Would Rahm Emanual Have Made A Better Speaker Of The House......

[global1]

than his current position in the WH? I can see him being better than Pelosi. Who would be a good candidate to replace Reid in the Senate?

[SuperTrouper]

1. Rahm Emanuel will defeat Roland Burro in the Primaries in 2010

that is if Burro is the incumbent

[rurallib]

2. My dream would be to see Feingold leading the Senate

so that will never happen.

[kenfrequed]

18. Hell yeah!

I would be very happy to see Feingold in charge.

[cecilfirefox]

32. Feingold can rot. So can Boxer.

Thanks for their help on Prop 8ate.

[awoke_in_2003]

33. I think you mean Feinstein...

Feingold is a Senator from Wisconsin.

[kenfrequed]

38. Yeah

Feinstein has been annoying ever since she ran for mayor of San Francisco.

[cecilfirefox]

39. I made a mistake!!

[awoke_in_2003]

41. it happens. nt

[kenfrequed]

42. I have made worse

Thankfully my memory is spotty right now and I can't thoroughly embarass myself by bringing one up now.

[kenfrequed]

3. Not really

Rahm represents that narrow pro-corporate DLC bandwidth of the party. Long on contributions but short on actual ground support.

Frankly I don't think he represents the base or the progressives of the party terribly well.

[Jennicut]

5. Maybe but I don't see him being as weak as Pelosi or Reid for sure

He might be too brusque for that kind of job though.

[kenfrequed]

10. The problem

The problem is all the things that Pelosi and Reid were soft on, all the things that most progressives were for that they sold out on were also things that Rahm tended to take a hard stance against.

He warned freshmen congressmen from going on the colbert report after Colbert's address at the national press club. Granted that is a silly example but I think it actually says something about where he is.

[wyldwolf]

6. narrow?

When one wins an election, how can you claim he/she has little ground support.

[kenfrequed]

9. Compare memberships

Compare the membership of the public in the DLC to oh... I don't know any progressive policy organization: environmental, labor, Amnesty International, etc.

Hard core grass roots party activists tend to be people that care about things other than triangulating with republicans and selling out the tattered remnants of the new deal to corporate America.

[wyldwolf]

11. compare memberships

of the Senate New Democrat Coalition and House New Democrat Coalition to, oh, memberships in other congressional caucuses.

In fact, in the House, if the DLC and Blue Dogs are combined, they have the biggest congressional caucus.

This is a direct result of the electorate continually voting them into office - the electorate being a much bigger group than environmental, labor, Amnesty International, etc.

None of your "progressive" rhetoric means anything if you can't get into elected office.

[kenfrequed]

13. Uhm...

I was talking about that strange and quixotic constituency known as "the people."

And none of your triangulating means anything if you manage to boot yourselves out of office by not adequately differentiating yourself from republicans.

As for getting people elected, who the hell do you think did all the friggin volunteer work? The US Chamber of Commerce? How many times did the insurance industry vote for any of your candidates?

The simple fact of the matter is that the people I describe are the hard core democratic base. All the corporate sponsors in the world will mean Nothing. Mainly because they donate to both sides of the aisle. They win either way and could care less whether they have Democratic or Republican puppets.

[wyldwolf]

14. yeah, the "people" who continually vote people like Emanuel into office...

... and continually reject people like Dennis Kucinich.

And those tired "progressive" cliches you keep spouting... give it a rest. It really isn't impressive.

[kenfrequed]

15. BS

Kucinich faced a heavily DLC backed challenger during his primary WHILE he was attempting to run for president. He beat the primary challenge and then kicked the crap out of the republican running against him.

Many of the various media outlets ignored or mocked him and gave Hillary and Obama a two year reporting head start on him. Still he often polled higher than most of the other "second tier" candidates with the exception of Edwards who ran on dealing with poverty.

Yeah, I spout "tired progressive cliches" while you seem to claim the high ground of "conventional wisdom."

All you can say is "well why arent you winning?" which is really odd. Particularly when the DLC often spends progressive candidates out of the race. I wonder if Paul Wellstone would have been able to win if he had run four years later, or if the DLC machine would have been able to stop his campaign.

I can tell you without any doubt, the Minnesota surrogates to this movement did not support him and often complained bitterly about him.

[wyldwolf]

16. no, I'm using Kucinich as an example of a type... but regardless...

..what is continually rejected at the ballot box simply is not the face of the Democratic party. Political success is measured with vote tallies, and currently DLC-type candidates get more.

[kenfrequed]

17. Well

Obama did NOT run as a DLC dem. His campaign sounded vaugely progressive. He won an actual majority, not merely a Clintonoid plurality, so the numbers really are not supportive of your assertion on a presidential level.

And the hand picked congressional candidates favored by Emmanuel, Ford, and company have not done well in terms of actually winning elections.

[wyldwolf]

19. well...

Obama certainly ran with DLC policies. He wrote about them extensively.

You just missed it.

He won an actual majority, not merely a Clintonoid plurality

because there was no popular third party candidate. But my numbers hold on the presidential level just fine. In fact, the only Dems to actually win the presidency in 28 years ran on centrist platforms.

And the hand picked congressional candidates favored by Emmanuel, Ford, and company have not done well in terms of actually winning elections.

Over half the seats won in 2006 had direct dealing with Rahm Emanuel... and joined the DLC. Would you like a list?

[kenfrequed]

20. Obama ran on change

The DLC democrats were rolling over for Bush on every bit of legislation they could. Obama had a progressive legislative record and was agaisnt the war. The DLC cautioned to keep the powder dry and not fight Bush on the war or any of his supid policies. They appeased him at every friggin turn.

By running on the notion of change I think it is pretty much implied that you are running against DLC style appeasement. He also ran for changing Nafta, that darling of the DLC, and incorporating more fair trade practices, environmental and labor concerns.

As to the list I would like to see a Detailed list of who joined the DLC and when.

[wyldwolf]

21. sure, change from the last 8 years

And, look, let me say again, the raving anti-DLC rhetoric doesn't mean a thing to me. You really shouldn't waste your time on it.

Here's what Obama said about it:

In distilled form, though, the explanations of both the right and the left have become mirror images of each other. They are stories of conspiracy, of America being hijacked by an evil cabal. Like all good conspiracy theories, both tales contain just enough truth to satisfy those predisposed to believe in them, without admitting any contradictions that might shake up those assumptions. Their purpose is not to persuade the other side but to keep their bases agitated and assured of the rightness of their respective causes--and lure just enough new adherents to beat the other side into submission.

Why, with you rantings about the DLC, he could have been talking directly to you. :)

[kenfrequed]

22. Uhm... 3...2...1 Context!!

You cite a bit of a speech without any indication of who he was speaking to and when. For all I know he was talking to John Birch and the 9-11 Truth squad.

If it was a larger speech there should be ellipses indicating that it was pulled form a larger speech. If it was an answer to a question I think it would be wise to include the question. If it was a citation from a newspaper, tv report, or magazine then that too would be useful.

My 'rantings' about the DLC are based soley on policy. Oddly enough policy and who supports it and what organizations they belong to, and the policy preferences of those organizations are all rather public if you do the research. There are no 'secret workings' or 'sharing fo breath' required. There are no 'conspiracy theories,' only interests being served. The DLC has made no secret of what interests they serve and where they want the Democratic party to be.

Save your nonsense accusations for your MUFON meetings and debate honestly and openly.

[wyldwolf]

23. Oh, the old "taken out of context" bit

:eyes:

If you don't like it, it's taken out of context.

Ultimately, though, I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we're in. I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country. It's what keeps us locked in "either/or" thinking.

Hey! He's talking to you...

Oops! Context, right? :rofl:

Obama/DLC tangibles...

welfare reform, private retirement accounts, duties and responsibilities over entitlements, a rejection of special interests, or single issue, politics based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or victimhood. "The battle against international terrorism" that should be dealt with by "judicious projection of military power."

He just trashes the entire "progressive" movement.

[kenfrequed]

24. Still no source?

Still no explanation or reference point?

Well I suppose if you want him to be a DLC faithful then fine.

As to your laundry list:

welfare reform--Grats man, we now have a higher child poverty rate than when Reagan was president. Hooray!!!!

private retirement accounts---Right and that idea was such a winner, look at how well wallstreet is doing now.

duties and responsibilities over entitlements--- Well aside from just being empty rhetoric I am sure glad that we don't have universal single payer health care or free higher education like those entitlement happy western european nations. Interesting you use the words 'Duty' and 'Responsibility' (you left out the word personal) in the same way that the right wingers do. Interestingly enough in Norway and Sweden they take it as a responsability and duty of all of their people to ensure for the least fortunate.

a rejection of special interests, or single issue, politics based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or victimhood--- Awesome, yeah screw the ERA, the hell with all those special interests. You may as well include labor on that list as well. The DLC sure as hell does. Of course I would call most of those people Democrat constiutents or the Democratic base, but hey why bother with all those people? Let's just go for the votes of upper middle class white straight men. I am sure that will be a winning strategy in the years to come.


"The battle against international terrorism" that should be dealt with by "judicious projection of military power."--- "...projections of military power." Well minus the 'judicious' part you almost have the "Bush Doctrine" but I will grant you that there may be circumstances where some military action MIGHT be needed. I really think that falling into this 'battle agaisnt international terrorism' is more the sphere of old cartoons than anything. Oddly terrorists don't just appear out of nowhere, there are conditions and grievances that ultimately result in people choosing to become militant but hey, its a lot easier to just write it all off as a global struggle (as though terrorists are all somehow linked) and bomb the hell out of it.

Absurd arguemtnation really.

[wyldwolf]

25. I plainly said his book. In your embrace of Obama, are you rejecting his writings?

But, hey, keep spinning.

First you whine about context, then you whine about a source already given, then you resort to the tired "progressive" revolutionary rhetoric again.

You seemed to have abandoned your claim about Emanuel's handpicked candidates when I offered a list.

:shrug:

You must enjoy being unhappy with things.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[kenfrequed]

28. Oh yeah...

And hey...look up, nope, no mention previously that it was from his book. I presume you mean "Audacity of hope"? Perhaps you could provide me with a bit of background on the chapter that refers to this as I have not gotten around to reading it.

I mean other than Obama apparantly writting a book that is directed as a slam against progressives and progressive movements. At least in your opinion.

[wyldwolf]

29. here ya go

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca10_tauscher/NDCMEMBERSELECT.html

And I don't need to read your take on DLC policy since I am very well versed in it and it's always the same with "progressives."

And it's obvious you've not read "Audacity of Hope." Of course, I assumed someone as well versed on Obama as you had read it. I guess I also assumed you knew I was referring to it. My mistake. Sorry.

[kenfrequed]

30. No, of course not.

Why debate with progressives. Discuss and cooperate with the Republicans instead because that has worked so well for our nation.

Oh wait, no it has actually resulted in the greatest disparity between the rich and poor since before the great depression.

Your list only tells me that AFTER the election in November of 2006 a chunk of democrats joined the NDC. It does not speak to how they ran or what they ran on.


I will grant you that the corporate democrats did manage to pull in 16 people after the elections but the democrats took 31 in the house of representatives alone in that year. So I don't really see that as the end of the progressive movement.

By the way, is that something you really think would be a good idea? The end of the progressive democrats? I mean what would be left? What would inspire the people to vote for democrats?

Would the world be a better place if we all just retired to communes somewhere and left politics to the deal makers, triangulators, lobbyists, and corporatists?

Free trade? Religious platitudes and appeals? A further erosion of social services? What the hell do you people have to offer that would benefit the majority of Americans.

Actually I expect the same non-answers that you have been giving me on DLC policy all along. Nothing.

[wyldwolf]

31. yes, of course

It's all completely predictable. The revolutionary tone, the same half truths, always the same when it comes to the DLC.

I will grant you that the corporate democrats did manage to pull in 16 people after the elections but the democrats took 31 in the house of representatives alone in that year. So I don't really see that as the end of the progressive movement.

See? Corporate Democrats. Completely predictable. And no one has said it amounted to an end to the progressive movement. Victim complex - also predictable.

But don't ignore IN-02 Joe Donnelly, IN-08 Brad Ellsworth, IN-09 Baron Hill, and OH-06 Charlie Wilson, who all won in 2006 and joined the Blue Dog coalition, bringing the total of (lol) "Corporate" Democratic victories to 20.

[kenfrequed]

35. Again

With the not answering any questions/points?

As to corporate democrats, what do you call it when democrats vote economically like republicans? What do you call it when Wallstreet has little trouble getting what it wants while mainstreet gets smashed?

I suppose you are going to accuse me of class warfare next. Are you able to cross post that easily from the Free Republic?

[wyldwolf]

36. Again

I simply do not engage in the same tired old DLC debates I've spent 4 years on DU discussing.

Seriously.

Read a book. Do a search. After the same repetitive "progressive" nonsense day in and day out, I'm content with just watching the DLC continue to win and their policies continue to be embraced, and "progressives" continue to be outraged by it.

[kenfrequed]

37. bah

I actually read dozens of books a year.

If that is the best you can muster, insults and combo platters of straw men and ad hominems, then I can see why arguing with progressives is so utterly fruitless an endeavor for you.

[wyldwolf]

4. he was often spoken of as a future speaker

Some theorized that when Pelosi recommended him for Obama's senate seat, she was trying to get him out of the way.

[xchrom]

7. rahm is the worst. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. rahm is a foot soldier, driven, energetic, willful,

but still a soldier. He is the perfect Chief of Staff for Obama.

I do not think he had a chance of pushing out Pelosi. He would have been an even worse speaker. That is a leadership role, not a soldier's task.

[awoke_in_2003]

34. "That is a leadership role"

Which is why Pelosi is also a wrong choice.

[harun]

12. I don't think so.

[Occam Bandage]

26. I think so, but Pelosi isn't goin' anywhere. nt

[TheKentuckian]

40. Pelosi would be viewed more favorably if Reid could accomplish anything

I'm not saying she would be viewed favorably, but certainly more so.

Rahm would probably be too much hammer and tongs to be effective. There is some gray area between spineless and bully, and The Speaker of the House should fit into it.