What was it that Rahm did Exactly?

Because to some, he is the devil reincarnated.


Here's what I know:

He was running the DCCC starting in 2004, and recruited a lot of the Democrats that won
in districts that were previously held by Republicans, which is how
we won a majority in 2006. Those Democrats are quite conservative,
because again, they won in conservative districts and the seats won
were once held by Republicans.

He also had some kind of "run-in" with Howard Dean at some point,
although I don't know the particulars on that. Problem is I'm not
sure how having a run-in with Howard Dean makes one the Devil.
Can someone please share with me....because When I look at Rahm's actual
voting record, I don't get the "DLC" part of things, in that
he wasn't a conserdem while he was in office.


Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted YES on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on revitalizing severely distressed public housing. (Jan 2008)
Voted YES on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all. (Aug 2000)
Issue a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks. (Dec 2005)
Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 94% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
Rated 39% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Screen imports & ban lead in children's products. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on expanding services for offendors' re-entry into society. (Nov 2007)
Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice. (Aug 2000)
Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
Voted YES on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Rated 67% by CAF, indicating a mixed record on energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Voted YES on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences. (Sep 2008)
Voted YES on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted NO on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Rated 95% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources. (Jul 2008)
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Give parents tools to balance work and family. (Aug 2000)
Rated 8% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on cooperating with India as a nuclear power. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)
Voted YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted YES on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)
Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)
Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (Sep 2005)
Establish the United States Public Service Academy. (Mar 2007)
Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)
Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
Voted YES on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids. (Jan 2008)
Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care. (Aug 2000)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)
Comprehensive immigration reform without amnesty. (May 2005)
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)
Rated 87% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)





http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Rahm_Emanuel.htm

upset.

You're going to get flamed and unrecced into oblivion--you know that, right?

I would think Action = votes,
while words don't mean so much,
I'm told.

Calling those raising money for ads to support something the President was still claiming he was for, "fucking retarded," was calling a spade a spade. I'd call it showing your hand too soon. Remember this happened while they were still letting us think they wanted a public option.

even if he is not my favorite person.

I just want to know why folks act like he a big corporate guy.....
and yet, I don't see that reflected in his voting record.

Sure, he's not like my Rep Barbara Lee, but then few are.

Sometimes I question his tactics but I do think he is a liberal. But the constant obsession by some here who want to tie everything they don't like about Obama to Rahm is just silly. Can they not bring themselves to take on Obama directly? It is a strange obsession.

they know they won't get deleted if they call Rahm names, when really they do mean Obama.

I see the obsession with DLC, paid operatives, and Rahm from our side (if they really are on our side) as similar to the rights obsession with ACORN, SEIU, and teleprompters. Propaganda.

and that, soon, he will see the problems and get someone more balanced advising him. I will say, however, the longer Rahm stays in there in the face of the damage he does, the more my hope dwindles. In other words, I still hope President Obama is not as right of center as he has appeared and that it is the bad advice of a few like Rahm, Timmeh. The Lar, and Zeke that have brought about this rightward shift.

My unrealistic fantasy is Obama will wake up, get these people out of our White House, and we will see him start governing from a center to left of center stance. Probably won't happen but I still write him every day to express my thoughts on this.

He always seemed pretty liberal to me.

I didn't know his record... I haven't spoken out against him because I wasn't aware of his record. I did, however, ASSUME that some DUers here knew what THEY were talking about.

I don't think they do.

Thank you, Frenchie, for shining the white light of truth on this.

and with Geithner, it is hard to defend him, because if we don't know him,
he did work for the Fed Reserve, and that's supposed to be like working for a private bank
or something....

But with Rahm, the dislike seems just as intense, and I don't really know why exactly.
I realize he's not Kucinich, but seems like he's got a good solid progressive voting record,
overall, and even in many particulars.

Makes you wonder... too much emotion, too little thought.

as intense if he'd been a football star instead of a danseur. . . just a thought.

What's to hate about that?

typically deem male ballet dancers as - uh - less than male. So how DARE he have one of the most influential/powerful positions in the US?

so that doesn't really make any sense; as Liberal Progressives are supposed to be
the most tolerant of all!

I can show you dozens and dozens of "intolerant" POV's right here on DU . . .

Why should progressive liberals support a man who wants their labor and money, but disses them publicly and works to undermine their ideals?!

Hell I'm more of a moderate and I can't stand the guy. He's a corporatist through and through. His actions in the present tell me everything I need to know about him and it ain't pretty.

With friends like Rahm, who needs enemies?!

very recently. Rahm has been going on since November of 2008 around here.

As for calling someone a "Corporatist", to me that's just cheap name calling,
cause when I look at his record, even in the area of business, I don't see
nothing but a moderate.

nothing to do with being tolerant.It has to do with being ignorant(lack of knowledge),it is easier to go on media sound bites than to look up his voting record.It appears that Rahm may be more liberal than our President.As always good post.Got your back.

It's friggin bizarre. There are RW hacks in Congress obstructing progress and Democratic sellouts doing their thing, but somehow they escape intense focus. Every effort is to "expose" the President as not being "left" or "progressive" enough.

Seriously, what the fuck is the point?

his work in the Clinton white house, and as DCCC chair are more significant than his short time as a junior congressman.

majorities, and I don't think that would have been possible running Liberal Progressives
in the majority of the areas where Republicans had been holding the seat for quite some time.

It sounds pragmatic, but not evil.

as for his stint at the White House, he would have been acting on directives from Bill Clinton,
and since we don't HATE Bill Clinton nor his Wife here, why hate this guy so much?
Plus when was that he worked there? 199? Is there a statute of limitation if someone
goes on to vote pretty much with the Democratic party line their entire time while in congress?

Again, I haven't defended him, but I really never knew what the big beef was about,
and thought I should ask. It's one thing to disagree with something someone did here and there,
but the all out outrage that he is this close to the White House made me wonder what did he do
to earn this ire. He did vote to investigate Bush for lying about Iraq in 2008. That doesn't
sound like a conservadem to me.

He likes to win, and damn the consequences.

That's basically the whole argument of everything centrists do. Progressive ideas are a loser, they say.

in 2008.

Rahm Emmanuel is a DLCer; that means unprincipled greed for power. Mitt Romney had a liberal reputation when he was governor of Massachusetts, yet when he ran in Republican presidential primaries, he ran as an extreme right winger. Why? Because Romney has no principles, only a desire for power; the same with Rahm Emmanuel.

And I don't see him as ever working for a Republican administration.

and there are many in quest of power everywhere in these United States.....
as there are many politicians out there. Do we then start to hate them all,
cause I'd rather not waste my energy in that manner.

Harold Ford and Tammy Duckworth. Along the lines of they weren't the candidates that Dean would have run (or maybe Duckworth was a Dean candidate and Rahm didn't support her enough, I honestly don't remember). I just remember that Ford lost because the Republican ran the miscegenation ads. Dean was given all the credit for the victories here, even though most of them have turned out to be Blue Dogs, while the media was praising Emmanuel for them. That could be the heart of the problem.

Maybe people just don't like him because he's an unlikeable person, and that leads him to getting all these evil labels grafted onto him, when really, he's just an abrasive asshole?

I'm saying this as someone who has no feelings one way or another about him.

you aren't following the partisan truth squad absolute purity testing narrative!

Rahm is EVIL!

EVIL!!!!!!1111elevenses11!

Information frees us all

so everyone just shut up about Joe not being liberal enough, ok?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

Joseph Lieberman on Abortion

http://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

Day 1: Repeal the Bush restrictions on stem cell research. (Jan 2004)
Keep abortion safe, rare and legal; with 24-week viability. (Dec 2003)
FDA’s RU-486 decision stands; it’s made properly by experts. (Oct 2000)
Leave abortion decision to a woman, her doctor, and her god. (Oct 2000)
Rejected partial-birth ban since it ignored maternal health. (Oct 2000)
Supports abortion rights within his faith, not despite it. (Sep 2000)
Parental consent with judicial override; Gore agrees. (Aug 2000)
Supported parental notification for minors; but pro-choice. (Aug 2000)
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)

Joseph Lieberman on Budget & Economy
Click here for 21 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR other candidates on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.
Fact Check: Implies economy not growing-really it grew 8.2%. (Dec 2003)
7.2% GDP growth isn't a recovery without job creation. (Nov 2003)
Prosperity won’t go on automatically; don’t change horses. (Nov 2000)
Democratic administration balanced budget and created growth. (Oct 2000)
$300 billion reserve fund to be insurance policy for surplus. (Oct 2000)
Expensive tax cut for rich will lead to high interest rates. (Oct 2000)
Now: tap Strategic Reserve; long-term: develop 80 mpg cars. (Oct 2000)
New economy will thrive on investment and trained workers. (Aug 2000)
Democrats will expand prosperity, GOP will “squander” it. (Aug 2000)
Fund R&D; cut capital gains tax; ban Internet tax. (Aug 2000)
Priorities are debt reduction and balanced budget. (Aug 2000)
Private sector is the primary engine of economic growth. (Aug 2000)
Booming economy from private sector plus government help. (May 2000)
Biennial budget makes sense, allows better review. (Mar 1999)
Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
Balance debt reduction, tax relief, & policy investment. (Jan 2001)
Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (Feb 2008)

Joseph Lieberman on Civil Rights
Click here for 40 full quotes on Civil Rights OR other candidates on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights.
Flag burning is abhorrent, but not a constitutional issue. (Jan 2004)
Allow driver's license for immigrants. (Jan 2004)
Support reparation legislations. (Jan 2004)
Sunset the Patriot Act. (Nov 2003)
Marched with Martin Luther King in 1963; keep dream alive. (Sep 2003)
Marched with MLK, fought for voting rights in Mississippi. (May 2003)
Opposes laws against gay sex & sodomy; focus on real crime. (May 2003)
Better economy helps blacks: Rising tide raises all boats. (May 2003)
Support Equal Pay Act for women; plus loans & lawsuits. (Oct 2000)
Equalize pay for women; it’s unfair and unacceptable. (Oct 2000)
I do support, and will support affirmative action. (Aug 2000)
Never supported CA Prop. 209 banning affirmative action. (Aug 2000)
Support affirmative action and end all discrimination. (Aug 2000)
Supports affirmative action now; but phase it out by 2010. (Aug 2000)
Affirmative action is “patently unfair”, in 1995. (Aug 2000)
For gay equal employment; against gay marriage. (Aug 2000)
Affirmative action divides us. (Aug 2000)
Expand “Hate Crimes” to include women, gays, and disabled. (Jun 2000)
Participated in MLK’s March On Washington. (May 2000)
Express religious faith in schools, within Constitution. (May 2000)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all. (Aug 2000)
Rated 40% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business. (Mar 2004)
Issue a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks. (Dec 2005)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 86% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)

Joseph Lieberman on Corporations
Click here for 6 full quotes on Corporations OR other candidates on Corporations OR background on Corporations.
Foxes guard the foxes & middle-class hens get plucked. (Sep 2003)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Expand microloans to small businesses. (Apr 2002)
Rated 25% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Leiberman

Withdrawing by July 2007 is retreat & a recipe for disaster. (Oct 2006)
Wants two-state solution in Middle East without terrorism. (Oct 2003)
Leadership means consistency on war views. (Oct 2003)
Failure is not an option in War on Terror. (Sep 2003)
Pushing Israel out of West Bank is taking sides. (Sep 2003)
Be tough, but no preventive war. (May 2003)
Iran: Enforce non-proliferation on Russia & others. (Feb 2000)
Supported NATO expansion; arms to Israel & Saudis. (Jan 2000)
Iraq
Overthrowing Saddam was right, and we can't abandon Iraq now. (Jul 2006)
Getting out too soon will be a disaster for Iraq and for us. (Jul 2006)
Saddam's overthrow caused Libya & Iran to capitulate. (Jan 2004)
We made the right decision to send soldiers to Iraq. (Jan 2004)
Iraq victory opens door to Israeli-Palestinian peace. (Jan 2004)
US and world are safer with homicidal maniac Saddam gone. (Jan 2004)
Stabilize Iraq before pulling out the troops. (Dec 2003)
$87B for Iraq was unpopular, but that's leadership. (Nov 2003)
$87B to never leave American troops without support. (Sep 2003)
Not an inch of difference from Bush on Iraq. (Sep 2003)
Purpose of war is to let Iraqis control Iraq. (Sep 2003)
Send more US troops to Iraq, with UN force. (Sep 2003)
Iraq was a heroic struggle against enemies of civilization. (Sep 2003)
Saddam was a threat; we did the right thing by invading. (May 2003)
Voting Record
Yes on $87B for Iraq-we must support troops. (Sep 2003)
Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. (Dec 2007)
Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
Deploy UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur. (Jul 2007)
Condemn Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel statement. (Feb 2008)
Support the completion of the US mission in Iraq. (Feb 2007)
Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)

Rahm:

Click here for 4 full quotes on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.
Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6832586 /

MR. RUSSERT: Now, knowing that are no weapons of mass destruction, would you still have cast that vote?

REP. EMANUEL: Yes. Well, you could have done--well, as you know, I didn't vote for it. I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, OK? But how you go about it and how you execute that war is the problems we face today.

MR. RUSSERT: So even knowing there are no weapons of mass destruction, you would still vote to go into Iraq?

REP. EMANUEL: You can make--you could have made a case that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and what you could have done also, Tim, is worked with other countries, go through the U.N., take the time to do it. Again, the problems with our troops and the country today faces in Iraq isn't about whether we should or should not have gone to war, whether we should or should not have removed Saddam Hussein, it's how they have pursued this war, the lack of planning, the lack of processing, thinking about there was no plan, as you know, for after we removed Saddam Hussein, what would you do. There was no plan for--as you know, before war, you had to have an exit strategy. One has not even been annunciated. There's been a presumption that we were going to be greeted as liberators. There was a presumption this would be quick and easy, and then we can turn the country over. None of that has been laid out, and that has to do with the competency and the planning that goes in, and they did not have a plan for the day after "hostilities ended."

MR. RUSSERT: This is the way Democrats are talking in 2005. But back when they were voting for the war, and three-fourths of both houses of Congress voted to authorize the president to go to war, as a candidate you said you would. And in March of 2003, Congressman Emanuel, your tone was strikingly different. This is what you said.

"I had the fortunate experience of serving in the White House; I knew firsthand what a solitary and difficult decision it is for a President to send our Armed Forces into harm's way. I will remember some of the members of this body, in the midst of conflict, attacking the President--the commander-in-chief-- even even as he worked day-and-night to complete that mission and bring our servicemen and women home safely. It was wrong then. It would be wrong now. I, for one, will not do that to our President ... to our commander-in-chief. I want him to succeed. We should all want him to succeed. So as long as our troops engaged, we should suspend the debate over how and why, focus on the mission, unite as a country, in prayer and resolve, hope for a speedy resolution of this war with a minimum of loss. God bless America."

That's far different than what you're saying today, criticizing the president.

REP. EMANUEL: No. In fact, Tim, what I actually believe it's consistent in this perspective. Not the how and why--not the why about whether we should have gone, but how we pursue that war. And the fact is, I don't think the war today has been handled to date. I think the president came, as you know, for resolution to Congress. He got that. Second, he asked multiple times for the resources to fight that war. He has got that. What we ask in return is a plan.

Now, let me go forward a little on two points. One, he's going to come and ask for now an additional $100 billion. Is that to fight this war the same way? Is it going to be any different? Because if you do it the same way, you're going to get the same results. And second, as that statement referred to, I worked in the White House when the United States Congress did not give the president, as we were on the way to fighting in Kosovo to liberate it and to deal with mass genocide in Europe, and I know what it means when the president of the United States doesn't have the support of Congress.

Russ Feingold believed that Saddam had WMD.

This is the problem: People are spending a ridiculous amount of time trying to vilify someone over some BS perceptions.

but both were against the Iraq War. Regarding who cares, a lot of people. A lot don't, I'll grant you that.

Bush, not Rahm, started the Iraq war.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a questionable right to an opinion. No matter who someones Primary candidate was, their opinion is equally valid. They do not have to agree but their opinion has equal worth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245243/Iraq-in...

and folks don't hate, hate them.

John Edwards hadn't yet said "SORRY" in 2005, which is when that interview is dated.

Rahm didn't run for the Presidency, so again, what's the hate about?

all the criticism of Rahm for this and his other centrist sins should apply equally to other centrists. People did hate Hillary for it, big time, until recently. Kerry got off pretty easy. Edwards got off way easy. He was gung ho for Iraq until his bogus turnaround.

Isn't the Lieberman full out hate based initially on his foreign policy approach
(voted for Iraq, and went all over National TV defending Bush on the rationale and
bad mouthing Democrats that were against the Iraq Invasion?)

Apart from the two being both Jewish, I don't see the similarities.

So let's stick to discussing Rahm if you don't mind.
You can always start a thread about Lieberman if you'd like.

But since you asked, I'm afraid I have to bring up the possible elephant in the room. What do Rahm and Lieberman have in common? They're both Jews, of course. And that must make them totally commensurate, right? (Even though you have pointed out a vast difference in their voting records, and have noted that Emanuel's major sin is that he is a Democratic Party stalwart, whereas Lieberman has notably strayed).

And although no one has wanted to say it over this past year, I do believe that maybe just a wee itty bitty part of the blame-everything-on-Rahm-Emanuel thing might possibly have to do with his being Jewish. I know this statement will be violently rejected and denied. But I didn't think it up myself. Others (in real life) have mentioned to me the same theory, with sad and somewhat nervous regret. It's not something new. Alfred Dreyfus was scapegoated early in the last century to avenge the military embarrassment and economic woes France suffered after a misguided Prussian War. After the great economic woes of a depression in Europe, the Jews were scapegoated again.

I know this isn't all of it. But it's some of it, for some people. And they will deny it, but there will be no way of verifying their denials.

What a load of unmitigated bullshit.

as continue to venerate the late Paul Wellstone, and are cheering for Al Franken all of whom are Jewish!

A bigger picture of Rahm.

which of course is your point.


He is doing what the President wants.

I am sure that the President is well informed on what he is doing and informs Rahm when he is displeased with something that he has done.

People want somebody tough to carry out the President's agenda and then complain about the tough guy once he is appointed.

Outside the rarified air of the elite blogosphere nobody has any idea who RE is.

He is a bandwagoner who takes credit for other people's successes. He demeans people who work harder than him and more ethically than him, stepping on their shoulders. Rahm can drop off a cliff.

As for your "voting record", Joe LIEberman has a similar one. Do you support that sabotour, too?

Thanks.

As for Joe Lieberman, actually they don't have the same record.....
Although they are both on record as being Jewish.

See my reply to your OP.

Just said he made a lot of money from 1998 to 2002,
and so he may have done something......

and although we have a lot of millionaires in Congress,
on the Democratic side, his money appears to maybe stink,
but no one really truly knows.

So he is hated based on suspicions that aren't really documented,
just felt.

And his congressional votes from 2003 to 2008 don't count for anything
as we are talking about politics here.

cause I know that John Edwards was worth a lot of money,
worked for an Hedge fund and yet folks just totally loved him
around here. And his Hedge fund work was done in 2007-2008,
not even a few years before.

So I fail to see the point of bringing John up.

Finance is a complex thing, making 16.2 million dollars in your first year without any education or training, and also having spent the past 20 years of your life as a political consultant raises my eyebrow.

Plus, he's kind of an asshole. I think everyone has identified him as the one advocating against a Public Option in the administration the most.

I was just saying that many of the liberals seem to love John Edwards,
and at the time they knew about his hedge funds dealing....
who he had all of his millions invested there and that kind of thing.

He's kind of an asshole. Ok.

and OK, he's "Identified" as one advocating against the Public Option,
although I think the Rham dislike predates the PO debate, but alright then.
You have answered my question. Thanks!

or should be admired much.

Edwards would fight like hell against the easiest compromise you could make with the GOP on the civil litigation front. Also the one that makes the most common sense.

You set up a Malpractice Insurance fund that works like Workmens Compensation.

Didn't like how he treated so many while he was in Congress, but I especially detested the way he treated Howard Dean. The 50-state strategy WAS Dean's idea and he got it off the ground and made it work! But when all the Democrats got elected, it was Rahm who made sure that HE GOT ALL THE CREDIT!

Puffed up like a puffer fish and dissed Dean! He's a rat and all the lists you compile won't make it better! One "could" say he got some things done, but it's the HOW that matters! For a little twit, he sure can bury a knife!

but ok, you hate him for being a part that helped us win congress back....
and you believe he took all of the credit. OK.

Do you have a link on that, because I will read it (as long as its not a biased one).

There's a poll at DU right now asking if we should just ram things through congress,
and "fuck" the Republicans.

Did you answer them yet, that it's how we win and not the fact of winning
that counts?

and then took credit for it when it was implemented and worked. He's a jackel who wants to be around power. He's one of those guys who is totally incompetant but looks like he's working all the time.

I can't stand the asshole Frenchie. I hope he goes, and goes soon, with Geithner, Arne Duncan too. On the Facebook page, there are some people who give reasons, some specific, some not. I agree with them. Yes, this is a lazy response. Furthermore, If President Obama would drop these creeps, I think it'll be good for the 2010 elections, and help his standing with some Dems. Who gives a shit what the repukes think? A freind of Mr. Dinger's likes Rahm, not because they him, but in his exact words "I like when he screws up." These are my honest feelings Frenchie. No disrespect for our President, or you.

Ding


Edited to add link:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fire-Rahm-Emanuel-NOW/419...

because I hear the missives all over the place,
and that's not what I was asking for....
which is why I bothered to look up the voting record,
post it and ask the question.

YOu are certainly free to not stand him,
I would just think if it was that clear,
you could summarize it as opposed to being so vague.
But don't get me wrong.....it's ok, Dinger
I'm sure someone else will post the particulars.

Many people who consider themselves progressives (people to the left of the DLC) were angry that while Rahm was head of the DCCC he favored candidates that they saw as being more aligned with the DLC than the progressives. This coupled with a belief that Howard Dean (the perceived champion of the progressives) and Rahm did not get along and did not work well together, made many people hostile to Rahm.

The bottom line is that most of this shit comes from process stories, mostly with "anonymous sources", in rags like politico. Quite frankly I think process stories, although fun to read, are a diversion when it's the issues and the outcomes that we need to be focused on. But again, that's no fun for political junkies because being a political junkie usually means being an armchair strategist. And being armchair strategists we have obvious solutions as to how we would do things better than those who are currently doing them and one of these things for a certain segment of armchair strategists is to fire Rahm.

I act as an armchair strategist myself sometimes but when I do I make the assumption that the president is in charge of everything. Sure in reality most decisions aren't made at a presidential level. But to try and assign blame to any specific staffer is to trust anonymous sources in politico, and that's not something that I do. If I think the White House could do something better I say so. If doing that thing better means replacing a certain staffer then it means replacing a certain staffer. But on the off chance that the President ever did take my advice (we'll say the probably is something like 1 in a billion) I think it would be best if I just suggested what he needed to do differently and let him decide who needs to stay and who needs to go in order to make that happen given that I don't work at the White House and I'm not aware of what goes on there.

Seems like that's what one does while there. He was in Congress for 6 years, and for one as young as he, guess 6 years is a long time.....especially when one realizes that Barack Obama has been President for only one year.

And seems like he voted on most things in the way
that most here would prefer.

That Investigating Bush vote was like a surprise to me,
once I started looking at his record.

But, why nitpick such a stellar record.

in 1994? 16 years ago? really?

Wasn't there a DNC, and other organizations in charge of that at the time,
or was he the only one in charge? Was Bill Clinton not responsible for any of it?
What about the media and their non-stop assaults on Bill Clinton....
that didn't affect the mood of the country?

Cause my feelings at the time was that
there was a lot of disatisfaction in the country,
and there was that Contract with America,
and the Fundamentalists came out in droves.

And I also thought that when he was also in charge in 2006, and 2008,
he quite made up for it. I'm sure Howard Dean can't take all of the credit,
especially in the conservative areas, where it was Rahm who recruited most
of those who won.

Personally, I still don't get it?

Which is one of the biggest reasons that the base abandoned the Democrats in 94.

Whenever there's a huge Democratic loss, it's a safe bet that Rahm was somehow involved.

had a hand in a certain candidate down here where I live. A person who was once a Repuke, but switched to Dem. Rahm got her campaign funded to the hilt, she lost by 369 votes to a real rat who had many lawsuits against him. The 18,500 plus under votes got lost, we never really have found out what actually happened. She ran again, Rahm as head of DCCC dropped her like a hot potato and she lost by at least 30% and the original Democrat was never even given a chance because of him!

By funding her campaign in the first place, the REAL Democrat actually got screwed and many loyal to her were fuming! Yep, politics are a dirty game and Rahm can play it very well!

So now, we have a 2nd term Repuke who has even MORE lawsuits against him and a real shyster! Not very fond of Democrats like me!

He's a jackel.

He was in charge of the house, if I remember it.

His approach is detailed here, in this interview, way prior to the actual elections:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=52...

He talks about nationalizing the race and making it a refurandum against Bush.

and here from the Rolling Stones, and article from 2005:

The Enforcer
Rep. Rahm Emanuel is leading the Democratic charge to retake the House next year. Will his old-school combativeness rub off on his more timid colleagues?

The Republicans are on the ropes. There's House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: indicted for conspiracy and money laundering. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: under investigation for insider trading. The White House's chief procurement officer: arrested on corruption charges. The head of FEMA: forced to resign in disgrace. Even President Bush himself: approval ratings at an all-time low. The question is, will the Democrats be able to take advantage of the mess the GOP has made?
The answer depends, in many ways, on Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Chicago.

For years, Emanuel was the political brains of Bill Clinton's White House. Intense to the point of ferocity, he was known for taking on the most daunting tasks — the ones no one else wanted — and pulling off the seemingly impossible, from banning assault weapons to beating back the Republican-led impeachment. "Clinton loved Rahm," recalls one staffer, "because he knew that if he asked Rahm to do something, he would move Heaven and Earth — not necessarily in that order — to get it done."

Now, as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Emanuel has taken on his biggest challenge yet: to win back the House of Representatives after more than a decade of Republican control. To pull it off, the two-term congressman will have to overcome odds far greater than those the GOP faced when Newt Gingrich engineered his historic takeover in 1994. Back then, according to a study by the National Committee for an Effective Congress, 117 seats were "marginal" — that is, close enough to be considered competitive. Last year, thanks in large part to Republican-friendly redistricting, the number of close races shrank to only thirty-four.

Over lunch near his office in Chicago, Emanuel previews his strategy to win the fifteen seats needed to retake the House. Unlike others in the Democratic leadership who seem reluctant to criticize the president and are fearful of their own party's grass roots, Emanuel knows it will take an aggressive, all-fronts effort to prevail in next year's midterm elections. Democrats, he says, will have to raise record amounts of campaign cash, challenge the Republicans in dozens of districts, offer concrete alternatives to Bush's failed policies — and above all, hammer home a clear and consistent message.

"We're the party of change," Emanuel tells me. "We're the party of a new direction — a break from rampant cronyism and the status quo. Period."

If that message has a familiar ring, it may be because Republicans used essentially the same formula to seize control of the House a decade ago. Indeed, given his hard-charging reputation, Emanuel often elicits comparisons to the man who led the GOP to victory in 1994. "Rahm is the Democrats' Newt Gingrich," says Bruce Reed, who served with Emanuel in the Clinton White House. "He understands how much ideas matter, he always knows his message, he takes no prisoners and he only plays to win."

Other Clinton veterans are even more pointed about Emanuel's assets. "He's got this big old pair of brass balls, and you can just hear 'em clanking when he walks down the halls of Congress," says Paul Begala, who served with Emanuel on Clinton's staff. "The Democratic Party is full of Rhodes scholars — Rahm is a road warrior. He's just what the Democrats need to fight back."

Yet Emanuel has received generally positive reviews from the increasingly noisy — and powerful — grass roots of the Democratic Party. As leader of the DCCC, he has struck a fragile truce with the heavily liberal blogosphere and organizations such as MoveOn.org. Emanuel has hosted four "blog calls" with the pre-eminent liberal bloggers, going over congressional races and sharing DCCC strategy in an effort to bring the activist community into the fold. In July, the partnership yielded promising results when Paul Hackett, an Iraq War veteran running as a Democrat, nearly won a special election for an Ohio congressional seat in Cincinnati, the nation's most conservative major metropolitan area. "The blogs were fabulous — absolutely fabulous — for Hackett," Emanuel says. "In the last twelve days of the race they collected about $250,000."

For their part, bloggers and grass-roots activists support Emanuel in no small part because they hope his combativeness will rub off on his more timid colleagues. "He understands the importance of having a good relationship with Net roots," says Markos Moulitsas, who runs the influential blog Daily Kos. "If nothing else, he knows that we exist and it's not as confrontational a relationship as we had with past DCCC regimes." Nor is Moulitsas put off by Emanuel's centrist politics. "We don't give a shit," he says. "I think there's growing understanding that we can't sit and fixate on who's a moderate and who's a liberal when we're in the minority. We can worry about that when we're in the majority."

That's a view Emanuel wholeheartedly shares. "We get into this stupid argument every four years: centrists vs. leftists," he says. "That is not the argument today. It is change vs. status quo. In 1992, Bill Clinton was a change agent — he won. In 1994, Newt Gingrich was a change agent — he won. In 1996, Bill Clinton was a change agent to Dole and Gingrich — he won. In 1998, Democrats represented a change from the Republican drive for impeachment — they won. In 2000, George Bush was a credible change agent. In 2002, Democrats failed to convey change — and they lost. I want to be about change and reform to the Republican status quo."
As part of his strategy to win back the House, Emanuel has unleashed a high-octane campaign to recruit candidates to represent the Democrats next fall. He has already put forty-one House seats "in play" — forcing the Republicans to defend their majority district by district. On the same date in the last election cycle, the number of seats in play was three. "The way you crack the strategic imperative of not enough seats is by putting more seats in play with good candidates," Emanuel says. "And one way you do that is by broadening what people think of when they think of Democrats." Indeed, the lineup of candidates he has recruited to run next year sounds more like a GOP dream team: four military veterans, two FBI agents, a pastor, a sheriff and a former NFL quarterback, Heath Shuler.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8091986/the_...


Interesting article, but it is before the elections.
I'm wondering how many house candidate that he handpicked actually won.
Had to be enough of them, cause we went from a minority to a large majority,
last I checked.

And they will be out in droves in November. The only way we will avoid a bloodbath is if we come out in droves. Rahm's insults towards the liberals of the party aren't likely to get them excited about going out on a Tuesday in November in an off year. His obnoxiousness towards the left is so bad, it looks like a deliberate voter suppression effort. I would hope it's not and that it is just stupidity. Because it starts to look as if Rahm would find a Republican majority in Congress more to his liking. I hope that is not the case. But, there is no good choice, here. He is either stupid or he is hoping for fewer Democrats in Congress.

Also, his fierce disagreement with Howard Dean

I haven't really ever gotten the particulars on this.
I want to see if it is really worth hating the man due to this
rift I've vaguely heard about.

As for his tactics, can you give me some examples?

50-state strategy as Dean wanted. Dean supported progressive candidates in primaries and Rahm supported DLC ones.

I'm not going to be going off on some sort of Fire Dog Lake quest to prove Rahm was involved in criminal activities before serving as a congressman. I'm pretty sure what Mr. Emmanuel did was perfectly legal. If it wasn't he'd have been caught in the net of Bush era political prosecutions. Rahm is no friend of progressives, but he is a rival gangster to the Bush crime syndicate and as such, they would have put him in prison if given the opportunity.

Rahm is a lot of things. A brilliant political strategist, someone you want on your side in a fight, and a fierce debate opponent. Public servant is not on that list. Rahm does what is good for Rahm.

Rahm has a liberal arts bachelors and a masters in communications. Not questioning Mr. Emmanuel's financial prowess but somehow after his stint in the Clinton Administration he made $16,200,000 as an investment banker. Just seems odd to me that someone whose life's work is public relations and political strategy could be so adept at investment banking with so little experience in the area, so quickly.

He was also on the Board of Directors of Freddie Mac appointed by President Clinton for one year before resigning to run for congress. In that year he earned $320,000. He was not a member of any of the Board's working groups and the board meets six times a year. One hell of a part-time gig if you can get it. The Obama administration has blocked board minutes from his time at Freddie from being released to the public. I'm not really sure you'll find evidence of Rahm involved in any nefarious activities. More likely since his background is communications and political strategy, you'll see evidence of a man who has no clue what the hell he's talking about in finance matters. Again, I could be proven wrong, but he has no educational background in finance and no real world experience. Knowledge would have to come from somewhere.

from 1998 to 2002?

So you just smell something bad, and that's suspect.

Ok. I understand.

People are as nuts as the effing RW when it comes to spinning bullshit and making shit up.

If people are going to accuse someone of a crime: provide evidence or STFU.

Did Rahm make 16.2 million dollars in one year in finance? Are the meeting minutes sealed?

Nothing in there is false and in nowhere did I accuse Mr. Emmanuel of a crime. If Rahm did something outright criminal Bush would have sent him up the river.

Michael Dell comes to mind, and these guys made far far more money. Maybe Rahm's just... smart? Just throwing it out there. Of course he may have also been making secret deals and doing shady business, and raking it in for no good reason while the rest of us suffered.

Who's to say.

and he than became a US Representative and the White House Chief of Staff.

The White House has also blocked the board meeting minutes from the brief time Rahm was on the board of a major player in the financial collapse from being released.

Interesting isn't it?

My guess is if this was a GOP administration we'd all scream bloody murder with a Chief of Staff who miraculously was an awesome Investment banker despite having no training, experience, or education in banking to the tune of 16.2 million dollars and also was on a board of a corporation now in Government receivership and the meeting minutes for his tenure were sealed.

but since we don't seem to concentrate on them,
we'll never know.

And please tell me what kind of training does it take to become an investment banker,
specifically? Because personally, I believe that it's about who you know,
not what you know in the world of finance. I know that is one of the reasons
that John Edwards was hired by the Hedge Funds; because of who John Edwards was.

Rahm knows nothing and he sold access. Thank you for saying that.

of wrongdoing without anything but the talking point of 16.2 million. Agreed, it's a large sum of money -- and investment banking may, especially right now, be the easy target. Point is, just because of the outward appearance you are assuming guilt.

Tough crowd here.

"Rahm is no friend of progressives, but he is a rival gangster to the Bush crime syndicate and as such, they would have put him in prison if given the opportunity."

What utter bullshit.

How many public relations guys do you know that make 16.2 million in their first year in Investment banking. Must have been some hell of a quick learner.

Can't believe he made money?

Oh brother.

Pretty obvious, probably not illegal, disgusting none the less.

BTW I'm looking forward to the next lecture on corporate money in politics from the President with a guy who bought his big house in Chicago selling access to politicians to corporations as his chief of Staff.

wasn't slightly funny.

We could host a fundraiser and place bets on the chief of staff to see if he could pass that exam.

Big time investment banker could surely pass a simple test on financial terms and regulations...I mean he did make 16.2 million.

I don't see him as a dummy. And finance is not as difficult as you believe that it is,
and since you work in the field, I'd imagine that you'd know that.

He did work in the white house for 6 years, and I'm sure that he learned financial terms and
regulation in that time....considering that Bill Clinton certainly was a CEO type President
in many ways.

What is the Series 7 exam?

you think her name and 'access' had anything to do with that placement too?
wonder how much money she makes.

how much is too much?

1998-2000 was the year of the .com boom, where millionaires were a dime a dozen.

Remember?

So you don't really know how he made his money,
you just don't think he was qualified to have made it,
and that's a problem for you, right?

It's ok if this is your problem with him....
I just want to understand this, because he is demonized
as a soundbyte these day.....but I never really totally
understood folks' problem with him.

You pointed out what he did, which is what I was hoping one of you would be silly enough to say.

He sold access. Is that ok?

many go into finance because of who they are. That's not illegal,
or even unethical. If the head of a company would prefer discussing
business with someone who appears to have come from a successful administration
when it comes to the economy, like the Clinton administration, how is that illegal,
or even unethical?

I know that General Wes Clark, who I supported strongly for years actually
started up an Investment Banking firm shortly after coming out of the military back in 2000,
and even though he had and educational background that would bolster him doing it,
the reason he was able to do it so successfully, was because he had just came out of the Clinton administration and had a just won a successful war. He had been doing a lot of business in
Dubai before the Dubai crash, and no one seem to care much.

My point is that it is very easy to assign a nefarious smell that one might want
on one doesn't really know but feels something, but that's not solid stuff, just gut stuff.

As for being silly, let's remain as adults throughout this discussion here,
because I did not post to change folks mind who feel like they are perfectly
justified in dissing this guy as Satan's 2nd coming.... but at some point when the hate
is based more on a caricature that goes beyond a level of rationality, then the question
needed to be asked.

with politicians, political appointees, and Generals work out for everyone? Merging the state with the investment community and using the state as enforcers.

I'll give you a hint, you have to do defense of bullshit BLS statistics every month because of it.

You've got nothing but bullshit innuendo.

Nothing can be done in the US Senate and real reform on most topics is gutted in the House of Representatives on almost every issue with any major economic implication.

I'll give you a hint, Rahm is a hero to assholes who want to use their government public service careers to become millionaires and as long as you have those assholes around, reform of any sort dies, because they aren't thinking about their job in government, they are thinking about their job when they "retire from public service"

"Rahm is a hero to assholes who want to use their government public service careers to become millionaires"

Maybe the assholes are the ones who are obsessed with Rahm.

I'm obsessed with Tim Geithner. I just think Rahm is an opportunist bully. He's like number 10 of my list of 10 people who should be fired in my listing of Barack's appointments.