The History Of The Obama Administration Was Set With His Choice Of Rahm Emanuel As Co-President

DWT started in 2005 with the intention of looking into the five most corrupt politicians in America: Duke Cunningham, now in prison, Bob Ney, who served a short prison sentence since then, Tom DeLay, who was indicted and driven from Congress (and still has charges pending), Jerry Lewis, who managed to get two consecutive U.S. Attorneys fired and still sits in Congress enriching himself, and Rahm Emanuel, currently serving as unelected co-president of the United States and ruining the dreams millions of Americans had invested in Obama (the elected co-president).

A few weeks ago, after years in the wilderness warning everyone I could about the danger of Ayn Rand fanatic Paul Ryan, I felt a sense of vindication when Paul Krugman pointed out that that little Wall Street choice for emperor had no clothes. I guess I felt vindicated because Paul has the biggest, sharpest brain in town. This morning he turned that brain on Rahm, or, to be precise, Rahmism, the governing philosophy of the Administration whose "Hope and Change" slogan caused so many of us to vote it into power (before Obama pulled back the curtain and showed us what was waiting inside). Krugman never mention's Emanuel's name and, except for the title, you have to read between the lines to understand he's even talking about this particular villain.

Jon Cohn’s post about what the administration may be considering, and what it isn’t considering, makes we want to cry.

Look: early on the administration had a political theory: it would win bipartisan legislative victories, and each success would make Republicans who voted no feel left out, so that they would vote for the next initiative, and so on. (By the way, read that article and weep: “The massive resistance Republicans posed to Clinton in 1993 is impossible to imagine today.” They really believed that.)

This theory led to a strategy of playing it safe: never put forward proposals that might fail to pass, avoid highlighting the philosophical differences between the parties. There was never an appreciation of the risks of having policies too weak to do the job.

And then it led the administration to keep claiming that the legislation it had gotten through was just right, long past the point when it was obvious that the policies were inadequate.

And they’re still doing it. This is crazy: when you’re well down in the polls, minimal steps that won’t move the economy and won’t grab voters’ imagination are just a way of guaranteeing a devastating defeat.

I can understand why the people who persuaded Obama to go for the capillaries might still be claiming that they have the right strategy; but I don’t understand why Obama is still listening to them.

Personnel is policy. Hilda Solis was a great pick for Secretary of Labor. I'm sure willing to believe there are a couple of other good ones; how could there not be? But mostly what we have are Wall Street shills like Emanuel, Tiny Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers. I am so, so eager for the day that Krugman writes in his column that he does understand why Obama is still listening to Emanuel and the rest of the Wall Street team inside his Administration.