Rahm is on Charlie Rose for the full hour. Rahm comes across as fairly likable so far, but, then again, everyone does when they’re next to Charlie Rose.
On the other hand, he doesn’t speak very well. He’s lucky he’s white.
by DougJ| 44 Comments
This post is in: Good News For Conservatives, Show Me On the Doll Where Rahm Touched You
Rahm is on Charlie Rose for the full hour. Rahm comes across as fairly likable so far, but, then again, everyone does when they’re next to Charlie Rose.
On the other hand, he doesn’t speak very well. He’s lucky he’s white.
Comments are closed.
mr. whipple
Awesome, an hour of Rahm hate.
handy
I don’t get the Rahm hate personally. Not a fan of the guy, just not really sure what is up? Maybe he’s a little Machiavellian, a little opportunistic at the expense of advocating good policy…but it’s not like he’s Karl Rove or something.
MikeBoyScout
Oh dear. Here it comes.
Martin
PBS? It’ll be nothing but one continuous beep. Rahm needs to be on HBO.
DougJ
@handy:
I don’t get it either. I think he’s been kind of a screw-up, but I don’t get the full prince of darkness treatment.
Mike Kay
rahm is a terrible debater. that’s why you won’t see him on sunday shows. They send Axelrod, gibbs, dunn, Jarrett, Plouff, even Bo before rahm.
MattR
@Martin: And pixelation. Don’t forget the pixelation.
@Mike Kay: I thought he was a master debater (groan, i know, but i could not resist.
mr. whipple
@handy:
Personally, Charlie Rose hate puzzles me.
Mike Kay
@mr. whipple: Charlie is a horrible interviewer and cheerled the invasion of iraq.
handy
@Mike Kay:
He’s no Bill Moyers, that’s for certain.
MikeJ
@mr. whipple: I don’t hate him, but I’d prefer one word questions and paragraph answers to the other way around.
mr. whipple
@Mike Kay:
Who didn’t? I like his show.
MikeJ
@mr. whipple: Phil Donahue?
Mike Kay
@handy: his panel shows are completely rigged.
“Tonight, we debate Iraq with David Brooks, Mark Halprin, and from the liberal New Republic, Martin Perez.”
MikeBoyScout
@@14 Mike Kay: ++1
dr. bloor
No discussion of Charlie Rose is complete without this.
jl
Rahm pound a knife into Charlie’s round table yet?
I want a link to that part, when it happens.
arguingwithsignposts
@dr. bloor: I knew that was coming! I don’t get the cutaway shots that they do where he’s just sitting there looking puzzled. totally useless cutaways.
mr. whipple
@MikeJ:
Ok, that’s one.
Brian J
@handy:
In a sentence, he’s the source of evil and a symbol of all that is wrong with the administration.
Seriously now, pretty much any failures that have occurred are his fault. Smaller-than-necessary stimulus? That was Rahm. Lack of public option? Rahm. Lack of progress on financial reform? That’s Rahm, too. The only way to stop massive losses in the House and Senate back to back and then the presidency in 2012 is to let go of Rahm.
mr. whipple
@Brian J:
“The only way to stop massive losses in the House and Senate back to back and then the presidency in 2012 is to let go of Rahm.”
Who knew that’s all it would take?
Amazing.
Allison W.
I would love to meet the guy who makes the Left foam at the mouth.
I sometimes wonder if these Rahm attacks are indirect attacks on Obama. Are these the same people who will call you an Obamabot for defending the president but they are themselves hesitant to attack the president so they blame it Rahm instead?
I know my sentence is messed up but you get the picture.
Or do they think Obama is just a blithering idiot?
handy
This country elected Bush twice, as well as a Republican majority that was filled top to bottom with crooks.
I get that you have issues with his policy influence, but even granting your argument none of those things you’ve listed have been total losses.
If massive losses are looming for Dems in 2012, I think Rahm would be the least of their worries.
Violet
@Brian J:
Wow. So simple. Rahm goes and we all get to take a break and still win all the races for the next two years. No donating, no phone banking, no Saturdays knocking on doors. Who knew?
Brian J
@Violet:
I thought it was obvious that I was kidding. Maybe not. I guess I should have mentioned ACORN as well.
PanAmerican
RAAAAAHMMM!!!!
mr. whipple
Rahm is muscling his way through this interview.
SectarianSofa
@Brian J:
Ha — mentioning ACORN would’ve helped. Reminds me of when I had a comment deleted at washingtonmonthly.com ’cause I was saying (sarcastically, but deadpan, as it were) that Bill Ayers had written MLK’s stuff, so don’t get too excited about MLK’s Socialist Holiday. Someone thought it was too inflammatory or something. Got to know your audience, I guess.
arguingwithsignposts
Just listened to a previous interview Rose did with Rahm (see Sept. 2009), and Rahm did pretty well. He doesn’t sound nearly as evil as Karl Rove. Of course, I’ve never been in the shower with him pressuring me for a vote on a major bill.
handy
Every time Rahm speaks, God has to kill a Firebagger.
Nick
@Brian J: That’s tasty snark.
Nick
@handy: I used to work for Bill Moyers, he’s not who you think he is.
arguingwithsignposts
@Nick:
Who do we think he is? Just curious, because that’s very cryptic.
handy
@arguingwithsignposts:
Indeed. I’m only able to judge him by the body of his work, which from where I sit is about the best we get from mainstream US TV media.
arguingwithsignposts
okay, who fucked up the CHM thread?
Mike Kay
@Nick: you mean he’s wearing a disguise?
MinneapolisPipe
@Nick: Then who is Bill Moyers? Don’t leave us hanging.
Mike Kay
@MinneapolisPipe: maybe he’s really Spartacus. maybe he’s been cloned, and there’s multiple Bill Moyers. Maybe he doesn’t really exist, and is simply a pixar computer generated image.
MinneapolisPipe
@Mike Kay: Or maybe he’s really Michael Steele. The joke is on us all when he pulls off that mask!!
Mike Kay
Who was DB Cooper?
Who was on the grassy-knoll?
Who was behind the Valerie plame leak?
Who was the Walrus?
Who was Bill Moyers?
different church-lady
@handy:
Point of order: it elected him once, and the other time he won the overtime shootout.
Comrade Javamanphil
1) Not a Rahm hater but I am a strong proponent of rewarding success and punishing failure. Dean’s strategy in 2006 delivered Dems congress. Rahm’s strategy in 2006 would have made it far more difficult to achieve the same results. And for being right, Dean was shoved out of any leadership role. It’s the same things Dems have done with campaign consultants for years (oh, you lost but only by 5%? You’re hired!) It really is that simple for me.
2) DougJ says:
Heh. Indeed. Everyone knows an eloquent person of color would never be ridiculed.
kay
I would have thought Craig would have gone on to provide pro bono counsel for the detainees, because he was portrayed as such a principled hero, battling Rahm on behalf of Truth and Justice.
Oh, wait. That facts are that the lawyers who actually stepped up and and provided expert counsel to detainees are now working in Holder’s Justice Department.
Interesting where people end up working, and what they get credit for, compared with what they actually do.
kay
This is who Holder hired, and took enormous heat for hiring:
“Nine top political appointees at the Justice Department previously worked as lawyers or advocates for “enemy combatants” confined at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prompting new questions from Congress and conservative critics about the integrity of the administration”
And Goldman hired Craig.
Yet, somehow, Craig became the principled detainee advocate, and Holder (and 9 of the best defense lawyers, who he hired ) are not worthy.
That doesn’t seem fair.