“Progressives” Would Rather Stay In The Wilderness Than Allow The DLC To Lead Them To The Promised Land Again

When (if) the Democrats win the House of Representatives this fall, one man will largely be credited for it – DCCC chair and Congressman Rahm Emanuel.

The Executive Director of the Democratic Party pac I’m the vice chair of knows Rahm Emmanual. She calls him a “mean son of a bitch.”

Nina Easton at CNN calls him a “pittbull” and relays an interesting exchange he recently had with President Bush. Wikipedia’s entry on Emanuel says he is noted for his strong partisan style and his fundraising prowess. Rollingstone called him the “political brains of Bill Clinton’s White House.”

Not only does he have the Democratic party poised to take control of the House, he also has the far left in a minor rage because they can’t stand the prospect of a DLC member once again leading the party to the promised land.

Led by the often factually challenged David Sirota, the far left’s tizzy over Emanuel this week concerns something they think Emanuel said, but in fact, did not.

Sadly, if you read Newsweek this week, you’ll see… in a giant piece, the magazine transcribes Rep. Rahm Emanuel’s diarrhea of the mouth, where he gushes about how great he’s been at leveraging the prospect of him as a chief lawmaker on a powerful committee to rake in cash from special interests.

The only problem with that, Mr. Sirota, is that Emanuel didn’t actually say that. Drawing from an excellent smack down at Political Cortex from Pontificator, let’s take a peak at the actual passage from the Newsweek article:

As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Emanuel teamed with Senate campaign chair Chuck Schumer to tap uncharted donor fields in the financial industry. “We’re working outside of traditional banks,’ he says proudly, ‘into the private-equity world, the hedge-fund world, the distressed-debt world.” These ‘worlds’ know they are talking to a guy who not only runs the campaign committee, but who could be in the majority of the key financial committee–and maybe even majority leader.

From this passage, Sirota draws the conclusion that Emmanual is:

gushing about how great he’s been at leveraging the prospect of him as a chief lawmaker on a powerful committee to rake in cash from special interests.

And that Emmanual is:

bragging to reporters about Democratic Party corruption

However, if you read the passage again, you’ll see that all Emmanual actually says is the following:

“We’re working outside of traditional banks,’ he says proudly, ‘into the private-equity world, the hedge-fund world, the distressed-debt world.”

Pontificator continues, “That’s it. The additional language about Emanual being on key financial committess comes entirely from the Newsweek reporter, who, in typical MSM media fashion, is offering his negative take on Emmanual’s comment, and is trying to imply, without any evidence whatsoever, that Emanuel is engaged in some kind of implicit shakedown.

Rahm is doing exactly what we want a Democratic House leader to do. He is reaching out to people of means in a relatively new industry — hedge funds and private equity funds — and soliciting donations. Many of these people are highly progressive and hostile to the Iraq war and the Bush administration’s incompetant reign of error. To bash Rahm because a MSM media twerp wants to put a negative spin on Emanual’s comment, and to accuse him of bragging about bribing these people — when such an accusation is patently false — is not only morally wrong but also extremely counterproductive, considering we’re within 60 days of the election.

… Sirota, who failed to even link to the correct Newsweek article, should be a little more careful next time before shooting from the hip at elected Democrats.”

But we all know Sirota has made a career out of trashing elected Democrats so why should the above text surprise you? And when given this information, the left lurches into some sort of “anti-corporation” tirade. See, Emanuel is a part of the DLC, and the left are a little scared right now that he will (deservedly) get the credit when the Democrats win the House back in November. Here’s an exact quote from a so-called “progressive” on Emanuel:

He’s done most of his fundraising through from corporations, corporate lobbyists and GOP donors. He has a long record of placing the needs of corporations over middle class Americans and rank and file Dems.

All this is, of course, spoken without a single shred of evidence to support the assertions. Here is a similar and equally comical “progressive” comment on the DLC:

The DLC is a bunch of corporate whores who are more special-interest LOBBY group than part of this Party. They are a bunch of DINO Bush-enablers whose wussy modus operendi has been to make us look like a bunch of gutless wonder flip-flopper war-monger corporatists.

But for all of their “truthiness” and “viva la revolution” rhetoric, Emanuel is already recieving credit from Congressional Democrats for getting us even this close to winning the House in November. My question to the “progressives” is would they rather the Democrats LOSE than be led by Emanuel into victory?

(would you like to discuss this in a hostile environment?)

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Progressives” Would Rather Stay In The Wilderness Than Allow The DLC To Lead Them To The Promised Land Again

  1. SaveElmer says:

    The answer to your last question is YES…I am convince most of the “progressives” would rather lose than have it claimed in any way a DLC member was partially responsible for the victory.

    Going back a few years, it galls these people that Bill Clinton was a successful, popular President, and yet did not tow the dogmatic liberal line on every issue.

  2. Gary Sartori says:

    What Sirota and all the liberal Democrats are worried about is losing power. They will do anything to hang onto it, even lie about the DLC, Rahm Emanuel, and Joe Lieberman. When the DLC takes back its power, people like Sirota will be on the outside, looking in. Bill Clinton was a perfect example of how Democrats can win the White House.

    If the next Democratic nominee takes a very liberal line, he/she will lose again, pure and simple. Taking DLC policies, and running with them are the key. Fail to do so, and the Republicans will once again, control what happens, and judging by the last 6 years, it won’t be a good thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: