RAHM EMANUEL MAY BE A TERRIBLE CONGRESSMAN BUT HE SURE KNOWS HOW TO PLAY FOOTSIE WITH THE MASS MEDIA-- & WITH A BOTTOM FEEDER LIKE RYAN LIZZA

I couldn't wait to go on my vacation. I was so burned out by the middle of November and I was so lucky that Ken decided to fill in for me (again). All I wanted to do was lose myself in the vast remoteness of Tierra del Fuego and forget politics. I think it was maybe a week before I started sending Ken news clippings that I thought he might want to consider for stories. It was probably 3 weeks before I actually wrote one myself. One of the smartest political observers in the country, David Sirota, is on vacation now too. But that didn't stop him from sending us a head's up on a Rahm story he just did based on an article that he said nauseated him on the plane while he was reading it. (What David was expecting to find from New Republic shiteater Ryan Lizza, this time in GQ, I'm not certain-- although he certainly wouldn't be the first progressive masochist I know and admire.) I can't tell you how disappointed I was to get back to the country and see that Emanuel still hasn't resigned from Congress after his role in the Foley child molestation case came to light.

If you've spent any time at all looking at DWT you probably know that there are no Rahm Emanuel fans here. I won't go so far as to say he's public enemy #1; after all, there are Republicans out there and some of them are even worse than Emanuel-- although few are as dangerous to progressive values and principles as the slimy, craven, disgraceful Emanuel.

The GQ piece is the kind of ass kissing fantasy that Emanuel has been a master of-- like his nonsensical stories about losing a finger fighting Syrian tanks on the Golan Heights; he actually lost it because it got infected after an accident at a deli when he didn't bother to clean himself. He may not make much of a real fighter but he certainly knows how to wrap insecure pissants like Lizza around his little finger. As usual, Sirota hits the nail right on the head:

Similarly, that Rahm happened to be head of the DCCC in 2006 doesn't make him the MVP of the 2006 election (or, as Lizza froths, the Kingmaker of the Democratic Party) - and it certainly doesn't negate the simple truth that this man did much within his power to lose the election, thanks to his generally unprincipled hackishness on most major issues including, of course, war and peace. No matter how much the Ryan Lizzas of the world inevitably translate their own personal need to feel loved by Serious People, the very clear facts show that this election was not some validation of Rahm Emanuel, his lack of ideology, or his self-serving Clintonite comrades now pathetically trying to retain their relevance. It was exactly the opposite - a rejection of those factors, because Democrats won in spite of them.

Sirota writes Lizza off as a fabricating "power-worshipping Beltway journalist," but it's important to remember that Emanuel has effectively controlled the mass media's perception of the Democratic Party, Pelosi's #1 failing so far as Speaker, especially considering that he's used this to clobber her again and again. He does this through a self-generated perception of power, perpetrated by pet quasi-journalists like Lizza. You want to share in Sirota's nausea? Read the whole GQ puff piece, "Kiss The Ass Ring."

"He's the new kingmaker of the Democratic party. The man who handpicked candidates, twisted arms, crushed dissent, and delivered the nation from one-party rule. So what does the Clinton vet and former ballet dancer plan to do with all that power?" Were Lizza an actual journalist instead of Emanuel's fluffer, he might point out that most of Emanuel's handpicked candidates lost and that most of the Democrats who did win were not supported by Emanuel. But that would be contrary to Lizza's preordained storyline and not in whatever interests he is seeking to advance.

A real journalist might also look a little more deeply into Emanuel's contention that he was somehow a champion of anti-Iraq war feeling when he was opposing-- and in some cases crushing-- candidates because they were against the war. On the other hand, a psychiatrist might want to look at why the ex-ballet dancer is always trying to paint a persona of a street thug and macho tough guy.

One of the most disconcerting paragraphs among all Lizza's puffery was some bragging by an Emanuel DCCC Lapp-dog about how ole Rahm would take over the Democratic House caucus. "The Democratic caucus under Rahm," says Lapp, "will be like a DCCC on the Hill." That's bad news because Emanuel is a loser. As Sirota points out, "by any objective analysis, Rahm Emanuel was the beneficiary of being in the right place at the right time. His targeting and rejection of the 50-state
strategy proved to be a fairly horrific failure-- many of his most highly-touted candidates lost, and he didn't put resources into some of the races that ended up being the closest Democratic losses in the
country. Put another way, Democrats won in spite of Rahm's targeting and-- as this blog post shows-- also in spite of his critical early advice on the issue that swung the election. I mean, this is a guy who was the architect of NAFTA and yet is now taking credit for an election where Democratic candidates’ opposition to NAFTA provided the margin of the new congressional majority."

I wish I had even a hint that Nancy Pelosi is finally paying attention to the fact that there's a vicious, powermad little snake in her bosom.