Emanuel Backtracks From 'Trigger' Comments; Dem Says CoS Made "Hell Of A Mistake"
After sparking progressive outrage, and sending the White House into damage control mode, a chastened Rahm Emanuel appeared before House Democrats yesterday to reassure them that the administration stands foursquare behind a public option.
At the meeting, House liberals warned Emanuel that he couldn't count on them to vote for a bill that contains a triggered public option. "We have compromised enough, and we are not going to compromise on any kind of trigger game," Woolsey apparently told Emanuel. "People clapped all over the place. We mean it, and not just progressives."
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said Emanuel assured him that "he doesn't stand by [the] trigger."
But all may not be forgiven and forgotten. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), chair of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, said the Chief of Staff ""made a hell of a mistake. He made a hell of a mistake and he knows it."
Meanwhile, across the Capitol, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid laid down the law, urging Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) to walk away from his efforts to reach bipartisan consensus on health care reform--specifically, to advance a bill with a public option, and financed without taxing workers' health benefits. It's unclear as of now how closely the two major developments are connected.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
I knew they would take the wood to his ass! Good for them!!
I like Rahm a lot and think he's the COS the president needs (smart, cut throat, loyal, knows how Washington works) but I think he was forgetting his place. His job is to make sure the President's train runs according to the President's vision, not take his caboose on another track.
He needed a smackdown.
July 8, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"smart, cut throat, loyal, knows how Washington works"
Which one of these attributes was on display in this incident? Smart? Looks really really dumb pissing off all those progressives in the House. Cut Throut? Yes, telegraphing a willingness to compromise before the bargaining has even began sounds awfully tough to me. Loyal? Really, so if he's loyal to Obama, then Obama supports the "trigger" option as well, or was Rahm being disloyal and stating his own preference? Knows How Washington works? Maybe he does, but is that what we want: The Villagers running things? What about Change? What about the Audacity of Hope? Those aren't things that go over too well in the Village.
July 8, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
where's the change, blah, blah, blah.
What about you getting some new talking points? Cue the birth certificate track.
July 8, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not much of a counterpoint. You're clearly not doing Emanuel any favors.
July 8, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Emanuel needs favors from me? Wow. I didn't realize what I posted carried so much weight.
OK. I'll spruce up my posts now that I know the WH reads them because they need advice from anonymous folks on the blogs. We're sooooo powerful.
That must explain why Edwards got the nomination and Obama voted against FISA, Rick Warren didn't give the invocation and Hillary never became Secretary of State.
July 8, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot: you're not one given to substantive, intelligent responses. My bad.
Carry on with your colorful, inconsequential bloviation.
July 8, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like your first substantial response to me? Gotcha!
Carry on with your "I got my ass kicked so I'm leaving now" BS.
July 8, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would have responded substatively if there were any substance in your post. There wasn't, so an observation was all I could offer. I guess it went over your head. I'd try to dumb it down to your level from now on, presuming of course that I could discuss politics on a third grade level, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be worth the effort.
July 8, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should the goal of 'public option' for health care be negotiable?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5691
.
July 8, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hank's original post wasn't much of a counterpoint either. FreeRider said that Emanuel made a mistake here and then Hank accuses FreeRider of defending the mistake. FreeRider was right to call him out for robotically repeating talking points.
July 8, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
With a schoolyard taunt? I guess "raising the level of the debate" has lost some value.
July 8, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, Henk's response was a point-by-point disection of FreeBoy's thesis. It would have been edifying to see a constructive, substantial defence, but then again, it would have been nice to see Harry Reid's purported gonads before yesterday.
July 8, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What about Change? What about the Audacity of Hope? Those aren't things that go over too well in the Village. "
That's the taunt that started it, Snotly!
Put shit like that in any post to me and you're guaranteed one thing: my middle finger.
July 8, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your middle finger is pretty much guaranteed regardless of the response. An intelligent, substance-based defence? Not so much.
BTW, you're interrupting the adults here. Not that you have much of a sense of decorum, but...I wasn't talking to you. Now, go play in the road with the other gumbys.
July 8, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>substance-based defence? >>
Learn to spell before lecturing. OK.
July 8, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you have trouble with substance or defence?
Once again, you're right on target with the germane responses (do you get irony or should I be a bit less subtle for you?).
July 8, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it wasn't a dissection of his thesis. FreeRider acknowledged that this was an example of Rahm screwing up (i.e., not exhibiting his usual characteristics). Henk's response is based on the implicit assertion that FreeRider said this was an example of Rahm at his best. That's the opposite of what FreeRider said.
Henk's rhetorical tactics are the equivalent of a wingnut, in responding to the notion that Obama is cool-headed and moderate, saying "WHAT PART OF LISTENING TO JEREMIAH WRIGHT IS COOL-HEADED AND MODERATE?!??!?" Mistakes happen (and this was a minor one), only desperate ideologues try to inflate them into things that overshadow everything else that someone has done.
July 8, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you're mistaking Henk's implication for your inference. Henk addressed FreeBird's assertions of smart, cut throat, loyal, and knowing DC process with contrasting perspectives. FreeBird failed to defend himself regardless of what Henk might have accurately or inaccurately implied. He chose (as he usually does) to deflect and dismiss. As I see it: Henk 4, FreeBird 0.
YMMV.
July 8, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
ya got caught!
be a man/woman about it!
July 8, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
My hunch is that Rahm perhaps accidentally stated what the real intention White House and the dumbocrats in congress.
Change, if any occurs, will be like the climate bill that passed-weak, ineffective-and yet praised as if a milestone in human history had been achieved.
Remember the Obama pledge to not allow telecom immunity? I'm pretty confident that the so-called public option will not come to pass. Too many wealthy will be threatened and this will mean a decrease in the campaign coffers of prostitutes masquerading as congressmen/women.
July 8, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blah, blah, blah.
You and henk should coordinate who's going to post your faux outrage to avoid repetition.
July 8, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you on the Obama payroll? Perhaps drink too much kool aid. Do you wear an Obama cheer leading outfit while singing his praises? Are you older than 12?
I realize your black and white perspective may be easy on the mind and maybe reflective of an immature perspective. Perhaps as you mature you'll realize the world is a complicated place and that evil and avarice permeate both sides of the dominant American political parties.
Remember telecom immunity? I'll keep hammering that one since you're incapable of responding.
July 8, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you on the "Obama is Satan" payroll?
Before you lecture me on the complications and nuance of the world, you should drop the fruitcake we're all screwed, life is over rhetoric. Or just go over to RedState where you'll have plenty of company.
July 8, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nowhere did I write 'we're all screwed, life is over'. It's too bad you cannot see beyond the two parties and realize that real change (not just the imaginary change Obama represents) will not occur with the two dominant parties.
Say how about the Obama flip-flop on telecom immunity? Still waiting for your response.
July 8, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're late for your Nader/Perot meeting. Run along.
July 8, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still didn't address the telecom flip. That's a tough one to explain away, isn't it?
July 8, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and I realize your hate won't allow you to see the truth. Typical troll hater.
July 8, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still waiting for one of the Obama worshippers to respond to his flip-flop on telecom immunity.
Maybe none of you are aware of it? Wouldn't surprise me.
July 8, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the deal. You got a problem with sweet, fruity beverages?
July 8, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
FreeRider. You always post the same thing I would post. Sure gives credibility to the saying that great minds think alike. LOL.
But I agree totally. The pres knew what he was doing when he picked Rahm. Rahm made a big mistake and he knows it and now he has to pay for it. It will all be okay.
July 8, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed! Rahm fucked up. But the Rahm haters (who blame him for the Lindberg kidnapping) start their usual hyperventilating and calling for his head.
July 8, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blame him for the Lindberg kidnapping? Your grasp of reality keeps slipping further and further.
This reminds me of the David Stockton debacle where he proclaimed Reagan's supply side economics as nothing more than republican traditional trickle down economic theory. Got in a lot of trouble for speaking the truth. I suspect Rahm accidentally let the cat out of the bag and all you Obama cheer leaders are having a hissy fit because of this.
Grow up girls! As long as you mindlessly worship Obama (in between your teary bouts over the death of Michael Jackson) no real change or progress will occur.
July 8, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you know how to bring change. Vote third party! That worked great in 2000!
July 8, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah more ignorance by the FreeLoader. The mantra that the 3rd party vote cost Gore the election coulda come out of Dumbocrat Party Headquarters.
Try reading a little bit and learn about how the election was corrupted in Florida.
The Dumbocrats, like the rethuglicans, do not want any legitimate competition so instead of insisting on an investigation of what occurred in Florida they instead try to blame Nader for their loss.
Too bad but pretty much what I expect from two corrupt political machines and their mindless admirers.
July 8, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eeh, that's some serious tinfoilage. Gore lost because he didn't get enough votes. If you didn't vote for Gore, you contributed to his loss. All the conspiracy theories about Dems throwing the election on purpose won't diminish the truth of that one simple fact.
July 8, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tin foilage? Your response is the typical one I encounter when talking with those that aren't very well informed or are conservatives.
Try reading about the purging of the Florida voting rolls. Greg Palast did some great reporting on this.
I suspect though that this may threaten your beliefs, so be blissful in your ignorance.
July 8, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee whiz! You understand very well how the Two-Party system works. Time to brush-up on some high school civics to understand how democracy works. According to your thesis, anyone who doesn't vote at all is also "responsible" for Bush's election.
There is a difference between the two parties, of course, just as there is a difference between leprosy and the plague. With one you get a slower, disfiguring death. With the other, a swifter but extremely painful death. Some voters, myself among them, refuse to vote for either leprosy or the plague. In the last go-around, I wrote in Bernie Sanders.
July 8, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should the goal of 'public option' for health care be negotiable?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5691
.
July 8, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't there some small airplane with fuel injection problems Rahm can fly in somewhere?
July 8, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Rahm and he can be very effective when he needs to. However it is good that he got a smackdown from progressives and he now knows how far they can be pushed.
Rahm needs to learn how to smack around blue dogs too.
July 8, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
But why is he pushing against the progressives on this? Is the administration simply looking for an excuse to surrender? I mean, how did this idea ever get into Emmanuel's head?
July 8, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. If they were looking for an excuse to surrender, Obama wouldn't be talking public option every chance he gets and Reid wouldn't be telling Baucus to forget the Republicans.
2. This might surprise you but Rahm wasn't an empty-headed child when he came to the WH. He has opinions and positions, just like everybody else. His problem is he forgot it's the president's opinions that matter, not his.
July 8, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you did read my entire comment.
Henk:"Really, so if he's loyal to Obama, then Obama supports the "trigger" option as well, or was Rahm being disloyal and stating his own preference?"
Freeloader: "His problem is he forgot it's the president's opinions that matter, not his."
Thanks.
July 8, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
blah, blah, blah. . . . blah, blah.
July 8, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah at last FreeLoader says something intelligible in between his bouts of Obama worship.
July 8, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
He needs to emasculate the blue dogs. They aren't team players anyway.
July 8, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right, part of politics is demonstrating (by design or happenstance)to third party observers the limits imposed on each other by parties of the first and second part. That may involve an occasional slapdown. But if one does this with respective groups, then -- voila! -- reality strats to take shape.
Obama not "winning" every single battle exasperates progressives (and I am one) and invites ridicule from wingnuts, but it's reality and part of the long lost art of building consensus.
We give too much emotional weight to the give and take that in the end makes our systemm relatively stable.
July 8, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Put another way, to govern from the center (which is really where one ought to govern from in a representative democracy) one needs to define where the center actually is. The progressives, after years of tree-falling-in-the-forest irrelevance, have found someone who at least hears them. I think we should view this as a good thing.
July 8, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that supposed to be funny? Because it's not.
July 8, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I left out the part about the airport being socked in, fog so thick the pilot can't see the runway.
Funny now? No? Tough.
July 8, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This really is excellent news. This sort of thing reveals what the White House was really up to: more compromise with the GOP at the cost of what the country really needs and wants. We saw it with stimulus, taxes and we may yet set it with healthcare.
As liberals, we need more this. Obama is like any politician and will make the right choice---the hard choice---only if held accountable. May liberals draw a lesson---and new strength---from this episode.
July 8, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
After 8 years of "this is what we want and this is how we're gonna get it" from the Bushies the last thing I want to hear are mixed (and confusing) messages coming from the Obama WH.
I'm no fan of Emanuel and this isn't the first time he's put his foot in his mouth and given the appearance of an uncoordinated WH. These are extremely serious issues and the WH needs to take a tough, clearly enunciated, coordinated stand. Haven't they learned anything from the previous administration about how to get things done?
July 8, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could point out for the third time that this all started with a third-hand comment reported by the Wall Street Journal which was taken out of context and didn't even have a direct quote. But hey, don't let me ruin the Progressive Pity Party!
July 8, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
So your saying that, according to TPM, Emanuel has "backtracked" from something he didn't say?
Links...?
July 8, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
This sums it up pretty well (kudos to VivaAmerica and NCSteve). You could also just find the actual quotes and read them. Except you can't because there are no quotes, so we just have to take the Wall Street Journal's word for it. It amazes me that people are so willing to trust a third-hand report from the corporate media just because it allows them to throw a fit that Obama isn't progressive enough.
Imagine for a second that the Wall Street Journal, without a direct quote, reported that Ari Fleischer said that Dick Cheney had told him he was deeply troubled by what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. It would never pass muster. So why is it all of a sudden that when the Wall Street Journal reports that Emanuel said that Obama might be open to an alternative to the public option that people take it as an accurate truth?
July 8, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm Emmanuel is the worst sort of Democrat. The question is never whether or not he is lying, it is whether or not he is ever telling the truth! He meant what he said and the progressives are rightly angry. The public option was the compromise. Ditching that leaves no reason for any real Democrat to vote for the bill which primarily subsidizes health insurance company premiums at public expense.
July 8, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm is tight with the DLC or Republican Lite Council. He is a sleazy jackoff and a little man with dreams of big man muscles. A good ass kicking would do hiom good. At 76 I'm up to it.
July 8, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>Haven't they learned anything from the previous administration about how to get things done?>>
CQ Politics: "Obama is on pace to be the most successful Oval Office occupant in more than half a century when measured by his ability to get Congress to vote his way.
...
If Obama's success rate holds, he'll surpass LBJ who has the record with 93.1 percent in 1965, his second full year in office."
But I guess results don't matter if you're not making threats and throwing red meat to the base. He should work on emulating the highly-successful Bush administration.
July 8, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Insisting on affordable health care is red meat?
As for Obama's "future" track record, I'm more interested in quality, not quantity.
July 8, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on! He's been saying "quality affordable healthcare is non-negotiable" since Day 1.
If Obama got the exact same results but talked like Clint Eastwood, you wouldn't be complaining. After 8 years out, it's not enough that we get what we want, the left wants to grind the republicans into the dust in the process.
Your original post was about what Obama needed to do to get his agenda through congress. When I point out that he's been very successful at that, you change the focus to "well, I don't like what he's doing."
July 8, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blah...blah..blah...blah...blah!
July 8, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or in other words, you got nothing!
pwned!!
July 8, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK. It's clear now that I'm dealing with a child.
Spnacked!
July 8, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You believe what a politician says?
You are naive beyond belief.
July 8, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and it gets in the way of rampant conspiracy theorizing!
July 8, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conspiracy thinking because I'm aware of things you are not? Hiding your ignorance behind insults is not a good way to argue.
July 8, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, of course, by your logic, this can only mean that Rahm passionately supports the public option! Woo hoo!
July 8, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid you went through the looking glass with that one, but unfortunately that's what I expect from the Obama worshippers. You guys are as bad as those that mindlessly bought into everything W did.
In fact I'd say you suffer from the same mental disorder the die hard republicans that refused to admit any errors during the W years.
July 8, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If quality affordable healthcare were more than a slogan to the President he would be pushing for the only model that makes sense for the nation and that is some form of single payer. Quality affordable healthcare is nothing but a catchprhase for him just like "change we can believe in." He's a politician, not a reformer, not a leader, not a risk taker.
July 8, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm ... do yourself a favor ... you are supposed to Obama's Robert Kennedy! Get some vision there my boy! You can't make a Camelot by simply giving in to a "K" Street elite that wastes too much money trying to keep the world the way it was! Help Obama do something good for the country ... !
July 8, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Health care reform is one of the primary reasons Obama was elected. It was the grass roots, the same ones who are screaming now, who elected him. When did the previous Republican congress "compromise" with the Democrats? The Democrats couldn't submit an ammendment for crissakes! If the Republicans don't like it, f@#$ 'em!! Reid better get some gonads and start herding the assh@les like Baucus into the fold. Even if he has to make him give back the money he received from the health industry to buy his vote! There will be Republican Senators that will agree with whatever the Democrats approve because they know what the majority (75%) want regarding health reform. Snowe and Collins don't want to become the next Republicans in the Northeast to become extinct. The House will be easy. The Senate has too many religious, creationist knuckledraggers on the Republican side, but the Democrats have the majority and they better use it.
July 8, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
All the more reason why a single payer plan should be on the table.
July 8, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still unconvinced by the story that set this mess off. I'm not saying this is what's happening, but, were I them, faced with the reality that the story was out there and generating a snitstorm, I'd see two choices: a) pick a fight with the guy who buy ink by the barrel over what might be a sufficiently subtle twisting of what he really said to turn it into a distracting "The WSJ stands by its story" he-said/ she-said pissing and whining match or b) let Rahm take a whipping he doesn't really deserve.
Choose a) and you've got three days of "inside baseball" media narrative from an MSM with its nose out of joint because its integrity has been questioned. Choose b) and you keep the narrative on the issue you want it on. I think they chose b). (And, besides, as my Dad use to say when I'd try to evade punishment by pleading innocence, if he didn't do this, he's probably done something else he deserved it for.)
I don't really think they're smart enough to be able foresee the very heartening display of fire and spine from the congressional Democrats, however. I think that was a bonus.
July 8, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
My first reaction to this story was "Since when did we start believing everything that was printed in the WSJ?" So far there's been nothing to change that.
Much ado about nothing.
July 8, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Outrage Factory doesn't question its sources.
July 8, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The answer to your question is: "We believe the WSJ when its reporting allows us to engage in the self-pitying flagellation we've gotten used to instead of actually doing something productive."
I understand the reaction. Honestly I do. After so many decades of failed leadership and needless deaths and unbelievable suffering, it's only natural to be primed for disappointment. But it's still not a very useful or productive reaction.
July 8, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does the WSJ or any other rag really wield that kind of power these days? If so, why are they folding like cheap suits all over the place?
Seems to me that Obama & Co. are far more adept at controling the narrative than that. I think Emanuel moved the curtain a bit too far and the Wiz got miffed.
July 8, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's not like you really need rumors when you've already assumed your conclusion and will adjust your perceptions accordingly.
July 8, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
How did I do that?
July 8, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Rahm was supposed to be the tough as nails, Congressional insider, down-the-line discipline type Chief of Staff?
With this episode he failed on all 3 of those counts. When O picked Rahm I was optimistic about his ability to move the agenda, if unenthused about his seeming lack of convictions...Now he's helping derail the agenda with his seeming lack of convictions...Not good.
July 8, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I'm not screaming bloody murder quite yet....
If Reid can find a pair, and kick Baucus into gear, they might just pass a public option.
July 8, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Emanuel made a mistake, unless you believe that he has 'public option' Tourette's. This is not the first time he has hinted at the White House's willingness to cave to the health care lobby, so unless some underlying medical condition causes him to make involuntary statements related to the public option, it is hard to paint this as a simple mistake. I think we should take him at his word and assume that the WH will trash the public option portion of the reform bill if it jeopardizes getting the bill passed. There is an obscene amount of health care industry lobbying going on right now and it will be interesting to see who is swayed by the lobbying dollars.
Wonder what Emanuel's older brother, Zeke Emanuel, thinks about this. As a physician and bioethicist, it would be interesting to know his thoughts on a public option for coverage. In his role as head of the Department of Bioethics at NIH, I'm guessing he can't publicly comment. http://www.bioethics.nih.gov/people/emanuel-bio.shtml
July 8, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Zeke has quite a bit to say on the subject:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/cville_dem/2009/01/forget-single-payer-orthe-obam.php
July 8, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the clip, it didn't come through in the cut & paste:
http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2009/01/10/extended-interv-26/
July 8, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I do not think this is so much "White House willing to cave on public option" as it is "Rahm and Zeke being of the same opinion on the matter."
July 8, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you are right, and I think you are.
I am so glad that Howard Dean is not a shrinking violet!
July 8, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hesitant to weigh in on this kerfuffle, but before jumping to grandiose conclusions it is good to remember:
1) Smart people sometimes say stupid things; and 2) Sometimes really smart people intentionally say stupid things to get others fired up. Sort of like the coach who gets himself ejected to rouse a team that is becoming lethargic.
I'm not ruling out any of the possibilities that Rahm was misquoted, misspoke, said something he supported but the President doesn't, or said something that shed light on private conversations with the President.
However, it also is possible that he and the President thought that it would be a clever ruse, while the President was away in Russia, to say something to rally the progressives to arms, at exactly the same time Reid decided to smack down Baucus.
After years of watching tiddlywinks, let's not forget what a good game of chess looks like.
July 8, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"like the coach who gets himself ejected to rouse a team that is becoming lethargic"
That makes sense to me. Eeven if Rahm meant otherwise, that is the effect.
July 8, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm's a loyal DLC Democrat and we know the Blue Dogs just love him.
Don't plan on his retraction being of any substance.
July 8, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahn Emmanuel is just another smart ass who has let his position go to his head and is now too big for his britches.
July 8, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't start cheering yet
http://www.rollcall.com/news/36564-1.html
July 8, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There sure is a lot of crankiness today.
July 8, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The blogs are spending more time fighting against the Obama campaign's super-secret plan to sabotage the public option that only the WSJ truly understands, than they are fighting in favor of the actual public option.
July 8, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink