[Peace-discuss] Impeachment

[Chuck Minne]

I suspect that the people who supplied the money to finance the Democrats in their victories are little different (if not the same) from those who support the Republicans and our everlasting dedication to making war. The whole mess is just too profitable to give up. The trick is to throw the voters a bone now and then. I further suspect that impeachment is a bone that they figure we don't, and will not, need. They call the tune.
   
  CounterPunch

Weekend Edition

November 11/12, 2006

THE WAR LOSES, VOTERS WIN

RAHM'S LOSERS

By JOHN V. WALSH

http://www.counterp unch.org/ walsh11112006. html

( http://tinyurl. com/y9ehof )

Now that the Democrats have won the House overwhelmingly, 

the media is falling all over itself to proclaim Rahm 

Emanuel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign 

Committee, and dearest friend of Israel, a boy genius. 

Even that congenital liar and close friend of Ariel Sharon, 

the ever tendentious NYT neocon William Safire, came 

out of retirement to hail Rahm as the Karl Rove of the 

Dems and to spin the election in various ways designed 

to keep Emanuel's influence alive.

But is Rahm a boy genius or did the Dem establishments 

succeed despite him and in fact despite itself? After 

all, the Dem establishment, partisans of oil, empire 

and Israel, chose Rahm to lead them. Let's do the numbers 

to see how Rahm and his employers really did.

On these electronic pages during the electoral season 

we have tracked the machinations and motives of Rahm 

Emanuel (1,2). Long ago Rahm chose 22 key races, open 

or Republican seats, where Dems might win. By any 

reasonable criteria, all the candidates chosen by Rahm, 

save perhaps for one, were pro-war as is Emanuel himself. 

In two cases Rahm had to put in considerable dollars and 

effort in the primaries to drive out antiwar candidates. 

He drove out Cegelis in Illinois's 6th CD, at the cost 

of one million dollars, in favor of Tammy ("Stay 

the course") Duckworth who lost in the general election. 

In California's 11th CD primary, Emanuel backed the prowar 

Steven Filson who lost to the antiwar candidate, Jerry 

McNerney, who went on to win in the general election.

Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, we find 

that 13 were defeated, and only 8 won! (3) 

(One is still undecided.) And remember that this was the 

year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm's favorites 

were handsomely financed by the DCCC. Tammy Duckworth, 

for example, was infused with $3 million - and was backed 

in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. 

The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So 

out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since 

the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's 

efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign 

rested on Rahm's choices, there would have been only 

8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact, 

Rahm's efforts were probably counterproductive for the 

Dems since the great majority of voters were antiwar 

and they were voting primarily on the issue of the war 

(60% according to CNN). But Rahm's candidates were not antiwar.

So Rahm Emanuel nearly seized defeat from the jaws 

of victory. The Dems fully intended to pursue the war and 

the neocons thought that they had found a new host in 

the Dem party -but the voters now perceive the Dems as 

antiwar and if they do not deliver, they will be damaged. 

After all Ralph Nader and Chuck Hagel are waiting in the 

wings for 2008. Either Emanuel is completely incompetent 

or else Emanuel is putting the interests of Israel ahead 

of Democratic victories. You decide. In either case why 

would he remain in a position of influence in the Dem party? 

A good question.

A footnote to all this is the skullduggery behind the 

scenes in the campaign of one of Rahm's losers, Diane 

Farrell, who lost to Christopher Shays in CT. Farrell 

successfully passed herself off as antiwar in some 

quarters, getting the last minute endorsement of Katrina 

Vanden Heuvel at The Nation. But here is Farrell's "plan" 

for Iraq according to her web site: "Have Congress step 

up to its proper oversight role and get the administration 

to articulate and implement a transition plan in which 

the U.S. will reduce its role and begin to bring troops 

home. Set achievement benchmarks, rather than dates, for 

implementing such a pullback." Farrell does not support 

the Murtha or McGovern bills; she even rejects "timetables, " 

and puts the onus of getting out of Iraq on "the 

administration" as opposed to Congressional action, 

namely her, had she won. Why would The Nation support 

such a candidate? Was it simply incompetence, not doing 

one's homework?

At the same time backers of Farrell, calling themselves 

Greens, managed to get the hard working and principled 

Green candidate in her district to withdraw on the basis 

of "private" and still secret assurances that Farrell 

would be antiwar in the end. Maybe we will now find out 

the nature of those assurances. One suspects that if 

Farrell had adopted a strong antiwar position and 

challenged her Green opponent that way, rather than 

conniving to force him out, she might have won the race. 

But then of course she would have lost Rahm's lucre.

John V. Walsh can be reached at 

john.endwar@ gmail.com 

He welcomes more information on the machinations 

of Schumer or of Rahm, the loser.

(1) http://www.counterp unch.com/ walsh10142006. html 

( http://tinyurl. com/y4fevf )

(2) http://www.counterp unch.com/ walsh10242006. html

( http://tinyurl. com/ykj9on )

(3) 

Rahm's Losers: 

Darcy Burner (WA), 

Phyllis Busansky (FL), 

Francine Busby (CA), 

John Cranley (OH), 

Jill Derby (NV), 

Tammy Duckworth (IL), 

Diane Farrell (CT), 

Steve Filson (CA), 

Tessa Hafen (NV), 

Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), 

Ken Lucas (KY), 

Patsy Madrid (NM), 

Lois Murphy (PA). 

Rahm's Winners: 

Brad Ellsworth (IN), 

Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), 

Baron Hill (IN), 

Ron Klein (FL), 

Harry Mitchell (AZ), 

Chris Murphy (CT), 

Heath Shuler (NC), 

Peter Welch, who was apparently antiwar (VT)

Undecided: 

Joe Courtney (CT) 







  

Before you call 9/11 conspiracy nuts crazy, explain what happened to 7 World Trade Center (WTC7) and how it was accomplished. (Never heard of WTC7 before, have you? – that’s not surprising, it’s the camel in the tent that everybody ignores.)
  



 
---------------------------------
Sponsored Link

   Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - $150,000 loan for $579 a month. Intro-*Terms
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20061116/2cfed7de/attachment.htm