Rahm: I never believed in bipartisanship

[laughingliberal]

Is the left's enduring caricature of Rahm Emanuel -- as the primary advocate for the White House's futile and self-damaging quest for bipartisanship -- all wrong?

In a new book, Rahm claims he privately argued to Obama that he shouldn't pursue bipartisan support for health reform, because it would take too much time, instead insisting that the lesson of Clinton's failure to pass reform was that it was imperative to put a premium on getting it done quickly. That cuts strongly against the image of Rahm as the chief internal advocate of the White House's strategy of deal-making and accommodation with Republicans.

Rahm makes the claim in interviews with journalist Richard Wolffe, in his new book, "Revival: The Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House," which was released today.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/rahm_i_never_believed_in_bipar.html

[Skink]

1. I never belived in Rham.

but best of luck to him.

[MrMickeysMom]

4. Rham's never believed in Obama...

For that matter... he could have given a shit about the entire Democratic party.

[laughingliberal]

9. +1 nt

[Mimosa]

2. If Rahm was loyal to Obama he would NOT...

If Rahm was loyal to Obama he would NOT...

publish a book now.

Is Rahm Emmanuel really going to publish a book?

[gateley]

3. No -- it's Richard Wolffe's book, but I can see how you might think it's Rahm's

by the way it's stated in the article.

[Hannah Bell]

5. rahm-a-lama-ding-dong.

[laughingliberal]

11. Rahm throws President under bus. nt

[gateley]

6. Well, I'd have to agree with Rahm on this one. I also recently read where we've

been blaming Geithner for a lot of stuff that he was actually against but it was actually Summers who was responsible.

I think this book will be interesting to read. From what I've seen of Wolffe, he seems pretty objective.

[yurbud]

7. whether he's telling the truth or not, it's the highest level admission that bipartisanship FAILED

Move on to actually fighting for what we need not playing patty cakes with sociopaths for Christ's sake.

[Poboy]

10. True, Whether he is telling the truth or not, it IS an admission of the

failure of 'bipartisanship'. I mean he's running away from it as fast as he can. The strategy is ruinous and advocates are toxic. Still, if it is indeed true, we are about to be fucked beyond belief.

[alittlelark]

8. uh, yeah .............. just $$$$ below the radar.

Parasite.

[Bluebear]

12. I fully believe him. He meant to exclude Democrats from the get-go. nt

[laughingliberal]

13. DUzy!

:rofl: