Fire Dog Lake and Down With Tyanny discuss Lizza's column on Rahm today.

Jane Hamsher gets right to the point.

Things Rahm Left Out Of His Love Note To Himself



That part is quite true. Heath Shuler was prominently featured at Tom Tancredo's website with some of the most rigid right wing haters of immigrants. His picture was front paged there.

Here is more on Rahm's "training sessions" on the topic of immigration. He really did urge them to "move right to win".

From 2008:

Daily Kos, Down with Tyranny, Fire Dog Lake on Rahm's training sessions with DCCC candidates.



Down With Tyranny presents the words of Stan Greenberg, whose home Rahm shared in DC.

Howie of DWT speaks of Lizza's puff piece today

It is surprising what Stan Greenberg says about him. He is the husband of Rosa DeLauro who is supposed one being considered for the HHS post.



Howie goes into further detail about how Rahm may have caused us to lose a congressional seat here in Florida.



DWT is a little blunter than I would be. But here is more about how Mahoney was chosen and Lutrin was dumped.

What a mess in FL 16th



There is a lot more at the link.

David Lutrin, Democrat and school teacher, is not discouraged. He is planning to run again.

Kudos to him.

. . . I'm not a mindreader so won't speak to his motives, but his behavior = jackass, at least.

I'm pretty ambivalent about him.....long as he gets the job done,
and I see our lives improve. In otherwords, I won't be holding him up,
I won't be defending him, but I won't be smearing him either.

I am pointing out some facts.

I am proud Obama is president. I am surprised he chose someone who is so against the grassroots.

I really don't care for him for many reasons. But we don't need to make him our hero to be a good Democrat and loyal.

There are many kind and good people who don't take pride in being a**holes and using f*** every other word.

He will do a good job getting Obama's back, if indeed that is what Obama wants.

This guy is a CORPORATIST through and through! Wasserman-Schultz was endorsing Ginny Brown-Waite for gawd sakes... and she was Rahm's hand picked bag lady for Florida! If you're not going to toe the line then you are FUC*ED!

... long time friend of David Axelrod, defied Howard Dean once and the increasingly meaningless netroots hate him for it.

Yes, you must hate.

He isn't known as a loyal and partisan Democrat?

I'm missing what the propaganda is.

Oh, I get it. Yours is another example of nutgressive disconnect.

the blue jerseys are winning....it doesn't really matter who they are or what they stand for. They have a "D" at the ends of their names so they must be good!

One where the definition of politics isn't applicable

wyld, you may think you're being funny, but, it's just plain wrong to call names at progressives the way you do.

Using mockery against liberals and progressives is exactly the same tactic the GOP has used for decades to divide this country.

wyld, you may think you're being funny, but, it's just plain wrong to call names at progressives the way you do.

I used to feel that way, until one too many people (like the person I was replying to) started namecalling first - perhaps you missed his "wylddlc" usage?

The mockery - the constant "he's not a real Democrat" and "republican lite" bullshit that comes from the left - you missed it?

Calling you wylddlc was an attack against you singularly, and yet you chose to attack progressives in general with "nutgressive"?

Do you have evidence that Rahm did not recruit Republicans to run as Democrats? Do you have evidence to suggest that Rahm did not advocate running to the right, wrt the example of immigration? If not, then what words would be appropriately descriptive of Rahm? You call him the partisan and loyal Democrat?

I would like to understand.

1. The person I was replying to is one of the chief offenders with "Republican-lite" and DINO BS.

2. Always in response to his BS, I've called him Flanutgressive

Do you have evidence that Rahm did not recruit Republicans to run as Democrats? Do you have evidence to suggest that Rahm did not advocate running to the right, wrt the example of immigration? If not, then what words would be appropriately descriptive of Rahm? You call him the partisan and loyal Democrat?

All that is pretty irrelevant considering the left of the party in no way shape or form defines what the Democratic position on any given issue should be or what a Democrat should be.

Emanuel recruited conservative Dems and at least one confirmed former Republican to run in conservative districts. One thing some people never seem to get is Dennis Kucinich will not win in red districts.

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

Calling DU members "Flanutgressive" and "nutgressives" is not criticism. If you perceive BS, provide facts, sources, reasoned arguments. Calling people names contributes less than nothing to this community and angers some like me.

Isn't it funny that the Republicans seem to be ruled by their activists? Our party buys what Republicans have sold about the activists within our own party, right? Liberals and activists are smeared. Why shouldn't the people who care most about the party have a say in what constitutes the party. And I disagree, I say they do define what the Democratic party is. Didn't your state create a platform for Democrats there? Didn't you speak out when the President asked for contributions to his platform?

You bring up Dennis Kucinich, why not Howard Dean, or any other hero of our community? You are right though, the average American listen to what the Republicans say about Democrats because the Republicans control corporate media. There are flaws in your argument about red districts. Those folks said the same about Barack Obama but he did win in red states, didn't he.

:shrug:

I always find it funny how attacks on centrists on this board are glossed over as "the truth" but when the tables are turned there's all manner of whining.

It's like the kid on the playground who walks around hitting other kids until one day he hits the wrong kid and gets tagged back. Then he claims innocence.

"Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

Fun chatting with you, take care.

It harms everyone.

not effective. he's a jackass.

and doesn't have to mean anything.Rahm doesn't have to be "smeared" his record and actions speak for themselves.

Because I have an article here from the Chicago Tribune that says they did argue over the 50-state strategy.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2006/nov/12/nation/chi-0611120215nov12

It's a long article, so press ctrl+f and type dean.

I'm ambivalent towards Dean, but it was certainly not a "netroot myth."

The article is a summary of a full book by the same author.

In that book, it's clear Emanuel couldn't care less what Dean did as long as he didn't abandon the Dems short term chances in '06.

Rahm mocked Dean as a political lightweight from a small state



Here is the entire article from Salon called The Legend of Rahm

Thank you, Dean, for doing the right thing - even though you had to be berated for it to happen.

Contempt for all of us who don't toe the DLC line of post partisanship.

You show your contempt every time I post, everytime Dean's name is mentioned.

Your contempt is showing.

Contempt for all of us who don't toe the Howard Dean line.

You show your contempt every time you post.

Your contempt is showing.

Gracias, Rahm. Yet another reason to dislike you.

and this along with hubris is going to get the administration into trouble not far down the line.

So Lizza and Emmanuel are trading New Yorker puff-pages for the raw materials of a can't-miss insider book.

Suppose Rahm also gets a sales-based fee for blurbing it onto the bestseller list?

--

could maintain that access when more facts were accessible AFTER media successfully helped keep Bush in office for another term.

But...seems to me Obama wouldn't need the protection and coddling that Bush and Cheney needed during their illegal and unethical reign in the WH. So....Lizza should have the opportunity to show REAL journalistic skill instead of the 'tactic' based flattering of creeps like Rahm.

Someone must be enlisted to explain (at least to the beltway) why being an accessory after-the-fact to torture is not really, really the war criminality and human rights atrocity that it is on any other plane of existence.

Such is what passes for a REAL journalistic skill these days.

===

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/03/duckworth_faces_challenge_to_u.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2538776

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1594558.html

and there`s a lot more posts on du from that time


duckworth lost.

By the way, David Axelrod (yes, THAT David Axelrod) was much more involved in Duckworth's campaign than Emanuel.

In fact, Axelrod was the strategist behind Duckworth, Mayor Daley, AND Emanuel.

Actually Durbin and Obama were deeply involved as well. Durbin was the first to endorse her I believe.

Here is so much more on the way the DCCC got rid of candidates and put their own in the race.

http://www.truthout.org/article/special-report-democratic-house-officials-recruited-wealthy-conservatives



The pressure to get out of the race was overwhelming.



Now in the same way, our former chairman appears to be shut out by party machinery.

And we are not supposed to notice.

her name was on the ballot in '06 primaries, right?

Duckworth had it all...ads by Obama, money, national media exposure, and the party leaders refused to allow Cegelis access to major party donors...Sound familiar? Happens often.

Duckworth lost. Cegelis first time out with no experience in 2004...got 44% of the vote against Henry Hyde. An amazing feat.

:shrug:

She'd been running since she lost in 2004 - she did not shut down her campaign. She campaigned for two years - had all the name recognition - but still couldn't win the primary.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3696916.html

She also had a reputation for being a very poor fund raiser.

in the Chicago party leadership.

She was deprived of funds and told that major donors had been asked not to donate to her.

She was right, you can't ever stop compaigning if you want to win.

Now she is working with others, having been screwed by the Chicago bunch and put in her place properly.

If she had been given the quarter to half million Rahm spent running against her...she would have a great chance at winning.

Rahm spent money to get many Dems out of races.

You can stay in denial, you can mock me, you can keep repeating words....bottom line Cegelis was shoved out by Democrats in Chicago.

by her own party leaders.

...she'd been running her campaign since 2004 and she had trouble fundraising. But that's just spin in your world. :)

According to her Jan. 2006 FEC report, she only had $48,972, while having debts of $39,179. She'd been running for three years! You can't win a congressional election like that.

Read the articles I posted. They did the same to Dave Lutrin and Jan Schneider in Florida.

It's a pattern.

And when it gets to that point it is time to say good bye before stuff happens.

You can talk about me behind my back now.

you are a "poor fundraiser". it is done all the time.

here in illinois. the 6th was`t the only deal cut...the 14th was a deal the democrats did with the republicans to keep fat denny in office...

Oh dear.

boss....O has his dino turdblossom, who will in time bring disgrace on him. The realization of just who Rahm is, is just beginning to dawn on Democrats outside the beltway who will not take kindly to being shafted.

I've only heard snips about Rahm before, but I instinctively knew he couldn't be trusted.

He may be many things, but a Liberal, he ain't.

K&R

the DLC and muscle Rahmbo out of the way is to keep the pressure on. The time is right. We need Progressive ideas and Progressive candidates--Democrats who are Democrats, not Republicans turned Democrat for convenience sake.

Don't let us forget.

Thanks for your dedication to this.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/23/lizza/index.html

"Instead -- like a writer from People Magazine wanting to ensure continued access -- he confines himself to quoting only Rahm's best-est friends: David Axelrod ("one of Emanuel’s best friends"); Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen ("a friend of Emanuel’s"); and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg ("an old friend" whose DC house Emanuel lives in). Other than Lizza's inclusion of some light mockery by Fidel Castro of Emanuel's name, those are the only people who are allowed to speak about Emanuel in Lizza's piece (other than Emanuel himself).

"Rahm, you see, is -- as his good friend Stan put it -- "not an ideological Democrat. He’s not ideologically liberal. He comes out of Chicago politics, which is more transactional." He gets things done. Every political slogan of the Obama White House -- pragmatism over ideology; we're problem-solvers not partisans -- magically weaves its way into Lizza's narrative paean to Rahm. The only thing missing is Rahm's favorite color and recipes (though we do learn one of his winter get-away spots: Park City, Utah).

Lizza even allows Emanuel several paragraphs to attack and mock Paul Krugman, who had been critical of the concessions the administration made as part of the stimulus package. Yet Lizza didn't include (and, apparently, didn't seek) any reaction from Krugman (or from anyone else critical of the White House's negotiating tactics), and as a result, Emanuel was permitted to glorify himself and rail against Krugman's critique without having even to describe the criticism accurately.

Obtaining reaction from Krugman to Emanuel's attack was left to Jane Hamsher, who emailed Krugman yesterday and immediately received a reply making clear that Krugman's principal criticism -- that by foolishly trying to accommodate the GOP from the start, Obama's initial proposal was too small and thus guaranteed an ultimate package that would be even smaller -- was one that Emanuel never bothered to address. He didn't have to address it. Instead, Lizza just let Emanuel speak without any real challenge. He wasn't on a mission of examining claims from powerful government officials in order to allow their truth to be assessed (i.e., journalism), but instead devoted himself to transmitting and endorsing those government claims without scrutiny (i.e., stenography and propaganda)."

"White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel -- who The New York Times described as "arguably the second most powerful man in the country" -- is certainly one of the most controversial figures in Washington. Prior to joining the Obama administration, Emanuel -- in the Clinton administration and then as a high-ranking member in the House Democratic caucus -- was at the center of countless political and personal controversies. Emanuel has played the central role in much of the Blue Dog dominance in the House and many (if not most) of the worst Democratic capitulations to the Bush agenda. Even in the four weeks that he's been in his current job, Emanuel has been the target of severe criticisms of his management skills from many precincts for his role in the Judd Gregg and Rod Blagojevich fiascoes and the Obama administration's questionable negotiating tactics in the stimulus package. Both Jane Hamsher and Howie Klein yesterday identified just some of the current and past controversies that Emanuel has triggered.

Despite all of that, The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza has written a very lengthy profile of Emanuel -- almost 5,300 words -- that is so reverent, one-sided, and glorifying that it is hard to believe it wasn't written by Emanuel himself. In fact, much of the piece consists of Emanuel praising himself and Lizza writing it all down uncritically. It's almost impossible to walk on the streets of Washington, DC, without bumping into a vehement critic of Emanuel, but Lizza doesn't manage to include any comments from any of them."

:hi:

defines the word "Chicago pol" and NOT in a good way. Cegelis was not only forced out, and she was one among many and she was actively "prevented"' from raising money . The party does that. Some of the down thread comments are interesting because they seem to think that fund raising is actually controlled by the candidate. Rahm also "forced prochoice candidates out of several other races even though polling indicated they were in just as good a position to win as the pro-lifers he reached out to. Now those folks vote with the GOP and no one seems to care.

:cry: