Log In | Register
Every two or three days, the Obama administration tries out a line intended to shame liberals into voting. "Folks, wake up," said President Obama last week. "Those who didn't get everything they wanted," said Vice President Biden this week, "it's time to just buck up here."
If the early leaks are right, the "professional left"—Press Secretary Robert Gibbs's instantly immortal, probably accidental term—is about to get all the bucking-up it needs. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, according to just about everybody, is probably leaving the White House this week to prove that Chicago can be governed by someone not named "Daley." He is being treated to more of the rose-scented superlatives that followed him since he returned to politics in 2002, when he ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, and when he joined the Obama administration. "He began each day before the sun did," said Jake Tapper of ABC News, reporting last night, "often by swimming a mile, and he was perhaps the hardest worker in the White House."
This is the kind of stuff liberals are used to hearing about Emanuel. If it ever impressed them, it doesn't anymore. After two years of Emanuel, they are convinced that he was a paper tiger, a hack who never missed a chance to weaken the progressive agenda and a man whose toughness never translated to big, meaningful victories over Republicans.
Why liberals will be glad to see Rahm Emanuel go. - By David Weigel - Slate Magazine
Article Source: Slate- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (4)
I can only hope the UAW gets actively involved in Chicago politics.
- 1 vote
#1 - Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:15 PM EDTI've never been a huge fan of Rahm. Though I voted for him in the general election when he first ran for Congress from my district, I liked his opponent in the primaries (Nancy Kaszak, a real progressive) much better. Rahm always looked to me like a bully--so personally invested in "winning" that he backed watered-down positions because they were easier to be on the winning side of. If he were a Republican, his nastiness could give Karl Rove a run for his money.
I never thought Rahm wanted to be mayor of Chicago--it'd be a step down from the national stage for him. I'm still not convinced he'll run, though I have to admit--if he does, he'll win by a landslide. As for hoping the UAW gets involved, I don't think they'd have the strength to beat him here. And I'm glad they wouldn't--the next most likely Democrat to win the Democratic primary (and by default, the general election) is Alderman Ed Burke, Mayor Daley's right-hand man, and the next most powerful politician in Chicago.
Burke is a corrupt, old-school wheeler-dealer who was brought into the Chicago Machine under the current mayor's father. When Harold Washington became the city's first African-American mayor, Burke and Ald. Ed Vrdolyak pulled the same tricks to amass opposition to Washington and block any progressive or egalitarian legislation in the City Council that the current national Republican party is using in Congress today. (Vrdolyak is currently on probation for mail fraud. He switched parties and ran for mayor against all other black candidates every election until the current Daley ran.) Burke and Vrdolyak smeared black politicians and played on racial fear, just as so many of today's Republicans do. The ugly Burke/Vrdolyak fight against black politicians was known as "Council Wars"--you'll find all kinds of info if you Google that.
Sorry about the off-topic rant. But I'd always vote for Rahm--or almost anyone else--over Ed Burke for mayor.
- 3 votes
so personally invested in "winning" that he backed watered-down positions because they were easier to be on the winning side of. If he were a Republican, his nastiness could give Karl Rove a run for his money.
I think that pretty much describes the Democratic Leadership Council as a whole, which is probably why libs and progressives are so torqued about the past two years. It's odd that many progressives would have accepted a loss after a strong fight than to have been maneuvered into lukewarm crap.
Sorry about the off-topic rant. But I'd always vote for Rahm--or almost anyone else--over Ed Burke for mayor.
Pretty much on-topic as very good background. There are few things more operatic than Chicago politics. It is nearly a science unto itself.
- 4 votes
well, I for one am glad he is gone. I am not your average liberal/left person I guess. I have some issues where I would be more classifiable as libertarian or maybe even tea party, but healthcare insurance was the one thing I expected, and not as they called it in the article micro care. I am so disgusted with all of the pols that no amount of cajoling will get me to vote for the likes of Rahm-ever. I think he was one of the things that made me totally give up on the dems for good. I am an elderly person, but I am sick of being conned.
- 1 vote
#2 - Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:14 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
