« Queens of the Cinema | Main | Fred Kaplan's Take »

Word to the Wise

21 Oct 2006 06:33 pm

One thing to keep your eye on is emerging tensions inside the Democratic Party which find their locus in the persons of Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emmannuel. Essentially, the way the centrist side of the argument is trying to set things up, insofar as the election returns are in some sense disappointing, this will be blamed on Pelosi, Leader of the House Democrats. But insofar as the election returns are encouraging, credit belongs to Emmannuel, Architect of the Great Victory. Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, in other words. This Bull Moose post gives you a good example of the genre. He's expecting big things for the Democrats, and hails the wisdom of the House Democratic leadership, with said leadership comprised apparently of Emmannuel and Steny Hoyer. Pelosi, a liberal who thought invading Iraq was a bad idea before it was cool, who also happens to be the actual leader of the caucus, doesn't come into play.

As I say, keep your eyes peeled. Also check out Zach Roth's excellent profile of Steny Hoyer in The Washington Monthly. Hoyer, clearly, would be a big step forward from his GOP predecessors as Majority Leader, but he's no great shakes and not the sort of dude who's going to, say, spearhead an exciting era of progressive reform. Meanwhile, many liberals have complaints of their own with Pelosi, some warranted others much less so. Folks should be aware, however, of the objective contours of this debate . . . the alternative to Pelosi is weak tea of the sort served by Hoyer and Emmannuel (who, I'll happily grant, is a pretty canny electoral tactitian) and not the leader of your dreams.

Share This

Comments (32)

FACTS FOR AMERICAN VOTERS:

Since Bush/Cheney stole the 2000 election, Unemployment went up from 4% to over 6%. During President Clinton's term, unemployment went down from 7% to 4%. Americans living under the Federal Poverty Level went up by almost 7 million from 2000 to 2006, while during President Clinton's term the number of impoverished Americans went down by 7.7 million.

Since Bush/Cheney stole the election in 2000, the share of income going to our poorest has gone down to all-time record levels and the percentage of income going to the richest 15% of Americans rose to all-time record levels. The average amount by which Americans fell below the poverty level also hit a record of $2,707. Experts don’t expect the trend to change unless Republican policys are reversed.

Over 1.5 million jobs were lost from early 2001 to late 2002. During President Clinton's term, more than 22 million jobs were gained. More than 2 million people were laid off in 2001 by Republican-owned companies such as Enron and Worldcom, and another 2 million layoffs occured in 2002, according to the U.S. Labor Department.

The percentage of MBA graduates in the top 30 U.S. business schools finding a job within 3 months of graduation went down from 97% in 2000 to 80% percent in 2002, according to Business Week.

Since Bush/Cheney stole the election in 2000, our American Budget Deficit has topped 6 Trillion dollars, after a Surplus of over 400 Billion dollars was generated by President Clinton.

Since Bush/Cheney stole the election in 2000, their disregard for international diplomacy and their go-it-alone invasion of Iraq has caused Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear wepons, yet Bush has repeatedly and entirely failed to link Hussein with the WTC attack on 911. Bush, Cheney, and dozens of other Republican leaders were willing to sacrifice 655,000 American, Iraqi, and many other nationals lives for their own personal business and political gain.

Since Bush/Cheney stole the election in 2000, Bush, Cheney and the Republicans created ill-will among many of our former allies overseas by breaking nuclear treaties and refusing to sign environmental pacts like the Kyoto Accords. How can we expect other countries to support us when we don’t support important global issues our international neighbors care about?

Since Bush/Cheney stole the elections in 2000, the Federal Government has desecrated our treasured National Parks for all time by putting oil wells in such places as Utah’s Arches Park.

Since Bush/Cheney stole the elections in 2000, the total number of Americans without health care increased to over 46 million, the largest increase in over 10 years, according to groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. Bush/Cheney have done nothing to address the increase in the uninsured except to continually suggest that private faith-based groups should pick up their slack, and that the government should invest American's Social Security funds in the roller-coaster stock market.

Crimes besides those of the twice-unelected Bush/Cheney Republicans increased by 2% in 2001, according to the FBI, the first increase in more than a decade. Republicans care more about school children saying the Pledge of Allegiance than significantly increasing funding for education, especially lowering tuition and fees for Higher Education, which will do more to further our pledge "Liberty And Justice For All" than simply saying that pledge.

Since Bush/Cheney stole the elections in 2000, Republicans have cut and run from several dozen critical domestic programs to pay for an endless war against a concept to support their friends who own the oil and weapons corporations, causing the number of homeless Americans to continue to rise, and since Bush/Cheney stole the elections in 2000, our American Constitution, Civil Liberties, and the Great Writ of Habeus Corpus; the foundation of civilized Law itself, has been shredded as sheepishly intimidated Republican legislators push to create an American Police State in order to appease their criminal unelected GOP leaders.

Since Bush/Cheney stole the 2000 election in our Supreme Court itself, even more radical far-right wing judges who will stop our elections to tell us who won and make other undemocratic and unamerican decisions have been appointed to our Federal Courts. Dozens of Republican officials embroiled in scandal after scandal, many involving despicable sexual crimes against children, continue to blame President Clinton for everything that has gone wrong under this despotic GOP tyranny, making a total mockery of Republican claims to their exclusive notions of "morality" and "responsibility." Most government Republicans are liars or worse.

Nothing has been done to fix the "problems", fraud, and outright theft perpetrated by Diebold and other electronic machines instituted by Bush, Cheney, and the Republicans in 2000. Bush has taken more days of vacation than any American president in history, including the entire month of August 2001, when he had early warning of an impending terrorist attack. Bush then remained on vacation for the entire month, doing nothing about the warning he had.

As any good copy editor would tell you, the guy you're writing about is actually called "Rahm Emanuel".

I like We The People's posts better when they're entirely in boldface.

People who are overly suspicious about the idea of going to war against a country that has never attacked us are likely dangerous radicals who shouldn't be trusted.

Is there ever going to be a point where the people who were right about the war to begin with stop being described as "the far left"?

The fact that she could not keep her caucus in line on the banrkuptcy bill vote tells me most of what I need to know about her.

Recently had someone describe Hoyer to me as a snake oil salesman who does sleazy things like steal other people's bills.

I was thinking about Emanuel along these lines today, and how important it is for Democrats to think strategically about the moment they win the election, assuming they will. And Emanuel and his Plan are an obstacle, not a resource.

Matthew, this is a genuine request, not a gotcha attempt, because I know there's a lot I don't know about Washington political stuff. So, if you could, could you explain what electoral successes warrant your describing Emanuel as a "canny electoral tactician"? My impression is that his overall record is somewhere between mitigated disaster and unmitigated disaster when it comes to actually winning campaigns and votes, but if I've missed something important, I'd certainly like to know it.

"the alternative to Pelosi is weak tea of the sort served by Hoyer and Emmannuel"

Of course, if Dems end up with 218 - 222 seats, and if Pelosi is then denied the Speakership, the next speaker wouldn't be Hoyer or Emanuel. It would obviously be Murtha.

Hoyer's chance of being the next Speaker is zero. Emanuel's chance is slightly higher than that, but not by much.

"So, if you could, could you explain what electoral successes warrant your describing Emanuel as a "canny electoral tactician"

You could start with candidate recruitment and fundraising, and move on from there.

Dude is like Amare, pre-knee injury.

but praise or blame for this election will obviously fall on Emanuel, not Pelosi - at least from reality-based observers. Pelosi has had a remarkably low profile.

Oh please. Emanuel is known for excellent fund-raising skills; he sucks big donor cock like nobody else. Great. Other than that, he needs to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. Wait...fund-raising is not Emanuel's only skill, as Petey's reference to Pelosi's low profile reminds me: Emanuel is great at pushing himself forward in times of credit, and generally at self-promotion, even where it may be harmful to the party's larger interests. On a bet, see Petey's WP link for an example.

Murtha for Speaker? Not good news for progressives, frankly.

BTW, the Bull Moose doesn't represent the centrist Democrats; he represents the GOP (and those who serve it, such as Lieberman). Taking his advice is like taking the advice of Newt.

"Murtha for Speaker? Not good news for progressives, frankly."

It would require an unlikely series of events: the Dems ending up with a majority of only a couple of seats and a couple of conservative Dems refusing to vote for Pelosi. It'd be a real longshot to actually take place, but if it did, we'd almost definitely end up with Murtha rather than Hoyer.

I have pretty mixed feelings as to whether or not Pelosi is good news for progressives. If she becomes a significant electoral drag for Democrats due to who she is, then she'll be bad for progressives no matter how good she is on the issues.

"Emanuel is known for excellent fund-raising skills; he sucks big donor cock like nobody else."

Of course, Pelosi significantly outraised Emanuel...

Wanna go there, SCMT? I suspect not. You normally seem to prefer your slurs to be about gay sex rather than straight sex.

Why does anyone consider Pelosi a hindrance beyond the fact that she's the person in the post. Anyone in the Democratic post is going to attract fire. Consider the fact that barely-there Tom Daschle was painted as Satan Spawn by the Republicans.

"Anyone in the Democratic post is going to attract fire."

Anyone is going to attract fire, but different folks are differently sized targets.

Tom DeLay could have been Speaker after Newt was defenestrated, but decided to be because he knew he'd be an enormous target. Instead he pushed forward Hastert, who was a pretty small target in the pre-Foley days.

The impressions cast by a party's visible leaders are incredibly important.

Shorter Petey:

"Well the problem with Nancy Pelosi is that she doesn't have a dick."

"Well the problem with Nancy Pelosi is that she doesn't have a dick."

Nah. If it needs to be expressed in a single clause, the problem with Nancy Pelosi is that she represents San Francisco. If Claire McCaskill were to be the prospective Speaker, I wouldn't have any problems.

And when I say I have mixed feelings about Pelosi, I mean that. While there are aspects of a Pelosi Speakership I don't like, there are other aspects of Pelosi I do very much like.

Pelosi's has pushed forward Murtha on Iraq and pushed forward Emanuel on the '06 elections. Both of those decisions were deeply, deeply smart and good for the left.

"If it needs to be expressed in a single clause, the problem with Nancy Pelosi is that she represents San Francisco. If Claire McCaskill were to be the prospective Speaker, I wouldn't have any problems."

No doubt. Her regional affiliations make her suspect. It is probably cringe-inducing to say aloud, but her femaleness also works against her (and it doesn't necessarily work against other female politicians).

As someone (not me: I swear) recently said, she leaves the distinct impression of a woman who turned to the bottle for the twenty years after her husband stopped sleeping with her (which I gather would be the last twenty years). (I think Feinstein has been popping qualudes since at least the Moscone murders, if not since since her late Eisenhower-era Saturday nights out taking bennies and watching stag flicks projected on the walls of Nob Hill apartments of trust fund kids aspiring to be beatniks).

It seems like only yesterday Emmanuel was putting the shiv to Dean for being a drag on the Dems electoral prospects. Would any Rahm fans care to list the Dem House canidates he personally recruited? Shouldn't be hard since it is such a short list. The most noticeable group is the 'fighting Dems' and he had nothing to do with that group and even managed to screw the OH-2 thing with Hackett. Gaining thirty seats in the House has very little to do with either Emmanuel or Pelosi. The country just finally woke up. I will give the DNC, DCCC and some of the Dem poobahs and donors credti for ponying up big dollars.
Also, anyone who voted for the bankruptcy bill or the torture bill should be excluded from a leadership post. Those who voted for the war should start planning their walk to Cannossa.

"The most noticeable group is the 'fighting Dems' and he had nothing to do with that group"

That's a very Cheney-like reading of the situation...

Placing Rahm Emanuel in "leadership", whether Speaker, Whip or Leader is part and parcel of the larger Clinton plan. What few people remember is that Emanuel is first and foremost part of the Clinton brat pack - he spent six+ years in the White House, and was even the model for Josh Lyman's character (his brother was somehow involved in West Wing.) He was Clinton's national finance director back in '92, when no one considered that the governor of Arkansas had a snowball's chance in hell (and all that...oh, disclosure, I worked for Clinton in '92.)

Senator Clinton would very, very much like to have her people in place should she utilize her impressive war chest and run for the nomination. I suspect she doesn't view Pelosi as "family", unlike Emanuel. I heard that the Big Dog was even pushing Rahm to bloggers at the now infamous "lunch".

Rahm does have some interesting financial supporters, including Exelon. Maxxed out on him over the past two cycles. And they recently (late '94) picked up an interesting new lobbying firm.... Hmmmm....

"Placing Rahm Emanuel in "leadership", whether Speaker, Whip or Leader is part and parcel of the larger Clinton plan."

While I understand the logic here, it should be noted that Rahm has already been put in the leadership - that's where the DCCC position lies - and was put there by the desires and efforts of Nancy Pelosi, not by the Chappaqua mafia.

OK, Nancy Pelosi is from San Francisco. Would you rather have somebody from Texas, Alabama or Mississippi like the GOP does?

San Fran's a little whacky, no doubt, but it's time for Democrats to start capitalizing on regional differences. It's gotten to the point that a GOP president criticizes his opponent because of where he is from, Massachusetts. Why the hell didn't John Kerry blast his ass for being from Texas. Nobody likes Texas.

HOYER VS. MURTHA FOR MAJORITY LEADER

Hoyer voted for the bankruptcy bill, but so did Murtha! who happens to be the only person running against Hoyer for Majority Leader.

And Murtha is AGAINST lobbying reform, the environment, women’s rights, gay rights, gun control, etc. Hoyer is solidly liberal on all of those issues.

Petey, there's a significant difference between House working leadership and campaign leadership. In his positon as head of the DCCC, Emanuel has little if nothing to do with developing the House legislative agenda. Geez, the guy's only been a Congressman for three years. How much impact on the Democratic legislative agenda did the former head of the D-trip have? Can you actually name him, without utilizing Google? (Hint, he died on January 1, 2005.)

Pelosi put him there to keep him busy. He's a money man, and campaigns need money.

in response to whoever left the comment above with the name "Murtha for Majority Leader".....

you say "anyone who voted for the bankruptcy bill or the torture bill should be excluded from a leadership post".

and your boy, Murtha, voted for the bankruptcy bill!
see for yourself here.

The reason it was so important for Murtha to stand up in the first place was because here was a *conservative* Democrat saying these things. He wasn't one of us, but he agreed with us. And that's important. But it doesn't mean he deserves to be in the leadership.

in response to the person named Petey/John....
It appears the Democratic Party leaders in Nebraska also think Rahm has little to do with Dems being competitive in red states. The boy can raise money but he isn't a leader.

Hoyer is not popular among the caucus having lost two races for whip. He is in his current position just to keep him quiet. Pelosi will be in great position as Speaker. She will never lose in her district so she can spend all her time grinding the corrupt Republicans to dust and ensuring Bush officials go to Leavenworth.

Checklist Democrats need to get with the new program.
Hoyer is in a safe district yet he is still a tool.


Comments closed November 04, 2006.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.