Joe Conason: Obama and the Drawbacks of Rahmism

[flpoljunkie]

Obama and the Drawbacks of Rahmism

By JOE CONASON

If the Democrats fail to pass real changes in the health care system this year—rather than a sham that mimics and mocks reform—they will have nobody to blame but themselves. Or at least nobody to blame but other Democrats, notably those in the White House who have never been committed to this most venerable and fundamental aspect of party policy.

Of course the right-wing rumormongers have done their share of damage, spreading lies about “death panels” and stirring up the boob cohort with warnings about socialism. Republican elected officials have decided to damage the president rather than address an issue they know is critical to the nation’s future. Health insurance lobbyists and corporate leaders have spent millions of dollars to kill reform, buying legislative obedience the same way they buy advertising time or legal advice.

Yet in the months that followed the momentous election of November 2008, the Democrats have possessed the power to fulfill the moral imperative—good, affordable health care for all Americans—that they have pursued since the Truman era. Both the new president and the new majorities in both houses of Congress declared their determination to create the kind of health care system that other developed nations have enjoyed for the past 50 years or so.

Now competing measures that might or might not accomplish that worthy goal are stalemated in Congress while the White House dithers over how best to placate Republicans and conservative Democrats who have opposed serious reform from the beginning.

The ultimate responsibility for this sorry state of affairs belongs with the president, who vacillates between speaking out boldly for a “public option,” and permitting his aides and appointees to undermine his message by confiding their plans to sell out. His worst tendency, to exalt bipartisan compromise above progressive policy, has left him at the mercy of senatorial frauds like Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who pretended to negotiate over details while denouncing the president for seeking to terminate America’s grandmothers. He assigned far too much responsibility for health care reform to aides who exacerbate that weakness—and in particular to Rahm Emanuel, the current chief of staff and former congressman from Chicago.

Every mistake made by the Obama White House in the pursuit of health care reform can be traced to the political style and ideological prejudices of Mr. Emanuel, who has sought to intimidate progressives and empower conservatives, always in the name of winning elections and “getting things done.”

more here...

http://www.politickerny.com/4950/obama-and-drawbacks-rahmism

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

1. Gee and here I thought that Rahm Emmanuel was some kind of Superman Wiseguy Ninja who

would send dead fish or beat the shit out of those opposing the president's agenda. Apparently he ain't that intimidating.

[xultar]

2. Rahm sought to intimidate progressives and empower conservatives

WHAT THE FLYONG FUCKITY FUCK FUCK

[Oregone]

4. Their pollsters probably suggest there are more votes to be won on the right than lost on the left

Maybe there is some political truth in that. Who knows.

But that strategy doesn't manifest itself well in policy for the people

[eleny]

3. If this is the truth then let it me aired and hashed out

We at least deserve to know just what the heck is going on.

[Occam Bandage]

5. Strange. All I've heard is that Rahm is a hyperpartisan, hyperaggressive, ultra-hardballer.

That's all I've heard from people who've worked with him, from the insider media, and from the mainstream media. That's the impression I got each time I met him.

Now apparently he's a weak sellout who loves compromise, conservatives, and Congressional Kumbaya singalongs? Come on. Could we please try to make our silly left-wing attacks on the administration line up, just a teensy-weensy bit, with reality? That would be nice.

[Better Believe It]

6. He's notorious for using his "sharp elbows" against progressives and liberals.

He tried to crack down on Democratic organizations that ran TV spots critical of conservative Democratic politicians who attacked the public option.

You really didn't know about that?

[rudy23]

8. For which side? nt

[kenfrequed]

9. Uhm sorry...but WRONG!

Rahm has never been a progressive. Look back at his record he has ALWAYS been a DLC'er. He is only hyper partisan within the very limited range of what the mainstream media considers liberal and conservative. And he is only aggressive and a hardballer within the narrow range of pro-corporate policy allows for.

He has always pushed around and bullied those that move to the left. For crissakes he put himself 'in charge' of junior or first term congressman. He even warned them against going on 'The Colbert Report.'

[Occam Bandage]

23. Rahm isn't a "progressive." He's a partisan.

He doesn't have an ideology, aside from "the Dems must win and the Republicans must lose, whatever it takes." To claim that he's in favor of bipartisanship and conservatism is pathetically inaccurate.

Rahm's fucking job description is to push around/bully anyone who deviates from the party line, whether that deviation is to the left or to the right. Which probably explains why ultra-left-wingers think he's a pro-conservative thug, and ultra-right-wingers think he's a pro-liberal thug. He ain't either. He's a pro-administration thug.

[kenfrequed]

24. Sorry

But he is a pro corporate DLC'er. Look at the organizations stances. The DLC is NOT the democratic party, it is an organization occupying a wing of the party with its own ideas and positions. He actually does subscribe to this ideology and seeks out candidates that embrace this the DLC mold as well.

Pretending that he is somehow merely a defender of all things democrat or that he occupies a mythical moderate democrat position is idiotic and not reflective of his record or the candidates that he selected as head of the DCCC. Candidates that generally tended to lose or are the very Conserva-blue-dog bastards that are busy stabbing the rest of the party in the back over even a single payer option.

[freddie mertz]

7. This pretty much sums it up.

And provides the best explanation I have read so far for the current sorry state of things.

Seems we have probably lost another historic opportunity.

[glitch]

10. Obama may yet pull out of this dive. We'll see. Rahm should be toast though. nt

[freddie mertz]

11. I have lost faith. Now it is about applying pressure.

It's clear that the WH cannot be counted upon to stan for the public option unless it is pressured to do so from all angles.

At least we know this now.

Rahm may be to blame in part, but the ultimate responsibility lies entirely with the president.

[glitch]

12. I am old enough to not believe in faith in politicians. Pressure is always necessary.

But I don't need faith to consider the possibility that Obama may be better intended and more skilled than I think he is. We'll see.

But I have never liked Rahm and look forward to his early retirement. That Obama chose him is right down there in his dreg decisions along with not figuring out a way to delay mountaintop removal until Congress outlaws it, putting Geithner in charge of the Treasury, Salazar in charge of the Interior, Holder in charge of Justice and Vilsack in charge of Agriculture.

[freddie mertz]

13. Looks like Sebellius was a dreg decision too

Of course, another way of looking at it is that these choices help explain who the president really is.

Which is a scary thought.

[glitch]

14. True that. Not too thrilled with Chu either. Sigh. nt

[freddie mertz]

15. We could have had it this time. Real HC reform.

Whatever ends up happening now, it will be, at best, half-assed...

[glitch]

20. Full circle ;) nt

[polichick]

16. "His worst tendency, to exalt bipartisan compromise above progressive policy,.."

That's the big problem.

[kjackson227]

17. Rahm most definitely is NOT our friend...

I've got my eye on him. Maxine Waters alluded to him being part Blue Dog a while back. Now whether or not President Obama shares all of Rahm's views is a wait and see situation. I'm sure President Obama listens to Rahm's opinions/suggestions/warnings, but hopefully PO makes his own decisions in the end.

[Cha]

18. Good for Joe Conason pointing

out some shit that Rahm needs to read.

[PM Martin]

19. Ambling towards one-term wonderdom Mr. President?

[ChiciB1]

21. My Mind Has Always Conjured Up Visions Of Tom DeLay When Thinking

about Mr. Emanuel! Different Party, but same personality type! I'm one who has NEVER, and I mean NEVER felt comfortable about him!! I could think of many ways to define him, but the less said, the better off I'll be. Or maybe not! He just isn't my kind of guy, and even though I think I know why he was picked to be COS, to me this was a BIG mistake by Obama!

None of us know what goes on behind the scenes, but there are times that make me feel that Obama isn't really that much of a Progressive, AND if he really is... he just isn't fighting hard enough to "show me". I keep getting mixed messages and am tired of trying to figure out what language or message they're trying to convey. I prefer clear thoughts and thinking as opposed to letting me guess which ball that's in the air that I'm supposed to be catching. And yes, I know "trial balloons" are famous in D.C., but I'm also tired of trying to figure out which balloons need popping!!! No wonder the Repukes and the KOOKS are able to flame this thing, a clear message needs to be offered. You know... WH, please GYST or something!!

Is there possibly a Cheney/Bush scenario here? Just thinking out loud... I don't know!

But Mr. Rahm bothers me way too much! And this isn't something I've just begun to feel, it's a feeling I've had for many years!

But then it's JMHO!

[Overseas]

22. Our country needs to make some serious changes and Rahm's approach really limits

our options. His pro-corporate bent is not helping our country make the dramatic changes it needs. We not only need to address our immoral Pay-to-Play medical insurance system that treats healthcare as a privilege, but also our unsustainable use of natural resources in a global marketplace-- we need to dramatically curb our carbon emissions.

Rahm's hurry up and toss out the best options because Repubs won't take 'em approach has not helped the Presidency at all.

It would have been far better to begin with the President, his administration, and many prominent Democrats all raising the ethical dilemmas we face with our current system and promoting the most efficient option-- Single Payer, aka Medicare for All-- an ingenious public-private partnership.

Start with the best and then invite the opposition to present alternatives that could do better at covering everyone and controlling costs.

We really don't need Rahm's go-along-to-get-along (or to get large corporate campaign contributions) policies. They don't work in the face of the crises in healthcare and the environment.

Privatized medical care has failed miserably to prove its case. They told us last time they could do better. They've had over a decade to prove that and instead-- less people are covered, expenses have skyrocketed and even people with insurance have gone bankrupt from medical expenses.

The epic failure needs to be acknowledged and emphasized as a starting point. And don't take the strongest, most efficient option off the table as a starting point. You lead with the most effective option, Single Payer, and then see if anyone can top that.

It is too late for the Golly Gee Those Lefties are Kooky, we're moderate sensible guys-- sort of talk. It is not about left and right anymore. It is about desperate times for millions and millions of Americans who are uninsured or bankrupt. Pay-to-Play has not worked. Value for money is not there. The American public desperately needs help and the majority believe healthcare should be a right and not a privilege.

Wish we had had Rahm's strength and influence behind promoting Single Payer as a challenge to the Republicans-- just show me something more efficient than this is, guys. Top this, and we can talk.

[invictus]

25. Rahm should get fired.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. Only imagine what could be done if he used his power for progressive causes.