Conventional wisdom has a powerful grip on the minds of most political players inside the beltway, no matter what common sense, actual political reality, the best policy arguments, and actual polling say. Pundits, traditional media reporters, columnists, powerful lobbyists, insiders, White House officials and Senators go into a legislative battle convinced that a certain scenario will play out, and keep telling themselves that over and no matter what. This standard fact of DC life has been especially true in the health care fight, the CW being that a more progressive bill could never get through the Senate, therefore the Senate Finance bill would be the compromise everyone would have to live with if we were going to get health care reform done this year. Sometimes, though, conventional wisdom runs into a brick wall of political reality and common sense, and the latter occasionally prevails, because at the end of the day, elected officials will have to defend their votes made on the floor of the House and Senate. In health care, we may be getting to that moment.
I explain why, and discuss more on the politics of the situation, in the extended entry.
Just in case we hadn't been reminded enough, anonymous centrist Democrats let us know that Rahm Emanuel won the House in 2006, and everything was better when he was around to protect Blue Dogs:
Many centrists credit Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, then a congressman from Illinois and a member of leadership, for pushing Pelosi to protect vulnerable members. As the former head of the House Democrats' campaign arm, Emanuel had recruited many of them to run in the 2006 election that gave Democrats the majority.
"Rahm could say, 'Nance, I'm the guy who delivered the House.' He had a special ability to talk to her," said a senior Democratic aide.
The idea that Rahm Emanuel, or any other single Democrat, was responsible for Democratic victories in 2006 is preposterous. In 2006, Democrats scored huge picked not only in the House, but also in the Senate, among Governors, and at the state legislature level. Rahm had nothing to do with those elections, all of which went as well, or better, than the House in 2006. It was a national wave, fueled by a horrendous national environment for Republicans. Katrina,. Bush's sub-40% approval ratings throughout 2006, an unpopular war overseas, and a series of corruption scandals (Tom Delay, Mark Foley) put Democrats in a dominant electoral position across the board.
The idea of a singular genius causing historical change through force of will makes for an easy media narrative. It also fits in nicely with simplistic "great man" conceptualizations of history. The truth is, however, that individual campaign operatives often receive way too much credit for their party or candidate's victory in a national election. The overall political environment--shaped by forces far larger than any one campaign or operative--frequently plays the decisive role. In addition to Rahm Emanuel, consider the following:
Karl Rove's "genius" in 2004 for helping Bush win re-election by 2.5%, even though House Republicans won nationally by 2.6%.
The genius of the 2008 Obama team in winning nationally by 7.27%, even though House Democrats won nationally by 8.88%.
I am not arguing that people like Karl Rove, Rahm Emanuel or David Ploufe are ineffectual political operatives. Certainly, they are a lot better at running a national campaign than I am, and none of the squandered the opportunities they were given. However, it does not appear that these three were any better than the operatives leading the other national campaigns for their respective parties in 2004, 2006 or 2008. Republicans across the country did just as well, or better, than Rove in 2004, while Democrats around the country did just as well, or better, than Emanuel in 2006 or Ploufe in 2008.
Even beyond political environments and campaign managers, hundreds of thousands of activists contribute to any national electoral victory. Those are the grassroots activists who need to start receiving more credit, not party leaders. No national electoral victory can be won without massive support from the grassroots.
Rahm's Just A Symptom Of What's Wrong With The Party
A healthy political party wouldn't let a putz like him within 30 miles of real power.
You keep a diverse party together by giving everyone something important that they want, and asking them to sacrifice something less vital. You don't ask all the sacrifices to come from the same people all the time, and you damn sure don't yell obscenities at them when they push back.
This is true regardless of the fact that the folks you're favoring are the least fucking loyal party members, and the ones you're screwing are the most loyal. You're supposed to do it the other way around--another symptom of how failed the Democrats are.
I thought it was worth highlighting again, because it goes right to the heart of the matter about how the Democrats are trying to govern by violating such a fundamental precept of politics. It is, quite literally, insane of them to be acting like this.
I've never quite gotten over our terrible struggle with the liberal suits in the Sixties, who still blame us for the destruction of the Democratic Party, and have absolutely no intention of ever letting the likes of us help to rebuild it.
The good news, I suppose, is that it's still considered impolite to blame Fanny Lou Hamer, or Martin Luther King for upsetting the liberal applecart. Blaming DFHs, though, remains forever in fashion. Swine like Rahm Emanuel take particular delight in it, and why wouldn't they? Without phantom menaces like us lurking in the darkness beyond the DCCC, no one with the slightest commitment to sanity would ever accept the absolute inevitability of their domestic War of Assassins with the Republicans, or their worship, in the national temples of foreign policy, of American manifest destiny in its most decadent and violent forms.
This gets it exactly right. The corporate wing of the party is permanently at war with the party's activist base. Permanently. One might have hoped that Obama would have brought about some sort of truce. After all, it would have been the smart, prudent, pragmatic thing to do.
It is more important that health-care legislation inject stiff competition among insurance plans than it is for Congress to create a pure government-run option, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday.
"The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest," he said in an interview. "The goal is non-negotiable; the path is" negotiable.
I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest. I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals.
What happened here? Rahm likely was blabbering to a reporter and just went with his natural gut instinct -- to be weak, and cave to Republicans. As I told the New York Times Caucus blog recently:
Advisers like Rahm Emanuel operate out of fear — like it’s 1994 — instead of operating like people who just won a huge mandate in 2008. They obviously haven’t mastered the bully pulpit yet, which is a shame since Obama is a master communicator. If Obama insisted on the public option and held rallies in Montana, Nebraska, and Louisiana, it would happen.
Today's quote by Obama was a great step. Good job, White House (minus one). Rallies in Montana, Nebraska, and Louisiana would be another good step.
But here's a step progressives can take without waiting for the White House...
Today, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee will announce to our email list that we're redoubling efforts to push Senate Democrats in the right direction -- buying a second week of TV ads in DC with your name in it. Sign your name at WeWantThePublicOption.com and help us keep these ads on the air as long as possible by chipping in here. (A few $50 contributions allows the ad to run one more time on MSNBC.)
This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do bold things that truly help people. We can't let scared politicians like Rahm or Ben Nelson mess it up.
We Americans dwell in a consumer plutocracy, and the plutocrats don't even bother to be cute about it any more. Barack Obama, hailed by the geniuses of new media as a populist saviour, has surrounded himself with a team that was already bought and paid for by the financial services industry before they ever walked into the White House.
"And just in case you ever get a big job in Washington, Larry, remember who your friends are!"
George W. Bush remembered his friends who paid him $15 million on a $600K investment in a baseball franchise, and Barack Obama remembers his friend Penny Pritzker, the Queen of Sub-Prime Lending, chief financial officer of his Senate and Presidential campaigns, and Rahm Emanuel remembers his friends among the investment bankers at Wasserstein Perella, who paid him $16.2 million for two years of "work," and it isn't easy to figure out exactly what "work" that was, because Rahm Emanuel was a speech and communication major at Sarah Lawrence and Northwestern, and never had any training whatsoever in accounting, or business, or finance... but he always knew how to follow the money, as a fundraiser for Richard Daley and Bill Clinton, and now Rahm has followed the money all the way to his current job as Chief of Staff and gatekeeper outside the Oval Office.
"If you ever get a big job in Washington, Rahm, remember your friends!"
And the friends remember, too. They remembered Bill Clinton for signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and paid him $40 million for speaking, in 2007, alone, and the same friends already remember Tim Geithner.
Tim Geithner is "[a] very unusually talented young man...[who] understands government and understands markets," says Henry Paulson, who gave away more money to the banks than anybody in the history of the world... except Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel, and Barack Obama.
The fight for 2012 is here. Beltway media insiders rejoice!
Who's it going to be? Spunky Sarah? Moneyed Mitt? Holy Huckabee? Some dark-horse candidate flying under the radar? One thing is for sure: While the media clamors for every tiny detail in the looming battle for the Republican presidential nomination, the real fight for 2012 is taking place right before their very eyes.
Two months ago, I entered this race declaring we are in the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Every day more and more people lose their jobs, health care, and homes. We are witnessing not the unraveling of a few years of excess, but the insolvency of many of the economic practices and theories that became conventional wisdom over the past 30 years.
Most important of these, and that which has caused the greatest destruction, is the idea that debt is wealth. Over the last 30 years, American wages stagnated and people grew deeper in debt -- their homes, educations, health care, every aspect of life. And at the national level, the story hasn't been much different. We lost manufacturing and borrowed from across the globe. There were only two winners in all this, Wall Street and the banks.
Want to put a bold progressive in Rahm's House seat in the March 3 special election? Here's what you can do.
If you live in DC, join us this Monday evening at Local 16 for a fundraising event for Tom Geoghegan, and meet the candidate himself. There's a high-dollar fundraiser later in the evening, but tickets to this netroots fundraiser event are only $30. Get them here. Facebook invite here.
Not in DC? Read more about Tom and donate at the event's ActBlue page. Every dollar makes a big difference, so please consider giving. (If you buy raffle tickets you can still win, even if you're not at the event.)
You're not really my type [sorry, I forgot to ask if you were sitting down. You're married anyway, and she loves you enough to convert for you, so you'll get over it.] But when you rock your debonair, very non-nebbishy je ne sais quois (lo yodaya ma) thing, it really works. And when you are in a sea of moribund politicians, you really shine. Yesterday, though, you spent the Inauguration playing the cute card and making cute faces. And while you're certainly handsome, you're not really cute-- endearing bug eyes aside. And when you are trying to be cute while standing next to Sasha and Malia Obama, YOU WILL FAIL! See below.
One of the stories we have been following on Open Left since the election is the question of defense spending under the Obama administration. Public opinion is open to cuts, and Obama's positioning on the matter, while mixed, has still been generally positive. Now, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is signaling that not only will there be defense spending cuts, but that those cuts will be deep. Via commenter The Big Hurt, consider recent statements by Emanuel on Meet the Press (more in the extended entry):
In my previous diary, I wrote that fighting for reform hasn't always been easy.
I've spent a career in Cook County government on the opposite side of the Chicago political machine on virtually every issue. That itself can make one's career tough.
But the truth is that I enjoy finding ways to improve government. Call me naive, but my view is that government should play an important role in improving the lives of citizens. I believe that government can and should do more.
I am running for Congress in IL-05 to replace Rahm Emanuel because we desperately need reform and because it's too important right now in our country's history to not have our best and brightest fixing our problems.
This is the kind of "mystery" you can solve with the plastic decoder-ring from a box of Crackerjacks.
Yesterday: When Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn) supported warrantless wiretapping, one of his constituents wrote a nasty letter about it to the local paper. Walz mentioned it to Rahm Emanuel, and Rahm said "That's a good letter. Makes you look bipartisan."
Today: "Hey, Rahm! Progressives hate my stimulus plan"
Bill Richardson has been described as voluntarily withdrawing from consideration as Commerce Secretary due to an impending federal investigation of contracts awarded to a company with ties to the New Mexico Governor.
But at least one news outlet is reporting that Richardson's withdrawal came at the urging of the Obama transition team:
Meanwhile, two Democratic strategists outside the transition told CNN that Obama aides pushed the withdrawal because they did not want another ethical distraction in the wake of controversy surrounding embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors charge that Blagojevich had hoped to barter Obama's Senate seat for either money or influence.
One of these Democrats described Richardson as "stunned" by the sudden turn of events. But Democrats who talked with CNN noted it was in keeping with the Obama philosophy of resolving issues quickly.
Maybe this was the idea of the President-elect or maybe it was chief of staff designate Rahm Emanuel, who experienced the political costs of transition controversies in 1992 as a senior advisor to President Clinton:
As the new White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, knows well, the early days of the Bill Clinton administration in 1993 were marred with nomination missteps that had to be withdrawn after presenting a brief image of incompetence.
Meanwhile a Reuters story mentions several possible replacements including Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.
When it comes to Rahm Emanuel, there is more than one fish story. All of Washington knows the tale of the dead fish: how he delivered one, Corleone style, to a polltaker he didn't like. But few know the grilled-fish chronicles: the private, off-the-record dinners he has hosted in recent years for a bipartisan posse of his fellow congressmen.
Known primarily, but incompletely, as the Democratic Party's foulmouthed enforcer, Emanuel as a member of Congress also was a nonideological, convivial centrist, eager to trade backroom intelligence with like-minded Republicans. "The wine flowed, the food was good and we all talked candidly," says Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan. "Everyone agreed that if things leaked, we'd disband it. Nothing ever did." The dinnertime ties paid off, Upton says, in support for legislation like the banking bailout. "Rahm works every angle," says Upton, "often in ways that people don't expect."
You could quibble with the details of this story but it is essentially correct that the moderate to conservative wing of the Democratic party is ascendant.
Consider the scorecard: The centrist Democratic Leadership Council claims ties with half the group. Movement progressives count a single one, California Rep. Hilda L. Solis, a union favorite, at the Labor Department.
There's an argument that Obama has promised a raft of progressive policies, and that's not wrong. And he's got a great team to deal with climate policies, broadband and media reform, and a bunch of other important areas. Still, the significant element in his first two years is the trillion dollar stimulus, and there were no promises around that during the campaign. It's just spend wherever there's a shovel in the ground, or if you're a company, stick your hand out. Liberals are going to get rolled on this. The progressive caucus released a request that Obama spend one trillion dollars, while literally saying they would follow up with "specific policy proposals" later on. Meanwhile, the right is making noises that they will simply fight a stimulus; they certainly have been doing so over the last year or so. Isn't the logical scenario that the left screams for spending, the right screams for no spending, and the DLC types split the middle by accepting spending, but mostly along the lines of corporate support a la the financial bailout? I think so. Already Pelosi is putting out signals she's worried Rahm is going to triangulate her among Blue Dogs, and Rahm is making plans to return to the House to be on track for Speaker in a few years.
There is a widespread theory that Obama is using symbolic gestures, such as having Rick Warren as a featured speaker at the inauguration the "symbolism" of keeping Robert Gates as Sectary of Defense, in order to provide himself political cover for passing left-wing legislation. So, conservatives get symbols, such as the person managing the largest federal department of all, but progressives will get policy. According to this theory, progressives who are upset with Obama over one thing or another are childishly upset over symbols, and ignoring the progressive reality of the governing to come.
Members said [Emanuel] had a phenomenal knowledge of their districts, and he kept up to date well after the campaign ended. Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) said one of his supporters wrote a letter to the editor of a small paper in his district, complaining about his vote on a rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Walz mentioned the letter to the editor to Emanuel on the floor and was stunned by his response.
"You mean the one about how you should caucus with the Republicans?" Emanuel shot back. "That's a good letter. Makes you look bipartisan."
In this case, Rahm Emanuel's thought it was a positive development that actual congressional votes on actual reprehensible legislation that actually passed into law stirred up public, left-wing anger toward the minority of Democrats who supported that law, as it made those Democrats look more bi-partisan.
This throws a lot of cold water on the notion that the only things conservatives have coming toward them are symbols, while progressives will receive actual legislation. In the above case, conservative legislation was viewed as a posiitve in that it created more "symbolic" gestures that would make Democrats appear more favorable to Republicans. The legislation itself wasn't even as important as the symbols. Emanuel could have said something like "don't worry, you did the right thing," or "don't worry, you voted your conscience." Instead, he pointed to the progressive anger that arose from actual votes on actual legislation as a positive for those Democrats on the receiving end of that anger.
This might be an isolated incident, and play out differently over the next few years, but it throws a lot of cold water on the notion that conservatives are only getting symbols, while progressives will get legislation. If you find yourself on the left, be prepared, at least from Rahm Emanuel, for a direct, consistent, even strenuous, effort to piss you off. That is part of Rahm Emanuel's strategy. And remember, btw, that Emanuel is one of the examples of a liberal appointment under Obama.
In an interview with Op-Ed news, Steve Hildebrand makes what is a very weird statement in responding to critics who argue that Obama's cabinet choices do not include progressives.
Steve:A lot of these folks are not middle road - Bill Richardson is not - Tom Daschle, who I worked for, for a long period of time was thrown out of office by the voters here in South Dakota, because they thought he was too liberal. He had a liberal voting record when he was in the Senate. Eric Holder is a very good progressive, to serve as attorney general and so you know most of the people frankly that President-elect Obama has surrounded himself in the White House with very progressive people. David Axelrod, Rham Emanuel, Pete Rouse, Valerie Jarred.
Rob: whoa, whoa, whoa - I have a hard time thinking of Rham Emanuel as progressive.
Steve: Of course he is.
Rob: my perspective of him is he's a guy who has on a number of occasions helped fund more conservative primary candidates - Democratic primary candidates who were running against progressives who were doing pretty well.
Steve: well, Rob you gotta look at his voting record - you know he had a very progressive voting record in the House.
Except, you know, he didn't. On lots of single issue checklists, he's got good scores, but he is the political and policy architect of a centrist and unpopular Congress. In terms of key votes, Emanuel voted for the blank check bill in 2007 to give Bush money for Iraq, which was the crushing blow against antiwar forces, and then for the FISA bill to immunize telecom companies. More than that, he co-authored a book, The Plan, with the President of the DLC. It's not inherently awful to believe in centrist policy ideas, though I think that's wrong. It is weird that these people try to have it both ways, arguing that they believe both in progressive ideas while supporting the war in Iraq, etc, out of some sense of political pragmatism.
Hildebrand has a basic notion that any Democratic politician by definition represents progressive values. Tom Daschle, for instance, co-sponsored the war resolution that authorized the war in Iraq, which was far worse than, say, Republican Lincoln Chafee, did at the time, or Jim Baker argued. How can you call him progressive if the word is to have any meaning at all?
So the debt-laden Tribune Company, owner of the LA Times and Chicago Tribune, went bankrupt; that's not a surprise, the newspaper business is in dire straights and this company has been in trouble for years. But the details here are fascinating. The Tribune took on most of its debt recently, in a transaction taking the company private put forward by billionaire conservative Sam Zell, who is widely known in media reform circles as one of the single worst influences on media policy in the country.
The FCC actually tried to block this transaction on the grounds that taking the Tribune private would require them to relax cross-ownership requirements. Zell's contempt for journalism in general and his employees is legendary, with one clip online showing Zell cursing out a journalist employee asking him a question at a public forum. This extended to financial self-dealing, with Zell financing most of the deal by borrowing against the employee pension and stock ownership program. He himself only put $315 million into the total $8.5 billion deal.
The Teamsters, Common Cause, and the Media Access Project all argued that the sale of the Tribune would damage local communities, and with Zell's overleveraged strategy combined with immediate layoffs, they were right. But the FCC ignored their points and allowed Zell to proceed anyway. The question is why, and the answer, as usual in DC, is a mixture of influence peddling and social ties.
Last year, Emanuel and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., wrote to the Federal Communications Commission, urging the agency to act quickly on the sale of Tribune Co. to real-estate magnate Sam Zell. The lawmakers said the FCC shouldn't allow its review of its media- ownership rules to delay completion of the transaction.
Both Dick Durbin and Rahm Emanuel received substantial donations from the predominantly right-wing Zell, with Emanuel having an especially close set of ties. Zell gave to him for his contested 2002 primary slot, after Emanuel had just finished his stint as a Chicago investment banker. Their social worlds are so close that Emanuel actually attended the strongly pro-Israel school that Zell built. None of this is to allege some sort of conspiracy, as local media barons tend to have a great amount of power everywhere. In fact, the story, while fetid, is only different because Zell combined several forms of acceptable legal corruption in one set of egregious moves.
Much to his credit, Obama stayed out of Zell's orbit. Zell was a huge McCain donor and blamed Obama and Clinton for the sour economy. That month, of course, in the throes of a debt-laden company, Zell still found time to throw himself an 800 person birthday party in a 'tented fantasyland' with the Eagles providing the entertainment.
So while there is a lot of hand-wringing at the newspaper business dying, there's almost no focus on how egregiously mismanaged and corrupt these companies often are. The New York Times (and until its sale the Wall Street Journal) were framed as 'family dynasties' akin to public trusts, though how nepotistic control of powerful for-profit media corporations is some sort of public trust is a mystery. Local newspaper publishers often have strong public policy preferences, such as ending inheritance taxes, and they use their newspapers to pursue them. Zell's horrific legal theft from his employees, his unseemly political influence with high-level Democrats and Republicans, his financial gamesmanship, and his general contempt for the product itself are just particularly obvious.
The House Republican caucus has so far balked at a chance to meet with Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the former House Democratic strategist who has been named the new White House chief of staff.
I'm tempted to just write 'Waaaaaahhh!' and leave it at that. But it's worth pointing out that the Republicans are going to act like pricks and then whine about how Obama is being partisan instead of his promise to be post-partisan or something.
I'm pretty disappointed at the outcome over the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs leadership fight. Denying Lieberman the chair would have been a sign that the Senate Democratic caucus was willing to stand up for itself over the next two years, but instead we were given another sign that the legislative branch no longer matters that much in the United States.
However, given the focus on how this vote means that "the left has been foiled again," I want to push back against the idea that the last two weeks has not somehow been a string of defeats for progressives. There have been setbacks, such as today's Lieberman vote, but there have also been real victories. In the extended entry, I accentuate the positive.
Bill Richardson has 