"Rahm just may be our skinny,nine-fingered, Jewish,Chicago version of LBJ"

[Pirate Smile]

Love him or hate him - he is a bad-ass and a fighter.

At this point in the campaign, I'm glad he is fighting for our side.

Fighting for The Spoils
Lawmaker and Rainmaker Rahm Emanuel Wants a Nov. 7 Victory For the Democrats So Bad He Can Almost Taste It. If Only He Had Time to Eat.

By Steve Hendrix
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 22, 2006; Page D01

CHICAGO


The multitasking politician: Emanuel talks to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee press secretary Sarah Feinberg while taking a phone call. (By Michael Marko For The Washington Post)

-snip-
Charging toward the biggest election day of his career, Emanuel, the 47-year-old chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, doesn't have much time for niceties.
Or, sometimes, even food. He's lost 14 pounds as the whirl of wheedling donors and lashing candidates to meet their fundraising targets has reached hurricane status in recent weeks. (It had been at least a year since he'd indulged his taste for Manny's corned beef.) He's always been slight, but his collar now gaps a bit at the neck; his cheeks, always lean, are now almost skeletal under the graying runner's buzz cut and the basset-hound eyes. He rubs his jaw (and you notice that he's missing a finger; he lost one to a boyhood infection). He admits he's not sleeping well.

"He's driving himself to exhaustion," says Paul Begala, a friend and political compatriot since they both served on Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign and afterward in the White House. "He's like Lyndon Johnson, who finished almost every campaign in a hospital bed. As someone from Texas, I don't make that comparison lightly, but Rahm just may be our skinny, nine-fingered, Jewish, Chicago version of LBJ."

Whether that's a fair comparison may be clear soon. If, as historians say, Johnson began his conquest of Capitol Hill with the political chits he collected as a young and triumphant chairman of the Senate campaign committee, what does next month promise for Rahm Emanuel? As the member of Congress responsible for recruiting candidates for House races, raising money and vetting strategy for dozens of districts, he's received raves from campaign connoisseurs in Washington for running a taut committee. Notably, he's nearly closed the perennial cash-on-hand gap between his team -- with $36 million in the bank at the end of September -- and its GOP counterpart. He's fielded credible candidates in districts no one had expected to be in play a year ago. And he's generally been flogging the party like a never-satisfied CEO.

-snip-
"Well, I never said Rahm was a diplomat who spends a lot of time schmoozing," says Pelosi, who picked Emanuel last year to run the campaign. She tapped him over more senior lawmakers, she says, because she knew he'd be "coldblooded enough" to push the party relentlessly. And to those who came to have their feathers unruffled, she says she made it clear that Emanuel has her full support. "I said to them: 'We're here to win this election. What is this conversation about?' I don't think we can be better served than by having Rahm at the DCCC."

"He's abrupt with me all the time," she adds with a laugh. "I call him the Field Marshal."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/21/AR2006102101049.html

[hlthe2b]

1. Rahm has nine fingers?

I know, I know... I'm missing the point of the article, but damn if that didn't catch my attention--LOL

[Pirate Smile]

5. Yes, he lost one and John Tester lost three fingers. I was searching

for the photo of Max Cleland with Tester, holding up Tester's hand missing three fingers and saying that Tester won't have his fingers in the till, like Burns.

[hlthe2b]

7. That Max Cleland is a real hoot...

So glad he's out there working so hard for our returning Vets running in November... He's been suffering lately from PTSD and depression, I read recently, so it couldn't be easy..

[Eric J in MN]

2. We'll find out soon. In the meantime...

...we should go to message-boards at other websites which allow it post a reminder "Election Day is November 7, 2006."

The majority is on our side. Let's help get them to the polls.

[Jim Sagle]

3. Rahm fights his own base A LOT harder than he fights the Republicans.

Fuck'm.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Sorry, won't do.

On November 7th, I will be voting for him in your honor! :toast:

[Jim Sagle]

10. I'd vote for him myself as a representative - just not as party leader.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. Well better vote GREEN then

to send him a message!

[aquart]

8. You mean, send Bush a message of cowardly capitulation, right?

But thank you for your concern.

[DefenseLawyer]

9. The only message you send to Bush by voting Green

is that's one less Republican vote they need to beat the Democratic candidate. Ask Rick Santorum how much money he gave the Greens in Pennsylvania so they could "send a message" to Casey.

[Jim Sagle]

11. No way would I vote green.

I'm not suggesting anyone VOTE against Rahm - just that he's been a treacherous mole as party leader.

[The Magistrate]

12. And Yet, My Friend

Should we succeed in taking the House this year, a great deal of the credit for it will be rightfully his....

"Chance favors the prepared mind."

[Jim Sagle]

17. Like fuck it would. Credit goes to Dean. Rahm has been an obstacle.

[The Magistrate]

19. Rep. Emmanuel, Sir, Has Been Essential To The Congressional Effort

To call him an obstacle to it simply does not connect with the facts of the ongoing campaign effort.

Certainly Gov. Dean has proved himself an excellent Party chairman, and has done wonders.

[Jim Sagle]

23. If Rahm is such a good Dem, why's he getting such good press?

That's NEVER how it works. Ask Dean.

[The Magistrate]

24. Not Much Of An Argument, My Friend

[Jim Sagle]

31. Not much of an argument, yet you can take it to the bank.

Rahm's hardest fights were agsinst Christine Cegelis and Paul Hackett.

His job, and he does it well, is to fight the base and keep the party DLC-friendly.

[Jai4WKC08]

36. Emanuel didn't fight Hackett

That was Chuck Schumer.

Emanuel did back Duckworth, but it was for valid political reasons, and certainly within his right as a prominent IL congressman -- that is, aside from his DCCC role... but he has every right to manage the strategy in that respect as well. Point is, Duckworth is kicking ass in that district, quite possibly doing far better than Cegelis would have, and certainly better than she did last time.

Besides, Durbin supported Duckworth as well, as did Wes Clark. There was nothing anti-base about it.

I get so tired of people, on both sides, who see every issue within the party in terms of base vs. establishment, right vs left. Lord knows I have disagreements with both sides, but now is NOT the time for divisiveness.

[The Magistrate]

39. Hardly, Mr. Sagle

Mr. Hackett has revealed himself to be a loose cannon, wholly unsuited to a statewide run, who indulged himself in a good deal of gratuitous attack against the Party. It remains to be seen what the outcome of the race by Maj. Duckworth will be, though there is reason to believe, anyway, she will be victorious. That district is a possibility, but never was a sure thing for us.

[Ninja Jordan]

53. You literally have given no evidence that Rahm is a "treacherous mole"

Your postings have been pretty despicable. If it were up to me, Rahm would be in Pelosi's position. He is fantastic.

[Jim Sagle]

55. He's a mole for corporate America, not the Republicans.

And that's quite plain. Spending a million to oust Christine Cegelis clinches it.

And your posts ain't worth a goddamn, either.

[Ninja Jordan]

56. Strategic decision-making doesn't = mole for corporate America.

Your god Howard Dean vehemently disagrees with you about Rahm. I promise.

[Jim Sagle]

59. They're trying to get along. And that's a good thing.

One thing I wish people would do is concentrate on winning now and wait to claim the credit until afterwards.

[Radical Activist]

62. Often true. Jan Schakowsky does more for Chicago area Democrats

At least the ones who aren't in it for the money and patronage.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

40. LOL!

No one will be gotten rid off after the election... but the much heralded "netroots" will be exposed as the paper tiger they are.

[omega minimo]

14. Will the "Field Marshall" answer to corporations after winning?

Where's those million$$$ in the bank coming from?

"And he's generally been flogging the party like a never-satisfied CEO."

[The Magistrate]

18. Would You Prefer, Sir, The Party Have But Scant Funds?

Money is to political campaigns what ammunition is to battles....

[omega minimo]

20. Dude, I would prefer an answer to the question

Are you suggesting that being beholden to corporations is the only way to win campaigns?

Are there only two choices: corporate control or "The Party Have But Scant Funds?"

[The Magistrate]

21. Money, Sir

Can only be acquired from people who have it, and are willing to part with it. The position is closley analogous to Mr. Sutton's replying "Because that's where the money is," when asked why he robbed banks. Until there are available sources of funds as plentiful and reliable as those which currently bank-roll campaigns, it will be the latter from whom the necessary funds must be obtained. It makes your question somewhat irrelevant, certainly to anyone interested in winning campaigns and securing office.

Are you pitching a claim to the position that it will make no difference of there is a Democratic, rather than a Republican, majority in the Legislature?

[omega minimo]

22. I am "pitching a claim" to an answer to the questions

Both replies from you are trying to put words in my mouth. Still no answers.

"Are you pitching a claim to the position that it will make no difference of there is a Democratic, rather than a Republican, majority in the Legislature?"

I said nothing of the sort. Again, are you suggesting that corporate control is the only way for Democrats to win a majority? If you assume that is necessary, to the extent you don't want to answer, I understand. However, it's odd for a mod to tell someone "It makes your question somewhat irrelevant, certainly to anyone interested in winning campaigns and securing office." "Irrelevant"?



(please don't Sir me) :hi:

[The Magistrate]

25. Irrelevant, Sir

In the context of raising campaign funds, until you can demonstrate the existance of reliable alternative sources for the necessary funds than the conventional networks of interested persons with money they are willing to donate.

What you have called attempts to put words in your mouth are simply pressing the meanings of things you have said on to their logical next steps. If someone's reaction to word that an official of the Party has made a great success of raising funds in this campaign is to make dark hints the result will be nefarious, it is neither unreasonable nor unfair to take from this the meaning that that person might rather see the Party do without those funds, and if someone presses the line that there will be "corporate control" exercised through Rep. Emmanuel in the event a Democratic majority is obtained, the question of whether or not that person feels that result is worth obtaining will naturally arise.

At this point in the exercise, the whole bugaboo of "corporate control" does not interest me at all. What is necessary is to evict from majority status the worst elements of reaction in our political life, and for the moment nothing beyond that concerns me in the slightest.

[omega minimo]

30. Vile

Those are your "logical next steps" not mine and they still neatly sidestep the questions.

"If someone's reaction to word that an official of the Party has made a great success of raising funds in this campaign is to make dark hints the result will be nefarious, it is neither unreasonable nor unfair to take from this the meaning that that person might rather see the Party do without those funds...."

"Dark hints"? "Nefarious"? Who said? They were fair questions but maybe people who already know the answers don't even want to think about it.

"....and if someone presses the line that there will be "corporate control" exercised through Rep. Emmanuel in the event a Democratic majority is obtained, the question of whether or not that person feels that result is worth obtaining will naturally arise."

Well that's almost addressing the question! How does your "ends justify the means" end up better when the Democrats do it than when the Republicans do?

"In the context of raising campaign funds, until you can demonstrate the existance of reliable alternative sources for the necessary funds than the conventional networks of interested persons with money they are willing to donate."

Still this passive acknowledgement that you consider "sources for the necessary funds the conventional networks of interested persons with money they are willing to donate" = corporations. Rather than "take from this the meaning that that person might rather see the Party do without those funds," perhaps there could be an honest discussion of what that "inevitable" corporate contribution to campaign coffers means for those who win; some consideration of which corporations are involved and what that means for the American people.

"What is necessary is to evict from majority status the worst elements of reaction in our political life." What if those "worst elements" are acting in the service of corporate power via either party?

With this new majority, for real change to occur, those questions will have to be asked, not dismissed.


14. Will the "Field Marshall" answer to corporations after winning?

Where's those million$$$ in the bank coming from?

"And he's generally been flogging the party like a never-satisfied CEO."

CEOs running our government is the problem. There is no more relevant question.

[The Magistrate]

41. Only One Point In This Seems Worth Engaging To Me, Sir

And that is your "how does your 'ends justify the means' end up better when Democrats do it than Republicans?" boiler-plate. For it is in the ends desired by the different parties that the difference resides, hardly in the tactics employed to secure office. The latter will be the largely the same for any successful participants in a conflict fought on the same field with the same weapons. Elections are won by moving people to identify with your candidate and to reject the opposing candidate as not like them, or even hostile to them. The chief means by which this is accomplished is paid advertising, that paints a glow upon your candidate and casts your opponent as a dark and damnable thing. Whether or not this is how it ought to be makes no difference: it is what things actually are that is important. Winning requires large sums of money: to ignore this, and to complain of success in raising large sums, is to accept defeat before the contest is joined.

[GeorgeGist]

48. The means justify the ends, Sir...

[The Magistrate]

50. It Would Be Nice, Ma'am, If That Were So

It is true that there are certain ends some means are ill-suited to achieve, but to be overly scrupulous in means frequently will prevent the achievement of an end in any degree, and if that end is a desireable one, no good at all will be accomplished.

"Life is an exercise in doing evil in hopes good may come of it."

[ldf]

49. so let me get this straight...

the big money that we need will come from corporations.

the ends sought after are what counts, not the means that we achieve the money to get there.

it results in pretty ads for us, ugly ads for them. presto, we win.

so the money comes from the corporations, or those rich enough that they ARE, in effect, corporations, or have corporate sympathies. you can be sure they are not donating for the good of the people, but their corporation.

in other words, more of the same ol, same ol.

i think dr. dean showed that there is money available, IF the candidate is willing to speak to the truth and reflect the desires of the base. yes, i know the "base" is where we are running into all these pesky problems. how DARE they actually want improvement in their lives...!

the corporate backers want all of us to believe they THEY are crucial.

when in reality, THEY are the problem.

rahm falls to the corporate side, so he is part of the problem, not the solution.

if by any chance we DO win back the majority of the house and the senate in this election, and nothing changes, it will be the death of the democratic party.

and you will be able to thank mr. rahm and those corporate backers.

[The Magistrate]

54. Gov. Dean, Sir

Has indeed demonstrated the potential for alternative sources of funding, namely retail subscription using electronic means. It is very promising, and may well in future be able to replace the current, conventional means of large donations from wealthy persons. But it is not yet close to capable of doing this to the degree a sustained national election effort demands. Persons charged with gaining success in such an effort will necessarily continue for the present with the means of financing that they know will bring in the necessary sums. There is no help for this: the alternative to it is to cede the enemy a four-fold advantage in cash, which is essentially to cede them victory before the contest starts.

[omega minimo]

67. Again, Your Magistrateness, please do not “Sir” or “Ma’am” me

“For it is in the ends desired by the different parties that the difference resides, hardly in the tactics employed to secure office.”

Yes, that is theoretically how this works; however it is no longer true when the different parties have vested interests in the ends which are twinned to the (same) means that got them there; interests and means which come from the very companies that own and control “the tactics employed to secure office.” Those who own and control the vehicles for paid advertising and televised news and TV programming and newspapers and radio and thinktanks and web sites.

“The chief means by which this is accomplished is paid advertising, that paints a glow upon your candidate and casts your opponent as a dark and damnable thing.”

“Whether or not this is how it ought to be makes no difference: it is what things actually are that is important. Winning requires large sums of money: to ignore this, and to complain of success in raising large sums, is to accept defeat before the contest is joined.”

Two things, Mag: “it is what things actually are” that is the problem, see? Although your cyncism may be deserved, all of your comments are an endorsement of campaign/election reform as well as pointing up the need for an honest discussion of the questions I raised.

Secondly, another canard-- “Winning requires large sums of money: to ignore this, and to complain of success in raising large sums, is to accept defeat before the contest is joined.”

I am not ignoring the sums of money involved, accepting defeat, nor am I “complaining of success in raising large sums.” My comments were regarding another striking aspect of the article:

Emanuel.... doesn't have much time for niceties.

...the whirl of wheedling donors and lashing candidates to meet their fundraising targets has reached hurricane status in recent weeks.

He admits he's not sleeping well. "He's driving himself to exhaustion"

...he's received raves from campaign connoisseurs in Washington for running a taut committee.

And he's generally been flogging the party like a never-satisfied CEO.

"Well, I never said Rahm was a diplomat who spends a lot of time schmoozing," says Pelosi.

....she knew he'd be "coldblooded enough" to push the party relentlessly.

And to those who came to have their feathers unruffled....

"He's abrupt with me all the time," Pelosi adds with a laugh. "I call him the Field Marshal."


What does that sound like? Corporate America Type A CEO behavior. Swimming with sharks where “the ends justify the means” and where "Life is an exercise in doing evil in hopes good may come of it."

As someone below points out, more “same-o same-o” Republican Lite will be the death of the Democratic Party. It is out of concern for the party and the nation that mere voters question the compromised tactics and strange bedfellows of the D.C. shark mentality. People see it for what it is.

Where is it being discussed within the Democratic Party? People understand that Democrats must win back a majority in Congress. We also understand that the corporate stranglehold on our government, our media, our health system, our infrastructure, our jobs, our military, is THE PROBLEM.

Thom Hartmann and his AAR guests address the destruction of the middle class in favor of the SuperRich and Corporate America. Bernie Sanders (I) Vermont is vocal about it. Byron Dorgan has been on the talk circuit with his book “Take This Job and Ship It” and making the case for a return to REAL American and Democratic values that don’t sell out the American people for outsourced and offshored megaprofits. Anyone else?

This is why the questions ARE relevant, your Sirness. After we vote them into the majority, the American people are going to continue asking these questions. We will ask who funded these campaigns and what do they expect in return? Will the American people have anywhere near the access those millions have bought?

Since the early 1990’s state and federal legislative purges of “career politicians” (those with institutional memory who actually understood and valued the process and the craft of public service and policy making), the American people have been sold the notion that business should run government; that legislators deserve ever higher and higher salaries because that’s what they would earn in the “corporate sector.”

The Democrats must know that the American people have finally caught on. Democratic and Republican Lite voters are ALL sick of Big Business running our economy into the ground and running our country over a cliff. CEOs running our government is the problem. There is no more relevant question than whether our elected representatives are serving the American people who support them or the corporations that provided the "means" for them to campaign.

[JI7]

15. this article makes me feel good about him

i always thought he was kind of a loser when he was in the Clinton administration. i thought the same of John Podesta and George Stephanopoulos also. i still think the same of the other two, but have a different view of Rahm based on this.

[JeffR]

16. PS, I respect you greatly

But Rahm can bite me. He's a poster boy for what's wrong with this party, not an exemplar of what's right aboout it.

[FrenchieCat]

26. I like this guy....no matter if he ain't no angel pleasing all of the

people all of the time.

He's a fighter and a brawler.....

Whatever can be said of Emanuel, that man ain't nobody's whipping boy...

[The Magistrate]

27. Indeed, Ma'am: He Is A Good Man

The sort it is better to have on your side than ranged against you....

[bobbie]

28. If he's like LBJ then he's a corrupt murderous blackmailing...

bribe-taking, bribe-giving, thug and friend of the war machine.

[NMDemDist2]

32. maybe, but he's OUR corrupt muderous blackmailing bribe-taking

bribe-giving thug and friend of the war machine

but I don't think so. like the Big Dog said last week, politics is a contact sport and I'll take it if it puts oversight back in Congress to put the brakes on these Neo-Cons

:hi:

[bobbie]

44. I make no claim to Johnson, you can have him

He was a fuckin' monster. Even by the standards of Texas, probably the most corrupt state in the union, he was vicious. He was owned by HL Hunt, who funded JFK's murder. He was also sponsored by Brown and Root (now Halliburton) who wanted LBJ to replace JFK and who profited greatly when he did, and promptly reversed JFK's orders to pull out of Vietnam.

He was notoriously corrupt at best. He took bribes (On the day of the assassination, sworn testimony to the Senate Rules Committee described an illegal $100,000 payoff to Johnson for his role in securing a $7 billion contract for General Dynamics in Fort Worth to develop the TFX fighter plane. When news of the shooting of Kennedy was received, the hearing ended. It never resumed.). He gave bribes (buying votes in Texas in 1948). He used voting fraud to get "elected" (his 1948 US senate "victory" wherein he won by 87 votes after 200 voter signatures were added to the voting list in Precinct 13 after the polls closed--in alphabetical order and in identical handwriting)--and Johnson had purchased tens of thousands of votes across Texas to bring himself within that range of his opponent). He blackmailed (Johnson asked Warren if he would be willing to head the commission. Warren refused but it was later revealed that Johnson blackmailed him into accepting the post. In a telephone conversation with Richard B. Russell Johnson claimed: " Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances... I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City... And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down... I'll do whatever you say.")

He was a murderer at worst. Many sources, e.g., Madeleine Brown his ex mistress reveal that he was part of the conspiracy to murder JFK, and he is said to have ordered Harry Marshall's death. He was guilty of cover-up. He called Captain Will Fritz--chief of the Homicide Bureau of the Dallas PD and personally informed him he had Oswald in custody and the investigation was over. He called Dr. Charles Crenshaw at Parkland hospital and told him to get a deathbed confession from Oswald.

His escalation of the Vietnam war was based on a proven lie--the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident. It's been proven that he knew that was a lie. He rammed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution right thru. Again, it was based on a lie and it led to countless deaths on both sides. And it resulted in huge profits for his sponsors Brown & Root and Bell Helicopter. So it was good for the war profiteers, or as Eisenhower called them the "military industrial complex."

It's not a compliment to any other politician to compare them to Johnson.

[Jai4WKC08]

33. ...who got a lot of Democrats elected.

I could see Rahm making someone a good VP nominee someday.

[dailykoff]

34. He didn't do much for Gore or Kerry

but he doesn't mind taking potshots at their campaigns when he gets the chance.

[wyldwolf]

37. was Gore and Kerry running for US Congress?

[bobbie]

43. Johnson got a lot of democrats elected?

Ok, I'll take your word for it.
But I hardly think that makes up for conspiring to kill JFK and leading the cover-up.

I just hate to see LBJ's lauded. He was among the most monsterous of this country's presidents. And given the fact that Nixon and Bush2 are in that field, that's saying a lot.

[Jai4WKC08]

45. ..

:tinfoilhat:

[bemildred]

29. Better get some popcorn.

:popcorn::popcorn:

[wyldwolf]

35. As Nancy Pelosi said...

This election will swing on a number of different factors, but all of the success that we have will be attributable to Rahm (Emanuel) — Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives.

[katinmn]

42. Hmmm. No mention of Howard Dean or the people who vote?

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

47. uhh...no...

:eyes:

Being that Rahm's job is to get people to the polls in house raises...

...and there is no indication Dean's long term strategy has had any effect on the upper-tier house races most likely to win back the house (if you know of any, post links please.)

[katinmn]

57. personally, I'm voting for Dems despite Rahm and his ilk.

I'm still pissed off at the way the "strategists" have taken over local and state races. And I know I'm not the only one.

Where Dean works to involve people (you know, voters), Rahm has focused on getting his picks elected. There will be a lot of lesser of the evil votes cast again this year.

Lucky for hardliners like Rahm that there are many Dems committed to a win first and reform second.

[wyldwolf]

60. personally, I'm voting for Dems because of Rahm and his ilk.

Where Dean works to involve people (you know, voters), Rahm has focused on getting his picks elected.

LOL! How will Rahm get his picks elected? Voters.

No hard evidence of Dean's role, I suppose.

[katinmn]

64. money,money,money,money,money and you KNOW it.

[wyldwolf]

70. yes. You think elections are won on IOUs?

[katinmn]

72. I may be cynical but you are jaded.

[wyldwolf]

73. No, I'm realistic and pragmatic

[lcordero2]

38. I reject LBJ

and I reject LBJ's drug-running and profiteering war.

[bobbie]

46. That is a very good description of LBJ's war

And it was based on Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin lie.

[wyldwolf]

51. I'm going to give them the medicine that they've been giving out.

Asked if he ever has regrets about his hardball habits, Emanuel stares into his glass of tea for a long moment.

"Look, you're never as tough as they say you are," he says finally.

But the self-reflection lasts only as long as it takes for him to remember the tactics of the other side.

"They call Tammy Duckworth a cut-and-runner when she left two legs in Iraq?" he shouts, jabbing a finger in the air, drawing stares from around the deli. "How dare they! I'm going to give them the medicine that they've been giving out. That's what shocks them."

[Ninja Jordan]

52. Hopefully he isn't as corrupt as LBJ

What a weird comparison.

[bobbie]

58. Exactly Ninja. The last thing we need is another LBJ

Shudder

[NoPasaran]

63. Yeah, I'd hate to see another era of advancing civil rights

And programs to help the poor. That would really suck.
:sarcasm:

[bobbie]

69. At what cost? LBJ's war killed tens of thousands US soldiers

And countless Vietnamese. He lied to escalate his war, by reporting the the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident and ramming the Gulf of Tonkin resolution thru congress.

He was a major conspirator in the murder of President Kennedy (with an obvious motive of wanting to be president). And he led the cover-up of the murder. Then there were a lot of other political murders during his administration: Malcolm X, MLK, RFK... The civil rights murders were committed largely by J. Edgar Hoover, king of the FBI and *close* friend, ally, and *neighbor* of LBJ.

Ultimately, LBJ was so rightfully despised because of his war that he, a power hungry tyrant who conspired to murder to get into the white house, didn't even try to run for re-election in 1968.

So he was desperately trying to do something to leave a legacy, and his civil rights bills were that something. But they were done in parallel with his complicity in the murders of the two biggest civil rights leaders. So even that legislation, his big accomplishment, was tainted.

[Radical Activist]

61. Rahm won't be so popular among new Congressmen if we have a landslide.

There will be a lot of second and third tier candidates in Congress who will still be pissed about getting blown off by the DCCC until the last three weeks of the campaign. He may have as many new Congressmen angry at him as those who like him.

[katinmn]

65. Those 2nd and 3rd tier are the ones that will fight for progressive

change. And they will have won because of passion and solidarity with people.
:toast:

[The Magistrate]

68. That Is A Bold Statement, Ma'am

With little obvious foundation. In most instances, such candidates will have won because they have cross-over appeal to persons of centerist and even center-right sensibilities, who have till now voted for Republicans. They will owe their victory to disenchantment and disgust with the present regime's blunders overseas, and the moral squalor, in terms of both sex and thieving, of the Republican Congressional majority.

[katinmn]

71. IMO, the 2nd and 3rd tier candidates are independent Dems

(as I interpret the term as used by the poster above) who spoke out early and loudly against the war, Patriot Act and torture and for universal health care. I'm not talkin about the centrists which dominate the party. I'm talking about the independent thinking Dems. You must admit that the party line was to avoid talking openly about the war, those that did did not receive early support. They weren't considered "electable."

I can name three Minnesota Congressional candidates alone that fall in this category -- Rowley, Wetterling and Ellison. They were not the first choice of the establishment. But now it seems everyone recognizes that voters demand a choice and lo and behold, when you show how you are different from Republicans, your poll numbers go up.

I don't want to fight or be divisive. I want Dems to win. But that doesn't mean I worship or even respect Rahm. I don't agree with his methods and I disagree with the statement that a Congressional takeover is because of the efforts of one man.

[Radical Activist]

74. I think you are correct.

These 2nd and 3rd tier candidates will be from districts where the DCCC didn't come in to ensure a moderate "electable" Democrat was the nominee. They will be people who decided to run knowing that had little to no chance of winning. Most of them will not owe their loyalty to any local or national party leader. They will be the kind of people who take risks, don't follow orders and go where their conscience tells them. They will be the ones who bring real change to America in the new Congress. Their victory will have nothing to do with Rahm and they will know it and they will act accordingly.

[wiley]

66. Nothing but Praise for Rahm. He's doing a tough job very well.

[geek tragedy]

75. He's willing to do what it takes to win on the big stage--which

means that many DU'ers will hate him.