Seeking power and exercising it - not the same!

More commentary from a long standing dear friend and fellow memo. He makes a valid point about both parties seeming to be moving in a Monarchal or pandering direction - with Republicans leading the charge.

Problem seems that politics is such a raunchy business qualified and competent people no longer want to opt for it so the Republicans have got themselves into a rut of repeats.

Perhaps when politicians return to believing doing what is best for the nation should dictate their moves and allow that to determine their motives things will improve. Would not hold your breath.

My comments about what the Republican Party must do to remake itself has evoked a lot of responses. Even one of my daughters sent my memo to to her Congressional Representative. (See 1 below)

From a liberal friend who seemingly does not want to let go regarding GW's gaffe's. Reminds me when Nixon once told the press: 'well you won't have me to kick around anymore.' GW might be thinking the same thing - certainly his charming wife should be. I still maintain GW is a far better president than the current mood suggests and over time historians will bring balance.(See 2 below.)

More commentary and this from a brilliant mind who served GW. (See 3 below.)

A very smart friend, fellow memo reader and one who has intelligence links sent me the following comment. (See 4 below.)

George Friedman writes about Obama's Choice. As usual Friedman sets forth the problems in understandable language. He, like myself, sees a press and media honeymoon of short duration. (See 5 below.)

If you want to know who Rahm Emanuel is see 6 below.

Hard medicine for the haters and bashers but nevertheless no truer words have been written. Before Kennedy went to Dallas he was being vilified as well. (See 7 below.)

Harvey Golub's view of Congress - Golub was the former Chairman of AMEX. (See 8 below.)

Please indulge me in a test I ask you take by answering yes or no:

a) Do you believe one force begets another?

b) Do you believe trees grow to the sky?

c) Do you believe it is better to pay interest? Do you believe it is better to collect interest?

e) Do you think it is wise to live within your means and save?

f) Do you believe it is wise to lead from strength?

g) Do you believe in moderation?

h) Do you believe nature is balanced?

g) Therefore, do you believe nature could be a guide for how one should model their own life?

h) Do you believe government should exist to save people from their own stupidity?

If you have answered yes to all but (b and h), you are a probably a fiscal conservative whether you realize it or not. If you are a fiscal conservative then ask whether when you voted yesterday you did so with your head or heart.

Perhaps you concluded neither McCain or Obama are really fiscal conservatives and your vote was determined by some other issue or more prominent concern, which is your right.


Dick,

1)Good analysis. I agree.

Also, I think the Republican party should eliminate the idea of being a
"party of succession" as now two candidates appeared too old, amongst
their problems, Dole and McCain both reaching "their turn" at the
office. They convey a brand not able and up to the job.)

2) Over the past eight years Bush has provided us with endless amusement as a result of his faux pas or ‘Bushisms' as they've been dubbed. Here are twenty of our favourites.


20. "Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." - Nov. 28, 2005

19. "We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans." - Sept. 6, 2000

18. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - Dec. 19, 2000

17. "Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." - Aug. 30, 2000

16. "I think we agree, the past is over." - May 10, 2000

15. "I understand small business growth. I was one." - Feb. 19, 2000

14. "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." - April 23, 2002

13. "I want everybody to hear loud and clear that I'm going to be the president of everybody." - Jan. 18, 2001

12. "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." - Jan. 3, 2000

11. "I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will." - Oct. 5, 2002

10. "I just want you to know that when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." - June 18, 2002

9. "I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." - May 25, 2004

8. "I firmly believe the death tax is good for people from all walks of life all throughout our society." - Aug. 13, 2002

7. "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." - Sept. 17, 2002

6. "The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off." - Oct. 8, 2004

5. "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - Sept. 29, 2000

4. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - Aug. 5, 2004

3. "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" - Jan. 11, 2000

2. "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." - Jan. 27, 2000

1. "They misunderestimated me." - Nov. 6, 2000

3)Yesterday was a disaster, but it'll be a compounded disaster if we don't
learn from it. Most importantly, we have to learn that, just as we are not
saved because of the sins of others, we're not victorious because others are
bad. Until conservatives re-learn what it is they have to offer, why our
beliefs are better for America than theirs, we'll lose to any attractive
candidate with a good and hopeful line every time.

4) Dick, I noted that Medvedev of Russia responded to Obama's election afer only six hours, by stating that he was moving Iskander SS-26 missiles into the Kaliningrad area. These missiles have a range of about 245 km and are extremely difficult to defend against. According to Medvedev, we should be coming to talk to the Russians about this development. It doesn't take long for the first test to come, and I'll be willing to bet that the ONE sells out Poland and missile defense in the name of peace. The Georgia incident and the Venezuelan moves, coupled with this move indicate that we may witness a rebirth of the USSR: right in the first days of the One's "administration" Chicago politics do not prepare one to really play hardball.

5) Obama’s Challenge
By George Friedman


Barack Obama has been elected president of the United States by a large majority in the Electoral College. The Democrats have dramatically increased their control of Congress, increasing the number of seats they hold in the House of Representatives and moving close to the point where — with a few Republican defections — they can have veto-proof control of the Senate. Given the age of some Supreme Court justices, Obama might well have the opportunity to appoint at least one and possibly two new justices. He will begin as one of the most powerful presidents in a long while.

Truly extraordinary were the celebrations held around the world upon Obama’s victory. They affirm the global expectations Obama has raised — and reveal that the United States must be more important to Europeans than the latter like to admit. (We can’t imagine late-night vigils in the United States over a French election.)

Obama is an extraordinary rhetorician, and as Aristotle pointed out, rhetoric is one of the foundations of political power. Rhetoric has raised him to the presidency, along with the tremendous unpopularity of his predecessor and a financial crisis that took a tied campaign and gave Obama a lead he carefully nurtured to victory. So, as with all politicians, his victory was a matter of rhetoric and, according to Machiavelli, luck. Obama had both, but now the question is whether he has Machiavelli’s virtue in full by possessing the ability to exercise power. This last element is what governing is about, and it is what will determine if his presidency succeeds.

Embedded in his tremendous victory is a single weakness: Obama won the popular vote by a fairly narrow margin, about 52 percent of the vote. That means that almost as many people voted against him as voted for him.

Obama’s Agenda vs. Expanding His Base

U.S. President George W. Bush demonstrated that the inability to understand the uses and limits of power can crush a presidency very quickly. The enormous enthusiasm of Obama’s followers could conceal how he — like Bush — is governing a deeply, and nearly evenly, divided country. Obama’s first test will be simple: Can he maintain the devotion of his followers while increasing his political base? Or will he believe, as Bush and Cheney did, that he can govern without concern for the other half of the country because he controls the presidency and Congress, as Bush and Cheney did in 2001? Presidents are elected by electoral votes, but they govern through public support.

Obama and his supporters will say there is no danger of a repeat of Bush — who believed he could carry out his agenda and build his political base at the same time, but couldn’t. Building a political base requires modifying one’s agenda. But when you start modifying your agenda, when you become pragmatic, you start to lose your supporters. If Obama had won with 60 percent of the popular vote, this would not be as pressing a question. But he barely won by more than Bush in 2004. Now, we will find out if Obama is as skillful a president as he was a candidate.

Obama will soon face the problem of beginning to disappoint people all over the world, a problem built into his job. The first disappointments will be minor. There are thousands of people hoping for appointments, some to Cabinet positions, others to the White House, others to federal agencies. Many will get something, but few will get as much as they hoped for. Some will feel betrayed and become bitter. During the transition process, the disappointed office seeker — an institution in American politics — will start leaking on background to whatever reporters are available. This will strike a small, discordant note; creating no serious problems, but serving as a harbinger of things to come.

Later, Obama will be sworn in. He will give a memorable, perhaps historic speech at his inauguration. There will be great expectations about him in the country and around the world. He will enjoy the traditional presidential honeymoon, during which all but his bitterest enemies will give him the benefit of the doubt. The press initially will adore him, but will begin writing stories about all the positions he hasn’t filled, the mistakes he made in the vetting process and so on. And then, sometime in March or April, things will get interesting.


Iran and a U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq

Obama has promised to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, where he does not intend to leave any residual force. If he follows that course, he will open the door for the Iranians. Iran’s primary national security interest is containing or dominating Iraq, with which Iran fought a long war. If the United States remains in Iraq, the Iranians will be forced to accept a neutral government in Iraq. A U.S. withdrawal will pave the way for the Iranians to use Iraqi proxies to create, at a minimum, an Iraqi government more heavily influenced by Iran.

Apart from upsetting Sunni and Kurdish allies of the United States in Iraq, the Iranian ascendancy in Iraq will disturb some major American allies — particularly the Saudis, who fear Iranian power. The United States can’t afford a scenario under which Iranian power is projected into the Saudi oil fields. While that might be an unlikely scenario, it carries catastrophic consequences. The Jordanians and possibly the Turks, also American allies, will pressure Obama not simply to withdraw. And, of course, the Israelis will want the United States to remain in place to block Iranian expansion. Resisting a coalition of Saudis and Israelis will not be easy.

This will be the point where Obama’s pledge to talk to the Iranians will become crucial. If he simply withdraws from Iraq without a solid understanding with Iran, the entire American coalition in the region will come apart. Obama has pledged to build coalitions, something that will be difficult in the Middle East if he withdraws from Iraq without ironclad Iranian guarantees. He therefore will talk to the Iranians. But what can Obama offer the Iranians that would induce them to forego their primary national security interest? It is difficult to imagine a U.S.-Iranian deal that is both mutually beneficial and enforceable.

Obama will then be forced to make a decision. He can withdraw from Iraq and suffer the geopolitical consequences while coming under fire from the substantial political right in the United States that he needs at least in part to bring into his coalition. Or, he can retain some force in Iraq, thereby disappointing his supporters. If he is clumsy, he could wind up under attack from the right for negotiating with the Iranians and from his own supporters for not withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. His skills in foreign policy and domestic politics will be tested on this core question, and he undoubtedly will disappoint many.

The Afghan Dilemma

Obama will need to address Afghanistan next. He has said that this is the real war, and that he will ask U.S. allies to join him in the effort. This means he will go to the Europeans and NATO, as he has said he will do. The Europeans are delighted with Obama’s victory because they feel Obama will consult them and stop making demands of them. But demands are precisely what he will bring the Europeans. In particular, he will want the Europeans to provide more forces for Afghanistan.

Many European countries will be inclined to provide some support, if for no other reason than to show that they are prepared to work with Obama. But European public opinion is not about to support a major deployment in Afghanistan, and the Europeans don’t have the force to deploy there anyway. In fact, as the global financial crisis begins to have a more dire impact in Europe than in the United States, many European countries are actively reducing their deployments in Afghanistan to save money. Expanding operations is the last thing on European minds.

Obama’s Afghan solution of building a coalition centered on the Europeans will thus meet a divided Europe with little inclination to send troops and with few troops to send in any event. That will force him into a confrontation with the Europeans in spring 2009, and then into a decision. The United States and its allies collectively lack the force to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. They certainly lack the force to make a significant move into Pakistan — something Obama has floated on several occasions that might be a good idea if force were in fact available.

He will have to make a hard decision on Afghanistan. Obama can continue the war as it is currently being fought, without hope of anything but a long holding action, but this risks defining his presidency around a hopeless war. He can choose to withdraw, in effect reinstating the Taliban, going back on his commitment and drawing heavy fire from the right. Or he can do what we have suggested is the inevitable outcome, namely, negotiate — and reach a political accord — with the Taliban. Unlike Bush, however, withdrawal or negotiation with the Taliban will increase the pressure on Obama from the right. And if this is coupled with a decision to delay withdrawal from Iraq, Obama’s own supporters will become restive. His 52 percent Election Day support could deteriorate with remarkable speed.

The Russian Question

At the same time, Obama will face the Russian question. The morning after Obama’s election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that Russia was deploying missiles in its European exclave of Kaliningrad in response to the U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Poland. Obama opposed the Russians on their August intervention in Georgia, but he has never enunciated a clear Russia policy. We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention — and U.S. power — to bear.

Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can’t afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War. The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force. The Russians will be prepared to talk, and will want to talk a great deal, all the while pursuing their own national interest of increasing their power in what they call their “near abroad.”

Obama will have many options on domestic policy given his majorities in Congress. But his Achilles’ heel, as it was for Bush and for many presidents, will be foreign policy. He has made what appear to be three guarantees. First, he will withdraw from Iraq. Second, he will focus on Afghanistan. Third, he will oppose Russian expansionism. To deliver on the first promise, he must deal with the Iranians. To deliver on the second, he must deal with the Taliban. To deliver on the third, he must deal with the Europeans.

Global Finance and the European Problem

The Europeans will pose another critical problem, as they want a second Bretton Woods agreement. Some European states appear to desire a set of international regulations for the financial system. There are three problems with this.

First, unless Obama wants to change course dramatically, the U.S. and European positions differ over the degree to which governments will regulate interbank transactions. The Europeans want much more intrusion than the Americans. They are far less averse to direct government controls than the Americans have been. Obama has the power to shift American policy, but doing that will make it harder to expand his base.

Second, the creation of an international regulatory body that has authority over American banks would create a system where U.S. financial management was subordinated to European financial management.

And third, the Europeans themselves have no common understanding of things. Obama could thus quickly be drawn into complex EU policy issues that could tie his hands in the United States. These could quickly turn into painful negotiations, in which Obama’s allure to the Europeans will evaporate.

One of the foundations of Obama’s foreign policy — and one of the reasons the Europeans have celebrated his election — was the perception that Obama is prepared to work closely with the Europeans. He is in fact prepared to do so, but his problem will be the same one Bush had: The Europeans are in no position to give the things that Obama will need from them — namely, troops, a revived NATO to confront the Russians and a global financial system that doesn’t subordinate American financial authority to an international bureaucracy.

The Hard Road Ahead

Like any politician, Obama will face the challenge of having made a set of promises that are not mutually supportive. Much of his challenge boils down to problems that he needs to solve and that he wants European help on, but the Europeans are not prepared to provide the type and amount of help he needs. This, plus the fact that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq requires an agreement with Iran — something hard to imagine without a continued U.S. presence in Iraq — gives Obama a difficult road to move on.

As with all American presidents (who face midterm elections with astonishing speed), Obama’s foreign policy moves will be framed by his political support. Institutionally, he will be powerful. In terms of popular support, he begins knowing that almost half the country voted against him, and that he must increase his base. He must exploit the honeymoon period, when his support will expand, to bring another 5 percent or 10 percent of the public into his coalition. These people voted against him; now he needs to convince them to support him. But these are precisely the people who would regard talks with the Taliban or Iran with deep distrust. And if negotiations with the Iranians cause him to keep forces in Iraq, he will alienate his base without necessarily winning over his opponents.

And there is always the unknown. There could be a terrorist attack, the Russians could start pressuring the Baltic states, the Mexican situation could deteriorate. The unknown by definition cannot be anticipated. And many foreign leaders know it takes an administration months to settle in, something some will try to take advantage of. On top of that, there is now nearly a three-month window in which the old president is not yet out and the new president not yet in.

Obama must deal with extraordinarily difficult foreign policy issues in the context of an alliance failing not because of rough behavior among friends but because the allies’ interests have diverged. He must deal with this in the context of foreign policy positions difficult to sustain and reconcile, all against the backdrop of almost half an electorate that voted against him versus supporters who have enormous hopes vested in him. Obama knows all of this, of course, as he indicated in his victory speech.

We will now find out if Obama understands the exercise of political power as well as he understands the pursuit of that power. You really can’t know that until after the fact. There is no reason to think he can’t finesse these problems. Doing so will take cunning, trickery and the ability to make his supporters forget the promises he made while keeping their support. It will also require the ability to make some of his opponents embrace him despite the path he will have to take. In other words, he will have to be cunning and ruthless without appearing to be cunning and ruthless. That’s what successful presidents do.

In the meantime, he should enjoy the transition. It’s frequently the best part of a presidency.

6)Rahm Emanuel (born November 29, 1959) is a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 2003, representing Illinois's 5th congressional district, which covers much of the north side of Chicago and parts of suburban Cook County.

Emanuel was chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2006 elections. After the Democratic Party regained control of the House, he was elected as the next chairman of the Democratic Caucus. He is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Leader Steny Hoyer and Whip Jim Clyburn.

Emanuel is noted for his strong style and his fundraising prowess.[1] He is the co-author, with current Democratic Leadership Council President Bruce Reed, of the 2006 book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America. He is a member of the New Democrat Coalition. On November 5, 2008, rumors appeared that he was offered the position of Chief of Staff in the Obama administration.[2]

Early history

Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1959. His father, the Jerusalem-born Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician and was a member of the Irgun, a militant Zionist group treated as a terrorist organization during British rule.[3][4][5][6] His mother, Martha Smulevitz, worked as an X-ray technician; she was the daughter of a local union organizer,[1] and would herself become a civil rights activist; she was also once the owner of a Chicago-area rock and roll club.[6] The two met in Chicago in the 1950s.[7] Emanuel's older brother, Ezekiel, is a noted oncologist and bioethicist, and his brother, Ari, is a high-powered talent agent in Los Angeles and inspired Jeremy Piven's character Ari Gold on the HBO series Entourage.[1] Rahm himself is also the inspiration for the character Josh Lyman on The West Wing.[1] He also has a younger sister named Shoshanna, fourteen years his junior.[1]

When his family lived in Chicago, he attended Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School, a Jewish day school. After his family moved to Wilmette, he attended public school: Romona School, Wilmette Junior High School, and New Trier High School.[7] Emanuel was encouraged by his mother to take ballet lessons as a boy and is a "graduate of the Evanston School of Ballet". He won "a scholarship to the Joffrey Ballet" but turned this down to attend Sarah Lawrence College, a liberal arts school with a strong dance program.[8][1] He graduated from college in 1981, and went on to receive a master's degree in Speech and Communication from Northwestern University in 1985. While still a student at Sarah Lawrence, he joined the congressional campaign of David Robinson of Chicago.

Career as political staffer

He began his political career with the consumer rights organization Illinois Public Action. He went on to serve in a number of capacities in local and national politics, initially specializing in fundraising for Illinois campaigns and then nationally.

Emanuel worked for Democrat Paul Simon's 1984 election to the U.S. Senate, was the national campaign director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 1988, and then was senior advisor and chief fundraiser for Richard M. Daley's victorious campaign for Mayor of Chicago in 1989.

During the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in Israel, rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel.[9]

He joined then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton's presidential primary campaign in 1991, serving as the campaign's Director of Finance. Emanuel insisted that Clinton schedule a lot of time for fundraising and greatly delay campaigning in New Hampshire. After much dispute within the campaign about the issue, Clinton eventually agreed, embarking on an aggressive fundraising campaign across the nation. The fundraising paid off later, providing the campaign a vital buffer to keep buying television time as attacks on Clinton's character threatened to swamp the campaign during the New Hampshire primary.

Clinton's most serious primary rival, Paul Tsongas (the New Hampshire Democratic Primary winner in 1992), later withdrew, citing a lack of campaign funds. Richard Mintz, a Washington public relations consultant who worked with Emanuel on the campaign, spoke about the soundness of the idea: "It was that million dollars that really allowed the campaign to withstand the storm we had to ride out in New Hampshire [over Clinton's relationship with Gennifer Flowers and the controversy over his draft status during the Vietnam War]."[10] Emanuel's knowledge of the top donors in the country, and his rapport with potential donors within the Jewish community helped Clinton amass a then-unheard-of $72 million.[10]

Following the campaign, Emanuel became a senior advisor to Bill Clinton at the White House from 1993 to 1998. In the White House, Emanuel was initially Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and then Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy. He was a leading strategist in the unsuccessful White House efforts to institute universal healthcare and many other Clinton initiatives.[11]

One of his proudest moments during the Clinton Administration "was an event that touched his political sensibilities and his personal ties to Israel: the 1993 Rose Garden signing ceremony after the Oslo accord between Israel and the Palestinians. Rahm directed the details of the ceremony, down to the choreography of the famous handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat."[10]

People who worked with Emanuel at that time "insist the once hard-charging staffer has mellowed out." He left the White House to accept a well-paid position in investment banking at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein in Chicago, where he worked from 1999 to 2002 and reportedly earned US$18 million.[12]

Congressional career

Emanuel represents Chicago's North Side, and serves on the House Ways and Means Committee. He received 78% of the vote in this Democratic stronghold in the 2006 election.

Election in 2002
Rep. John Dingell and Rep. Emanuel sharing paczki

The US House seat in the 5th District of Illinois was previously held by Rod Blagojevich, who chose not to run for re-election, but instead successfully ran for Governor of Illinois. Emanuel chose to run for this seat.

His strongest opponent of the seven other candidates in the 2002 Democratic primary — the real contest in this heavily Democratic district — was former Illinois State Representative Nancy Kaszak, who had unsuccessfully opposed Blagojevich in the 1996 primary. The most controversial moment of the primary election came when Edward Moskal, president of the Polish American Congress, a political action committee endorsing Kaszak, called Emanuel a "millionaire carpetbagger who knows nothing" about "our heritage." Moskal also falsely charged that Emanuel had dual citizenship with Israel and had served in the Israeli Army.[13]

Emanuel brought together a coalition of Chicago clergy to denounce the incident. He recalled, "One of the proudest moments of my life was seeing people of my district from all backgrounds demonstrate our common values by coming together in response to this obvious attempt to divide them."[10] Moskal's comments were denounced as anti-Semitic by many, including Kaszak.[13] Emanuel won the primary and easily defeated Republican candidate Mark Augusti in the general election.

Emanuel supported the October 2002 joint Congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq War, differentiating himself from all nine other Democratic members of the Illinois Congressional delegation (Sen. Richard Durbin, Reps. Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Bill Lipinski, Luis Gutiérrez, Danny K. Davis, Jan Schakowsky, Jerry Costello and Evans) elected in 2002.[14]

DCCC chairman

Emanuel was named the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2005. Prior to his work for Clinton, Emanuel had been an employee of the Committee, which principally serves to recruit candidates for the House and to raise funds to assist both new candidates and incumbents from the Democratic party in an effort to gain Democratic representation in the House.

He declared that in his new role "winning is everything", and he urged Democratic candidates to adopt more centrist positions. Emanuel was known to have had disagreements over Democratic election strategy with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. Dean favored a "50 state strategy", building support for the Democratic Party over the long term, while Emanuel believed a more tactical approach, focusing attention on key districts, was necessary to ensure victory.[15]

Ultimately the Democratic Party enjoyed considerable success in the 2006 elections, gaining 30 seats in the House. Emanuel has received considerable praise for his stewardship of the DCCC during this election cycle, even from Illinois Republican Rep. Ray LaHood who said "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."[16] Nevertheless, some of the 2006 victories came in areas that had trended strongly Republican in recent years (such as Nancy Boyda's defeat of Jim Ryun in Kansas) vindicating Dean's idea as well.

Emanuel still is close to Bill Clinton and as the chairman of the DCCC talked strategy with him at least once a month.[17] He declared in April 2006 that he would support Hillary Rodham Clinton should she pursue the presidency in 2008. However, Emanuel's loyalties came into conflict when his home-state senator Barack Obama expressed interest in the race; asked in January 2007 about his stance on the Democratic presidential nomination, he said: "I'm hiding under the desk. I'm very far under the desk, and I'm bringing my paper and my phone."[18]

House leadership

After his role in helping the Democrats to win the 2006 elections, Emanuel was believed to be a leading candidate for the position of Majority Whip. Nancy Pelosi, who became the next Speaker of the House, persuaded him not to challenge Jim Clyburn, but instead to succeed Clyburn in the role of Democratic Caucus Chairman. In return, Pelosi agreed to assign the caucus chair more responsibilities, including "aspects of strategy and messaging, incumbent retention, policy development and rapid-response communications".[19] Caucus vice-chair John Larson remained in this role instead of running for the chairman position.[20]

Emanuel's call to cut off Dick Cheney's executive branch funding of $4.8 million after Cheney asserted he did not fall within the bounds of orders set for the executive branch helped prompt Cheney's office to back down from the claim.[21]

White House

Rahm Emanuel will be the chief of staff under President Barack Obama.

Political views

During his original 2002 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."[10] Inspired by his pediatrician father, one of the major goals he spoke of during the race was "to help make health care affordable and available for all Americans."[10]

Emanuel has maintained a 100% pro-choice voting record and is generally liberal on social issues. He has aligned himself with the Democratic Leadership Council and the party's centrist wing, but is not among its more conservative members.

Rahm Emanuel endorses the United States Public Service Academy Act. Emanuel is one of the more prominent members endorsing the act.

Controversies

Speculation has been raised regarding the connection of Emanuel's Congressional election success to convicted former Chicago water department boss Don Tomczak.[22]

The newspaper USA Today reported in late January 2007 that Emanuel failed to disclose that he was an officer of a family charity [23], a violation of law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles.

Committee assignments

* Ways and Means Committee
o Subcommittee on Health
o Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures

Electoral history
U.S. House, 5th District of Illinois (General Election)
Year Winning candidate Party Pct Opponent Party Pct Opponent Party Pct
2002 Rahm Emanuel Democratic 67% Mark Augusti Republican 29% Frank Gonzalez Libertarian 4%
2004 Rahm Emanuel (inc.) Democratic 76% Bruce Best Republican 24%
2006 Rahm Emanuel (inc.) Democratic 78% Kevin White Republican 22%
2008 Rahm Emanuel (inc.) Democratic 74% Hanson Republican 22%

Personal life

His father, a pediatrician still practicing near Chicago, immigrated to the United States from Israel and spoke Hebrew with his son, when Emanuel was a boy. He is the brother of Ari Emanuel, a prominent talent agent and founder of the Endeavor Agency.

Emanuel lost part of his right middle finger to a meat slicer while an employee at Arby's as a teenager.

Emanuel's wife Amy Rule, a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, was non-practicing before converting to Orthodox Judaism around the same time as her wedding.[24] They are "active members of a modern Orthodox congregation, Anshe Shalom, in Chicago".[10] Amy is “heavily involved with the Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School in the Lakeview neighborhood of Chicago.”[10] They have three children, son Zacharias and daughters Ilana and Leah. The children attend "the Conservative Jewish day school, which Emanuel himself attended as a child". Rabbi Asher Lopatin of Anshe Sholom B'nai Israel Congregation, is quoted as saying: "It's a very involved Jewish family"; "Amy was one of the teachers for a class for children during the High Holidays two years ago."[10] Emanuel has said of his Judaism: "I am proud of my heritage and treasure the values it has taught me."[10] Emanuel's family lives on the North Side of Chicago, in the North Center neighborhood.[25]

Emanuel trains for and participates in triathlons.[8]

From work earlier in his career, Emanuel considers Mayor Richard M. Daley, Senator Paul Simon and President Bill Clinton to be his professional mentors. He considers his personal mentors to be his father and mother.[26]

Miscellaneous

Bradley Whitford's character Josh Lyman on NBC television series The West Wing is said to be based on Emanuel.[1]

He made a cameo appearance at the same restaurant as Josh Lyman in the 7th season episode "The Wedding."[citation needed]

His first name, Rahm, means "high" or "lofty" in Hebrew.[25] His last name, Emanuel, means "God is with us."

He has advised colleagues not to appear on the popular television show The Colbert Report.[27]

Works

* Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed, The Plan: Big Ideas for America, PublicAffairs Books of Perseus Books Group, August 2006, ISBN 1586484125. Information from publisher.

References

1. ^ a b c d e f g Joshua Green. "The Enforcer", Rolling Stone. Retrieved on Jan. 3, 2007
2. ^ EMANUEL ACCEPTS TOP SLOT IN OBAMA WH
3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_1930s
4. ^ Leon T. Hadar. "The Picture and the Spin", Journal of Palestine Studies, pp. Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter, 1994), pp. 84–94. Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
5. ^ Walsh, John (October 24, 2006). "The Book of Rahm", CounterPunch, p. D01. Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
6. ^ a b Elisabeth Bumiller (June 15, 1997). "The Brothers Emanuel", New York Times. Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
7. ^ a b Hendrix, Steve Fighting for The Spoils The Washington Post, October 22, 2006
8. ^ a b Nina Easton (October 2, 2006). "Rahm Emanuel: Rejuvenating the hopes of House Democrats", Fortune. Retrieved on Jan. 3, 2007
9. ^ Roger Simon, "The man who would be George: Rahm Emanuel, centrist of the universe", New Republic, February 3, 1997 (vol. 216 no 5 p17)
10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Eli Kintisch. "Newest Jewish U.S. Representative Makes Instant Impact", JTA. Retrieved on January 2, 2007
11. ^ Guardian Unlimited (2006). Former ballet dancer turned political fixer. Retrieved November 11, 2006.
12. ^ Easton, Nina (September 25, 2006). "[Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull politician Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull politician]", Fortune.
13. ^ a b Jodi Wilgoren, "Ethnic Comments Rattle Race for Congress", New York Times, March 6, 2002.
14. ^ Long, Karen (October 30, 2002). "Issues important in 5th District" (paid archive), Franklin Park Herald-Journal, p. 5.
15. ^ Allen and Bacon Jr., Mike and Perry (June 4, 2006). "Whose Party Is It Anyway?", Time.
16. ^ Wil Haygood (November 9, 2006). "Democratic 'Golden Boy' Rahm Emanuel, Basking In the Glow of Victory", Washington Post, p. C05. Retrieved on Jan. 3, 2007
17. ^ Nina Easton (October 2, 2006). "Rahm Emanuel: Rejuvenating the hopes of House Democrats", Fortune. Retrieved on January 3, 2007
18. ^ Mike Dorning (19 January 2007). "Rahm Emanuel's Great Loyalty Test", Chicago Tribune. Retrieved on 21 January 2007.
19. ^ Hearns, Josephine. (November 9, 2006). "House Dems strike leadership deal.", The Hill.. Accessed January 21, 2007.
20. ^ Babington and Weisman, Charles and Jonathan (November 10, 2006). "Reid, Pelosi Expected to Keep Tight Rein in Both Chambers", The Washington Post.
21. ^ Mike Allen, "Dems force Cheney to flip-flop on secret docs", Politico blog, June 27, 2007, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4679.html
22. ^ Kass, John (November 22, 2006). "Emanuel makes a point of airing peeve", The Chicago Tribune.
23. ^ USA Today
24. ^ The House that Rahm Built - chicagotribune.com
25. ^ a b Hillel Kuttler, The view from the top, Jerusalem Post, (original article abstract), July 1, 1997
26. ^ Ammeson, Jane (2007-08-14). "The Smart Strategist", Chicago Life.
27. ^ The Colbert Show, Stephen Colbert calls Rahm Emanuel out on the pressure, poking fun at Emanuals missing finger in return. June 04, 2007, Minute 11

7)The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace: What must our enemies be thinking?
By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.


According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."


To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

8)I Vote No Confidence in Congress: If we raise trade barriers, subsidize Detroit and enable union bullying, we're in for a long recession.
By HARVEY GOLUB


It's the day after a historic election and I can't help but worry. I'm one of those people who are pessimistic about the near- and medium-term prospects for our financial markets and our economy.

I'm not pessimistic about our country or our capitalist system: They are not the problem. I am pessimistic about whether our next president and the savants in Congress can deal with the massive economic issues we face.
[Commentary] AP

Members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation or yesterday's results, will continue to meddle in matters beyond their knowledge. In doing so they will exacerbate our current economic downturn and delay the recovery of our financial markets.

In recent months, Congress has displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of how our economy and our financial markets actually work. Members believe they can say a bank is likely to become insolvent and that will not lead to a run on the bank, or say a major insurance company is in trouble and not have insurance stocks tank. They believe they can extend a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) beyond its charter and not have every institution under the sun try to get what they believe is cheap capital.

Most significantly, although Congress is a large cause of the collapse of the home-mortgage market (witness the folly of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), members believe the markets are too stupid to recognize Congress's culpability and will maintain confidence in Congress's ability to resolve the financial crisis.

To restore confidence in the markets, Congress needs to demonstrate that it understands the nature of the problem it is trying to solve. Moving from TARP and the legislation needed to attack the liquidity and credit problems, it is beginning to address the foreclosure problem by "helping people stay in their homes," and to increase economic activity by "stimulating the economy." This sort of language does not bode well for a swift recovery.

The most fundamental economic problem we face as a nation is overleveraging -- by our financial institutions, yes, but also by individual consumers and homeowners. In effect, we owe more than we can either repay or what is supported by the assets underlying our debt.

The recent rise in foreclosure rates is fundamentally related to falling home prices, rather than a change in peoples' ability to pay those mortgages. The bubble bursting was inevitable, and consequently those foreclosures were bound to occur at some point. Many people took out loans to buy homes without having the earnings necessary to support those loans. They believed that housing values would continue to rise at record rates. And now that the bubble's burst, under our bankruptcy system, they are able to walk away with relatively little inconvenience.

A great many of these people bought homes on spec, never actually living in them; many bought them without any verification of their capacity to repay; some did so fraudulently; and others had no skin in the game (otherwise known as a down payment) or with negatively amortized mortgages. Imagine if I told you I'll sell you a $10,000 block of stock with no money down, a low interest rate for the next five years, and you could walk away at any time with my only recourse being to take back the stock. Of course, I wouldn't worry much either, because I would have securitized the loan and sold it to Fannie Mae or some other financial institution. This is exactly, in substance, what many people did.

Meanwhile, others saved up a 20% down payment, bought a house they could afford and are paying their mortgage. They paid more because millions were buying houses they couldn't afford, serving to drive up prices. Some of these people have had a serious downturn in their economic circumstances. Others delayed buying their home because they couldn't afford it. These are the people who deserve our sympathy.

Why did institutions make the loans? Clearly, they were poor at assessing risk or thought the party would never end. But they were also encouraged by Congress and regulators to make these loans, at the same time Congress was encouraging Fannie and Freddie to buy these loans. In Barney Frank's immortal words, spoken back in 2003: "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing."

The solution to this problem is simply stated: Home values have to reach a market-clearing level. At that level, new people who can afford those houses will buy. Over time the available inventory will get absorbed and new construction will start, even in the most difficult states of Nevada, California, Florida, Georgia and Michigan. With a growing economy, asset values will ultimately rise. The issue is: How do we get the economy growing again?

Government needs to do two things. First, provide enough liquidity so that the capital markets continue to function. This is not a bailout, or shouldn't be. It is maintaining markets so the broader economy can function. A lot of what is needed in that arena is already being done through the TARP legislation.

Second, Congress needs to promote economic growth -- and the fastest and surest way to do so is to cut the marginal rates on corporate and individual income taxes, and to maintain lower levels of taxation on capital. These measures will guarantee investment spending will occur, creating jobs and generating wealth.

Congress and our next president have to explain to Americans that the cost of corporate taxes is ultimately borne by workers and consumers -- not corporations. In addition, they need to explain that high corporate tax rates stifle job growth and reduce the attractiveness of the U.S. as a place to invest. In short, we need a corporate tax rate significantly lower than the current 35%, which is the second highest in the developed world.

We must also realize that consumers have to reduce their spending levels to get their debt under control. Growth in debt must be slower than growth in people's earnings until this control is achieved. During this period of adjustment, consumer spending will be a less important part of total economic growth than has been historically the case. Since we are a consumer-driven economy, and that consumer drive has been significantly fueled by debt -- in mortgages, second mortgages and personal credit lines -- it will take time to bring down consumers' leverage to the point that spending growth can occur on a consistent basis. However, the sooner we see underlying economic growth, the sooner this adjustment will occur.

How can we tell if Congress begins to understand its role in causing the problem and what it must do to help solve it? Here are some signs:

- If Congress passes a stimulus package that simply gives people money -- like this year's $168 billion stimulus package, which was mostly rebates -- they don't get it. Rebates will not stimulate the economy and will not solve the underlying problem.

- If Congress tries to "help" the people who cannot afford the house they are in, be assured that we are wasting money and delaying the recovery. (Banks can decide better whether to foreclose or make a deal far better than any governmental entity.)

- If Congress forces the Treasury to provide cheap equity to companies which are solvent, or to automobile companies because of the debt owed unions in a politically important state, or if it continues with politically motivated spending, all of us will suffer a long and deep recession.

- If Congress raises marginal tax rates and erects trade barriers, and makes it easier for unions to organize without secret ballot through "card check" legislation, then the recession will be even longer and deeper.

It is my belief that comparisons between the current crisis and the Great Depression are generally overblown. However, if Congress does indeed do these things and meddles where it shouldn't, we could find ourselves back in the 1930s.