« Long live parochialism | Main | Send in the clowns »

Rahm's Angels

By Owen Paine on Saturday March 25, 2006 10:44 AM

This New York Times item got my gizzard burbling some. Here's the lead:
If the Democrats have their way, the 2006 Congressional elections will be the revenge of the mommy party.

Democratic women are running major campaigns in nearly half of the two dozen most competitive House races where their party hopes to pick up enough Republican seats to regain control of the House. Democratic strategists are betting that the voters' unrest and hunger for change - reflected consistently in public opinion polls - create the perfect conditions for their party's female candidates this year.

Seems Rahm not only has a team of army mules, but a hareem of CARE commandos too. (There are overlaps -- Duckworth in Illionois for example.) No doubt Rahm has reasons  for all of 'em, like any ruthless casting director, but the Times, as usual, relegates the most important piece of solid information to literally the last graf:
Emily's List, which essentially recommends female candidates who support abortion rights to its 100,000 members, reports a much heavier roster of House races than it carried two years ago. Getting recommended by Emily's List, whose members were responsible for $10 million in donations in 2004, is a major help to a campaign, candidates say.
And what Is the Rahm's Moms platform about? Iraq -- out now? Save our jobs?

Nope: it's "ethics reform, fiscal responsibility, affordable health care, more sensitivity to the environment." But hey, it's "connecting with moderates in both political parties."

Rahm himself, who is really a surprisingly candid guy, makes the calculation pretty clear:

"In an environment where people are disgusted with politics in general, who represents clean and change?" asks Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Women."
The chorus faithfully sings the refrain, in perfect tune and tempo:
[Rahm-Mom Lois Murphy, a 48-year old lawyer, says] she senses an electorate that is "really, really" ready for change, tired of the ethics scandals, and convinced "that their government has been letting them down...."

"It's about change on so many levels," said Ms. Duckworth of her campaign, which she said would focus heavily on the need to improve and expand health care. "If being a woman underscores that, makes it clear that I'm going to be an effective agent of change, that's great."

Translated from spinspeak into English, this means that having more female faces in the party lineup is a way of suggesting change without having to change anything.

Comments (5)


as i'm re reading
this same nyt article today
what pops into my head
"hey u raging loon
maybe anger is not whats building out therein the bull rushes"

but if it is
if a righteouys fury is rising
a flaming destroy all monsters

burning a candle in the windowand cooing
goo goo shit
"we do betterment better "

as with soldiers
wearing sensible shoes

this donkey pap will get puked back up

Ah, the other half of Rahm's grand master plan. Running women because voters might take it a little easier on them in an election year where neither party is polling well. Between the RahmAngels and RahmPuppets, doesn't this stragegy seem juuust a little passive-aggressive?

Yeah, and don't forget that women are supposed to be flattered to be called in for our time-honored task of mopping up kids' shit. Plus, our "inherent" virtue means that they can slam us twice as hard the minute we prove to have hands as dirty as the menfolks do. Witness the drubbing NARAL and Pelosi are receiving on KOS, way out of proportion to the novelty of the actual wrongs they've committed.


alsis :

i don't visit kos
i visit far worse actually
economics blog sites
are my main beat
what nasty gauntlet
do those
little imps
have poor Nan running ???

You can't be 10851 serious?!?

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Saturday March 25, 2006 10:44 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Long live parochialism.

The next post in this blog is Send in the clowns.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31