SPECIAL REPORT: "THE HOUSE THAT RAHM BUILT" This is the article discussed on CSPAN this morning.

[in_cog_ni_to]

This is VERY, VERY long, but worth a read if you're interested in the inner workings of the DCCC and Rahm Emmanuel......AND how he helped us WIN this election. The man is RUTHLESS! I have never had that image of him in my mind. He always seemed so mild mannered....NOT SO! In this article he's compared to KKKRove and RIGHTLY SO. He also DOES NOT especially like JAMES CARVILLE...nor does Rahm's staff. Enjoy the read!


SPECIAL REPORT: THE HOUSE THAT RAHM BUILT

The House that Rahm Built
Rahm Emanuel, Chicago's profane, ruthless, savvy operative, remade the Democrats in his image--and helped the party overcome 12 years of humiliation

Story by Naftali Bendavid
Tribune staff reporter
Published November 12, 2006


Rahm Emanuel was seething.

He was hurtling down an asphalt road in upstate New York on the 47th trip of his ferocious campaign to win back the House. A lecture, even from political consultant James Carville, was the last thing he needed.

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."<snip>


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

[NMDemDist2]

1. didn't he only win 8 of the seats he picked? the numbers don't pan out

that he is such a genius eh?

[jgraz]

37. Absolutely -- we lose the House if listen to Rahm

Numbers are clear: Only 8 of his 22 chosen candidates won. The other 20 pickups came with little or no support from the DCCC. In fact, Rahm ran primary opponents against many of the folks who ended up taking the seat.

His biggest investement, Tammy Duckworth, lost her race after defeating Christine Cegelis, a progressive, grass-roots primary challenger. Many observers felt that Cegelis had deeper ties to the district and would have run stronger against Roskam, a stay-the-course Republican.

In the end, the math doesn't lie. If we only listen to Rahm, we come out of Tuesday with an 8-seat pickup in the House. If we ignore Rahm, we get 20 seats and control of Congress.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

39. Cool.

Maybe you can try to oust him next time around, given the smashing success of the netroots in ousting incumbent Democrats.

[dysfunctional press]

40. 6 out 0f 55 is the number i heard.

george bush did more to elect dems than rahm did.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

45. I'm curious as to where you hear this.

I've heard this number repeated several times by various people, and nobody seems to be able to give me any background on it.

[wyldwolf]

65. Mistakes made by the netroots when spinning Emanuel

* Emanuel only won __ out of ___ races he hand-picked the candidates for.

The races given the most media attention that were handpicked by Emanuel were in mostly very red districts- 20 or so. That is why the media followed the story so closely. Democrats were running moderate candidates against so-called "safe" Republican seats. Though the win/loss record in THOSE races don't favor Emanuel (he won a little less than half of them), two facts remain: Most of the races lost were close and no one seriously believes "progressive" type Democrats would have faired better in those races. In fact, statistics show the opposite. Winners like Heath Shuler won with Republican votes - votes that would not have come to a Kucinich-type Democrat.

But the story doesn't end there. Emanuel picked candidates in other races, as well. And the money he raised was unparelleled in the history of the DCCC. Money wins elections.

Further, Emanuel's picks faired better than those of the netroots. As "The Nation" reported:

The blogs’ most famous candidate and top fundraising beneficiary, Ned Lamont, lost his bid to unseat Senator Joe Lieberman. One of the campaign’s senior advisors, former Clinton White House counsel Lanny Davis, said the victory “proved the blogosphere is all wind and very little sail.” Bloggers tell a different story: the unusual, 3-way race should not be judged strictly by who won, but also by its success in helping “make Iraq the center of this electoral season,” as Joel Silberman wrote on FireDogLake. If Lamont’s loss is counted as a symbolic effort that beat expectations, his performance fits a pattern. Many of the netroots’ most popular House candidates beat expectations this week, but ultimately lost.

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

Ryan Leeza, in a discussion at TNR, gives more stats:

With all due respect to Rick Perlstein, his piece about Rahm Emanuel and the bloggers is highly unpersuasive. His evidence that Democrats owe their victory to the "netroots" -- whatever that really means -- rather than to the DCCC, boils down to the fact that five candidates disliked by liberal bloggers had the nerve to lose their races (Mike Weaver (KY-02), Ken Lucas (KY-04), Christine Jennings (FL-13), Dan Seals (IL-10), and Tammy Duckworth (IL-06)). Putting aside the fact that Duckworth was in fact a blogger favorite, what is the evidence that alternative candidates would have succeeded in these districts? Well, Perlstein doesn't say. But griping about five races that didn't pan out when Democrats just won at least 29 seats, seems to miss the point of what happened yesterday.

Later 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.

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

...and that conversation continued...

There's simply no way liberal, Netroots-friendly candidates could have won most of the districts for which Rahm recruited moderate-to-conservative candidates. Rick's reliance on Kentucky as an example is particularly instructive. He points out that Rahm's fourth choice, a liberal alt-weekly editor named John Yarmuth, managed to pick off the incumbent Republican, Anne Northrup, in the state's third district. At the same time, he notes, two more moderate Dems failed to pick up seats in Kentucky's second and fourth districts. But this isn't even an apples to oranges comparison; it's an apples to meatloaf comparison. The third district includes inner-city Louisville and has a significant African-American population. Both John Kerry and Al Gore won it. By contrast, Bush carried the second and fourth districts by 31 and 27 points, respectively, in 2004.

That's not to say the Netroots didn't play an important role in this election. I just think Rick sets up a bit of a false dichotomy. Rahm did a solid job recruiting competitive candidates for the most obviously competitive races--which, as head of the Democrats' campaign committee, is what he needed to focus on. The Netroots did a solid job of identifying and funding candidates in districts where Democrats were a longer shot--the kinds of high-risk prospects you wouldn't necessarily want your congressional committee worrying about. The roles of the Netroots and the party committee were actually pretty complementary in that respect, which is the way you'd hope it would be. (What's more, I'm not sure even prominent blogger-activists would say we should have run more liberal candidates in places like Kentucky's second and fourth districts.)

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=56020

But as anyone can plainly see, the only people tearing down Emanuel is the netroots - and when it comes to actual analysis and results, the facts simply aren't on their side.

[NMDemDist2]

67. very informative wyld! I especially like (and would love to keep practicing)

The roles of the Netroots and the party committee were actually pretty complementary in that respect, which is the way you'd hope it would be.

what ever it takes, yanno?

:hi:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

68. "Money wins elections" Not in Oregon!

Saxon just ran the most expensive campaign for Gov. in the US.

He lost by double digits against an incumbant that rarely does photo ops.

:bounce:

[wyldwolf]

69. In the mid 80s, a gallup poll found Pizza to be America's most popular food

Doesn't mean it is mine or yours, though. And I'm sure is isn't in places like Chinatown.

So there will always be exceptions.

[Cha]

101. Tell me more about your

Blue Gov in ORegon?

[bigtree]

71. fine work

[mmonk]

2. He's a double edged sword.

Yes, he and others helped win the election. But he could end up splitting the party into infighting with his personal quest for power. I did not contribute to the DCCC because of him. I would have voted democratic even if we ran poodles in this last election. He needs to be eyed in his quest as I see him as a corporate point man.

[bigtree]

5. that 'personal quest for power' led him to decline to run for House Whip

deferring to James Clyburn. I believe. Not so unusual that he would get considered for the leadership position he settled on running for because of his hard work during the WINNING election. This article lays out his role in detail. I like the aggressive way he went about it. I might have liked him to run progressive candidates in Red areas, but I don't know if they would have succeeded, like Celosi in Henry Hyde's old district over Duckworth.

But, the fact of the matter, was that the job of overseeing and managing those 50 campaigns had many aspects that we don't see from the outside. It's got to be a tough job with all of the competing interests, and I think Rep. Emanuel did just fine. The back biting over a WINNING campaign is amazing.

[mmonk]

7. Mr. Emanuel started the back biting. The election was barely

won before he started into divisive rhetoric within the party. I gave this dog his due but as long as anyone even suggests fellow democrats should have limited input in this great victory based on his ideology, I don't have to like him.

[bigtree]

28. 'divisive rhetoric'? Give me one reputable quote. You're piggybacking

off of opinion pieces. Give me a reputable quote from Rep. Emanuel which is 'divisive'. Where did he say fellow Democrats should have limited imput?

[mmonk]

92. He discussed the following:

In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701697.html



Why the need? When was the last time the "liberal wing" dominated? Does he want to slow down Waxman and Conyers because they are in positions for chairs? Anyway, I don't want to be devisive, but Carville's rhetoric after the election added to this just makes me a little nervous.

[bigtree]

93. THIS IS NOT A LEGITIMATE QUOTE. Can you tell me where the authors got this?

I can't tell from the article. Fishy and purely in the authors' own context. This is poor journalism used by Emanuel's detractors as a club to bash him with. It's pitiful.

Here's the whole thing:

"In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year."


IT'S NOT A QUOTE! Yet, everyone is using this verbatim as proof of Emanuel's state of mind and action. It's not just curious that they don't have an actual quote from Emanuel in context that proves this point, it's slippery journalism with questionable motives from the authors. Perhaps stretched to prove their point, nonetheless, it is NOT a reputable place from which to start a crusade from as many bloggers have done so willingly.


edit: THIS IS NO FLY-BY-NIGHT ARTICLE. IT'S A MAJOR ARTICLE IN THE POST. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE STANDARDS.

WHY THEN DOES THIS PARTICULAR PASSAGE LACK A LEGITIMATE QUOTE, OR EVEN A SOURCE FOR THE QUOTE?

WHY DOES THE PASSAGE IN THE ARTICLE LUMP EMANUEL WITH OTHER DEMOCRATS ON THIS?

THIS IS THE WEAKEST STANDARD OF JOURNALISM THAT COULD BE ALLOWED. IT WOULD BE LAUGHED OFF IF IT DIDN'T SERVE SOME FOLK'S PURPOSE TO ATTACK EMANUEL.

[mmonk]

96. Stop shouting. I know he wanted any dem to win anywhere.

I also know he wanted to make the Iraq war a club to beat down republican opponents. However, I think you may be going overboard on your conspiracy breadth.

[bigtree]

97. Do you really believe it's legitimate to use this sentence to bash Rep. Emanuel

(In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year.)

That's the entirety of the charge against Emanuel. Weak, in the authors' own context, and of ambiguous origin. What was actually said? Who is the source for this quote. Why aren't these things included in the article?

Why don't these things matter to the folks who have been using this hearsay against Emanuel as gospel truth?

[mmonk]

98. We've had this conversation before. I'm willing to blame the

reporter. I'm not that stubborn on the issue. I recognize Rahm's tireless work and contribution. I do, however, think there is some division going on within the party reporters and the like are catching wind of. I don't know for sure if its grassroots vs. corporate, liberal vs. conservative, power plays, or a complete fabrication planted for them somewhere. I'll quit posting on the issue.

peace

[Toots]

14. You like all the derogatory remarks he made about the "loony left" and Dean?

I never heard Dean udder a single deragatory comment about another Democrats, did you? Maybe Lieberman but then again I am not sure I consider him a Democrat. Emanuel was constantly putting down the left of the Party and being a very divisive figure. When he is gone I will not be one bit sorry.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. Pelosi will shut Rahm up. Madame Speaker is one of those "Left Wingers"

he likes to silence. Do you REALLY think she's going to put up with that shit? Rahm lost a very good position in the Clinton WH because of his "abrasiveness" and the same will happen to him again if he doesn't shut his pie hole! Nancy will take care of Rahm...mark my words.

[bigtree]

19. I hope she doesn't 'shut him up'

This myopic view of who he is, and what he does, is dishonest. He works hard for our party. I seriously doubt Nancy Pelosi harbors any resentment or animosity toward Rep.Emanuel's performance at all.

I'll bet you can't find one instance where she repudiates his efforts.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. No, but Nancy is a Left of Center Democrat.

When he badmouths the Left in the party, he bad mouths her. There has to be a middle ground here. WE ALL NEED A VOICE because WE ALL helped win this thing. Rahm didn't do it all by himself and Dean didn't do it all by himself...EVERYONE, Progressives included, helped win this thing. They MUST include ALL in the agenda process, don't you think? That's not what Rahm advocated when he said what he said about not letting the Left Wing set the agenda.

[bigtree]

23. I don't think he has badmouthed the left. I don't hear it from any other party members.

just the press and pundits. You won't hear it from Nancy either.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. I HOPE he didn't say that.

I shall wait and see how this plays out......benefit of the doubt and all that stuff.:)

[bigtree]

29. Dean ragged on John Kerry. Democracy and our party survived

Give me an example of where Rahm Emanuel was 'constantly putting down the left of the Party and being a very divisive figure'

[Cha]

102. When? In the 2004

primaries, for godsake?

That was then this is now..

"WALLACE: John Kerry's botched joke.

DEAN: Overstated.

WALLACE: You didn't put him in the cellar? The party didn't put him in the cellar for the last week?

"DEAN: No, no, no. John Kerry did a lot for this party while we were trying to win back. He campaigned like crazy, raised a bunch of money, gave us a bunch of money. I'm not going to go after John Kerry, and I don't think most Democrats will either."


"http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2961628

[OzarkDem]

72. My assessment, too

His personal agenda may not always be what's best for the party and the massive amounts of money he's earned from Wall Street make it hard to take him seriously.

[SouthernBelle82]

80. Exactly

And here people were shitting on John Kerry for sending money to direct candidates instead of through the DSCCC and the DCCC. Kerry did do both but I think what he did was the smart strategy. Lots of people send money directly to candidates. If you send it to an organization they might send money to one group and ignore the other.

[porphyrian]

3. How long does he get to masturbate all over us before someone says something? - n/t

[Spazito]

4. It is interesting to see that, although the article uses the word "helped",

there is little or no mention of who else "helped". This is one long love letter to and about Emanuel, imo.

I did find this of interest as well:

"For months, Emanuel and Schumer had been imploring the iconoclastic former presidential candidate to channel more money into congressional campaigns. Dean had been pushing a "50-state strategy" to build a Democratic operation in every corner of the country.

The national party usually spent millions to help House candidates, but Dean was instead using the money to build this far-flung operation, to Emanuel's immense frustration. He felt Dean's strategy wasted money in unwinnable places.

According to Emanuel, the meeting devolved into a confrontation over resources. Emanuel said that the Republicans planned to heavily fund key races and that if Dean refused to do the same, it would amount to unilateral disarmament. Dean replied that he was fielding activists in every corner of every state.

Ridiculing those efforts, Emanuel told Dean that he had seen no sign of such an effort. "I know your field plan. It doesn't exist," he recalled saying. "I've gone around the country with these races. I've seen your people. There's no plan, Howard."

Emanuel might not have cared for Carville but he sure seems to dislike Dean more if one is to believe the above quotes.

Interesting read to be sure.

[bigtree]

6. as opposed to all of the other ones castigating him

how can he win with folks? I find the animosity towards him amazing.

The effort by some is clearly to strip Rep. Emanuel of any credit at all for the Democratic victory. This author documents some of the work that Rep. Emanuel did which contributed to the victory. I'm not surprised it's hard for some to accept that the man worked hard for us against the republicans. That's gratitude for ya.

I've yet to find a single instance where Rep. Emanuel takes sole credit for the win. Maybe you can find one?

[Spazito]

8. I have no doubt he contributed equally to the success of the

Democratic win in the recent election. What I do find interesting is the only mention of Dean relates to Emanuel ridiculing his 50 State strategy which, I believe, was a big part of the recent win as well.

Again, this article strikes me as a love letter to and about Emanuel to the exclusion of others who worked equally as hard as did Emanuel. Love letter articles are fine as long as they are seen as such, written to showcase the subject and little else, imo.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Rahm is a Chicago boy. Chicago is a DEMOCRATIC city and the CHICAGO TRIBUNE

wrote the article. Rahm is a HOMETOWN BOY...hence the 'love letter to Rahm.'

[Spazito]

13. As I said, it is fine as long as it is understood to be just that....

a love letter article about a hometown boy and not an article that is attempting to be fair and balanced about the work done by Democrats to win the recent election.

[tsuki]

15. Emanuel is part of the reason that we lost the House and Senate

in 1992 & 1994. We are not a "from the top down" party. The Democrats would blow into town barking orders, and not listening. They cared nothing for state and local races. The local party machine was starved to death. The country started turning red, including state houses and governorships.

Dean's 50 state strategy took the party back to its populist roots. We won state legislatures, governorships, local races and the House and Senate.

We had an energized base. The issues were there, true. By contrast, Emanuel had 22 races where he hand-picked the candidates and wanted all the money to flow. 8 won. That's a 36+% win.

By my reckoning, that is not enough to crown yourself "Savior of the Democratic Party." And if he wants to take the party back to the beltway to languish, he's in for a fight from this person.

[bigtree]

18. the other races where he didn't hand pick the candidate were not ignored by him

HE STILL MANAGED THEM! He still carried their water. That was his job. HE DID IT WELL. We won.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Well, Rahm didn't "get his way" in that exchange with Dean, did he?

I remember reading about that a while back and Dean told him to take a hike, no?

They each had a vision of what they needed to do and each DID what they needed to do, no? AND...WE WON BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE....regardless of the infighting between the DCCC and the DNC.

What I got out of this article was Rahm really doesn't like Carville...which is a GOOD thing because Carville is the one calling for Dean to be replaced at the DNC. Dean's not going ANYWHERE!

[Spazito]

11. I agree, both Emanuel and Dean, using different strategies, were

equally successful in their work to win this election. I think one without the other would have been less successful and BOTH should receive their due, the recognition of their work.

As to Carville, he really is yesterday's news, ineffective and obsolete, imo, and he knows it but won't accept it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

51. It really is interesting.

I don't think either Dean or Emanuel realised how their separate strategies dovetailed together so nicely.

Yeah, Dean may have been spending money in districts where we had no chance of winning, but at least there's a Democratic party organization in those places now, and it forces the Republicans to spend money in places they thought they had locked up. I have never seen the point of this post-election pissing contest between supporters of Dean and Emanuel. They both did a good job and worked hard for victory. And now half of DU seems to be saying that Emanuel is no different from Lieberman.

Please, tell me one goddamn thing Lieberman did for the party during this election?

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. I LOVE this... at the very end of the article....

<snip>But at that moment, Emanuel would not, could not censor his glee, or restrain his distaste for the defeated Republicans.

For weeks they had been boasting that their program for turning out voters in the campaign's final 72 hours would swamp all his work. The voters had made those statements look ridiculous.

"I'll tell you this," Emanuel shouted out to his staff. "The Republicans may have the 72-hour program. But they have not seen the 22-month program!"


"Since my kids are gone, I can say it: They can go ---- themselves!"<snip>

I AGREE! Don't you? We ALL DETEST REPUBLICANS!

[bigtree]

16. HE IS A FRICKIN WARRIOR!!

I love this article. I hope Democrats remember his intensity when they try to take on the republicans again in an election. I'd take Rahm on my side any day.

He hates himself some republicans!

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. As I read this in the paper this morning I found myself SHOCKED

by seeing who the guy really is! I had NO IDEA! He pisses me off when he says shit like, "we can't let the left wing of the party set our agenda", but IMO, Lefty Madame Speaker will set him straight.:) We REALLY need to find a common ground on this "Sensible Center and "Lefty Liberals" in the party. WE MUST!

[bigtree]

25. I don't think he wants centrists or lefties to dominate. He's a middle of the roader

He was just pragmatic about winning in red districts. He took different approaches to races in more liberal areas. He played to win. Not such a bad thing, as I'm liking waking up again.

He has a great deal to offer our diverse party, whether you agree with him on every issue or not.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

44. Yup.

I tend to be pretty pragmatic about politics. I don't like letting my emoitions interfere with my political thinking. But goddamn that scene in the DSCC offices on election night nearly made me cry.

I hope we can turn this victory into something positive for the country.

[SouthernBelle82]

82. I'd still prefer though

if he, Schumer and Dean all worked together and kicked some ass. I still get this feeling that they're still uneasy of Dean and the rightwing media's spin on Dean and how he's a "looney" when he isn't and try to label him as this crazy liberal but he isn't that either. I think that is why so many people, like Harold Ford, aren't wanting to work with Dean. They need to look and see Dean is actually pretty much like them where politics are concerned. I just wish they would all work together. *Sigh*

[bigtree]

86. they had that one falling out widely reported on, but they DID work together

Rahm Emanuel was reportedly "quick to credit other Democrats"


Rahm Emanuel, Basking In the Glow of Victory

By Wil Haygood
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 9, 2006

{snip}

He got two hours' sleep the previous night, he said. His eyes looked tired and at times he rocked on his heels as if he might fall onto an imaginary sofa.

He was quick to credit other Democrats, noting 18 months of hard work that went into the results. Still, on a day of victory and pride, he shifted his shoulders, he gulped from his water bottle, he let show a sliver of a smile. And demurred when asked about his personal future.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802239.html


hardly the portrait of a credit-hogging opportunist as some would have us believe.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

20. I just finished reading this "Special Report" in my Trib and

the last line left me :rofl:..

Rahm's a hardass and this is one Chicagoan who appreciates a hardass.

After reading this, I'm convinced that what Carville tried to pull on Howard Dean on Friday was completely Carville's idea. Seemed to me that the Ragin' Cajun was getting under Rahm's skin long before Tuesday.

ITA Rahm, the Pukes can go f*** themselves!!!

:toast: :headbang: :woohoo: :applause:

[Jcrowley]

26. It's okay for him

to be a hardass if he's fightin' for the people, for the poor, but he's not.

His personality is less important than who he is representing. He's a corporatist.

[bigtree]

27. even if that's true, (I don't think it is) he worked for the whole party in our victory

This is an article from his home town. HE"S not emphasizing his personality, the press is.

[Jcrowley]

30. Better he work

for those who are hurting the most. All public policy should be written with the neediest in mind and any candidate who considers themself to be progressive would do so and support this. Rahm's record speaks for itself.

[bigtree]

31. And you know this to be true? Sounds like just a bunch of rhetoric

a smear without a shred of credible evidence to back up your attacks on the representative.

[Jcrowley]

33. All you gotta do

is look it up. It's easy.

No smear just observation based on following the guy's career.

Be well.

[bigtree]

35. see pal, that's why you have ZERO credibility when you talk about Emanuel

you have all the criticism you can conjur, but none of the evidence to back up your accusations.

YOU look it up. You've accused him of these things.

On the other foot, I won't have any problem at all in laying out what I think are the accomplishments of Rahm, along with plenty of documentation.

[Jcrowley]

42. He's just another of the so-called "centrists"

In a political landscape that has swung so wildly to the right in the last two decades that folks can't recognize what lays before their eyes.

Even worse, he failed to support 1 candidate in my district, the 10th Congressional District of Illinois.

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, 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. Instead, he and the other Democrats in the DCCC poured millions of dollars into the Tammy Duckworth race in Henry Hyde's old district, the 6th of Illinois.

Duckworth was a veteran of the war in Iraq and lost both her legs in that conflict. She was a handpicked candidate of Emanuel's who dumped the 2004 candidate against Hyde, Christine Cegalis. Unfortunately, Duckworth was a bad candidate. I was up in arms about this during the Illinois primary this year. Christine Cegelis was the progressive Democrat who ran in 04 against Henry Hyde and got 44% of the vote, which prompted Hyde to retire. Evidently, she was too progressive for Emanuel. Cephalis got 44% of the vote against Hyde in 2004 and Duckworth got 47% of the vote against the Republican candidate in 2006. Duckworth got only 3% more of the vote than Cegalis in a Democratic sunami running against a non-incumbant.

The fact is that Emanuel's cause is his own power and control. How could the chair of the DCCC put cronyism before country and party? Emanuel may have fooled the nation and his colleagues in the House, but many of us know him as an old time Chicago party hack which was his prime duty as an advisor to President Clinton. He made millions of dollars as an investment banker after leaving the Clinton adminstration. When he ran for Congress in 2002 he called me for financial support and I gave him the maximum contribution. One year later when I was forming Air America Radio I called him for financial help and I got the cold shoulder. He was not the slightest bit interested in progressive talk radio.

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

He has aligned himself with the Democratic Leadership Council and the party's centrist wing, but is not among its more conservative members.

[bigtree]

54. same old article

these aren't enough to hang the man. I think holding him up as the root of all centrist evil is wrong, foolish, and misguided by muckrakers who want to elevate themselves by putting other Democrats like Rahm down. I don't see their efforts as any more credible than the things they're accusing Rahm of.

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. He's a DEMOCRAT, for crying out loud. ALL Democrats fight for the poor/THE PEOPLE,

or they wouldn't be Democrats.


Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) issued the following statement after his vote to support maintaining the pristine quality of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Congressman Emanuel voted to protect the ANWR region from exploitative drilling by voting for the Markey/Johnson Amendment.

“Today I voted against the Energy Bill because I refuse to vote for any legislation opening one of America’s most pristine treasures – the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – to the inevitable destruction of oil drilling. But more importantly, I voted against this bill because it fails to address America’s energy needs.

Two things have happened in the past few months; gas prices went through the roof and oil companies have realized tremendous profits. I’m baffled as to why we have written a bill that distorts the free market by providing billions of dollars in tax credits and does little or nothing to help reduce our energy consumption.

Unfortunately we can’t have a debate about an effective energy policy because the Republican leadership has attached a provision opening ANWR to oil exploration. There is little evidence that drilling in ANWR is economically viable, the American public opposes drilling in ANWR by a margin of two to one, and the Senate recently defeated a similar provision. Clearly this is a bad idea, but it was still included. Why? Because the oil companies have high paid lobbyists with friends in the Republican Party. I guarantee that if ANWR had the same friends, we wouldn’t be drilling there.”


###


Congressman Emanuel announces the American Hybrid Tax Credit Act of 2005 with Chicago Fleet Management Commissioner Howard Henneman (left) and Jim Williams of International Truck and Engine Corporation of Melrose Park.
Energy Legislation

ON THIS PAGE:
The Save Energy Now Act | American Hybrid Tax Credit Act | New Apollo Energy Act | Windfall Profits and Consumer Assistance Act | Related Statements

Like you, I am concerned about rising energy costs. This page contains information about legislation I have been working on to reduce exorbitant energy costs, ensure that our seniors and vulnerable citizens have adequate home heating assistance, and lessen our dependence on foreign oil through the advancement of alternative fuel sources.


The Save Energy Now Act

High prices at the pump not only hurt our wallets, but they also are a symptom of the larger problem of our dependence on foreign oil. In order to reduce the price of gas and help put us on the path towards Energy Independence, I recently announced the Save Energy Now Act, which would:

MAKE HYBRIDS NOT HUMMERS: Increase the federal tax credit for purchase of hybrids and other lean-burn vehicles. Hybrids can often cost $6,000 more than a comparable, non-hybrid vehicle, but current tax incentives only cover a fraction of this cost. Increasing the credit to $7,000 will eliminate this cost differential and help encourage the purchase and use of these highly fuel-efficient vehicles.

PLUG IT IN: Provide credits toward the installation of hybrid plug-in conversion kits. Plug-in hybrids recharge overnight at a standard electrical outlet, greatly reducing the amount of gasoline these vehicles need.

MADE BY AMERICANS, FUELED BY AMERICANS: Construction of E-85 and bio-diesel fueling stations at government facilities where needed. In recent years, the federal government has purchased large numbers of "flex fuel" cars and trucks that can operate on either gasoline or ethanol. But the federal government lacks the stations to fuel these vehicles with ethanol. The Save Energy Now Act would mandate the addition of E-85 stations at all federally owned fueling facilities and provide the funding to build them.

This legislation will help reduce gas prices by reducing the consumption of gasoline and diversify our energy sources. Reducing how much gasoline is consumed, means more gas in the market, which means lower prices.

The American Hybrid Tax Credit Act of 2005

Encouraging Americans to buy American-made hybrids in order to promote fuel efficiency, energy independence and cleaner air is a priority for me. That is why I introduced the American Hybrid Tax Credit Act of 2005, H.R. 4458, which would:

Increase the tax credit for individuals and small businesses purchasing hybrid or other alternative motor vehicles by $3,000
Increase the tax credit available to manufacturers for using new lean burn technology by $3,000
Increase the tax credit for domestic research and development related to alternative motor vehicle technology from 20% to 40%. This credit would be refundable to small businesses
Text of Legislation - H.R. 4458

TOP

The New Apollo Energy Act of 2005
I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2828, the New Apollo Energy Act of 2005. Introduced by Congressman Jay Inslee, the New Apollo Energy Act bill will make sure that the United States leads the world in developing and manufacturing next generation energy technologies. The New Apollo Energy Act of 2005 would:

Provide $49 billion in government loan guarantees for the construction of clean-energy generation facilities
Provide $11.5 billion in tax credits for the automotive and aerospace industries to develop new fuel efficient automobiles and planes, retool existing plants, and construct new plants to manufacture energy efficient vehicles
Combat Global Warming through caps on greenhouse gas emissions and $7 billion in loan guarantees for the development of clean coal power plants
Text of Legislation - H.R. 2828

TOP

The Windfall Profits and Consumer Assistance Act of 2005

Congressman Ed Markey and I recently announced the Windfall Profits and Consumer Assistance Act of 2005, HR 4263. This legislation would:

Impose a 50% windfall profits tax on oil companies for oil sold at prices above $40 per barrel
Return half of the revenue generated through the windfall profits tax to consumers through an income tax rebate
Use the other half of the generated revenue to boost the funding of the Low Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Text of Legislation - H.R. 4263

TOP

Related Statements

Press Releases

7/28/2006 - Emanuel: “Time to Get Big Oil off Taxpayer Dole”
4/24/2006 - Emanuel Proposes Investigation into Congressional Collusion with Big Oil
4/23/2006 - Emanuel Marks Earth Day, Calls for Better Vehicles, Higher Efficiency, New Energy Sources
4/19/2006 - Emanuel Calls for Better Vehicles, Higher Efficiency, New Energy Sources; Calls for Energy Policy that Supports “Hybrids Not Hummers”
12/5/2005 - Emanuel Introduces Tax Credit for Hybrid Vehicles
11/9/2005 - Emanuel, Durbin, Obama Announce Funding for World's First Ethanol-to-Hydrogen Fueling Station; Energy and Water Appropriations Bill Contains $2 million for Project
Speeches and Statements

10/28/2005 - Emanuel Condemns Congressional Corporate Welfare for Oil; Criticizes Congress for $16.5 billion Subsidy and Cutting Heating Assistance
6/29/2005 - Energy Bill Business as Usual




Lobbying and Ethics Reform

ON THIS PAGE:
Special Interest Lobbying and Ethics Accountability Act | The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act | The Stealth Lobbyist Disclosure Act of 2005 | H.Res.131 | Related Statements

Like you, I am concerned about the integrity of our government. Recent scandals have created an ethical cloud over Congress and the Executive Branch while focusing attention on the relationships between lobbyists and lawmakers. This page contains information about my work to ensure that Congress continues to be the People’s House, not the Auction House, and my efforts to enact new measures to clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Special Interest Lobbying and Ethics Accountability Act

On May 17, 2005, Congressman Marty Meehan of Massachusetts and I introduced H.R. 2412, the Special Interest Lobbying and Ethics Accountability Act of 2005. This legislation would:

Enhance Lobbying Disclosure
Slow the Revolving Door Between Government and Lobbying
Curb Excesses in Privately Funded Travel
Toughen Enforcement and Oversight
Text of Legislation - H.R. 2412

TOP

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
On February 1, 2006, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi introduced H.R. 4682, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation, which would:

Toughen Public Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
Establish a New Office of Public Integrity
Promote Open Government
Limit Gifts and Travel
And much more
Please click here for more details on the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act

Text of Legislation - H.R. 4682

TOP

The Stealth Lobbyist Disclosure Act of 2005

On May 25, 2005, I signed on as a co-sponsor to H.R. 1302, the Stealth Lobbyist Disclosure Act, a bill to require greater disclosure of lobbying activities by certain coalitions and associations.

Text of Legislation - H.R. 1302

TOP

H.Res.131

On March 14, 2005, I signed on as a co-sponsor to H.Res.131, a resolution amending the Rules of the House of Representatives with respect to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, commonly known as the Ethics Committee. H.Res.131 would strengthen the Ethics Committee’s ability to investigate possible instances of wrongdoing.

Text of Legislation - H.R. 131

TOP

Related Statements

Press Releases

9/19/2006 - Emanuel, Meehan Urge Boehner to Bring Ethics and Lobbying Reform to Floor
9/12/2006 - Emanuel, Van Hollen Announce Real Earmark Reform
5/3/2006 - Emanuel, Meehan Issue Second Call on Hastert, Boehner for Immediate Reform of House Ethics Rules
4/28/2006 - Emanuel, Meehan Call on Hastert, Boehner for Immediate Reform of House Ethics Rules
1/5/2006 - Reps. Meehan and Emanuel and Sen. Feingold: The Time is Now for Real Lobbying and Ethics Reform
11/26/2005 - Feingold, Emanuel Call for Immediate Lobby Reform Legislation
Speeches and Statements

3/3/2006 - Emanuel, Meehan Call Senate Vote “Toothless Reform”
1/8/2006 - Statement by Congressman Emanuel on Lobbying and Ethics Reform in the House



****


I am committed to securing affordable prescription drugs for America’s seniors. Whether it’s leading the fight for the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada and other safe countries with the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act (H.R. 328), pushing for direct price negotiations between Medicare and drug companies (H.R. 752), or helping Seniors navigate the complexity of the new Medicare Part D prescription drug plan (HR 3861), I will continue to work to make sure that seniors don’t have to choose between groceries and their prescriptions.
Additional Information:

Recent Press
Charts
Recent Prescription Drug Press


7/11/2006 - Emanuel Applauds Senate Importation Victory
5/15/2006 - Emanuel, Schakowsky, Lipinski, Davis, Durbin Mark Medicare Rx Deadline for Millions of Seniors Call on Congress to Pass Medicare Prescription Drugs Savings and Choice Act
4/14/2006 - Emanuel: “Enrollment Extension Missed Opportunity”
4/11/2006 - Congress Calls on Leavitt to Pay States Back
2/27/2006 - Emanuel, Schakowsky Hold Press Conference on Lack of Savings in Medicare Drug Benefit for Taxpayers and Seniors
2/20/2006 - Emanuel Criticizes "Medicare Complexity Tax"
11/15/2005 - Emanuel Calls for New Prescription: Put Seniors Ahead of Rx Companies
11/10/2005 - Legislation Protecting Prescription Drug Imports Passes House; Blocking prescription drug importation through U.S. trade agreements will no longer be possible
7/27/2005 - Emanuel Calls Congress Gift That Keeps On Giving
7/21/2005 - Gutknecht, Emanuel applaud Senate action to allow for Rx importation
7/21/2005 - Three Questions for Secretary Leavitt
5/26/2005 - Members Call on Speaker to Take Vote on Rx Importation Bill
4/12/2005 - Emanuel, Gutknecht Call Cost Increase Urgent Reminder of Need for Rx Market Access Legislation
1/26/2005 - Senators, Representatives Unveil Rx Market Access Bill
1/12/2005 - Emanuel Questions Administration Policy on Canadian Cattle, Drug Imports
12/21/2004 - Bipartisan Drug Import Coalition Expresses Disappointment at Outcome of HHS Task Force Report
12/7/2004 - Congressmen Emanuel, Gutknecht Commend HHS Action on Importation of Flu Vaccine from Canada and Germany
12/7/2004 - Members Question Motives for Delay of Task Force Report on Drug Importation
9/30/2004 - House Members ask Pfizer CEO, Board Members to Stop Intimidation of Dr. Peter Rost
9/13/2004 - National Breast Cancer Coalition, Members of Congress Urge Senate Action on Rx Market Access
8/26/2004 - Emanuel: Importation would Reduce Costs of Treating Major Diseases, Decrease Overall Health Care Costs
8/26/2004 - Gov. Blagojevich and U.S. Rep. Emanuel call on Pfizer to halt plans to deny Illinois residents access to affordable medications
8/17/2004 - Congressman Emanuel and Governor Blagojevich Announce Plan to Make Illinois First State in the Nation to Provide Consumers with Access to Prescription Drugs from Canada, Ireland and the UK
7/23/2004 - Rx Drug Importation House Coalition Marks One-Year Anniversary of Passage of Rx Drug Market Access Bill
5/26/2004 - Emanuel, DeLauro Statement: Drug Price Inflation Negates Discount Card Savings
5/21/2004 - House Members Urge Senate Colleagues to Move Quickly on Pending Rx Drug Importation Legislation
5/6/2004 - Emanuel Statement: Applaud CVS, Walgreens for Support of Prescription Drug Importation
5/4/2004 - Emanuel Statement: Applauds HHS Secretary Thompson Calling Prescription Drug Imports 'Inevitable'
4/29/2004 - Emanuel: “The ‘discount’ in the Medicare drug discount cards won’t mean much without passing importation legislation to make all drugs more affordable in this country”
4/20/2004 - Emanuel Statement: Governor Blagojevich Looks to Europe As Possible Source of Prescription Drug Importation
4/15/2004 - Members Comment on Study Showing Importation Will Help Americans Afford Rx Drugs, May Actually Increase Drug Company Profits
4/14/2004 - Emanuel Launches Canadian Prescription Drug Cost Comparison Website
2/24/2004 - Emanuel Testimony: Governor’s Summit—Prescription Drug Importation
1/9/2004 - Lawmakers Request GAO Study Comparing Medicare Rx Drug Prices, VA Prices
12/22/2003 - Blagojevich and Emanuel ask HHS Secretary Thompson to let Illinois import approved Canadian prescription drugs
12/16/2003 - Emanuel to FDA: Medical Privacy is Law! Don't Pressure Credit Card Companies for Consumers' Rx Drug Info
10/27/2003 - Governor Blagojevich Releases Much-anticipated Report On Feasibility And Savings Of Prescription Drug Importation
8/25/2003 - Gutknecht, Emanuel renew call for affordable Rx drugs for all Americans during second of nationwide town hall meetings
8/7/2003 - Congressmen Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and Gil Gutknecht (R-MN), AARP Director Call for Affordable Rx Drugs for All Americans at North Park Village Town Hall Meeting
7/24/2003 - Emanuel, Bipartisan Coalition Unveil Rx Drug Competition, Free Market and Cost Savings Amendment to Medicare Bill
7/14/2003 - Emanuel, Chicago Seniors Respond to False Ads Runningin Chicago Media about Importation of Rx Drugs Emanuel’s Importation Bill Solves Problems of Escalating Drug Costs, Inability of Seniors to Afford Prescriptions
6/20/2003 - Emanuel Seeks to Reduce Prescription Drug Costs through Market Reforms, Co-Sponsors Bills to Foster Competition and Lower Prices
6/20/2003 - Emanuel to Unveil Rx Drug Competition, Free Market and Cost Savings Amendment to Medicare Bill Next Week



Charts

• Drug Costs Soar

• Safe Medicines … at Affordable Prices … in Every Community

• Taxpayers Fund Pharmaceutical Research, But Don't Reap Benefits

• Comparison of U.S., European and Canadian Drug Prices

• Drug Comparison Germany


****

The 401(k) Automatic Enrollment Act of 2005
Background
Americans are not saving enough for retirement. In fact, the national savings rate is at its lowest level since the 1930s, declining from 9.4 percent in 1970 to just 1 percent in 2004. In response to these weak savings rates, we need to create new, simpler incentives for middle-class Americans to save.

Fewer than 40 percent of U.S. workers have calculated how much they will need to retire, 30 percent have not saved anything for retirement, and only 20 percent feel very confident about having enough money to live comfortably in retirement.

But there is some good news: Employers instituting programs to automatically enroll new employees in the company’s 401(k) plan have seen striking results. In fact, automatic enrollment – where employees are automatically opted in to the plan unless they act to opt out -- is the single most effective tool in achieving higher 401(k) participation rates.

Automatic enrollment has been particularly successful at increasing participation among those who most need the additional savings. Under auto enrollment, participation among those earning less than $20,000 a year has jumped from 13 percent to 80 percent.

Merely changing the position of the “on-off switch” – changing the “default” from non-enrollment to enrollment in the plan -- dramatically increased the rate of participation.

Yet, as of 2003, automatic enrollment had been adopted only by an estimated 8 percent of 401(k) plans, including about 1 percent of plans with fewer than 50 employees and 24 percent with 5,000 or more employees.

Automatic enrollment has appeal to both employers and employees: it gives employees a savings push while helping employers meet tax code non-discrimination tests. Although it has been sanctioned by the IRS since 1998, uncertainty as to design parameters has caused some employers to hesitate. New IRS guidance and this legislation should address any remaining concerns.

Legislative Provisions

This legislation will promote and facilitate wider adoption of automatic enrollment by:

Clarifying and codifying IRS rulings permitting auto enrollment, including advance notice to employees and the ability to “escalate” or increase the automatic enrollment percentage over time or when employees get pay raises;
Confirming that automatic enrollment is not restricted by state laws that bar employers from deducting amounts from employees’ paychecks without an employee signature;
Giving employers a measure of protection to ease their concerns about fiduciary liability for investment losses if the plan’s automatic (default) investments consist of life cycle or other diversified balanced funds (e.g., stocks and bonds, including index funds), stable value funds, or professionally managed accounts;
Giving automatic enrollment plans a comparative advantage in meeting 401(k) nondiscrimination standards;
the bill requires the use of autoenrollment if an employer wants to avoid those standards by merely offering an employer matching “safe harbor” contribution without assurance that employees will contribute and actually get the employer match.
Allowing plans the flexibility to “unwind” autoenrollment by paying out an employee’s account balance without distribution restrictions or penalties if the employee changes his or her mind and opts out retroactively shortly after beginning autoenrollment.

Press Releases and Floor Statements

8/22/2005 - Emanuel Commends Chao on 401(k) Efforts
4/6/2005 - Emanuel Introduces Third Proposal in Savings Revolution
4/1/2005 - Emanuel Announces Plan to Make Saving for Retirement Easier
3/15/2005 - Emanuel Makes Saving for Retirement Easier with “Retirement Savings for Working Americans Act of 2005”
3/3/2005 - Emanuel Makes Saving for Retirement Easier with the “Direct Deposit Savings Act of 2005”
Speeches

****

Consolidating College Loans Before July 1 Could Save Students and Families Thousands of Dollars When Paying for College

WASHINGTON, D.C.—On July 1, 2006, the interest rates on outstanding federal student loans are expected to rise to just over 7 percent—the highest rate in six years—and the rate on outstanding federal parent loans are expected to rise to about 7.8 percent. Student borrowers who consolidate before July 1st may be eligible to lock in a rate as low as 4.75 percent over the life of their loan(s)—which would save the typical undergraduate borrower almost $3,500 over the life of his or her loan. But students and parents must act quickly to ensure that they can lock in these lower rates.
What is loan consolidation?


Students and parents who have taken out at least one loan through the federal government's Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL), Direct Loan or Perkins Loan programs may be eligible to lock in a low fixed rate over the life of their loan(s), but only if they consolidate by June 30, 2006.

Why should student and parent borrowers consider consolidating before July 1, 2006?

On July 1st the interest rates on outstanding federal student loans are expected to rise to just over 7 percent—the highest rate in six years—and the rate on outstanding federal parent loans are expected to rise to about 7.8 percent. Student borrowers who consolidate before July 1st may be eligible to lock in a rate as low as 4.75 percent over the life of their loan(s)—which would save the typical undergraduate borrower almost $3,500 over the life of his or her loan. Parent borrowers who consolidate before July 1st may be eligible to lock in a rate as low as 6.1 percent over the life of their loan(s).

Consolidation may also deliver other benefits to borrowers such as eliminating the need for dealing with multiple lenders or allowing borrowers to enroll in payment plans based on a percentage of their income. Borrowers who make a set number of on-time repayments or who make payments through automatic banking can obtain additional interest rate reductions.

How can I consolidate my loans?

If you have a Direct Loan through the Department of Education you can call 1-800-557-7392 or apply on-line at http://www.loanconsolidation.ed.gov. If you have a loan through the FFEL program (a bank-based loan) you can contact one of the companies that own or service your student or parent loan(s).

If you have loans with more than one lender you can chose to consolidate through the Department of Education or with any lender that provides federal consolidation loans.


When is the deadline to consolidate and lock in a low fixed rate?


The deadline is June 30, but you should apply before then to beat the rush of applications.


Can student borrowers consolidate their loans while they are still in-school?


Before July 1st, you may be eligible to consolidate your loans while you're still in school. Consolidating while you're still in school will let you lock in the grace-period rate of 4.75 percent (borrowers who consolidate their loans, before July 1st, and while in repayment will lock in an interest rate of 5.375 percent). Be sure to let your consolidation lender know that you are enrolled at least half-time in college so that you will not be required to begin repayment until you leave school or fall below half-time enrollment.


Can borrowers reconsolidate their loans?


If you have already consolidated your loans, you cannot consolidate again.


Can borrowers consolidate Perkins loans?


Students who’ve borrowed Perkins loans, which carry a fixed interest rate of 5 percent and offer loan forgiveness to graduates working in certain fields such as teaching or social work, should carefully consider whether or not consolidation is right for them. If Perkins loan borrowers consolidate their loans, they lose their loan forgiveness benefits.
For more information borrowers should contact the Department of Education at 1-800-557-7392 or http://www.loanconsolidation.ed.gov .


How are Democrats working to make college more affordable?


Earlier this year, the Republican-led Congress cut $12 billion out of the federal student aid programs in order to help finance tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. As a result of this Republican Raid on Student Aid, college is even further out of reach for millions of American students and their families.


In contrast, Democrats continue to work to make college more affordable. House Democrats introduced legislation, the Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act (H.R. 5150), that would cut interest rates in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, for students with subsidized loans - which go to students with the most financial need - and from 8.5 percent to 4.25 percent for parent borrowers, starting in July 2006.*


Under H.R. 5150, the typical undergraduate student borrower with $17,500 in student loan debt would save $5,600 over the life of his or her federal college loans.


* Beginning on July 1, 2006 all NEW student and parent loans will be set at fixed rates of 6.8 percent for undergraduate students and 8.5 percent for parent borrowers.


###

Tax Reform

ON THIS PAGE:
Fair, Flat Tax Act | Related Statements

When I talk to people on the "El" or at local grocery stores during my Congress On Your Corner office hours, they often share their frustration with the tax system. They believe the tax system is too complex and unfair, and they're right. The tax code has become so complicated and inefficient that it has created a culture of cheating and rampant tax avoidance. In 2001, $345 billion in taxes went unpaid. As a result, middle class taxpayers are left to pick up the slack for those who don't pay their fair share.

We need a comprehensive fix to the problems facing our tax code. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and I have proposed the Fair, Flat Tax Act in order to make sure that the tax code works for everyone. This page contains information on some of the initiatives I've been working on to help simplify the tax code.

Additionally, for information on the free tax return and FAFSA clinics my office has been hosting, please click here or on the thermometer at right.

Fair, Flat Tax Act

Along with Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, I have proposed the Fair, Flat Tax Act to simplify the tax code and provide meaningful tax relief to middle class families. Specifically, my proposal:

Condenses the 1040 form to one simple page.
Replaces six tax brackets with three rates of 15%, 25% and 35%.
Closes the gap between the high tax rate for wages and salaries and the low tax rate for capital gains and dividends.
" Provides higher standard deductions for every taxpayer, including tripling the standard deduction for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and raising it from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples
Eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax for everyone.
TOP

The Fair, Flat Tax Act would eliminate tens of billions of dollars each year in special breaks for corporations, and direct the Treasury Secretary to identify and report to Congress an additional $10 billion in savings from tax expenditures that subsidize inefficiencies in the health care system. Eliminating these breaks will allow the code to sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans and the elderly and disabled - as well as tax incentives that promote savings and help families pay for health care.

Additionally, the Fair, Flat Tax Act is fiscally responsible. According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), this legislation will achieve an estimated $100 billion in deficit reduction over five years compared to current law.

As I mentioned above, I believe that the tax code should work for the families that work hard for their income. To that end, the Fair, Flat Tax Act will:

Replace the five existing education tax incentives with one simple credit of $3,000 for students for four years of college and two years of graduate school.
Collapse the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Credit, and the Dependent Care Credit into one easy-to-use credit for working families with children-while providing more benefits to more families than all of them combined. This credit alone would reduce 200 pages of code to one 12 question form.
Allow all homeowners to take advantage of the home mortgage deduction, not just those who itemize their returns. It encourages homeownership and eliminates the benefits for the wealthy when they itemize their returns.
Create a Universal Pension to replace the "alphabet soup" of 16 existing IRA-type accounts with a single portable retirement account for all workers.
I hear from Chicagoans about how frustrating filing taxes can be. I believe that the implementation of these ideas will help reduce some of the confusion and make the process a little easier.

TOP

Related Statements

Press Releases

10/2/2006 - Emanuel: “Republicans Raise Taxes on Middle-Class”
5/18/2006 - Emanuel, Clyburn: “Mr. Speaker, Middle Class Families Should Not Be Dismissed”
3/29/2006 - ***Event Advisory – Saturday –April 1st, 10:30a.m.*** Emanuel to Highlight $200,972.00 in Refunds Returned to 186 Constituents at Free Tax Assistance Sessions
1/28/2006 - Emanuel Kicks Off Tax Season; Offers Tax and FAFSA Assistance for 5th District
12/15/2005 - Wyden, Emanuel Join Forces for Middle Class Tax Relief and "Simpler, Flatter, Fairer" Tax Plan
10/18/2005 - Hoyer, Emanuel Concerned that Tax Reform Panel May Embrace Bait and Switch Proposals
Speeches and Statements

5/10/2006 - Emanuel Calls on Congress to Make Working Americans Priority One
7/28/2005 - Emanuel Calls for Middle Class Tax Fairness
6/8/2005 - Emanuel Calls for Tax Reform that Reflects Middle Class Values
12/22/2003 - Emanuel Statement: GAO Report Confirms Proliferation of Abusive Tax Shelter Schemes
10/23/2003 - Statement: To Senate Committee on Finance, "Restore Fairness and Accountability to the Tax System"
10/21/2003 - Statement: Emanuel Introduces House Companion on Tax Shelter Bill


****

Chicago World War II Veterans Oral History Anthology
Project Description
World War II veterans are living repositories of an important segment of American history, and this project will document their memories, stories and experiences. The Chicago World War II Veterans Oral History Anthology will equip members of our youngest generation with audio recorders, notepads and cameras to record the wartime stories of the “greatest generation” and their families. Based on those recordings, a video will be developed that encapsulates these stories. Once the video has been produced, Congressman Emanuel will convene a series of events at area schools where the video is shown and veterans provide comments and answer students’ questions. Congressman Emanuel will also submit a copy of the video and other documentation to the Library of Congress American Folklife Center, where the anthology will become a permanent part of the Library’s Veterans History project. Area schools will also receive a copy of the video.

Project Partners
Congressman Emanuel’s office will forge a partnership to develop and implement the project.
These partners will include:

Local schools and universities, including: Chicago Public Schools, DePaul University, Northeastern Illinois University, Wright College;
Veterans’ organizations, including: Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart of the USA, Jewish War Veterans of the USA
Project Milestones and Timeline
This spring, Chicago high schools, colleges and universities will begin recruiting student interviewers, and veterans’ organizations will begin identifying veterans who want to participate. Students will begin interviewing Chicago’s veterans by Memorial Day, continuing throughout the summer. Video screenings will begin in Chicago area schools, culminating in a Veterans Day celebration. The videos and other artifacts from the Chicago World War II Veterans Oral History Anthology will be submitted to the Library of Congress American Folklife Center, becoming a permanent piece of the Library’s Veterans’ Oral History project.

Press Releases and Floor Statements

11/11/2003 - Honoring Our Veterans
6/16/2006 - Emanuel Applauds House Admin on Honoring Fallen
5/22/2006 - Emanuel to Commemorate Memorial Day Weekend with WWII Vets; Will Announce the Safe Return Act of 2006
11/10/2005 - Emanuel, Lautenberg Honor Fallen Troops; Resolution to Recognize Fallen from Iraq and Afghanistan
11/2/2005 - Emanuel Announces Wounded Heroes Gift Fairness Act
10/14/2005 - American Legion Endorses Welcome Home GI Bill; Medals Awarded to World War II Vets
6/27/2005 - Congress Continues to Honor America's Fallen
6/23/2005 - Congress Honors America's Fallen
5/30/2005 - Emanuel Awards Bronze Medal to Battle of the Bulge Veteran
5/21/2005 - Business School at University of Illinois Creates $250,000 Scholarship for Vets
4/28/2005 - Emanuel Picks Up Nineteen Cosponsors for GI Bill
4/25/2005 - Emanuel Receives Durbin Endorsement of Welcome Home GI Bill
4/17/2005 - Emanuel Receives VFW Praise for Welcome Home GI Bill
11/10/2004 - Emanuel Brings Chicago World War II Veterans’ Stories to Chicago Students; Presents Medals to Widow of WWII Veteran
5/25/2004 - Emanuel, Students Begin Interviewing WWII Veterans
3/28/2004 - Emanuel Announces Chicago WWII Veterans Oral History Anthology, Joined by World War II Vets, Chicago Public Schools, University Reps
11/25/2003 - Emanuel Votes for Expansion of Chicago VA Center
Speeches
6/21/2006 - Congress Continues to Honor America’s Fallen
6/15/2006 - Emanuel Praises 9-11 Widows' Courage
3/3/2005 - Emanuel Delivers Remarks on Welcome Home G.I. Bill
10/8/2003 - Statement: Paying Back our Veterans
9/24/2003 - Statement: Emanuel in Support of Improving Compensation for the Men and Women of the United States Armed Forces


http://www.house.gov/emanuel/index.shtml

[jgraz]

34. Yeah, and he was also Clinton's point man on NAFTA

Big factor in why we lost the Congress in '94.

[bigtree]

36. So, Democrats wouldn't vote for Democrats because Clinton supported NAFTA?

strange logic.

[jgraz]

38. Happens to be true

Clinton lost the organized labor vote over free trade. That was HUGE in the '94 elections.

[bigtree]

43. cut their own throat didn't they?

Hard to blame Emanuel for that. Weak.

[in_cog_ni_to]

47. *sigh* You know,

I've never been a moderate in my politics (I'm waaaay left of most), but damn it all, WE WON this elction and we won it BIG, (maybe) 30 House seats and 6 Senate seats and I'm not about to start eating our own just because Rahm may have said something I don't like. I'm willing to wait and see how this all plays out. Piling on Dean or piling on Rahm right now, is counter productive. WE WON...THAT'S what matters right now. We should all be basking in the glory of what that means. We should all be thinking about what Madame Speaker Pelosi is going to do for our country and THE PEOPLE. Enough of this party infighting.

I do think someone needs to send Carville on a long, long vacation. He's not helping our party by saying what he's been saying.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

52. It seems like Carville...

...has been getting in the way of progress.

[jgraz]

53. Couldn't disagree more

"Basking in the glory"? Not me. Now that we have control of Congress, the real fight can begin -- the fight for the soul of the party. The Dems have never moved forward on progressive issues without a stong push from the grass roots. If Rahm succeeds in spinning his narrative, most of the entrenched Dems will be too wussy to do anything bold.

But, yeah, I'm with you on Carville. He can go fuck himself.

[mod mom]

49. NAFTA was the DLC gift to coporations while snubbing their union &

middle class base.

Sorry but I am NOT a DLC Dem. Remember that DLC were more supportive of the war and some have ties to PNAC:

Al From is founder and chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a dynamic idea action center of the "Third Way" governing philosophy that is reshaping progressive politics in the United States and around the globe. He is also chairman of the Third Way Foundation and publisher of the DLC's flagship bi-monthly magazine, Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century.

As a founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), From leads a national movement that since the mid-1980s has provided both the action agenda and the ideas for New Democrats to successfully challenge the conventional political wisdom in America and, in the process, redefine the center of the Democratic Party.



Will Marshall, the head of PPI signed PNAC letters.
(Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," the Progressive Policy Institute was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives...)
Starting right after 9/11.
***************************
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-10.htm

More about Will Marshall
Note the PNAC link to the left.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. People here are just angry...

...because he doesn't have much respect for the contributions of the "netroots" to our victory. Knowing him, he'd probably chastise all of us for fucking around on the internets instead of canvassing, donating, etc.

And he kinda has a point. Whether or not you agree with him is another matter.

[jgraz]

58. Wha??

Ask Carol Shea-Porter, Zack Space, Jerry McNerny, John Yarmouth or Larry Kissell where they'd be right now if it wasn't for the netroots. I don't know if we lose the House without the netroots, but it woulda been a helluva lot closer. If Rahm doesn't get that then he's even more of an idiot than I thought.

But he's not an idiot. He's a craven political operator who's trying to protect himself from sliding into irrelevance. As far as I'm concerned, he can't slide fast enough.

[in_cog_ni_to]

59. Rahm will learn, eventually, just how POWERFUL the Internets are.

I think he already knows though. I received an email-a-day from the DCCC wanting money. He knows how powerful we are. Now, we just have to get him to see it and respect it.

I know many in the progressive community chose to donate DIRECTLY to candidates. I did. Maybe he didn't see as much money rolling into the DCCC because of that and he resents it?:shrug: I finally broke down and donated to the DCCC the last 2-3 weeks of the campaign when they offered a 3-to-1 match on whatever I donated. Perhaps Rahm should EMBRACE the Progressives in the party and THEN he would see more of our funds flowing to his DCCC Committee?

The InternetS is the future of politics. He should get with the program.

[bigtree]

60. see there you go. you took this person's personal opinion

and turned it into a crusade.

Rahm has NEVER expressed those views about the internet! Stop making things up.

[in_cog_ni_to]

79. bigtree,

I just assume that people are saying things they think to be true from reading about Rahm...as I am assuming WHAT YOU ARE SAYING about RAHM is true! I'm NOT making things up and may I just make a suggestion to you? STOP being so damned defensive. You are not helping the moderate cause by being so. I'm trying like hell to be diplomatic in this thread. You aren't.

Where does yibbehobba say it's a personal opinion? perhaps he/she read an article about that somewhere? Are YOU the only person on DU who knows who the REAL Emmanuel is? Do you live with him? Do you know him personally? Others here read too. How do you know he's never expressed those views about the internets??? Have you read every article written about the man or seen every interview he's ever done?

PLEASE, you need to settle down. I'm on YOUR side here...OK?

[bigtree]

85. it was a light dig.

I don't think the representative put the internet down. I don't want to be defending against that in some future post about Emanuel. You saw how fast that statement was jumped on as truth. The poster imagined how Rahm might feel, wasn't quoting ANY source. Most of this crap about Emanuel is rumor and innuendo. It needs to end. I suspect it serves the personal or political interests of some to keep repeating the fictions. I suspect that was the aim of the WaPo article and the Huffington Post articles. Stir up shit against a Democrat to elevate their own agenda. I think the entire assault on Emanuel has been despicable, based on opinion pieces and biased posts.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

66. Well...

He knows how powerful we are. Now, we just have to get him to see it and respect it.

He knows it's a good source of funds, that's for sure.

Maybe he didn't see as much money rolling into the DCCC because of that and he resents it?

He brought in more money than anybody who has ever held that post before. You can fault Rahm for a lot of things, but the guy is one hell of a fundraiser.

Perhaps Rahm should EMBRACE the Progressives in the party and THEN he would see more of our funds flowing to his DCCC Committee?


DCCC supported lots of progressive candidates this year. They did endorse moderate or even conservative candidates in places where they thought such a political disposition was necessary to win.


The InternetS is the future of politics. He should get with the program.

Statements like this one really bother me. The netroots can do, and does do a lot of good. But like any structure, it has its limitations. Going forward, the internet will definitely be a very important part of politics. But it is not "the future" of politics any more than Rahm Emanuel is.

[dysfunctional press]

41. george bush was more instrumental in electing Dems than rahm was-

6 out of 55 is NOT a very good percentage.

[bigtree]

46. yet, you ignore the fact that Rahm managed ALL of the campaigns

He carried the water for ALL of the candidates, from dealing with press, to managing republican propaganda. That line about the candidates he handpicked is irrelevant to the issue of what his contribution was in the campaign and in the ultimate victory. As the article points out, Rahm was merciless with republicans and a warrior against the press. I think the effort to deny him any credit is despicable in the face of the ultimate victory.

[noiretextatique]

55. you have an example above

that disproves your point about his support for all democratic candidates.
fair is one thing, but cheerleading is another. as others have mentioned, if it hadn't been for some others with a boarder vision, even folks like you would be pissed at emmanuel now.

[bigtree]

57. All of the candidates that were put up were supported by Rep. Emanuel

I don't understand your point. He was involved in some primary choices, but in the general, he was the manager for all campaigns. That's the fact.

[jgraz]

62. Sorry bigtree, but that's demonstrably untrue

Kissell, McNerney, Shea-Porter, Hall and Yarmouth all received zero dollars from Rahm's DCCC. Both Kissell and McNerney have said that Rahm wouldn't even return their phone calls until the last week of the campaign.

[bigtree]

63. Okay,I'll accept I was wrong on that, but these decisons are made ALL of the time

in campaigns. EVERYONE wants money and attention. I don't think it's fair to judge from one side of the complaints. We have very little idea of what the competing factors were, but some are willing to trash Emanuel to the exclusion of a dozen of reasonable explanations why they didn't get funds.

Remember, these critical articles are from his detractors. There is almost certainly a defense for why he made decisions in a campaign that may show they were not as malicious as candidates and their supporters want to make them out to be.

edit: and, I stick by my assertion that he managed many more races than the ones that he 'handpicked'

[jgraz]

74. Agreed. Rahm just made the wrong decisions in the majority of his races.

Yet he still attempts to take credit for the whole Democratic victory and use it to steer policy in Congress. I really hope he doesn't succeed in pulling these freshman Dems over to the dark side.

and, I stick by my assertion that he managed many more races than the ones that he 'handpicked'

This may be true. I welcome any evidence you have to support this.

[bigtree]

75. Again, NO ONE has a reputable quote from Rahm 'taking credit for the whole Democratic victory'

this is a lie spread by his detractors.

[jgraz]

76. It's more the absence of quotes giving anyone else credit

And things like appearing in article titled "The House that Rahm Built".

[bigtree]

77. he didn't commission the article

running out of straws

[in_cog_ni_to]

81. Oh COME ON! The man is from CHICAGO. The CHICAGO TRIBUNE

wrote the article for the citizens of a DEMOCRATIC CITY! Rahm is a CHICAGO BOY. What would you prefer...an article ragging on Rahm??? Sheesh. This shit is beyond ridiculous. Why can't people just accept our victory and move on? It's a nice article written by Rahm's Hometown paper. WTF is wrong with that?

[jgraz]

89. Will you seriously only settle for a direct quote?

Isn't it enough that reputable reporters like Joe Conason, John Walsh and FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) have written about Rahm's efforts to spin this election as a DCCC win?

[Lurking Dem]

90. John Walsh is reputable?

[bigtree]

91. for their own political purpose. How objective have those efforts been?

Be honest. There aren't any direct quotes from Rahm which would portray him in the light others have painted him in as self centered and on a crusade against liberals.

[senseandsensibility]

50. No wonder Rahm looked exhausted when I

saw him on MSNBC on election night. He looked like he could pack for a trip around the world in the bags under his eyes.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

56. I first heard him speak on AAR last year

Al Franken has Emanuel on occasionally. Even though I'm a Chicagoan I wasn't very familiar with him (my rep is Jan Schakowsky).

When I first heard Emanuel's clipped voice talking a mile a minute, my pulse quickened. He was smart, tough, and unequivocal about going for the Republican jugular. This was over a year ago, and it was very refreshing to hear.

I was thrilled. No mealy-mouthed pedantics here. Sharp, clear and to the point. And as noted here, he's a warrior. Totally focused on the goal. And the goal is winning.

Others can try to demonize him as a centrist, whateverthefuck that is, and castigate him for feuding with Dean. In my own line of work, I have never been part of a successful effort that didn't include at least one roomful of people shouting at each other, so I don't see it as a problem. I see it as passion. And I think http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17444467&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222077&rfi=6http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17444467&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222077&rfi=6">this article does a great job of describing how that passion paid off for all involved. It winds up this way:

"The 2006 election was Democratic victory, but not necessarily a left-wing victory. The Democrats did not scream their way to victory, nor were they driven by any type of Rove/Gingrich cult of personality. Instead, they merely followed the underrated leadership of Dean, Schumer, Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi - all of which was, to put it mildly, unproven."

[bigtree]

61. I thought that's what we were all hollering for here.

go figure.

[MrPrax]

64. Odd article...

Even though Emanuel is a high profile democrat and 'liberal', there is nothing in this lengthy piece that indicates an attachment to democratic or liberal issues.

In fact the values extolled here are all personal traits; intuitive, hard-working, good with money/fundraising, good family man, combative and confrontational, etc.

Some observations are just outright strange and ambiguous:

Ezekiel Emanuel attributes the congressman's drive to their father. "He was notorious for seeing twice as many patients as the next guy on this list," Ezekiel said. "He would be personable, but just `Get to the meat of things and get it done.'

"That obviously is a trait that people can see in Rahm, and it's quite clear where it came from, in my opinion."

A doctor seeing TWICE as many patients as the next guy, might to some, be a noble character trait, but to others might be seen as a negative or even unethical.

****

Then there are just some plainly bizarre observations:

Emanuel walked into the offices of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye, a top Boston law firm, early one morning last August. The mission: extract as much money as possible from the 20 lawyers chewing bagels around a 30-foot conference table.

(this anecdote ends with Emanuel receiving 20k from the lawyers and...)

"I'm cutthroat about this," he said. "I don't give a crap where I pick up seats. I plan on winning. There is no emotional attachment."

****

Or this...

In an August call to candidate Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, Emanuel promised that Bill Clinton would help him raise money. "Joe Sestak, this is your rabbi, Rahm," he intoned playfully. "Clinton. I'm close to having him do an event for you in Philly. . . . Clinton will put his arm around you and say, `He's my man.'"

But the wedding highlighted Emanuel's attachment to Judaism. "It's not as much about going to synagogue," Greenberg said. "But having ritual and tradition and teaching Jewish values are really, really important to him."

Ok Ok Ok...we get it...the guy's Jewish. One would think there might be a subtle smear running through the piece because you are left with only two conclusions; neither of which is particularly palatable or important.

****

Parts of the piece want to lionize the fellow through overstating his previous roles in democratic politics:

Emanuel brought that chutzpah to Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton's improbable presidential run. "He was then a little more brash and less polished than now, but he clearly had loads of ability and drive," the former president recalled in an e-mailed response to questions. "My first impression was, `This guy is going to help us win.' And he did. I doubt we could have done it without him, especially in those critical early months."

Really?...funny the movie The War Room, a documentary about the early period of the Clinton primary run, only mentions him in passing. I mean Carville, Stephanopolous and even his friend Stan Greenberg have a much high historical profile in both the primary and the 'run'?

Moreover, Walsh makes the following claim regarding this:

Second, during the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in Israel, "rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel." (Wikipedia, New Republic). This is peculiar on two counts. Here the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, but Emanuel, a U.S. citizen, volunteers not for his country, but for Israel. Moreover, here is a well-connected Illinois political figure with a father who had been in the Irgun, but he is assigned to "rust-proof brakes" on "an army base." Maybe.

Third, immediately upon his return from his desert sojourn, Emanuel at once became a major figure in the Clinton campaign "who wowed the team from the start, opening a spigot on needed campaign funds."(3) How did he do that after being isolated overseas, and with no experience in national politics? Fourth, after leaving the Clinton White House, he decided that he needed some accumulated wealth and "security" if he were to stay in politics. So he went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and Wall Street financier.

CP

So, while putting aside the fact that we know Walsh is irredeemably 'anti-semitic' and out to destroy Israel, we, never the less, are stuck with two sets of writers working the same 'stereotype' for different spins; strong Jewish values with a knack for making money is not disputed. The only thing being disputed is that in one case these are 'strengths', while in the other case, they are 'concerns'.

****

Another thing...

Was Emanuel a brilliant student of US politics and foresaw a chance for the democrats to play their cards right and make huge mid-term gains?

On a warm night last May, Emanuel summoned them to a colorless conference room at Democratic headquarters. He had walked a fine line for a year and a half, hoping to excite Democrats without unduly raising expectations. But now he felt the time had come to convince them that they could actually win.

As several dozen House members settled into hard chairs, Emanuel cited polls suggesting that voters were ready for change. He also showed a video that included a quote from Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio confessing, "These numbers are scary." Images of Tom DeLay and other Republicans felled by scandal flashed on the screen to the pumping rhythm of the Queen song "Another One Bites the Dust."

So in other words, LAST MAY, when virtually everyone noticed the same thing, Emanuel stepped into action. However, Emanuel then concluded that democrats needed to recruit former NFL evangelical Christians from North Carolina? Why? If the polls showed that 'democrats' were poised to win, why then 'ensure' that win by recruiting candidates to would appeal to republican voters? Unless you don't really care about 'democratic' issues, I suppose.

In this piece, the Duckworth-Cegelis saga is simply dismissed as losing a Republican stronghold? No dice...lots of other GOP strongholds fell, but few others like say Connecticut, had angry disenfranchised democrats pissed off that the 'national party' lack of loyalty to the LOCAL candidates. This might be a case where there was a good democratic win, but Rahm's actions might have delivered it to the republicans.

One central theme that is missing in this piece is that it is never mentioned that 'withdrawal' is actually a strong issue with not only the general electorate, but with democrats. It's not really mentioned that Emanuel doesn't agree with an increasing majority on this issue and his position is actually much closer to Bush-Cheney -- yet he is in charge of fielding democratic candidates and decides to 'recruit' against a clear trend?

Essentially here is a political operative that ignores the numbers regarding the concern over Iraq in both parties, the central issue of these elections, and figures the dems can score big with candidates that support the basics of the 'we don't cut and run' of the BFEE? You sort of then wonder what exactly was it that excited Emanuel last May then...?

What 'other' issues did Emanuel see that were crucial to a democratic victory?

We have all read the various 'punditry' on the subject and damned if I can figure out what the other 'defining' factors were? usual midterm housecleaning? incompetence? scandals? intense dislike and distrust of Bush? democratic fund raising success? newfound interest in democrats? who knows...but Emanuel early on figured it probably wasn't Iraq and amassed a list of candidates that that were not only opposed to 'withdrawal' and in some cases, even the milder 'timetable' agenda, but in the case of Shule, opposed to pretty much everything else democrats generally want?


Now while I enjoy John Walsh's pre-election pieces on Rahm, I do think they might be a little bias. I was hoping that this rather lengthy article would be somewhat more involved in the subject, but other than using another set of 'never explained' positive Jewish stereotypes, it really simply underscores some of the points that Walsh has already made.

Still looking for clarification I am afraid...and this guy's well-argued tinfoil theory goes in a completely opposite direction:

Tin-foil hat time: Were Bush and Rove "The Producers" of an intentional flop?
link

[bigtree]

70. the clarification should be that we won the election

I think that all of the opinion pieces on Rahm have been overly simplistic, including this one. The difference is that this one had an account of things he actually did in the election. Looks like he worked hard against the republicans. Hard to complain about that.

This notion that there was a built in 'win' to the election is amazing in the wake of the built-in win that we supposedly had in 2004. Like it or not, Rahm was intimately involved in a WINNING Democratic campaign. By all accounts he was aggressive and relentless.

The suggestion that maybe, just maybe we could have won in those conservative districts with more progressive or liberal candidates is laughable. Why do these equations assume that potential liberal or progressive voters are sitting on their hands with so much at stake? And further, why do they assume that these more progressive candidates would have made a difference in the number of conservative republicans who showed up to vote? That's not the history.

[MrPrax]

78. Again -- not much to go on...

OK --

1) "Rahm was intimately involved in a WINNING Democratic campaign"

Ok fair enough...but he was also intimately involved in the last three losing campaigns.

The big difference this time around was Howard Dean. While not evidence, certainly an interesting factor as it explains a key difference between this election and the others. Dean involvement as head of party was really only after the campaign was established, so I don't know if Dean can be fully accused for the Kerry loss.

Interesting that given that long knives are being talked about (by Mary Matalin's husband for instance; a man whose success has been vastly overstated) that you don't mention Dean's considerable efforts to organize, fund-raise and give a strong national focus to the democratic party. No small potatoes, there. While he was decisive with some, I don't think he was nearly as devisive' as Emanuel. Again there is that big difference. Also I DO put more into the self-congratulatory tone of folks like 'Kos' who might have a point that the 'net activists' really did come through positively this time and have been well-organized from a much eariler time than 'last may'.

2) The suggestion that maybe, just maybe we could have won in those conservative districts with more progressive or liberal candidates is laughable.

Well a matter of degrees -- clearly progressive and liberal candidates did win in some jurisdictions...you seem to want to nuance this by employing the term 'more'? But in the case of Shuler, it really is a non-qualifier, as there is some dispute over whether or NOT he is even a progressive or liberal candidate -- let alone, MORE.

3) And further, why do they assume that these more progressive candidates would have made a difference in the number of conservative republicans who showed up to vote? That's not the history.

Dunno...possibly by the same rationale that would suggest running MORE conservative candidates wouldn't cause progressive and liberal voters not to show up?

Consensus-building strategies are fine, but they do ONLY seem to include interests already represented -- withdrawing from Iraq (a popular position with a great many people and hardly something one could consider 'more' liberal or progressive or anything) was never really offered up. In fact the glaring part of all this, is that even though there is a huge bubble in the electorate across party lines, the elites, nonetheless, managed to collude to make sure that neither every discussed this option.

This is no a more or less progressive anything when everyone from Perle to Buchanan are saying something that prominent democrats, including Emanuel, don't want to discuss in any more detail.

Are you positive that the gains made might not have been bigger if Iraq and the potential issue of 'withdrawal' wasn't placed front and center in the democratic arsenal? Can we be so sure that Pelosi among others declaring that Bush won't be impeached, didn't cost some angry republican swing votes?

I actually think the republicans lost due to unpopularity, not that democrats won due to increased popularity. Even under the terrible campaigns ran previously, the democrats still managed to be within a 'breathe' of winning. Makes me think that the usual tinfoil media smear, that the Bush and republicans are not nearly as popular as the media would have us believe.

[bigtree]

83. I don't go for the theory that republicans beat themselves

there was just as much nonsense for voters to play out the last time around. Why go out of the way to discount the effect of the work actually done on our party's behalf by Emanuel?

Dean is not on my tounge because I'm not parsing who was responsible for the victory. Many folks contributed. There are plenty of articles describing the role Dean played. Rightly so. He's the head of the party.

But, Emanuel apparently deserves NONE of the credit according to some. The line is that he actually HURT the campaigns. I haven't heard ANYTHING like that from the leadership. Just the opposite. So . . . just crediting 'net activists' doesn't ring anymore true than giving sole credit to Emanuel. We all pulled together in the campaign, ultimately complementing each other to the eventual victory. Take one of these elements away and we won't have the full compliment we need to win.

[MrPrax]

88. Fair points...good rebut

I don't think we are that far apart. Your points are well-founded.

[Jcrowley]

94. This is interesting

You've probably already seen this article below but there it is.

As to the personality it seems to me based on your other post that is currently in GD you and I agree on focusing on issues rather than icons. Personally I am more in the camp of Kucinich, Hinchey, Waters, Feingold et al who are rock steady and consistent on their stances which ally themselves with progressive issues. There is quite a gap between the likes of those I point to and the likes of those in the DCCC and the DLC. I'm opposed to NAFTA, CAFTA and all the other gifts to the World Bank. I'm opposed to gargantuan Military budgets. And so on...

If nothing else Emanuel is a greedily ambitious person and I'm all for the fighting spirit and no-nonsense political battles. I just think we need to know not only where the election has gone but also in what direction the party will go now that it has the keys, so to speak. That will be determined by the likes of our political personalities as well as the little influence we have to push them.

Certainly we must ask ourselves why was Rahm pushing for candidates who were either pro-war or took a fence-straddling position on this vital issue? And why did he undercut some excellent anti-war candidates?


Article:
Second, during the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in Israel, "rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel." (Wikipedia, New Republic). This is peculiar on two counts. Here the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, but Emanuel, a U.S. citizen, volunteers not for his country, but for Israel. Moreover, here is a well-connected Illinois political figure with a father who had been in the Irgun, but he is assigned to "rust-proof brakes" on "an army base." Maybe.

Third, immediately upon his return from his desert sojourn, Emanuel at once became a major figure in the Clinton campaign "who wowed the team from the start, opening a spigot on needed campaign funds."(3) How did he do that after being isolated overseas, and with no experience in national politics? Fourth, after leaving the Clinton White House, he decided that he needed some accumulated wealth and "security" if he were to stay in politics. So he went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and Wall Street financier.

According to Easton, "Over a 2 1/2-year period he helped broker deals-often using political connections-for Wasserstein Perella. According to congressional financial disclosures, he earned more than $18 million during that period. His deals included Unicom's merger with Peco Energy and venture fund GTCR Golder Rauner's purchase of SBC subsidiary SecurityLink. But friends say his compensation also benefited from two sales of the Wasserstein firm itself, first to Dresdner Bank and then to Allianz AG." Again for a newcomer to haul in $18 million in two years is almost miraculous. How did he do it? Next Emanuel won a seat in Congress in 2002, and by 2006 he was chair of the DCCC. Another near miraculous rise.

<snip>

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10242006.html

(2) Emanuel and Reed also refer approvingly to Peter Beinart, the neocon warrior theoretician for the Democrats, warehoused at Marty Peretz's The New Republic, thus: "In his recent book, The Good Fight, Peter Beinart, explains why a tough new national security policy is as essential to the future of of progressive politics as a united front against totalitarianism and communism was to the New Deal and the Great Society." (This chapter of The Plan is titled: "Who Sunk My Battleship." Needless to say, the battleship in question is not the USS Liberty.) Emanuel and Reed also like Anne-Marie Slaughter's proposal for "a new division of labor in which the United Nations takes on economic and social assistance and an expanded (!) NATO takes over the burden of collective security." In other words the UN can do the charity work while the US-dominated NATO is policeman to the world. Quite a vision. And their call for more troops is shared by the Republican neocons, with William Kristol's Weekly Standard calling for 250,000 more for the army this past week.

[bigtree]

95. I've got news for you. Many of our party member's lives can be parsed out to make them look grasping

It takes some amount of ego to run for office. Presidential candidates must have an unflinching ambition.

I want you to focus on the leadership contests, the ones under Reid and Pelosi. That's where the folks who help prioritize and further legislation will take leadership positions for the term. They will have as much influence outside of the two top leaders as anyone. That's where Rahm is angling for James Clyburns old position as James moves up the ladder.

After that, the committee heads have the most influence; Ways and Means, Justice, Intelligence, etc.

This other stuff is purely divisive. That's the intended result. That's the effect.

[cali]

73. A bizarre little ramble

focusing on Rahm being jewish, and using a source you aknowledge to be antip-semitic. Charming and predictable.

[MrPrax]

84. HUH???

You didn't even read the article or you yourself, would have found all these references odd and IF you were honest, you would have YOURSELF made this point of the article -- but you are attacking me, a jewish guy, for pointing out the writer's obsession with Emanuel's ethnicity?

Can you be anymore obvious?

I didn't write it...and I do TOO also find it a little odd that his ethnicity seems to colour his every single action or so the writer would have us believe. (Were all the lawyers eating bagels at a 30 foot conference table?...nobody had a donut?)

You smear people everyone from Ernest Zundel to Rachel Corrie with being anti-semitic and it really only shows that you don't really know any more what 'anti-semitism' is...get a life.

[cali]

87. You're making stuff up out of whole cloth.

In other words, you clearly have no qualms about steering far from the truth. First of all, I haven't a fucking clue who Ernest Zundel is, and I've never said anything about him, either positive or negative, second of all, I don't believe I've ever said anything about Rachel Corrie, and it would be truly bizarre if I slurred her, as I have nothing but admiration for her.

And here's a quote from your first post.

So, while putting aside the fact that we know Walsh is irredeemably 'anti-semitic' and out to destroy Israel, we, never the less, are stuck with two sets of writers working the same 'stereotype' for different spins; strong Jewish values with a knack for making money is not disputed. The only thing being disputed is that in one case these are 'strengths', while in the other case, they are 'concerns'.

Odd to put anti-semitic in quotes. Not to mention you state that you enjoyed Walsh's piece, and you had to include the bit about Emanuel being in Israel as a volunteer in a thread about his strategy to elect dem to the House.

As for your slur of me, put or STFU. Find a post where I supposedly slur Rachel Corrie or Ernest whoever.

[Pastiche423]

99. Rahm who?

[bigtree]

100. Rep. Rahm Emanuel

Democrat.