Rahm Emanuel and the DLC types MUSTGO!

November 14, 2006 -- Our story yesterday on viable Democratic candidates for the Congress being ignored by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)/Rahm Emanuel-James Carville wing of the Democratic Party generated a flurry of email about other candidates who were given the back of the hand by Emanuel and his cronies.

Nancy Skinner, who ran in the Michigan 9th District had only $315,000 cash on hand against a whopping $2,323,000 held by longtime Republican incumbent Joe Knollenberg, someone who is deep in the pockets of Big Oil and Gas. Yet even with a cash disadvantage, Skinner, a popular Detroit radio show host, tallied up an impressive 46 percent of the cote against 52 percent for Knollenberg.

Another candidate who was dissed by the Emanuel clique was Skinner's fellow Detroit talk show host Tony Trupiano, who ran in the Michigan 11th District against Thad McCotter. Trupiano had a cash reserve of $95,000 compared to McCotter's $767,000. However, even with this cash disparity, Trupiano achieved an impressive 43 percent to McCotter's 54 percent in a strong Republican district. A little extra cash for television time for Skinner and Trupiano may have tipped the balance. But the misers and parlor room Democrats in the DCCC were not forthcoming.

November 15, 2006 -- Since exposing the malefaction of Rep. Rahm Emanuel in failing to support Democratic House candidates who did not measure up to the Democratic Leadership Council neo-con standards, WMR has heard from a number of campaigns on the damage caused by Emanuel. In the California 44th District, with a small budget not supplemented by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee funding, candidate Louis Vandenberg was able to garner 38 percent (absentee ballots are still being counted in Riverside County, where Vandenberg received 41 percent of the vote). Even with a small budget the Vandenberg campaign was able to runs ads on Spanish-language radio, purchase signs (many of which were vandalized by GOP operatives) and get his message out on the Internet. With a campaign cash infusion from the national Democrats, Vandenberg might have attracted an additional 6 percent of the vote, giving him 44 percent. He may have also attracted most of the 3 percent that went for a third party left-wing (Peace and Freedom) candidate, getting him into the 47 percent category -- which would have made the race more competitive with a better funded get out the vote campaign.

This scenario was repeated in districts across the country where the Democratic candidate was ignored by Emanuel and his coterie of DLC/Carvillean insiders. Howard Dean should take note and take action.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/2006_11091122.php

November 22, 2006 -- After WMR's reports on how Democratic Congressional Committee Chairman (DCCC) Rahm Emanuel withheld critical campaign funds from competitive Democratic candidates nationwide who were running on anti-war platforms that did not comport to the views held by Emanuel and his pro-war neocon/Democratic Leadership Council/America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) masters, we have heard from a number of other campaigns that experienced similar problems.

Democratic candidate Samm Simpson, who won 34 percent of the vote against long-time pro-war GOP incumbent C. W. "Bill" Young in the Florida 10th District, did not receive any financial assistance, political backing, or support from the DCCC, the Democratic National Committee, the Florida Democratic Party, or any other national Democratic figure except for Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich who invited Simpson to appear at a fundraiser for another Democratic candidate in Orlando.

In fairness to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Bill Clinton had been working behind the scenes with Emanuel, James Carville, and other DLC adherents to put a stake in Dean's 50-state campaign strategy. New blood in the Democratic Party means new Democratic officeholders who are less beholden to the Clintons: Bill or Hillary. And the Clintons will do anything to keep their pro-business and free trade imprimatur on the Democratic Party.

In fact, Emanuel visited Florida a number of times and even hosted a breakfast fundraiser some 10 miles away from Simpson's district for neighboring 9th Congressional District candidate Phyllis Busansky. Simpson was never contacted or invited by Emanuel. Busansky eked out 44 percent against her GOP opponent.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/2006_11091122.php

i deliver

: )

"the system is working"

love you too, ono

(twice)

(twice as nice)

The Iraq war Dems debacle!

Maybe this is a good thing. It will help us to clean House further! [pun intended].

Buh-bye DLCers!

On Rahm Emanuel.

I put it out there in a question form. It is very non-threatening just to allow the others to reveal their views.

Here's what I sent out:

"What are your thought on Rahm Emanuel? His words after presenting the >new funding bill seem to have made many people angry."

email response #1

What words? I do not listen to the guy or read about him. Does
that convey my thoughts on Emanuel?

My response, getting a bit more bold now:

Loud and clear. Now the question is...what are we going to do about him?

He's up for re-election in 08. Do you think his district will send him back?

email #2

we should start at least a targeted antiwar information/petition/event cycle in his district.

asap.

if we build a groundswell (and polls in his district show they are antiwar like everyone else) maybe a decent candidate will step up-last

I heard there was none-but I am not in the loop on that kind of stuff either--

There are more coming in now and, so far, all think he needs to be removed.

This angers me to no end! They are HAPPY! that the bill was passed today. Enough said.

Breaking News: Because of your help, the House just passed legislation that will go to the White House that includes critical issues Democrats have been fighting for including: canceling the President's blank check in Iraq, raising the minimum wage, and increased funding for military health care and veterans' benefits, and help for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Dear Catharine,

THEN:
Two weeks ago, President Bush vetoed our legislation to demand accountability in Iraq and declared he would only sign a bill without any accountability for his management of the war.

NOW:
Now, the President has agreed to accountability and reporting provisions. That means for the first time we can force the President to be held accountable for his endless war in Iraq. We canceled the President's blank check in Iraq.

Why the sudden change? It's because of you that we have taken this first important step. You stood with us here at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) every step of the way. You signed petitions against the President's failed policies, spoke out on the need to change course in Iraq, and wrote letters-to-the-editors in support of the issues Americans care about.

As the President's resistance shows, there is no quick and easy way to end this war.

As Speaker Pelosi said today about the vote, "This debate will go on." Democrats believe ending this war is a step-by-step process and today marks a significant step in this direction.

I will need your help again to take the next step in our fight to end this war. Tomorrow, Democrats in the House will announce a new plan to bring legislation forward that includes timetables.

They will need your help to make this a reality. Together, we have come this far and I know together we can do even more. It will take both sides working together to truly bring this war to a successful and responsible end. That's why I need you to do even more to speak out and voice your support. You can do so at our DCCC Iraq Resource Center.

Today marks a new beginning for America. We took a step forward together as a nation - away from the failures of the President's policies and toward a more hopeful time. Democrats are committed to redeploying our troops and ending the war in Iraq once and for all. Our commitment will never change and our dedication will never stop.

I hope I can count on your continued support.

Sincerely,

Brian Wolff
Executive Director

P.S. –The fight to end the war in Iraq is far from over. With your continued help, we will keep up the pressure on the President to listen to the advice of his commanders and the will of the American people. But we will only succeed if we move forward together. Please visit the DCCC's Iraq Resource Center and get involved in the fight today.

It helps, no matter what.

Even just giving them information about what is going on, plants a seed.

Here's the wikipedia entry.

Being as it's Wikipedia it's probably not the most accurate, but it's interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

During his campaign, Emanuel "indicated his support of President Bush's position on Iraq, but said he believed the president needed to better articulate his position to the American people."[8

His father, the Jerusalem-born Benjamin M. Emanuel is a pediatrician, and was a member of the Irgun, a radical Zionist paramilitary organization in the 1940s.[1][2][3

Sunday, December 10, 2006
Did Rahm Emanuel lie about his knowledge of Mark Foley? Yes.

At the height of the Mark Foley scandal in October -- when Democrats were pounding Denny Hastert and company on a daily basis for having taken no action despite knowing about the emails sent by Foley to at least one page (and for lying about their past knowledge) -- Democratic Congressman (and DCCC Chair) Rahm Emanuel went on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos (along with GOP Rep. Adam Putnam). I haven't been able to find a full transcript, but the full video is here, and this article provides an account of the segment.

[snip]

Which course Democrats take will be determined by whether they are guided by political figures committed to genuine change due to a conviction that such change is needed (even if that means incurring some political risks), or whether they are driven by cynical, exclusively political and dishonest Beltway operatives like Rahm Emanuel.

To compete with Republicans, Democrats need not only political idealists, but also calculating strategists who are devoted to winning. That's fair enough. But they also need to enforce some (at least) minimal ethical standards if they are to avoid becoming indistinguishable from the rotted and corrupt GOP tyrants who were just so deservedly tossed out of power. Rahm Emanuel seems to fall well below even those most minimal standards.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/did-rahm-emanuel-lie-about-hi...

No.
By: Christy Hardin Smith

I ask you, considering the margins that we are looking at this morning in a whole lot of the races that the Democrats won yesterday, in both the House and the Senate, what was Rahm Emmanuel thinking saying this:

"In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year. Democrats will hold 30 or 35 seats that went for Bush in the past, meaning that Democratic candidates such as Brad Ellsworth in rural Indiana are likely to face competitive races again in 2008. Still, their interests are likely to collide with those of veteran liberals such as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) and John Conyers Jr., (Mich.), who will chair committees.

With that in mind, there is a chance the 110th Congress could begin on a bipartisan note. Democrats have vowed to move quickly to tighten ethics laws and require offsets for new spending — two plans many Republicans will probably support in light of yesterday's results. Democrats also plan to push next year to raise the minimum wage, increase spending for cargo inspection at ports and reduce rates on student loans, all issues likely to draw some GOP support.

Partisan standoffs are likely over the war and any Democratic efforts to repeal Bush's tax cuts for upper-income America. In both cases, Democratic divisions could complicate Pelosi's plans. Democrats largely avoided detailed positions on a new Iraq strategy, but votes over spending for the military and the Iraq operation will force them to take a position."

Let me get this straight, we have just taken back the House and, looking more likely as of this morning, the Senate, and Rahm's first priority is to shore up his power base and his ties to KStreet. Heckuva job, Rahm. (Oh, and "other top Democratic members?" Hi, Steny. Sheesh these people are transparent, and the media is either too tired or too dense to call them on this crap. Pathetic.)

Here's a thought: try governing. Try saying thank you to your base who delivered not just wins for several of your hand-picked candidates, but wins for a helluva lot of folks that you barely acknowledged existed until the last couple of weeks where it became undeniable that they had a chance of winning. Leadership is not grabbing power with both hands. Real leaders acknowledge that it takes the work of a whole lot of folks — progressives, moderates, conservatives — all working together, but adhering to their own principles and to the will of their constituents. And real leaders say "thank you" instead of "screw you, we're doing it my way."

So Rahm, here's a message from your constituents who just worked their asses off to give their party a victory: don't be a back-stabbing ass. Nancy Pelosi deserves more loyalty and less personal power grabbing from you and your selfish posse. Bi-partisanship is fantastic when it is working properly, with everyone involved acting in good faith. I don't know about you guys, but I think the Republican party needs to prove that it has some good faith before we start caving in to their demands. And I am fairly certain that even Rahm understands that. Which makes me wonder — what's really the motivation behind his backdoor machinations and quote planting in the WaPo this morning.

And what is with reporters who allow idiocy like Emmanuel saying that liberal opinions ought to be discarded, and that only the centrists should have a say, and then characterizing that somehow as "inclusive." Um…hello…exclusion is decidedly not inclusive. And I'm here to tell you right now that Henry Waxman had better be sitting in that committee chairman's seat overseeing the rampant war profiteering oversight, or there is going to be a world of shit headed directly at a certain ballet-dancer-turned-self-promoter's head. Some principles should not be sacrificed — and allowing big companies to steal from the federal government because you are hoping they will donate to your campaign coffers is not — I repeat NOT — acceptable. Period. So cross that off the list if it's there, it is non-negotiable.

If you think for a moment that those of us who just worked our asses off for a win are simply going to roll over and say thank you when you spit on us, you can think again. And, while we're at it, Nancy Pelosi deserves better than a sneaky planted quote knife in her back — and Rahm owes her an apology.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/11/08/no/

December 9, 2005
Only Millionaire-Fence Straddlers Need Apply
Meet Rahm Emmanuel, the Democrats' New Gatekeeper

By ANDREW COCKBURN

WASHINGTON D.C.

At a recent meeting of House Republicans, members ruminating on the disastrous state of their party reportedly murmured with gloomy jocularity about the administration of "President Hastert". A CounterPuncher familiar with the proceedings reports "they were only half joking".

Yet, as they contemplate political ruin in next year's election, these Republicans can take solace in the fact that, if defeated, their replacements may not differ in any meaningful way on important issues of the day. That at least is the hope and dream of Democratic apparatchik Rahm Emmanuel and the corporate toadies he represents. Ominously, Emmanuel, a relict of the Clinton White House, heads the Democratic National Campaign Committee.

As such, he decides which candidates for the House should get money and other support from the national party. At a time when any fool can see that the public hates the war more this month than last, and will hate it even more next month and the month after that, Emmanuel is doing his best to recruit candidates, preferably rich ones, guaranteed to eschew vocal opposition to the war.

Clear evidence for this proclivity is evident in the race to succeed Henry Hyde, in Chicago's 6th District.

In the last election progressive candidate Christine Cegalis actually got 44.2 per cent of the vote against the sixteen-term Hyde, despite being outspent $700,000 to $160,000 in a conservative district with no elected Democrats at all.

Following this commendable showing, Cegalis figured that with Hyde retiring and the Republicans melting down, she stood a better than even chance of garnering the seat in 2006.

However it seems that in Emmanuel's opinion, Cegalis stinks. Never mind that excellent record against the giant Hyde, forget her well-crafted support network in the Chicago district, Cegalis has not yet raised a million dollars and, even more damningly, she is calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq. So Emmanuel set out to recruit a more suitable candidate. Initially, he approached two millionaires and urged them, serially, to run against Cegalis in the primary.

They refused. Now he is pinning his hopes on a double amputee women Iraq veteran, Tammy Duckworth

Duckworth, who is not from the district, has ignited hopes at DCCC headquarters that she would campaign on a "pro-business/centrist platform". Queried by a Chicago Sun Times columnist for her opinion on the war, she replied, "There's good and bad in everything".

That sort of equivocation must certainly have commended her to Emmanuel, who greeted Congressman Murtha's fervent and well-informed denunciation of the war with the words "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha" and has declared that "At the right time we will have a position" on the war.

Cegalis' position is clear: "I support Jack Murtha", she tells CounterPunch. "If Jack Murtha is calling for withdrawal, then I go with that."

If Emmanuel and his like succeed in displacing Cegalis and similar candidates, thereby undercutting any claim the Democrats might have to either principle or votes, he will only be concluding the work he began in the 1990s.

Cegalis reports that the economy has become the key issue in DuPage County, roughly coterminous with the district. "DuPage has lost jobs for the first time in fifty years." As manufacturing jobs disappear to Mexico or China, voters can mull the benefits of free trade and the Democrats who fostered it.

Most clear-minded observers would agree that among the mortal body blows that have brought the Democrats to their present ebb, the passage of NAFTA in 1993, with consequent evisceration of the American industrial economy, must count as among the most lethal.

Key to that passage was Emmanuel, who directed the Clinton White House operation to get the treaty passed by any means necessary.

The inevitable consequences of misery and want inflicted on Americans and Mexicans alike did not of course hinder his career, which took him, following his departure from the White House in 1998, to a well upholstered post in a Chicago banking firm before he won election to Dan Rostenkowski's old Chicago seat.

Now, with the Democrats presented by their opponents with their best chance in years, Emmanuel is ready to ensure that, come what may, nothing will really change, except for the worse.

http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew12092005.html

Talking About Testicles and Toughness, Instead of Actually Having Those Things (47 comments )
READ MORE: Conrad Burns, Montana

Sometimes you have to just sit back and laugh when Washington elites bloviate about how brilliant they are - even though their behavior has landed their party in a permanent minority status. One of those times is today if you read the new Rolling Stone piece on Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL).

As chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Emanuel is billed as one of the key figures in the battle for control of Congress in 2006. The article repeatedly trumpets Emanuel's "toughness" and supposedly hard-nosed nature - with Emanuel's friends from the Clinton administration echoing that sentiment. "He's got this big old pair of brass balls, and you can just hear 'em clanking when he walks down the halls of Congress," says Paul Begala, as just one example.

It's certainly true, Emanuel and his pals talk the talk. "We're the party of change," Emanuel says. "We're the party of a new direction." The DLC's Bruce Reed - another guy who has made a long career driving Democrats into the ground - says Emanuel "understands how much ideas matter, he always knows his message, he takes no prisoners and he only plays to win."

Out here in Red America, we live in a place seemingly unknown to people like this in Washington: it's called reality. And we have a name for talk like that: it's called B.S. Because here's what Emanuel never seems to answer: how is someone "tough" if they are so wimpy as to refuse to push their party to take clear contrasting positions on the most important issues facing America? What "ideas" that matter is Emanuel proposing? What position on key issues shows Democrats really represent serious "change" from Republicans? And are Democrats like Emanuel so arrogant/elitist to think that the American public doesn't inherently understand that all this rhetoric hides the fact that the party still is afraid of its own shadow?

As I have written before, Democrats right now have no official position on Iraq, energy, bankruptcy, protecting citizens' legal rights, trade, repealing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the Supreme Court...and the list goes on.
Many Democrats on these issues have largely taken the exact same position as Republicans - even though polls show that on each issue, the public would support a progressive Democratic position.

And let's be clear - Emanuel has been one of those that has tried to suppress those who know the party needs to take a stand on these issues in order to actually explain to voters why they are worthy of support on election day. Remember, it was Emanuel who issued a memo trying to hide the fact that Iraq played a major role in Paul Hackett's near-upset special election campaign. And it was Emanuel who recently went on Meet the Press and was publicly embarrassed when he couldn't give a straight answer about the party's position on Iraq.

And make no mistake about it - polls show that if the Democrats continue trying to avoid taking clear positions, it could pay a price at the polls, even with the GOP's corruption scandals. As one recent nationwide survey showed, Republicans negatives are going up, but that has equaled "no major shift in support for Democrats" as the public still has little clue what Democrats really stand for.

I'm the first to congratulate Democrats when they get up the guts to take clear positions (see here and here for a few examples). That's the real definition of toughness that can win elections - not some guy who runs around talking about how tough he is and getting his friends to line up to talk about how rock hard his testicles are - all while he does his best to make sure his party takes no positions at all; not some guy who stands on desks and screams and yells as if he's some great populist leader, all while leading the White House charge to organize business lobbyists to ram sellout corporate-written trade deals through Congress; not some guy who brags about sending dead fish to people who cross him, all while going out of his way to cross Democrats who courageously try to defend ordinary people against Corporate America's most abusive behavior.

All of this isn't called "tough" - it's called B.S. You know it, I know it, and as much as some progressives want to deny it, so do voters. And if the rest of the Democratic politicians in Washington don't wake up out of these self-congratulatory delusions and get a real handle on what toughness actually means, it could be yet again another depressing election day in 2006.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/talking-about-testicles-a_b_9...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400120

Published on Friday, November 18, 2005 by the Huffington Post

Rahm, Please Tell Us: How Many More Must Die for It to Be "The Right Time?"
by David Sirota

When I worked on the House Appropriations Committee, I worked around Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) a lot. He's a really intimidating, no-nonsense kind of guy (he was the guy that I always worried would scream at me a la Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann in Full Metal Jacket if I screwed anything up).

And when it comes to defense-related issues, there literally is no member of Congress more informed and more pro-military than Murtha. That's why his announcement yesterday demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq was so important: because if someone like Murtha says its time for a withdrawal, then any Democrat in America should be able to say its time for a withdrawal.

Yet, in response to Murtha's announcement, some Democrats seemed to leap at the chance to embarrass themselves, and publicly flaunt just how nauseatingly spineless they are. And there is no better example of this than Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) in today's Washington Post. Here is the excerpt - try not to projectile vomit all over your computer screen when you read it:

"Murtha's Democratic colleagues reacted warily to his remarks, while Republicans pounced. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), head of the House Democrats' campaign effort, said, 'Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha.' As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: 'At the right time, we will have a position.'"

Remember, this is the same Rahm Emanuel who likes to talk about how tough he is, and who likes to have his friends go out and talk about the hardness of his testicles. His comment is not tough - it is classic try-to-have-it-both-ways prevarication that reinforces the image of Democrats as governed only by crass political tactics and not conviction. And worse, it is a total insult to America's troops.

When, Rahm, is the "right time?" Is it closer to the election when you think it suits your own personal political ambition better, even though hundreds - if not thousands - of more American troops will have been killed? How many more people have to die or be maimed, Rahm, before it is "the right time?" And are you really so arrogant and out-of-touch to believe voters will swallow this kind of cynical politics as genuine on election day?

Make no mistake about it - Emanuel's comment perfectly captures exactly the problem for Democrats both in 2006 and beyond, even though he probably is so self-absorbed, he has no idea how destructive his behavior is. He shows how some Democrats (but, as I wrote earlier this week, certainly not all) really are willing to put their own crass political ambitions over absolutely everything else.

That trait, beyond any single issue, has been the downfall of the Democratic Party in recent years. People go to the polls to vote for political leaders with guts like Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) - not connivers, prevaricators, or cowering, weak-kneed wimps who are willing to make public political calculations while Americans die overseas. Until the party shuts up those in its midst who have no moral compass and who are willing to use their prominence to reinforce a soulless image, Democrats will always face a nagging credibility gap with the American people.

David Sirota is a veteran campaign strategist and writer. He is currently a Senior Editor at In These Times magazine, and a regular contributor to The Nation magazine. He has just completed a book entitled "Hostile Takeover" about how corporate interests and politicians have conspired to squeeze America's middle class as never before. The book will be released in the Spring of 2006.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1118-34.htm

An article praising him, appears on FoxNews.com

That says it all, doesn't it?

***

How One Democrat Named Rahm Emanuel Took Back the House

Monday, May 07, 2007

By Martin Frost

Every so often, I review a new political book in this space. This week’s column will discuss “The Thumpin’ — How Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats Learned to Be Ruthless and Ended the Republican Revolution,” which is being released Tuesday.

But what I'm writing is not so much a book review as it is an appreciation for what Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois accomplished.

...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270551,00.html

How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress
Election 2006: The Fix is Already In

Weekend Edition
October 14-15, 2006

By JOHN WALSH

"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'"

Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority."

"Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout," the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word, "betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal and another 25% are for gradual withdrawal. Among all voters, only 30% want to stay the course, 37% want immediate withdrawal and 26% a "gradual withdrawal (Gallup poll - 9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52% of voters want a timetable for withdrawal while only 41% oppose setting a timetable.

In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democrat worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose so much as a timetable. (The number of Dem candidates supporting the Murtha or McGovern proposals is vanishingly small.) The position of these Dem candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. How did this betrayal of the Democratic rank and file come about? Who chose these Democratic candidates that oppose rank and file Dems on the number one question on voters' minds, the war on Iraq? How could such candidates get elected in the primaries? Two primary campaigns, now largely forgotten, give us the answer. They are near perfect case studies, and they deserve some reflection although the Dem establishment would dearly like us to forget them.

The first case is the Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which has elected the disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. Then in 2004 Christine Cegelis, who is only mildly antiwar (1), ran as the Democrat with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44% against the hideous Hyde in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in 2006.

Enter Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she has remained committed to "staying the course" in Iraq (2). Duckworth had no political experience and did not live in the 6th District, but Rahm Emanuel raised a million dollars for her and brought in Dem heavyweights Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke out a victory by a measly four percentage points. According to a recent Cook Report, Duckworth is not the smashing success that Rahm Emanuel had dreamed of; she remains tied at 41% of the vote with her rookie Republican Rival, Peter Roskam, the same percentage that Cegelis had against the entrenched Hyde in 2004! Recently (9/30), Duckworth was pushed onto the national scene to help her campaign, providing the "rebuttal" to Bush's weekly Saturday radio address. AP, in its story on the exchange where Duckworth was supposed to differ with W on Iraq, concluded thus: "She offered no proposal for an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal."

But in one case, and sadly in only one of the 22 districts, which Emanuel selected for intervention, he did not prevail; but that is also instructive. The second case study is CA's 11th CD Dem primary where Emanuel poured in money, much of it apparently coming from his own district in Illinois, to bankroll Steve Filson, essentially a political unknown, who opposed immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But in this primary battle the grass roots prevailed and the strongly antiwar candidate, Jerry McNemey, who supports the Murtha bill for immediate withdrawal, defeated Emanuel's minion, Filson. It is noteworthy that McNemey, strongly antiwar, won, whereas Cegelis, weakly antiwar, lost. Now in the general election McNemey is pulling ahead of his pro-war Republican opponent by 48 to 46% in the most recent poll even though his opponent has outspent him by $1.6 million to $303,000! McNemey has raised a total of only $452,000 to his opponent's $2.5 million. Some cash from Rahm would ensure McNemey's victory it would appear, but it is not forthcoming. It seems that Rahm Emanuel is stanching the influx of money in this very competitive race.

Meanwhile, even though Duckworth has been the recipient of Rahm's largesse, to the tune of $1.8 million, the same amount as her Republican opponent, her campaign has not taken wing. You get the picture. If you toe the line for Rahm on the war, the money rains on you like manna from heaven and you are elevated to national celebrity status. But if you are anti-war, Rahm cuts you off at the wallet.
Note that in each of these two cases Emanuel did not pick candidates based on a proven ability to raise money. Nor did he pick them for their ability to win. In Duckworth's case she damned near lost despite the cash infusion, and McNirney did win despite the money that Emanuel funneled to his opponent. Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or winning candidates; he is choosing pro-war candidates.

Rahm Emanuel's Stable.

To win the House, the Dems must win 15 seats from the Republicans. Here are the 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open districts or districts with Republican incumbents, according to The Hill (4/27/06): Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), Joe Courtney (CT), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA) ­ defeated in primary by Jerry McNirney (see above), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tessa Hafen (NV), Baron Hill (IN), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ron Klein (FL), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Lois Murphy (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch (VT).

If we group these 22 candidates by their positions, it is much worse than one might have imagined. Here it is:

U.S, must "win" in Iraq (9): John Cranely(OH); Jill Derby (NV); Tammy Duckworth (IL); Brad Ellsworth (IN): Teresa Hafen (NV); Baron Hill (IN);Ken Lucas (KY); Lois Murphy (PA); Heath Schuler (NC).

More troops should be deployed in Iraq. (1): Diane Farrell (CT);

Bush (or Congress or Bush and Congress or someone other than the candidate) must develop a plan or timetable for exit. This means that the candidate does not offer a timetable or other withdrawal plan and amounts only to a partisan criticism of Bush without a plan offered by the candidate. (6): Francine Busby (CA); Joe Courtney (CT); Kirsten Gillibrand (NY); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH); Patricia Madrid (NM); Harry Mitchell (AZ).

Biden's 3-state solution. (1): Phyllis Busansky (FL).

No position. (1): Chris Murphy (CT).

Not for immediate withdrawal (3): Steve Filson (CA) (He lost Dem primary. See above.); Ron Klein (FL); Harry Mitchell (AZ);

Withdrawal in 2006. (1): Peter Welch (VT). (In VT, you could probably not get elected dog catcher without calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Still it is a bit mysterious why Rahm is backing Welch who for that reason probably deserves a bit of scrutiny. Perhaps something "worse" like a Green is waiting in the wings.)

So only one of Rahm's candidates is for prompt withdrawal from Iraq. And it is notweworthy that Rahm found prowar candidates in both red states and blue, like CT and CA. Check out these candidates for yourself. If you live in their districts, pressure them to change their positions and do so publicly with letters to the editor, withholding of funds and most importantly support for third party antiwar candidates where they are to be found ­ no matter how slight the establishment media regards their prospects. Ask what UFPJ, The Nation and other branches of the peace and justice complex are doing to expose Emanuel's candidates.

The question arises. Who is Congressman Rahm Emanuel? From what does he derive his power? What are his thoughts on the future for the Dems? And where is The Nation in all this. More on that coming shortly.

John Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com

Notes

(1.) Cegelis was against the war on Iraq but only in a very timid way. She opposed it before it started, but it was only 4th out of 6 issues on her web site, and she was not for immediate withdrawal. Here is what she said on her web site at the time of the primary. "I have opposed this war from the start. But revisiting what brought us to this disastrous point does not solve the problem. It is time for us to bring our troops home. The Bush Administration must provide a comprehensive timetable for withdrawal of the majority of our combat troops at the earliest possible date. " Notice she does not say "Out Now," like Murtha or Lamont. She leaves it all up to Bush to set a timetable, which is the standard copout for pro-war Dems. Although good enough for PDA (!), it was too much for Rahm Emanuel and company.

(2.) Duckworth says of Iraq on her web site: "The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists." Not even a mention of a timetable.

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10142006.html

Son of a Zionist Terrorist

Rahm Emanuel's Dirty Secret

by Christopher Bollyn
Independent Journalist
(Without Borders)
17 November 2006

The Terrorists In The U.S. Congress

Rahm Emanuel
Thursday, November 16
Christopher Bollyn, spoke about this with Smith.
Click here for the audio interview

The new "golden boy" of the Democrat Party, the Israeli-American congressman Rahm Emanuel, is the son of a terrorist.

Really, I am not making this up, the chief power-broker of the Democrat Party, the 5-and-a-half foot foul-mouthed Israeli named Rahm, is the son of terrorist – a real living terrorist.

So, what do we do as citizens of the land of the free and the home of the brave fighting the War on Terror?

Do we run and hide from the foul-mouthed little Israeli who danced ballet and swears for effect - or do we laugh? Or do we demand answers? How can we respect a U.S. Congressman who served in a foreign army and whose father was a terrorist?

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Democrat congressman for the 5th District of Illinois in Chicago is the son of an Israeli terrorist. Rahm's father, Benjamin, was a member of the Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organization that coined a new word as they blew up hotels, train stations, and other buildings in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s.

Rahm was an Israeli citizen until he was 18 years old, when for obvious reasons he hid his Israeli passport in his underwear drawer. In 1991, however, he pulled his Israeli passport out and went and reportedly joined the Israeli Army to defend Zion from Saddam's Scuds.

Irgun, the army of his father, is short for Irgun Zvai Leumi, which supposedly means something like "National Military Organization" in Hebrew. As a matter of fact, the Irgun was simply a terrorist Zionist group that operated in Palestine from 1931 to 1948. They killed innocent Palestinians and British soldiers and blew up buildings.

After 1948 they became part of the new Israeli government and did the same thing. In September 2001 they put their skills to work in New York City and Washington to kick start the "war on terror" - a conflict long promoted by their chief architect, Bibi Netanyahu, son of the former secretary of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

The Irgun even has a website with pictures of the buildings they blew up before they demolished the World Trade Center with Thermite and high explosives:
www.etzel.org.il

In Israel, the Irgun is referred to as Etzel, an acronym of the group's Hebrew initials. The Irgun was considered a terrorist organization by the British authorities as well as by mainstream Zionist and Jewish organizations, such as the Jewish Agency, the Haganah and the Histadrut. (It just has not made it onto the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations – even after blowing up the World Trade Center. Some people are slow to learn.)

Irgun was founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky and the relationship with Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism made it the predecessor to Israel's right-wing Herut and Likud parties.

Guess who runs Israel today?

Answer: The sons and daughters of Irgun. (Check out the commander list on the Etzel website if you don't believe me.)

Guess who runs the United States today? The same people – let's start with Rahm Emanuel.

Of course you won't find anything about Rep. Emanuel's father's exploits in Palestine on Rahm's website: http://www.house.gov/emanuel/aboutrahm.shtml

The late Sherman Skolnick of Chicago called Rahm Emanuel the "Acting Deputy Chief for North America of the Mossad – Israeli Intelligence."
cloakanddagger.de Rahm Emanuel

Skolnick went on to say that Emanuel's father Benjamin had been "part of the Israeli assassin team that murdered Sweden's Count [Folke] Bernadotte" in 1948. Bernadotte was the envoy of the United Nations in Palestine who sought to find a solution to the UN Partition Plan that gave Palestinian land to Jews from "beyond the pale."

Was Skolnick correct? Skolnick does not document his claims so I checked into his allegations.

"Beyond the pale" would certainly describe where Rahm Emanuel's family came from. His father's family came to Palestine from somewhere in the Ukraine in 1917, according to what Dr. Benjamin M. Emanuel told me the other day. Dr. Emanuel now lives on the appropriately named Locust Road in Wilmette, Illinois.

Benjamin, speaking with a thick Israeli accent, told me that his father's name was Ezekiel Auerbach and that his mother's name was Pinina or something like that. He said it meant "pearl" in Hebrew. Asked about his role in the Irgun, Ben told me he had been a "simple soldier."

Yes, Ben, but serving as "simple soldier" in a terrorist organization makes you a terrorist. And the fact that you served in a terrorist organization 60 years ago makes no difference. You know, same rules for Nazis and terrorists.

Is that not what all those fellows in Guantanamo are being held for?

The Emanuel family name was Auerbach until 1936, although they are not related to the famous rabbinical family of Germany and Krakow named Auerbach. Ben said that his family was from Russia. (Well, the pale but not quite Russia.)

His father Ezekiel supposedly changed the family name to Emanuel when his son with that name died fighting Palestinians in 1936.

Many Jewish families in Palestine changed their names to make themselves sound like they actually came from Palestine. And you wondered where all those Jews disappeared during World War II?

Sheinerman became Sharon, Yezernitzky became Shamir, and Auerbach became Emanuel, and so on. And then multiply by a few hundred thousand. Voila! Millions of European Jews vanish from the face of the Earth - and build new lives in Palestine.

Ben told me that Emanuel Auerbach had died from "shrapnel in the knee" in 1936. When I asked him today for details on this incident he suddenly decided that he did not want to do an interview on the phone and hung up.

But before he terminated the conversation, Dr. Benjamin Auerbach-cum-Emanuel told me that he had been a member of the Irgun and had served under Menachem Begin. He told me that he had never met Begin and had not smuggled weapons into Palestine, other news reports notwithstanding.

Naftali Bendavid (not a local reporter) with The Chicago Tribune spent 18 months working with Rahm Emanuel to prepare a story for the week after the mid-term elections although Naftali did not think that there was enough room in the 9-page story to mention the salient fact that Dr. Benjamin Emanuel had been a member of the terrorist organization – the Irgun.

No. In 9 pages of Bendavid's fluff piece there was simply no room to mention the ugly fact that Rahm's father had been a member of a terrorist organization.

.... [cont'd]

http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Emanuel.html

Naftali Bendavid (clearly of Israeli persuasion) wrote a 9-page cover story for last Sunday's paper, which took up the entire second section of the now-failing Chicago Tribune. (The latest rumor in Chicago is that the indicted but not convicted Zionist criminal Maurice Greenberg may buy the Tribune.)

(This is the same paper that actually hired an outside writer from TIME magazine to co-author a short piece in order to properly smear me and misrepresent the story of my brutal arrest at the hands of Homeland Security goons last August.)

Naftali, at his office in Washington, knew all about Irgun when I spoke with him on the phone. When I said it was an egregious omission to leave out the fact that Rahm's father had been in the Irgun, he said he just couldn't figure how to squeeze that bit into a 9-page article.

Naftali, let me help, as English is my mother tongue: "Rahm Emanuel's father Benjamin was a member of the Irgun, a Zionist terrorist group that operated in Palestine from 1931 to 1948. The Irgun blew up buildings and killed hundreds of innocent people in order to achieve the goals of militant Zionism in occupied Palestine."

Rahm's mother is Martha Smulevitz, who married the Israeli doctor in August 1955. Ben told me that they met in Chicago. I asked if she was related to the Smulevitz family that was living in Palestine in the 1930s. He said no.

There are Smulevitz's and Shmuelevitz's all throughout the Zionist invasion of Palestine. One was hanged by the Brits, one dealt with the Nazis in Berlin, and another was the chief of staff for Menachem Begin – take your pick.

It would, however, be most interesting if Rahm's father were actually related to Moshe Auerbach, the Zionist who went to Berlin with Pino Ginzburg to arrange the transfer of Jews and money to Palestine – with the Nazi regime.

On February 28 1937, Feivel Polkes, head of the Haganah told Adolf Eichmann that he was interested most of all in "accelerating Jewish migration to Palestine so that the Jews would obtain a majority over the Arabs in his country."

In The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany -1933-1941 by Klaus Polkehn, he revealed that collaboration between the Zionists and the Third Reich was cemented by the "Mossad Aliyah Beth" which had been created by Haganah as an illegal immigration organization. Pina Ginsburg and Moshe Auerbach, with the blessings of the Reich, set up offices in Berlin to carry out their immigration activities in 1938.

Here is a page from Klaus Polkehn's book.

And you wonder where Rahm Emanuel got his "chutzpah" from?

Photo: "I said before the election that if the Democrats win the House, the lion's share of the credit should go to Rahm," says Rep. Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican. "He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them. Rahm did what no one else could do in seven cycles."
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802239...

And the fact that more than 70 percent of the American population is opposed to wasting U.S. blood and treasure to fight a Zionist war in Iraq means nothing?

The map of Zion as per the Irgun of Rahm Emanuel and his ilk

Tuesday, November 14, 2006
How Rahm Emanuel Blew Historic Opportunity
Over at Down With Tyranny, Paul Lukasiak uses four tables to lay out HOW RAHM EMANUEL LOST THE HOUSE FOR THE DEMOCRATS-- AND HOW ACTBLUE, MOVEON, MARKOS, JANE, DUNCAN, HOWARD DEAN AND A HOST OF OTHERS SAVED THE DAY. The whole thing is a must read, but here is the summary:

Despite all the praise being heaped upon Rahm Emanuel for the Democratic Party takeover of the House of Representatives, his strategy was a failure. The simple fact is that Emanuel's plan was to target 21 Republican seats as part of his Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's "Red to Blue" strategy, and as of right now, while Democrats needed to take 15 seats to regain control, only nine of those 21 DCCC picked seats have changed hands (three are still in contention). Most of these candidates were "hand-picked" by Emanuel, based on his perception of their prospects to win election---and most of them failed, often by significant margins-- and at great financial cost. [...]

In other words, out of 35 races that the DCCC targeted for conversion to the Democratic Party by early July, Emanuel only managed to find "winners" in 12 of them on his own-- at least five of his other victories were based on progressive bloggers providing the seed money that demonstrated that these were viable candidates. Moreover, the DCCC picks included at least 6 races where the challenger does not seem to have had a realistic chance of success-- in other words, Emanuel directed money to candidates that could have been better used elsewhere. [...]

http://robertbrigham.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-rahm-emanuel-blew-historic...

Monday, November 13, 2006
HOW RAHM EMANUEL LOST THE HOUSE FOR THE DEMOCRATS-- AND HOW ACTBLUE, MOVEON, MARKOS, JANE, DUNCAN, HOWARD DEAN AND A HOST OF OTHERS SAVED THE DAY

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-rahm-emanuel-lost-house-...

Whiner of the Cycle: Rahm Emanuel

by Matt Stoller, Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 01:13:58 PM EST
Sure enough, and as usual, right-wing bloggers are leaping to Rahm's defense.

I've noted on multiple occasions the whiny tendencies of Rahm Emanuel. Rather than running on a progressive winning set of messeages, Rahm has decided that primping before the press as 'Rahmbo' while whining about progressives will give him a win-win. If we win the house, he's a hero. If we lose the House, it's because of bloggers/Al Sharpton/Lamont/ Moveon/Soros/Pelosi.

Rahm snipes at Dean. He snipes at bloggers. He snipes at Al Sharpton. He writes a book, 'The Plan', that argues there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans while running the party committee designed to get Democrats elected.

And he does it in public, to journalists.

Now he's lying about Moveon.org, and bitching about George Soros's political giving.

"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 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.

"I don't like him litigating election business through the newspapers. I think that's in poor taste," Matzzie said of Emanuel. Emanuel - who is in a similar feud with Democratic Party chief Howard Dean over the issue of spending on congressional races - expressed particular frustration with Soros, who personally spent more than $23 million in 2004, and wrote recently of the importance of "a resounding Democratic victory in 2006."

Is there anyone Rahm Emanuel isn't fighting with? I'm sure he's going to imagine that he's just saying what everyone's thinking, that's he's a strategist, a 'Rahmbo' who gets the job done.

And I hear a lot that even though progressives don't agree with him, he's at least a strategist. Let me just say that no he is not. Party strategists do not scream at major donors in public to journalists, because if they do then they create a disincentive for participation. Party strategists do not attack progressives in a progressive year and create policy platforms that immediately discount Democratic ability to accomplish anything. Party strategists do not race-bait against African-American leaders. Party strategists force candidates to do a good job, not to hire the right consultants. Party strategists do not call a right-wing Independent that needs Republican votes to win in Connecticut a 'Democrat'.

Rahm Emanuel is not a party strategist. He is an extremist ideologue, a Bourbon Democrat, and he will be a huge problem for progressives moving forward. Progressives would do well to develop our own set of strategic coordinators, rather than thinking that someone like Rahm Emanuel is at this point anything but destructive and selfish.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/28/131358/640

Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Rahm Emanuel Runs to the Front of the Parade
... and pretends to lead it, as all marginal pols do.

(Photo, left: Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, tries to thumb a ride on the VichyDems Express.)

Check out this hilarious nugget from an email the DCCC leader just sent out, referencing Lamont's victory over Lieberman:

Dear Thersites,

The recent Connecticut primary election illustrated how incumbents are bearing the brunt of the public's frustration and anger with the status quo. Change is what November is about.

We have the political atmosphere that is ripe for change. Energized Democrats around the nation can capitalize on our shared frustration with the government and build the movement needed to win.

Last week, Senator Barack Obama introduced a few of our candidates that are going help us get this country back on the right track. In November we not only have an opportunity to claim a Democratic majority in the House, we have an opportunity to do it on the strength of a new generation of progressive leaders....

Now, understand, Emanuel is a poster child for the protection of incumbent Vichys. He's a fave of Hillary and the rest of the DLC crowd; he couldn't even manage to oust incumbent Vichy Henry Cuellar in Texas, even though Cuellar's the worst conservative Bush-kissing Democrat in the House and faced a formidable opponent in Ciro Rodrigues. And Obama CAMPAIGNED FOR LIEBERMAN AGAINST LAMONT!

So I call bullshit, and laugh my ass off. If Emanuel had been in the Senate instead of the House, he would have been on his knees doing intimate favors for Connecticut voters to keep Lieberman in office.

But the good news is: OUR MESSAGE IS FINALLY BEING HEARD. The 2008 Dem primaries are shaping up to be a lot like the 1968 Republican primaries, with the centrist Old Guard finally catching on that there's a new, less accommodationist crowd in charge and scrambling to stay ahead. (Except that progressive Democrats, currently represented best by Russ Feingold, want to actually govern the country well, whereas the regressive Republicans of '64 and '68, such as the pre-reformation Barry Goldwater and a young, energetic Ronald Reagan, wanted to gut the government. So: similar dynamic, opposite effect.)

http://vichydems.blogspot.com/2006/08/rahm-emanuel-runs-to-front-of-para...

The DCCC is evil!

And so is Rahm and his ilk. Rahm is not the only one, but since you can't really go after an organization successfully, you have to start singling out those who push the buttons behind the curtain.

Here's David Sirota's link for posterity:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7689

He mentions the DCCC letter that I posted above, as evidence of them boasting! about what they did.

AAARRGH!

FireDogLake is interviewing John Laesch (who ran against Hastert) and was great!

[snip]

We'll ask Johh how he would have been more effective than other Democratic congressmen in opposing Bush's war agenda and how he would have voted on other issues that came before Congress. And if you like what you hear, I want to ask you to join me in helping John mount another vigorous campaign in IL-14, where his success in showing that Democrats can make inroads in the area has drawn the attention of the corporate, anti-grassroots political machine of Rahm Emanuel who will be surreptitiously backing another candidate the way he disastrously ruined progressives' attempts to win an Illinois seat for Christine Cegelis last year by spending millions and millions of dollars on his own puppet candidate who sabotaged Cegelis and then, at huge cost, failed to win the general election. Emanuel, who helped engineer enough Democratic support in Congress so the Republicans could pass Bush's occupation budget, might be hard to defeat in his ward-politics district in Daley's Chicago. But in grassroots-oriented IL-14, Emanuel can be stopped from accruing more power. You can contribute to John's campaign here on our Blue America page.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/26/blue-america-live-vlog-with-john-l...

The Broken Message Machine of the Democratic Party
By: Jane Hamsher

Jonathan Alter argues that even though ending the funding for the Iraq war will not find soldiers on the battlefield who suddenly run out of bullets, that's the perception that most Democrats are facing from their constituents.

Glenn Greenwald :

The question that naturally arises is how did this happen? Why would Americans, who overwhelmingly want a forced end to the war, favor every measure for achieving that other than de-funding? How did it happen that — to use Alter's formulation — "Americans have been convinced" of a patent falsehood: that de-funding would "endanger the troops"?

[]

And yet exactly this nonsensical notion was permitted not only to take hold, but to become unchallengeable conventional wisdom in our public debate over the war. The whole debate we just had was centrally premised on an idea that is not merely unpersuasive, but factually false, just ridiculous on its face. That a blatant myth could be outcome-determinative in such an important debate is a depressingly commonplace indictment of our dysfunctional media and political institutions.

But the real reason this happened is because Democrats not only allowed it to occur, but eagerly helped it. As much as anyone else, even leading anti-war Democrats such as Carl Levin and Barack Obama continuously equated de-funding with a failure to "support the troops."

The Democratic message machine is horribly broken (and Obama in particular seems incapable of opening his mouth without repeating Republican talking points). But perhaps this is in part because Rahm Emanuel, as Democratic Caucus Chair, is in charge of Democratic House messaging.

Check out the YouTube above and watch Rahm doing his job.

Anybody see a problem?

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/27/the-broken-democratic-message-mach...

wrong blog

Eric Massa was another Fighting Dem that was not supported by the DCCC. Eric is a great speaker and was on the Majority Report a few times during the Fighting Dems segments. Eric wound up to losing to bu$h apparatchik Randy "not" Kuhl 49%-51% in a fairly red district of upstate NY that has been decimated by trade deals like NAFTA.

Eric announced a few weeks ago that he's gonna give it a go and run again, and he writes a weekly diary at kos (usually on Sundays).
Here is his Memorial Day post:
Liveblog: No Timetables? No Deal- Why I would Have Voted to Force Congress to go On Record
by Eric Massa
Sun May 27, 2007 at 12:02:08 PM PDT

Eric's Campaign 2008 website is here:
http://www.massaforcongress.com/

His ActBlue page is here:
http://www.actblue.com/page/eric
Eric is not taking Corporate PAC money, so every grassrooter donation helps.

Here is a good diary about Eric:
Fighting Dem Massa needs our help
by devtob
Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:06:00 PM PDT

And here's the one that talks about the DCCC looking to find a rich white guy to run against Eric in the Primary in 2008:
ACTION ALERT: Ask Louise Slaughter to support Eric Massa in NY-29 instead of corporate outsourcer
by jaysmith36
Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:13:30 AM PDT

Turns out the guy Rahm tried to get to run against Eric in the primary last time was/is a Bousch & Lomb executive who WASN'T EVEN A REGISTERED DEM!
Story at The Left Nut NY29 - That was Quick "...I look forward to meeting Mr. Nachbar when he becomes a Democrat," said Massa.

Great stuff on Rahm! Bookmarked!

Collect 'em all!

Follow the money ... and what Rahm has done to ... well, us.

Just checking out his website. He's a real insider, ironically. Or not ironically, I suppose. Actually spoke up about not invading Iraq.

Just bullshit.

Thanks for all the info.

(The headline of the January 22, 2007 issue of american free press)

The story, by Mark Glenn, talks about his father in Irgun (like Wiki)..& ends with:

"The newly-elected members are more worried about displeasing the son of an Israeli terrorist named Emmanuel than they are about alienating Joe six-pack who elected them."

Rahm Emanuel continues to amaze and impress. Not content with nearly fucking up the 2006 House races as head of the DCCC with his "don't mention the war" strategy, he's now in the process of bungling immigration.

Jonathan Singer of MyDD was on an immigration conference call with Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), who carries the title of Assistant to the Speaker:

While conceding that the current agreement in the Senate was more conservative than the bill passed through the Senate last Congress, Becerra explained that he believed Democrats had to be careful on this issue because it was one that cut both ways; though there were some Democrats who won at least in part because of their moderation on the issue (Gabby Giffords in Arizona and Ed Perlmutter in Colorado being two examples he brought up), others (Tammy Duckworth in Illinois being his prime example) lost at least in part because of being hit for supporting "amnesty". Frankly, this isn't a line of reason that I buy into — that the Democrats left some seats on the table because of their stance on immigration.

This confirms what I've been hearing — that Rahm, in control of "House Messaging" — has bought into the crap "Third Way" polling that suggests the future of the party is with White Men. Which may tell him what he wants to hear, but even if you don't trust your common sense on the matter read Tom Schaller. It's utter crap. And running around telling candidates to STFU about immigration makes about as much sense as telling them to STFU about the war did in the previous election cycle. The GOP knows full well they're up against a Double Edged Wedge and desperately need to be courting Latino voters, but their bigoted base won't let them.

Rahm just does not want to admit that he made a huge mistake with Duckworth (who was wishy-washy on the war just like Rahm at precisely the wrong time), and had the millions he poured into her campaign been devoted to those races that were really close, the charge of "seats left on the table" wouldn't stick in his egotistical craw:

NC-08- Hayes v Kissell (60,926 vs 60,597)
OH-02- Mean Jean v Vic Wulsin (120,112 vs 117,595)
CO-04- Musgrove v Angie Paccione (104,876 vs 97,670)
NY-29- Kuhl v Massa (99,926 vs 93,974)
NY-25- Walsh v Maffei (105,235 vs 101,322)
WA-08- Reichert v Burner (61,921 vs 59,268)

I hope everyone isn't sick of the above video yet because I'm going to keep running it. This man has a whole lot of influence over where the party goes from here and he has one of the biggest political tin ears in creation. I don't want a Democratic Karl Rove to begin with, but if they insist let's at least get a smart one and until ego starts to equal IQ Rahm can lay no claim to brains.

BTW, Rahm is collecting quite a few little love letters over on his YouTube. They're quite amusing.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/30/our-karl-rove-pshaw/

I think we've hit on something here...

Whaddya think?

A major problem. That needs to be erased.

July 5, 2007 -- America's financial support for "Al Qaeda"

WMR has previously reported that during the Bosnia War in the 1990s, the United States provided hundeds of millions of dollars in assistance to the Bosnians that was collected from various Arab and Muslim countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Qatar, Egypt, and others.

The collection of most of the money was done via the Bosnia Federation Defense Fund, also known as the "Bosnia Defense Fund," which was run by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Feith's law firm -- Feith and Zell (FANZ) -- Riggs Bank (a principal for which was Jonathan Bush, uncle of George W. Bush), and the Central Bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) in Sarajevo. Feith's former law partner, Jerusalem-based Marc Zell, is now partnered in a Baghdad law firm with Salem Chalabi, the nephew of Ahmad Chalabi.

WMR learned from a CIA source involved with the Bosnia Defense Fund that the agency was concerned that money transferred by Riggs, the major bank serving Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Prince Bandar Bush and his wife Princess Haifa, to the fund's account at the Central Bank in Sarajevo was "bleeding" to terrorist elements believed to be linked to Osama bin Laden and "Al Qaeda."

When the CIA source complained about Bosnia Defense Fund cash falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists, including people linked to bin Laden, he was told by one of the major Bosnia Defense Fund principals to "just make it fucking happen!"

The Bosnia link to "Al Qaeda" was important. In fact, bin Laden had reportedly not only visited Bosnia, but carried at least one Bosnian diplomatic passport and had interfaced with Bosnian diplomats in Vienna, Austria.

WMR has learned of a money pipeline between bin Laden and Bosnia that existed since 1993, during a time when French intelligence documents reported that bin Laden and his forces in Darunta, Afghanistan were still under the operational control of the CIA and British intelligence.

The financial pipeline between bin Laden and Bosnia included the Third World Relief Agency; an Egyptian-born Saudi businessman named Yasin Kadi (who was once based in Chicago); a Tunisian-born Bosnian named Chafik Ayadi bin Muhammad, who headed Kadi's operations in Zagreb, Croatia; the Sarajevo Deposit Bank of Kadi and Ayadi; and the First Austrian Bank. The Third World Relief Agency connection also provides a link between bin Laden and the Egyptian "blind sheik," Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Yasin Kadi's Chicago link is important. During the time of the Bosnia Defense Fund's money flow to Sarajevo, a deal approved by the Clinton White House and the CIA, the current Democratic House Caucus Chairman and Chicago-based congressman Rahm Emanuel served as Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy. Emanuel was closely involved with Clinton's foreign policy initiatives in Bosnia and Kosovo and he claims Clinton went to both places to deal with Al Qaeda training. It now appears that Emanuel was telling part of the truth -- the Clinton administration was, in fact, supporting Al Qaeda training in Bosnia and Kosovo.

In addition to Perle and Feith being involved with providing money to Bosnian Muslims, with the support of Rahm Emanuel, we also point out credible Serbian reports that fugitive American financier Marc Rich, pardoned by Bill Clinton, was involved in busting international sanctions by smuggling weapons to Bosnian Muslims. Rich's attorney was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was recently spared a jail term by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

During the fighting in Bosnia, NATO forces picked up a number of foreign Muslim irregulars. Two of those detained by Norwegian NATO forces later surfaced as Saudi hijackers of the U.S. aircraft on 9/11. There is also intelligence that Egyptian lead hijacker Mohammed Atta worked for U.S.-supported Muslim forces during the Bosnian civil war.

Kadi had used Chicago as a base to launder money to various groups affiliated to bin Laden's operations, including a deal involving a DuPage County real estate operation. After leaving the White House in 1999, Emanuel, possessing only a B.A. in Political Science, became a Chicago investment banker for Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein and earned some $20 million.

In 2002, Emanuel ran for the Democratic nomination for the open 5th district seat in Illinois against Nancy Kaszak. Emanuel's opponents charged that he held dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship, was a millionaire "carpetbagger," and had served in the Israeli army during Desert Storm. The pro-abortion Emily's List charged that Emanuel cost America jobs through his support of NAFTA. Emily's List endorsed Kaszak earning the women's rights group the condemnation of organizations and media allied with the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Ironically, Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein is part of Allianz AG, the firm that helped bankroll the Nazis in Germany in the early 1930s along with Brown Brothers Harriman, for whom George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott, was a principal. Prescott also partnered in deals with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a smajor upporter of Adolf Hitler.

As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Emanuel denied campaign funds to every pro-peace Democratic candidate advocating withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. In fac, Emanuel was an early Democratic supporter of George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq -- something many opponents of the war claim has led to a recruitment boon for "Al Qaeda."

Kadi's assets in the U.S. were later frozen by the Treasury Department. Earlier, US Customs agents raided a Massachusetts software company called P-Tech, now called GoAgile. The firm had active contracts with the Federal Aviation Administration, Defense Department, Justice Department, the Secret Service, the White House, and NATO on September 11, 2001. Kadi, who has extensive investments in key NATO ally Turkey, also had a close relationship with Dick Cheney.

Kadi ran the Blessed Relief charity (Muwafaq), linked to support of bin Laden's international operations. Muwafaq was headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, and had a branch office in Sarajevo. Kadi also had off-shore accounts in the Isle of Man, the same location where the Bush family's money, much of its Saudi-provided, is banked. Convicted former P-Tech board member Soleiman Biheiri allegedly laundered $3.7 million from a defunct New Jersey investment firm called BMI to a Muslim charity called the SAAR Foundation and on to terrorist groups. SAAR and its principals have been linked to Grover Norquist, a close friend of Karl Rove.

Chicago-based retired FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News, "September 11th is a direct result of the incompetence of the FBI's International Terrorism Unit. No doubt about that. Absolutely no doubt about that." Wright, who was investigating Kadi and his Chicago network, said he was told by his FBI supervisor before the 1998 "Al Qaeda" bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, "you will not open criminal investigations. I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects." The subjects included Kadi and others in Chicago linked to bin Laden.

FBI agent John O'Neill was similarly stymied in his investigation of the USS Cole bombers in Yemen. O'Neill was forced to retire after linking the Saudi government and possibly other countries in the Middle East to the Cole bombing and support for "Al Qaeda."

Wright said a Muslim FBI agent who refused to conduct electronic surveillance of terrorist suspects, including Kadi, was not reprimanded but promoted and transferred to an American embassy abroad -- the embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20070705

***

I guess money even trumps your Zionist loyalties, for Rahm ....

I was told to bring this here.

crack-crackle-craackk-crack-crackle-crack--How'd I miss THIS
Submitted by nora on Thu, 02/26/2009 - 1:13am.
Am I the only one who missed this story about Rahm Emmanuel's knuckles?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/us/politics/25emanuel.html?_r=1&partne...

...

Mr. Obama then turned to complain to Mr. Emanuel about his noisy habit.

At which point, Mr. Emanuel held the offending knuckle up to Mr. Obama’s left ear and, like an annoying little brother, snapped off a few special cracks.

[end excerpt]

tiffany jewellery
tiffany uk
tiffany jewelllery uk
tiffany jewellery sale
tiffany jewellery london
silver jewellery
tiffany jewelry sale
tiffany
tiffany jewellery
tiffany uk
tiffany jewelllery uk
tiffany jewellery sale
tiffany jewellery london
silver jewellery
tiffany jewelry sale
ugg boots
uggs
ugg sale
ugg boots sale
uk ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
ugg australia
winter boots
ugg boots discount
tall ugg boots
ugg boots 2009
cheap uggs
uggs on sale
ugg uk
uggs boots
australia ugg boots
Tiffany
Tiffany jewellery
Tiffany uk
Tiffany jewelllery uk
Tiffany jewellery sale
Tiffany jewellery london
silver jewellery
Tiffany jewelry sale

Skin grafts are frequently used over large and/or difficult-to-heal wounds such as pass4sure JN0-541 burns, pressure ulcers, venous ulcers, diabetic ulcers, and traumatic wounds. They can be created and applied in various ways. The split-thickness skin graft (STSG), which involves removing the epidermis and part of the dermis from the donor site and pass4sure JN0-562 applying it to a well vascularized wound bed, is the most common. When the patient does not have donor tissue available, various biological and synthetic options are available.The coverage provided by the STSG is superficial while the tissue grows in to complete the graft process. In order pass4sure 1z0-043 for the skin graft to survive, the grafted area must be well vascularized and have a low bacterial burden because infection can cause graft failure. Mesh often is used to cover the graft and hold the graft in the correct position pass4sure 1z0-048 using sutures, staples, or glue. The area then may be immobilized with a firm dressing.