About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
 susanthe
 William Tucker
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

My "Fire Rahm" Meme

by: Jack Mitchell

Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 16:37:54 PM EST
First I wondered:
Rahm, Rahm, Rahm
What the F&#% have you been doing?

Then I noted: Rahm is now a liability

And today, over at HuffPo, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks fame, chimes in:

But tactics also matter. Tim Kaine seems to be running the reverse 50 state strategy -- we can lose anywhere in the country. So, what's he doing wrong? He's gone back to the old days at the DNC, where all you do is raise money and hope that you can win without a message. This is principally the Rahm Emanuel strategy -- cave in to lobbyists, collect their money, choke off Republican fundraising efforts by better serving corporate America and win elections by outspending the opposition. The only problem is that it doesn't work.

For this Emanuel strategy to work no one has to find out what you're doing. This was fairly easy in the old days when the public only got their news from the corporate media. Television news stations almost never mention the idea that politicians might be voting based on corporate donations and not based on actual principles. So, as long as they covered Rahm's ass, he was fine. But now people get their news online, and we have no incentive to lie to them. So, the American people are on to them.
Jack Mitchell :: My "Fire Rahm" Meme
More likely, they will make the terrible mistake of going further right to try to appear to be more "centrist." That, of course, means selling out more to the lobbyists. Which will mean more electoral losses. Giving more money to the bankers is not a conservative or moderate or liberal position. It has only one purpose -- collecting lobbyist cash. That was the old way of doing things. That's what Rahm Emanuel pushed for and what Tim Kaine accepted. Kaine should be fired for choosing the wrong strategy and getting the wrong results. Three states and you're out.

But wait; shouldn't Emanuel also be fired for coming up with this craven, misguided and ultimately disastrous strategy in the first place? Absolutely.

My gut keeps telling me:

The WH needs to tack left. Rahm's idiom stands in the way of this. We don't need a hardcore SOB to deliver watered down lege that gets tied up in Congress. Rahm talent, as I saw it, was his heavy hand in the House. Results?

We need a jolt to the system. Next.

This is funny. Really. LOL, but not ROTFL funny.

Cue Sonny & Cher
And the meme goes on...And the meme goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
.
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
My "Fire Rahm" Meme | 76 comments
You'll like this then... (0.00 / 0)

Jack, it looks like you and Matt Rothschild, publisher of "The Progressive," are on the same page.
Take one for the team, Rahm (4.00 / 1)
I'm not suggesting Obama bring in Katrina vanden Heuvel, but Rothschild is totally feeling me:
(bold mine)
Of course, Obama chose Emanuel for the job, and Emanuel may only be guilty of carrying out his boss's wishes.

But Obama can't fire himself. And he needs a chief of staff with the wisdom to help point him down a bold, progressive path. The Emanuel path is a dead end.

Obama has one quarter of his Presidency behind him. He needs fo make some adjustments, including one BIG adjustment.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

[ Parent ]
No fan of Katrina vanden Heuvel, believe me (0.00 / 0)

I think she's compromised the integrity of "The Nation" since she took over. I feel like it's no longer the lefty rag we all knew and grew up with. Granted they still have the liked of Alex Cockburn, Jeremy Scahill, Patricia Williams, and Naomi Klein, but I've been sincerely disappointed with "The Nation" ever since.

"The Progressive" has remained the same over the last 100 years.  

[ Parent ]
Curious (0.00 / 0)
as to why people are not fans of Katrina's. I say this because in my interactions with her (not personally, but through others), she has always seemed like the kind of person who reaches conflict because she pushes too far left. What are people's gripes?

because who is to doubt the American Way is not the way?
[ Parent ]
Katrina vanden Heuvel (0.00 / 0)

I interviewed comedian/writer Dennis Perrin last year and I think his response sums up the same feelings I have about the periodical. Of course Perrin can explain it much better than I can.

Katrina vanden Heuvel is just a mainstream liberal elite. She's into policy recommendations and I think she's succeeded in making The Nation a respectable voice in the national debate. But to be a respectable voice in the national debate, you have to tone down your anger and criticisms.

Since Obama came in, it's like they've became really mystical with him. They had an editorial about Obama's first 100 days and they were generally supportive. But they were worried what Afghanistan would do to Obama's presidency.

In otherwords, his presidency was more important than Afghanistan or Afghan lives. So I thought "Ok, this really shows where The Nation's minds are right now." They've become a voluntary member of the state press. I know they wouldn't see themselves that way but I've read a lot of stuff in there where they really sound like they're in Obama's pocket.

The other thing is, like a lot of liberals online believe, that if they protest kindly enough, then Obama will listen because he's got these good minded people pointing him in the right direction. If they really believe that then they're really naïve and they should not be running a political magazine in 2009. If they don't, then they're cynical manipulators. Neither one seems appealing or noble to me and I think The Nation has taken a real dive as a result.

To read the rest of my interview click here.

[ Parent ]
Some of us think there's more to public policy than having good ideas. (4.00 / 3)
You have to get it done.  Politics may seem dirty to some, but it's the reality of how policy is created.  Tough decisions have to be made, and even the best of ideas is worthless if you can't get it enacted.

So yes, the Obama Presidency matters, and not just because he's a nice guy and we want him to succeed.

Good policy takes good politics, and good politics takes good leaders.  It's nice to, as Barney Frank would say, luxuriate in the purity of irrelevance, but you don't accomplish anything that way.

I'm on board with the idea that the media culture of news cycles, self-fulfilling prophecies, and political narrative culture are bad influences, but that doesn't mean political concerns can be ignored altogether.

--
@DougLindner

[ Parent ]
I still think "The Nation" is selling out. (0.00 / 0)

"The Nation" is no longer the periodical I've subscribed to for so many years. I remember "The Nation" as a magazine that promoted leftist ideas and social justice movements. It was NOT about the Democratic Party or supporting Democratic Party activism.  That's "The Nation" that I remember. Now vanden Heuvel has turned it into an "American Prospect"-lite. I don't want that. That's not what "The Nation" is about.

You want Democratic Party policy talk, go subscribe to candy-ass periodicals like "The American Prospect," "The Atlantic Monthly," or the worst of the worst "The New Republic."  

[ Parent ]
Strike that extra line... (0.00 / 0)

"That's "The Nation" that I remember."
[ Parent ]
Democrats have plenty of flaws, (4.00 / 1)
But the Democratic Party is where liberals go to actually do things.

Said the last great Republican President, "keep your eyes on the stars and your feet on the ground."

--
@DougLindner

[ Parent ]
And social movements also have their feet on the ground too. (0.00 / 0)

It was the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, the environmental movement, the anti-nukes movement, the labor movement, and the antiwar movement that for the most part got things done. Because Congress sure as heck wouldn't come up with the holistic change that movements put forth.  

Social movements, in my opinion, are the primary agent for change in America. Congress enacts the laws (and the changes the people put forth) and they're the ones that get all the credit for it.

That's why I identify more with social movements instead of politicians, policy wonks, and especially political parties. To me, they are something much more meaningful (and authentic).  

[ Parent ]
Social movements are important. The Nation is a magazine. (0.00 / 0)
When was the last time a magazine's readers got together and marched on Washington?

--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Well, there's Penthouse and the 9/12 Tea Party marchers... (0.00 / 0)
Though you could just as well give credit to Guns & Ammo, I suppose.
[ Parent ]
Um, no. (0.00 / 0)

Wise-ass : ) Do you really need me to spell it out for you?  
[ Parent ]
Asked and Answered (0.00 / 0)
When was the last time a magazine's readers got together and marched on Washington?

Cosmo.  March 1983.  "The March for More Sex Quizes"

[ Parent ]
Cosmo, March 83? (0.00 / 0)
That wasn't about Scott Brown?

--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
That's not what I meant.... (0.00 / 0)

The Nation has supported and endorsed economic and social justice movements and wrote extensively about them over the years. They were more important than advocating for change through the Democratic Party. That's not the direction I want "The Nation" to go in. It is.  

You don't get it do you, Doug? I can tell you're being stubborn and you're not interested in understanding where I'm coming from. Fine. Be that way. I can deal. I don't care.

I'm sure "The New Republic" endorsed rallies like this one. If you look hard enough, you can spot Dartmouth Dem in the crowds : )  

[ Parent ]
Since I know you're joking. . . (4.00 / 1)
. . . and I couldn't resist that "Mt. Arafat" crack below, I'll let this go and enjoy my Saturday.
[ Parent ]
Good to know we're on the same page. : ) n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
If disagreeing and "not getting it" are the same, then sure. (0.00 / 0)


--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Um, wrong Doug n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Money quote (4.00 / 1)

I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president-which means, in our time, a dangerous president-unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.

- Howard Zinn in .... The Nation!


[ Parent ]
Once again, the purity of irrelevance (0.00 / 0)
"You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it."

-FDR in...The White House!

All Presidents need to be pulled in the right direction, even the ones who agree about what the right direction is.  That's politics.  That's reality.

But being that outwardly pessimistic and denouncing one's natural allies as "dangerous" because they don't already agree on everything is not a social movement.  It's just bitter.

--
@DougLindner

[ Parent ]
As a side note (0.00 / 0)
FDR might not have said that. Bob Neer raised the question on Blue Mass Group recently, suggesting it was apocryphal and asking for a source. No one piped up.

A quick Google shows the story is often told, and it's usually a group of activists but sometimes it's just one, and in one version posted on 538, a commenter uses it to refer to New Deal legislation, suggesting that FDR just wanted help with what he already supported.

All of which could occur, and the quote could still be accurate, but I'm just wondering if anyone here has a definitive source for the story. Since it's FDR, it is bound to still be a good story.


[ Parent ]
Oh yeah, Howard Zinn is wrong... (0.00 / 0)

... and pessimistic. Sure. Tell me another one. You're on a roll.

Sorry, I'll take Zinn over the likes of FDR any time of the day. Especially with quotes like this.

"When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them...Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable."

He's 100% right. This is why I think social movements are the agents of true change. Not the politicians and especially not political parties.  

[ Parent ]
"Compromise" and "give up" are not the same thing. (0.00 / 0)
Was Ted Kennedy wrong in saying it was a mistake to reject Nixon's healthcare reform offer 40 years ago?

Sometimes, getting things done means compromising in the short term and keeping the work going in the long term.  And this...

Obama is going to be a mediocre president
...is pessimism.

--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Bull Moose Redux (0.00 / 0)
Great thoughts speak only to the thoughtful mind, but great actions speak to all mankind.


--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Re: (0.00 / 0)

I still agree with Zinn. If getting things done means compromising, then we certainly haven't come a long way since Nixon's so-called health care plan. Zinn tells it like it is. He says things many mainstream Democrats don't want to hear. That's why I have so much respect for him. Democrats rationalize away their spinelessness and their inability to get things done. They still do this today and this is how many people see the Democratic Party (Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and other influential media figures certainly think this way). That's not the party I believe in, nor is it the party that I want.  It's seems that you're OK with all of this. I don't.

You may think the "Obama is going to be a mediocre president" is pessimism, but I believe it's accurate (and not necessarily pessimistic).  He is mediocre on SO many different levels on SO many issues. That's not going to change. Good Democrats are the ones that never get elected. They're the ones that confront and take on the powers that be that run the Democratic Party. Those in power within the Democratic Party don't like that, nor do they want that. But that is the kind of change the Democratic Party needs and many of its supporters want. Unfortunately the ones who do get elected, like Obama, rely on those with money and power in order to win. Taking that kind of approach in my mind compromises their integrity and the party. It's a shame that the need to win comes at the expense of doing the right thing. I think it was Obama critic Paul Street who said it best.

... Whatever Obama's values may truly be, once you enter into that 'I'm going to the prince or king and I'm going to rise to the top' it really may not matter all that much. Then you're in a whole other ball game where you're talking about money, concentrated wealth, and a disproportionate influence that is exercised in this dollar democracy we have. I think Obama's calculus was that he wanted to win.

We (nor the Democratic Party) shouldn't have to accept or adopt this calculus. We can do better than that.  

[ Parent ]
Great actions don't necessarily exist in the Democratic Party... (0.00 / 0)

They come from social movement leaders like King, Ghandi, Mandela, and others. None of them were politicians and they certainly weren't Democrats. As I've said before, it's social movements that get things done, but it's political parties, like the Democrats, who take all the credit (most of the time).  
[ Parent ]
That's a ridiculous oversimplification (0.00 / 0)
Dreaming is pure.  Reality is hard.

--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Yeah right... (0.00 / 0)

Go tell that to those who were a part of the women's, labor, civil rights movements.  
[ Parent ]
That was reality. (0.00 / 0)
Not every issue has an all-consuming movement capable of forcing the kind of change those did.  Most issues require elected officials to take initiative, and that requires ensuring a high caliber of elected officials.  If you think you're above 'above' electoral politics, the likelihood that you'll get anything done is slim.

--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
I still think... (0.00 / 0)

that social movements that made significant change (not political parties) are the more righteous agents of change in America today. I guess we'll just have to disagree. That's fine.  
[ Parent ]
Social movements are great, (0.00 / 0)
But more righteous? No. I don't accept that choosing the more effective and direct route of democratic action is tantamount to ceding the moral high ground.  Sometimes fighting for what you believe in involves engaging in fights, and sure, there are people who abuse the political system, but that doesn't make it more pure or righteous to let other people do the fighting.

Going back to the original point about The Nation, though, you can't compare publishing a magazine in a country that respects free speech to marching in Selma and Montgomery.

--
@DougLindner

[ Parent ]
I didn't, Doug (0.00 / 0)

I respect periodicals that are a thorn in the side of the Democratic Party. I like periodicals that write about things that the Democrats in Washington can't stand, but need to hear if they want to be a better party and move the country in an egalitarian direction. They also write about (and endorse) social and political movements that deserve attention but don't. I think The Nation has done a good job in that role. It's moving away from role and I think it's compromising the image and their mission they established and they are known for.

If asking the Democrats to stand their ground on issues and show some backbone is considered "purist" then I can come to no other conclusion that the Democrats in power have set some really low expectations of themselves. At least the Progressive Democrats of America don't. That's an organization I can respect. I wish the majority of Dems would too and not look down on them or the issues they support (or today's political and social movements for that matter).  

[ Parent ]
I'm not looking down on anyone. (0.00 / 0)
I didn't say asking Dems to stand their ground is purist.  I said forsaking the political process in favor of theory and absolutism is purist.

--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
It's not theory or absolutism Doug (0.00 / 0)

It's what the Democrats are supposed to be doing in the first place. They aren't.  
[ Parent ]
Eek (0.00 / 0)
I really like The American Prospect, as well. Thorough policy discussions, and generally very leftist. I think both magazines are run by people who are aware of the giant difference between Obama and Bush. I can't speak for The Nation, but I do know that at the Prospect people are keenly aware of the ability they have to negotiate with the President of their country -- something that has been out of reach for eight years. Also, I noticed that your criticism (at least of Katrina) stems from war decisions. I've never seen the strength of either publication as foreign affairs. I think they both do a pretty great job of covering domestic issues. But, honestly, I don't think either are just spouting 'Democratic Party policy talk'. If the Democratic Party were listening to any of those 'candy-ass periodicals', I think our country would be in a much better place :).  

because who is to doubt the American Way is not the way?
[ Parent ]
I prefer the muckraker periodicals (0.00 / 0)

What I liked about "The Nation" were their biting and succinct criticisms of those in power regardless of political parties. I thought they were always on their game when they went after the Democrats in particular.  I like the periodicals that are a thorn in the Democratic Party's side, the ones that stir the pot and bring up material, ideals, and/or solutions that the Democratic politicians and policy makers can't ignore. "The Nation" was like that and they were uncompromising. Not much anymore.

I still like "The Progressive," "Harper's," "Mother Jones," "Dollars & Sense," FAIR's "Extra!," "In These Times," and the "Counterpunch" newsletter.  They haven't compromised their core beliefs IMO.  

[ Parent ]
Doug, you give the Democrats WAY too much credit than they deserve. Come on! n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
And you give politicians in general way too little. (0.00 / 0)
Not every elected official is great, as I've said.  That includes every party.

But here's some food for thought, before I bail on this thread: At the time of the founding, the US population was about 1% what it is now, and much smaller if you consider the unthinkable exclusion of racial minorities, women, and non-landowners from the political process--the founders weren't perfect, but they laid the foundation of a national identity, ideology, and political system that eventually righted those wrongs.

And yet, that incredibly small group produced dozens of world-class leaders.  Why shouldn't this and every other generation?

Cynicism poisons the well of democracy.

--
@DougLindner

[ Parent ]
It's not cynicism (0.00 / 0)

It's only cynicism when it deals with issues and and realities that Democrats don't want to seriously examine (or deal with) about themselves. If they did, I think the Democrats would be a better party and they would make many people believe again that the Dems are party we can believe in again. It isn't. Elite interests (and/or those with money and power) are served first at the expense of the the middle class and especially the poor. How can we not deny that? It's time we strengthen the progressive wing of the Democratic party and support issues worth fighting for. What's wrong with the Progressive Democrats of America? Why are they cast off to the side? They are the ones who should be in the majority, not the minority.

It's a shame the Democrats only fight for what is winnable, not what is right. That's why I think Zinn is so spot on with his comment. What the Progressive Democrats of America stand for are the issues the entire Democratic Party is supposed to be fighting for in the first place. It's a shame they don't. That's why so many people don't buy into the Democratic Party anymore. I don't blame them.  

[ Parent ]
I suppose Dr. Cornell West is acting cynical too (0.00 / 0)

God bless Dr. West. Too bad Democrats in power (and at Blue Hampshire) don't want to take him at his word and change the party accordingly.  I strongly suggest we listen to him and not dismiss him as some sort of cynic.


Cornel West's note to Obama - January 20, 2010
by Ladypolitik

[ Parent ]
One eighth. (0.00 / 0)


--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Ask Coakley about that, yo. n/t (0.00 / 0)


Whack-a-mole, anyone?
[ Parent ]
President Obama has a 60% approval in Massachusetts. (4.00 / 1)
You're damn right I'd like to ask Coakley about that.

--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Tim Kaine? (4.00 / 1)
Tim Who?

I'm sure I've never heard of him.

Who now?

I agree with you, but can we rid ourselves also of whoever that person is that I haven't once seen in a year who allegedly runs the DNC?

birch, finch, beech

A campaign chant (4.00 / 1)
"Sick of political drama? Vote for Barack Obama!"

This was a popular chant in '07. Obama was so cool and poised. Remember? Even the pundits were calling him. "No drama Obama."

What happened?

There use to be very strict discipline amongst Obama's inner circle. No leaks. No reports of internal conflicts.

What happened?

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

His campaign had 5,000 staffers. His administration has several million. (0.00 / 0)
The drama, by and large, comes not from the White House but from the Hill, and from media nonsense.

--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Knock off the scapegoating (4.00 / 1)
Rahm Emanuel has moved this Administration within an eyelash of passing comprehensive (if imperfect) health insurance reform.  And the Chair of the DNC has about as much power to shape the agenda as the Hanover Dog Catcher.

President Obama is unpopular because he is taking on an issue with entrenched opposition -- and that is stunningly easy to demonize.  The overwhelming majority of Americans feel they pay too much for health care, but have absolutely no concept of its complex economics nor even token understanding of the components of the President's plan.  This makes it an easy tool for scaring people.  No surprise there (at least for those of us who worked on '94 campaigns).

If health care reform was easy, it would have happened 60 years ago.  But Truman, LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton couldn't do it.  Obama can, but it will require every ounce of political capital he has.  We should recognize that -- and not look for quick fixes that aren't there.

Press The Reset Button n/t (0.00 / 0)


Whack-a-mole, anyone?
[ Parent ]
knock off the pollyanna act (4.00 / 1)
its the way the game is played...someone takes the hit...like what JFK is rumored to have told one of his key advisers after failed Bay of Pigs..."if this were Britain I would go. It's not, so you have to go."

Annie 2012!
[ Parent ]
The Proverbial Buck (0.00 / 0)
POTUS, to his credit, does not bow to demands for resignations. We have heard the GOPers call for a few since the inauguration.

That is why bouncing Rahm would be huge. It would be a signal to the world that Obama "get's it." Also, that the training wheels have come off.

Rahm is completely expendable. Our gov't is designed for change.  

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

[ Parent ]
He shouldn't bow to these demands, either. (0.00 / 0)
When the White House screws up, it blames staffers.  When it succeeds, the President gets the credit.  That's not new.  And you shouldn't be so naive as to assume everything you dislike about the Obama Presidency so far is Rahm's doing, or could be fixed by someone else.

--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Wow (4.00 / 1)
You just called me naive. That smarts.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?
[ Parent ]
No, I said you should know better. (0.00 / 0)


--
@DougLindner
[ Parent ]
Two Comments (4.00 / 2)
1. Last I checked, JFK fired neither His Secretary of Defense nor any of his Joint Chiefs after the Bay of Pigs.  He didn't "play the game."

2. Jack, what gives you the impression that a disciplined CoS with the best understanding of congressional operations/personalities in DC is "expendable"? Because he doesn't take credit for effectively ramming vital (but controversal) legislation through Congress? Or because he has managed the assembly of one of the most talented and qualified administrations in modern history.

The only "signals" that firing Rahm would send would be that this President is panicking on the brink of his greatest legislative triumph, and that he refuses to take accountability for his agenda.  Neither is true.  

[ Parent ]
Principle, not panic (4.00 / 1)
From above
This is principally the Rahm Emanuel strategy -- cave in to lobbyists, collect their money, choke off Republican fundraising efforts by better serving corporate America and win elections by outspending the opposition.

D,
We called Clinton a "corporatist." Were we wrong?

I am not the starry eyed buyer of empty suits. Wheeling 'n dealing is how it's done. Or should I say, I'm not a purist. Or maybe, the perfect should not be an enemy of the good. I am a proponent of pragmatic politics. Centrism, if you wiil?

I saw Rahm as a crutch because no one is ready on Day 1. Obama doesn't need Rahm anymore, imo. Plus it will be the "shot heard around the beltway." Republicans are already tearing Obama down. Panic is never far from their lips, if not explicitly stated.

Time to press the reset button. The best one I can see is the eject for the COS.

Wait until after the SOTUA and HCR, if that can be done quickly. But I'm advising POTUS to have a new COS by April.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

[ Parent ]
In response (4.00 / 2)
We called Clinton a "corporatist." Were we wrong?

Maybe not, if you define a "corporatist" as someone who crusades for universal coverage, a cleaner environment, fair tax policies, and a woman's right to choose.  

Am not sure the relevance here.  Rahm was one of the most progressive Members of Congress, and he left a sure track to the Speaker's podium to serve our President.

I am not the starry eyed buyer of empty suits. Wheeling 'n dealing is how it's done.

Agreed.  So why fire the man widely regarded as the best wheeler and dealer in DC?

I saw Rahm as a crutch because no one is ready on Day 1. Obama doesn't need Rahm anymore, imo.

He was ready on Day 1 -- and he proved it by picking as his top aide a man who knows how to deliver results in Washington.  (Bill Clinton picked a school buddy who had never worked in DC.  George W. Bush selected a transportation lobbyist.)

Time to press the reset button. The best one I can see is the eject for the COS.

For absolutely no good reason, other than to define President Obama publicly as something that he's not, and to send House and Senate Democratic incumbents running for the hills.  

Obama's approval ratings are actually HIGHER than those of most other Presidents at this time in their terms, a remarkable feat given the progressive Mt. Everest he chose to climb with health care reform.  (Bush, of course, was the exception, as his positives soared after 9/11.)

It's time to keep the faith and fight harder.  

[ Parent ]
Git R Done (4.00 / 2)
I think DD's right on here - now is precisely the wrong time to panic. Scott Brown ran a great campaign, but last time I checked the U.S. constitution doesn't give the Commonwealth of Massachusetts any sort of veto power.

Today Speaker Pelosi said she doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate healthcare bill ... and I'm relieved! We saw how that sausage got made and it wasn't pretty.

MOVE ON. Assemble the popular pieces of the Senate & House bills - taking away preexisting conditions discrimination, creating the exchange, digitizing medical records, emphasizing preventative healthcare, etc. - and pass them ASAP. 46 million Americans are counting on us to do that.

Democrats are the party of "Yes We Can." Dare the "No We Can't" Congressional Republicans to stand in the way of a new assemblage of popular, meaningful reforms, so reconciliation then can be employed when it comes to the antitrust exemption, the Cadillac tax and the public option or Medicare expansion (both unquestionably have a budget impact).

Just get it done quickly and pivot HARD to job creation!

[ Parent ]
Don't accept the Panic meme, yo (0.00 / 0)
Mistakes were made. Fess up. Let a head or two roll, move on.

"It's not about me. It's about the it." - Our Emperor

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

[ Parent ]
You forgot one (0.00 / 0)
I love how you pull apart points to take on, one by one.

But you skipped over the big one: cave in to lobbyists, collect their money, choke off Republican fundraising efforts by better serving corporate America

I'll now concede, this approach may prove prescient in light of the SCOTUS ruling. If, in fact, Rahm has some crazy crystal ball, let's pack him over to the DNC. :v)

On keeping the faith, the words "enthusiasm gap" pop into my mind. Not mine, dude. I'd drag a sack of rocks up Mt. Arafat for Barack Hussein Obama. Bet that!

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

[ Parent ]
Only because it's crap, Jack (4.00 / 1)
But you skipped over the big one: cave in to lobbyists, collect their money, choke off Republican fundraising efforts by better serving corporate America

Last I checked, DC's corporate lobbyists aren't exactly begging for health insurance reform and climate change legislation.  They are fighting these efforts with every illicit dollar in their corrupt piggy banks.

[ Parent ]
I'll need some time to research (0.00 / 0)
I just wanted to add that my opinion is not intentionally associated, in any way, to the Hamsher/Norquist enterprise. I linked that Buzzflash article because it was in the quote I cited.

If I accidently end up concurring with those asshats, all I can say is "shit happens."

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

[ Parent ]
correction* Ararat (4.00 / 1)
no mountains named after Yassir to my knowlege.

Annie 2012!
[ Parent ]
I just assumed that Ex-Pat was writing your stuff.... (4.00 / 2)
Ca-ching! (Sorry, guys. Couldn't resist!)
[ Parent ]
Good one, DD. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
To Jack's credit, DD... (4.00 / 1)

There is an element of truth that Clinton was a corporatist. His support for NAFTA is a prime example. That agreement has ruined labor unions, compromised environmental laws and the environment, and really screwed over thousands of Mexican farmers who were forced to compete with Agribusinesses. I remember reading that something like 2 million Mexican farmers were been driven off their land and forced into bankruptcy as a result of NAFTA's passing. That's an injustice. Clinton & Gore chose to support it.

Let's also not forget Clinton's support and passing of the Welfare Reform bill. That obliterated the nation's social safety net and unfairly threw something like 6 million people, many of them single mothers, off the welfare rolls.

Clinton's administration also slashed Medicare by $115 billion over a five-year period and cut $25 billion in Medicare funding.

The other bad example of Clinton as a corporatist was when he signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. From what I understand, that ripped down the firewalls that had been established by the 1933 Glass-Stegal Act, which was intended to prevent the kind of economic meltdown we just encountered last year.

No doubt Clinton did some things well, which you've duly noted. He should take credit for those.  But Clinton also supported some major initiatives/policies that really hurt the US public at the expense of "the corporatists" as Jack so eloquently put it. : )  

As for Rahm, I have no respect for him for obvious reasons. However, I agree with JimC that firing him would be bad for Obama. But like Matt Taibbi said, Obama brought in so many people who were connected to Wall Street. I expected their interests to be better served at the expense of the public's.

[ Parent ]
where did you check? do you know who was running it DD ? (0.00 / 0)
This was reported on a network news assessment of Obama's management style,(sorry I didn't catch it all but it stuck) which is more professorial than managerial.
The crux is that in a successful American campaign they  by the nature of the beast, overpromise and underperform, whereas in business smart players under project and over perform. There is no way President Obama could have lived up to agenda created in his Marketing phase. Prayers are now replacing hope. When that happens its time to 'game change'.

Annie 2012!
[ Parent ]
Just govern (4.00 / 1)
I'm kind of in the middle here. I agree with DD that firing Rahm now sends a signal of panic at the worst time to send it. An administration is different from a campaign, which can more easily throw someone under the bus. The White House has to look like it has a steady hand.

But I'm also not sure what was effectively rammed through. I think effectively ramming HCR through would have meant it happened a lot sooner.


Duly Noted (4.00 / 1)
Bad phrasing on my part.

My point -- getting 60 votes for health care reform in the Senate was not easy, and Rahm played a key role in leaning on Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, etc.  

Even with MA, the President Obama is far closer to passing reform than any of his predecessors. No, it's less than I'd hoped, but would represent an enormous accomplishment nevertheless.

[ Parent ]
It took too long to get to 60 (4.00 / 2)
But the larger problem was seeking 60 in the first place, in my opinion. (Before that, they wanted GOP support.)

The irony is that the effort to be bipartisan made the whole think look "political." Paul Kirk was appointed September 24 (thanks, Wiki) because we absolutely had to have 60 votes, but they were negotiating with Ben Nelson in December.


[ Parent ]
Lynch opposes carve outs for specific states (0.00 / 0)
he's right in principle

Annie 2012!
From what I can tell (0.00 / 0)
I think we should be focusing on getting rid of Geithner. It seems like the voters of Massachusetts are/were pissed off at the Wall Street bailouts. Aren't we all? Obama needs to get the financial industry in check. The banks are bigger and riskier than ever. If the Dems do not stand up to the financial industry, we can look forward to lots of losses.

My question is: Do Democrats really want to stand up to the big banks? That is, the Democrats in Washington, not the people.

because who is to doubt the American Way is not the way?

McLaughlin, Clift, Capeheart, Buchanan, and Crowley (0.00 / 0)
last night's final discussion/screaming point was 'is Rahm  expendable' and/or 'he wants to go'.

Annie 2012!
consistent attack/who's meme ? (4.00 / 1)
1/10/01 transcript of 2010 predictions...
Requested Transcript:
THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP HOST: JOHN MCLAUGHLIN PANEL: PATRICK BUCHANAN, MSNBC; ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK; MONICA CROWLEY, WASHINGTON TIMES; MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT BROADCAST: WEEKEND OF JANUARY 2-3, 2010


http://www.mclaughlin.com/libr...
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let's move it to the White House. Destined for political oblivion: Rahm Emanuel. He's the White House chief of staff, and he will be forced to fall on his sword after Democrats in Congress suffer staggering losses, as you pointed out, in the 2010 midterm elections.


Annie 2012!
[ Parent ]
Plouffe To Join White House (4.00 / 1)
http://bit.ly/69jbbQ

Rahm...could run OfA!

Feb 1    ?
March 1  ?
April 1  ?

Annie 2012!

My "Fire Rahm" Meme | 76 comments

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox