When Rahm Emanuel went looking for a loyal stenographer to dictate a canonical piece on himself, no surprise his gaze landed on Ryan Lizza, who did the honors for Chuck Schumer in the recent past (wherein Lizza called Russ Feingold "an ass" for proposing a censure resolution against George Bush). This week’s New Yorker carries the 5200 word lap dance in which Rahm finds universal praise from sources carefully chosen to heap said praise upon him. Paul Krugman gets bashed by Rahm but sadly, there is no room for him to respond.
There are a few more things that mysteriously did not make their way into what purported to be a comprehensive piece on the President’s Chief of staff:
• Conversations Rahm Had with Rod Blagojevich over his House seat which were taped by the FBI but not addressed in Greg Craig’s memo on White House contacts, the fact that he is mentioned in Fitzgerald’s complaint against Blagojevich as "President-elect Advisor" or that this will almost certainly continue to haunt him as the case against Blagojevich proceeds.
• How Rahm as head of the DCCC infuriated immigration rights advocates by haranguing congressional candidates to "move right" on immigration, pushed Heath Shuler into putting forward the enforcement-only SAVE Act and then strong armed freshmen into co-sponsoring it, or how it triggered a revolt of the Hispanic caucus on the House floor that he’s now trying to repair in the wake of Hispanic support for Obama in ‘08.
• Rahm’s predilection for giving unfortunate press conferences, including the one in 07 where he hailed the passage of the Supplemental as "the beginning of the end of the President’s policy in Iraq," saying it "ends the blank check on more troops, more money and more of the same, and it begins the notion that we have to have a new direction to Iraq that has accountability" (see YouTube).• Paul Krugman gets drubbed because he’s not able to seat Al Franken (a charge more reasonably leveled against Harry Reid), but Rahm isn’t asked to explain how the Judd Gregg fiasco happened — even though lot of people on the Hill and in the White House blame Rahm and his love of "leaking" for screwing that one up, not to mention the bungling of the Geithner and Daschle vets (which Rahm likes to unload on Podesta).
• Republicans attribute their ability to hold formation against the stimulus bill to their universal hatred of Rahm, making him a strange choice for Chief of Staff in a White House that has committed itself to bipartisanship. Anybody ask how the President felt when Rahm held a press conference saying his commitment to bipartisanship was just for show, a huge mistake they’d never make again, and even though they’re still a few votes shy of 60 Democrats in the Senate henceforth the Republicans could all kiss his ass?
None of these make it in. Instead, we get fawning tributes like "besides Obama himself, Emanuel had done the most to coax and bully the bill out of Congress and onto the President’s desk for signing." An unusual claim that many would dispute, and since the article does not indicate that anyone directly involved in the contentious Senate negotiations was contacted for comment, most likely attributable yet again to Rahm himself. Maybe the tensions between Rahm and Democratic leadership during the struggle to pass the bill was worthy of mention?
He’s described as a "political John McEnroe, known for both his mercurial temperament and his tactical brilliance," who likes to "likes to clean up after cleanup time is over," an "efficient manager" and "a subject of intrigue in Washington." Almost anyone with even a fleeting knowledge of his background would acknowledge that Rahm is a controversial figure, yet no actual "controversy" made it into the article. His only apparent critic is Fidel Castro.
It’s a profile more appropriate to People Magazine than the New Yorker, and any political journalist should be embarrassed to have their name on the byline. But such is the price of access it seems, and it’s not like there’s a shortage of people willing to fawn and flatter in exchange for a scoop.
Given Rahm’s firm control over any information coming out of the White House and his unfettered love of hagiographic profiles, we’ll no doubt be seeing more.
Update: I’m reminded that Lizza is writing a book on Obama’s first year in office, which no doubt depends on…access.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

and the Oscar for for casting (the next stone) goes to:
“The Furious Base of Benyamin Nuttin’ (yahoo!)”
When do we start the Rahm Be-Gone pool?
Press for hire? Only the Party has changed. Will Ryan Lizza replaceDavid Brooks as a Cod Piece for the Oligarchy in power, or unfettered uncritical access to power behind the power.
My dream would be to see him leave, oh, about three weeks after the special election in IL-05 seats principled progressive Tom Geoghegan (who is NOT who Rahm wants filling ‘his’ seat).
Thanks, Jane.
It’s so depressing. I know you were never head over heels for Obama’s politics (as opposed to some, at least, of his ideas), but even you don’t deserve Emanual for your troubles. I can only analogize the situation to the Exorcist, with Obama as Reagan, and Emanual as you-know-who. Guess who you are! Lucky thing! So, get out the progressive analog of holy water and start sprinkling.
Love to all at FDL for your (collective) spirit and brains.
I am a big fan of yours Jane as well as the rest of the contributers here at fdl, but I can’t be the only person who thinks you are going a little over board with your rants on Rahm Emmanuel. I get that you don’t think he is the right guy and I get that you don’t like some of the things he did in the past but President Obama chose him of his own free will and like it or not several members of the administration as well as Congress have some good things to say about him. There isn’t likely a chance in hell that he is going anywhere for the forseeable future so now that we covered the whole “Rahm is an asshole” quite thoroughly do you think maybe we could move on? I know that might not be a popular position around here but I do think we have bigger fish to fry. Im just sayin.
I think as long as we have folks supporting “Legend in his own mind” Rahm (such as Lizza) and buying his BS about how wonderful he (Rahm) is in all ways, then it needs ot have folks like Jane calling out the BS and being reality checks.
Otherwise, we wind up stuck with Rahm for far longer than his remotely useful shelf life.
His only apparent critic is Fidel Castro. - jh
*snicker*
*Bows to the Master*
I don’t understand the Krugman Rahm connection. Is it just to cover up that Obama doesn’t have a coherent economic policy? Or is this I blame Krugman just a riff on the old Republican line of blaming the Clintons for everything including the weather?
Hugh, I’m glad you showed up, I wanted to ask if you’ve done a post at Oxdown re. nationalizing Banks.
I don’t know what Jane is complaining about.
Rahmbo’s arrogant, wrong-headed, in-your-face and incompetant leadership was
what led many people to start bypassing the DCCC, DSCC and other
Beltway parasites and contribute directly to progressive political campaigns.
Some have wondered how Rahm’s arms got so long.
Patting oneself on the back does that, doncha know?
I’m not sure I’ve done one just on nationalization. I’ve been calling for nationalization since shortly after the meltdown occurred in mid-September 2008. In December I wrote up a list of actions I thought were needed to address the economic crisis: http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/2395
There were a few minor updates to it I was meaning to make but it still mostly holds.
Book Salon upstairs with Dispatches From The War Room and author Stan Greenberg.
Thanks, I knew you would be able to help me understand this better.
What did you think of Krugman on Steph today ?
Jane,
I’ve long held that Rahm is no strategist, but merely a tactician.
So I do agree with part of of this statement:
The part I disagree with is the “brillance” part.
Rahm is indeed a tactician. He is a down and dirty, in-close knife fighter.
His problem is that he has no concern whatsoever whether he is sticking the shiv into his adversaries or into his allies.
Shorter Rahm Emanuel: “A blind pitbull without a leash.”
I don’t agree with Krugman all the time but it is good to have people like him and Roubini on. They are a breath of sanity in the face of media, political, and economic elites that remain in denial about what happened, how it happened, how serious it is, and what needs to be done about it.
Among the options that Shane neglects to enumerate is extradition. Per the UN Convention against torture, we must prosecute those accused of torture, or extradite them to some place that will.
Oops, wrong thread.
I disagree, though perhaps not for the reason(s) you might suspect.
Though Jane’s post focuses on Rahm’s self-aggrandizing ego, I find Rahm’s position as President Obama’s Chief of Staff far more disturbing.
Past Chief of Staffs in the White House have unfortunately for us had a history of, how shall I put it, “maladministration”.
Both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were past Chief of Staffs in the Ford Administration.
H. R. Haldeman and Al Haig were past Chief of Staffs in the Nixon Administration.
The problem I have with Rahm Emanuel being President Obama’s Chief of Staff is because of this definition of duties per Wiki:
(My Bold)
I think Rahm Emanual is a far greater impediment to good governance by dint of his CoS position than any of his self-aggrandizing self-promotion puff pieces in the MSM.
Rahm controls who gets to see the President.
Rahm controls what information gets presented to the President, and how that information is constructed.
I trust neither Rahm’s judgement nor his intellect nor his motivations.
That is why I fully support Jane taking whacks at Rahm on an ongoing and continous basis.
If she/we don’t, who will?
Rahm defending himself I smell weakness the guy is in trouble.
Rahm’s presence in the White House is often justified by some variation of the line “Every President has an asshole, and Obama’s is Rahm”. I don’t like the guy. I’m not sure he’s in the best place, but at least until the vacant House seat and the soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat from Illinois are filled, I guess where he is now is as good as any place.
Let’s hope it’s not for much longer, though.
When ever I see Rahm my skin crawls. Definite indication of a predator. Don’t let him alone with small children.
This is an excellent post. Thank you, Jane. As I was reading I thought Molly Ivin’s would be so proud.
Now the New Yorker. Not the New Yorker with all the great cartoons! My list of deadtree media I won’t pay for again grows daily. Thanks for the takedown, Jane.
Great thread, thanks to all.