|
Brain -> Rahm Emanuel takes heat over Dana Milbank column (2/23/2010 12:34:04 PM)
|
I am looking forward to the day when Rahm Emanuel no longer advises Obama. Anyone who was or is involved in obstructing healthcare legislation needs to leave. Obama needs to deliver the change he promised during the election campaign if he wants Democrats to do well in the future elections. We need to have universal healthcare like every other civilized industrialized society in the world because right now we are paying twice as much money for half the value.
Rahm Emanuel takes heat over Dana Milbank column
Critics left and right are accusing Rahm Emanuel of disloyalty-by-proxy after Dana Milbank column in Sunday’s Washington Post defended the White chief of staff – while trashing reputed Emanuel rivals Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs.
There’s not a shred of proof that Emanuel fed Milbank the Rahm-friendly intel included in the piece – or that he was the source of a tart comparison of President Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter. And in fact, Milbank said Monday in a live chat on the Post website that he didn’t speak to Emanuel for the piece.
“I didn't talk to Rahm for this column, or for anything else recently. His people were also disinclined to help me with this column, out of fear of just the reaction that would occur: people would suggest he spoon fed it to me,” Milbank said.
But critics from MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough to widely-read D.C. blogger Steve Clemons see telltale signs of Emanuel’s involvement.
On Monday’s “Morning Joe,” Scarborough, an Emanuel opponent of long standing, all but accused him of blaming Obama for not following his advice to move ahead more aggressively on jobs and recovery bills after health reform stalled in the Senate.
"Dana Milbank wrote a story where he said: 'If only the president had followed Rahm everything would be okay.' It certainly sounds like Rahm was leaking like a sieve to Dana Milbank,” said Scarborough. “It appears that Rahm has become quite promiscuous in telling anybody who will listen to him about how he tried to coach the president."
He added: “Rahm was right, but it's also Rahm's job to keep his mouth shut. Well it is, to serve the president and keep his mouth shut."
The reaction from Democrats was swifter and less measured, with many progressives still blaming Emanuel for counseling the president to ditch the public option on health care reform – and smarting over the revelation that the chief of staff called liberal attacks against moderate lawmakers “F—-ing retarded.”
"Wow, what a hatchet job on Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod!" wrote Huffington Post contributor Cenk Uygur, host of the syndicated “Young Turks” podcast.
Emanuel’s spokesman declined comment.
But a Democrat close to Emanuel said the profane, energetic and reporter-friendly former Illinois congressman would never have been stupid enough use Milbank as a conduit for his self-defense, simply because it would provoke precisely the kind of firestorm it kicked off over the weekend.
“He’s just not that f—-ing dumb,” said the Democrat, channeling Emanuel’s lexicon.
Still, Emanuel couldn’t have mounted a more articulate defense than if he had penned the Milbank column – bluntly titled “Why Obama needs Rahm at the top” – himself.
Pg 2
The key paragraph contained high praise for Emanuel – at the expense of his boss: “Obama’s first year fell apart in large part because he didn’t follow his chief of staff’s advice on crucial matters. Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter.”
In the piece, the longtime Post politics watcher portrays a White House filled with Obama’s Chicagoland sycophants, and idealists veering the White House dangerously off to the left – with Emanuel the only forceful voice of pragmatism and moderation.
Milbank, who has written about Emanuel for years, is particularly tough on senior advisers Jarrett and David Axelrod, and Gibbs, the press secretary.
“Contrast Emanuel's wisdom with that of Jarrett, in charge of "intergovernmental affairs and public engagement" -- two areas of conspicuous failure, Milbank writes. “Jarrett also brought in Desiree Rogers as White House social secretary; the Salahi embarrassment ensued. Then there's Gibbs. It's hard to make the case that you're a post-partisan president when your on-camera spokesman is a hyper-partisan former campaign flack.
Milbank also offered some personnel advice to those who call for Emanuel’s scalp as compensation for the derailing of reform efforts.
“No wonder Emanuel has set up his own small press operation and outreach function to circumvent the dysfunctional ones that Jarrett and Gibbs run,” he wrote. “Obama needs an old Washington hand to replace Jarrett and somebody with gravitas on the podium to step in for Gibbs.
Clemons, who writes the widely read Washington Note blog, saw a direct line between Milbank and Emanuel -- evidenced by Milbank’s access to insider details of Emanuel’s interactions with the president and top staff.
“Let's set aside for another post the fact that Milbank's column seems to channel Rahm directly. The piece conveys a detailed knowledge of what exactly Rahm advised Obama to do -- and how exactly Obama allegedly rebuffed Emanuel,” he wrote on Sunday.
“So, Rahm, or Milbank on his behalf, seems to be appealing to President Obama to just listen to Rahm more and all will be well…But then Milbank jumps on the bandwagon of those he starts his piece rebuffing and suggests that the White House dump Gibbs, Axelrod, and Jarrett.”
Emanuel, who is one of the most accessible and quotable chiefs of staff in recent history, has made little secret that he was considering departing the White House before the end of Obama’s first term. But liberals who have long viewed him as a centrist fox in a progressive hen house want him out a lot sooner – believing that his departure would embolden the president.
“It looks Rahm Emanuel is done. Dana Milbank transcribed an article written by Rahm Emanuel today in The Washington Post,” Uygur wrote. “Never has an article been more clearly written to support a political benefactor.”
Milbank does add this thought, in the Post live chat: “It's worth noting that nobody seems to be questioning the argument itself in a serious way, which I take to be a good sign.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33276_Page2.html#ixzz0gNzukd9O
|
|
|
|
