Rahm To Liberals: Your Ads Against Dems Are F@$&ing stupid
Greg Sargent reports that, in a meeting with key liberal interest groups, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went on quite the tirade, letting it be known just how he feels about progressive groups targeting House Blue Dogs and conservative Senate Democrats.
Among other things, he called them "fucking stupid."
In the past, White House objections to infighting have been effective. And though a number of groups have insisted that they're not changing their game plans, it'll be interesting to see if the tone or intensity of these campaigns changes.
Advertisement


















Well Rahm, if you think there's another way to get blue dogs in line, feel free to demonstrate it for us.
August 7, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would these adds be stupid? Senator Nelson says they aren't working at all. "Thou doth protest too much" as they are clearly working.
August 8, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Senator Nelson is a bonafide asshole and i'm being nice saying that. But since your post is sarcastic to begin with, i'm telling you something you already know.
August 8, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck You Rahm and I am writing to the president asking him to tell you to stop telling us what to do.
August 7, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Done.
August 8, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm is not the president. President Obama told us to hold him accountable. Members of Congress are not immune to that accountability.
Fuck Rahm.
August 7, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he is the president's chief of staff, so to some degree he is speaking for Obama.
But, that's beside the point. The president may control the DNC, but he is not a dictator and this is the Democratic Party, not the Republicans. I'm sorry if Rahm, of all people, can't deal with some thrown elbows. But, I think he's most upset that some of the conservatives he helped recruit are now being caught in the crosshairs and he doesn't like it. Obama's probably gotten an earful or two from Ben Nelson, too, but I hardly care about Ben Nelson or Kent Conrad's poor hurt little feelings. That's a small price to pay when people are being killed by spreadsheet in this country every day.
So, the president and Rahm might be willing to compromise the store away, but I, for one, am not.
August 7, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have hit it on Rahm. He recruited some of those blue dogs and now Liberals are making HIM look bad.
Looks like it's working, too. It really got their attention. While I tend to agree with most of the tactical decisions Obama has made (my preferred single payer simply never had a chance and would have destroyed the entire effort) the idea that single Payer had no constituency is now dead.
Worse, from Rahm's point of view, he can't run over the liberal/progressives with impunity. Sure complicates their job, but they could always go sell cars or insurance or something. They don't have to be politicians.
I'm still waiting to see what Obama is holding for his hole cards. But the betting isn't over yet, and probably won't be until at the earliest the first week of September.
August 7, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so naive.
August 7, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Technically, you are correct (that is, implying that anyone who dares to disagree with the mighty Rahm is naïve). But it's worth noting that this entire scenario--that is, the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama and the effort to reform our health system--is an act of naïveté.
Had the naïve grass roots supporters of Barack been more pragmatic (back when he was being elected), then we wouldn't be having this debate.
The issue is not whether taking it to the blue dogs is an act of naïveté, rather, it's where you are willing to set the goal posts. If winning this debate on health care means setting the expectations so low that the eventual bill is meaningless, then what's the point?
Since Rahm seems to be a big fan of profanity to bulldoze his points across; I'll have to agree with the majority of the other posters here. Fuck him. He needs to understand that he's working for us, and letting the blue dogs water down a bill as critical as this one will do far more damage to the Democratic Party than a few blue dog bruised egos. They'll get over it.
Yes, that makes me naïve as well.
August 8, 2009 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Had the naïve grass roots supporters of Barack been more pragmatic (back when he was being elected)"
What exactly do you mean here? That we should have voted for Nader, or not voted at all?
Apparently "naive" means having a political memory that goes further back than the last election.
August 8, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
How you choose to vote is your decision.
My point was, especially when Obama announced his candidacy, that there were a lot of people who didn't think a young black man--no matter how well spoken--would have a chance at winning the Presidential election. Thus, supporting him, and believing that he could actually win was a serious act of naïveté. Certainly the Clinton supporters believed that.
If I'm not mistaken, there were some liberals that accused Barack of possibly being naïve when he made it clear he was going to aggressively push for health reform--even with all of the troubles he inherited. But then, we're talking about the (relatively speaking) young black man who had the audacity to believe he could be President in the first place.
I live in Atlanta, in John Lewis's district, and even he didn't believe (at first) that Obama had a chance. Which was why he initially supported Hillary for President. I can't tell you how many African Americans lectured me about being naïve (I'm white and was telling people that I thought Barack could win).
Being naïve is as American as apple pie. It means believing that a status quo can or should be changed. Conservatives have a hard time wrapping themselves around that concept, imo.
Changing or reforming something (as well established as the jumbled mess that our health care system has become) is a serious threat to large special interest groups and thus threaten status quo. Therefore, depending on your perspective, fixing our health care system can become a serious act of naïveté. Single payer would have been best but it's clear--given the visceral reaction to the public option proposal--that our society isn't ready for that level of naïveté. No matter how much sense it might make.
Being naïve is essential for moving this country forward.
August 8, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
We agree. I misunderstood your use of the word.
August 8, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Rahm, what's f@*#ing stupid is insulting the people who worked their asses off to get your president elected, knocked on doors in the dark in dodgy neighborhoods, made hundreds of phone calls, contributed a lot of money on their credit cards that had to be repaid over time, and gave generously of their time and energy--all because they hoped they might see some issues of importance to the bloody LEFT in this country treated with respect and addressed. Guess we know where we stand in your hierarchy. As someone who knew foolishness once said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, fool...won't get fooled again."
What may prove to be the most f@*#ing stupid thing of all, Rahm, is having made you chief of staff.
August 7, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, I couldn't have said it better myself!
August 7, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This puny little sh!thead thinks he is manly using profanity referencing THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING OBAMA IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!! I wanted to say f@#$ing WH, but thought the WH had nothing to do with this. Had Emanuel not imposed himself on who should or shouldn't run in primarys, we may have less of a margin in the House but we would heve less Republican Lites that are more concerned with preserving their seats than following the lead of the President. Rahm is to the progressive movement what government cheese is to the bowel system. The sooner Obama wakes up and sends Emanuel back to ballet class and gets someone as CoS like Howard Dean, we will have this situation no matter what the subject is. Goddamit, the Democrats won the election with substantial majorities in Congress and this is the governing we get? Hell, bring back the Republicans! I thought they all were crooks and subservient to corporations, but they didn't put up with any bullsh!t from their members in the House or Senate. When is Democratic leadership in both Houses going to start leading? They should adear to the hominem, "Lead, follow or just get the hell out of the f'n way. Jesus Christ, what a clusterf@#$k!!
August 8, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he wouldn't like it, HE WAS THE ONE THAT GOT THEM TO RUN.
August 7, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm is right if for no other reason than that attacks on Dems now are distracting from the Central Front in the War on Terror
In case any of you missed it, I recommend
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/health-care/?ref=fpb
or did I miss all the huge pro-health care advocates at the townhalls and all the counter-punching TV adverts?
Making that effing stupid and pointless
August 7, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it we supposed to be fighting for? Single Payer? Ooops never made it to the table. Public Option tied to Medicare rates? No chance. Public Option that negotiates with Drug companies for cheaper rates? Nope, horse traded away by the Prez. Shall we just get out there and fight for Rahm, even though he thinks we're stupid fuckers? I can go out there and kick Tea Bagger ass, and get diddly squat for my efforts. Rahm's comments here prove that.
The only reason I will get out to the town halls is because Keith Ellison is my Representative and I trust him. I'll probably get out there for Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar as well, but fuck Rahm and horse he rode in on.
August 7, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell us what went on at the Town Hall you attended.
At the Town Hall I tried to attend Debbie Dingel came out to assure the crowd that Congressman Dingel was going to hold a second session since the turn out was so large. She was followed by a large man pushing a young man in a wheel chair attempting to claim they had tried to have him arrested. She said something along the lines of that if he really wanted to be arrested he could probably manage it but as he knew he was escorted from the room because he started shouting before there had been any conversation and would not stop. When he was challenged that he had been taking more than his share of the time he almost cracked up -- because, of course, he was following the tea bagger game plan. Congressman Dingel gave a great quote to NPR about how he would not be intimidated.
We can and we should do without the Blue Dog representatives in the house if they are going to continue to block the priorities of the majority of the citizens -- let alone the Democrats -- of this country.
August 8, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Real fucking productive Rahm.
All we need is for you to spend your time and energy attacking liberals.
How about you pay some attention to the goddamn GOP which is attacking your plans on a daily basis.
August 7, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that is exactly RAHM's point.
Baucus: Dems May Have To Go It Alone On Health Care Reform
Groups need to spend money attacking the Dems whose votes they'll need to break filibuster and ignore the Republicans who are attacking those very Democrats at townhalls.
Fcuking stupid eh?
August 7, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
His point is to do exactly what he thinks is the problem?
August 7, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rephrase??? I don't understand
August 7, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the current evidence it would appear that the only way to get the needed votes from the conservative Democrats is to put pressure on them hence the ads. So far all the evidence is that they are only willing to vote for the pet projects of the insurance industry which is funding them. Or do you have any evidence to the contrary.
Electing Republicans in Democratic clothing is not productive and it is high time that Rahm gets that through his head.
August 8, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Rahm had said this last week (assuming he did in the first place), I'd agree with the consensus here.
But I think that the situation has radically changed over the past week and I think that liberal groups and the Administration and the Congressional caucuses were blindsided.
August 7, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
How were they blindsided? The same thing happened in 1994. Had they gotten the bill out before the recess none of this would be happening, but jackasses like Baucus held it up. They should have seen this coming. Remember they are playing chess, right? Stategy, ten moves ahead and all that. Where was Rahm putting pressure on them to get it done? Where was the President pushing his agenda? Seriously, if you look at the month leading up to the recess, what were these guys doing?
August 7, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello!
Cross post
In case any of you missed it, I recommend
Health Care Ground Game: The Week That Was
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/health-care/?ref=fpb
And no the same thing didn't happen in 1993 or 1994
My point is the same....you people can't ride to the sound of the gunfire
The game is no longer Blue Dogs
August 7, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
How were we blindsided?
Last week, I believed with you that the GOP was largely irrelevant to the outcome and that it would depend on bludgeoning the Blue Dogs to at least end their obstruction
That calculus is now obsolete - for the Blue Dogs and more crucially for progressives. The Republicans never were on board but they weren't irrelevant either. Now that the Baggers have taken over the debate and define the opposition the Blue Dog targeting no longer makes any sense
They'll come along. Should have a long time ago. Have no choice now
I can't think of a greater waste of liberal resources than spending money attacking Democrats when all dems are now under full scale attack from the brown shirt Republicans.the Limbaughs and Becks who are running the show
Cross post
Strategery and Tactics
http://www.truthout.org/080709H
August 7, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting point. Don't know fi the BD will flake out or not. But the threat from the GOP might make Dems regroup. Hard to tell. This thing has a while to go now , til November.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-06/take-a-chill-pill?cid=hp:mainpromo2
August 7, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They'll come along. Should have a long time ago. Have no choice now"
Pure wishful thinking -- they thought they could get re-elected by caving the the ReThugs and because of the ads and other pressure they are having to rethink that idea.
Baucus probably finds it embarrassing to have his out of state insurance support so widely publicized.
And with the Internet it will be easy to republish it several year later when he runs again.
August 8, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least Rahm says it to their face.
August 7, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could have been in that meeting. I would have had a few choice words to say to his face, too. And, I hope some of those present did so.
August 7, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The political reality is that these "blue dogs" cannot get reelected if they support clearly liberal policies. And realistically, if they don't get reelected, the best you can hope for from their districts is another blue dog. The worst is triggering a reaction and having the district go deep red.
August 7, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
God I am getting tired of hearing that. Max Buacus won re election by 73 to 27%. You think he'd have trouble supporting a "Liberal" bill or would he have more trouble bucking his big money health care supporters?
If you look at a lot of these guys its more a financial consideration, not political "reality."
August 7, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'r think he'd have a little room to educate his state to the idea that Medicare is government run single payer insurance program which protects your choice of care provider and which the people who have it like much better than they liked the 'insurance' from the insurance company. He needs to get a little guts and tell the truth and win by a smaller margin.
August 8, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's something to be said for enemies who admit that they are your enemies, rather than this stab-you-in-the-backroom-deal "allies."
August 7, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, not 100% true. That's an assessment that has to be made on a case by case basis. Some of the Blue Dogs are somewhat more conservative than most of their voting constituients on most everything and much more conservative than their consituients on many specific issues, including health care reform. Lieberman would be a good example.
And, more importantly, there's a hell of a big difference between not voting for something and actively obstructing. Nelson for example. Its okay for him to vote against the damn bill. It's not okay to vote against cloture and its doubly not okay for him to be obstructing the bill behind the scenes.
August 7, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
August 7, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't researched it, but I'll bet the Blue Dogs who are more conservative than their districts/states have been in Congress a long time and have seniority - like Baucus.
Their key supporters are also more conservative than their district/state and the more senior Congresspersons tend to be isolated away from real voters. There is a shift that have occurred and they haven't twigged to it yet. Then if they do, their key conservative supporters may be threatening them.
That would make them both somewhat unaware of how things have changed on the ground, and second that their sources of political power aren't willing to let them shift.
My last point is that those blue dogs who match my stereotype will be very powerful in Congress because of their seniority and experience. Threatening them makes managing the overall process of getting a bill passed more difficult and in fact if not done tactfully, might derail the process. I'd bet that's high on Rahm's list of problems.
By the way, Steve, I really appreciate your posts. Keep it up.
August 7, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they have high seniority and are blocking Democratic priorities the sooner we get to work getting rid of them the better off we will be. It doesn't much matter which party label they put on themselves -- what matters is how they conduct themselves and how they vote.
August 8, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it is not 100% true. It is true in general, though. Where it is not true and where there is an apetite for liberal policy, is where you should twist arms. Not elsewhere.
Lieberman is not much of an example since he was elected thanks to Republicans and Democrats who were faint of heart, or too loyal to Joe for their own good. And I don't think applying pressure on Joe would do any good because he's not going to be elected senator any more ever.
Dunno about Nelson. How does his district feel about the bill? I think local constituency matters when you decide what your expectations are for a given pol.
August 7, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm is really pissing me off. How dare he tell anyone, especially someone who is not an elected official...to back off. I have been a member of move-on for many years, and I love their ads!! Ben Nelson is a titty-baby, and needs to get with the program. Rahm should be threatening and brow-beating, and telling these blue creeps that they will be primaried if they do not get with the program. My patience is over.
August 7, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the Jonathan Martin story at Politico that was being referenced by Greg Sargent at his blog that Brian's referencing here, he wasn't "telling" them to do anything. He was expressing an opinion. I think even White House officials are allowed to do that.
And Christamighty, whether they're serious or not, can you not see any political advantage for the White House in having forcefully expressed that opinion in terms of getting votes for the bill? When Ben Nelson comes pouting to them saying he don't wanna vote for a bill with a public option because those mean liberal groups made him mad with their mean commercials, are they supposed to say a) "Fuck you, Ben!" or do you want them b) to try to get his vote?
This isn't about us or our emotions or making us feel validated or encouraged or happy that our ideological predelictions are being rhetorically stroked each and every minute of every day.
It's about getting a bill passed. Isn't it?
If what has to be done to make that happen means means some blog commenter somewhere gets mad, well, who cares? In ten minutes, the next urgent crisis of the second will be breathelessly reported and the commenter's emotions will go roaring off on another tangent.
Some people you don't know had to listen to some scolding by Rahm Emmanuel. BFD. They're liberals and Democrats and, therefore, know everything about everything and they aren't dependent on him or Obama for their funding. If they think he's right, they'll do what he says. If they don't, they won't. Either way, the White House has cred in the bank when it comes time to swollow their pride and stroke Ben's injured sensabilities in order to get his vote for cloture.
August 7, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it, NCSteve.
Anyone with a grudge against Emanuel should read the 2006 mid-term history "The Thumpin'" to recall how, without his and Schumer's constant cell phoning, hustle, and gifts of, er, um, persuasion, we would not even have control of Congress today. The man deserves at least the benefit of the doubt that he and his boss might know what they're doing.
I hope everyone on TPM commits to going to their local rep's town hall, phone them with support, etc. this month. Catharsis on a blog is one thing, actual persuasion of your rep -- blue dog or whatever color -- is another.
August 8, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I think you're giving Rahm more credit for 2006 than he deserves. He and Schumer have been getting credit for Howard Dean's advocacy. Were it not for Dean, 2006 would have been a re-run of the typical Dem strategy of focusing on just a few states.
August 8, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with that. Yes Rahm gives way too much credit for the takeover of the House but not really Schumer. He did alot to build the Dem majorities in 06 and 08 but you make a good point. On a side note fuck Rahm. Point and Simple.
August 8, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you primary those Blue Dogs, their seats will almost certainly go to Republicans and the Dems will lose control of Congress.
August 7, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems don't appear to be controlling Congress now -- the Blue Dogs appear to be. So exactly what do you think would be lost if we dumped them?
August 8, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really AJM? You're really sounding like the mirror image of Jim Demint's alternative world where prefers 30 real conservative GOP senators than 60 with DINO'S.
The gross inapplication of logic should be as self evident in your own argument as it is for all of us reading Demint's world view.
August 8, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It' one thing if we are using control of committees and the like to advance the principles of the Democratic Party and to help people. It is another if we are maintainng 'control' of congress by turning ourselves into some form of moderate Republican. So, yeah, really.
August 9, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And further here is Wendy Davis's description of Eric Holder proposed investigation of 'torture'.:
"Uh, I think the standard, a least as Jonathan Turley interpreted it, would me more "Given these utterly bogus laws as described by John Yoo, and tortured into memos sent to the military and CIA as laws, did any CONTRACT EMPLOYEES belive that that they were exceeding the laws?" Memo-made laws that the FBI wouldn't go along with, to boot.
Pretty low bar, pretty narrow scope.
"Liberally interpreted!" Now, that there's a real knee-slapper!
Executive privilege, anyone?"
IF THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO ACT LIKE THE TRTHUGLICANS ANY WAY I WOULD MUCH PREFER THAT THEY DO SO UNDER THE RETHUGLICAN LABEL RATHER THAN HAVE RETHUGLICAN POLICIES RATIFIED BY PRETEND DEMOCRATS.
The position is logical -- the debatable point is at what point 'bipartisan' compromises become flat sell outs.
August 9, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm Emanuel is talking to the wrong f-ing people. He should be screaming at the f-ups who are joyfully f-ing up his boss' -- our President's -- agenda.
August 7, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh so another vote for progressive groups spending money attacking Blue Dogs not Republicans?
Or was that just a Rahm rant
August 7, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same diff -- show me where it isn't.
August 8, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, does it occur to you that the Blue Dogs might conceivably respond to pressure from the left since their elections often depend on keeping all the votes from the left in their states -- I'm sure Ben Nelson's does. One of the things that the ads do is allow Rahm to say --Look, you have to give the troops something or I can't hold them. It has the advantage of being perfectly true.
August 8, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
good cop, bad cop. Rahm will naturally set himself up as the defender of the blue dogs and, I expect, increase his influence with them.
Presure from the left combined with Rahms defense from the center, while the republicans attack from the right is probably more effective than anything.
August 8, 2009 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama isn't a progressive - I have a sneaking feeling that Obama uses the Senate centrists and the Blue Dogs to get the bill he wants.
Rahm is doing the bidding of Obama here. This is Obama's message, Rahm is just the messenger so Obama can seem above the fray.
August 7, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm,
Your slavish devotion to purely symbolic and utterly fruitless bi-partisanship is horse-fucking America's middle class. While you're busy stroking blue dogs and Republicans, people are losing their health insurance and not getting the health care they desperately need. There are real lives in the balance.
If it wasn't all about you, Rahm, you might see the bigger picture, which is the people outside of your political playhouse who are getting screwed by your beloved blue dogs' corporate benefactors.
August 7, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, whatever else this is about, it's not about "bipartisanship." It's about whether these groups are helping or harming the prospects of getting Democratic votes. Blue Dogs are Democrats, remember?
Yeah, I know, but "we can do it without Republican votes" is only true if the Blue Dogs vote with their party, not against it.
August 7, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear!
Not all of us are fucking stupid
August 7, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think the Blue Dogs are ever going to vote for anything but a Republican program?
August 8, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only if they're afraid of not getting re-elected.
August 8, 2009 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then I guess the question is this: What will it take to get the blue dogs to support a bill with a public option and do it in a timely manner?
We don't have a lot of time to play around with this. Is it just a matter of being nice to them? It hasn't made much difference up until now.
If they are ever going to be amenable to a public option, why aren't they now? I just don't see this situation getting any better until we have public financing of campaigns. If the blue dogs can't cut their ties to the health insurance companies, somebody will have to do it for them.
August 8, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, yeah, Rahm's an asshole.
Moving on to more urgent matters, it appears to me that at every meeting there need to be people in the audience taking notes while the teabaggers spout their crazy about what's in the bill, who will then go to the mike and call them out one-by-one. "Mrs. Jones, you said this bill had provisions for killing old people. Can you tell me what section of the bill that's in? Have you read it? If not, who told you it's in the bill? If you didn't read it, how do you know it's in there?" And so on and so forth. Very calm, straightforward, prosecutorial laying out of the facts that lead in one direction: CrazyTown!!!
I'd also like to see a supporter at every meeting dedicated to shaming. As in, someone who will stand up and say, "Mr. Smith, I couldn't help but notice you're a gentleman of an age who probably is on Medicare. Medicare is government-funded healthcare for the group private insurers most want to avoid insuring - older folks. I say government-funded because I pay for it every paycheck. It's deducted right out. You're welcome. I'm ok with paying taxes to help people who have worked hard all their lives and deserve some leisure in retirement rather than constant fear that the next health issue will take their home and retirement savings. I wouldn't feel good about living in a country that treated its senior citizens that way. What I can't understand is why you are so unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me. I mean, I'm out here cheerfully paying for your healthcare and at the mercy of these private insurance companies, and I could easily lose my home and life savings before I ever reach retirement age if my insurer decides to find an excuse to deny payment for treatment. And I would still be paying for your healthcare while I lose everything. I just don't understand how taking the healthcare I pay for and refusing to allow reforms for my healthcare - reforms you aren't even going to be paying for - can be explained as anything but meanness in the historical sense - selfish, petty, miserly. Presumably you have some children and grandchildren who are in the same boat as I am - and you don't care about protecting them either. It just really saddens me because it's so un-American to be so uncaring towards your fellow citizens. I can't understand it or why anyone would want to force their fellow citizens to remain at risk of ruin or death as a result of a condition we all share - being human and prone to illness. I personally don't want to live in a country with such an appalling lack of spirit that it can't treat the least of us better than a stray dog who dies in the street."
And, of course, pack the meetings early with progressives so only a few nutters get in.
August 7, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect Jenn!
Liberal groups should be spending money (and I think now are) going after the Baggers and protecting Democrats at Town Halls. Even Ross was hit.
Somebody should have had his back and that of every other Democrat under assault
Every dime spent attacking Blue Dogs is a dime not spent on going after the Republicans and their big money backers out of FreedomWorks and Conservatives United
August 7, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There would have been more people there with Ross' back (and Snyder's) if they hadn't made the dumbf*** move of not announcing it until like 6 or 7 pm the night before. I would have been one of them.
August 7, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said...we wuz blindsided
It never really clicked until I read that TruthOut bit from a conservative turncoat....yes the money comes from FreedomWorks and Conservatives United, the heat from Beck, Limbaugh et al but the ground troops come from the Christianists....
That is the part I missed. They're turning people out from databases of Evangelicals they've been gathering for 30 years
So obvious..how could I not have seen this coming?
Progressives (me included) proclaimed the Teabag Movement DOA especially when it didn't produce the July 4th mass events
They were just biding their time
August 7, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so scared of the McCain vote. Oh, wait, these were probably the folks who got Huckabee the nomination. Learn to count more than decibels.
August 8, 2009 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jenn, that was a thing of beauty. Thank you. 100% co-sign.
Rahm, are you listening?
August 8, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely dealt. This really deserves to be a blog post of its own.
August 9, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm is absolutely right and if you bother to cut through the clamour of the righteously enraged, this should become clear
Rahm's advice - You are fucking stupid to spend money attacking Dems whose votes you will need while the GOP is attacking you
No body has refuted this or even directly addressed the issue
Fucking stupid
August 7, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep arguing both sides of the case on this thread because there are two sides worthy of argument. There's something to be said for putting a little fear into people like Ben Nelson. Maybe it's counterproductive, maybe it isn't and maybe it depends on who the target is.
But your point, which may or may not be Rahm's, that the events of the last week moot that question is well taken. When the screaming barbarian hordes, intent on rapine and pillage and burning, are banging at the gate and putting the scaling ladders against the walls, that's really kind of a suboptimal time for the folks inside the city to be be fighting a civil war.
There's a really, really good chance that the GOP's teashirt tactics are going to generate a major backlash in the electorate, and among the Blue Dogs, by the time it's gone on for four weeks. They may well push the Blue Dogs over the line and onto the right (which is, of course, the left) side. That is a lot less to happen, however, if there are people on our side pushing back.
August 7, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely!
I still think we need to remind Nelson and Baucus and Conrad and Landrieu ..the lot of them..what the stakes are now..should be obvious but hey
Those baggers are no friends of theirs either
August 7, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Follow Pat Buchanan's advice - "Ride to the sound of the gunfire" folks
We have a strategeric opportunity here. Expose the extremists and their big money backers. Backlash will drive the Blue Dogs back to their real allies
(That and the Reconcilliation deadline)
August 7, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
insurance industry funded fascism
or, corporatism.
August 8, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the screaming barbarian hordes, intent on rapine and pillage and burning, are banging at the gate and putting the scaling ladders against the walls, that's really kind of a suboptimal time for the folks inside the city to be be fighting a civil war.
Um, actually, wartime is when punishment of defectors and deserters tends to be most severe.
And that's problem here: defection. If the Blue Dog is under attack from the right, but faces no challenge from the left, then it only makes sense for them to defect completely.
Other points: Republicans have dominated the debate because the Democratic side has been dominated by efforts to compromise and kiss up to the blue dogs. They get to be revolutionaries while we're stuck being sell outs. If anyone expects progressives to pretend to be centrists, they can't complain when progressive grass-roots are completely listless and bored.
Attacking Republicans themselves at this stage has no effect on...anything. It's just stupid. There's no way they're going to vote for this, and any effect our attacks have on 2010 elections will be dwarfed by whether health care passes or not, and whether or not people actually like it. Nothing that's happened this week or any other has changed the fact that success or failure is determined by what the centrists do, and right now the centrists don't seem to understand that anyone who blocks health care is dead to us.
August 8, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fucking stupid is giving the Blue Dogs carte blanche to vote like Republicans. Fear, on the other hand, is a good motivator.
August 8, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You go Rahm. He is absolutely right on this. You all have your heads up your asses.
August 7, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the liberal groups (oh, I'm sorry, progressive) could attack republicans who represent somewhat democratic districts rather than democrats who represent somewhat republican districts?
The last thing you want if you want this fucking bill passed it for congress to be pounded by republicans while the progressives attack their flank.
Or, the progressives could listen to, and address the concerns of repugnicans and blue dogs. For example, they could include a provision that mandates only private funding after a boot-up time to take away the argument that gov't run insurance will drive private insurance out of business by undermining prices with taxpayer funded subsidies.
I personally think they should raise the capital gains tax on anyone who made more than 1 million for 2 years consecutively (to avoid penalizing old timers who cash out after holding for years on end) from 15% to 35%. Since that IS the tax rate for millionaires it seems fair to tax them at that rate, and I'm pretty sure that would cover the costs.
Anyway, since Rahm can't exactly tell the repugnicans to ease the fuck up, might as well tell the other 1/8th of the problem. No point losing seats to teaparty/birther/no-socialized-medicine-medicare-recipient republicans when you don't have to.
August 7, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about a mail campaign in the form of a koan?
"Dear Representative X:
How can a responsible person ever succeed in satisfying an unreasonable person while remaining responsible?
Sincerely,
A Reasonable Constituent"
August 7, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is keeping Howard Dean out of the White House/health-care debate? Dean is the most important, and most authentic and rational progressive voice, and the White House doesn't even acknowledge his existence. I think that is because of a Rahm/Dean feud, and it has disastrous consequences for moving this forward.
Rahm is full of himself and he is killing any progressive chances with health-care reform. He and his brother want no part of any public option, and they kept single-payer off the table as even a bargaining chip.
August 7, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what the Emmanuel brothers think of the health care in Israel.
August 8, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
If an effective health care bill is not passed, and it doesn't pass because of the efforts of any Democratic corporate whore, then my and I hope any progressive Democrat's efforts will be focused on ending these whores' time in Congress. I don't care if repubicans are elected; at least we know they are the enemy, without deceit and lying we get now (although of course nobody does deceit and lying like republicans). And no, I will not stop reminding these whores, and rahmmy of my intentions. And while addressing the whores I will address them as such.
Does anybody have rahmmy's email address?
August 8, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It hurts the Democratic brand to have Democrats in office who oppose a core value like meaningful health care reform because it takes away an issue for Democrats to run on as Democrats and makes it unclear what the Democratic Party stands for.
Having a few stands as clear as the Repukes' "gays, guns and god" would be a big help in future elections.
August 8, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we ought to listen to Rahm and the rest of the Obama team when it comes to tactics. Maybe, just maybe, these guys understand the politics of getting a bill passed a little better than do angry internet commentators. Who came from nowhere to get elected President of the United States, after all? That guy must be an idiot.
August 8, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm was a post-election addition to the Obama team, no?
August 8, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, like the stimulus bill? Watered down to near ineffectiveness. Sotomayor, okay. Now what else?
August 8, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cville, it is most likely because of their feud. From what i've read, the hate is deep seeted. Damn shame.
Also what the heck does Ari Emanuel have to do with health care reform? You said Rahm and his brother so I ask. Personally I think there are a few people in the WH (Rahm, Geithner, Summers) that have a different agenda than the President but that's just me talking.
And yes Rahm is full of himself, i've said that for years. Thanks for pointing that out.
August 8, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is Zeke Emmanuel. Never heard of Ari.
Go here for a glimpse:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19/zeke-emanuel-obamas-healt_n_176884.html
"... Months into the administration, the prominent bioethicist and brother of chief of staff, Rahm, has emerged as an important player in President Barack Obama's efforts at overhauling health care. But with the elevated role has come an elevated responsibility. And as the White House pushes for the largest expansion of coverage in well over two decades, the eldest of the Emanuel brothers refuses to get ahead of reality."
August 8, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm never heard of Zeke. I thought you were refering to Ari Emanuel, Rahm's brother who's a hollywood agent (the character Ari Gold of HBO's Entorage is based off of him). Thanks for clearing that up.
August 8, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm was personally responsible for recruiting many of those Blue Dogs when he ran the congressional campaing committee. He deliberately funded conservatives and promised them they would not be required to support Dem party bills.
August 8, 2009 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
So far, the winners in Rahm Emanuel's world are Bank of America, AIG, General Motors, Cheney and John Yoo. Corporate America has cash and Cheney and Yoo seem to have immunity from investigation. In the weeks before the election I didn't hear any volunteer say that they were taking off work because they were worried AIG wouldn't get another bailout of TARP money. Rahm Emanuel and the the Blue Cross Democrats need to be reminded that Democrats were elected to provide Health Insurance.
August 8, 2009 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the phrase should be applied to those who think you can negotiate with Republicans to get a bipartisan health care reform bill.
August 8, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck Rahm. We don't have to have solidarity with neoliberal centrist blue dogs. For the sake of our grandchildren we should be splitting off into a progessive party. The Bush era fiasco should have opened the door for a truly progressive agenda. Instead we're stuck with Rahm and Barack's moderate conservatism. Fuck Rahm.
August 8, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm's insightful leadership was critical in having Democrats vote for the Iraq war authorization in order to "take the issue off the table" for the off year elections the following month and what happened there? The right shoved it up his and the other Dems ass anyway and they knocked off a number of good Democrats who were stupid enough to follow Rahm's advice. Then he opposed Howard Dean's 50 state strategy in 06 and advised all Dems not to talk about the war because it was a losing issue. The number one reason people voted out the Republicans in 06 was corruption and the second reason was the war. Rahm is a corporate tool at best, a capitulator who has always been in it for himself. So screw Rahm and his DINO strategy. It doesn't work.
August 8, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get all of the facts. Rahm was (perhaps is) a Clintonite. As such, he supported the Iraq War Resolution in the House as Hillary and the ex-prez Bill did everywhere. But the majority of House Democrats fell in behind Nancy Pelosi and voted against that atrocity. Fact: the majority of House Democrats voted AGAINST that resolution.
Now, let's move over to the Senate where good ole Hillary voted FOR the resolution and was joined by a majority of Democrats in the Senate--the likes of John Edwards, Schumer, Reid, etc. This is where good ole Rahm fell--under the spell of the Clintons who are well-liked in foreign parts but whose foreign policy was a mess. Instead of trimming the military in recognition of the ending of the cold war, apparently the Clintons wanted to use the military. (Okay, that was my snark because this still pisses me off.)
The Democratic disgrace of Iraq was the majority of Senate Democrats (a broad swath of whom later decided their "aye" vote entitled them to the Democratic nomination for Prez) who voted for the resolution. This nonsense was put to bed in the 2008 election, both primary where Hillary got her a$$ handed to her and in the general. Obama is in alignment with Pelosi.
The House is safely under Pelosi's leadership. The House of Lords...er, the Senate...is the trouble spot (as it has been for GD decades).
Get the facts straight, oleeb. Then interpret it in a way to fit all of the facts--not the ones you cherry-pick out.
August 9, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's your point? Rahm has been one of the biggest roadblocks in Washington to progressive legialtion and politics. That' not cherry picking. That's a fact and it has been for years. He is in it for himself and his own self aggrandizement. He played a critical role in every single Democratic mishap in Congress since he arrived back in DC from his plum job as an "investment banker". The fact that more Democrats resisted his retrograde brand of politics is absolutely beside the point. As leader of the DCCC he prevented more progressive victories and bigger victories all around the nation by resisting Howard Dean's effective strategies, particularly making opposition to the war in Iraq a major issue in the election. It wasn't until the last few weeks of the election that Rahm finally figured out that opposition to the war was a winning issue. We have a difference of opinion is all. You don't own the facts.
August 9, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real Democrats to Rahm Emmanuel: the only thing you're good for is spewing obscenities.
Othewise, Rahm, you serve no useful function. Get lost, you worthless hack.
August 8, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Oleeb and Durian Joe. Thank you and you couldn't of said it any better. Couldn't agree more. The ads are fucking stupid, no Rahm your the one who's a fucking stupid and a major tool to boot.
Man it's not even noon and i'm already ranting. Bad way to start the weekend. All your fault Rahm.
August 8, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bradley,
Hey, it's the weekend. Worst case scenario: have yourself a good cocktail tonight. We all have plenty of time in the coming weeks to get worked up and pissed off.
DJ
August 8, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree more Joe. In fact if you read Answer Frog's story he linked here from the Daily Beast by Matt Miller it shows that the debate hasn't even started yet. It really starts when the chanbers starts merging the bills, that's when the war really begins. Plus I won't let my weekend be ruined by an asshole like Rahm. He's not worth it. Shoot if he didn't run his mouth off in the first place, all of us won't be having all this outrage. I like Obama alot, but he should of never pick this prick to be CoS.
As for the cocktail, I don't drink that much (although I do find Molson and Parrot Bay Rum mixed w/Sprite to be very delicious) and since i'm saving for Canada I have no extra money for booze. That's why i'm cracking open a cold Dr. Pepper and RC Cola this weekend.
August 8, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm is right. Just shut the fuck up and let the health care industry lobbyists tell Congress what to do.
August 8, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right Alan. Fuck the american people. What do we know about health care. According to Rahm our ads we make are stupid hence we must all be stupid. Let the lobbyists take care of this. Their smart they more than us about this. They'll make this all better lol.
This post was brought to you by sarcasm. Sarcasm, a method of writing that can brighten up anyone's day and piss people of in the process.
August 8, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's getting under Rahm's skin then I know it's a good ad campaign. Keep up the fight against these Blue Dogs!
August 8, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hell, bring back the Republicans!"
No thank you.
August 8, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, back in the real world where our enemy is the Republicans and the hate Glen Beck has unleashed, people are trying to fight against Glen Beck, not fellow Democrats.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/8/763611/-UPDATED:-The-Glenn-Beck-Media-Boycott-is-Working!!-Here-is-PROOF.
johnmccsf said it higher up here, but was drowned out: "That calculus is now obsolete - for the Blue Dogs and more crucially for progressives. The Republicans never were on board but they weren't irrelevant either. Now that the Baggers have taken over the debate and define the opposition the Blue Dog targeting no longer makes any sense
They'll come along. Should have a long time ago. Have no choice now
I can't think of a greater waste of liberal resources than spending money attacking Democrats when all dems are now under full scale attack from the brown shirt Republicans.the Limbaughs and Becks who are running the show."
It's like the Huns are at the gate and you guys are rolling around fighting each other on the living room floor.
August 8, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Mr. Obama plans to run again in 2012, he might want to think seriously about taking public financing. I can't see the roots pitching in to the extent they did in '08 - this root, anyway. It's about time we get something for our money besides rude demands from Emanuel.
August 8, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the past several election cycles, we have only been voting for folks totally indebted to the party they are representing, not the American public.
The mobs (Dems and Reps) are so entrenched in Washington that their only goal is continued dominance at all cost. Commoners do not matter at all.
Unless we decide to rid Washington of BOTH parties, our downhill slide is pretty much assured...
Won't happen, though, because both mobs have become extremely adept in protecting the major players and ensuring ethics commissions, overseerers, investigators, etc. are filled with cronies and any hint of a third party will be quickly defended against by BOTH mobs... IMHO
August 8, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you're saying. I'm very discouraged about the state of our country and about politicians in general.
Nevertheless, I keep hoping.
August 8, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you're going to judge Obama's performance on the first six months of his presidency?
You do know presidents serve terms of four years, right?
August 8, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes to both questions.
If the health care bill has a strong public option, I might reconsider. But it looks like it will be much watered down at this point. You can look back as far as his telecom vote to see how Obama operates. And again with the stimulus bill, we see his willingness to compromise , you might even say cave, in the interest of bipartisanship or pragmatism. He doesn't like to make waves.
Well the bipartisan ship never got to port and I'm not sure he understands that yet. Nor is a Centrist DLC pragmatism the change I was looking for when I supported him with more of my dollars than I could really afford.
From what I read, Holder is close to setting up a torture investigation, but who is he investigating? Anyone who went over the line set by the bushies. Excuse me? What's that about? So more of the change I was expecting is looking like a parody instead of change.
August 9, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm missing something?
The info for the first two paras of the Politico article is sourced as being from someone at the meeting. Para four mentions the belief of some that Obama is, basically, playing "good cop, bad cop" with the conservative Democrats, only to spend paras five and six denying that and using the "White House" as a source (more aides with big egos?).
The last four paragraphs concern the ad campaigns of both HCAN and Democracy for America; neither of which mention being contacted by the White House to stop the ads.
Only two things were added from story at The Plumline: Emanuel's use of obscenities and that doesn't really count as something new and an apparent inference by Emanuel that health care insurance reform might not pass. I found the reasoning to be a bit strange: we're going into health care insurance reform 13-0 (gotta have the sports reference!), we've got the momentum from those 13 wins, we need that momentum to do all these great things we want to do, but we can't lose that momentum which is what a loss in the fight for health care insurance reform will cause.
If that statement, such as it is, is to be taken at face value, then, according to the source from the meeting:
1) Emanuel considers health care insurance reform neither necessary nor a sure thing and
2) he doesn't want a failure on health care insurance reform to halt the "momentum" needed for further "things" that the administration wants to do. What those "things" are isn't mentioned.
So, if I understand what has been reported, neither the President nor his CoS believes health care insurance reform is a sure thing and both are laying the blame for its possible failure on "progressives" and "liberals" who support the reform, rather than on Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats who oppose it.
MSM, anyone?
August 8, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only had time to read about half the comments, so if this is repetitive, I'm sorry.
I think the idea that Rahm is worried about being embarrassed sells him short by a good deal. Yes, he does have a stake in protecting blue dogs, but not because he, personally, got them elected. The fact is that if they are challenged and beaten by more liberal Democrats, those seats will then go Republican in the general election. As much as we may despise lukewarm Democrats, their votes and seats ARE important and we can ill afford to lose them.
Also, and I think this is where we do tend to be a little naive, taking RE's protestations at face value ignores the fact that he is always parsing influence and pressure from every direction. By excoriating progressives with whom he actually agrees, he puts blue dogs further in his debt without any intention of actually eliminating the pressure on them from the left wing of the party. It is clear that Obama wants as good a bill as he can get, and I have no doubt that Emmanuel is pushing in that direction from the inside. His efforts are made more powerful BOTH by left wing pressure in the media AND by the fact that he has defended them publically. He has no real interest in calling the dogs off. We help him and he maneuvers. And, in the end, we really don't want to lose those seats in the congress in the next election. This guy is really good at what he does, and he is on our side. Keep yelling and he will keep telling you you are idiots for yelling and the blue dogs will get pinched in the middle with no place to go but health care. In the meantime, we need to check our thin skins in the cloakroom. IMHO.
August 8, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whew!
August 9, 2009 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well lets face it the debate is not about true health care for all the debate is about how do we keep the Insurance money flowing into the politicians coffers. The most we have done here if we get anything done at all is to get a toe in the door but that is about it as far as true health care reform. It seems now that some sort of complicated fill out this form, fill out this form, fill out his form pay this much deductable but you can have full deductable until you cross this threshold blah blah blah blah...... system will grudgingly emerge from the congress and signed by Obama as a "We all worked hard to get this bill passed aren't we great and Americans can be proud of their elected officials who will then slink off to their fundraising dinners attended throngs of suited lobbyists who will be stuffing money into their pockets as fast as they can suck it out of the public who have to use thier credit cards to pay for their drugs and proceedure to stay alive.....Obama has sold out and that is the only truth coming out of this debate about "Health Care" in America. THe opportunity of a generation has passed and Obama facilitated its failure even if he doesn't know or believe it. Cow towing to intransigent republicans, who as Hillary so brilitantly put it the other day..."If Obama walked on water they would say he can't swim"....is stupid. Obama Republicans are not your friends they don't want to be your friends they do not want you to succed they want you to fail..don't play in the pig pen if you don't want to get dirty. Brush the obstructionist aside including the so called "Blue Dogs" who are just republicans in dogs clothing and do what you said you would do....get a single payer plan in place everything else is just deck chairs on the Titanic and the Insurance companies have already taken all the life boats!.
August 9, 2009 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
" Change You Can Believe In" Bullshit! Politics you can believe in sure . Rham, GO FUCK YOURSELF! There is no change from croked politicians, we are all suckers to believe. It's all about money and more power for the powerful. I give up, we should have known when Obama started bringing the "Clintonista" aboard and bailed out the Goldman gang while we ordinary Americans were left to fend for ourselves. It would not bother me one bit if Washington DC and Southern Manhattan were cleansed, sterilized from the face of the earth. I,m through with believing that the system works for us, not any more, only the connected. Fuck them all to hell!!!
August 9, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm already sick of Illinois.
Vermont in 2012!
August 9, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to Rahm--compared to LBJ, your skills at wrangling *all* your Democrats are FCCing ineffectual.
August 9, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressives should pick a few Blue Dogs to attack. That way, progressives can make a point by punishing a few Blue Dogs. If only those few Blue Dogs lose in the general election, it is not a disaster by itself.
August 10, 2009 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink