David Broder blasts his own paper over its obsequious pro-Rahm coverage
If you haven't noticed lately, the Washington Post has become the NRO for the most awesome Rahm Emanuel. Dana Milbank penned a column that could have been dictated to him by Rahm and then came another one basically saying all the same things. Rahm is teh Awesome and Obama is not.
We've had big problems with Broder, but even these weird displays of over the top Rahm leaking riled up the King of the Village:
In the space of 10 days, thanks in no small part to my own newspaper, the president of the United States has been portrayed as a weakling and a chronic screw-up who is wrecking his administration despite everything that his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, can do to make things right.
This remarkable fiction began unfolding on Feb. 21 in the Sunday column of my friend Dana Milbank, who wrote that "Obama's first year fell apart in large part because he didn't follow his chief of staff's advice on crucial matters. Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter," i.e., a one-term failure.
A week later, presumably the same anonymous sources convinced Milbank to pronounce that Obama "too often plays the 98-pound weakling; he gets sand kicked in his face and responds with moot-court zingers."
And on Tuesday, The Post led the paper with a purported news story by Jason Horowitz saying that a president with Obama's "detached, professorial manner" needed "a political enforcer" like Emanuel to have a chance of succeeding, "because he [Emanuel] possessed a unique understanding of the legislative mind." Unfortunately, the story said, "influential Democrats are -- in unusually frank terms -- blaming Obama and his closest campaign aides for not listening to Emanuel."
Rahm was instrumental in recruiting many new Blue Dogs in 2006 and 2008. If he was so great, then why didn't he get the ConservaDems and Lieberman on board with health care?
You go, Broder.
Personally, I think Rahm is teh Antichrist.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
"Rahm was instrumental in recruiting many new Blue Dogs in 2006 and 2008. If he was so great, then why didn't he get the ConservaDems and Lieberman on board with health care?"
Because the DLC plan all along has been to kowtow to big insurance and big pharma in order to suck the dollars away from the GOP. A healthcare bill was not supposed to be addressed.
Rahm is a Clintonite. Obama fucked up the plan to have Hillary as President. The DEAL that was cut put Rahm Emanuel in the WH as chief of staff.
If Hillary had won....one guess who the Chief of Staff would have been. Here's a hint...his first name is Rahm.
Once healthcare is signed, and there WILL be some type of limmited public option, Rahm is suddenly going to need to spend more time with his family.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Under Bush II, the catchphrase was 'It was all Clinton's fault!'
Now, 'It's STILL the Clintons' fault!'
Rahm was instrumental in recruiting many new Blue Dogs in 2006 and 2008. If he was so great, then why didn't he get the ConservaDems and Lieberman on board with health care?
call me cynical, but he is "so great" (in the eyes of the ruling establishment) because of this, not despite it. like talented neoliberals before him, it takes great skill in getting support from liberals while you screw them over at the same time.
Rahm is part of the problem -- not the solution.
The Obama plan is their health plan fergoshsakes.
Barack Obama just endorsed Blanch Lincoln.
The ConservaDems are not some separate entity apart from the White House, ConservaDems are led by the White House
Corruption favors the wealthy.
it sounds like Rahm is leaking his side before being forced to walk the plank. Sounds like the final days of the Hillary campaign.
Or it could be eleventh dimensional chess. Rahm is trying to make it look this way so he can call in his chits from the Blue Dogs in the name of helping him save his job.
Or, if you have been touting the line that Broder is a senile old coot and the villagers are idiots, this can all be taken as filling the void left by cancellation of the column inches devoted to Sally Quinns quisilings.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Once healthcare is signed...Rahm is bye bye.
We may yet see a public option.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
from the NYT? That will fill up the empty space with more of the same.
effort to fill space in the Washingtetuos Post, then they have to bring in a talentless female sleeping with the managing editor to replace Quinn. Broder's son, no matter how well versed in Edmund Burke, will not do.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
she has a WaPo column? Her possibilities are endless. What a shining example she is. I can't wait for her next book on virtue. I wonder who will write this one for her?
that Palin can have her columns screened from her palm into the Washington Post's mainframe? If so, it is a winner.
But the Post will have to give First Dude the contract to distibute the papaer to DC suburbs in his snowmobile to keep him quiet.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I thought that's ALL President Obama did.
me-oww!
is also falling apart, then how else can Rahm avoid blame but by claiming his advice was not heeded. This fits my thesis number 1 above.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
He's a liar as in what Samson says, also above:
And Obama's choice. So that's two things
me-oww!
Part two; Rev. Wright was Obama's choice too until he started getting too big for his britches and threatening to take down the ship.(Wow, all three 2's in one sentence)
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
And Obama's choice.
No. HRC's choice.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
in thesis number 1.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I have no idea what Rahm did or didn't do. I have no idea how much sway he has in the oval office or on the hill. I have no idea how long he will remain chief of staff and lastly, I have no idea what his relationship is with Hillary Clinton. Having said that, anything I might say about him would only be conjecture.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
plush toy Ricky inappropriately.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
That's right.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
We will hypnotize you. You are very sleepy. See this doll.
Show us where the Rahm touched you with his stubby digit?
No,pop! Not where the dog licked you! Where the evil Rahm touched you. See this six pointed blue star on a white field?
Do you remember it and Mr. Rahm being around at the same time?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Sounds like Ceaser should stick a sword in RAHM
and thrashing in the waves with his desperate stubby finger trying
to keep his evil incarnate ass afloat.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Oh, I don't know, maybe he has a hidden agenda. I don't trust Emanuel as far as...screw it...at all. For all I know, he's playing Obama for a sucker. Stranger things have happened.
I was sickened when Obama chose Emanuel and I think he is being repaid with interest in things like what Dana Millbank wrote. Of course, MIllbank is one of WaPo's very, very worst -- and that's really saying something these days.
I wonder if Broder has warmed a little to Obama recently, since Obama has been so forthright is reaching out to Republicans and stating clearly what is and isn't possible. When a party loses the White House and both houses of Congress, its members shouldn't expect to be the major authors of legislation. That's absurd. Otherwise, why have elections? Broder, as bad as he is, may still remember that. Obama's saying he is willing to include some Republican ideas in HCR is bipartisanship.
On the other hand, maybe the old-timer Broder is just offended by Emanuel's language -- I doubt if Dave approves of potty mouths like Rahm.
Personally, I think it's time for Rahm to spend more time with his family.
In this eleventh dimension, Obama and Emanuel play the press against itself. Rahm is the hero who tried to keep the left in line. Rahm is being pushed out by the Obama campaign team. Broder is now siding with the President. The blue dogs must save Rahm by passing the bill now so he can recover before he is pushed out and Obama goes over to the evil inner base.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Put your $ where you (o) is: QUIT!
"Rahm was instrumental in recruiting many new Blue Dogs in 2006 and 2008. If he was so great, then why didn't he get the ConservaDems and Lieberman on board with health care?"
It would perhaps behoove you to follow up with a little more information.
Such as, the majority of Rahm's candidates LOST.
Even though Rahm had the weight of his organization AND tons of money, they still mostly LOST.
Howard Dean's candidates, on the other hand, were liberal / progressive and mostly WON.
With little money from the Democratic establishment, and with even less support from same.
And then, of course, after Rahm's group of corporate suck ups mostly lost, and Dean's mostly won, Rahm came out crowing about what a great genius he was.
Rahm is a snake.
Of the 11th magnitude.
"In the space of 10 days, thanks in no small part to my own newspaper, the president of the United States has been portrayed as a weakling and a chronic screw-up who is wrecking his administration despite everything that his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, can do to make things right."
Well, the President -is- a weakling and a chronic screw-up, but it's not because he's not following the Way of the Rahm.
which pleases me and discard that which is incovenient.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Uh... okay. Tell me where it's wrong. Would you say Obama choosing to follow Rahm's DLC triangulation strategy has come up roses?
Milbank's conclusion (that Obama has seriously screwed up) was accurate but his reasoning (that it's because Rahm has gone unheeded) is wrong. You disagree?
Seems to me that the problem here isn't in the House- where Emanuel has his pull- but in the Senate.
And going back to the '06 elections (or, more properly, that point a few months later when the Democratic majorities were sworn in to both chambers), the House has passed some pretty goddamned progressive legislature, only to see it shot down by those independent-minded, conservative Democratic senators, by GOP manipulation of parliamentary procedure, or by Bush's vetoes.
So Bush is gone, and the GOP continues to hold and filibuster (to their own detriment in the long run, imo) in the Senate...The only thing that the White House can do with those troublesome, strong-willed, independent-minded Democratic Senators until November's elections is blackmail them or placate them, and they can only blackmail them if they know where the bodies are buried.
You work with what you got, not with what you wish you had.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Obama just endorsed Blanche Lincoln.
And those parliamentary procedures were passed by the Democrats.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
over someone who has no vote. Damn that is dumb.
The President writes Senate rules. Darn I didn't know that.
You are might opinionated for such a smart fellow. Know a lot about how government works too. You should take Broder's place.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
'Cause I'm in the perfect mood right now.
And you know how poorly it works out for you when you abandon the snark and try substance.
Try this, Einstein: the Senate procedural rules are enacted at the beginning of each Senate (every two years). The Democrats control the current Senate.
I have more, if you like.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
...I had to go to work.
Hope you come back to this, fiver, because it's important: Those parliamentary rules, for the most part, can't be overturned with a simple majority vote. Take, for example, the the filibuster and the cloture vote: It requires 2/3 (67 at this point in history) of the Senate- a super-majority- to overturn those rules.
Now, yeah, they coud got the "nuclear option" route, which is all well and good as long as the majority of the Senate is acting in what you believe are your best interests. But what happens when those other guys are the majority? There's no going back if you nuked your dilatory options a year or two earlier. Once the filibuster and/or cloture vote are nuked, they're gone forever. At least that's the way I understand it.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
. . . without a constitutional amendment.
Each Senate enacts its own rules. Keeping the filibuster in place is no guarantee that a Republican Senate couldn't simply do away with it next time. Tradition is not binding. And the current filibuster is not traditional.
This "filibuster without having to filibuster" has been in effect by Democratic vote since they took control of the Senate in 2006. They kept it again after the 2008 elections.
Democrats don't get to whine about rules they set in the first place.
And they don't get to use those rules as a scapegoat either.
(Hey Andy, Thanx for the response. I'll check back or we can talk some more on an open thread. I'd like to read what you have)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Rahm Emanuel, his ideas and his influence are at the core of everything that has gone wrong with Obama's administration, aside from the fact that Obama showed the piss-poor judgement by having appointed him in the first place. Emanuel is Obama's personal Rasputin Figure®, his own personal Krema Wormtongue.
The only good thing to come from the appointment is that it got Emanuel, and his vote, out of Congress.
I imagine that the WaPo, being a GOPer propaganda organ is delighted with Emanuel's appointment and influence, because he is destroying Obama's chances of getting a second term. Plus, while he there, he'll do his damnedest to make sure that the Obama administration serves corporatist interest first middle and last, always ahead of the People's interests. WaPo would have to consider that a double win for their side. I expect that WaPo will generally indulge in endless propagandizing on behalf of that douchebag.
If Wa Po likes him then the ends any doubt in my mind that Rahm is a Republican.
It's just a hunch I've had for about 8 months now, but I feel like Rahm Emanuel is what's wrong with the Obama administration. I think we need a lot more David Plouffe and a lot less Rahm Emanuel.
Comments are closed on this entry