I am surprised that this column did not receive any (much?) notice here -- Dan Froomkin's column yesterday in Huffingtonpost on WaPo vis-a-vis Rahm Emanuel, is just eviscerating of the stenographers at WaPo on the one hand, and of the terror at the heart of many Dems regarding Rethug attacks, on the other. It is at once illuminating, sad, and not a little frustrating to read.
Note that I do not subscribe to the view of the first year as a failure, but I do think it probably could have been better if Rahm Emanuel had not been relentlessly cowering from the thugs and possibly pulling the President with him to the stupid zones (we do not know the truth of course, but intelligent guesses can be made from prior actions/positions).
Since I can excerpt only a few 'graphs, and the first two happen not to be the punchiest, I will limit my commentary on those to just quoting the delicious opening phrases: "The latest toxic meme to spread across the pages of my once-beloved Washington Post" and "First came perpetually disgruntled columnist Dana Milbank"!
After setting the table with background and current context, he gets down to the business of defining Emanuel, and that is where his insight and cogent analysis are terrific. I cannot do any more justice to them than just excerpting:
Emanuel's greatest "victory" before this one, of course, was the one upon which he earned his reputation: Getting a bunch of conserva-Dems elected in purple states in 2006, winning the party control of the House while at the same time crippling its progressive agenda. This is what Emanuel is all about. For him, victory is everything -- even if you have to give up your core values to win, and even if you could have won while sticking to them.
The Rahm Emanuel that Obama hired is the poster child for the timid, pseudo-pragmatism that is inimical to the idealistic Obama agenda so many excited voters responded to last November. And it's a pragmatism that is absolutely killing the Democratic Party in the long run, because American voters have an intrinsic distrust of politicians they see as tacking with the polls or shying away from a fight. This if nothing else is the lesson of two George W. Bush presidencies: American voters have a profoundly soft spot for people with clear, strongly-held principles, almost regardless of what those principles are.
Emanuel is a Bush Democrat - but not in that he has learned the lesson about the value of holding firmly to core values. He is a Bush Democrat in that he has allowed Republicans to traumatize him into submission. Emanuel operates on a battlefield as defined by Republicans, where the terrain is littered with the specter of imaginary but profoundly terrifying GOP attack ads. His reflexive approach is the strategic retreat. Most obviously in the current debate about health care, he has empowered the Democratic and centrist Republican obstructionists by validating their fear that come campaign time, they will be portrayed as radical -- even when they are supporting measures such as the public insurance option that have public support among a super-majority of voters.
Then he discusses the cases of closing GitMo and KSM trial and the two opposing positions, Emanuel's contribution in those areas, and closes with these 3 devastating 'graphs on WaPo's cravenness, the incestuous, counter-productive relationship between members of the press and pols and their consequent shoddy pieces of work and finally, Emanuel himself:
The obvious conclusion: Obama should have taken Emanuel's advice, based on pure political calculation, rather than heeding the foolhardy, deeply-held ethical, legal and moral arguments made by his top legal advisers. The Post's endorsement of this argument is nothing short of obscene. It embraces rather than condemns the notion that political considerations should legitimately trump all others. It is the Post's endorsement of Karl Rovism..
Indeed, the most remarkable spectacle here is the ease with which Emanuel has been able to find reliable vessels to carry his water. Oh, to see his media speed-dial, and its collection of nattering process junkies, smug contrarians, split-the-difference stenographers, center-worshipping priests of High Broderism and corporatist cocktail-partiers who enable Emanuel's brand of soulless political gamesmanship.
To Emanuel, victory is the only thing, and rather than recognize the error of his ways and recalibrate, he is publicly declaring that the now widely-recognized enfeeblement of his boss's presidency is not his failure, but his vindication. Hail Emanuel triumphant.
I have always respected Dan Froomkin (in fact have followed his complete evolution from a fairly neutral commentator to a reality-based one -- reality, which is known to have liberal bias :)) but this column was too good to pass up...
One of the frustrating side-issues he mentions is the eternal terror of some Dems of Rethug tactics: all it takes to counter, is to keep telling the truth, every time the thugs open their mouths. Witness Anthony Weiner and his bravura FAUX appearances, or even Kucinich on CSPAN, or of course, the spectacular examples of Keith and Rachel in the media.