of subordination look to his Clinton admin years to make the argument, if one can be made.

I still like the idea of Obama surrounding himself with those holding discordant ideologies.  Yes-men suck for governing.

Why do you assume (4.00 / 4)
Rahm's ideology is discordant? It's entirely possible that Rahm Emmanuel, like Summers, like Bayh, represents Obama's real orientation, and the whole "change" thing was just something he was saying to get elected. It's too soon to tell.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Recommended for (0.00 / 0)
"it's too soon to tell," which is gonna be a theme for a while.
[ Parent ]
Couldn't agree more... (4.00 / 1)
Didn't expect Obama to have lots of progressives, but Rahm really disappoints me.  He will have a lot of influence.  Why does that bother me?

- FISA (immunity)
- Bailout
- Iraq War funding
- 2006 House races (wasted lots of money recruiting candidates when we already had progressives in place)

Only good thing about this selection - we can get a real progressive in his house seat.  The district his very gay, highly-educated and socially-progressive.  I have only seen a lot of discussion to fill Obama's seat, not Rahm's yet.  

I do think needing to fill Rahm's seat makes it less likely that our governor will take another sitting house member to become Senator, and need to fill one more seat.  That could diminish the odds for my favorite, Jan Schakowsky, to replace Obama.

No facts to base this on - just thinking aloud.  Perhaps Blago would want to make 3 appointments and score lots of points to shore up political support for a run in 2010.

In his last election in 2006, Blago won 49% of the vote while the Green Party won 11%, and IL is no Minnesota not usually going for non-R nor non-D candidates.  That 11% was a protest vote against him.

Whomever he picks will be motivated purely by his own political future. Ok, so take back my earlier comment - maybe appointing Jan and having to fill her House seat will increase odds of his selecting her.

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

interesting ideas (0.00 / 0)
Now, the open house seat(s) are not eligible for appointment. There would have to be a special primary and special general election.  Would the governor have enough influence to be able to "pick" the primary winner and clear the field? I have the impression he wouldn't from your comment and others, but perhaps that's not right.  

Any local perspectives?

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for clarifying... (0.00 / 0)
Didn't realize the house seat worked differently.  Should have thought more about how the new Foster seat worked.  

The governor doesn't have that level of influence any longer, but Mayor Daley does.  It would be interesting to see who wants this role and has Daley support.  Lots of key players at a state level likely would take the Senate seat, but I'm not sure they would want to go through a primary for a house seat - not as much power you know!

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

[ Parent ]
not a big deal (4.00 / 2)
As opposed to the policy making cabinet positions that must gain congressional approval, the president gets to surround himself with the staff he chooses. I tend to agree with matthews that these picks--the president's wh staff--are his choice-his pleasure--his business. Plus moving Rahm out of his leadership position in Congress is probably more helpful to a liberal Obama agenda.  
Wait Until the Cabinet Gets Appointed (4.00 / 1)
There's bound to be one or two appointments that are far more worthy of the netroots' ire. Rahm may not be a movement progressive (but, you know, Obama isn't either), but he's at least a loyal Democrat, which is what you want in that position in the Administration.
[ Parent ]
good cop / bad cop (4.00 / 2)
This pick isn't about ideology at all.  
[ Parent ]
And, Arguably, It Shouldn't Be (4.00 / 1)
You need a ball buster who can get people organized in that job more than an ideologue.

Look, we just spent eight years dealing with an Administration rife with ideologues who were good at being loud, divisive, and crooked, but didn't get anything positive done in DC.

And, like I said, there are more worthy fights to come. Specifically, I think the Secretary of Defense job (if it goes to a Republican) is one where the netroots would be better advised to dig in their heels. We have two perfectly qualified progressive Democrats in Clark and Reed. Obama doesn't need to reinforce the Republican frame on defense by picking Hagel or keeping Gates.

I'm all for one or two token Republicans, as long as they're named "Lincoln Chafee" and/or "Olympia Snowe" and they're not shaping policy about war and peace.

[ Parent ]
I seem to recall (0.00 / 0)
That Clark does not qualify as Secretary of Defense since he was in the military too recently.

But I could be wrong.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
That Could Well Be True (4.00 / 1)
In which case, we still have Reed who is qualified for the job.
[ Parent ]
It is true (0.00 / 0)
And Reed has said he would refuse it no matter what.

I hope Obama picks a Democrat like Danzig or Harme but to be honest I won't be upset if he picks Hagel. Gates a bit. But Hagel is a smart guy, yes he's a Republican and I don't like that, but outside that is there any real objections to him?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Just one... (4.00 / 3)
That he's Republican, heading the DoD in a Democratic administration. How can we expect to prove Democrats can be "serious" about national security if we give Republicans the reins?
[ Parent ]
See (0.00 / 0)
You are going against the message that obama WON a landslide on. you will be disappointed with that mindset.
[ Parent ]
Maybe I'm just pre-disappointed (0.00 / 0)
but I've always taken it for granted that the White House is on the wrong side of the barricades from us, and that if we're going to get really significant things accomplished it'll be by threatening all institutional power in DC -- including the White House and its soon-to-be occupant.

I suppose I'm interested in the tea-leaf reading, but in the big picture I think it has very little impact on our task over the next four years.  Whomever Obama picks for COS, we need to mount a credible threat to established power in order to extract concessions.

It's good to have a reasonable boss instead of a psychotic, sadistic moron.  But you still need a union either way, and you still need to organize and prepare to mobilize and strike if necessary to defend your interests.

I'm actually in favor of it (4.00 / 4)
I've had my ups and downs with Emanuel, probably more on the latter than most who are alive to tell about it. But I think this is a good choice. In my mind, my only problem with him was his overall strategy, which hopefully will be decided by Obama. As for implementing, he's damn good. If Obama is looking for somebody to get done what he wants, I think he'll be very happy with Emanuel.
Exactly (4.00 / 1)
Rahm is an excellent executor and that is an incredibly important skill as WH CoS.  Just look at his resume.  Also, Obama is going to need someone to be a gatekeeper and say no for him and Rahm will be perfect for the job.
[ Parent ]
Can you give some examples (4.00 / 3)
of things he has implemented well?  It would be great to hear it from someone who saw it first hand.
[ Parent ]
DCCC (0.00 / 0)
He had a plan and stuck to it and implemented his plan really well.
[ Parent ]
Three reasons Rahm is a good choice (4.00 / 6)
1.  He'll never be Speaker.
2.  He'll never be Speaker.
3.  He'll never be Speaker.

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future
You forgot three more (4.00 / 1)
4. He'll never be speaker
5. Chris Van Hollan or Xavier Becerra will be speaker within a decade.
6. He'll never be spaker.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
He may, however, (0.00 / 0)
become senate majority leader.
[ Parent ]
How? (0.00 / 0)
When's a seat going to open up?

Most of the prospects for Obama's seat are fairly young and would be lifers. Durbin's not going anywhere.

Rumor has it he wants to be mayor of Chicago down the line.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Turning an ass-pain into an asset (4.00 / 2)
This is OT from the two points Chris is boring in on, but if Rahm is going to give Obama an argument on policy, it's better he be doing it across the table from Obama where he has the power to say 'Game over, I win.' From Rahm's position in the house he could be a significant hindrance to real reform if he chose to argue from a distance through politicking and legislative action. I see this action as Obama taking a probable loss and turning it into a real asset.

And in response to the information you present about his undermining the Dems and his general macho 'goin' rogue' demeanor - I would point at the list of CoSs where the approximate average length of term is 3 to 4 years. If a consensus developed among the Obama leadership that Rahm was screwing things up and it showed in the results, I could easily see President Consensus booting Rahm on the short side of that average.

And if complaints start leaking out of the WH about Rahm, we'll be hear to throw gasoline on the fire and accelerate the departure.

CoSs

hamlet (0.00 / 0)
Great info.

I think that's why Rahm waited so long to decide. He wasn't sure he could do the job well enough to last an entire term. If he screws up, is booted too soon, he's out of elected office, his previous career path is totally derailed, and, then what?

I completely agree with your analysis of this as turning a potential roadblock into a strong ally.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

[ Parent ]
What Has Rahm Done??? (4.00 / 7)
Let's see:

1 - Served in various WH positions including Counselor to the President where he helped with numerous pieces of legislation including the 1997 Budget Bill.

2- Got himself elected to Congress, not a small feet consider only 435 people in the whole country serve in the House.

3- Served as DCCC Chair where he organized a successful campaign committee which raised oodles of money and helped the Dems regain the House.

4 - Got elected Chair of the House Dem Caucus, number 4 leadership position in the House.

Chris - I get you don't like Rahm's politics.  I don't either.  He is to the right of me but you don't exactly get that kind of resume by accident.  Obtaining the jobs he has and succeeded at them take incredibly strong political skills which is essential for a WH CoS.  

I watched Clinton screw-up his first 2 yrs by hiring Arkansas friends who didn't understand Congress and it is a huge reason he failed in that period.  Rahm may not be my ideal choice but I am glad that Obama is not making the same mistake.

I think this is a good choice, but... (4.00 / 1)
1. NAFTA is a great scar on his Clinton record and was his biggest responsibility

2. Was gifted a congressional seat from the inside, not won in a competitive campaign

3. Left at least a dozen seats on the table, wasted money on pet races, and was nothing short of a disaster during primary season

4. And Steny Hoyer who is awful did better, not exactly a badge of honor

I think this is a good choice, but for none of the reasons you list. In fact, your reasons are pretty much arguments against Emanuel.

If these are the arguments in favor of Emanuel it is no reason he is getting slammed by some online.

[ Parent ]
There Is A Difference (4.00 / 1)
between thinking legislation is bad like NAFTA and understanding how to build coalitions to get it passed. Emmanuel helped build the coalition and trust me Obama will end up building odd coalitions to get part of his agenda passed.  It is the way of the legislative process.

Also, Emmanuel may have been the machine choice in Chicago but he had a nasty and expensive primary against State Representative Nancy Kaszak and 6 other candidates in 2002.  That is not "gifted."  Gifted is what happens in NY when members of Congress step down after their nominated petitions have been filed and the party picks the replacement like the way Joe Crowley got his seat in 1998.  

[ Parent ]
I pretty much agree (0.00 / 0)
And I don't think it behooves any of us to go over his primary campaign (until it hits Drudge on January 19th). I'm just saying I don't think you put forth good arguments for why he is a good choice.

If I were to lay out four reasons, I would have said:

1. He won't put up with any shit from congressional Democrats who want to derail the White House agenda (talking to you, Blue Dogs)

2. He won't get hung up by any shit from executive branch career types (talking to you, bureaucrats)

3. If it looks like he's screwing up, it won't be because he isn't being loyal to what he is told to do (talking to you, Obama)

4. If he does a good job, it won't be other than because he is doing what he was told (but he'll still probably claim credit, oh well)  

[ Parent ]
I Think THese Are (4.00 / 1)
all good reasons as well but in addition to being a hard ass the guy has strong political skills and understands the intersection b/w policy and politics which was the point I was trying to make.  I don't always agree with him but he understands how to move the process.  

The biggest mistake Clinton made in his first 18 months was having a staff who didn't get how the process works and assumed Congress would just rollover for the new President like the Arkansas legislature did when he was Gov.  Obama is not making that mistake.  As a one time insider who now enjoys politics/policy as a avocation miles from DC, I respect Rahm's ability to get things done.

[ Parent ]
NAFTA is a "great scar" on his record? (4.00 / 5)
If we start from Chris's initial argument that Rahm is not good at "getting things done" or "taking orders" well I think NAFTA would be the main refutation.

If it was his "biggest responsibility" and his boss wanted it passed that demonstrates both his ability to follow orders and especially his ability to get things done.  Wether or not he agreed with it (and I'm assuming he did) it still validates his capabilities for this position as it was a major policy endeavor and required quite a bit of work to accomplish.

We might not like the results, but he delivered big time for his boss... hardly a "scar" in this discussion.

[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
There is a difference b/w disagreeing with a political position and saying people can't move the process.  Rahm knows how to move the process regardless your position on NAFTA.

My one concern with the pick is that it can be difficult to go from being the elected official where you speak in your own voice and make your own decisions and being staff, regardless how high ranking, where you are following orders.  Rahm has been on both sides so I have to assume he understands the difference.

[ Parent ]
Rahm and the veep pick (4.00 / 4)
Well, I was appalled at the Biden pick because of much of what Biden stands for, and I think I've been proven wrong because it turned out that Biden is a loyal and super-effective surrogate. Maybe Obama and his advisers really are pretty good at figuring out who's the right person for a particular job. Plus the fact that Obama never really left much of a doubt that Hillary was not acceptable for veep suggests to me that his penchant for seeking compromise doesn't cloud his understanding of who could or would truly undermine him. I find the choice puzzling, but I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one.

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!
Biden's a Very Good Comparison (4.00 / 6)
85% of the time, Biden and Emanuel are on our sides, and even in the other 15% you know they're deeply loyal to the party and dislike the GOP every bit as much as we do.

Put it another way, Obama is putting together a political posse that, if nothing else, he knows will have his back in a knife fight.

And there will be knife fights. Make no mistake. Obama needs to get an economic package and a renewable energy package (each of which should have a large infrastructure component) through in his first 100 days, and there will be a lot of roadblocks from both sides of the aisle and a lot of hands reaching in his pockets or looking for a place to stick the shiv.

[ Parent ]
My take... (4.00 / 6)
I do think that you bring up some valid points, but I also think 1) You are letting your dislike of Emanuel bias your analysis a bit and 2) You are overreacting a bit too.   We don't know HOW Emanuel fits into the process or how Obama will govern.  Assuming you know how he will based on staff appointments comes off a bit arrogant.... But not a big deal, as its guessing either way.   Remember though IT'S GUESSING.  No one knows what will happen.  There are good and bad parts to Emanuel.  Controlled, I think he can be a valuable tool... kind of a lobbyist for Obama in the House.  

Remember one thing... after 2006, Emanuel picked up A LOT of markers.   Whether you think they are deserved or not, it doesn't matter.... the facts are enough people THINK they owe Emanuel that he is valuable.  

To me the only question is can Obama control Emanuel.   That will determine a lot of the success or failure here.

Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Emmanuel has a lot of good will with House members whether or not the netroots thinks he deserves it.  He can use it to Obama's advantage as CoS.

I agree about controlling Emmanuel - that will be interesting to see.  It is tough to go back to a staff role after having been the elected official since you always take a back seat to the elected.  However, Emmanuel has been on both sides of the fence so he knows the difference.

[ Parent ]
maybe he's well connected, and carries a lot of weight with congress (0.00 / 0)
which will help Obama get his agenda through

that's my last hope, before i pick up heavy drinking as a hobby.

Missing the Point (4.00 / 3)
I fear many of us are missing the point. This is not about left or right or progressive or not. Obama is creating an effective government. It will not be the progressive government we all may dream of. Instead, it will be a government that works (to find the best answer, not the easiest), a government that cares (enough to hire staffers that understand issues, rather than simply how issues impact election), and a government we can trust (to have adult discussions about issues, instead of succumbing to groupthink).

Rahm may not be who progressives want, but do we really want another single-minded West Wing? Rahm is brilliant at behind the scene politicking. It would be foolish to judge him based on legislative achievements.

At any rate, a smart person hires people that will disagree with him so that he understand things completely. Think Dr. House. He solves things be hearing people tell him the wrong things. A dumb person hire people who will tell him the best thing to do. Think Bush. So if you think Obama is dumb then worry about Rahm. If not, and I'm sure most or all of us don't, then everything should be alright.

Your example shows the opposite in my opinion (4.00 / 3)
It shows that he gets things done in the sense that he is willing to put pressure on insiders to get his way.

As far as loyalty goes well Obama has made pretty good choices so far.  None of his previous picks leak like Hillary's or McCain's did.

I think the main problem most people have with the argument is the idea that you should only associate with people who agree with you.  If you expect that of Obama I think you will be dissapointed.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

Correct And (0.00 / 0)
there is really nothing in Rahm's background that tells me he is interested in setting policy.  He has never held a major policy position in either the Clinton Admin or Congress.  THe policy will come from the major depts and areas of the WH like the National Economic Council.  Rahm seem to like politics and understands the nexus b/w politics and policy which is the job of the CoS.
[ Parent ]
Chief of Staff is an inherently political position (0.00 / 0)
Chief of Staff is an inherently political position, and Rahm is a true politician. He won't be setting policy in this position, just like in Congress. I don't agree with him on many issues, but in terms of organizing Obama's next 4 years, its hard to see a better national figure (sure there are better unknowns, but Obama wanted a big name with congressional experience working directly under him, so that he wouldn't need to hold hands with his COS around minority leaders).
No, thank you (4.00 / 3)
So.... We get a very committed imperialist and semi-hemi-demi Likudnik as Chief of Staff, we get Larry f'ing Summers as Secretary of the Treasury, and we -- oh boy, oh joy -- get to keep Gates as Secretary of Defense.

Call me a narrow idealogue all you want, but this isn't what I voted for. It may be what I have to eat, but I don't gotta like it, and my reasons for not liking it aren't exactly frivolous.

Treasury and Defense (4.00 / 2)
I don't think we know Obama's Treasury Secretary yet, and keeping Gates on for 16 months would be fine if he is followed by a Democrat.

The sky hasn't fallen yet.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
I really don't like this pick for a number of reasons (4.00 / 3)
Big picture: get ready for Clinton's third term.  There are worse things in the World, but on the issues that are increasing income inequality the Clinton approach was completely inadequate.  Emmanuel did vote against CAFTA according to the Almanac of American politics, but a brief skim of his book "The Plan" reads very much like a DLC press release.

There are two governing ideologies that must be challenged.  They are:
*Neo-Conservatism in Foriegn Policy
*Neo-Classical Economics

Of the two fights to make the second is the most important.  At a fundemental level the policies articulated in "the Plan" represents the same bromides that we have been hearing for years about free trade and globalization.  The danger here is real: unless Obama challenges the economic assumptions behind Neo-Classical Economics his administration will be unikely to make much of an impact on the economic realities Americans confront.

I didn't really expect much more than this: the debate in the Ohio Primaries showed Obama and Clinton to both essentially be free trade supporters who were trying very hard to pretend they weren't.

Still, I now remember why I was for Edwards.

He hasn't accepted the job yet (4.00 / 1)
Hopefully he won't.  He and Pelosi were too good at enabling Bush's agenda.  That doesn't show much character.
Thanks for the thoughtful critique. (0.00 / 0)
It is something that needs discussing.

I used some of your quotes plus other sources trying to figure out how to put into words that this choice bothered me a lot.

Then I heard Howard Dean say in an interview on VPR that he would probably be dusting off his resume.

That further bothered me.  

Here's one difference. (0.00 / 0)
If he is going to undermine Pelosi, he might very well undermine Obama, too.

If he undermine's Obama, he's fired.

Here's one difference. (0.00 / 0)
If he is going to undermine Pelosi, he might very well undermine Obama, too.

If he undermine's Obama, he's fired.

Um Chris. . . (4.00 / 5)
You're neglecting to mention what he did when he worked for the White House.  He got NAFTA done, the assault weapon ban done, etc.  Emmanuel was one of the go-to guys in the Clinton White House - when Clinton wanted something done, no matter what the cost, he brought in Emmanuel.

Also, keep in mind that if Emmanuel is in the White House, HE CAN'T BE IN CONGRESS FUCKING UP OBAMA'S AGENDA. If Obama tells Emmanuel to jump, as Chief of Staff, Emmanuel asks how high.  If Emmanuel is in Congress, he tells Obama to fuck off.

Look, I don't like the guy's politics either, but if Obama is going to make real changes, he needs muscle.  Emmanuel is muscle.  If I was about to go to war, I'd want a guy like that on my side. More importantly, I want to make sure that this guy isn't in a position to fuck me.


Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Rahm is not perfect. But if he has the job of enforcer there is no one better.

Give a job to him and he will get it passed. Healthcare is going to be tough, Rahm knows some of the jerks like Health Shuler that will stand in the way and they owe him bigtime. He'll be able to get stuff like that through.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
My way or the highway (4.00 / 1)
Rahm has a reputation for being a "my way or the highway" type of guy, and is known for using bullying tactics, and for being vengeful.

Is this the type of guy who makes a good CoS?  I thought the CoS was the one who holds the team together and who plays well with others.  Obama has claimed many times that he wants to listen to many different points of view, and such.  Is Rahm the type of person to accomodate this kind of environment?

Hopefully they'll find a way to brainstorm and be open minded in order to find the best solutions, and then when the time comes to get things done, that's when they will want to use Rahm's bulldozer techniques.

But I can't help but think of Bush and the Republican Congress during 2001-07 when they used dirty tricks and bullying to get things done.  It brought them success in the short term, but in the long term, it ruined them, and the country in the process.  

partially (0.00 / 0)
if all you do is dirty tricks and bullying, then you aren't going to end up anywhere good. But if you just have some nice ideas, you will just have a big pile of fail. The last dem to get anything big done was johnson, and he was a huge sob. Obama needs someone like that with him.
[ Parent ]
Look (0.00 / 0)
Its straight up not true that Rahm has gotten nothing done.

A google search will remedy this.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

The message (4.00 / 1)
While I wouldn't dismiss out of hand the points made on this thread in favor of Emanuel's usefulness, I remain unconvinced. As I see it, Obama's bipartisan rhetoric has to be judged in practice, not in theory, and when he makes appointments like this, what I hear Obama saying is:

1.) I'm new around here, so I don't really know how things are being run, or by whom.

2.) Because of that, the only people who seem to me to be indisputably competent to manage the system are those who've been responsible for (complicit in?) maintaining it in the past. Once I have time to observe what they're up to, I'll be able to nudge them in the direction I want them to go, or replace them with others whose talents I've had the opportunity in the meantime to judge.

3.) You can't be sure that I share their views, and you don't need to know what I'm really planning; I'm a Democrat, a man of color, and an agent of change. Trust me.

What I say in return is Well, okay, but just remember that the system really is broken, I'm not stupid, and you don't have forever.

Obama's Rahm Emanuel Appointment a Bad Omen (0.00 / 0)
I am afraid that the Emanuel appointment is only the beginning of the surfacing of Obama's real brain trust, many of whose members were kept out of site during the campaign to avoid aggravating the progressive-centrist split in the party by revealing how much he is aligned with DLC centrists.

I think that one thing (0.00 / 0)
being skipped over is 'familiarity'.

As another Chicago-based pol, Emanuel is familiar to Obama. Strengths and weaknesses and tendencies are already KNOWN.

In Biden, Obama already has someone who knows as much about the Senate and Senators as anyone out there. In Emanuel, he got someone who knows White House operations and Congressional players (and the carrots and sticks that can be brought into play). And in a package that's a known commodity.

Obama can hardly avoid bringing in people with a 'history' (one most especially connected to the Clintons) if he brings in people with experience. And while he will bring in some new blood, he can't afford an entire administration of people trying to learn everything from scratch.

So, while there are obvious caveats in the Emanuel pick, I think he brings some valuable things to the table (it also gets him out of the House caucus, which might not be a bad thing).

Nobody has refuted Bowers yet (4.00 / 2)
I note that nobody has refuted Bowers' point: There is little to no evidence that Rahm either knows how to "get things done" or knows how to be a loyal soldier.

Sure, Rahm may turn out to be a wonderful CoS.  Nobody has a crystal ball and political predictions -- in this case that Rahm will be a failure -- are often incorrect, even when made by wise and informed observers.

Maybe Rahm will get things done. And maybe he will loyally follow Obama's directions and not leak to the press for his own personal agenda.  Maybe.  But "maybe" isn't a track record.  "Maybe" isn't an argument.  "Maybe" is simply a recognition that the future cannot be predicted.  I would prefer some evidence.  

NAFTA, Budget Bills (4.00 / 1)
This line of reasoning reminds me of all the Rs who complained in the 1990s that Clinton's economic policies had nothing to do with the economic boom of that decade. You don't have to like or support NAFTA or the 1997 Budget Bill but helping pass those were major accomplishments.  THere is a difference b/w not liking what Rahm has done or how he has done it and saying he hasn't accomplished anything.  Building legislative coalitions to pass bills is hard and tricky and Rahm, like him or not, has experience doing it from the Exec Branch.

[ Parent ]
That's it? (4.00 / 2)
NAFTA and the 1997 Budget bill?

First off, I question Rahm's value in both of those examples.

But, for the sake of argument, I'll give you those. Let's say that Rahm was critical in getting both of those passed in their final forms.  That's two major bills in the past 15 years.

Trust me.  I can distinguish between being an effective arm-twister and supporting views that I agree with.  The Bush administration -- with which I disagree with on virtually every issue -- has been extremely effective.  On issue after issue after issue over the past 8 years the Bush administration has demanded that legislation be passed (or an appointment be confirmed) and it has been done.

From the Medicare drug bill and tax cuts to the AUMF and FISA and the PATRIOT Act bills to the confirmations of Alito and Roberts to the Military Commissions Act to the Paulson Bailout plan to stifling any meaningful oversight of the Administration, the Bush Administration has demanded that Congress act (or not act) and Congress has complied.

The Administration's only notable legislative failure has been Social Security reform.  And there the administration was even successful in shifting the Overton Window regarding privatization from "the Third Rail of politics" to an acceptable, though minority, position.

Those are legislative achievements that blow anything that Rahm has ever dreamed of out of the water.

[ Parent ]
I noticed that, too. (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Regarding Clinton retreads (4.00 / 4)
I'd also add that what bothers me about Rahm isn't his actual experience in the Cliton WH.  I'm glad that Obama tapped Podesta and he WAS CoS for Clinton.  

What bothers me about Rahm are his Clintonite ideology and approach.  The drama.  The corporate deference.  The needless antagonism with the grassroots of the party.

I am less concerned that Obama made a "bad pick", in the sense that Rahm will fail to help Obama enact a progressive agenda, than I am that Obama made a "good pick", and Rahm will successfully implement a cautious, "centrist," and ultimately disappointing agenda.  Yes, I am worried about what the Rahm pick suggests we will get for DoD, State, AG, etc.

I am worried about spending the next 4-8 years in Clinton Redux: watching Obama continue to "reach out across the aisle" to those who have no agenda other than seeing him fail while triangulating against the base and "standing up to the Left" in order to please the Villagers.

That's the crystalized essence of my concern right there (4.00 / 1)
You wrote:
"I am worried about spending the next 4-8 years in Clinton Redux: watching Obama continue to "reach out across the aisle" to those who have no agenda other than seeing him fail while triangulating against the base and "standing up to the Left" in order to please the Villagers."

I'm still glad to see Rahm's congressional career truncated and I do think he could be a real asset to get things done, but if the tenor of the administration starts to become as you describe it here, that would be very frustrating.

Reaching across the table to people who are single-mindedly focused on a bad-faith agenda to undermine you - that's the Clinton administration, right there.

[ Parent ]
The "Pro" Emanuel Argument (0.00 / 0)
Al Giordano:

It puts him under the control of Obama (and David Axelrod, who now heads to Washington as senior advisor to the president).

Yes, Emanuel is "the enforcer." Yes, his voting record and considerable accomplishments in Congress are not what I would call progressive. You can read all about the problems with Rahm courtesy of a September David Sirota column. Heck, I fully expected to be spending the next couple of months fighting against Rep. Emanuel's rumored efforts to sneak the US-Colombian trade agreement through the lame duck Congress while President Bush would still be there to sign it.

But now Rahm is going to be kept very busy with other things.

As for his enforcer persona, I think it's a good message to send to all that are scheming to try and roll the Obama presidency. Obama needs somebody that Congress fears. Just listen to the Chicken Little screeching from the right wing pundits over Emanuel and you can get an idea of exactly why he's the man for the job.

The White House Chief of Staff has no constitutional authority. His only potential power is that of controlling who gets the president's ear. Having Axelrod a door or two over ensures that there will be more than one route to the Oval Office. And I'm not worried about Obama surrounding himself with "yes men and women" or not seeking out dissenting opinions: it's just obviously not his nature to let himself be put or kept in the dark.

Also:

And if Barney Frank is now the last remaining member of Congress that can rival Emanuel's talent at rolling everybody else, I also think that's a very positive development. The balance of power in the House Democratic Caucus shifts far more to Frank with Rahm out of the legislative branch and in a chain-of-command under which Emanuel now has to follow orders instead of give them independently. Loose cannon on deck, now bolted down. Very shrewd.

I posted a comment about Rahm at another blog (0.00 / 0)
and I think that Chris is thinking about Rahm the wrong way.

We know that Rahm is a poor legislator (no legislative accomplishments) and a lacks good political sense (recruiting guys like Mahoney, and picking people who got their butts handed to them by grassroots based candidates like Shea-Porter and Yarmuth).  But he is effective at getting people to do things that he wants them to do.  He is a tireless, and he's a jerk.  He's not someone you want to cross.

His core job is not going to be to push Republicans to support Obama's agenda, nor is it going to be to coordinate efforts between the House and the White House.  His job is going to be to tell the House what to do, there won't be any back and forth.  Obama issues an order, and Rahm delivers it.

We know, and I'm sure Obama knows, that the House leadership is fractured.  Pelosi and Hoyer don't get along, and they each control a large faction of the House.

If those two are not unified, then we won't accomplish jack squat (just like in the past 2 years) and the Republicans will hold a lot of power in the House, even with diminished numbers.  Harry Reid and Dick Durbin can keep the Senate Democrats largely unified, but the House is going to be fracticious.  We have the Blue Dogs (basically Hoyer's kids) vs. the Progressives (basically Pelosi's kids) at the end of the day.

Rahm's job is going to be to smack those two upside the head on a regular basis and tell them that they will push through this piece of legislation or that piece.  That this or that amendment is unacceptable.  

He's going to be a mob enforcer.  A "thug" sent over to keep everyone in line.  

Obama is going to play hardball in DC.  He will get his agenda enacted, and he's not going to allow petty bickering in the House to screw things up.  He's not going to be helping craft policy, he's not going to be leaking unauthorized information, because I don't see him being privy to anything of value.  He will bust some heads though.  And, if he does anything that harms Obama's agenda, I don't think Obama will hesitate for a second to request his resignation.  

Obama has never rolled over for anyone.  He won his first election by challenging every petition signature of his opponents, getting them thrown off the ballot.  He defeated a self-financed gazillionaire and a Machine Backed candidate (amongst others) in a 7 way Senate primary.  I am convinced his campaign had a hand in destroying Pat Ryan by getting the divorce papers leaked.  He defeated Hillary Clinton.  He crushed John McCain.

But, we shall see what happens.

Not Naive (0.00 / 0)
This is my take, more or less.  I find it funny that everyone was worried Obama might be a bit naive on how Washington runs.  Then, in this one move proves he is not and signals to everyone he won't roll over easily.  This is the move that makes people worry?  I don't get it.

Summers makes me worry.  Rahm makes me very hopeful.

[ Parent ]
What, Exactly, Has Rahm "Gotten Done?" | 107 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