Does Rahm's Foley Lie Matter?
by Matt Stoller, Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:44:03 AM EST
So surprise surprise, it turns out that Rahm Emanuel was lying about whether he knew anything about the Foley emails or IMs when he went on ABC's This Week at the height of the scandal. Sorry to move to come late to the party in terms of commenting on what I think might turn out to be a somewhat significant story. I don't like what Rahm did here. I don't think he had to do it, and I think he was wrong to do it. I'm not naive, of course. In politics you have to accept a certain level of cynicism in terms of the political operatives that run campaigns and the party. Dirty campaigning is an art, and it's more often than not the case that your side has to deal with people that are unseemly or lack integrity.
I just can't though let Congressman Emanuel's behavior pass without comment, so I'm going to quote Glenn Greenwald.
It's possible that the Democratic takeover of Congress can result in genuine and meaningful -- and desperately-needed -- change for our country. But it's also possible that it could result in nothing notable, that it will produce only the most marginal and politically risk-free actions, all justified by the need not to do anything too "extreme" due to a fear of harming their 2008 electoral prospects.Which course Democrats take will be determined by whether they are guided by political figures committed to genuine change due to a conviction that such change is needed (even if that means incurring some political risks), or whether they are driven by cynical, exclusively political and dishonest Beltway operatives like Rahm Emanuel.
To compete with Republicans, Democrats need not only political idealists, but also calculating strategists who are devoted to winning. That's fair enough. But they also need to enforce some (at least) minimal ethical standards if they are to avoid becoming indistinguishable from the rotted and corrupt GOP tyrants who were just so deservedly tossed out of power. Rahm Emanuel seems to fall well below even those most minimal standards.
One of the main arguments that progressives must make to a cynical electorate is that both parties are not the same, that Democrats hold ourselves to high ethical standards and can be trusted to run the country. It's much harder to make this argument when people like Emanuel are highly regarded figures with esteem and power within the Democratic Party even as they cynically lie to a national audience.
There is the argument that he had to do this to win, that he had no choice but to lie to crush the Republican brand. But is that really plausible? Did Emanuel have to go on TV that day? Was there no other way to handle the Foley scandal? More to the point, was the Foley scandal the only reason the Democrats won?
I don't think we can conclusively answer these questions, but if you look at exit polls Iraq figured as large as corruption in the public mind, and clarity on Iraq - which Emanuel fought for months - has to be considered an incredibly important factor. But I'm not trying to prove that he did or didn't do a good job at the DCCC. We did after all capture Congress. What is very clear is that the level of cynicism and credibility that Democrats deserve from the electorate will ultimately relate to the level of integrity and honesty with which we conduct ourselves. And in that sense, Rahm is a problem.
Tags: Foley Case, George Stephanopoulos, rahm emanuel, This Week (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
12 Comments