But his record overall is still a very liberal record.



http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Rahm_Emanuel.htm

Nothing he could do could possibly be progressive after he did that...and after he did massive tax giveaways to corporate Chicago...and after he used force to close the Occupy camps down.

Not one deviation point other-where than smack in the center "left liberal"!

As scientific as Scientology, or the latest Pew Poll, and you can't get more scientific than that.

How can anyone refute such overwhelming empirical evidence as the existence of that .jpg, reposted for DU's visual edification right here in this thread?
And *please*, don't maunder on citing fine points of meaning, as if meaning counts for anything but transient vibrations in the air, often mixed with farts.

I'll bet that another yet to be named politician will be found at that exact same pinpoint center spot, to explain certain positive results in the upcoming Dem primary process. Again, proof positive accompanied by fait accompli, a one-two knockout combo.

The problem with you, Ken, is that you don't seem to be a thinker. You don't seem to want to be assimilated. Pfff on some "charter schools" or "unions" issues - they no more exist than the Brontosaurus or Schroedinger's cat.

I AGREE with you that Rahm's actions in regard to everything you mentioned were dead wrong. But that doesn't make him a right winger.

Rahm's voting record strongly favors pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, anti-discrimination, pro-gun control, pro-social safety nets, pro-minimum wage increase, anti-social security privatization, pro-environmental protection, anti-defense contractors, pro-voting rights and the list can go on quite a bit.

He is wrong on trade agreements, he has screwed with the unions in a way I don't like and he has been a dick to teachers and he is a foul mouthed dick, as far as his personality goes, in general. But his record is not a right wing record, when considered as a whole. I think we should be more honest with our characterizations.

that a Dem is a Dem yet is only a face of a shadow of what it use to be.....

I have no idea who the people are that compile this information or how trustworthy these categorizations are, but if Rahm is categorized as solidly left liberal there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with their methodology.

Is this the website that compiles ratings based on what politicians SAY (i.e. what they say they value in their speeches)?

If that is given a lot of weight then this rating is meaningless.

Rahm is on a neo-liberal mission. He's following the playbook perfectly so he is pushing right-wing economic ideology. Maybe his support for some socially liberal policies tilts his rating to left liberal. That's just not enough these days. Not even close.

We have to DEMAND politicians represent us as social and economic liberals. Both. Or we will be even more screwed in another decade. And even more a decade after that. And....

She is many things, some good, some not so good, but a far left extremist? I don't think so.

He did nothing at all for black people in that city(or for anyone who wasn't a CEO).

You don't help the streets by privileging the suites. Democrats aren't supposed to do "trickle-down", dammit.

There could have been a people's victory Tuesday night...instead, only the 1% are really celebrating it.

hispanic areas also had low voter turnout which means even though chuy won the hispanic vote it wasn't necessarily an anti rahm vote.

But that's not what carried the day for the candidate of the corporate right.

If the Harold Washington coalition had stayed together, Rahm would have lost.

There simply wasn't any good reason for non-billionaires to support Rahm's re-election.

And Obama should have done the decent thing and stayed out of it.

There was no good reason for him to keep Rahm's political career going.

endorsed him.

Rahm was leading among all groups not long before the runoff.

you are acting like rahm was very unpopular when he wasn't.

Ya, I get it. Rahm got re-elected. So did Lieberman....

http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/7/71/445392/billionaire-ken-griffin-throws-another-500000-rahm-re-election

He gets to be an albatross aorund Hillary's neck too. Granted, Hillary could score some cheap but effective points by slamming him, but the Rahm brother zeke will make sure Hoillywood abandon her.

So much for Chicago leading the way to compassionate government.

More liberal perhaps, but he was just the representative of another of Chicago's political factions who happened to make it into 2nd place when the runoff occurred. Meanwhile, Rahm was always within 5 point of what he needed for a outright win. I think a lot of people (particularly here) projected a progressive uprising that never was going to develop.

The 5 people I know in real life who actually live in Chicago, vote and are affected by the laws in Chicago, voted for Rahm, along with their spouses.

Not everyone who lives/works in Chicago is a DUer.


I am simply stating what my experience (yes, anecdotal) has been, since I don't live and work among the residents of Chicago. I don't wish to argue anything.