Rahm's Losers (John V. Walsh)

[laststeamtrain]

Rahm's Losers

By JOHN V. WALSH

Now that the Democrats have won the House overwhelmingly, the media is falling all over itself to proclaim Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and dearest friend of Israel, a boy genius. Even that congenital liar and close friend of Ariel Sharon, the ever tendentious NYT neocon William Safire, came out of retirement to hail Rahm as the Karl Rove of the Dems and to spin the election in various ways designed to keep Emanuel's influence alive.

But is Rahm a boy genius or did the Dem establishments succeed despite him and in fact despite itself? After all, the Dem establishment, partisans of oil, empire and Israel, chose Rahm to lead them. Let's do the numbers to see how Rahm and his employers really did.

<snip>

Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, we find that 13 were defeated, and only 8 won! (3) (One is still undecided.) And remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm's favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. Tammy Duckworth, for example, was infused with $3 million ­ and was backed in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm's choices, there would have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact, Rahm's efforts were probably counterproductive for the Dems since the great majority of voters were antiwar and they were voting primarily on the issue of the war (60% according to CNN). But Rahm's candidates were not antiwar.

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh11112006.html

Is it time for some self-criticism yet?
I'm for a Democratic Party opposed to foreign adventurism & empire building or, at least, headed that way.
Evidently not all Dems feel that way.
I found this article 'sobering', so to speak:
"Rahm's candidates were not antiwar." 60% of the voters on Tuesday were. Hmmm...

[aquart]

1. Wow. "dearest friend of Israel."

What a character fault.

What a good reason to despise a man.

What an interesting thing to work into a discussion of an American election.

For some people, what they learned at Mommy's knee just oozes from their pores. And their slimy mouths.

[Boston Critic]

5. Wow, unbelievable some Democrats still don't get it

Support for Israel isn't a "character faultO or a "reason to despise a man." It's what makes us Democrats. Our party has a longstanding history of support for Israel, rightly so, from Truman to Clinton.

That a tiny faction prefers to align itself with Palestinian terrorists and rejectionists is not excuse.

Here's a big clue, just because a war criminal like Bush and a DINO like Lieberman support Israel doesn't mean it's not a good thing to do. They both breathe air, too. Are you going to stop breathing in protest?

[eridani]

12. Supporting genocide and ethnic cleansing is evil, period

And that's what Israel is now doing. This does not mean that Israel should not exist, only that it should stop the water theft, property destruction, and displacement policies.

[Boston Critic]

13. Israel isn't doing any such thing

But using propaganda words like "ethnic cleansing" and accusing the Jewish State of "genocide" shows someone more interested in playing to the extreme radical left than in being a mainstream liberal Democrat.

My party rejects such hateful extremism:

The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel and the creation of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors. Our special relationship with Israel is based on the unshakable foundation of shared values and a mutual commitment to democracy, and we will ensure that under all circumstances, Israel retains the qualitative edge for its national security and its right to self-defense.
We support the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. The creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. Furthermore, all understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And we understand that all final status negotiations must be mutually agreed.

Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.11 Jul 10, 2004
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_War_+_Peace.htm

[eridani]

17. How does the destruction of homes and olive groves fit in to this?

The Gaza Strip happens to be the world's largest outdoor prison camps, whose inhabitants are being starved, and destroyed economically.

[Boston Critic]

18. Life in Gaza is terrible

And I hope you'll join me in condemning Hamas and the PA for this state of affairs.

After all, they had the opportunity to start building their nation there (one in a series of wasted opportunities). They had greenhouses and equipment left to start building their economy. And what did they do? Launch terror attacks, loot and burn.

And what happened to all the money sent over the last several years to help build a Palestinian state? Has anyone tried to seize Arafat's French bank accounts?

[eridani]

20. No, I blame the current Israeli government

--which has disrupted the elected government of Palestinians ever since Hamas was elected. They won mainly because, as you pointed out, Arafat was so corrupt.

[Demeter]

2. Tell It Like It Is--Speak Truth to Those Who Think They Have Power

I have seen nothing to like about Rahm, and a lot to be wary of. Maybe we can get him to run for something, and out of the mechanics of the party.

[robinlynne]

3. I hear you.

[bemildred]

4. Oh goody.

:popcorn::popcorn:

[lcordero2]

6. being pro-war is a losing proposition

The govt needs a big infusion of new bodies and it is not going to get it, draft or no draft.

[Eric J in MN]

7. I'm not a fan of Rahm Emmanuel, but in his defense,

...when choosing people to run against incumbents for Congress, of course more will lose than win.

And some of the losing candidates attributed to Rahm Emmanuel in the article wree naturals to run again because they came so close last time (Diane Farrell of CT and Lois Murhpy of PA.)

[phiddle]

8. Will someone get this to James Carville?

Spam to the national media?

[paulk]

9. another pile of shit from Counterpunch

I don't take "self-criticism" from that bunch of assholes, and neither should any other Democrat.

[question everything]

10. Why hide behind niceties?

Just call him a dirty jew and get it over with

What a pathetic proof of the old cliche that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.

And the reality is that we won because we were willing to be the real big tent and to welcome even anti-choice and anti-gay people like Casey and Harold Ford Jr.

This John Walsh, whoever he is, better get used to the fact that this country is not enamored with his brand of leftist, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism mentality. Whether one likes it or not, the shifting from a manufacturing-based economy to a service based one meant eliminating the feeling of "we all are responsible for each other" to "looking for number one."

There are many threads, mostly on GD, about the need to compromise - or not. About the priorities of the new Congress, about putting impeachment as the first priority - if at all.

But to blame everything on the dirty Jew Rham Emanuel - whose parents, by the way, are former Israeli - is stooping very low, indeed.

[Boston Critic]

14. Bravo

There is a nasty stream of antisemitism running through portions of the far left and we ought to reject it whenever it rears its ugly head.

Leave such garbarge for Buchanan, Duke, Robertson, and their ilk on the far right.

[IndyOp]

16. What a load of crap about capitalism and the economy...

"This John Walsh, whoever he is, better get used to the fact that this country is not enamored with his brand of leftist,... anti-capitalism mentality. Whether one likes it or not, the shifting from a manufacturing-based economy to a service based one meant eliminating the feeling of "we all are responsible for each other" to "looking for number one."

Wanting a solid safety-net is not anti-capitalist, it is pro-regulated capitalism. Capitalism must be regulated for the good of our environment, our middle-class (necessary to survival of a democracy), and more...

Further -- the concept of a long-term "service-based economy" is a myth. We either restore our manufacturing sector or our nation will continue to be controlled by other nations that manufacture the goods we need and export the profits to their nations while our lower and middle class sink, sink, sink into crappy service-sector jobs. Right now, very, very few steel mills are in the U.S. -- the ones that remain are mostly owned by people of other nations. Will we have national security when we can no longer build planes or weapons without steel purchased from China? If you didn't like Dubai Ports World buying our key ports - how can you accept foreign (multi-national) companies owning our manufacturing base?

Great book:

Thom Hartmann, "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class"

The American middle class is on its deathbed. Ordinary folks who put in a solid day’s work can no longer afford to buy a house, send their kids to college, or even get sick. If you’re not a CEO, you’re probably screwed.

In his latest book, Air America host Thom Hartmann shows how the American middle class that was so carefully constructed by our country’s founding fathers has been systematically dismantled over the past quarter-century, and, under the guise of “freeing” the market, replaced by a system designed to line the pockets of the super-rich and corporations.

Hartmann shows that it’s not too late to return to the America our founders envisioned. Democracy requires a fair playing field. It will survive only if We the People stand up, speak out, and reclaim our democratic birthright.

[Morgana LaFey]

21. pssst -- he's wrong about the anti-Semitism too

Truth is I don't recognize myself and my views in the characterization he spouts off with. Oh well.

You know, I'm not an anti-Semite, but being branded such and in this vitriolic way by people who refuse to accept an oppositional viewpoint on Israel/Palestine could definitely push me in that direction. IOW: their efforts and overly hot rhetoric COULD become self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't like being called anti-Semite just because I object to the way the current Israeli government does some things. But each time I encounter that argument, it seems to sting just a little less. Kinda like crying wolf for no reason at all debases one's credibility on the subject of wolf. I know this: those epithets will never make me abandon a position I feel is right.

So go ahead: call me anti-Semite.

[Lurking Dem]

19. Who would have thought?

A Green voter who dislikes Jews. Imagine my surprise. :eyes:

[depakid]

11. Men like Rahm will be the architects of disaster

if they're allowed to run the show either in Washington- or in 2008.

People have an expectation of change- and Rahm type Dems are unlikely to give that to us.

[Cha]

15. Maybe rahm is the "kkkarl rove of dems"?

and he's no fucking genius. All rove is is a fascist, powerhungry warmonger.