I’ve never been a Rahm-hater. I haven’t always appreciated his attitude or the way he can be dismissive of criticism, but I also noted his effectiveness. It’s not that I’ve ever been a fan or supporter of Emanuel, it’s just that I’ve never shared the visceral distaste for him that I’ve seen in a lot of blogosphere. And I certainly never believed that his appointment as Obama’s chief of staff was an ideological signifier. I’ve always believed that Emanuel and Obama were first and foremost personal friends and Chicago-based pols rather than like-minded thinkers. The new president got a couple of valuable things out of Emanuel. First, Rahm had prior West Wing experience from the Clinton administration, and second, he had recently been in charge of the DCCC and had relationships with scores of Hill lawmakers who actually owed him something.
I have to say, though, that while I might be late to the party, I’m beginning to join the ranks of harsh critics. You’d really have to be stupid not to see through the scam Emanuel pulled to conceal police misconduct in the killing of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald until after he had been safely reelected. I mean, we now know that his office was apprised of the fact that there was video footage at least two months before election day. And even if it isn’t yet completely established that Emanuel knew by then that the police were engaged in a cover-up, the totality of the rest of the record is crystal clear. Emanuel joined in the cover-up.
However, if NBC Chicago’s reporting has indeed uncovered the first evidence that Emanuel’s office was aware that the story his police department was pushing was dishonest, the news will bolster calls for the mayor’s resignation.
The emails are dated December 8, 2014 — less than two months after Van Dyke killed McDonald, nearly two months before Election Day in 2015, and almost a full year before charges were finally filed against [Officer Jason] Van Dyke. So far, Emanuel has convened a panel to review police practices and fired Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, but the moves have not quelled anger toward the mayor himself.
Much of the most pointed criticism of Emanuel has centered on the idea that he may have suppressed the truth about McDonald’s death during the closing weeks of his contentious re-election campaign. Emanuel was eventually re-elected in an April run-off following February’s initial contest. A week later, the city took the unusual step of approving a $5 million payment to McDonald’s family even though his survivors had not then filed a lawsuit. The timing of that payment so shortly after Emanuel’s job was secure again has raised suspicions that City Hall knew more about the gap between police officials’ story and the video evidence during the campaign.
You don’t hand people $5 million dollars without a good understanding of what you’re paying for, particularly when they aren’t even asking for the money. To say that this arrangement, which was made immediately after Emanuel was reelected in the April run-off, has “raised suspicions” is to really undersell the intelligence of the American people.
I’d go so far to say that he’s damned either way. Either he covered up a murder or he’s the kind of steward of the people’s tax money who allows $5 million dollars to be handed out without asking why.
I think calls for his resignation are totally legitimate.
I’ve been wondering about this: “The new president got a couple of valuable things out of Emanuel. First, Rahm had prior West Wing experience from the Clinton administration, and second, he had recently been in charge of the DCCC and had relationships with scores of Hill lawmakers who actually owed him something.”
How did that work out? (That’s a genuine, non-snarky question.) I mean, what’re specific examples of Emanuel’s appointment leading to better outcomes?
Thanks for that. I’d like to know, as well, and no I’m not be snarky or rude. Genuinely interested. Does anyone have any links or even just a list? Please post. I’m open to learning.
To be clear, I am no great fan of Rahm generally, and I believe he’s acted shamefully as the Mayor in multiple areas, particularly in the suppression of the videos of his police officers murdering his citizens, and attacking the teachers’ Union and the education system generally. And yes, his leadership of the DCCC was not what I preferred.
But the record of the President and his first Congress is an outstanding one; that’s a good list to consider.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
Much good was done during the years Emanuel was Obama’s COS. It’s senseless to deny him any credit at all for that.
>How did that work out?
He fought tooth and nail to derail health care reform and instigate “entitlement reform”. Fortunately, Michelle, the only sane one in the first administration, was able to fend him off on the first and the GOP was too stupid to take advantage on the latter. Rahm Emanuel is worse than the GOP, having spent his career trying to destroy every progressive cause from the inside. Only Larry Summers is as evil.
At least Summers learned how to make soothing noises.
Makes him more dangerous.
I have to say, though, that while I might be late to the party, I’m beginning to join the ranks of harsh critics.
You’re almost 10 years late, but welcome aboard the bus. Good to know people like Howie Klein have been right all along.
“I’ve never been a Rahm-hater.”
Where have you been? If he’d had his way you still wouldn’t be able to get health insurance with pre-existing conditions. Rahm Emanuel is like Veep without a sense of humor – a callous, bribed, cynical, right wing piece of sh**.
Obama 2009 had a huge impetus to remake the party into the New Deal Coalition + Rainbow Coalition that the New Left tried to gift us with, but Democrats of Rahm’s generation deliberately gutted the party by forcefully embracing neoliberalism and his administration has been struggling since.
Rahm Emanuel, though far from being the only or even biggest quisling, demographically fucked us over. Given how much emphasis I place on demographics, this is like me accusing a vegan chef of adding pink slime to the veggie burgers.
Obama is a Neoliberal, the Democratic party is neoliberal. Claiming that the Democratic party is the party of the new deal, social security, and the working class is as utterly bullshit and naive as claiming that the Republican party is the party of abolition and African American rights. It may have been true at one point, but it sure as shit hasn’t been for a long time.
Like it or not neoliberal economics is why the Democratic party exists now. We are the party in charge of the cities where the truly elite are and income inequality is worse. We pass policy to help those areas at the expense of the rest of the nation. We make populism into racism.
Bitching about this is pointless. If you are a social liberal this is the price you must pay for your policy goals. If you are a Democrat this is what you endorse each time you vote. And if you aren’t either of those you’re a racist bigot who shouldn’t be taken seriously and should go put your white hood back on.
Well then, do something about it. Vote for Bernie in the primary!
From what I can tell, the Democratic Party embracing neoliberal economics is even more of a historical accident than that of the existence of the British Empire.
That is, after the New Deal and New Left Dems went down in flames following the synthesis of the Religious Right and Southern Strategy, Democratic Party was desperately flailing around and looking for anything that would work. A combination of sluggish Southern realignment, a recession, and plutocrat money allowed Clinton to stumble into the White House ahead of the rest of the blind and deaf post-Reagan/pre-Obama Democratic rats and declare himself an eagle-eyed prophet. Clinton was able to ride this black swan long enough for passive demographics (which, it must be said, weren’t even a distant factor in calculations of Democratic dominance at this time) to allow a plausible path to victory. And because politicians are conservative (small-c) and generally clueless about how to win elections when the old chestnuts and conventional wisdom isn’t working, Clinton and his entourage were hailed as Bold Democratic Thinkers by the left and centrist remnants of frightened and desperate Democratic Party and their clueless homilies were unthinkingly applied without viewing them in context.
Of course, there’s the inconvenient fact to the Clinton that the political and demographic tides have shifted significantly since 1992 and it’s an open question about just how good of prophets the New Democrats really are. Politicians are still generally skittish and timid creatures who value victory more than consistency or principles, so I think that a Sanders victory powered by youth demographics — especially given how pessimistic many Democrats are about wielding legislative power in the near future — would cause many people to rethink neoliberalism.
Mind, that won’t be the end of that. There are more than enough Dems who are genuinely in the tank for the plutocracy (even at the expense of their own political careers, which is unusual for a politician) to risk taking one for the team. And of course there are Dems who genuinely and truly believe in neoliberalism, either straight or with a velvet glove, and they’ll be making what they think is a principled stand against the onslaught of democratic socialists.
Just as the racists bolted from the DEM Party a few years after the civil rights period, socially liberal Republicans bolted from the GOP as they began the doubling down process with evangelicals, anti-science, homophobia etc.
OF COURSE HE KNEW ABOUT WHAT WAS ON THE TAPE.
They approved a FIVE MILLION DOLLAR settlement WITHOUT there ever being a lawsuit filed?
Why do that?
Just like he knew about Barbara Bennett-Byrd’s felonious activities at the Chicago Public Schools.
Yes and yes. Who the fuck is naive enough to believe otherwise?
If the procedure is similar to California’s, you are required to file a claim and have it denied before suit can be filed, that’s just part of the process of suing the sovereign. Usually the claim is denied pro forma, but not always, it must be evaluated, and if it is to the advantage of the government to pay it, perhaps because they would lose and have to pay more later, it can be paid without suit being filed.
Nothing sinister in the process
Not filing a law suit is not the same as not asking for it. You don’t know what some lawyer told the Mayor’s office. It’s much better to get a settlement deal than sue. Many law suits are never filed. They are settled before filing so that the public doesn’t know about the allegations and the settling party doesn’t have dirty laundry on the public record.
Better for a lawyer because in this case the public wouldn’t see that McDonald didn’t have much of a family. $5 million (a not unjust financial penalty for the Chicago police) is a lot of money going to people that hadn’t cared for or supported this poor young man.
Exactly. The settlement was necessary because the mayor, the Police Chief, the City prosecutor all knew the facts about law enforcement in Chicago.
See http://cpdb.co/findings/
The Citizens Police Data project summarize their findings:
“28,567 allegations of misconduct were filed against
Chicago Police Department officers between March 2011
and September 2015.
Less than 2% of those complaints resulted in any discipline.
Black Chicagoans filed 61% of all complaints in the
database, but make up only 25% of sustained complaints.
White Chicagoans–who filed 21% of total complaints–
account for 58% of sustained complaints.”
BTW, this is an amazing effort & the clarity of the data mapping truly beautiful. Check out the section that charts individual police officers. Jason Van Dyke is posted as having 20 citizen complaints & zero discipline measures. But there are cops with 3 times that number.
Three years ago, Rahm Emmanuel was closing half of Chicago’s public mental health clinics, whose advocates were telling him that closure in the neighborhoods he was closing would cause an uptick in some violent crimes — essentially domestic disputes or out-of-control acting out. Allowing police to assassinate some of those cases turns out to be the policy response that is the alternative to public mental health clinics, like charter schools are to public schools. But he has closed a third of Chicago’s public schools after a succession of no-child-left-behind superintendents (or do they call them CEOs now) left schools stripped of resources and teachers without salary increases and support. Also the the savior charter schools are also not performing but certainly living off the public purse.
And then there is his tax gifts to the private sector that further weakened Chicago’s finances even as he rolled out plans in a couple of neighborhoods of gentrification by putting in swank business hotels and high-rise housing. As usual gentrifying the attractive neighborhoods to root out the people who made it attractive in the first place.
None of those policy failures demands immediate resignation.
But all of the instances (and not just the LaQuan McDonald case) in which the mayor looked the other way at the corruption and violation of Constitutional rights by the Chicago Police Department certainly do. He’s been able to skate on plausible denial for so long on these issues. He now has been caught. He and Anita Alvarez should resign immediately. They have been operating a school-to-prison pipeline and a population impoverishment and clearance mill for the benefit of prison operators and real estate developers.
As the rolling outward search for safe neighborhoods churns those real estate markets and drives the suburban sprawl ever outward from the city, efforts at gentrification notwithstanding. The North Shore affluent (or at least it was in the 1960s) city of Highland Park now has the toughest gun laws in the metropolitan region for a reason.
Richard J. Daley was allowed to rule by machine because he could at least make the city work and provide services to neighborhoods.
Rahm Emmanuel, the de facto inheritor of Daley’s machine, has now broken it. It is hard to predict how politics in Chicago will work after his fall. Who are the Republican wanna-bes looking to pick up the pieces? You have to go back to 1931 and Big Bill Thompson to see a Republican mayor.
Who are the Chicagoans (the office is now nonpartisan apparently) who could make the city work again?
And if Rahm Emanuel resigns, how is his successor picked?
I don’t know about a resignation. I only know that if there is a death, there is a temporary Mayor until a special election.
I very doubt if he will step down. That’s not his style. And as long as his opposition is multiple black persons plus hispanic and white candidates, he will keep winning. Yes yes. You say black Chicagoans hate his guts? Well next time you’ll see two black men and a black woman running and maybe two hispanics (one Mexican one Puerto Rican?) He will be back door financing most of them.
IMHO, only Toni Preckwinkle has the stature and general approval to beat him, but she won’t run. I guess she’s too smart.
You forgot about Rahm knowing about the secret Black Site that operated within the Chicago Police Department.
How could I, of all people, forget about that place? Waiting to see if Spencer Ackerman’s journalism finally shutters that place and discredits its operating principles.
I think what Rahm shares the most with Obama is their contempt for progressive voters and their love of Wall Street money. Rahm got rich when he temporarily left government thanks to them, And Obama will do even better once he’s out of office.
I know a bunch of people in Chicago who don’t pay much attention to politics. I warned them about Rahm when he first ran for mayor, and none of them believed me. Now, they all despise him. Rahm’s rotten to the core, and I think everyone sees that now.
Its hard not to viscerally dislike a living shit stain like Rahm.
The silver lining is that he will never again work in the White House.
Too soon for that prediction. Goodness gracious, Kissinger is still haunting the halls of the WH.
HRC referring to Kissinger as anything other than an American Himmler was my first indication that, against my desperate hopes, she hadn’t learned a damn thing since 2008.
Don’t forget this:
http://twitter.com/ambassadorpower/status/454467914419429377
Taken a little over 18 months ago.
yeah. And her good buddy Torie Nuland.
Should add that Bill Moyer’s got punked by Powers. Not something that often happens to Moyers.
2008? Try 1992 if not earlier. Some of us have seen through all her cosmetic (PR) makeovers and never seen her waver from who she was then.
I have to admit that I was hoodwinked by both in ’92 and worked my ass off to elect them. Maybe that’s why now I only send money to Bernie.
Still what choice did we have? The man with four names?
I know that’s what people are saying now, what choice do we have? The man with a dead rat on his head?
I won’t be fooled again. No Clinton. Never again. No matter what.
Meant to say “try 1994.” No need for any Democrat or liberal to apologize for not reading the Clinton character correctly in 1992. Actually, I sort of did, but was so tired of having a GOP administration and agreed with his increased taxes pitch; so, went for it. The only vote I regret.
You score very high if you only regret one vote.
Probably helps that I have voted for far more losers than winners, and therefore, didn’t have to evaluate the actual performance of those I voted for. OTOH, the job performance of those I voted against has been so lousy that it’s difficult to imagine that my chosen candidate would have performed as poorly. In looking at what Clinton did vs. a plausible expectation for a second GHWB term, the latter would have struggled to accomplish the Clinton/Bush agenda. However, even if he was successful, it would have left open the possibility of electing a real Democrat in 1996 and avoiding the worst of the Clinton agenda. Plus we would have spared ourselves the circus of his shenanigans.
Of course, it’s always possible that GHWB would have started another war and created another intractable problem. Yet, that would have been the end of having the Bush family. as well as the Clintons, to kick around
Interesting speculations and they reflect on the people who tell me I must vote for the Democratic nominee next November.
I no linger consider myself a democrat, but rather an Independent and I pick and choose. The candidates don’t have to be perfect, but they must be acceptable. In the last election, I refused to vote for either Durbin or Oberweis last time. I intend to vote for Tammy Duckworth against Mark Kirk next time because Tammy is acceptable and Kirk isn’t. What should I do if Anita Alvarez runs against a moderate Republican with a clean record? Would they insist that I vote for her because she is a Democrat?
What’s pathetic about the demand for or embrace of party loyalty in the general election during primary season is that it strips a voter of his/her power. Voter agency (the inability to vote for the “lesser evil”) without power is irrelevant, particularly when the “lesser evil” is almost guaranteed to win. Thus, you not voting for Durbin was meaningless.
Nader 2000 voters, who have been vilified by Democrats ever since then, failed to express positive power and were left saddled with the reputation of being destructive. (Assumptions embedded in that assessment is that 9/11 and the Iraq War and income tax cuts for the wealthy wouldn’t have happened on a President Gore’s watch. Doubtful that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. The other two? More likely than not wouldn’t have, but Gore could have lost in ’04 to someone even worse than GWB; so, all the bad GWB stuff might only have been delayed by a few years.)
Anyway, why a number of younger people voted for Nader instead to Gore was that they were furious about Tipper’s music censorship effort in the 1980s. What a childish approach to voting. Others agreed with Nader’s critique of the Democratic Party. (I did as well.) However, they and Nader allowed that critique to be simplified down to “there’s no difference” which is false — there are differences — and that made those voters look stupid.
Crafting means and methods to exercise real power by those not within the power structure isn’t easy. The teabaggers have managed to do that to some extent but were ably assisted by the MSM that afforded them lots of attention and big bucks they received from nefarious wealthy people. So, I’m not inclined to view them as having obtained authentic power. OTOH, lefties have zero power after years of effort they may not have been less than the effort of teabaggers. The choice after the effort doesn’t bear fruit always ends up being, opt out or be co-opted. And never how to make a bit of lemonade out of the pile of lemons.
I’m going to use 2004 as an example so as not to jinx 2016. Dean tapped into a pre-existing well of leftie angst — and while not wealthy, he did raise a lot of money from his supporters. Once Dean was knocked out by the DEM PTB, that support base evaporated and/or refocused on getting Kerry elected. What if they had, as I did, recognized that Kerry couldn’t win? Was there anything else they could have done with their time, energy, effort to achieve something positive?
The AK and/or CO Senate races to name but two possibilities. The DEM PTB would have been really pissed if such an effort led to Udall staying in the CO race or prevented the DC DEMs from overruling the CO state convention nominee. Were there not a handful of House races that could have been changed with a concerted effort by the former Dean machine?
Here’s nightmare scenario (and fortunately no longer as plausible). Dr. Ben has built a nationwide donor money machine to advance him as a POTUS candidate. Worked very well to get him national and positive attention. He had the highest favorables and lowest unfavorables of all the GOP candidates. Had he and his team had real political smarts (or in Carson’s case any smarts at all), with the release of his third quarter fundraising haul (Oct. 15) when his poll numbers were peaking, he dropped out. Reluctantly concluding that America would never elect a superior man such as himself President that has not held a prior political office. Therefore, he announces hie run for the Senate.
“Thus, you not voting for Durbin was meaningless.” I know that and knew it then. But I have to look in the mirror when I shave.
I don’t know what state he is a resident of, but I see from wikipedia that he was born in Detroit and he made his Presidential announcement from a rally in Detroit.
There won’t be a Senatorial Election in Michigan until 2018 when Debbie Stabenow’s term is up. Could he keep the grift going? Possibly with enough “Praise the Lord”‘s and promises to revitalize Detroit by throwing off the shackles of government and empowering private business (i.e. rape and plunder) he could become the first black Senator from Michigan. There are plenty of white religious crazies in Michigan (I have first hand knowledge) and, of course, they are Republican. Whether they can suppress their racism enough to vote for a black man is an open question.
He’s a resident of Maryland and there’s an open Senate seat there in this election cycle. Now Maryland is reliably “blue,” but they went with a GOP governor in 2014 (one of the first events that knocked the wind out of O’Malley’s sails) and Dr. Ben would start with a much bigger campaign warchest than the others and the wherewithal to keep those monies rolling in. However, now he can’t plausibly win in MD because he’s been exposed as a fabricator.
He also has some presence in FL. (There are no residency requirements for US Congress.) The filing deadline to run in that open Senate seat race is May 6 and he could have a better shot at winning the GE there than in MD.
Much better, I think.