Thread to call for Rahm Emanuel's resignation

It's his fault the Blue Dogs have the strength to water down the healthcare bill to nothing. It's his fault that progressives have almost no Cabinet seats. It's his fault that the administration hasn't really been fighting the right and the Beltway.

Rahm is not on the Democratic Party's side.

Rahm is not on the side of the progressive American majority.

Rahm needs to be gone. Now.

Let's get a DEMOCRAT in his job.

where?

Because he's harsh with the left when he's only supposed to be harsh with the Right. Because if the public option is removed the bill is the status quo and everyone on talk radio will claim victory.

But he calls those shots based on who he gets to hear from and what info he's given.

And it would be a very different and much better situation if we didn't have someone in Rahm's position who was rabidly anti-grassroots and anti-progressive. It's not the whole thing, but it does matter.

Where's the disconnect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

snip//

Ultimately the Democratic Party enjoyed considerable success in the 2006 elections, gaining 30 seats in the House. Emanuel has received considerable praise for his stewardship of the DCCC during this election cycle, even from Illinois Republican Rep. Ray LaHood who said "He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them. Rahm did what no one else could do in seven cycles."<41>


And I'm glad the President's right hand man is a pit bull. I wouldn't want it any other way.

progressive activists at the grassroots level flipped the House. They did it in SPITE of Rahm.

And damn it, the president's right-hand many is only SUPPOSED to be a pit bull to the REPUBLICANS, not to us. There is never any excuse for this party having leadership figures who treat the left as the enemy.

Rahm showed what he really cared about when he fought harder for NAFTA as a Clinton staffer than for anything positive.

I didn't think so. And consider these people: Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, Nelson, among others. I think he has every right to go after some deserving Dems and wish he'd be more outspoken. And he'd be the person to do it.

Bad mouth him all you want, but I think he's serving the president well.

There's going to be nothing left in the bill when Rahm's done. You can't talk right wing in public and be progressive behind the scenes.

Sad.

then yes. We don't need anyone who treats the left worse than the right in our party's leadership. Rahm wants to cut the healthcare bill down to nothing.

(Corrected to fix the bridge building metaphor.)

They specify them, based on design guidelines provided by architects and planners.

Since it's a bit unfair to assume you know anything about building bridges, perhaps I should take a different tack.

(Though that assumes knowledge of sailing?)

You are, essentially, complaining that a divided government is compromising.

I would suggest that the best fix is not to complain, or oust people, but working to reduce the division.

Without it, the bill is meaningless and the fight is lost forever. Nothing's worse reducing this to the healthcare version of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which is what Rahm is trying to do.

I suggest you study some history.

Studying some warfare tactics might help, as well.

If you can't think of worse things, that's a failure of imagination.

Imprisoning people, and forcing them into lethal labor, if they don't have healthcare, is worse. Is that what Rahm is doing?

Summary murder, on the streets by cops, for people who don't have healthcare, is worse. Is that what Rahm is doing?

Your invective is lacking.

You can't deny that the story is over if public option is left out. Short-term surrenders never lead to long-term gains.

Without the public option, the bill has to be a worthless as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That's how meaningless it has to be.

I need no comment, that phrase alone shows your depth of perspective.

No progressive legislation has been strengthened in decades. Why can't you see that Rahm's selling out and that it's now or never?

And you can't give me ONE good reason why we should ever trust Rahm again after this.

No civil rights act improvement?
No medicare improvement?
No employee improvement?

You are aware that what you are typing is public, right? So anybody can check if you're saying something... sane?

Those improvements only happened in the past. You know no public option now would HAVE to mean no public option forever, so why even bother settling? Why can't you see that settling for less now is a useless tactic?

Give me ONE good reason why we shouldn't see no public option this year as the end of history?

You know as well as I do that if the public option isn't in this years' bill, the story is over.

Why? He's never served the people or fought the good fight on anything. You can't be progressive and be more hostile to activists than you are to conservatives, and that's Rahm all over. His kisses corporate ass and kicks the people in the teeth.

:popcorn:

:beer:

and these are shaken -- not stirred.

:rofl:

:popcorn: with butter and parmesan

We need better than triangulation as a way to run a country.

:kick:

We don't need a bastard who's a bastard to OUR side. Rahm never fights AGAINST the right. And Rahm knows a bill without a public option would have to be both worthless and the end of the Adminsitration. I think he wants that. Rahm wants the post-1994 Clinton years back.

Rahm NEVER fights the Right, he just tells progressives to fuck off. We don't need that, and you know a healthcare bill without public option is the status quo forever, and that coops are surrender.

....

Rahm's history was fighting for NAFTA and building the DLC.

Rahn never stood with the poor, he lived in the 'burbs and moved to the suites. Once you're in a corporate office, your soul is gone.

The fact that his mom marched for civil rights doesn't make up for that. A DLC'er can't be on our side.

There's no way Obama wants progressives to be treated as junior partners in the Democratic coalition.

You can't be pro-war and progressive.

You want a progressive, the Feingold, Clark and Kucinich are your men.

And it's pretty much ONLY the HRC diehards that still bring up Rick Warren. Never mind her inaugaration would have been MORE right-wing(which would've meant her admin would've been more right wing, as goes without saying).

And I felt betrayed when he endorsed Hillary instead of entering the fight himself.

He's not doing anything the prez doesn't know about.

:rofl: :popcorn:

That's what Rahm wants. And it's his fault that there are so many disloyal Dems in the House. We'd have taken the House without nominating people who hate what this party stands for. Centrism and conservatism are the same thing.

Ignore.

Rahm can't chew out and abuse progressives, and dilute the healthcare bill down to nothing, and then still claim to be on the people's side.

:nopity:

"It's his fault the Blue Dogs have the strength to water down the health care bill to nothing. It's his fault that progressives have almost no Cabinet seats. It's his fault that the administration hasn't really been fighting the right and the Beltway."


In many states, regardless of who helped them, the blue dogs won when a liberal candidate would not. In some states, that is about your only option. Like Georgia would elect a progressive rep. I live in very blue CT but I am not naive about the rest of the country, especially when it comes to the House. There are many different types of districts..liberal to moderate to conservative.
Obama chose the cabinet...as President it is his fault/not his fault. This blame Rahm crap is funny because last time I looked Obama was a capable adult unlike Shrub. Obama chooses the tactics and ultimately it is up to him. If you were critical of Obama I could accept it...

He can't be and be willing to give up the public option. Without that, the bill can't be worth anything and you know it.

Why can't you admit that he isn't on the people's side?

One. Just One. He's never fought the power or fought for the people. His NAFTA stance proves which side he's on.

:eyes:

The tinfoil is on a little too tight my friend. A little too tight.

No one who ever backed NAFTA should ever have been in a Democratic administration(and Clinton should have been denied renomination over it, before you try to get me on a double-standard).

Rahm was hand picked by Obama. Trying to make him a scape goat only points to your inability or unwillingness to face facts.

Rahm has made the administration a progressive-free zone and it's HIS fault the anti-healthcare forces have a good chance of winning. At a bare minimum, we never needed to nominate antilabor Dems who hate social progrsms. Once Dems are on the bad side on those two issues, that doesn't actually leave anything they could be good on.

I was a senior officer, leader of many officers and enlisted men and women. Believe me when I tell you they did NOT set policy, I did. I also took responsibility for those policies/decisions.

To think that Rahm is marching to the beat of his own drummer is laughable.
You have a problem. Either Rahm works for Obama or Obama works for Rahm. Which is it? If Rahm has as much power as you seem to give him, then POTUS is impotent. Are you saying that Obama is being dictated to by Rahm? That sounds like George Bush being Dick Cheney's puppet.

White House Chiefs of Staff have huge power. It's huge power simply to control who the president sees and hears and what information he's given. If we had a chief of staff who wasn't a corporate toady, we'd have a progressive administration because progressives wouldn't be out in the cold. \

I don't have to bash President Obama to make my point. He's a good man but larger forces are at work and Rahm is allied with the anti-progressive forces in this country. You can't use the military as an example since that doesn't involve partisan politics.

Nice try, but I do believe you need a new pair of tap shoes. The one's you've got on are worn out.

Let me ask you again. Who's in charge-Obama or Rahm?

It's not about the military or partisian politics. It's about LEADERSHIP & POWER.

It isn't as simple as saying Rahm is in charge OR Obama is in charge. There can be more than one center of power in an administration.

So it isn't one or the other and there's no point to you badgering me on this.

a Democrat is ONLY supposed to fight the Right.

Or do you believe that you're the only person who defines what the left is?

:rofl:

You know the story ends if public option is left out this year. Why are you ready to sell out?

Quit your 'sky is falling' schtick. It's tiresome. :boring:

We need a Democrat in Rahm's job, not a corporate toady who fought for NAFTA harder than he ever fought for anything progressive.

We need a bulldog who fights the OTHER side, not OUR side. Rahm spent his whole life in corporate suites, then fought for NAFTA as Clinton staffer. Why would you EVER see him as an ally?

So yes, you do think you have the power to define the left, and you are sadly mistaken for believing that.

You know that. And you know that's what Rahm is willing to do. How can you NOT see that as surrender?

Weak bills can't be improved later anymore.

Second of all, did you believe what you did back in 1993? If so, how do you reconcile the fact that here we are again, under the very next Democratic President looking for the same reforms?

That was proven to have had no positive results and it did nothing to help the Administration's position at all. We lost in 1993 because the Administration never fought for its OWN bill and refused to let progressives mobilize grassroots support for it. You can't blame the left for that one at all.

You keep saying that if we drop something now that we'll never get it back, and yet we did it in 1993 and here we are again. How can you possibly say that it's now or never when history repeatedly proves you wrong?

Corporations weren't obsessed with stopping the civil rights movement, so nothing in that category can be compared to this. And actually, corporate power hasn't put ANYTHING at the same level of absolute determination to prevent any meaningful change.

You would agree that a bill without public option couldn't be worth having, wouldn't you, since everything else in the bill is trivial?

Health care came up in the 60's, 90's, and again today. And it's going to keep coming up until we get it right, yet you insist for some unknown reason that it's now or never. There's absolutely NO reason to believe that.

Nor is there any reason to believe that the rest of the bill is trivial. You obviously don't understand the bill or the other proposals if you believe that. Are they as good as the public option? No - but that doesn't make them in any way trivial. If we can get even one more American adequate health care, it's not trivial.

You know we'll lose Congress in '10 if the public option is killed. You know it will destroy support for this administration.

He is NOT on our side! I've scoured the WH website for his e-mail, and can't find it. Why can't We the People access him?

If you're willing to sacrifice the public option, you've clearly stopped being on the left. There isn't anything progressive you can DO after that if you've sold out on that one. Just as there wouldn't have been anything progressive about the Johnson Administration if it hadn't got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts through.

Thread to call for <current administration member on list> resignation!

I can't take what you post seriously.

It's simple. You know that, if we have no public option, the bill isn't any change and the right wins and wins forever. You know we can never recover from that, as we never recovered in the Nineties(without Congress, Clinton's reelection in name wasn't actually worth anything).

Why settle for consigning us to nothing?

I support single payer, and failing that, a real public option.

But calling for the resignation of Rahm Emmanuel is absurd and nothing more than a distraction. That's
where you uber lefties always fuck up - you muddy the waters with nonsense and then serious people can't take your good ideas seriously.

If they had just been socons on a few things, that'd be one thing. He didn't have to insist that anti-labor Dems be nominated and he could at least have insisted that they be committed to the public option. That would still have left them a lot of room for "moderation".

Rahm didn't HAVE to reconstitute the Southern Democratic wing of the party and force us to accept at huge block of closet R's in our midst.

A president is only going to go as far as his advisors will encourage him to go.

There was NEVER any reason to have a chief of staff who treats the left wing of the party worse than the right wing and the DLC.

The gatekeeper matters. Why can't you see that? And why can't you see that it's wrong to have someone in Rahm's position who treats the progressive majority of his party as the enemy and is willing to settle for a bill that's less than nothing(which is what a bill without public option HAS to be).

What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? Or is it that your wall of denial is starting to crumble and you're having trouble dealing with it?

Thank you.

He could ask for Rahm's resignation and we, as a party, would lose nothing. We don't need anyone who is worse to people on OUR side than he is to the Right.

You think that THIS thread is going to build pressure on the POTUS?

Take a good look at the responses you're getting from your fellow DUer's. You can't even convince us this is a good idea. Have you ever thought about stand-up comedy? You're funny!

You know perfectly well this debate would never have moved this far to the right without Rahm pushing it that way and without the non-Dems he forced into Dem nominations. Why are you cutting him slack?

It didn't occur to me that so many people would give a right-wing traitor in our midst the benefit of the doubt, like people like you do with Rahm. I really don't understand your attitude here.

My problem is that you want to blame him for everything. He is doing the bidding of his boss, the POTUS. And before you accuse me of not liking Obama, I supported him, I worked for him, I donated to him, I voted for him; however, I am not a sycophant who will excuse him and blame his staffers because I can't bring myself to acknowledge that he is not perfect or that he makes mistakes or that somehow he doesn't know what his staff is doing.

By insisting that this is all Rahm's fault, you are (inadvertently, I'm sure) insulting Obama. In essence, you're saying he's not in charge, he's not intelligent enough to understand what Rahm's up to, and that he's easily duped. I don't really think you think that. It's obvious you are very loyal to him, but that's what you're doing.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as hostile, but it's impossible to solve a problem if you can't acknowledge what the problem actually is, and, imo, Rahm isn't the problem (part of it), but not the real problem. Getting rid of him wouldn't change anything.

I apologize to you for being hostile. Obviously, we're not going to agree, so I'll stop posting, and agree to disagree.

And actually, I wasn't trying to "dance around" your question about who was in charge, I just didn't see it as the main issue.

Of course the president is ultimately responsible. But advisors do matter. FDR was in charge, yet he was always better when he had more progressive advisors than when he had more conservative ones.

Or rather, changed my mind. Here's to being able to express our opinions even if we don't agree all the time. :toast:

We both want what's best for the country and that's what it's all about, isn't it?:hi:

And this exchange has taken an astonishingly positive turn!

:toast: :beer: :thumbsup:

Sometimes I get lost in the forrest because of all those damn trees!:rofl:

Pfffft snicker snicker!

any thread that criticized Rahm anyway.

The man is no good for our party. There's no good reason to have somebody in his position that is more anti-left than anti-Republican.

Is it just to make you feel better?

Because if you're actually interested in persuading anyone here, you won't do it by being completely strident.

Obviously, few here have an appetite to talk about the administration chief of staff resigning. And there's been no build-up of convincing to even make that case.

Better to stick with pointing out all the instances of how democrats are responding to business and financial interests over the interests of regular Americans, analyze how and why that works, and convince people of what I believe to be the truth - which is that this is the majority occurrence, not the minority occurrence, within Washington politics.

As much as it frustrates some, I remain convinced that its more important to do this kind of analysis about the political actions of democratic representatives than it is for republicans - because everyone is always convinced that republicans do not have the interests of the american public at heart. People have not yet come to terms with all the ways in which washington democrats, while still having differences with republicans within a certain limited spectrum, also do not usually act as though they have the interests of the american public at heart.

What we should do about that is a question that's even further down the line - one for which I have no concrete answer. All I know right now is that I fervently believe that even if we continue to fully support Washington democrats, we must at last have no illusions about how they operate, or whose interests they - a majority of the time - actually serve first. In other words, we should at least accept the most truthful picture of politics in washington first, even if we don't know how that can be changed.

Right now, most people still reject the basic reality of what is actually going on - until that changes, really not much else can be done.

When his selection as COS was annouced, I really couldn't believe it -- it sunk just about any genuine "hope" I had about this administration. :(

Rahm is not the average American's friend. He has sucked hard on corporate dick for the past 20 years.

That he has the President's ear -- egads, talk about your Iago.

Rahm has always held this pointless resentment towards the progressive majority of the party and he hates us more than the people he SHOULD hate, the GOP.

warts and all

There's no reason he should be getting heavy with anybody other than the Right.

I assume he follows the orders of the president.
Who wants to win also

And it's the Right who he should be fighting, not people on OUR side.

my faith has certainly wavered recently, so I understand your point.

I still think we'll get a public option, perhaps called by some other name, when the bill passes.
I'd put the odds at 60/40 with.

Fine. Thanks for admitting you're against the people.

Yeah, if they vote on no public option now, they can never have it ever ever ever ever. Status quo forever!

And I am so totally against the people, which would include both the single-payer advocates and the teabaggers somehow!

Corporate power will always stop if if they stop it this time.

And well, yes, you are dismissive of anyone who isn't a cynical insider.

Your position is like telling Martin Luther King he should've been happy with the Civil Rights Bill of 1957.

Why can't you see that there's simply no point in passing a bill without a public option, since without that it's just the status quo with tiny meaningless increments?

...because health care reform was defeated when Bill Clinton tried to pass it in the nineties.

Yes, my approach tends to be somewhat Machiavellian, if you truly know how I'm using that term. To me it simply means that the path you intend to take to where you want to go must begin at where you are now, with the means available to you, not with what you think you "should" be entitled to. I rarely use the word "should" in political arguments. It's often times an excuse for not dealing with what is.

We can assume, if it falls apart this time, it'll be ANOTHER sixteen years. These chances don't come closer together as the situations repeat.

You wouldn't actually argue that it was "no biggie" if the public option was left out, would you?

...who managed to take us on a Republican detour due to their plan - and I still don't know how all the dots connect; not a single one has been able to explain how it works - to get this country on the right track by taking votes away from a Democrat and letting a Republican win. Yes, it might take another sixteen years, because of asshattery.

And that that rightward swing and the arrogant disdain of the DLC types who'd stolen control of the party provoked people into third parties. What were they SUPPOSED to do? You couldn't just expect them to go on backing whoever we nominated no matter how anti-progressive the ticket had become.

The party lost those people by disdaining them and treating them as if they were obligated to be loyal to the party even if the party was under no obligation to be loyal to them.

You've bashed the Naderites for years now. Why can't you offer a meaningful suggestion for what they should've done instead of what they did? Expecting them to just vote for Gore would've been asking them to give up, since we both know a Gore administration would've kept progressives out in the cold just as rigidly as Clinton did.

So tell me...what SHOULD the people who voted third-party have done? Are you honestly saying they should have just accepted that the party was right to treat them like shit? If Gore HAD won, would you have helped fight for their right to be heard, or just gone on flinging abuse at them?

Face it, the party has to take responsibility for goading people into voting third-party. Triangulation never had to become that which could never be challenged. We didn't have to turn into a party(in the Nineties)where ceo's were welcome and the poor, the workers, and progressives weren't. We were the party of the country club in those years and that's why the Greens and the rest happened. Admit it, finally-it WAS Clinton's fault.

I agree that Bush was worse than Gore would've been(at least slightly)but Gore would never have had a Democratic Congress so he couldn't have done anything beyond bland centrism even if he'd won. The dead zone of the post-1994 Clinton years would've just gone on forever. For you that was good enough, but then you don't seem(from what I can tell)to have any interest in anything beyond electing somebody who CALLS themself a Democrat.

Finally, healthcare reform would NOT have back on the menu in a Gore administration, and with Clinton refusing to try to work to restore a Democratic majority in Congress there was never going to be any chance of it in Clinton's second term. We only have the chance we have now because, unlike you and the DLC'ers, President Obama recognized(at least during the campaign)that he NEEDED the grassroots, needed the activists, needed the progressives, and thus treated them with respect. Your man Rahm has spent all his time keeping the grassroots barricaded out of the Oval Office. You can't seriously be arguing that that approach has accomplished anything.

The message is, we can't win as a party of high-rolling corporate elitists.

...for not making yourself influential enough on the people voting to get them to understand and support your position. And you lose them in great numbers when you're willing to impose a Republican president on them because you can't see the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Were you directly affected by the Iraq War (did you fight in the war)? By Hurricane Katrina? These were among the people affected by the Bush* administration, who the Naderites didn't see as important enough to try to protect.



They should have voted for Gore.



You are the party, as well as anyone who is registered with the party. It is your own job to appeal to them. If you get ridiculed, it is your responsibility to try another approach. Protip: you get ridiculed less when you use less hyperbole and manipulative drama tactics.



Sure, because Clinton had no interest in restoring a Democratic majority to the congress which had him impeached. I can see that.

Every single member of the staff and cabinet COULD be replaced with someone more progressive. Right now, however there more pressing problems than how perfectly principled and progressive the chief of staff is. Pissing away time by rearranging staff now would be a criminal waste of political capital and a diversion from the massive problems Obama faces.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion but I doubt it will get much traction beyond a few here at DU. Rahm Emmanuel is likely to stay for at least the first term. He gave up a chance to be speaker of the house and Obama is a very loyal guy. I just don't see it....

If Rahm had been speaker of the house, nothing to the left of post-1994 Clinton policies would ever have gone through. Thank God we were spared Speaker Rahm.

But, policy issues aside, I can see how someone of his temperament and background could make a highly effective chief of staff.

I blame him for Diane Benson not being our congressperson right now, and I will never forgive him.

For the information of "Lower 48" DU'ers, Rahm essentially ordered the Alaska Democratic Party to give her no help
when she was the nominee in 2006 and then recruited an unelectable state legislator from Anchorage to run against her in the primary in 2008, essentially forcing the legislator's nomination through even though he had no name familiarity outside of his own district and was always doomed to lose.

He followed the template of his betrayal of Christine Cegalis in the Illinois 6th district(forcing a candidate in to that district who didn't live there and who had no local support and no worthwhile message), a betrayal that cost us any chance of taking that seat in 2008.

The message is, no good ever comes of the national party trying to manipulate congressional nominations. The DCCC never knows best on who's "electable".

if I remember correctly. It was absolutely shameful what Rahm did to Diane, the best candidate to come out of Alaska for ANY office in a long, long time. I worked on both of Diane's campaigns, as well, and I was disgusted by the lack of support from the DCCC under Rahm's guidance. There was just no excuse.

This line of reasoning is older than Harry Reid's excuses.

Ken, we fail not because of the dark machinations of Rahm Emmanuel, but because we can never keep our shit together long enough to get something done. In seven months, how many members of the Obama cabinet or other appointees have been denounced on DU? Rahm, Vilsack, Hillary, Sotomayor, Salazar... etc, etc, ad nauseaum.

This is Obama's administration, he picked who he did because he wanted them there. He is not a babe in the woods being manipulated by a bunch of slick handlers, nor is he the machiavellian mastermind that others argue, he is a first term President who is doing some things differently, and other things the old-fashioned way, and is being roundly flamed for it, and that's on our side.

I don't advocate lock-stepping adoration, but good grief, the man can do no right for some. If he delivers reform, he will be skewered for no public option. If he delivers the public option, he will be skewered because it's not single-payer. If he delivered single-payer, we still be screaming about the fact that Bush, Cheney & Co. have not yet been prosecuted, and if he personally guillotined said gentlemen on the Capitol Mall, he'd be pilloried by those who are against the death penalty. Some days I think it a miracle that this party functions at all.

Directly, that is.

and I doubt seriously that Obama will fire him...

He's a poor strategist. He needs to go.

Which was NEVER what Obama wanted.

he's doing what Obama wants him to do.

If Rahm goes, the new guy will do what Obama wants him to do.

At least two posts that suck fiercely.

You have no reason to trust the man, and the party owes him nothing. He doesn't deserve your loyalty.

a hissyfit.

There's no case against Rahm. And the President of the United States endorses Rahm's job security.

isn't a case?

Being willing to give up the public option(I.E., being willing to make the bill meaningless)isn't a case?

Treating progressives worse than our enemies isn't a case?

Kindly explain.

where you order exactly what you want and expect exactly that order to be in the bag when you reach the window.

I don't think politics works like that and I don't think you think it does either.

You don't like Rahm in his current role? Tough. He's there. What are you going to do about it except bitch on an opinion board that he's the big bad wolf?

This is a real crap OP, KB.

Sorry, I can't make my life into a self respect-free zone.

Of course I know politics isn't a fast-food drive around. And I've long ago given up expecting to get EVERYTHING I want(and in this case, what the American people want).

It's about minimum standards.

This is a bare minimum standard:

To count as a Democratic administration, we have to get EFCA and heathcare reform as a public option.

And we have to be out of Iraq by 2010. Anything short of that is failure and betrayal.

Three things. None of them that much to ask.

Without them, we're reduced to the post-1994 Clinton era all over again.

And there are simply no other issues that matter. There are no other "wins"(all of which would have to be tiny and pathetically incremental)that mean anything if those three things are lost.

Even you couldn't seriously argue with that.

president around.

Which is good, because your advice would put him in a very compromised position.

Also I've not met the sage who knows what is going to happen. There are no working crystal balls out there. Which means you also don't have one.

We don't have to act like the Right is the senior partner in the government.

Democratic President does not equal conceding the stage to the Right, except apparently in your drive-through world.

There remains also the question, which you should answer and not the rest of us, why your post is in negative numbers. It might be insightful to hear your thoughts on that.

Nothing I've said here is anti-Obama.

This thread is in negative numbers because the "any criticism of anyone in the administration is treason" crowd showed up. No surprise there. Those who do "unrec" do it for one reason: they can't tolerate dissent. That was the only reason the right wing of DU ever demanded unrec.

I'm not going to say any more on that because they got their way on that and the story is over.

Good Christ. You're way the hell off the charts tonight.

Your post was kicked in the teeth. I'll infer that there might be a reason for that.

The President of the United States chooses his own Chief of Staff. That's how it works. It doesn't matter whether you like Rahm or not. That's how it works.

Who would you like to replace him with? Cindy Sheehan?

Somebody that's actually on OUR side. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, my OP was kicked in the teeth...BECAUSE some people here can't tolerate dissent.

The president chose the man he wanted for that job and that man holds the job the president wishes him to have.

I want the administration to remember what worked in the campaign. That's what's needed now.

who supported and voted for him because they believed in change. We were told to believe in change.

because Rahm Emanuel and Snake in the Grass Schumer made damn sure no REAL Democrats ran against them in the primary?

How many times have those two shitbags tried to take credit for what Howard Dean did to rebuild this party?

FUCK Rahm. FUCK Schumer. FUCK the Blue Balled Cowards. FUCK the DLC. FUCK the corporate hijacking of the Democratic party. :grr:

Why are they loyal to the disloyal?

They think if they criticize any member of the administration, it makes them an "Obama basher".

I've never seen it that way. I can't stand Rahm, and the economic team is a bunch of worthless Wall $treet/"Federal" Reserve whores, but that doesn't mean I'm still not holding out a sliver of hope that this President can do the right thing with healthcare (and hopefully some other things). Though admittedly its a smaller sliver than it once was :evilfrown:

If I start thinking about all the various campaigns I helped with, that got shredded by Rahm, I will become physically ill.

The folks defending him really have no idea about Rahm. He is poison.

Truthfully, I breathed a huge sigh of relief when he was named as Ch of Staff, because I thought THANK GOD, WE ARE GETTING HIM OUT OF CONGRESS AND THE DCCC!

Who knew his filthy bullshit would be infiltrating the health care issue? I should have seen it coming.

I defend my president, but I think he has a real blind spot w/Rahm. There are reasons that the folks who knew Obama "back when" are not exactly warm to Rahm. He will sell you out to the other side before you know what hit you. And he doesn't think twice about it. And he's wrong 98% of the time.

Anyone who has really known anything about Rahm from way back, and been watching him all this time, knows he is KILLING the real democratic agenda & plank of our party. The ones here defending him just like the MYTHOLOGY of Rahm as some super ass kicker. Yeah, he's an ass kicker alright - just all the wrong asses. He LOVES that mythology too, even though it is complete bullshit.

The description of him as Iago is incredibly apt.

God, what I wouldn't give to be rid of him from any office of public service.

The buck stops with his boss. If you're going to blame anyone, place the blame where it belongs.

:shrug:

will get the message

but I don't think that Rahm is doing anything without Obama's approval. It's not like he's out of the WH doing his thing in some Dept. (such as a cabinet member). He's right there, a few feet away from Obama, and sees him several times a day. Therefore, the buck stops at the Oval Office's desk.

;-)

:wow:

Well, I for one, agree with the OP 100%.

being against Rahm Emanuel does NOT mean you're anti-Obama.

Emmanuel is slimey as a hell.

Why would anyone want someone like THAT as the WH gatekeeper?

OK, I've made up my mind.

No.

What is wrong with DU sometimes! Blame them! Go after them!

How friggin' lazy to insist Obama/Rahm are supposed to be responsible for what goes on in other peoples' minds? When all you have to do is hold THEIR feet to the fire.