Skip to main content

View Diary: O Go, O Go Emanuel... (56 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Works in two senses (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    888

    Your comment both supports calchala that the Senate is simply too filled with ego to ever be bullied (in which case Rahm is the wrong guy for WHCoS)

    OR

    Your comment supports that, for all the bluster, Rahm is all mouth and insufficient trousers, who should be kept away from Senate negotiations at all costs as he is clearly incapable of turning his "talking a big game" into actually converting the reluctant supporters into people who will vote as he wishes.

    My conclusion is that your sage comment both opposes and supports my specific debate with calchala, but underlines the overriding thesis - that Rahm Emanuel is simply not the right man to be th eWhite House Chief of Staff.

    "I, for one, would like to welcome our new Belgian overlords..."

    by Morus on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:19:08 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So he's damned if he does, (0+ / 0-)

      damned if he doesn't. Thanks for clarifying. ;)

      That bluster from '94 sounds exactly like how most of the "blame Rahm" crew have been demanding he handle the blue dogs and conservadems.

      There's a big difference between "reluctant supporters" (see: Evan Bayh) and obstructionists (see: Joe LIEberman).

      I think you're blaming the victim here, ie. the people who actually want to get something done and have to deal with the obstructionists, and in the process letting the obstructionists off the hook.

      •  Maybe (0+ / 0-)

        I just feel that Rahm was hired, even though we hated his politics, to do a job - force stuff through the Congress by enforcing party discipline.

        It was made easy for him, by historic standards. In trying to get 50 Democrats, he got 60 to choose from - and if he really pulled it out of the fire, he could get cloture invoked without needing a single Republican.

        I'm not pretending it's an easy job, but it was his job. And it was supposed to be easier than it was for most people who have had that job, given the majorities and the honeymoon for Obama etc etc

        Having not done the job, I'm not convinced by the 'blame the Senators alone' argument. Sure, we should metaphorically kneecap some of them when they come around for election, but Rahm failed too, and big time.

        I never saw Andrew Card struggling this hard, or Donald Regan, and they never had both houses and 60 Senators.

        I suspect Rahm's heart was never in it, but that's no more excuse either. This was a big ticket item, and it got given away for pocket change because he either couldn't or wouldn't beat Joe Lieberman at the legislative game. That's not acceptable in my book.

        It's not like the Dems have no control over Lieberman - they simply lack the cullions to punish him, or threaten to do so credibly. So much for tough guy Rahm.

        "I, for one, would like to welcome our new Belgian overlords..."

        by Morus on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:43:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Neither Andy Card, nor Donald Regan (0+ / 0-)

          have ever attempted to pass health care reform - with a huge deficit, no less.

          Dems aren't generally as sheep like as Rethugs. They also compromise a lot more with Rethugs than the other way around.

          President Obama's 'honeymoon' with Congress lasted about a month, tops - maybe. The Rethugs were gunning for him before he even assumed the office.

          He also entered his 'honeymoon' deeply in debt with other costly fires to put out before he got to health care, playing right into the hands of the "we can't afford it" crowd. The economy ensured that nothing would be easy for this administration.

          Do you think LIEberman's heart was in this? Nelson, Landrieu, Conrad, or Lincoln? Any of the Rethugs? Their legislative game was to obstruct and drag this out as long as they could and do as much damage as they could. It's not very hard. That's why it's been so successful for 60 years.

          If anyone knows how much this means to the President - and to his own career - it would be an obsessive poll watcher like Rahm Emanuel.

          Maybe if their hearts weren't in it, they wouldn't have been so cautious. Maybe they would have shot for the moon and hope it all worked out eventually.

          Instead they went with what looked like the clearest path to 60 from the get go because they knew how hard it was going to be. That would be triggers, which Olympia Snowe signed on to. Get her vote and you don't need Joe, and you give the conservadems cover.

          Sounds like a good idea as far as getting a bill passed, but would they work? Would the more progressive wing of the party vote for a bill without a public option? Probably not x 2.

          They wasted too much time with the bipartisan game, IMO, but that does not appear to be only Rahm's idea. He was reportedly among the skeptics in the WH, and the first to publicly declare the Rethugs more interested in politics than health care.

          What punishment do they have over Lieberman right now? He's an Independent. His committee doesn't come up for vote until over a year from now. More importantly, he is toast in 2012. He's got nothing to lose, and lots of people he wants to stick it to. Plus he's an ass. :P

          Nope, I have no problem at all holding LIEberman and his fellow obstructionists mostly responsible for what is going on.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site