Rahm Emanuel Was A Total Embarrassment On Meet The Press...

[GR]

I'm not sure my message went though, but here's what I sent him. I also left a phone message.

"Your performance on Meet the Press this morning was an embarrassment. You danced and equivocated, failing to give a straight answer to any question, but most especially on whether Social Security was in "crisis."

Social Security is not in crisis and the President lied repeated during the last week, saying it would go bankrupt in 2040. This is a preposterous lie as even the very conservative estimates of the Trustees say that in 2042 Social Security payments will be HIGHER in real dollars than what retirees receive today. To call that "bankrupt" or "flat broke" as President Bush has is dishonest. Yet you failed to be honest in saying that.

Democrats cannot win by being mealy-mouthed equivocators as you were on Meet The Press. You seemed to be ashamed to be a democrat and it was telling.

Be proud you are a democrat and don't be afraid to call the President on his dishonest propaganda campaign to destroy Social Security. I believe this is the road back to Congressional power.

Get a backbone."

[MSgt213]

1. Thank you.

[Kahuna]

2. I'm watching it now. I have to agree with you.

nt

[nickshepDEM]

53. I watched it last night and he was horrible.... absolutley horrible...

[merbex]

3. I agree; he was horrible

someone make him read Lakoff

Don't let him back on till he gets framing FOR OUR SIDE

[moggie12]

4. I have to agree with you and I am more "centrist"

That was really lame. Half-arguments aren't going to get us anywhere. All he did was make some pretty wimpy criticisms of Bush. I still want to know: Where is the Democrat's "10-point agenda"? We need a coherent list of what Democrats want to DO. This will get people's attention and is way better than wimpy anti-Bush blathering. (At least on the domestic side. On Iraq, keep pounding on Bush's head re: litany of errors.)

[cruadin]

10. I agree 100% on the Democratic Party needing a plan...

to DO something proactive, (pro-worker, pro-family, pro-seniors, pro-education, pro-environment, etc.) that can be summed up in a clear, concise format and be repeated and supported by the entire party. It needs to be a national framework so that we can start in '06 by taking back the House and the Senate.
Criticism of the shrub administration is fine, but it HAS to be coupled to a coherent, clearly articulated, alternative vision in order to win back political power.

[moggie12]

13. Exactly, and your point about '06 is excellent

This Emmanuel guy is supposed to be our point man on getting good Congressional candidates and running tough races in '06, right? His appearance today does not bode well for '06!

My husband, who votes both Dem and Republican depending on the candidates, watched that and said, "But what do they want to do"?

[hollowdweller]

31. He SUCKED! GOP-lite on the war and SS - no wonder we are losing

[AmerDem]

5. good for you

I have a few letters going out to my Gov. and Senators. I think I'll have to write one more to this inept asshole.

[slor]

6. Well, you should point out also...

that he needs to watch the guest on the show prior to him, particularly when the guest is from the opposition. He could have then learned of the distinct difference between russert's tone of questioning between him and bartlett. That fat-headed russert was clearly more belligerent with Emanuel, and pressed him when he equivocated, while giving bartlett a pass. This was as clear as day. I agree, Rahm, whom is typically quick on his feet, appeared far less so today.

[phillysuse]

7. Rahm Emmanuel was an embarassment

Agree totally - if this is who will be representing us in public,
we are even in more trouble than I thought.

Points to make about Social Security:

1. Bush lied - about the figures
2. Social Security is an insurance contract - in fact one of the programs is SSDI - i.e. Social Security Disability Insurance - this
is what pays for younger workers who are disabled and widows and children of individuals who die young - are we ready to replace
an insurance policy by a stock market crap shoot?
3. He should have used the word PIRATIZATION - that's what Bush is trying to do.
4. Paul O'Neill has a very sensible editorial in the NYTimes today about Social Security - at the very least he could have quoted this if he had nothing to say himself. Paul O'Neill talks about requiring savings and using the Social Security mechanism to collect savings and to supplement individuals whose income is low. This is a good starting off position for a debate but we clearly need someone more able than Rahm Emmanuel as our spokeperson.

Regarding Iraq - he's still stuck in the John Kerry wishy washy I voted for the 89 million before I voted against it.

Take a lesson from a Democrat with courage - General Wesley Clark - his position is clear:

It was the WRONG war at the WRONG time in the WRONG place!

None of this bull about the war was the right thing to do whether there were no weapons of mass destruction or not.

The war was against the wrong enemy - the military has done a terrific job but the whole idea and plan was misinformed and dangerous.

It's the concept that need fixing.

[jrthin]

8. Folks, don't you get it?

His inability to articulate an argument about *'s attack on SS is by design. MSM has alway employed the tactic of using dimwitted dems against passionate and stay on message rethugs. Consequently, the rethug argument seems more persuasive, i.e., Hannity & Holmes. Rarely do MSM book powerful dem spokespeople to present a position. Instead they book the weakest link. Further, a majority of the dems spokespeople are so busy selling to the phanton middle that they end up sounding lost and stupid, i.e., Emanuel.

[moggie12]

12. Yeah, but what's scary is that Dems picked this guy

In this case, it's not like the MSM "picked" a dimwit to put on. This is the guy the Dems just chose to run Congressional campaigns! He's in the news because of this -- Dems just put him in an important leadership position. And this is how he acts??? Arrgghh!!!! Not a good sign!

[formernaderite]

26. Absolutely.... seems like insiders are the only ones to get the jobs...

...and you're right, the MSM didn't pick him. We(the party) did.

[meppie-meppie not]

28. *shaking my head in disbelief* :( nt

[Dr Fate]

19. Which interviewer is turning down appearances from powerful DEMS?

You say the problem is that the media does not book powerful DEMS...

Well who is stopping powerful, household named DEMS from requesting interviews?

Would Brit Hume, Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer, etc REALLY turn down Kerry, Hillary, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy interviews?

We need to stop making excuses and start thinking outside the box...

[slw]

9. Totally Agree

Good...I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so. I consider myself fairly well informed and up to date on what's going on with this whole Social Security mess. Therefore, I can form an intelligent opinion. However, if I didn't already have an opinion, or was looking for objective arguments from both sides, I would have watched Emanuel's appearance and thought, "okay, so, what on earth is his and/or the Democrat's position on this?" This is what's SO frustrating, why is every Democrat afraid to call this President out on this situation and stand up for what we believe? Ugh...

[spanone]

11. I saw him and it totally pissed me off.

He hemmed and hawed and was anything but on point. Total wimp. Meanwhile Russert was the same pompous asshole as always, taking Dan Bartlett at face value and grilling Emanuel at every crossroad. Don't the fucking democrats know this is gonna happen going into this show? Jeeeezus and why don't they say GEORGE W. BUSH* IS LYING. LYING. LYING. LYING. LYING. WTF?????????????????????

[candy331]

14. Hopefully whomever becomes the DNC chair will work with ones who

go on these shows and can get some consensus among the Dems that only certain ones should go on shows to speak on certain issues and if not then, at least get coaching on the issues on how to present the facts and stay on task. Surely this is not too much to ask is it. I agree Emanuel was a total wash, why did he even agree to go on the show truly he didn't know or was not prepared for the issue and I would hope he knew the subject before he went on. Why in the H does Dems feel they must answer every question, sometimes the best strategy is to punt, leave the question unanswered if you can't articulate the answer.

[moggie12]

39. Excellent points, all of them

I don't mean this in a mean way, but the Dem's truly need to get their "act together". And they need some coaching on how to go on the offensive on shows like this, spitting out their talking points and not getting stuck in the mud. Whatever the DNC Chair's job is defined as now, it needs to be changed to be some kind of coordinating mechanism to better frame and push the Dem message.

(Boy, I am so frustrated!)

[leesa]

15. I am sure that is why they chose him.

[Edgewater_Joe]

16. And The Strangest Part? On Chicago TV He Kicked Butt

Before his MTP appearance, Emmanuel was on NBC's Chicago affiliate -- and THERE, in front of his constituents, he rocked.

He talked about Social Security first by noting a Chicago TRIBUNE story on privatization that used "Investment Bankers" and "Bonanza" in the same headline, and talked about his own time on Wall Street and the ongoing mutual fund scandal that Eliot Spitzer is tackling ... in short, he was able to clearly and effectively talk about why Bush's plan is a really crappy idea from the perspective of trusting Wall Street.

Maybe he was trying to do that on MTP and couldn't do it, maybe he did MTP first and realized he had to up his game, maybe he was told by Pelosi or Reid to be "more moderate" and only feed red meat to his blue state constituents, but whatever it was, I can tell you that he CAN do better, he HAS done better, and he DID do better today.

Just not on MTP.

[senseandsensibility]

17. Does anyone have an e-mail address

for him? We need to nip this in the proverbial bud.

[senseandsensibility]

18. kick

eom

[KoKo]

34. Here's his contact address and e-mail....

Here's his contact info;

Washington, DC
1319 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]

email contact through his webpage, http://www.house.gov/emanuel/contact.shtml

[WI_DEM]

20. What do you expect

he is another of those "triangulaization" Clinton types Who bought into co-oping Republican ideas because that asshole Dick Morris advocated it.

[dolstein]

21. Agreed -- did he do ANY prep for his appearance?

He had no MESSAGE. NONE. It was awful.

[meppie-meppie not]

25. yes he did...stretching

to make it that much easier to bend over!

[Neshanic]

22. Horrifically bad. This is what we put up against them?

He seemed to be in an prolonged Ambien moment.

[Vinca]

23. He sounded like a Republicrat and that's got to stop.

Democrats cannot be afraid to deliver a Democratic message. We'll never get anywhere by being a shadow party when it comes to social security or anything else. I was thinking this morning that if John Kerry had only said "no" he wouldn't have voted for the war, knowing what he knows now, he might have had a majority even the funky machines couldn't have squashed. I've decided I want Dean for DNC chair because he's not afraid to say something contrary to the Republican message.

[meppie-meppie not]

27. ITA! it's time for Democrats to say what they mean and mean

what they say! We cannot permit the right to define us anymore, it's time for us to take back the term "liberal" for what it is, NOT what they distort it to mean. It's time for us to stop buying into their labels and mantras about us, we need to have our own mantra's and then shout them loud and clear, long and hard, until sanity is returned to government.

[meppie-meppie not]

24. TY for saying what needed to be said...the stance RE took is

one that I'm seeing far too much of in Democratic leaders..they need to shit or get off the pot! :mad:

[dolstein]

29. Here's what Rahm Emmanuel SHOULD have said

Emmanuel wasn't prepared to give a straight answer to any of Russert's questions about social security. Here's what I would have said:

1. Is there a social security crisis?

No, Tim, there isn't a social security crisis. Social security faces a long-term funding challenege, but there are some simple and relatively modest actions we can take now to deal with that. If you want to see a crisis, all you have to do is look at the budget situation or Medicare. This president inherited huge surpluses, but because of his reckless approach to fiscal policy, we're now facing record deficits. And what's the president's solution? He wants to make his tax cuts permament, which will end up addid trillions of dollars more to the national debt. And look at Medicare, which is in far worse shape than social security. What's the president's solution? A bloated, expensive prescription drug program that showers tens of billions of dollars on the pharmaceutical industry without doing anything to control drug costs. This administration has displayed a pattern of behavior where it ignores the real problems, creates a fictional crisis to further their own narrow ideological agenda. Their current scare tactics with regard to social security represent a continuation of this pattern.

2. But didn't Bill Clinton say there was a social security crisis?

Look Tim. You and I both know that President Clinton used social security as a political tool to beat back attempts by the Republican Congress to pass unaffordable tax cuts. And he was right. We stopped the Republicans, and in doing so we were able to balance the budget and start paying down the national debt. Unfortunately, the current president pushed those same tax cuts through Congress and now, instead of paying off the national debt, we're adding trillions to the national debt.

3. So what to the Democrats plan to do to fix social security?

Tim, if you listen to the experts -- the ones without an ideological agenda -- they all say that the long-term funding challeneges can be addressed, and social security's solvency can be extended well into the future, by making modest and gradual adjustments to the social security payroll tax and the benefits formula. And the Democrats will come forward at the appropriate time with a proposal to do just that. But what Democrats and Republicans can both agree on right now is that the private accounts being proposed by this administration will do NOTHING to ensure the solvency of social security. In fact, private accouts will make matters worse by diverting trillions of dollars that would otherwise go to pay benefits.

And how does the administration plan to make up this difference? As we saw with your last guest, Tim, it's hard to get a straight answer out of the administration. But Tim, you and I both read the papers, and I'm sure you're hearing the same things I am. Some people in the administration want to borrow money to cover the transition costs. That would up to $15 trillion to the national debt over the next 50 years. Others in the administration would cut guaranteed benefits buy as much as 40%, in effect taking the security out of social security. I don't think the American public is going to be happy with idea of tripling the national debt, or making steep cuts in social security benefits, and I suspect that more than a few Republicans on Capitol Hill won't either.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Please send this and all other suggestions to Rahm...

let's help him in his new job. This may have been opening day jitters as DCCC Chairman. SHOW him. This is a good time to cultivate a good relation with grassroots DU. Try not to burn bridges, okay? Rahm probably knows he f*cked up.

[KC21304]

33. I sorry, but I don't think that opening day jitters is the problem.

As I said in this thread, before MTP started, I used to tear my hear out when Rahm was on Hardball and MTP defending Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica debacles. I know they put him on just because he was not an effective Dem spokesman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2958144&mesg_id=2958194


I heard him speak when he was running for Rep. and since when I thought he did very well, but I think he just doesn't know how to handle himself against someone like Russert and Matthews.

[hollowdweller]

32. Here's my message to him and a link to contact him

Mr Emanuel,

I saw you on Meet the Press today. Since you are not my representative and I am unfamiliar with you. Coming in after the beginning of your segment I had to actually listen for a while before I determined you were a democrat!
Notice I used the little D.

Your anemic GOP lite responses on Iraq and Social Security reminded me again why the GOP owns the White House, Senate, and House! There are many good shots you could have taken in a public forum to show what a failure president bush has been on Iraq and even equated the lies on WMD and the Lies on Social Security and you didn't.

I am so sick of Bush with both hands behind his back figuratively speaking waving his belly in front of the Democrats and hardly any have the BALLS to punch him. What is wrong with you people?!

http://www.house.gov/emanuel/IMA/issue.htm

[sunnystarr]

35. Terry McAuliffe issued the following statement.

Terry McAuliffe issued the following statement. http://www.democrats.org/news/200501110002.html

"I've known Rahm for more than twenty years and he has always been a fighter for Democratic values, even before he was first elected to Congress. With Rahm now using his talents to help Democratic candidates across the country, I know we will take back the House in 2006. I'm proud that someone with such passion and leadership will be continuing the work of our friend Bob Matsui at the DCCC."

So where was his talent? Where was his fighting for Democratic values?? Looks like Pelosi picked him but where has her head been lately? Kissing GOP butts. He was asked the same question they asked Kerry. Knowing what you now about WMDs would you still vote for the war in Iraq. (paraphrased) He said YES!!!!! Give me a freakin break. He used Kerry's rationale and you know where that got us in the '04 election.

Will someone pull our leaders together and make them get with the program ... the DEM program not the Bushco program!

[moggie12]

48. Now, now, don't get carried away

Saying NP's been "kissing GOP butt" is rather extreme and rudely phrased. You diminish your argument when you use that kind of language. (Yes, I know I sound like a schoolmarm.)

I think I agree with your point about WMD's though. In Kerry's case, his Iraq position during the campaign was almost incoherent, at least to me. He had, however, been consistent in worrying about Iraq's intentions and Saddam's flouting of UN sanctions: In '98 he'd been vocal in expressing concern about Saddam throwing-out the UN weapons inspectors. I can't figure out why the pro-IWR Dems just don't say, "Saddam needed to be held acccountable to UN policy and we would've known he didn't have WMD's if he'd been fully cooperating with UN".

[madfloridian]

36. My post was locked will repost here. Transcript, link.

We need to top excusing our Democrats when they are wrong. Hold them accountable. We are the opposition party, not the appeasement party.
They can not keep going on TV and saying the war was ok. It was not ok.

I deleted an earlier post because I wrongly assumed that most of us understand the majority of the leaders of the party still support the war. We are about to go and kill more people in Iran or Syria, and who knows where else. Since some did not seem to know, I deleted it. There is too much anger. After I deleted it, people were even angrier at me....

I am going to continue to criticize my party for not speaking out on this war. It is their job to be honest with us. It is their job to be the opposition. I would appreciate it if this were not turned a bash Dean thread. He is not responsible for this war, yet every time we speak up against it.....DUers blame him. Or us.

I do not know Rahm Emanuel, and I did not criticize him. Here is what Emanuel said on the war today, and he like the others who have said these things gave Bush implied permission to go on further into Iran or Syria.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6832586 /
MR. RUSSERT: Now, knowing that are no weapons of mass destruction, would you still have cast that vote?

REP. EMANUEL: Yes. Well, you could have done--well, as you know, I didn't vote for it. (he said he would have if in congress) I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, OK? But how you go about it and how you execute that war is the problems we face today.

MR. RUSSERT: So even knowing there are no weapons of mass destruction, you would still vote to go into Iraq?

REP. EMANUEL: You can make--you could have made a case that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and what you could have done also, Tim, is worked with other countries, go through the U.N., take the time to do it. Again, the problems with our troops and the country today faces in Iraq isn't about whether we should or should not have gone to war, whether we should or should not have removed Saddam Hussein, it's how they have pursued this war, the lack of planning, the lack of processing, thinking about there was no plan, as you know, for after we removed Saddam Hussein, what would you do. There was no plan for--as you know, before war, you had to have an exit strategy. One has not even been annunciated. There's been a presumption that we were going to be greeted as liberators. There was a presumption this would be quick and easy, and then we can turn the country over. None of that has been laid out, and that has to do with the competency and the planning that goes in, and they did not have a plan for the day after "hostilities ended."

SNIP..."REP. EMANUEL: No. In fact, Tim, what I actually believe it's consistent in this perspective. Not the how and why--not the why about whether we should have gone, but how we pursue that war. And the fact is, I don't think the war today has been handled to date. I think the president came, as you know, for resolution to Congress. He got that. Second, he asked multiple times for the resources to fight that war. He has got that. What we ask in return is a plan."

SNIP.."REP. EMANUEL: Well, first of all, I'm not the president, but what I would do is I would not have happy talk. Stop talking about how everything is just going swimmingly. Level with the American people. Level with the Congress. Tell us the truth of what we're going to do, what it's going to take to do that because the American people and the Congress will then support it...."END SNIP

I agree with stopping the happy talk, I do not think we will support it if he tells us the truth. We already know the truth of why we are there. Is he saying he approves? He says "Tell us the truth of what we're going to do..." I want to know what he means.

Disclaimer: I think we need to try to get stability there of some kind before we just pull out. If we don't there will be a Sunni bloodbath, the the women will be going into the dark ages of another taliban.

[imenja]

50. thanks for the link

It looks even worse in print. I hope we can attribute this to a bad day on Emanuel's part. We'll have to see what he does to clarify his statement. I expect he will have to do so.

[imenja]

37. You get more flies with honey than vinegar

If you goal is to encourage Emanuel or other politicians to rethink their position, I suggest a more thoughtful, less accusatory letter in the future. That is the sort of mail that is going to be put aside with little to no consideration. Consider if someone you know sent you a letter in which they accused you of a variety of unsavory acts in a hostile tone. You would not want to read it, and you would dismiss the author as a hateful person. Strategy is important in getting one's point of view across. You want to right letters that hold a possibility of having an impact, not simply express animosity.

[AmerDem]

38. "encourage" ....Holy Hell

Don't you think for a second that a major party spokesman should already have his thoughts and sense about himself before appearing on a national platform discussing serious issues effecting the majority of Americans? How much slack do you want these inept assholes to have? This isn't on the job training for christ sakes.

Along with nitwits like Emanuel speaking, followers who never hold these people accountable are the driving force behind our party's ineffectiveness!

[Vinca]

40. or, as my husband commented,

"Why don't any of them have the balls to say Bush is nuts?"

[imenja]

46. it's not a question of not holding them accountable

It's a matter of expressing yourself in an articulate and persuasive manner. You can communicate the same ideas in a manner that has at least the potential of persuading him to your point of view. If you don't care about changing ideas, why bother writing the letter in the first place? Is the whole point simply to vent your anger? What a waste of energy. We need to take responsibility for constructive engagement if we want to change things. Part of the reason the party is lost effectiveness is that so many refuse to work or engage. They expect politicians to descend as Messiah's with all of the answers provided for us. We need to convince the Democrats to take on a more progressive agenda. It is our responsibility to work to effect progressive change. Nasty letters that display little thought do not accomplish that.
The left is not going to take control of the Democrat party if we continually threaten to bring them down. We need to take it over, not destroy it. And to do that, we need to become active at the local level and work to institute change.

[AmerDem]

47. This is where you totally miss the point.

I'm not going to try and "persuade" him on anything. If the man still thinks this war was the right thing to do even after learning of no WMD and If he has to "hmmm and huh' on the issue of Social Security, I don't want a person like that speaking for the party. Except my words as I say them, blunt to the point and heartfelt.

I have already sent this nitwit an email and will follow up with a phone call tomorrow. The views he expressed today weren't Democratic views they were DLC/repuke light talking points.

[imenja]

49. the party is unified against Social Security Reform

Have a look at the DNC website. I didn't watch most of Emanuel today, because it was clear he was having a very bad day. Perhaps he was hung over, who knows. I see no point in your calling if you're going to be nasty. You're just wasting your time and everyone else's. Such a posture does more harm than good.

On edit: What I'm asking is not that you abandon your principles. Those are tremendously important. Rather that you think about your approach. Tell Rahm that you oppose his statements on the program today, that you refuse to accept Republican Social Security reforms, but do so without restorting to name calling and other vindictives.

[KerryDownUnder]

41. I think they have tape of him during Clinton's second term

saying that it was in "crisis". That could explain why he didn't seem more combative on the issue...he didn't want to fall into Russert's trap.

[Kahuna]

54. All the more reason he should have been prepared for the question..

with a better response. Why couldn't he just say that the Democrats had successfully addressed the then "crisis," and had put SS on a safer footing. And that *'s reckless proposals would put it back in crisis. How hard is for them to say that???? Sheesh. When I watch these shows, I respond in my head what the dems should be saying. I'm never stuck for an answer. And if I am, I can successfully spin my way around it like the repukes do. The fact that our guys cannot do that has only one explanation. They are just too "lame" to argue effectively.

[Leilani]

42. I just saw Dick Durbin on Fox News Sunday

arguing Soc. Sec. with Rick Santorum, & Durbin cleaned his clock.

During the panel discussion, everyone but Hume had the opinion the Bush privatization plan stinks....even Bill Kristol.

There are good Dems to make our case...let's tell the others to stay away from TV shows.

[AmerDem]

43. Thanks for that info

I'll have to see that. I hope this FAUX show repeats. Santorum is one of my senators and I can't stand the bastard.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Too bad to hear that....(didn't see the program)

Cause I always liked him...and he seemed to be one of the less fearful Democrats. Maybe he is still in shock that Kerry lost.

I will have to watch him in the future.....cause as head of the DCCC, we really needed a Kickass Democrat.

[AmerDem]

45. It repeats at 10 pm easterm MSNBC n/t

[mbee]

51. Right when I saw he was a guest I flipped the channel and caught

Ted Kennedy on with Bob Schieffer. Why do you think ole Timmy invited Rohm to be a guest - because he'll do zero for the Democrats. Timmy did ask Scotty if the paid journalist thing is being investigated and Scotty said he thinks it is (what a joke)!

[Donailin]

52. you said it all perfectly

I felt the same exact way when I watched the replay last night on CNBC. A pathetic display of hemming and hawing, an inability to articulate the deomcrratic view, and just plain weak in general.

I do wonder however, who picks the guests on MTP and if it wasn't a deliberate choice to have some wishy washy rep of the dems in the first place.

[TeacherCreature]

55. Kicking this....Emanuel disgraced our party on MTP

...and should be dismissed form his new post immediately.

It was one of the worst performances by a Dem "leader" that I have ever seen--and given the recent competition (seen the Rice hearings today?) that is really saying something.

No more Rahm....please...you are just another humiliating defeat waiting to happen.