Netroots = Sharpton?

August 24, 2006

DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel sat down with New York magazine for an interview that was published this week. One exchange in particular stood out.

NY: Are bloggers too powerful?

RE: Do I think they’re important? Yes. Do I think the [bloggers] and Al Sharpton alone are the future of the Democratic Party? No! Welcome in, contribute, but it’s about winning in November and moving the country forward, not about a firing squad in a circle.

Now, I have a vague appreciation for the idea that circular firing squads should be avoided, and I can certainly understand the DCCC chair focusing all of his energies on “winning in November,” but a) I think the blogs are very much a part of the future of the party; and b) equating blogs with Sharpton isn’t the way to nurture a productive relationship between Dem leaders and the netroots.

Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi explained just how dumb Emanuel’s comments sounded. (via Avedon Carol)

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public. So instead of telling big, bold whoppers right out in the open, they’re forever coming out with backhanded little asides like this one, apparently in the hope that only your subconscious will notice. I won’t be surprised if they respond to the next electoral loss by a DLC candidate by having Bruce Reed argue in the Wall Street Journal that “bloggers, Queer Eye, and Arabs with syphilis are not the future of the Democratic Party.”

Then there is the phrase, “Welcome in, contribute, but . . . ”

Welcome in? What is this, a political party, or a house in the fu**ing Hamptons? Who died and made these people gatekeepers to anything?

What Emanuel appears to be saying here is that “bloggers” — by which he really means “people who voted against Lieberman” — are welcome to “contribute,” but not welcome to actually decide elections. In other words, we’ll take your votes, but we’ll decide who you vote for. An admirable sentiment for an elected official. How is it that these people have avoided being pitchforked to death for this long?

Now, the truth is, I kind of like Rahm. I think he did a great job in the Clinton White House; I think DCCC recruiting has been very strong this cycle; and I think Rahm has positioned House Dems (through fundraising and other means) to possibly take back the chamber in November. I’ve even been on a couple of conference calls with him, during which he expressed at least some interest in what bloggers had to say.

But Taibbi’s criticism has merit — and Rahm’s comments about the netroots suggests his approach to the party’s base still has a ways to go.

“How is it that these people have avoided being pitchforked to death for this long?”

If you want to see how “good” Rahm Emmanuel and the rest of the Clintonista scum are, go read David Sirota’s book “Hostile Takeover.”

These people are “Democrats” the way the Bushies are “conservatives.” In other words, “not much.”

  • I view it sort of like some the “business community” — they are all for “free markets” and “competition” but when it but what they really want is regulation for the other guy — and they especially want to keep any newcomers with new idea out.

    Its funny, when I read the quote I took “contribute to” as being “we’ll take your money but don’t expect to have any say”

    The only way to combat this is to have lots of netroots candidates win — they we will be the party and the DLC’ers can go … well, you get the idea.

  • Okay,

    Take a breath Taibbi.

    There is nothing wrong with being ‘associated’ with Al Sharpton in that sentence. If the general premise of the question is about Joe Lieberman losing the Connecticut Primary, well, Sharpton was there from the start working for Lamont and he gets some credit for Joe’s ignomious defeat 😉

    Emanuel should be more careful. I agree. He’s just giving ammunition to the Republican’ts. But it does not seem nearly as Atwaterish as he protrays it. And in the end, if Taibbi doesn’t like Emanuel, back a candidate against him for the nomination in two years.

    And I’m not sure we netroots are really the party’s base.

  • Great. An representative of the party establishment that hasn’t been relevant to the national debate since — oh, say — 1994 gives a lecture on how to win elections. And in a backhanded and condescending manner no less.

    Beyond retaining his own seat, it remains to be seen if Emanuel knows how to win elections on a national scale. But for a party that struggles and scrapes for vote every single election cycle pissing off the people who seem the most passionate and the most fired up about the party and politics in general seems to be a pretty piss poor move.

  • There is a certain sad irony in a member of party leadership warning against “circular firing squads” even as he pulls the trigger on a round aimed not at the opposing party, but at a great source of new energy and vitality in his own.

    Like Steve, there are a lot of things I like about Rahm, but often I think his temperment and mouth could use a little work. The real issue, however, is much bigger than just Rahm. The party needs to come to terms with/accept/figure out how to maximize the benefits of its own netroots rather than saying, in essence, “I’ll slander that which I cant control.”

  • How is it that Emanuel isn’t engaging in a circular firing squad with this? Is he not taking shots at bloggers and Al Sharpton? Of course he is. So what the hell is he talking about?

    And yeah, I’ve been voting Democrat far longer than I had ever heard of blogs, this guy really doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Imagine if Bush publicly treated the fruitcakes on the far right this way. He does little to actually help them, but he at least has enough respect for them to pay them lip service and understand what they want. Emanuel, on the other hand, sounds more like he’d prefer that I give up the blogging all together. I didn’t mind what he said, but he really shouldn’t have implied that we’re not moving forward or in a firing squad. And again, that’s perfect firing squad behavior.

  • First of all, Sharpton is a schmuck. Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way …

    I’m not so sure this is an insult by Rahm. I see it more as a way to distance Dem leadership (and thus, the party itself) from left-wing bloggers that are constantly being labeled as “radical” by the right and even the media. Now, whehter they are or not isn’t the issue.

    Politics (from what I can tell as an outsider) seems to be about 90%+ public relations (and as someone who works in PR, I know a thing or two about that). And, unfortunately, PR is often just about image (I think it should be about openess, honesty and transparency, but that’s for another thread).

    This seems more as a way to craft an image that the DCCC is not beholden to bloggers and, thus, is not being controlled by a bunch of “radicals” who want to move the party more to the left.

    Just my $.02 … keep the change.

  • I just don’t think people like Emanuel really understand the power of the net-roots movement. He is foolish to dis Al Sharpton and the people who are crying for a voice in the future of this country. Most of us have turned to the internet in desperation because of sloppy journalism in the MSM. In the last six years our nation has experienced a power grab that is unprecedented. Are we supposed to relax and let the Democratic leadership take care of It? Or our vigorous free press? Our so-called leaders are pretending not to notice. Abe Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, so we should ignore what is happening, right? Except Lincoln was experiencing a REAL WAR and he really did not know who the enemy was. I am ashamed of Emanuel because he is out of touch and he is embarrasing himself. He should be embracing the net-roots people, not treating them as “other”. We have more to contribute than a few dollars.

  • Not a Matt Taibbi fan. Not at all. He’s one of those progressive types who gets off on snark and on bashing democrats.

    I know, that’s not cause to disregard everything he says, but it’s enough for me to read anything he writes with more than a dollop of suspicion. What is his agenda?

  • Leave it to Cleaver to Ready Aim Fire with that circular firing squad. Clintonistas were scum? John Kerry was a “goddamn” something or other? There needs to be a support group for self-hating Dems.

  • The Connecticut Primary has put the fear of accountability into every elected official no matter what party they belong to. Right or wrong, many of them attribute Lamont’s success to blogs. To avoid the same fate some seem content to try to undermine blogs’ power, but I imagine those who rally against them will find a fate similar to Lieberman.

    The revolution will be blogged.

  • The correct answer to the question would have been:

    “Bloggers are not powerful enough. The People are not powerful enough in our democracy, and bloggers are the People, or a part of them. Power to the People.”

    Instead, RE immediately forms the very circular firing squad of which he complains, and fires round 1, as the Doctors says.

    But, THE problem is not that RE misunderestimates the blogs, it is that he misunderestimates the state of the country and the state of democracy. This is not a problem of someone missing a technology trend, it is a problem of someone not fully appreciating how destructive and dangerous the ascendance of the Right has been. Neither the blogs nor Al Sharpton should be anywhere near as alarming to RE as Bush, Tom DeLay, or the K Street project.

  • Rahm’s comments perpetuate a growing set of misunderstandings about blogs:
    -Blogs are not a unfied front on any issue nor do they speak with a common voice. They are a vehicle for expressing the multitude of different opinions out there.
    – Blog authors do not lead their readers around my the nose and tell them what to do.
    – Blogs are a way of disseminating information not widely available through many mainstream information outlets. Rahm would be wise to use this conduit as a positive resource.
    -Rahm Emmanuel can start his own blog if he wants to espouse whatever viewpoint he wishes to express.

    Unholy Moses made a good observation that Rahm may be trying to distance Dem leadership from what the right paints as the radical mob of the left. So be it. But I agree with most of the other posts that the blogs are perceived as boys trying to play a man’s game and we should just fall in line behind the adults like Rahm and do what he says. Sorry, but business as usual hasn’t gotten it done in the last two elections and if Rahm can’t get the nation fired up for change bloggers will.

  • Uhh, Rahm didn’t say that blogs are too powerful. He was asked whether he thought they were too powerful, and his response was that they’re important, but don’t alone represent the future of the party. Therefore, his answer basically was – “No, you idiot, they’re not too powerful. They’re a good tool, but it’s not the entirety of the democratic party.”

    Which is the truth.

  • Emanuel might need to do a little polling in his own party. In that interview, he says: “If at any point in time [Lieberman had] said, ‘I am for the war, but it has been conducted poorly and I want people held accountable who conducted it,’ he never would have had a primary.”

    WTF? You are kidding, right? Lieberman said all those things. This is pure BS.

    There is animosity between him and the bloggers because the bloggers are NOT “for the war” and DON’T want to give Israel a pass on collective punishment of civilians. When Maliki complained about Israel blowing the crap out of Lebanon, Rahm and his buddies did their best to slap him down.

    I think Mr Emanuel needs to go. Democrats are virtually united in their views on Iraq, and he thinks Lieberman would have won hands down even if he remained “for the war”, if only he had said a few words about tactics and accountability.

  • Couple of questions:
    1. Is this primarily a Democratic blog?
    2. How many of you who identify yourselves as Democrats are actually active in the Democratic Party, locally, nationally, whatever?

    I am a bit confused by all this. How many of the bloggers actually can be relied on by the Democrats to actually walk the talk when it comes to putting in volunteer efforts to put Democrats into office? It is one thing to voice support by commenting on the blogs, but quite another to be active in the Party. Does Rahm view bloggers as being outside the circle? How many bloggers really want to be inside the circle?

  • From Chris Bowers’ review of the upcoming screed, er, I mean “book” by Bruce Reed and Rahm Emmanuel:

    “In just a few paragraphs, Reed and Emanuel manage to reinforce virtually every anti-Democratic narrative in existence. We have no new ideas, we don’t stand for anything, we are equally to blame for polarized politics, we have been taken over by the angry left, conservatism is the only good ideology, Democrats won’t do any better, our predecessors expanded government too much, and maverick John McCain is the only hope for unifying this country. And so our national image as a party is completely destroyed.”

    Remind me again that these Clinton/DLC scum are “Democrats”???

  • “Abe Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, so we should ignore what is happening, right? Except Lincoln was experiencing a REAL WAR and he really did not know who the enemy was.” – Gracious

    Actually, I think Abe Lincoln knew exactly who was the enemy ( the Maryland Legislature ) and he locked them up with out access to Habeas Corpus because he did not want to lose another state to the Confederacy.

  • Uhh, Rahm didn’t say that blogs are too powerful. He was asked whether he thought they were too powerful, and his response was that they’re important, but don’t alone represent the future of the party. Therefore, his answer basically was – “No, you idiot, they’re not too powerful. They’re a good tool, but it’s not the entirety of the democratic party.”

    I’ll agree on that. The point of contention, however, is Emanuel tries to paint the “netroots” as part of the loony left with the Al Sharpton brush. His meaning is quite clear: These are people to be marginalized. I’m surprised he didn’t add Michael Moore was fat.

  • My two cents is that Unholy Moses got Emanual’s message right: Democrats are not (don’t want to appear) joined at the hip with those left-wing, “radical” bloggers.

    Regardless, we all know that the kool ade and party-line obedience are as big as the Pacific Ocean on the right-side of the blogosphere.

  • Lou: I have been a Democrat for most of my adult life, but I am not afraid to vote for a Republican if I believe that is the most worthy candidate. As for being active as a Democrat, I work full time so I am not able to knock on doors. I personally sent John kerry (certainly not my first choice for the nomination) hundreds of dollars over several months during the last election cycle. I campained actively for Clinton urging friends and relatives to vote for him. What are your criteria for being a good democrat.

  • Gracious,
    Not sure I can define a good democrat. But I do wonder how many bloggers are actively engaged in the humdrum of party activities at the local, state and national level. Do they attend county or precinct meetings? Do they knock on doors? Do they march in parades? Do they make cold phone calls? Do they call for contributions?

    Judging by the amount of times that I have seen some of the familiar names on this and other blogs, I do wonder if the time spent blogging could not be better spent in actively getting involved in party politics? I am not actively involved myself, so I do not write this as criticism. But at some stage, I just wonder how much of this blogging is really a huge waste of time, or to be more generous, a huge opportunity cost in the sense of distracting us from potentially more productive activities. I mean, how many more times to we have to state that Bush and Iraq are major fuck ups?

  • I’m not sure blogging and “real world” nuts and bolts politicking are competing with one another. I suspect some people vent here and lose that steam and don’t do anything else. I also suspect some people come here, learn about something that fires them up and go do more than they otherwise would have. My guess is most people are in between: they do a little of both. But even for those folks, I would suspect having a community supportive of their ideas and ideals is beneficial.

    For the record, as I post here quite a bit, the real impediment to doing more political work is my job, not this blog. That said, I have in the past been a precinct committee member, on the state platform committee, organized a college campus group for a candidate, worked in both unpaid and paid positions in statewide and congressional races, was a precinct captain for Dean, a poll monitor (“voting rights legal team”) for Kerry, and have written more checks than I can afford to Democratic candidates from the most local county office to President. Though I will say, Lou, I’m not sure which way that cuts viz your post — you may have been saying bloggers are at their best when they are outside of the circle as an independent voice. I am not outside the circle and i tend to believe one can get much more done inside the circle – as my occasional dust-ups re Nader and third-parties likely gives away.

  • Bruce Wilder wrote:
    The correct answer to the question would have been:

    “Bloggers are not powerful enough. The People are not powerful enough in our democracy, and bloggers are the People, or a part of them. Power to the People.”

    Boy, I wish we had someone who would actually talk like that.

    • Comments are closed.