Sunday, November 12, 2006

Voters repudiate White House, Rahm Emanuel repudiates voters

John Walsh over at CounterPunch has a great article outlining who Rahm Emanuel chose to funnel DNC resources behind in the 2006 elections. Matt Stoller over at MyDD also does a superb job skewering Emanuel.

Out of Rahm's selected 22 races, all except one candidate were pro war.

Furthermore, only 8 of his candidates won. Keep that in mind as you run across the ever increasingly testimonials to Rahm Emanuel, Genius. [In the NY Sun, the quote actually reads "a stroke of Rovian genius." For chrissakes.]

The Dems picked up 29 seats, so it could be argued that Rahm's maneuvering hurt some Dem races. Doing some simple math, 21 of those Dem victories had nothing to do with Rahm & the DNCC. If more resources had been spent on other competitive and narrowly lost contests, defeats might have been turned into victories (see MyDD).

For instance, a lot of Democratic cash and political capital was spent on Tammy Duckworth in Illinois' 6th CD. Tammy Duckworth is pro Iraq War. Sounds a lot like Bush's position. (I'll concede that it was a cheap shot and she must have contrary views to the President, but the American public is making it very clear that they want OUT of Iraq.)

Here is an even better example of Emanuel betting on the wrong pony (and again, citing John Walsh's CounterPunch article):
In California's 11th CD primary, Emanuel backed the prowar Steven Filson who lost to the antiwar candidate, Jerry McNerney, who went on to win in the general election.
Think McNerney is going to be invited to Emanuel's office often?

The boys running the Democratic Party are just as disinterested in what Americans want as the Republicans. Emanuel didn't hestitate to claim credit for the Dems' sweeping wins in House and Senate, but Americans were voting AGAINST White House policies and Emanuel relentlessly picked candidates who SUPPORT those policies.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Think the Dems are going to save the Republic?

At least Pelosi was upfront with Americans, stating on "60 Minutes" 2 weeks prior to the elections that "impeachment if off the table."
Let the bipartisanship commence! Bush has offered to help Pelosi decorate new office. (And no, I'm not making this up.)
America: do you trust this man to pick out your drapes?

But Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) will be the chair of the Judiciary Committee, you exclaim. Who cares what Pelosi says because Conyers will kick his impeachment hearings into high gear!
Except he won't. Conyers confirmed that "impeachment is 'off the table."

But that's not how the rest of the Democrats feel, you cry! Maybe so, let's check in with the head of the DNC, Howard Dean.
Speaking to "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart, Dean said "I know your audience wants us to impeach the president but it's not going to happen."

Maybe the "Daily Show" isn't credible enough. How about Dean's statements regarding impeachment on the DNC's web page? You will search in vain for any statement on the impeachment of George Bush.

Maybe it is as simple as the fact that there is no real differenc between the parties. Denizens of such states as Illinois have been living with the reality of a one party combine for years. Polls right before the election in Illinois showed over 50% of voters didn't want to vote for Blagojevich (Dem) or Topinka (Repub). But do the dumbed down masses ever consider a 3rd party candidate? There were 3 candidates for governor, and the Green Party garnered almost 10% in Cook County.

Don't expect great things from our Dem Congress. Joshua Frank does a superb job breaking down exactly who our Dems are, why we shouldn't expect any real change. He references Blue Dog Dems - check out the link for more information.

Here's the first apologetic I've heard regarding Pelosi/Conyers: Conyers and Pelosi aren't going to tip their hand until they take control of Congress in January. Then you'll see! They'll start impeachment hearings.

Are Democrats that desperate that they'll settle for Pelosi, Dean, Conyers ignoring the massive voter anger that put them in the majority? It appears to be a good bet. After all, the Republicans ignored their base and got away with it for a long time.