What do you guys think of Rahm Emmanuel?

[jackbourassa]

I think this prick may cost us the 2006 elections. He's too busy getting magazines to write how great he is. How "hard" his balls are. Lining up his friends to say how great he is. I have lived by a simple philosophy taught to me by my dad: "If you have to tell people how great you are, you can't be very great."

What pisses me off most about Emmanuel is that he just doesn't seem to get it. He goes around saying how "successful" the Dems were in 1992, 1996 and 1998 because Clinton was an "agent for change." OH FUCKING REALLY?

First of all, Clinton did worse in 1992, than Dukakis did in 1988. I don't know why the Clintonistas are so blind to the Perot factor in that race. Perhaps it is because they can't bear to admit how goddamned lucky they actually were.

Second, 1996: More Perot. Clinton did as well in 1996, as Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. My point being that Clinton was no better than any other Democrat. The only difference was Ross Perot. In fact, since 1992, we have lost every election Ross Perot didn't run in. 1992 also happens to be the year that the DLC and Clintonistas took over the party, and they have controlled it since.

As far as 1998: I haven't the foggiest clue what shitbrick is talking about. What the hell did we win in 1998? The Republicans were as unpopular then as they are now and we picked up 3 seats in the House and held steady (zero gain/loss) in the Senate. (You folks who believe a Dem victory in 2006 inevitable keep that in mind). The problem was and is that the Clintons and jerks like Rahm Emmanuel saw that as a "victory." What really bothers me is that THEY STILL SEE IT AS A VICTORY. Which to me is proof enough why the Clintonistas and the DLC are such losers and lose us every election. An election where we should have cleaned up, we won three little seats and they declare victory. How good does that make you feel about our chances in 2006 with Rahm in charge of the House elections?

Which brings me to my last point. Rahm has publicly stated that this is not a left vs. right election. Rather it is change vs. Status quo. But what he fails to realize is that he, the DLC, and the Clintons represent the status quo. If he practiced what he preached, he wouldn't be pushing their agenda, he would be pushing ours. If we win in 2006, it may be because of our own efforts and have little to do with the DCCC. I have a very bad feeling about this. I think Rahm and the DLC smell trouble for the GOP. They want to push their agenda - so that they can take credit when/if we win. But what they fail to realize is that the Democrats have not broken through that 48% marker. Which is to say, we haven't convinced people angry with the GOP that they should vote for us. We are making a mistake if we just assume that the independants, angry with Republicans, will suddenly vote Democratic.

Remember that Kerry was at 48% and Bush at 44% for a large chunk of the election in 2004. Kerry never expressed a clear view on Iraq, economy, health care. Issues the public were trending in our direction. As a result, the 6% undecideds went to Bush - even though they disapproved of his first term performance.

CLARITY. We must have Clarity. We must differentiate ourselves. We must NOT be afraid of who we are and what WE BELIEVE IN. More people agree with us that the DLC will have you believe.

However, I am afraid that Rahm Emmanuel is more interested in helping Hillary get the nod and less about creating a new movement in Washington. This concerns me a lot given what is at stake.

How do you guys feel?

[asjr]

1. I think you need to go to bed.

[Carolab]

2. Rahm is a Clintonite and a DLCer as well as a "Blue Dog".

Slippery...trying to have it "both ways". Why don't they get it that triangulation DOESN'T work?

[henry_dl]

3. very good points

I'm a long-time lurker, but registered to add my 2 cents. I totally agree with what you've said, except for the part about Hillary as I don't think they get along.

My former partner is involved in Chicago Dem politics and, while pleased Emmanuel supports gay rights, describes him as an arrogant, sexist SOB. My ex generally has his head in the sand when it comes to women's issues and the treatment of women, so it may say a lot that he uses that description. Apparently, Emmanuel has pissed off a bunch of women, not because of the way he votes, but because of his attitude. There is still some resentment due to the woman he beat in 2002 (Nancy something) and there are other issues (for example, some of the women my ex works with want to know stuff like if he starts each day thanking God he is not a woman).

[terrya]

4. I think you're giving him way too much influence.

I don't think Rahm Emanuel will cost us anything, actually.

[Neil Lisst]

5. Rahm Emmanuel is a great guy and a good Democrat.

He's helping the party. He's a politician who can get elected because he understands his electorate, something that many here don't seem to understand.

I'll stand with Rahm. He's a real Democrat. He's not going to vote Green or pout and stay home election day.


http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[MrBenchley]

9. Amen....

He's a great Democrat.

[Jane Austin]

10. I think he's one of our better spokesmen on television, too.

n/t

[1932]

6. Links?

[safi0]

7. They right off the

Perot effect because as the 96 elections showed Perot voters would have gone pretty evenly to each candidate. Which would've given Clinton about 53%.

First of all, I think your exaggerating his influence. Do you even know who the last DCCC chairman was, or the one before that, or the one before that. Because I don't. I think he is doing a great job with candidate recruitment, with the Fighting Dems and people like Coleen Rowley, Heath Shuler. In addition, he's one of the few Congressman who acknowledges that blogs exist which gets a big thumbs up from me.

[blm]

8. Where do you get your information? More independents went with Kerry

over Bush.

Perot vote did NOT win for Clinton. Clinton would have won anyway. Polls showed that Perot voters divided fairly equally on their second choices.

Gore and Kerry both increased Dem voters in 2000 and 2004, Kerry by an additional 10 MILLION votes. (Which really points to machine fraud on Bush's total)

The rest of your attack on Kerry sounded like you only listened to what corporate media wanted to discuss WHILE Kerry was talking about jobs, healthcare, environment, and Bush's failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.