Rahm Wants Nancy's Job

[Me.]

This should be fun!

“Before he was mentioned as a possible Senate successor to Barack Obama, before he helped lead the Democrats back to power in the House, before he was even elected to his first term as the congressman from the North Side of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel was telling friends that he had one goal in life: to become the first Jewish speaker of the House.

But the No. 4 man in the House Democratic leadership has become a victim of his own success. As chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Emanuel helped lead the Democrats back to the majority in 2006. That victory put the speaker’s gavel in the hands of Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and she’s not likely to give it up any time soon.

Emanuel — who is both ambitious and impatient — may not be able to wait. In early June, conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote that Pelosi was “reported to be privately talking” about Emanuel as a possible successor for Barack Obama if Illinois’ junior senator is elected president.

Emanuel and Pelosi flatly denied the rumor, but it has sparked a new round in one of Washington’s favorite parlor games: What does Rahm want now?

The now part is easy to answer, Emanuel says.

Although he has what insiders call a “solid relationship” with Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who would name Obama’s replacement if it comes to that, Emanuel says Obama’s job isn’t on his radar screen.
See also

“I’m not interested in the seat,” Emanuel said several weeks ago. “I enjoy my job in the House, and I am not interested in going to the Senate.”

But if Obama’s seat becomes available and Emanuel doesn’t jump, it will serve only to raise the questions all over again: What does Rahm really want, and what is his timetable for getting there?

Emanuel won’t say, and other Democrats are not eager to make pronouncements about the political outlook of their sometimes volatile colleague — at least not publicly.” Cont…

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11782.html

[TheDebbieDee]

1. Why shouldn't Rahm have the job? Nancy's not doing it!

[defendandprotect]

24. ..........because Rahm is DLC . . . which exists to move the party to the right . . .

it's the corporate-sponsored wing of the Democratic party . . .

Do you want the party to be more corporately controlled ... or less?

[Alexander]

32. Certain people may want that.

Like the individual you responded to.

[TheDebbieDee]

48. You know what they say about when you assume.......

You know NOTHING about this individual!

[Alexander]

52. I said "may". Can't you read?

Apparently not.

You'd rather play the victim to something I didn't say than deal with the facts.

Shows where your priorities are.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheDebbieDee]

47. I simply meant that Nancy is not doing the job.........

I don't think I'll ever forgive her for the "Impeachment is OFF the table" bit.

[DailyGrind51]

76. You are correct! The DLC is "Republican-Lite".

[leftofcool]

2. Good for him, Nancy is worthless

[Truth2Tell]

9. If you think Nancy is worthless

you'd hate Rham. He's basically an unreconstructed neo-con in Democrats clothing.

Rham Emmanuel has already reached his apex under the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle">Peter Principle. He has nowhere to go but down.

[Donnachaidh]

13. thank you! I'm glad someone said this.

He's NO better than Pelosi. He may, in fact, be much much worse. Put someone in the job that will actually DO the job, rather than wear the badge and do nothing.

[Me.]

28. Two Sides Of The Same Coin

Would be interesting if they cancel each other out and someone else slips in, unless it's Hoyer. Neither of them have any charms for me. Rahm's pushing rw candidates, like the one in Fla. who now says he doesn't owe the dems anything and won't vote for Obama, hasn't done a thing for the party, to the contrary.

[Truth2Tell]

36. I actually give Nancy a tiny bit of credit

for having her heart in the right place. I think she actually believes in a more progressive agenda deep down. She just lacks the courage to stand up to the right-wing/corporate/war interests represented by lobby groups, staff and fellow Reps like Emmanuel and Hoyer. On the other hand, Emmanuel is still a foul-mouthed, duplicitous war pimp, no matter how deep you look.

[Raksha]

77. They are BOTH worthless, for pretty much the same reason.

Neither one has the guts or the desire to stand up to the Republicans. Pelosi is just a little bit more hypocritical about it.

[Selatius]

3. I believe Howard Dean's 50 state strategy has been getting underbilled as the reason for 2006.

Dean built the foundations for that win.

[wyldwolf]

7. that may be because..

...no one has produced a single shred of evidence it did anything in 2006.

[Selatius]

10. What about the grassroots fundraising drives?

[wyldwolf]

15. what about them?

That wasn't a part of the 50 State Strategy.

[Selatius]

20. It was a re-aiming of fundraising priorities after McAuliffe left and is arguably part of it.

Dean wanted to refocus the revenue raising back towards grassroots sources because he wanted to 1) re-establish links with the grassroots and 2) to help generate revenue to staff states whose party infrastructure had fallen into disrepair (i.e. the 50-state strategy). He put full-time staffers here in MS where I lived where there were none previously.

[wyldwolf]

22. McAuliffe was an excellent fundraiser. Fundraising was not McAuliffe's weakness

He put full-time staffers here in MS where I lived where there were none previously.

So you've sort of built a case for a ONE state strategy. I want names, circumstances, statistics, something that demonstrates a nationwide effect by the 50 State Strategy.

Start with Kentucky and Georgia.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. Says the guy who proclaims Clinton made liberalism irrelevant, in his sig.

If you don't think Howard Dean is too liberal, what's your beef with his success?

[wyldwolf]

19. Psst! The guy quoted in my sig is (wait for it...) BARACK OBAMA!

:rofl:

[Truth2Tell]

25. Why do I imagine you cackling like Emperor Palpitine

when you say that?

[wyldwolf]

26. I don't know. Maybe because you see things in simple star wars "good vs. evil" terms?

[Truth2Tell]

27. Or maybe because you seem to

derive some sort of perverse pleasure any time a Democrat speaks or acts like a Republican?

[wyldwolf]

30. was Obama speaking like a Republican?

[Truth2Tell]

31. Yes. He sometimes does that. nt

[wyldwolf]

34. so let's repeat the quote here so everyone can see what you consider "Republican speak."

"It was Bill Clinton... that recognized the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems... Clinton's third way went beyond splitting the difference. It tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of Americans."

THAT is Republican speak to you?

[Truth2Tell]

38. "third way"

is dog-whistle speak for corporate dictated governance. That is THE Republican way. The fact that some of the sold-out leaders of our own Party have cynically adopted it doesn't change a thing. And yes, Obama sometimes uses the same language. We'll just have to wait and see how he governs to know what he really means.

[wyldwolf]

39. yeah, perhaps in your "us or them, black or white, this or that" simple view of the world

For the rest of us, there's the third way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28centrism%29

Good luck with the (ever)looming "progressive" utopia.

[Truth2Tell]

41. Vee believe in nothing Lebowski!

[wyldwolf]

43. You seem to be having a problem proving your point beyond laughable...

pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric.

[Truth2Tell]

49. Nice marmot! nt

[wyldwolf]

51. your replies get more irrelevant each time you post one.

[Truth2Tell]

54. I'm not talking about

the compromised first draft.

[wyldwolf]

56. you apparently aren't talking about anything

[Alexander]

59. Actually, he's referencing a movie, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

[wyldwolf]

61. which is irrelevant to his contention Obama is talking like a Republican... but...

... I wouldn't expect you to see the necessity of staying on topic.

[Alexander]

63. Actually, it's quite relevant, if you saw the movie.

It's apparent you probably have never even heard of it.

But I wouldn't expect you to get any references that have anything to do with culture.

[wyldwolf]

64. using a movie to make a point that Obama is speaking like a Republican

:eyes:

Ok...

[Alexander]

66. Just admit you never saw it and don't understand the reference, and we can move on.

I have a hunch you never saw "Liar Liar", either, another hilarious film.

[wyldwolf]

67. never saw the first, own the second (X-mas gift), now I'm happy to move on.

Now that your little side show distraction is over, I can't wait to see you (or someone) finally explain how Obama was talking like a Republican in that quote.

[Alexander]

68. Good, nice to see you admit you don't get the reference.

And there's a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk.

[wyldwolf]

69. yet, you're still continuing your side show distraction.

[Alexander]

70. Not really, I told you the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk.

Which was directly referencing your quote and not any movie.

Either you are incapable or unwilling to read. Both of which reinforce the notion that you don't know what you are talking about.

[wyldwolf]

71. We're discussing ONE specific quote - fact you seem to be avoiding

[Alexander]

73. I didn't avoid it at all, if you can read.

Obama talked the talk (as in, yes, he talked like a Republican). Clinton walked the walk (as in, yes, many of his policies were like Republican policies).

We'll see in January if Obama walks the walk.

Do I have to spell it out for you?

[wyldwolf]

74. sure you did. HOW does that quote equate to Republican speak? You just won't answer.

[Alexander]

78. He is praising Clinton's tactics of triangulation.

Which, to Clinton, meant adopting your opponent's issue so they can't attack you over it. He did this on a number of issues like NAFTA, welfare reform, GATT, WTO, trade with China, the death penalty and DOMA.

Obama has talked like Clinton every now and then to appeal to moderates and conservatives. But who knows what he'll do once he gets in office? He could govern like Clinton, Feingold or somewhere in between.

That is the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. A pity you saw my comment as another opportunity to attack.

[wyldwolf]

82. that's been the tactic of every Dem president since FDR - which doesn't make it "Republican."

[Alexander]

83. Clinton triangulated much more than FDR or any other Democratic president since.

It remains to be seen whether Obama will triangulate to Clintonian proportions, but I sure hope not.

[wyldwolf]

84. so? STILL doesn't make it "Republican speak."

[Name removed]

75. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

53. That's a great movie.

[TheDebbieDee]

58. I think we here at DU should establish a "dog-whistle speak"

glossary of terms. Seriously.......

[Cleita]

4. I hope he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet that the RW can rattle.

I hope he can't be corrupted with bribes. If so then, he's our guy to replace Pelosi.

[sharp_stick]

5. I think he'd be fun as the Speaker

he can spout a blue streak as well as any drywaller I've ever worked with and it would be a blast to watch him go off on John Boner and gang in the house.

[DJ13]

6. Wasnt he big in the DLC during Clintons Presidency?

If so, do we really want one of them in the leadership of the House undercutting Obama behind the scenes?

[dflprincess]

12. That's what I was thinking - and no I don't want anyone from the DLC running anything

If you like Nancy Pelosi, you'll love Rahm Emanuel.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Donnachaidh]

18. Rahm's been playing both sides

He's been watching the smoke signals. And the fact that he HAS been doing this should give any sane person pause about making him Speaker. He's obviously looking to better HIS own nest. Can we for once put someone in the office who isn't a grasping, self-centered toadie?

Someone who thinks of the job in terms of what is good for the COUNTRY? Not someone who thinks he/she will better THEMSELVES with the job?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. While I cringe at the thought...

I agree that he would be the Democratic version of Tom Delay. That said, is that what the country really needs at this moment?

Not that Nancy and Harry make my little heart go pittypat...

[LiberalFighter]

14. Don't forget that Rahm is DLC and worked against Dean's plan.

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. Wyldwolf says Dean's plan is misguided.

Something about liberals and conservatives not realizing their ideologies are irrelevant to the majoritarian discourse of the far-right leadership class.

[wyldwolf]

23. really? where? Got a quote?

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Well, It's Certainly True That Dean Lost The 2006 Election For The Democrats

So sayeth the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

37. really? where? Got a quote?

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Essentially

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2006/11/15/carville_says_d.html

Sad that Dean lost Congress like that - unlike the DLC who won it every time when they were calling the shots.

[wyldwolf]

42. Doesn't even come close to saying what you content.

1. James Carville is not the DLC and doesn't speak for them. Disagree? Then show me a link.
2. The article doesn't say Carville (or the DLC) said Dean lost Congress. Disagree? Quote me a passage.
3. The DLC has never called the shots in a national election.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. 1. Show Me A Single DLCer Who Publicly Disagreed With Carville

I think we all know what was going on.

2. Yeah, you're kind of correct - but "Rumsfeldian" has pretty strong conotations.
3. Who ran the DNC during the elections from 1994-2004? Who was the President during national elections from 2004-2000?

[wyldwolf]

50. proves nothing

"I think we all know what's going on."

Sure. You're trying to bend events to fit your agenda.

No, I'm totally correct. We WON Congress in 2006. There is NADA showing Carville claiming otherwise. However, you pretending he did says a lot about your perception.

David Wilhelm (1993-1994) Ohio
Debra DeLee (1994-1995) Massachusetts
Christopher J. Dodd (1995-1997) Connecticut
Donald Fowler (1995-1997) South Carolina
Roy Romer1 (1997-1999) Colorado
Steven Grossman (1997-1999) Massachusetts
Edward G. Rendell1 (1999-2001) Pennsylvania
Joseph Andrew (1999-2001) Indiana
Terrence R. McAuliffe (2001-2005) Virginia
Howard Dean (2005-)

:shrug:

Waiting for the DLC connection...

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newmajority]

17. Can we have a Speaker whose head is NOT up Israel's ass so far they think the sky is brown??

Is that really too much to ask for?

And to the lurking PSU trolls, let me give a pre-emptive FUCK YOU. It ain't "anti-semitism" to insist that our Congressional leadership represent the interests of THIS country.

[jannyk]

29. Oooh - That'd be a Vast Improvement - NOT!!! nt

[Horse with no Name]

33. I despise Rahm

and I despise politico.
They are both RW tools and neither are to be believed.

[marmar]

45. Nancy might have been a disappointment, but Rahm would be an absolute disaster....

We might as well just merge the Democratic and Republican parties with him at the helm....

:scared:

[tekisui]

46. Dennis Kucinich for Speaker of the House!!!

[dysfunctional press]

57. fuck that shit! he used to be my worthless dlc dino congressman...

now i'm living in bill foster country!

but there's NO WAY that i'd want a dlc corporatist setting the agenda in the house. real universal healthcare would become a non-issue, for starters...

[Marr]

60. I see no point in removing one corporate whore only to replace them with another.

[suffragette]

65. Seems to me that Dean's 50 state strategy is what led the Democrats

back to power in 2006 and that Rahm was fighting him almost every step of the way.

Of course, no one would get that from this article, which uncritically proclaims Rahm as that engine multiple times.

I guess if media sources like the Politico slip it into articles as a given enough, they and Rahm think we'll buy it.


Looks to me more like a Rahm DLC P.R. piece designed to help him retain or expand his power.

[SoCalDem]

72. A DLC toadie? No thanks.. I'd rather he replace Obama

as senator.. At least there he would be one of 100, and unlikely to be "in charge" of much..

It's time for the republican wing of the democratic party (DLC) to take a dirt-nap..

[Alexander]

79. I'd rather Jesse Jackson, Jr. replace Obama.

[SoCalDem]

80. Me too, but if Rahm wants it, he'll get it

:(

[MasonJar]

81. Rahm is worse than Nancy any day of the week. Nancy is undoubtedly

being balckmailed because she is at least progressive. Rahm is DLC right down the line. No way I want him as Speaker.