From the Political Wire:
During the past year, the Chicago Tribune
had “exclusive access to the strategy sessions, private fundraisers and
other moments that shaped the Democratic victory” in taking control of
the House of Representatives . “The newspaper agreed not to print any
of the details until after the election. Now that the votes have been
counted, the story of how Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) helped end an era of
Republican rule can be told.”“He did it, in large measure, by remaking the Democratic Party in his own image.
“Democrats had never raised enough money. Emanuel, a savvy fundraiser
who shaped those skills under Richard M. Daley and Bill Clinton, yelled
at colleagues and threatened his candidates into generating an
unprecedented amount of campaign cash. Democrats had a history of
appeasing party constituencies. Emanuel tore up the old litmus tests on
abortion, gun control and other issues. With techniques that would make
a Big Ten football coach blush, he recruited candidates who could mount
tough challenges in some of the reddest patches of America.”
It’s interesting to read about Rahm’s daily life and how he went about doing his job. But we need to put a swift end to this storyline about how responsible Rahm is for the Democratic victory. Chris Bowers gets us started:
Rahm won the House of Representatives for Democrats, but it didn’t stop there.
Rahm also won the four Republican-held House seats where the DCCC candidate lost the primary, but where the primary winner went on to take the seat anyway…
Rahm has a mind-meld with Nancy Pelosi, so if his body were to die and be sent to the Genesis planet in a hollowed-out photon torpedo, Spock’s father could bring him back to life on Vulcan…
When you put a needle on Rahm’s nipple, it plays Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys…
…When the world ends, it will be because Rahm blinked.
Which is all a nicer way of saying that Rahm Emanuel is only partially responsible for taking the House of Representatives. A lot more went into the effort than the machinations of one Machiavellian congressman from Illinois.
I don’t think we really want to get into a pissing match over who deserves the most credit. Emanuel definitely deserves a lot of credit, perhaps even the lion’s share. He worked very, very hard. But, even as I grant him his due, we have to hit back and take our due. Rahm made some questionable decisions. Some of them cost us seats.
As the Washington Post says today:
The midterms will be remembered as a referendum on the Iraq election, and the voters’ verdict will push the White House and the Democrats toward agreement on potentially significant changes.
How much does Rahm Emanuel have to do with that? Not much, if anything. I was with Patrick Murphy (PA-08) at the beginning of his campaign. He couldn’t get Emanuel to take him seriously. Jerry McNerney (CA-11) had to overcome Rahm’s candidate in a primary. Rahm pushed a political neophyte in Tammy Duckworth (IL-06) over the netroots’ preference and destroyed all the passion in that race. After pouring three million dollars of DCCC money into Duckworth, she lost. Meanwhile, our candidates in WA-08, NM-01, NC-08, OH-01, OH-02, PA-06, FL-13, fell short by less than a percentage point.
I don’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but we should have done better in upstate New York, in Ohio, and we should have taken Chris Shays out. It was the netroots that expanded the field, it was the netroots and Lamont that showed the power of the anti-war message.
And the netroots is a progressive force. It isn’t lacking ideology, no matter how Daily Kos positions itself. The ultimate aim of online political activism is to take power away from corporate media and corporate lobbyists and give it back to the people. And that is a very leftist position that will result in very progressive legislation. We may not fall neatly into the old categories of labor, single-issue advocacy, etc., but that doesn’t mean we’re lacking in core principles. We’re just finding a different rallying point than we have in the past.
Rahm had some success on election day, but it wasn’t for his brand of politics. He helped unleash a beast that will sweep him from power just as thoroughly as he swept the Republicans from power.
I don’t expect the old media to get it…they are in for trouble too.
And, ironically, without Feingold in the race for the Presidency, progressives have no dog in the ’08 nomination fight. That means our efforts will again be focused on the House, and this time Rahm will find us more emboldened, more organized, and less willing to accept his leadership decisions.
Despite the midterms elections, and largely as a result of them, Rahm’s DLC is on its deathbed. But you’d never know it from the Democrats running for the Presidency.
We could have made Feingold the President. Do you think we will do the same for Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, or Hillary Clinton?