Rahm Emanuel is a very passionate about his work as the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Under his leadership, the committee is fundraising more successfully than ever before and nearly all Democrats concede that he deserves substantial credit for their rosy (congressional) election prospects this year.
But the far left has a big problem with Rahm Emanuel. “Did I mention tonight how much I HATE these DLC bastards?” says Air America Radio personality (and non-Democrat) Mike Malloy.
A Democrat, raising more money for Democratic congressional candidates than ever before, and widely credited for their chances in reclaiming Congress, is a “DLC bastard.” So what has the left’s panties in a wad over Emanuel? He dared to question where MoveOn and George Soros are in this election cycle.
An article in the New York Daily News has the inmates over at the Democratic Underground Asylum in a snit simply because Emanuel has implied that Soros and MoveOn have been practically missing in action this election cycle. And he’s right.
As Emanuel points out in the piece,
“MoveOn goes into four districts, advertises, does a great job in each of those districts, and they literally moved on. The election is in November, and they moved on in June,” he said. “I’m like, ‘What is going on here?’ I don’t get it. I’m bewildered. Do you think for a moment the Chamber of Commerce (who is backing Republicans) will not run another ad in one of these campaigns?”
MoveOn.org’s Washington director, Tom Matzzie, responded sharply to Emanuel’s criticism, saying the group had made an early impact in key races and plans to spend $25 million this year.
Key races? As has already been pointed out, MoveOn was in and out of four campaigns by June of this year, not to be heard from again. Sure, they SAY they plan to spend $25 million this year, but the election is two months away. If they intend to help, they’d better qet cracking.
As for Soros, his spokesman, Michael Vachon, confirmed that the billionaire is spending a tiny fraction of what he laid out in 2004. He donated heavily to such organizing efforts as America Coming Together (ACT) two years ago.
But Steve Rosenthal, who was ACT’s chief executive officer in 2004, said his organization’s financial backers were “very candid that they weren’t in it for the long haul and never said they were.” Nonetheless, Rosenthal worries about what the missing money will mean this fall.
“These guys — where are they?” a frustrated Emanuel asked in an interview. After John Kerry’s loss, Emanuel said, “they walked off the field.”
I can answer that, Congressman Emanuel. See, in 2004, it was all about defeating George W. Bush for those guys, NOT getting a Democrat elected. If a Green or socialist candidate had had a better shot to take down Bush, you can bet Soros and MoveOn would have supported that candidate.
This year, Bush is not a factor. This year, the goal is Democratic victories. That isn’t enough incentive for the MoveOn, George Soros, and other big money donors from the left to kick in. Your mistake, Rahm, was hoping they would.
But to be completely honest, I’d like to win without them. And I think we can.
Before I leave the subject of Rahm Emanuel, I’d like to specifically address “depakid” from the Democratic Underground Asylum who made the brilliant comment there that Emanuel = Loser.
My definition of “loser” is one who doesn’t win. I’m not sure what the word means on the far left. But I have to assume it has a completely different meaning than it does in the real world.
Was he a loser when he helped put Paul Simon in the US Senate? Was he a loser when he helped Richard Daley become the mayor of Chicago in 1989? Was he a loser when he helped Bill Clinton win the white house? Was he a loser when he himself won his seat in Congress in 2003?
Just how is Rahm Emanuel a loser?
While we’re discussing the House races for this November, did you know that most Democrats in close races disagree with the left in regards to Iraq?
Most Democratic candidates in competitive congressional races are opposed to setting a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, rejecting pressure from liberal activists to demand a quick end to the three-year-old military conflict.
Of the 59 Democrats in hotly contested House and Senate races, a majority agree with the Bush administration that it would be unwise to set a specific schedule for troop withdrawal, and only a few are calling for substantial troop reductions to begin this year, according to a Washington Post survey of the campaigns.
The large number of Democrats opposed to a strict timeline for ending the military operations runs contrary to the assertion by President Bush and top Republicans that Democrats want to “cut and run” amid mounting casualties and signs of civil war. At the same time, the decision by many Democrats to refrain from advocating a specific plan for withdrawal complicates their leaders’ efforts to convince voters that they offer a clear new direction for the increasingly unpopular war.
Among the 46 House races that nonpartisan political handicapper Charles Cook lists as the most competitive, 29 Democratic candidates oppose a date-certain to begin withdrawing troops.