Rahm's Leverage Is With Blue Dogs, Not The CPC

Via Bowers, this:

Many centrists credit Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, then a congressman from Illinois and a member of leadership, for pushing Pelosi to protect vulnerable members. “Rahm could say, ‘Nance, I’m the guy who delivered the House.’ He had a special ability to talk to her,” said a senior Democratic aide.

Leaving aside the lie behind the Rahmbo propaganda (Rahmbo got it all wrong in 2006, not wanting to run against the Iraq Debacle. Dems won despite him, not because of him), what this tells me is that Rahm has leverage with Blue Dogs, not the Progressive Caucus. He means nothing to them. Rahm seems to recognize this:

"I think Senate's been clear about the prospect there is," Emanuel told PBS's Charlie Rose when asked if healthcare can pass with the public option. "That doesn't mean in the House they're not going to come to the table and demand it." [. . .] "Health care will be passed before the members go home for Thanksgiving," he said, rejecting a question about whether the bill would largely resemble the proposal to emerge from the Senate Finance Committe. "It will not just be on the Senate Finance Committee because the legislative process a place where both bodies get to contribute," he said.

(Emphasis supplied.) Some are expressing outrage over Rahm's prediction about the Senate. And I agree that it was stupid of Rahm to make predictions about the Senate process. But I found the rest of his comment the more interesting part. Perhaps Rahm is understanding the limits of his (and Obama's) influence with the Progressive Caucus.

This may signal an Obama step back on pushing the policy one way or the other and letting the House-Senate conference hash it out on its own. If the House holds firm, this would a a good thing.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | Najibullah Zazi Indicted in New York, Transfer is Imminent >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just because (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:31:37 PM EST
    Rahm may have (debateable per BTD) delivered the house to Nancy, it doesn't mean he has any leverage here.

    After all, what's Rahm going to do if Nancy doesn't bend?  Deliver a Republican Congress next time?

    Sorry Rahm, you have no power here because you have nowhere else to go.

    LOL- Gotta love it (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    Sorry Rahm, you have no power here because you have nowhere else to go.

    Would give multiple 5s if I could.


    Sen. Dems refusing to support a Public Option (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    for deficit reasons is pure B.S. They are protecting the insurance industry and PhRMA at the expense of providing real help for people.

    Sen. Bill Nelson proposed an amendment which would fill the Medicare part D dough nut hole. He would pay for the change by making the pharmaceutical industry pay a rebate for the overcharging of dual eligible Medicare/Medicaid seniors. The amendment would fully cover the cost of filling the donut hole and provide an additional $50 billion in government savings. The amendment would violate the secret deal reach between PhRMA, The White House, and Chairman Baucus. FDL

    The amendment failed 10-13 with Democratic senators Baucus, Menendez, and Carper voting against the amendment

    I like that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Spamlet on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:25:13 PM EST
    dough nut hole

    Quite eloquent, that.


    Let's not forget (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    that there were two successful campaign committee chairs in 2006. And the one who had the harder job is pushing for a public option.

    BTW, I agree with your read of his comments today.

    Don't invent (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by koshembos on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:58:21 AM EST
    Claiming that the 2006 was despite Rahm is as baseless as calling Obama socialist. You simply don't know what works out there and what doesn't.

    Rahm is not a free agent;everything he does is Obama.

    What a ridiculous comment (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    In MY opinion, it was despite Rahm. And having lived the battle of 2006 and KNOWING Rahm's aversion to running against the Iraq Debacle, I think my opinion well founded.

    Your opinion is welcome. Your insults are not.

    Do it again and you will be suspended from my threads.

    BTW, the reason I suspend people who attack me personally is because I am not allowed to attack back.



    Not Always About You (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:23:43 PM EST
    I think koshembos's use of the word "you" did not refer to you, BTD.  He was referring to the royal "you" as in "one doesn't always know what works out there."  I think he was just disagreeing, not insulting.

    I also think he's wrong.  Democrats took Congress in spite of Rahm, not because of him.  (Though the ton of money he raised from his corporate sponsors didn't hurt.)


    Oh, come on (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Peachdem on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:27:09 PM EST
    Despite my misgivings about Mr. Emanuel, let's not veer off into Freeper territory with factually-challenged assertions.

    Like him or not, Emanuel did deliver the House in 2006.  The only people who disagree are some in the netroots who have yet to produce any concrete evidence that Chairman Dean's efforts worked.  I've seen no names. No events.  

    And I agree with "Don't Invent" above.  Some progressives must really think Obama is a weak president to constantly imply Emanuel is going rogue.

    Tammy Duckworth and Lois Murphy (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:50:29 PM EST
    are great members of Congress, aren't they?

    so is Christine Cegelis (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peachdem on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    But what's your point?  An Obama/Axelrod/Emanuel candidate lost a general election and the DFA/Netroots candidate couldn't win the primary?

    Honestly, if you want to discuss this, let's agree to stick the point.  Emanuel's influence on the 2006 races extended much deeper than the candidates he personally recruited.  He advised a couple of dozen more and had money sent (money Howard Dean did NOT want to send) to other candidates with a chance of winning.

    C'mon.  Facts are facts.  


    If you think my perspective on this (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:05:10 PM EST
    is "Howard Dean is awesome," then you are the one not sticking to the facts. I care not a whit about Christine Cegelis.

    What I care about is the idiotic canonization of Rahm, considering that he lost some of the most high profile races that he ran out of his office. He was presented with a wave, and still failed to pick up several gettable seats. And the millions he spent in Georgia could have been better spent, for example, in upstate New York.

     Chuck Schumer had a much harder job that year, and his record was IMO better.


    I'm going to have to back up apologize (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peachdem on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:14:15 PM EST
    I DID believe you were coming from the 'Howard Dean is awesome' camp.  My actual belief isn't that a singular genius won the day in 2006.  There was, after all, a wave in the Senate, the governorships, and a few state houses as well.

    Just remember that some of the high profile races lost in 2006 were long shots to begin with.  As for Georgia, the information I was given was that not much was spent here at all by the DCCC.  In fact, the candidate in the 6th complained he'd not heard from the DCCC or the DNC.


    He spent in the 8th and the 12th (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:23:38 PM EST
    on defense. Defense was his job, of course, but in the Senate incumbents were told early that they would be on their own.

    How (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 05:12:23 PM EST
    in the world do you get that Rahm "delivered the house" in 2006?

    He should be delivering pizzas - on a bicycle - a tricycle.

    The dumb dim Dems won in 2006 because they voted against the party who put us into the war in Iraq. Rahm (and good old Obama) were on the wrong side of that issue. They still are.

    And on the level of party organizing - It was Dean who was in front. Should we forget all about this man?


    Welcome to the conversation (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    3 years after the fact.

    Having blogged it in real time then, I feel in a better position than you to evaluate what I am talking about.


    It seems to me (none / 0) (#1)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:52:46 AM EST
    That despite hope to the contrary, that this has been and remains about the CPC for some time now. Isn't the whip count supposed to come out really soon?

    From what I read (none / 0) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:55:41 AM EST
    the whip counts (CPC & Blue Dogs) should come out today or tomorrow.

    crossing my fingers. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:56:31 AM EST
    His name shouldn't be Rahm (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:58:32 AM EST
    It should be Wrong Emmanuel.  The guy seems nothing more than a fake poltical bully.  He needs, to put it nicely, to have his ace handed too him by someone who knows what real struggle and toughness are.  In short, someone who has actually been in a real fight.  But who that person is?  You got me.

    How about (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:32:26 PM EST

    Hi nickname in the halls of Congress is (none / 0) (#12)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    "The Killer."

    Probably appropriate due to his habit (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:25:33 PM EST
    of killing any chance of passing good legislation while enabling the passing of bad legislation.

    HIS (none / 0) (#13)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    His nickname.

    Truthfully, (none / 0) (#23)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 05:07:46 PM EST
    I was never for Obama.

    But when he appointed Rahm, I lost even more interest.