Rahm's Losers

[tpsbmam]

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh11112006.html

<snips>

Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, we find that 13 were defeated, and only 8 won! (3) (One is still undecided.) And remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm's favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. Tammy Duckworth, for example, was infused with $3 million ­ and was backed in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm's choices, there would have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact, Rahm's efforts were probably counterproductive for the Dems since the great majority of voters were antiwar and they were voting primarily on the issue of the war (60% according to CNN). But Rahm's candidates were not antiwar.

So Rahm Emanuel nearly seized defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems fully intended to pursue the war and the neocons thought that they had found a new host in the Dem party ­ but the voters now perceive the Dems as antiwar and if they do not deliver, they will be damaged. After all Ralph Nader and Chuck Hagel are waiting in the wings for 2008Either Emanuel is completely incompetent or else Emanuel is putting the interests of Israel ahead of Democratic victories. You decide. In either case why would he remain in a position of influence in the Dem party? A good question.

[Ken Burch]

1. You're right...

But you're going to have the "Rahm is God" types at your throat in a moment here.

[KittyWampus]

4. would you point out any examples where a DU'er came close to saying Rahm is god?

[Ken Burch]

9. Well, all those posts where people kept saying "Rahm's the only one who know how to win"

In a political party, that's pretty much the same thing.

[KittyWampus]

10. Haven't seen anything remotely like that. Please give me a real example

of one DU'er who said Rahm is the only one who knows how to win.

The ONLY thing close to that sort of comment came from MEDIAWHORES who seem intent on focusing on him and not so much Dean.

Do you gonna blame Rahm for the Mediawhores nonsense?

Typical Reactionary DU'er crap.

[Ken Burch]

18. Why are you so protective of the guy? He's just a mortal.

With the work that Dean, probably ANYBODY could've led the DCCC and achieved results as good.

Chill, wouldya?

And given that it's Rahm groupies like Carville that are trying to oust Dean at the moment of his greatest triumph, you should understand why the Chicago Boy Wonder isn't so popular with progressives.

[bigtree]

26. Rahm groupies like Carville?

In just 12 days, his campaign would end in a historic victory--a triumph that almost no one believed possible when he took the job nearly two years ago--or in colossal failure.

And here were Carville and pollster Stan Greenberg telling him he had to make each of his handpicked candidates shift from attack mode and strike a conciliatory note in their final campaign ads.

"James. No James, YOU LISTEN," Emanuel barked into a cell phone, about to release a string of profane invectives more intense than usual. "Can you listen for one minute? I'm working these campaigns all the time. The campaigns all have different textures."

His wiry body tensed, his voice breaking with stress. Emanuel shouted, "If you don't like what you see, I highly recommend you pick up the ... phone and do it yourself."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0611120215nov12,1,2323509.story?page=1&coll=chi-news-hed


I'm sure Carville is just fine with Rahm . . . :eyes:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

34. Carville works for himself

Rahm has been working on behalf of our party. To our benefit.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. Rahm isn't a fucking AIPAC operative.

Oh, wait, I forgot - all Joos are the same.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[femrap]

70. That's a great idea!

Aside...I wonder how much $ AIPAC gave to Lieberman?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

78. Ho ho ho...

We certainly can't have jews giving money to other jews, can we? You know what they say about two jews in the same room together.

[William769]

36. Maybe because some people on DU are just out & out lying about him?

[blondeatlast]

79. Asking for concrete proof of your claims is hardly "protecting" Emanuel or anyone else.

So cough 'em up, willya?

I'm no fan of Dean, Emanuel, or Carville; but I do like a GOOD debate.

[tpsbmam]

7. LOL.....I'm sure I will.....

and I'm not crazy about any of this infighting. I think they (DCCC etc) all deserve credit (Howard Dean included!!) and WE all deserve credit. I posted it mainly to show that this can go both ways. I say we give credit to the WHOLE frigging Democratic Party;we, the people, who had our boots on the ground; and the progressive groups that worked their asses off for this win. This doesn't belong to any one individual or one group of us, it belongs to all of us.

But, given all of that, I'll be damned if I won't defend Howard Dean from attacks by the Carville faction of the Dem Party!

(Edited to fix a WTF sentence!:P )

[leftchick]

2. thank you!

All of The DLC Rahm love is misguided at best.

[undeterred]

3. And then there were the candidates whose calls he never returned

and who he didn't give a dime to...

[leftchick]

5. He poured money to folks like this.....

Emanuel called him relentlessly until he finally decided to become a "Dem" and run in NC...

http://www.heathshuler.com/

[tpsbmam]

35. Here's where I struggle.....

I'm way more in the Dean camp and am NOT a fan of the DLC or Heath Shuler but here's my dilemma: we recently moved to the Asheville area. Asheville itself is very progressive. Asheville is in Buncombe County, which is mixed but tends to go Democratic (not always -- despite voting for mostly Dems in 2004, the county went by about 623 votes to Bush). But the 11th District contains a number of very conservative, Republican counties (e.g., Yancey).

I voted for Shuler (obviously, since the other choice was Charles Taylor) but wasn't at all happy about it. Among other things, he's against civil rights for gays & he's anti-choice. (There are other things I truly dislike about him, but I'll leave it with those two as examples. I frankly don't trust the guy -- he's going to have to prove himself.)

BUT I'm not sure if someone who I think is a good candidate could win in this area. As progressive as Asheville is, when you have to contend with these heavily mixed districts, ones that include LOTS of conservative Republican voters (who kept Taylor in Congress for 16 years), I'm just not sure that Rahm isn't right to back someone who isn't to my liking but who stands a better chance of winning.

I just don't know. I hate it, but it could be that realities are realities and I just have to learn to live with it. Now, in some other parts of the country, I think more progressive candidates might have won.

[leftchick]

39. I am in NC as well

and am very familiar with your district though not a part of it. If there was EVER a time to put a more progressive candidate in the mix in that area it was NOW! Not more repuke lite. :puke:

I am sure I could not have voted for him if he had been my option. It would be like voting for lieberman to me. But I totally understand your position of rock, hard place.

:(

[femrap]

73. I understand what you're saying....I'm in Ohio and

the ruckus between Paul Hackett and Sherrod Brown was enormous. So many here said Sherrod couldn't beat DeWhine....but he did and handily.

When will Dem candidates just come out and say the damn TRUTH? Matters of life and death are private. Look at Terri Schiavo. Look at the women who died from botched abortions pre-1973. These decisions are made between an individual and her/his Goddess/God/Universe. No one has the right to force their opinion on others. PERIOD. And I believe very strongly that most Americans believe this way. And people who don't obviously have problems/issues with power and control in their own lives.

Schuler is an ex-football player who will NEVER face an unwanted pregnancy...he should come out and say that. If he votes Anti-choice, what's the point of having him in our Party? Same with Casey in PA....what a joke he is. Was that Schumer's doing? A pro-choice woman was in that race and was told to get out. She could have won. Easy.

Yea, I know how you feel. Maybe you can get your area re-districted so Asheville can have its own Represenative!

[tpsbmam]

75. I totally get it......

and feel the same way as both of you above. It's sooooooooo frustrating! I frankly hope we can get rid of Shuler in 2 years.....maybe if the local Rethugs discover that the world doesn't end between now and 2008 and it's actually a much better world....maybe then. (Among other things, I'd love to have a legislator who can put two sentences together without sounding like a total moron and mentioning God 984 times within those two sentences).

In the meantime....I'd LOVE to switch to Buncombe County being its own separate little voting haven. :hippie: Ain't gonna happen, but it'd be cool! We'd end up with a Wellstone if that were the case! (No one is Paul, but we'd end up with someone progressive and good, I have no doubt.) Buncombe County actually voted for Kucinich in the 2004 caucus! Edwards came in 2nd, Kerry 3rd...and this was after Kerry was the presumptive candidate.

[bigtree]

19. contradicting article here

in his piece Perlstein gives ten examples of victorious netroots-approved candidates that he seems to believe the DCCC somehow abandoned. He hints that the bloggers put these candidates over the top. "The thing all these successful candidates share in common is backing by the same dirty-necked bloggers and netroots activists that pundits have been calling the political kiss of death," he writes.

I suppose that's one thing they had in common. Others might look at Perlstein's list of winners and say the thing they had in common, with the exception of one, is that the DCCC dumped tons of money, strategic advice, and fundraising assistance into their races.

Let's go through Perlstein's list. In the case of John Hall (NY-19) and Larry Kissell (NC-08), the DCCC helped with fundraising and developed a ground game for both campaigns. There was little reason to do more. In the case of Kissell, the DCCC polled three times and each poll showed Robin Hayes well ahead.

In Kentucky, John Yarmuth (KY-03) receieved $350,000 worth of support from the DCCC. In the case of Chris Carney (PA-10), who was a top target and obsession of staffers at the DCCC, Emanuel spent at least $1.5 million. The DCCC spent about $500,000 on Jerry McNerney (CA-11). As for Joe Sestak (PA-07), the DCCC spent over $2 million on him. The money helped destroy his opponent, Curt Weldon, and the NRCC actually abandoned the race. The idea that Sestak was some kind of blog creation is ludicrous.

The story was the same with Lois Murphy (PA-06), where the DCCC spent over $3 million; Bruce Braley (IA-01), where it spent over $2 million and where it was on the air as far back as August; and Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20) where the DCCC spent over $1 million and ran two different ads simultaneously in the final days of the campaign.

Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01) is the only purported netroots candidate on Perlstein's list on which the DCCC did not spend any resources. So how much did Blue America, the group Perlstein ridiculously suggests is more responsible than Rahm Emanuel for the Democrats' victories, spend on the Shea-Porter race? According to the PAC's Web site, not a single dollar.

more: http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=56035

[undeterred]

53. "dirty-necked bloggers and netroots activists"

My candidate isn't on your list, and Rahm did not return his phone calls or give him a dime.

The name calling is extremely destructive.

[bigtree]

60. these folks running this smear of Emanuel don't get to have the stage to themselves

waving facts and figures from their own insulting articles. The only contradicting ones available are in an equally offensive article on the other side of the issue.

It would be just too convenient to ignore my statistics just because of the background noise. You don't get name-calling from me, personally, at any rate.

[BuyingThyme]

61. Emanuel was McNerney's worst nightmare up until

September.

I suspect there are other misleading names on that list.

It seems that Mr. Emanuel is taking credit for things that were forced on him.

[bigtree]

62. you find me where he's taking credit for anything

where are the quotes?

[BuyingThyme]

63. You're unaware that Rahm Emanuel is taking credit for Dem victory?

[bigtree]

64. YOU HAVE NO DIRECT QUOTE TO THAT EFFECT FROM REP. EMANUEL

ALL YOU HAVE IS THE SAME INNUENDO EVERYONE ELSE IS TRYING TO PAWN OFF AS TRUTH

[BuyingThyme]

65. That's just fascinating. Do you know what his job is?

[bigtree]

67. I'll tell you what, Buying Thyme

I don't need any condescending bullshit.

YOU HAVE NOTHING FROM REP. EMANUEL WHICH COMES EVEN CLOSE TO THE CRAP YOU'RE ACCUSING HIM OF.

ALL YOU ARE RELYING ON ARE OPINION PIECES WHICH YOU ARE PAWNING OFF AS GOSPEL TRUTH

[BuyingThyme]

69. So, I say the DCCC chair takes credit for a DCCC victory,

and you say... Ummm... What do you say, again?

http://weblog.jerrymcnerney.org/jerry/2006/01/the_real_fighti.html

[bigtree]

71. Perlstein's list

not Emanuel's list

Emanuel hasn't been recorded taking credit for anything in that article.

[WilliamPitt]

92. Calm down, Rahm

;)

[mhatrw]

74. Where can we find a list of all candidates, when and how much

the DCCC supported them?

[williesgirl]

6. Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy WON this election - recommended

[KittyWampus]

8. and then there's all the money he pumped into the race forcing the GOP to pull out

of many races.

Can't seperate the positive influence that Rahm had though some pathetic DU'ers really seem to feel a need to trash a fellow Democrat under the false assumption it somehow makes Dean seem a bigger man.

Wonder if my post makes me a 'Rahm worshiper'

[undeterred]

14. Ah, so people who do not agree with you are "pathetic"

Very nice way to go.

[Mabus]

23. I don't think you are

I think every little bit helped. The bottom line is, if there were more people voting Democratic in any given district this year than in 2004 then we won. By "win" I mean people are becoming more politically active and aware and are turning to the Democratic party.

If there were fewer Democratic votes in any given district than there were cast in 2004, we lost. By "lost" I mean people have lost faith in the Democratic party.

Wherever a Democratic candidate won, we all won. Wherever a Democratic candidate lost, we all lost. We're all in this together. We need to take a step back and instead of pointing fingers, we need to figure out what really worked. Was the districting? How have the voting populations changed? Were the county chairs more active? Were the number of volunteers up? Were people volunteering directly to the candidate or were they referred there by the DCCC or party HQ? There are a lot of variables. We just need to find out why and captialize on it.

Personally, I think the people most responsible for all the wins were the candidates themselves, their staffs and volunteers. It was the people on the ground who made it happen.

fwiw, I was a Dean delegate and I think Dean is doing a great job. The ocngressional Dem that I did the most work for won her election. It was purely a grassroots effort. The DCCC came on the scene in the last week or two before the election and starting running ads without consulting the campaign. I don't know if the ads helped or hurt. All I know is she won.

[fooj]

46. Wait a minute. Just wait a gosh darn minute.

Did you see Rahm on TV after the Dems took the House? He was on EVERY channel and he had NO PROBLEM taking ALL of the glory and praise for the Democratic victory. He NEVER mentioned Dean. Not once. I listened. I waited. Not ONCE. It was all about Rahm. Period. 8 seats...all about Rahm. Never spoke of the grassroots effort. Never spoke of the netroot effort. I'm telling you...I listened carefully. The only thing that I saw and HEARD was Rahm wallowing in self-adulation. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't trash fellow Dems. I call them as I see them. Here's the kicker- Nobody needs to go out of their way to "make Dean seem a bigger man". The Labour Party in Britian and Canadians are tapping into his "ideas" as we speak. The refreshing thing about Dean is that he doesn't blow his own horn. He gives credit where it's due. I personally thought his response to Little Lord Pissypant's weekly address Saturday was excellent. Did you hear it?

I'm thrilled that he represents me and I'm thrilled that he represents the Democratic Party.

Off subject (or maybe not)...
Did you know that Schumer campaigned AGAINST Tester in the primaries? FYI...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Has Dean ever mentioned Rahm?

They don't agree. They may be pissed at each other, but at the end of the day they're on the same side. They seem to have gotten over their differences... why can't you?

[fooj]

57. Actually, YES. Dean HAS mentioned Rahm.

Numerous times.

I'm over it. I know who I back as DNC Chair. Howard Dean. Never had an opinion about Rahm one way or the other...
His comments and actions immediately following the election speak volumes. I could give a rat's ass about him one way or the other.

Actually, I wouldn't bet the farm that they are over their differences. Carville=Rahm=Clintons=DLC. Perpetual beaters of the Corporate whore drums...

I'm just SICK of people capping on Dean. He did a good job. That's the bottom line. No amount of spin will ever change that fact. Period.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

66. Actually, Rahm doesn't seem to like Carville at all.

Primarily because Carville sucks at being a political strategist, something with which we can probably all agree.

As for people capping on Dean, I haven't seen it. I think both Dean and Rahm did one hell of a good job on this campaign.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

54. I really do not understand this whole kerfuffle.

It strikes me as a silly pissing contest.

[gully]

11. The win was a combined effort on the part of imperfect human

beings.

[Laelth]

12. Important insight.

Thanks. K&R

:dem:

-Laelth



P.S. I favor removing him from any position of power within the party.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I doubt Ralph will run again. He's getting a little old for the trail. n/t

[bigtree]

15. dupe

[bigtree]

16. contradicting article here

While there is no single, authoritative list of netroots candidates, ActBlue.com, a Democratic fundraising clearinghouse, lists the candidates nominated by top blogs and ranks them by total donors. Looking at their top 20 Democratic House candidates, so far ten have lost, three have won and the other seven are in races that are still too close too call at the time of writing. The netroots’ lost races include national names, such as FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley in Minnesota and New York’s Eric Massa, the popular former aide to Gen. Wesley Clark. Winners include attorney Paul Hodes in New Hampshire and two veterans, Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Tim Walz in Minnesota. (Bloggers also provided critical early support to long-shot Senate challengers Jon Tester and Jim Webb, who were locked in races that were also still too close to call on Wednesday morning.)

Yet regardless of the remaining results and recounts, the fact is the netroots’ favorite candidates did not perform as well as the Democrats targeted by party leaders.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/opinion/main2162618.shtml



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[madfloridian]

17. Whoa...something is wrong with the authors 'lose" list.

(3) Rahm's Losers: Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA), Tessa Hafen (NV), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Lois Murphy (PA). Winners: Brad Ellsworth (IN), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Baron Hill (IN), Ron Klein (FL), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch, who was apparently antiwar (VT). Undecided: Joe Courtney (CT).

I think you guys need to search out each of them. I see two right off the bat who won. Ron Klein and Kirsten Gillebrand won...I am just starting to check....

[madfloridian]

21. Madrid is in recount....Shuler won....something wrong with article.

I am just doing a search.

[bettyellen]

30. that's because it also clearly says winners.....

[madfloridian]

31. I finally saw it...it is mixed in hard to see. I posted that I saw it.

Those candidates were not just Rahm's, win or lose...they are a mixture.

[LittleClarkie]

91. Counterpunch distorting the truth? Shocked I tell you. Shocked!

Eh. It figures.

[Hav]

40. .

Concerning the losers, I checked out a few races to compare them to 2004: (a positive number indicates how much the Dem closed the gap in comparison to 2004)
I think that we have to consider the gerrymandering and that some districts are just really republican.

Busansky: Apparently, his opponent was even unopposed in 2004, this year the Dem got 44%
Busby: not really improved in comparison to 2004 (+4)
Burner: made it a tie but barely improved (+5)
Jill Derby: the Dem in 2004 got 28%; this year 46% (+35 concerning the gap)
Duckworth: gap 2004 was 12, gap this year was 4 (+8)
Hafen: gap 2004: 15, gap this year: 1 (+14)
Kilroy: gap 2004: 20, gap this year: 2 (+18)
Madrid: +8 (tied the race)
Cranley: +14

Farrel no improvement
Lucas no improvement
Murphy (PA) no improvement


Some winners whose opponents won big in 2004:
Murphy (CT): In 2004, the opponent won by 22
Klein: In 2004, the opponent won by 28
Gillibrand: In 2004, the opponent won by 32
Mitchell: In 2004, the opponent won by 22



I know that it's playing around with numbers and that the situation changed from 2004 to 2006, but that doesn't change the fact we had to fight incumbents and that even many "losers" did a decent job when we take a look at how well the democratic candidate did in 2004.

[dorktv]

76. Mitchell's opponent beat me after spending $600,000. :D

Guess how much I spent! :rofl:

[Hav]

77. .

Lol ;).
You were really the candidate in 2004? I guess you had close to zero financial support from the Dem leadership.
Anyway, no offense intended to any previous candidate with my post above;),

[dorktv]

81. Yes I really was. I won my last election which is great because that means

I have a win and JD LOST! Hahaha

Okay...anyway, I raised $5,000 and spent all of it.

[Nashyra]

59. beofre you start blaming Rahm

for the Derby loss in NV cd2, she broke all sorts of records in fund raising, she had a 50,000 voter registration deficiency and the jack ass in chief had to visit NV twice to barely defeat her. On top of that the state party did a piss por job of GOTV as well as some party workers who did not help any candidates out in the rurals, in adition her own County of which I am part of failed miserably to work for the top of the ticket down instead majority of man power went to local races instead. It has me so pissed I can no stand it, as a county c0-chair I have to take responsibility and accept the failure. Although I did work full time for Jill.

[Nikki Stone1]

20. Thanks for this.

:kick:

[madfloridian]

22. You need to check the list there....it is wrong. Very misleading.

.

[madfloridian]

25. Ok, I see the word "winners" stuck in the middle. Still misleading.

BUT some of those were not Rahm's pick totally or partially. I hate this, because some of those were Act Blue and DFA candidates from the start.

[NoPasaran]

33. A misleading article from Counterpunch?

I am shocked



Shocked, I tell you.

[AtomicKitten]

82. stunned

[KingFlorez]

24. He still deserves credit

8 is a lot of seats. I don't get why people are so bent on bashing Emanuel.

[Hav]

27. .

Yawn. Another "Let's bash Rahm" thread. Because we haven't seen enough of those today. Or yesterday..or pretty much every day since the Dems won.
Jeez, we won, get over it lol! So many good Dems worked their butts off to achieve this.

[LittleClarkie]

28. And Duckworth is one of the ones I think Carville thought Dean should back

with the DNC funds.

But if 3 million didn't do it, how was more money going to help?

Rahm better learn to work with Dean. I think he's a good spokesman and liked what he said on some news talk show I caught a week ago. And I do think his choices are decent enough, candidate-wise. But Dean's strategy was sound, and lead us to victory. Saying we won in spite of him is laughable.

[onenote]

29. what a pile of crap.

Look, I'm not one of those who think Rahm Emanuel is god; I really don't give a rat's ass one way or another about him. But the 'analysis' cited in the OP is a big stinking pile of crap.

First, by my count, of the 22 candidates said to have been "recruited" by RE, I see 10 winners (Courtney (CT), Ellsworth (IN), Gillibrand (NY), Hill (IN), Klein (FL), Madrid (NM), Mitchell (AZ), Murphy (CT), Shuler (NC), and Welch (VT).
More to the point, the premise of the analysis cited by the OP seems to be that RE's failure can be attributed to picking candidates who did not demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Well, RE's winning percentage is a damn sight better than the percentage of non-incumbent Democratic candidates that ran and didn't win. Dozens of non-RE candidates ran against repub incumbents and lost, just as happens every year. I doubt it was the position on the war that caused it. Even more to the point, consider both the non-RE selected Democrats that captured seats previously held by repubs or held onto seats previously held by Democrats (all "new" members of Congress.) I daresay again that if you checked them all out, you'd find that a good many of them had positions on the war no different than the various positions staked out by the RE candidates.

The analysis cited by the OP has an agenda. Fine. But its use of "data" doesn't withstand a moment's scrutiny.

[noiretextatique]

72. did you happen to see the word "winners"

before the names of the candidates who won..in the article?

[oasis]

37. Rahm is the bomb. Those who are too dense to recognize the major role he

played in "election victory 2006" are the real losers. Rahm's writing history while his detractors continue to mumble to themselves.

[Ken Burch]

42. I think you meant "election 2006"...

Rahm would have fewer detractors if he'd get off Dean's case.

[oasis]

44. Thanks. Will change it. I must've been thinking ahead.

Btw, I give Dr. Dean a ton of credit for laying the groundwork for "Victory 2006".

[fooj]

51. I'm certain that Dr. Dean thanks you for that.

You see...St. Rahm hasn't given Dean ANY of the credit or credited any of the grassroot or netroot activists for the 2006 victory. I see a real problem with that line of thinking... Just my 2 cents...

[JetCityLiberal]

93. rahm won't give Dean credit

He is so typically dlc arrogant, like b*sh. :puke:

Dean brought us the blue wave last Tuesday.

rahm and shumer can have Zell. He is more their type.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. His DLC association hurts him here also.

"He's DLC" seems to be a discussion-ender here on DU with respect to whoever's being talked about.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. Oh for fuck's sake.

Rahm is not "putting the interests of Israel ahead of Democratic victories."

There are a lot of completely valid reasons to bash Rahm, even if I disagree with a lot of them. But he's not an AIPAC operative, he isn't in the pay of Mossad, and this line of attack is completely disgusting.

[Ken Burch]

43. I don't like Rahm OR AIPAC, but I'm with you on this one...

nt.

[BuyingThyme]

45. The Truth About Rahm Emanuel

Dan Seals, a highly qualified African American, was the Democratic candidate in my district running against 3 term incumbant Mark Kirk. Kirk had a 91% record of voting with Bush's legislation including the war in Iraq and the infamous death legislation to habeas corpus. However, Kirk had a 100% record on votes in favor of Israel. Emanuel is a personal friend of Kirk's and is of Israeli heritage. Furthermore, the 10th District has a high Jewish population. Emanuel did not lift a finger to help Dan Seals and he did not openly support Seals which could have made the difference for Seals who lost by about 7000 votes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/the-truth-about-rahm-eman_b_33795.html?p=2

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

47. Enough.

So someone is pissed because DCCC didn't support their candidate and have found an Israel angle on it. Well, I'm sure he'll be first against the wall when the jews take over the US government.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

52. So now I have hate-baiting glasses...

...for suggesting that Rahm isn't a sycophant of Israel. Thanks.

[BuyingThyme]

55. No, the part where you said he was going to be executed because

he is a Jew. And your insinuation that this has something to do with Dems supporting Dems.

Why do you need to be so absurdly, disgustingly dishonest?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. I'm not jewish.

I think my post was confusing. I was suggesting, very sarcastically, that the jews would execute the author of the huffington post entry when they finished their hostile takeover of the united states government.

[BuyingThyme]

58. So, if Dem election leaders don't support Dem candidates, it has

something to do with Jews taking over the United States government? I don't follow.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

68. Umm...

The DCCC does not spend money in every race.

There were literally hundreds of races where the DCCC didn't spend a fucking dime. That's not what they do. That's not what they're for. And it's got nothing to do with Israel. This is an ugly smear against Rahm.

Sure, bash him for not supporting a candidate that might have won with additional monetary support. But it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with Israel.

As for Kirk being "a personal friend" of Rahm's, he ran a lot of candidates agsint "personal friends" of his this year.

[AtomicKitten]

80. Both Dean and Emanuel delivered a brilliant victory.

It only takes an iota of maturity to acknowledge that.

[NoPasaran]

83. Very true

There's an old saying, "Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan."

Our Democratic TEAM performed like heroes this year. Let's do this again in two years!

[fooj]

85. My point, exactly.

I haven't heard Rahm acknowledge that. Have you?

[AtomicKitten]

90. actually I have

On one of the talking head shows a couple days ago Rahm complimented Dean on making the party competitive in red states and thanked him for the money he raised for the Congressional races.

Time to embrace all for a job well done yet? Didn't think so. DU ain't DU without the nonstop jihads.

[JetCityLiberal]

94. Link?

seriously. I REALLY want to hear this.

All I have heard is Rahm being a right wing ass, b*sh does that. Rahm needs to show some maturity and stfu.

[AtomicKitten]

95. **

It was on I believe CNN with Wolf Blitzer; I was news-cruising in the middle of the day so I'm not entirely certain. If I can locate the transcript of the brief Emanuel interview in my spare time, I'll get back to you. Again, he acknowledged Dean's hard work moving into red states and for raising $6.5 million for the Congressional races.

What you've heard is the DU spin on the jihad declared against Emanuel on behalf of Dean. The tiff had to do with money. Emanuel and Dean butted heads and ultimately hammered out a deal between the DNC and funding 40 of the Congressional races which Emanuel was in charge of.

Two men doing their jobs, and together they effin delivered. I stand by that analysis.

Here's an interesting article: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/11/12/1218/2214

[JetCityLiberal]

97. Thank you for the link here

I will read this and be aware that you have heard Rahm say this and pay more attention out there.

Thanks for the reply and link.

[Patiod]

86. I don't consider my candidate to be a "loser"

Lois Murphy was one of the DCCC's picks, and she didn't win because the f#$king Republicans gerrymandered the hell out of our state. I pounded pavement and knocked on doors for her, and she wasn't a poor choice for the DCCC to fund.

In fact, she was edging out the Republican incumbent until results came in from rural Berks County (which has NOTHING in common with the core of our district in lower Montgomery County). It was that outlier area that tipped the incumbent Gerlach into victory

The Republicans POURED money into our district, and we were barraged with ads about "Liberal Lois" who was going to raise our taxes.

My only complaint is that the anti-incumbent ads should have nailed Gerlach for being a swing vote on some really reprehensible legislation -- he was "independent" until it comes down to the wire, and then he voted the way Tom DeLay told him to, and Lois should have been hammering him on that.

[bigtree]

87. self delete

[Senator]

88. kick

[warrens]

89. All in GOP districts

That's a great batting average. And Tammy will win in 2008.

[Zhade]

96. Dean's 50-state strategy won the day (and Rahm fought against it).

Thank you Dr. Dean!

[pinto]

98. Locking.

We let this go in the interests of constructive criticism, but the repeated allegations of an alleged conspiratorial alliance between our party and the government of Israel goes beyond constructive discussion. Thanks.