Criticizing the President on Health Care is “Naderite” and “Hurts the Progressive Agenda” - FDL

[WillyT]

Criticizing the President on Health Care is “Naderite” and “Hurts the Progressive Agenda”
By: Jane Hamsher Monday December 28, 2009 7:59 am

<snip>

There’s a very slick PR letter posted online that’s being furiously retweeted by DC political operatives. I wasn’t going to address it, but the editor of the Nation Katrina vanden Heuvel started pushing it. It becomes widely disseminated based on her role as a validator within the progressive community, and that necessitated a reply.

The letter says:

I do not doubt that you genuinely feel that your very vocal opposition to the Senate health care bill is in the absolute interests of the American populace and progressive politics. I honestly believe that you feel that the administration has let you and other progressives down by not publically pushing harder for elements in the bill that we all hoped would survive the legislative process.

What I doubt is that your actions will ultimately serve the advancement of the progressive agenda that you obviously care so much about. I believe in fact, that quite the opposite will be the result. Pushing for the very best bill that we can get through this congress is laudable, attacking the administration for dealing with the reality that is congress is not.

You can argue that this bill helps people and is therefore progressive. I would argue that it forces the middle class to pay almost as much to private insurance companies as they do in federal taxes, weakens the coverage of those who have employer-based insurance, and is a Shock Doctrine attempt to raid the public sphere of unprecedented magnitude. I come down on the side of Marcy Wheeler, wrote an important post entitled “Health Care on the Road to Neofeudalism“:

I understand the temptation to offer 30 million people health care. What I don’t understand is the nonchalance with which we’re about to fundamentally shift the relationships of governance in doing so.

But the truly creepy thing about the letter being pushed by Katrina (in addition to all the manipulative Orwellian language), is that it doesn’t argue the bill itself is progressive. Rather, it says “attacking the administration for dealing with the reality that is congress” is not “laudable” and hurts the “progressive agenda.”

It is manifestly untrue that the bill is the handiwork of Congress, for which the President bears no responsibility. The White House negotiated this bill with lobbyists starting early in the year. As Marc Ambinder reported shortly after the inauguration, the official White House strategy would be to deflect responsibility for anything unpopular onto Congress.

But Rahm Emanuel’s need for self-promotion keeps stepping on that plan. The New York Times is just one of many places that has reported that he has been running the show all along:

Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, runs the campaign out of his West Wing office. A former congressman, he knows how to count votes. (It was Mr. Emanuel, for instance, who suggested Mr. Orszag reach out to Ms. Collins.) Aides say he does not host a regular health care meeting, but rather summons his team several times a day, typically with e-mail messages ordering colleagues to drop everything and show up right that minute.

On October 5, I wrote “Countdown to Lieberman,” saying it was only a matter of time before Joe stepped in and we started hearing that old song about “60 votes” again. And Brian Beutler reported that when it came time to deliver a bill to the Senate and yank the public option on October 25, Obama didn’t want to take credit for Rahm’s handiwork:

Reid wants Obama to do it to give cover to his caucus, Obama wants Reid to do it so he’s not the bad guy on the public option, and can still walk away with a win with reform, with bipartisanship, and with a card for everybody running for re-election.”

The Obama White House has been working furiously to pass an enormous transfer of wealth to the insurance companies from the start. I don’t see how reporting this constitutes “attacking the administration,” or why it “hurts” the “progressive agenda” to do so. So, I was very surprised that Katrina would promote and give the imprimateur of the Nation to a blog post encouraging me not to be critical of the administration on health care, and to accept the fiction that this bill is the fault of Congress. I asked her why she was doing this, and she replied:

Big tent. Divisions within progressive community can’t be wished away. Respect your views; worth respecting others’ views.

It’s not such a big tent when you’re promoting something that tells someone to stop criticizing the president’s role in crafting the health care bill, nor does it “respect” the views of anyone who disagrees with that contention on the basis of well-documented evidence. Yet the editor of the Nation is granting its legitimacy to a post which attempts to stifle criticism of the president and dismisses it as “Naderite,” equating the “progressive agenda” with “what’s politically advantageous for the President.”

<snip>

More: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/28/criticizing-the-president-on-health-care-is-naderite-and-hurts-the-progressive-agenda/

Uh, Oh...

:wow:

[bluestateguy]

1. Oye

[Skidmore]

2. Oye, oye...

[ProSense]

3. .

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

4. Yes, failure to criticize the administration's policies when they favor the right hurts the

progressive agenda. Letting this health care reform bill pass with a progressive seal of approval will hurt the progressive agenda.

[Nikki Stone1]

6. Yes. And even worse, it will hurt the American people.

And that is far more important to me than anyone's agenda.

[laughingliberal]

8. True and my point is if the American people are hurt, I damn sure don't want the label "progressive"

attached to the instrument of their destruction.

[Nikki Stone1]

25. Agreed.

.

[DJ13]

5. hmmm

[WeDidIt]

7. Jane Hamsher - Moving ever faster over the cliff

What. A. Fucking. Moron.

[DJ13]

9. Actually, she's right

Obama/Rahm have cut the deals with the insurers and pharma that led up to this "reform", so they deserve the blame.

[WeDidIt]

No, she's dead wrong, and an egomaniac at that, too.

She's a moron trying to claim that because KAtrina Vanden Heuvel tweets something it came from the Administration.

She's a fucking idiot rightwing nutbag. Let her go back to her teabaggers and Norquist.

[DJ13]

12. You're blind, no point in continuing this

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

94. Well, since we know that Rahm screamed at the

liberal bloggers for going after the Blue Dogs in a conference call, I'm sure Katrina was part of that call.

We also know that many of them were silenced, afraid of losing access. Jane Hamsher refused to shut up and exposed the strongarm tactics to silence dissent from the 'left'.

Too bad the administration cannot get up enough strength of character to strongarm the likes of Joe Lieberman. How do you explain that?

You're going to have to throw an awful lot of people under that bus with Jane Hamsher as the numbers of respected analysts opposed to this bill, is growing.

Here's a few more for you to call 'fucking idiot rightwing nutbags'. Just from the latest round of critics:

Bill Moyers
Bob Herbert
Glenn Greenwald

It's a long and growing list now that Hamsher is a part of ~ her tactics may differ, but her opinion is shared by far too many to ignore as the word gets out about just what is in this bill.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ima_sinnic]

21. what's so moronic about it?

You and your peanut gallery have worked overtime to "blame it on Congress," inadvertently portraying the president as weak and ineffective, along with everybody in his administration, and unable to get even his most basic "promise*" of a public option passed. The ploy of "blaming it on Congress" was made especially obvious earlier today when you went to the trouble of posting all kinds of pix of Congressmen we should "blame" for "standing in the way of progressive legislation" (paraphrase)--yeah, Obama worked soooo hard to make good on his phony "promise"!

The true "morons" are those, like you, who think we're simply going to say, oh, Obama tried soooo hard, but those mean people in Congress obstructed him! I mean, he was on TV every night explaining a "public option" (or "government option," as he so coyly called it, a subtle red flag to the teabaggers), and he had his rapid response team fired up and responding instantly to all the teabagger manipulation and distortions of his message, and he really did ensure that "everybody" had "a seat at the table," and really did make a strong, REALLY STRONG case for a public option --- oh, wait ...

*"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange...including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest." -- Barack Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83FvLjsUOJg#t=4m20s

I will be watching to see what Obama is really about.

[WillyT]

24. +100

Exactly...

:kick:

[snagglepuss]

31. You go girl.

:yourock:

[leftstreet]

49. +1

[tbyg52]

69. >>I will be watching to see what Obama is really about.

You haven't already figured it out?

[bvar22]

87. Recommending Post #21 by ima_sinnic.

Well Stated.
:patriot:

[leeroysphitz]

91. f@ckin' A

[get the red out]

30. +1

I guess she's enjoying her Moron moment of fame and glory, in the long run she means NOTHING, she's just a fart dissipating in the breeze. Everyone worshipping her will see how little they mean as well, everyone freaking because they don't get their way on everything and can't deal with electing a President rather than a king. Farts in the wind, they stink bad now but won't mean much later on.

[WillyT]

39. Wow... Deep Fart !!!

:rofl:

:wtf:

:crazy:

[ima_sinnic]

42. isn't that a puma in your avatar? strange ... (nt)

[HughMoran]

11. .

[Goldstein1984]

13. Failure to criticize if you think criticism is due isn't democracy.

If elected representatives are not being told what people think, they have every excuse to act without the input of the people.

They may do that anyway. But one way it's our fault, and the other way it's their fault.

[WillyT]

15. Well Said...

:toast:

[liberal_at_heart]

18. +1

[TheWatcher]

20. One of the problems is it appears that many no longer want a democracy.

The want to feel good, be on a "winning team", and follow blindly like some twisted Stockholm Syndrome inflicted Booster Group.

The very fabric of our country is slipping away, and many are cheering it on.

Cinematically, it may have been one of the most dismal embarrassments in history, but Natalie Portman did have one shining moment from the pit of blackness and sewage that was Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith, that pretty much Crystallizes the state of this country right now:

"So This Is How Liberty Dies.....With Thunderous Applause"

It Can't Happen Here?

It HAS Happened Here.

And It CONTINUES to Happen.

Until we put a STOP to it.

[Goldstein1984]

23. "So This Is How Liberty Dies.....With Thunderous Applause"

I never checked, but I've always believed that line was put into the movie as a clear statement about what is happening to us.

I can't argue with anything you wrote.

Maybe another Natalie Portman movie will become prophetic: "V for Vendetta"

[snagglepuss]

35. Really good post. "They want to feel good, be on a "winning team"

Recently after reading all these FDL posts I've been thinking how there seem to be two mindsets, one being a sport's mindset you describe(though I didn't make the connection to feeling good and being on winning team but that is spot on) the other mindset is hard to label other than a critical mindset which people in this culture label negatively as fault-finding.

Actually I'm surprised that Agnew's 'nabobs of negativity' hasn't been resurrected by the resident pompom contingent.

[WillyT]

38. You Are Correct About The Sports Mindset...

For far too many, it was all about being on the winning team.

Nothing more.

:shrug:

[snagglepuss]

41. Then once your on the winning team, the only thing that matters is the game.

Anyone questionning the value of what is getting passed is not being a team player.

[WillyT]

45. Bingo !!!

Ah well...

:shrug:

:hi:

[Goldstein1984]

47. I can't play politics that way. Call me naive, but

my principles guide me, not party platforms.

I vote my conscience, and I hold elected representatives accountable for their votes.

I've voted the lesser of two evils in general elections when the alternative is really bad, but only as a defensive move.

In the primaries, it's performance only.

I'm actually been surprised by the amount of mainstream party people in the Democratic "Underground." The name suggested that dissent might be tolerated in DU.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. Every day that I am on this board it becomes more and more obvious to me that the democratic party

is not where I belong anymore. Killing democracy by stifling criticism. I thought only the republicans did that but apparently the democrats have taken a page from their book. The two party system is broken. Democracy is dead. I know I'll get the usual verbal attacks for saying this. "If you vote thrid party then you're putting a republican in office". That is such crap. It is the broken democratic party that is putting republicans in office.

[DJ13]

17. +1

:thumbsup:

[ima_sinnic]

22. +++1x10^25 you speak for me

[glitch]

29. When the Republican Party imploded I expected a huge wave of immigration.

and sure enough we got one.

But I did use to say "If you vote third party then you're putting a republican in office" and actually do still feel that there was a short point in time when voting Democratic over third party MIGHT have worked. But it was a slim chance even then, if it existed at all, one that we no longer have.

But I also believe until we clean up the election systems in our country, whether we vote Green or Democratic or Republican or Libertarian, no matter how we vote a Corporatist will be "elected".

[bertman]

52. The "A third party cannot win" meme is a construct of the two RULING PARTIES. Every time

I hear that it pisses me off more. Almost every democratic government in the world has more than two parties. What the fuck is wrong with us?

We're brainwashed. That's what. Scared to death that voting for a third-party candidate is going to give the country away to the Republicans. HELLO. It doesn't matter because the Democrats are bound and determined to be kinder and gentler Republicans. Both the parties are groveling for corporate dollars. Their lips are attached to the asses of the CEO's of Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Oil. It's a wonder they can even give a campaign speech.

If this POS bill passes without a Public Option I will be 80% gone from the Democratic Party. President Obama will have maybe a year to win me back. Every day I'm finding another reason to view my party as a bunch of cowards who only care about themselves and their corporate sponsors. I'm looking for reasons to be thrilled that I helped elect President Obama and a Democratic Congress, but they keep acting like they don't know how to represent the People.


I'm delighted that Jane Hamsher is out front pushing the Progressive Agenda. I'm going to send the FireDoggies more $$$$.

[Confusious]

61. It's not BS. A third party has no chance.

It's not JUST because the two parties say so. It's in the system.

Every other democratic country in the world has a different democratic system then us. It's called parliamentary. It allows for other parties. ours does not. Ours is a winner takes all party system, so if you have 8 candidates, each getting about the same, a winner only has to come away with a little more then 12.5% of the vote to win. In another system, the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th runner would win also.

I would love to have that type of system, and as a comedian said once "I have more choices in breakfast cereal then I do in political parties." (might have been George Carlin).

I want more choices, but that's not going to happen unless we chance the system we have right now. Which I give a rat's chance at a cat dance.

[bertman]

74. Confusious, certainly they do not have a chance at an electoral sweep or gaining majority status

in one election cycle, but there's no reason we cannot elect independent or third-party candidates as our Representatives and Senators. Start with one or two and work our way up.

There are plenty of disaffected Democrats, left-leaning Independents who could be enticed by a third-party or Independent candidate who stood for the right things AND was willing to be principled when in office.

A block of third-party Reps or Senators would have the same inordinate power leverage that the Blue Dawg Turds have or the Progressive Caucus (although, as we see, they are Democrats and have no spines), or even a single asshole like Lieberman or Nelson has on certain votes.

Which party it would be, I have no idea. Green or some other hybrid like a Progressive party would do it for me as long as they espouse ideals and work toward them instead of becoming Corporate Enablers.

[Confusious]

76. I agree with you it would be great to have more then one party

but any other party except the big two faces an upcliff battle trying to win in anyplace except for some liberal city ( city council, mayor, maybe a rep or two ). Forget even getting a senator, the system just won't allow it.

You can talk up a storm about it, I've heard it since I started voting 20 years ago, and nothing ever comes of it, because of the system.

You can get a big block of people to do it, but they will be overwhelmed by the people voting for the democrat or the republican, cause that's what people will do.

If you had more voters that were educated, paid attention and gave a damn, you might have a chance.

P.S. Perot, Nader

[bertman]

81. It's not JUST "the system". It's also our American tendency to absorb what the Corporate Media

saturates the airwaves with--namely, third parties always fail. We succumb to the propaganda. Just like we would never think of having a General Strike to demand that our government stop waging war on the rest of the planet. We are conditioned by what we see, hear, and read on an ongoing basis.

We have plenty of educated voters who give a damn, but we (and I include myself in this group) have been Hoping, and Praying (at least the believers have), and Working to make the Democratic Party what we thought it could be. Now, it's apparent that the DLC has a deathgrip on the party and we can't change it from within.

Like I said, I'll give it a year more to make my decision, but I'm too old to wait a lot longer. Need to act while the energy is still there.

[bvar22]

88. I don't want a 3rd Party.

I would be very happy with a 2nd Party.
You know, a Party that represents the Majority Working Class.

[bvar22]

89. delete.

*

[ima_sinnic]

68. ++++1

I will no longer be responsible for "saving the country" from Sarah Palin or whatever goon the repukes run--I've come to think of that as a winning strategy for all of them, anyway--run the one who makes the voters run all scared to vote for the Democrat--repukes win anyway, since it doesn't really matter who the figurehead is, their agendas are pretty much identical.

[glitch]

71. Until we clean up how votes are counted -- by corporations, corporatists will "win" the vote counts.

If the system were cleanly run with our votes transparently and PUBLICLY counted I would agree with you.

I am not saying third parties don't have a chance, I am saying ANYONE WHO IS NOT CORPORATE doesn't have a chance. And that goes for Progressive Dems too. Not at the national level anyway, where this country's huge budget (and economy) is actually managed.

So I repeat: I believe elections are corrupted in this country. We can still repair the system though: Get busy locally with your state/county election systems to clean up who counts the vote. This has to happen, in addition to campaign finance and media reform. IMO.

And I am not saying don't vote either, vote even if your only motivation is to make it harder for them steal it.

[bertman]

75. I agree that we need to clean up our voting methodology, but to use that as an excuse is

a cop-out. Even if a third-party candidate does not win, if she/he garners enough votes it will energize the party and show others that there is an opportunity to change the dynamic.

Just a reminder that it was the Democrats who failed to push for election reform after they gained power in '06 despite the evidence that it was sorely needed. And earlier, after the '00 and '04 elections, they acted as if the blatant stealing of votes was a non-issue.

Sorry, but I can't just keep supporting a party that doesn't even TRY to correct the problems our nation is facing. With the Democrats and Republicans it has become "feather my nest" politics. And I'm sick of it.

[glitch]

92. I say vote, I don't say who to vote for. I think you might be projecting an argument onto me

that I am not currently making, at least not in the last few years.

I say vote for whomever you want, and make sure you do. But make doubly sure cleaning up the vote counting process IS TOP PRIORITY.

edit: now I see, you actually are having that argument with other posters in this thread. Carry on, just understand I am on your side on this one, but I am adding an additional responsibility.

Get Local Get Vocal (I may've just made that slogan up)

[L0oniX]

34. There is also a spine problem with many of the Dems.

[Blasphemer]

46. Indeed. It has been very worrisome.

If bloggers are getting this kind of treatment, I can only begin to imagine what Progressives in Congress are being subjected to.

[Jamastiene]

66. "It is the broken democratic party that is putting republicans in office."

Well said. :thumbsup:

[TiberiusGracchus]

72. Let's consider WHAT we are defending when we reflexively defend the President then:

1. Continued rejection to prosecute (and thus VALIDATION) of the men who violated our principles by torturing prisoners.

2. Expansion of our illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and parts of Pakistan)

3. Continued reticence with robust environmental and climate reform.

4. Continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay torture facility.

5. An expansion and INCREASE in aggressive predator drone bombing attacks on civilian areas not only in Afghanistan but also now in Pakistan.

6. A rejection of genuine socially-responsible healthcare reform procedures like single-payer or even the public option.

7. A total failure to correct the grotesque excesses of the financial industry AND the utter stupidity of bankrolling their means of ignoring the lessons they so desperately needed to learn.

And to this we can expect our fellow DU'ers to urge us to "STAY THE COURSE" and defend the administration because doing otherwise would be "EMBOLDENING THE ENEMY" in the GOP.

Where have we all heard THAT before.

[shadesofgray]

96. +100000000000000000

[sendero]

97. I'm very close to that also.

... fact is, we need to churn OUT the incumbents. We can't do anything about the money, but we can organize and DEFEAT ALL INCUMBENTS, Republican and Democrats until they figure out that doing corporate bidding is NOT going to ensure that they get to keep their cushy-assed perk-encrusted jobs.

I fully believe that if we could turn some of these asshole career senators out on their fucking asses, we could start to be at least considered again.

[MisterP]

19. whenever someone claims that the left is "playing into" the hands of the right,

I just assume it's some neo-Tammany cultist or a Daley/Cianci-style loyalty flack

especially since they don't mind playing into the hands of the right when it comes to actual policy...

[laughingliberal]

26. +++1000

That's it exactly! They don' t mind playing into the hands of the right when it comes to policy.-the whole problem right there!!

[Moochy]

90. well said

That's a keeper: "I just assume it's some neo-Tammany cultist or a Daley/Cianci-style loyalty flack"

[EFerrari]

27. How embarrassing for Katrina. n/t

[amborin]

28. really, she's been pressured & caved! K & R

[Hannah Bell]

55. i doubt it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7344109&mesg_id=7346586

[amborin]

58. ok but i disagree

guess the jules stein eye institute was named after her granddad

in any case, she's clearly toeing the party line, imho

and, let's face it: however progressive The Nation aims to be, she, personally is solidly bourgeois

she doesn't want to go out on a limb and embarrass incumbent dems

[Hannah Bell]

64. what i meant is, she didn't have to be pressured. i don't think the nation is progressive, either.

dad = cia, granddad = fabulously wealthy & mafia-linked.

she owns the nation.

ergo, the nation exists to tell "the left" what to think & what to think about. imo.

[bertman]

78. I go to "The Nation" frequently enough to consider it a Progressive site. It's not always

advocating for what I want, but it does so frequently enough that I find it to be a breath of fresh air on many issues. Plus, I usually find Katrina's stances on issues to be fairly close to my own. She is not a raving radical by any means, but she has always struck me as being a solid Progressive. That's why I'm very unhappy with her change-up on this healthcare deform. Your posts are giving me a pretty good idea why, but I'm not counting her out as a positive force for Progressive issues. Yet.

[EFerrari]

85. Their Venezuela correspondent was Vivanco's #2 guy.

Vivanco, former Pinochet PR flak, has the LatAm desk at Human Rights Watch.

And wasn't it David Corn that tried to shut down discussion of the theft in Ohio 2004?

The Nation occasionally has some good pieces but it's not progressive and it doesn't even seem to be honest about its own relationship to the empire.

[WillyT]

32. Washington Bubble... Strikes Again

:shrug:

[KittyWampus]

33. Hamsher the attention whore writes "Rahm Emanuel’s need for self-promotion" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OMG!

She is screwed up.

[rucky]

36. Isn't the main criticism of the President is that he left Congress to its own devices?

think about that for a moment.

[ima_sinnic]

40. precisely.

the laissez-faire president

[DJ13]

43. Publicly, so he can create an appearence of distance from the final bill

Privately the Senate bill is everything the WH negotiated with big pharma and the insurers to get into the final legislation.

[Donnachaidh]

44. and also he can distance himself if and when the shit hits the fan and people SEE they are getting

SCREWED by the WH's backroom deals.

Change we can believe in? NOT.

[jgraz]

48. It's an embarrassingly transparent ploy which is going to bite them in the ass.

No way will Senators take the rap for this fiasco. Obama's role is going to come out, and it's going to get very ugly.

[Hannah Bell]

56. he's either weak & inept or machiavellian & deceitful. either way, he looks bad

to friends *and* enemies.

it just seems inept either way.

unless the idea *is* to lose support & throw seats to the pubs. which could be.

[jgraz]

57. Nobody said the boosters were big on logic.

Of course, their talking point is that *the president* is incredibly weak. As if the past 8 years never happened...

[tbyg52]

70. My thoughts exactly. nt

[rucky]

84. The senate was already bought and sold by pharma.

I don't think the president needed to intervene - except to prevent the backroom deals with lobbyists (which he did not do). It makes more sense that his "buy off" was to not intervene with the Senate backroom deals. There's plenty of natural incentive for him not to:

1) His priority was to pass something/anything. Nothing meaningful would get to his desk because a majority of Senators are bought off.
2) To politically distance himself from the dealmaking, which is more likely to be weak or fail because a majority of senators are bought off.
3) He could influence legislation like other Presidents have done, but instead worked more closely to how our government is supposed to run - with three independent branches.
4) Even if he tried (and maybe he did), he simply doesn't have as much influence over Congress as industry lobbyists do. And why should he?

What the "blame Obama" crowd is essentially complaining about is that he has not overstepped the bounds of the Executive to influence corrupt Senate legislation. If there's something specific he can do to stop state-elected officials from being bought off on this, I have no idea what that would be.

I'm as angry as anybody, but this is all in the Senate's lap - as well it should be. And Obama's smart to let this live or die by their hands, because if he stuck his neck out, he was unlikely to engineer an outcome any different from what we have now. He's not up for election in 2010, but several Senators are. Everything the Senate touches turns to poison. I don't blame him for stepping back.

[McCamy Taylor]

37. Because American voters respond so well to "shut up and eat your health insurance" style messages.

I wonder if this memo is secretly from the GOP, trying to make Obama and his advisers look like fascists that no Democrat would ever want to vote for.

[clear eye]

60. Can't be. Hamsher asked Van den Heuvel about it and she defended it. n/t

[Overseas]

95. I wonder about that too sometimes. //nt

[leftstreet]

50. K&R

[Hannah Bell]

51. van den heuvel = granddaughter of MCA ("the octopus") founder Jules Stein,

took over universal pictures, putnam's books, abc records, chess records, motown records...

"It became a shareholder in USA Network in 1981, eventually owning 50% of the network (the other half was owned by Paramount). In 1982, their publishing division, G. P. Putnam's Sons, bought Grosset & Dunlap from Filmways...GRP Records and Geffen Records were acquired in 1990. In the same year, MCA was purchased by the Matsushita Electric."


MCA:

Moldea, Dan E. Dark Victory: Ronald Reagan, MCA, and the Mob. New York: Viking Press, 1986. 390 pages.

Three months on the Los Angeles Times bestseller list, this is the definitive history of Mafia influence in Hollywood, the hub of which is MCA. The Music Corporation of America began in 1924 as a fledgling band-booking company. It soon monopolized the business, and today is Hollywood's most powerful TV, film, and recording conglomerate...

Ronald Reagan was nurtured by MCA influence since his days as president of the Screen Actors Guild. In 1962 he told a grand jury that he couldn't remember why the Guild negotiated an exclusive arrangement with MCA that extended their monopoly. Years earlier, as confidential informant T-10, Reagan provided the FBI with information regarding Guild members whom he suspected were Communists. Reagan's glad-handing, "ah-shucks" style, apparently oblivious to the powerful forces manipulating him, has been evident since the 1940s."



"Mr. Stein had been sole owner of the organization until 1954, when he voluntarily distributed 53 percent of his interest to key executives and employees, with 10 percent of the stock placed in an innovative MCA profit-sharing trust. Mr. Stein served as president of MCA until 1946, when he made Lew R. Wasserman his successor as chief executive. He continued as chairman of the board until 1973 and remained a director thereafter. At the start of last year (before his 1981 death), he still owned or controlled more than 19 percent of the stock."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_C._Stein



Van den heuvels' mom:

"Jean Stein was married to Torsten Wiesel, a co-recipient with David H. Hubel of the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, for their discoveries concerning information processing in the visual system. Wiesel was the president of The Rockefeller University from 1991 to 1998. He is currently the director of the Shelby White and Leon Levy Center for Mind, Brain and Behavior at The Rockefeller University."



her dad:

Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine: 1952 "Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine was a white-shoe New York law firm. It was founded in 1929 by General William "Wild Bill" Donovan, often called the Father of the CIA."


"As an early protégé of Office of Strategic Services founder William Joseph Donovan, vanden Heuvel served at the U.S. embassy (1953–1954) in Bangkok, Thailand as Donovan's Executive Assistant. Afterward, in 1958, vanden Heuvel served as Counsel to New York State Governor Averell Harriman.

He became U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's assistant in 1962 and was involved in Kennedy's 1964 and 1968 political campaigns...

In 1965 he joined Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, as Senior Partner..."

Stroock was named "Law Firm of the Year" by Securitization News in 2005.

Vanden Heuvel has held directorships in a number of public companies. They include: the U.S. Banknote Corporation, Time Warner, Inc., and the North Aegean Petroleum company, and others. Since 1984 he has been a Senior Advisor to the investment banking firm Allen & Company.<4>

Currently he is a director of the American Austrian Foundation and Co-chairman of the Council of American Ambassadors. Since 1984 vanden Heuvel has been Chairman of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a Governor and former Chairman of the United Nations Association...a member of Collegium International, an organazation of leaders with political, scientific, and ethical expertise whose goal is to provide new approaches in overcoming the obstacles in the way of a peaceful, socially just and an economically sustainable world. He served as an honorary chairman of The OSS Society.


wiki




Our "left" spokespeople leave a lot to be desired. as if.

[bertman]

53. Holy Shit! Hannah Bell, that's some scary stuff. Another left-wing Eastern Establishment type.

Kinda like John Foster Dulles, the famous Democratic "liberal".

I gotta get some sleep after that revelation.

[Hannah Bell]

54. Stein wasn't an east-coast establishment type, though.

The rise of MCA and its move to Hollywood paralleled the rise of the Chicago Mafia and its infiltration of the motion picture industry. While MCA was representing some of the top motion picture stars, Chicago mobsters took control of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), the major Hollywood labor union--through Willie Bioff, a small-time hood, who was supervised by Chicago mob lieutenant Johnny Rosselli. The studios made payoffs to the underworld for labor peace--and to keep their workers's wages and benefits to a minimum...

The Chicago Mafia's role in Hollywood did not end with the convictions; it simply changed. Chicago's new liaison in the motion picture industry became attorney Sidney Korshak, who had represented Bioff. Charles Gioe, a top Chicago Mafia figure, had told Bioff that Korshak was "our man . . . any message he may deliver to you is a message from us."

A close friend of Stein's and Wasserman's, Korshak quickly became one of the most powerful influences in the entertainment industry and in California politics. One of his key political connections was another former Chicagoan, Paul Ziffren, who at one point was California's delegate to the National Democratic Committee. (He would not seek reelection after his ties to major organized crime figures were exposed by a national magazine.) Korshak also associated himself with top Republican leaders to hedge his bets--and always have friends in power.

In the late 1940s, Hollywood shifted its attention away from the Mafia's infiltration of the film industry to its infiltration by communists. Ronald Reagan, a young actor who was represented by Wasserman and MCA, was a star player during the investigation and hearings by the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), serving as both an informant for the FBI and a friendly witness for the committee...

http://www.moldea.com/MCA.html


van den heuvel = organized crime + big business + cia (IMO)

[Hannah Bell]

62. Original research on Dulles here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7346780

1. The Dulles brothers' great-great grandfather John Welsh of
Philadelphia provided start-up capital for & had an
interest in Brown-Shipley (founded 1825), the Liverpool
branch of Brown Brothers. Joseph Shipley was his wife's
cousin, & the Liverpool agent for his own business,
J&W Welsh.


etc.

[bertman]

80. I appreciate the info. Will read it later when I have an opportunity. nt

[ima_sinnic]

59. thanks so much for that information.

it perfectly describes the asshole kind of people I went to college with--not that that makes any difference, but firsthand experience breeds contempt.

[Hannah Bell]

63. Always happy when someone shows interest. Where'd you go to school, if you don't mind my asking.

I lived with the wastrel son of a Skull & Bones father for a while in my youth. Didn't know it at the time, only found out years later when he died. Interesting experience. Being a complete hick, I didn't understand how someone who'd only had one real job in his life could just make a phone call, & get $50K. He'd told me some relative of his invented (famous consumer product) but I didn't believe it, I thought he was just trying to make himself seem important. Different mindset.

If you're interested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7346780

[ima_sinnic]

67. wow, fantastic research

I didn't go to a big-name ivy league school, but St. Lawrence University, where ivy league wannabes and rejects went. Same superficial concern with "breeding" and wastrel attitude, and "blue-blood" background. Completely homogeneous white-bread conformists and a lot of bigots--a black exchange student from Howard University (where I, the "hippie," had gone for a semester as an exchange student in my sophomore year) was treated horribly, with the privileged bigots actually making a point of moving out of his dorm or into other rooms away from his.

I was just too inept, immature, and timid to switch to another school though I really yearned to. I briefly showed an interest in joining a sorority--my parents received a questionnaire from Delta Delta Delta (which even I, in my naivete, had no interest in--the junior Junior League uber snobs) asking about genealogy, making sure we were "racially pure." This was in 1965. My parents were mightily offended. About 30 years later, snooping in the alumni news, I learned that one guy in my class was essentially a high-grade cabana boy or professional escort, with occupation "entertainment manager" or some such, in charge of "hosting" people.

by the way, same school Susan Collins went to, a few years later.

[Hannah Bell]

83. interesting, thank you. pretty amazing on the tri-delt questionnaire.

[bertman]

79. Only some of our "American Royalty" are descended from the original aristocratic families

from Europe, but they are all part of the bloodline of MONEY. Yet, it's considered "bad form" to talk about "class" issues in America. Very interesting read.

[fascisthunter]

82. wow....

[mmonk]

65. I agree with Jane that the use of referring to critics of real action taken by the administration

are "Naderite" or people with real concerns about some actions taken are "like the Nader supporters" or are left "teabaggers" (all of which have been used) is avoiding looking at any real problems on an issue. It is another action taken as a means to shut someone up by trying to make them the issue instead of the issue itself.

[TiberiusGracchus]

73. It's a lot simpler really; think about what people who defend the Pres. unconditionally are actually

defending:

1. Continued rejection to prosecute (and thus VALIDATION) of the men who violated our principles by torturing prisoners.

2. Expansion of our illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and parts of Pakistan)

3. Continued reticence with robust environmental and climate reform.

4. Continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay torture facility.

5. An expansion and INCREASE in aggressive predator drone bombing attacks on civilian areas not only in Afghanistan but also now in Pakistan.

6. A rejection of genuine socially-responsible healthcare reform procedures like single-payer or even the public option.

7. A total failure to correct the grotesque excesses of the financial industry AND the utter stupidity of bankrolling their means of ignoring the lessons they so desperately needed to learn.

And to this we can expect our fellow DU'ers to urge us to "STAY THE COURSE" and defend the administration because doing otherwise would be "EMBOLDENING THE ENEMY" in the GOP.

Where have we all heard THAT before.

[leftstreet]

77. +1

Welcome to DU!

[EFerrari]

86. + renewed "re-engagement" in Latin America aka

the manipulation of democratic processes and another wave of militarization: Colombia, Panama, Honduras, Peru.

Buckle up.

[johnaries]

93. Wait a minute:

"I would argue that it forces the middle class to pay almost as much to private insurance companies as they do in federal taxes, weakens the coverage of those who have employer-based insurance, and is a Shock Doctrine attempt to raid the public sphere of unprecedented magnitude." I would certainly like to hear that argument, because on the face of it that's a totally bullshit statement.

And maybe The Nation didn't say it, but I will - this bill IS progressive. Not as much as I would like it to be, certainly, but it is progress where there was none. And certainly better than the regressive policies Republicans are pushing. Both of them.

You can criticize it for not going far enough (I do), but to actively seek to kill it is certainly "Naderite".

[TheWebHead]

98. Cool. Didn't know Katrina had it in her

someone at The Nation who isn't so blinded by a purified political ideology that they'd be willing to run the party off the cliff into the political wilderness, where absolutely no progressive agenda is forwarded. There are many at DU that are conditioned to bitch and moan and perhaps would be more comfortable with Democrats out of power again... I'm not one of them.