Jane Hamsher: the one person who stuck to her principles.

[Nikki Stone1]

And mine.

:patriot:

[AnOhioan]

1. Ahh...the unrec crew is already hard at work

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. You think this 1.5 line post is the best DU has to offer?

[Nikki Stone1]

11. Well, come up with something better.

:)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. That would take an investment of two minutes.

As I don't really care one way or the other about recs, it isn't worth my time.

[Nikki Stone1]

20. Two whole minutes!

:)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

27. At a little less than 10 seconds per word.

[yurbud]

18. I unrec'd their unrec which means I rec'd.

[truedelphi]

2. Yes she did, and she really deserves a huge

kickety Kick

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Yes, Republican Principals. Jane Hamsher is not progressive.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. Actually, by this measure, Republicans stuck to their principles as well.

They vowed they would not support the bill. They didn't. Let's give them a great big hand.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Which means that Jane is right at home with the party of terror.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ozymanithrax]

14. She allied her self with Republicans to defeat the most porgressive bill since Medicare.

She has not principals.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Luminous Animal]

23. Which republicans did she ally with in regards to the health insurance bill?

Please respond with links.

[Ozymanithrax]

30. Grover Norquist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/23/jane-hamsher-grover-norqu_n_402287.html

Which makes her about as Republican as she can get.

[Nikki Stone1]

37. Thank you for kicking this post, Ozy.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

[slipslidingaway]

63. That link has nothing to do with health care ...

"Firedoglake:

Today, Grover Norquist and I are calling for an investigation into Rahm Emanuel's activities at Freddie Mac, and the White House's blocking of an Inspector General who would look into it. The letter follows:

...."

[Luminous Animal]

73. You didn't read or, perhaps, understand the question.

It was, "Which republicans did she ally with in regards to the health insurance bill?"

By the way, do you also characterize these people as Republicans? They signed a letter with Norquist, also.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/left-right-coalition-calls-for-an-audit-of-the-federal-reserve-before-bernanke-is-reappointed-as-chair-78372177.html
Ryan Alexander, president, Taxpayers for Common Sense
Chris Bowers, founder, OpenLeft
Dean Baker, co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Robert Borosage, co-director, Campaign for America’s Future
James Kenneth Galbraith, economist
Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee
George Goehl, executive director, National People's Action
John Taylor, CEO, National Community Reinvestment Coalition
Stephanie Taylor, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee
Robert Weissman, president, Public Citizen

I suppose you've been as adamant about smearing them as you have Hamsher.

[Better Believe It]

81. So should there be an investigation of Emanuel and if not, why not?

I'm listening.

[BlooInBloo]

39. From teabagger Jane's own keyboard...

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/23/jane-hamsher-grover-norquist-call-for-rahm-emmanuel%E2%80%99s-resignation/

[Nikki Stone1]

43. Thank you for kicking this post.

Appreciate it.

[BlooInBloo]

46. Any time.

[Nikki Stone1]

52. Appreciate it.

:)

[BlooInBloo]

57. Always here for ya.

[Nikki Stone1]

68. I know you are.

:)

[Better Believe It]

83. Having much luck with your attempt to "swiftboat" Jane?

[BlooInBloo]

85. Not nearly as much as she herself had.

[Luminous Animal]

76. Another person who has conveniently forgotten how to read.

My question was: "Which republicans did she ally with in regards to the health insurance bill?"

By the way, do you also characterize these people as Republicans? They signed a letter with Norquist, also.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/left-right-coalition-calls-for-an-audit-of-the-federal-reserve-before-bernanke-is-reappointed-as-chair-78372177.html
Ryan Alexander, president, Taxpayers for Common Sense
Chris Bowers, founder, OpenLeft
Dean Baker, co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Robert Borosage, co-director, Campaign for America’s Future
James Kenneth Galbraith, economist
Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee
George Goehl, executive director, National People's Action
John Taylor, CEO, National Community Reinvestment Coalition
Stephanie Taylor, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee
Robert Weissman, president, Public Citizen

I suppose you've been as adamant about smearing them as you have Hamsher.

[MilesColtrane]

80. "Which republicans did she ally with in regards to the health insurance bill?"

All of the Republicans in Congress, who all voted to kill the bill.

:shrug:

[Luminous Animal]

88. She did not advocate killing the bill.

She advocated for a strong progressive front in the hopes that a public option would be included in the bill. That is calling "playing hardball". Apparently, the anti-choice Dems (who rarely get smeared on this site the way Jane does - really, how many times do you hear Stupak and his bloc being castigated as "allies of Republicans and teabaggers", when, in fact, they are far more Republican than Jane will ever be) don't have the fortitude of the anti-Democratic platform Democrats like Stupak and his bloc. When the progressives capitulated, Jane went back to straight reporting. She's no dope, she'll maintain her relationship and live to fight another day.

[MilesColtrane]

90. HuffPo article authored by Jane Hamsher:

Title:

Top 10 Reasons to Kill the Senate Health Care Bill

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/top-10-reasons-to-kill-th_b_399245.html

[Luminous Animal]

97. I should have clearer. She did not join the teabagger chorus to "kill the bill".

You know, that cacophony of those whose sole point was opposition to the Democratic party to the delight of the media on Sunday. Back in December, there was still momentum amongst health CARE activists that we could get a better bill than the SENATE bill. Hope was with House and reconciliation.

If you think that BACK IN DECEMBER we should have surrendered on any of these points then you deserve the health insurance reform that we got.


# If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.

# Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can't afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.

# Massive restriction on a woman's right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

# Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.

# Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won't see any benefits -- like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions -- until 2014 when the program begins.

# Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.

# Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.

# No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.

# The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year -- meaning in 10 years, your family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

[MilesColtrane]

99. Noble motives don't make up for stupid, counterproductive actions (advocating members of

Congress walk out late Friday night before the vote on Sunday)

Some day even she won't be pure enough for you.

Can't wait to see you backtrack then.

[Luminous Animal]

106. Do you think you know me?

As an activist, you ask for it all, you live with less or nothing but you never take your eyes off the prize. I understand activists. I know why Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky publicly give a guarded kukos to a job shittily done. I know why Jane still considers Dennis a friend. An activist knows history and takes the long view and understands that change may not happen in his or her lifetime and in the meantime they'll garner invective from the status quo.

[Leopolds Ghost]

102. The bill is founded on anti-progressive principles. The MATH behind it is regressive.

The WHOLE POINT of the bill is to force more americans into the private insurance marketplace in the name of scapegoating "deadbeat" uninsured by choice consumers. Everything else in the bill, including the public option, was designed to reinforce that central objective.

I said this years ago when I started reading about it in Harper's and Washington Monthly.

So, yeah, the bill is anti-progressive and deserved to die. The fact that Republicans opposed it doesn't mean liberals should be for it. But if you want to go down that rhetorical rabbit hole, be prepared to advocate for other horrible bills as well that are crafted to create a ruling class based economy.

[Nikki Stone1]

31. Thank you for kicking this post, Ozy.

:)

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

105. You ARE a comedian! I wasn't sure although you did make

me laugh a few times before. It's not the funniest statement I've ever read, but it's up there!

most progressive bill since Medicare :rofl:

[laughingliberal]

107. +1000 nt

[galileoreloaded]

125. Which bill was that? n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. I don't think she is a Republican.

I disagree with her tactics. My point was merely that standing on your principles is not automatically worthy of praise.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. How people do things is also important.

[Nikki Stone1]

28. Thank you for kicking this post, Ozy.

:)

[Nikki Stone1]

26. Smearing doesn't make it so, young Ozymanithrax

:)

[roguevalley]

91. actually, it means in America you can think and do what you want.

[Nikki Stone1]

8. Smearing doesn't make it so, young Ozymanithrax

You can say it until you're blue in the face and need an ambulance--provided your insurance will cover it. :)

[Luminous Animal]

15. You need to back up that smear.

[FrenchieCat]

5. well yeah....

She has to eat.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Her PUMA Kill The Bill "principles" of Grover Norquist-teabagging bipartisanship are as admirable as

... Dutch Elm Tree disease.

[Nikki Stone1]

24. 4 smears in the title of your post.

That's gotta be some kind of record. :)

Congrats: you could compete with Hannity in a flash. :D

[ClarkUSA]

75. I've noticed "Kill the Bill" Jane fans do tend to deny the truth about her.

You could say that the branch doesn't fall far from the diseased old elm tree.

[cornermouse]

25. From what little I've seen,

At least she didn't slink around cutting backroom deals and then lying about it.

[Nikki Stone1]

29. Excellent point.

She was always right out front and direct.

[ClarkUSA]

66. She's been nothing but a Failer since Day One of the Obama Presidency, like the PUMA she is.

Of course her fans love her for that.

[cornermouse]

71. Let me say this slowly....

Cutting backroom deals and lying to us.

I didn't vote for Hillary and ...oh yeah. I don't have time to frequent FDL and only know Hamsher via DU so you're wrong about that one too.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cornermouse]

84. Actually. I don't have time to listen to Rachel Maddow either.

Look. You want to sit there and pretend you're living in a world of sunshine and lollipops? Fine. Just don't be surprised when the insurance bills start arriving when people take to the streets. There are a lot of democrats (me) and independents who are every bit as angry as the repubs over how Obama did this and the results.

[Luminous Animal]

89. Prove that she is a PUMA.

You do realize, don't you, that the PUMA contingent hates her? Hah! I suppose that makes you a PUMA!

[Ikonoklast]

67. Yep. The gang's all here.

Here the hate for Democrats is tamped down somewhat.

[ClarkUSA]

86. They must be so bored in their echo chamber.

For folks who diss DU non-stop, they sure can't stay away!

[JTFrog]

146. The echo chamber where I've seen at least one in this thread call for impeachment.

The nuts sure don't fall far from the tree.

:crazy:

[Bobbie Jo]

93. LOL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That pretty much sums it up. :rofl:

[sabrina 1]

113. Speaking of bi-partisanship ~

Are you saying Obama was tea-bagging when he invited Republicans into the WH and as he said himself, 'included their ideas in his bill'?

That's going a bit further with bi-partisanship than signing a letter that was also signed by an equally infamous Republican. Unless you think Boner is any better than Norquist?

Listen, I'm with you on not negotiating with Republicans in any way. There's not a single Republican in the country that isn't a reactionary zealot and a cowardly war-mongering liar. But if we're going to say that bi-partisanship with this current crop of scum masquerading as a political party is okay for the president, then it's kind of hypocritical to point fingers at a blogger for following his lead, is it not?

[yurbud]

13. the Democrats have no excuse for leaving insurance companies in the drivers seat--none

after they got the first crappy version of the senate bill through, they were free to improve it with reconciliation including adding a public option that would lead to the eventual and welcome extinction of health insurance companies.

Imagine if Obama applied the kind of pressure to corrupt Blue Dogs and DLCers he did to Dennis Kucinich. Since those pieces of moral filth have no principles, I think they would have folded in the face of pressure from a popular president pushing for a popular policy.

[Nikki Stone1]

22. AMEN.

"magine if Obama applied the kind of pressure to corrupt Blue Dogs and DLCers he did to Dennis Kucinich."

God, EXACTLY!

[jtrockville]

45. True dat.

[readmoreoften]

94. +1

[WillyT]

21. Yes She Did !!! - K & R !!!

:patriot:

:kick:

[WillyT]

32. LOL... Oooo Look... Rec Fight, Rec Fight...

Jesus... there are some REALLY, REALLY, Um... Young People Here.

:rofl:

:wtf:

:evilfrown:

[Nikki Stone1]

36. I'm just having some popcorn.

:popcorn:

[WillyT]

40. I'll Join You...

:popcorn:

:beer:

:smoke:

:hi:

[Nikki Stone1]

41. The beer looks good.

:hi:

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nikki Stone1]

34. In large numbers.

:popcorn:

[WillyT]

48. DLC Loves Them Some Insurance Industry !!!

[NYC_SKP]

35. Jane Hamsher: Tin Foil Ass Hat.

(she is a nut case)

Who is the Most to Blame for Selling Out Abortion Rights in the Health Care Bill?

By: Jane Hamsher Monday March 22, 2010 7:41 pm

Choose one:

* Nancy Pelosi, for not taking Stupak seriously from the start

* NARAL, for staying silent in exchange for White House access

* Dianna DeGette, head of Pro-choice caucus who agreed to the Executive Order before she saw it

* Barack Obama, who signed the Executive Order

* Planned Parenthood, for staying silent in exchange for health center money

* Pro-Choice caucus, who broke their promise, didn't walk out and voted for the bill

:rofl:

All of the Above!!!!

:P

[Nikki Stone1]

38. Thank you for kicking this post.

Much appreciated.

Popcorn?

:popcorn:

[NYC_SKP]

54. I love kicking posts with which I may not agree, love the popcorn too!

And I LOLed at that poll, she calls out every pro-abortion-rights organization as being responsible for stripping abortion rights from the HC bill...

Well, at least she's consistent in her nuttiness.

:popcorn:

[Nikki Stone1]

64. Enjoy your popcorn and thanks again.

Be careful of the carbs though. ;)

[NYC_SKP]

77. I enjoy your posts.

We might only agree on things rarely, but disagreement is not reason for anger or snottiness.

So, thanks for being a reasonable person!

Got any butter? :P

[DevonRex]

132. I do, too. After all, DU needs to see who loves Hamsher and her teabagger friends, right?

[laughingliberal]

42. The more we marginalize the voices from the left the further right the party and country goes

That is why we have a whole buncha bat shit crazies on the tv set screaming that this very pro-bidness health 'reform' is a socialist takeover of the healthcare system. Today's Democrats start from the center, track right, and get called socialists. It does not help us to shut out the left. It just enables this march to the right the whole country has been making since Reagan. I realize a lot of people here don't remember a country without Reagan's influence but we really need to start remembering where the left really is.

[Nikki Stone1]

44. +10,000

Amen.

[ShortnFiery]

124. +1

:-) :hi:

[WillyT]

50. BINGO !!!

But apparently... that's the point.

:shrug:

[laughingliberal]

62. Does seem that way, doesn't it? nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

103. I kept harping on the Overton Window theory when I learned about it here and most don't give a shit

Because they came of age with fully-formed Reaganite beliefs they inherited from their "liberal" parents in the 70s, 80s and 90s and can't believe anyone would challenge their progressivism after all they have done for liberal causes, campaigning for Dems up and down the line regardless of what they stand for, even shopping at Whole Foods when Wal-Mart is cheaper!

[laughingliberal]

108. Yep

Or as one very astute DUer once put it, "some DUers think activism means manning the phone banks while they watch their 401k accounts grow."

[robinblue]

136. yes.

[PBS Poll-435]

47. K & U

:popcorn:

[LostInAnomie]

49. Yep, I'm surprised we didn't see her out there with her beloved teabaggers.

She's a joke.

[Nikki Stone1]

51. Thank you for kicking my post.

I appreciate it and so does Jane, I'm sure. :)

[Bobbie Jo]

70. Exactly.

Anyone who aligns themself with those racist thugs is beyond disgusting. :puke:

[ncteechur]

53. Yes, she would have voted together with John Boehner.

Voting for nothing is not progressive.

[Nikki Stone1]

65. Voting for nothing when the "something" is bad for people IS progressive

" The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the conservative Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

http://www.aei.org/article/101820

[sabrina 1]

130. At least she wouldn't have invited Boehner into the WH

to offer him an opportunity to have some of his 'ideas' included in the bill. Or to tell him not to worry about a PO, there wasn't going to be one. Boehner got more in the bill than any progressive member of Congress, but not because of Hamsher. As Obama and Nancy said 'we included Republican ideas in this bill' so why wouldn't they support it?

Wish he could have said the same thing about progressive ideas.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. It's hard not to get sticky rolling around with Grover Norquist. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

95. Personal experience there?

;)

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Grover's condition is something you can see with the naked eye. n/t

[laughingliberal]

109. Like when Moveon posted this quote from him out of WaPo in 2005

when he opposed Bush's violation of the FISA laws?

https://political.moveon.org/archive/breakingthelaw_sub1.html

Washington Post, Dec 17, 2005

GROVER NORQUIST

Referring to what some see as a conflict between fighting vicious terrorists and upholding all civil liberties, Norquist said: “It’s not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don’t break the existing laws.”

Always very clear cut, isn't it? Damn! Moveon used a quote from him to make a case AND they SUPPORTED the HCR bill!!! Now what??

[Bolo Boffin]

111. Jane's done a little bit more than use a quote or two from Grover. n/t

[laughingliberal]

114. She signed a letter asking for an investigation into some possible irregularites

regarding Rahm Emanuel's involvement with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the possible relationship between that and the administration's plan to increase the TARP payment to these companies before the end of 2009 in order to avoid the need for Congressional oversight. And SURPRISE!!! The administration lifted the cap on aid to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae on Christmas Eve.

Sorry, I just don't go with a kill the messenger philosophy. I'm no fan of any Republican but he did stand up against Bush's violations of the FISA law and he was correct to do so. I'm not sure Jane and Norquist were not correct about the Freddie and Fannie deals. Their statement that the administration was planning to funnel more money to the companies before the end of the year was correct and people here were screaming bloody murder calling that a lie. If you don't want to give credence to your enemies, it would be best not to turn around and do the thing they accuse you of planning.

I also don't wind up having to pretzel myself by putting total faith in any politician or pundit. I was against a mandate in the primaries and it was my reason for caucusing here for Obama rather than Clinton. My position did not change.

[robinblue]

135. Killing the messenger is the rage around here.

[QC]

154. It's so much easier than thinking. n/t

[sabrina 1]

115. Norquist is a lightweight compared to Bush Sr. and

Bush the lesser. Merely a cog in the wheel of the Rightwing machine headed by the Bush Cartel. How do you feel about the close relationship ("he's almost like a son to me" Barbara Bush between Bill Clinton and Bush Sr.?

Or about Obama's endless attempts at bi-partisanship with people like Boehner even going so far as to include their shitty ideas in what was supposed to be a Progressive Health Care Bill? And his friendship with his predecessor, War Criminal Bush Jr? How about Obama's statement that the Tea-baggers were just exercising their right as citizens to say what is on their minds?

How about Ted Kennedy's close friendship with Orin Hatch?

Or Hillary Clinton newfound friends, Murdoch and Newt Gingrich?

Are you so new to politics that you think Democrats and Republicans actually hate each other? Even after just a few years, it was obvious to me that expecting any loyalty from a politician was going to lead to great disappointment. After defending Clinton for so long against the attacks of the Bush mob, and then seeing him practically become a member of the Bush family was all I needed to never again put much faith in any politician. Just make sure they do the job we gave them because it's all just a club in DC and we are not members.

The faux outrage over a blogger using a dirtbag Republican for her own purposes when the above Democrats get a pass for much worse, is almost funny to watch. At least she was on the right side of the Health Care issue, unlike many of our so-called Leaders.

[laughingliberal]

117. Wow! Perfectly stated! nt

[philly_bob]

56. I'm somewhere between 'I don't trust her' and 'Undecided.'

Of course, I never read FireDogLake, I just see her quotes here.

[inna]

58. Absolutely, and K&R for Jane!

Dammit, I wish she ran for office or something!!

:patriot:

:kick:

[ipaint]

59. Yes, she did.

"What makes Jane so unique is that she not only lacks a need for Beltway access, but she affirmatively disdains it. She doesn't need Rahm Emanuel to approve of what she's doing," said Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald, another independent on the left and frequent White House critic, in an email.

...Greenwald chalks up her willingness to defy the White House in part to the fact that she - like he - doesn't hail from a particular Beltway culture.

"I think Jane's success in a prior career has made her immune to the rewards of access -- and fear of punishment -- which keep most younger inside-the-Beltway progressives obediently in line," he said. "She's not 26 years old and desperate to work for a DC think tank, a Democratic politician or a progressive institution. She doesn't care in the slightest which powerful people dislike her, but rather sees that reaction as vindication for what she's doing."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/02-16


I like people who haven't been brainwashed into believing compromising on basic principles is a virtue.

[waiting for hope]

61. K&R

What's left after someone has abandoned principal? A member of congress turned lobbyist.

[earth mom]

72. Yep-it's all about greed and raking in the big bucks when it's all said and done.

Screw the little people-let them eat cake! :grr:

[earth mom]

69. K & R- back up to 5!

:thumbsup:

[Nikki Stone1]

74. Temporarily.

:)

[amborin]

78. K&R

[Ardent15]

79. K and R

nt

[slipslidingaway]

87. knr and a reminder - Why I Reached Out to Grover Norquist on Fannie/Freddie

Her letter with Norquist had nothing to do with the health care debate.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/23/why-i-reached-out-to-grover-norquist-on-fanniefreddie/

"...You collect signatures on letters like these to get media traction, to build pressure so someone has to take action. Kevin apparently didn’t read our letter — it’s about a bailout of Fannie/Freddie that they’re trying to jam through before the end of the year, nothing to do with health care. He also apparently slept through the past nine years when people on the right like Bob Barr, Grover Norquist and Bruce Fein were cosigning letters with ACLU civil libertarians all the time when it came to FISA, domestic spying and transparency. It was hard for them to do, because Bush sycophants dismissed them as “traitors” to the president.

For those with short memories: Here’s Wes Clarke, Mort Halperin, John Dean, John Podesta, Grover Norquist, Bruce Fein and Bob Barr on the Liberty and Security Protection Committee of the Constitution Project.

Here’s Alec Baldwin and Grover Norquist speaking on a PFAW panel in opposition to the Patriot Act. Grover cosigned an ACLU letter against the CAPPS airport spying system in 2003, opposed national ID cards with them in 2004, and supported Prof. Lyle Craker and marijuana grown for medical research in 2005. (And just for fun, here’s Kevin himself cheering on Bruce Fein for going after Roy Moore. Apparently that’s only supposed to cut one way.) For those who are strangers to the civil liberties/transparency world, this stuff has been happening for years right on this very blog.

They all know who Grover Norquist is and what his political history is. So do I. That’s not the point.

In this instance, the fact is that most “liberals” who work at institutions can’t step out and take a shot at Rahm, because Rahm would take it out on their organizations. That leaves the people on the right — those out of Rahm’s reach — who can be called upon to get the media “heft” you need to call attention to an issue. The year-end deadline for doubling the Fannie/Freddie commitment to $800 billion was fast approaching, and it’s hard as hell to get media traction on something over the holidays..."

[Nikki Stone1]

92. A bailout of Freddie/Fanny; a Bailout of Wall street; a bailout of the insurance industry

Aren't the Democrats forgetting somebody?

[slipslidingaway]

98. No, most of the investors are covered :( n/t

[apocalypsehow]

96. No thanks. Unrec.

:thumbsdown:

[berni_mccoy]

101. Actually, she caved and backpedaled after the HCR bill passed. She's worse than a teabagger.

[Leopolds Ghost]

104. Funny how everyone on DU was standing behind the House members who pledged not to support

A bill with no public option (as for me, I would never have supported mandated private insurance knowing what I knew years ago about the way the public option was designed to be a show pony, paid for by fines on the ineligible who refuse to purchase mandated private insurance.)

[laughingliberal]

110. Lots of human pretzels here the past few months. nt

[democracy1st]

112. K & R

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

116. She stuck to something, alright. n/t

[Greyhound]

118. K&R.

[eridani]

119. Geez, looky here! Another Famous Names slinging contest

You know what? I wouldn'g give a flying fuck if someone handed me a health care policy paper signed by Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Margaret Flowers and Howard Zinn IN THEIR OWN BLOOD! I wouldn't endorse it unless and until I had read it and evalutated its facts and logic for myself.

The only reason I think Hamsher is right is that I have read her arguments and agree with them.

[gleaner]

120. Yes she did ....

and lest you forget, she always has. During the Bush years she was a voice of clarity and reason. She is a woman living with cancer which by itself takes more courage than a lot of people have.

The fact that she raised her voice against Obama's health care does not decrease her credibility or her ability to stand up for her principles. You may not like Norquist. I don't. You may not like Hamsher. I do. I admire people with principles even when they don't agree with me.

If more people could tolerate disagreement without sinking to name calling and defamation the world would be a much better place. You don't always have to agree with people to admire them. Only Rush Limbaugh and those like him want ditto heads. People need to think for themselves and act on their beliefs otherwise nothing would ever change.

I don't think this health care bill is so great either. I doubt it will ever be "fixed up" to the point where is a truly helpful universal instrument. People like to say that something is better than nothing, but it depends on what you are talking about. Is it better to have roaches than not to have roaches? It is a matter of perspective. Think outside the box. It can be addictive and exhilarating.

[Prism]

121. Yes and no. But we save all our best venom for the Left

I'll admit I'm not much in agreement that Hamsher stuck to her principles. Allying with the people she did only served to damage her own cause and alienate people who might have otherwise listened to her message. The policies she advocates are sound, but it's very difficult to hear them over the dull roar of the worst the right-wing has to offer.

That said, I do think it's interesting that Hamsher is regarded as a kind of anti-christ. Of all the villains and all the Republican policies that crept into the bill, this one blogger is somehow the greatest betrayal of them all. Not mandates. Not dropping the public option. No, Jane Hamsher is the worst thing that happened in this process.

I know some people, and I'm occasionally among them, wonder why the Left always comes in for a vicious smear campaign when it goes off the partisan reservation. It is a curious impulse. Kucinich received a hundred times the rage than any single Republican did during the debate. It seemed genuinely puzzling. I think part of it has to do with ownership of individuals within a group. If you want to see some true hatred, watch an African-American or LGBT say they're conservative. I don't have much in common with them, but when they start talking, the attacks are almost otherworldly and become intensely personal very quickly. There's a kind of "Traitor!" feeling to them. The group feels the individual owes a certain level of partisan obedience. I think this is a human impulse.

But there's something else there, something more insidious. I started noticing a few things. Little things. For example, one poster who is one of the most prominent anti-Hamsher's on this site was posting about a liberal area of the country, and within his/her post was this very deep, abiding disdain for "those dirty fucking hippies" and liberals. Another prominent anti-Hamsherite has never had a kind word to say about any liberal group or cause while regularly espousing ideas that are rarely even a shade within Democratic principles. Again and again, the more I looked, the more I realized the most vigorous anti-Hamsherites are some of the least liberal people around.

They're conservative Blue Shirts. The fact of the matter is, the Republican party is imploding. It isn't difficult to notice at a passing glance. The Democratic Party has been ascendant the past four years. A lot of people like to identify with the winner. They want to be on The Team, and I think, with our electoral success, we've absorbed a lot of right-leaning independents who want to bask in those wins, to be on the powerful side, to be able to say "I am backing winners!" So they muddle around and pretend they're all about Democratic principles (except the part where they almost never ever are).

But then the opportunity to safely attack a liberal offers itself up. They cannot resist. It's scorpion and turtle, isn't it? It's in their nature. So they go to town under the light cover of "They're bad for the party!" and get to indulge their anti-liberal views with impunity.

Read these posters again some time, and marvel at just how anti-Democratic they can be. They're real easy to spot. They're typically anti-LGBT, screaming about teachers, overly gung-ho about war, participant in conservative religious gobbledy-gook, cavalier about the rights and freedoms of women. They're not subtle.

And they're everywhere.

And they all hate Jane Hamsher.

Liberal women? Drive them absolutely batshit crazy. A liberal stepping off the reservation? Open season, people. And boy howdy, they waste absolutely no time, no time at all trying to put her right back in her place. What they don't get is that all they end up doing is defining their own positions for all to see.

And, of course, we do see it. They really do think we're just as stupid as they are.

Not so much, though.

[laughingliberal]

123. +10,000 Perfectly stated. nt

[ShortnFiery]

126. Awe inspiring = your insight. Excellent commentary.

I noted the same level of "intense hatred" for Cynthia McKinney a few years back. Yet, I couldn't fully identify the souce... Hell, I didn't understand the sentiment of these folks ... not at all. It stands to reason that SOME of our conservadems IMO push the envelopment of "the big tent" of the democratic party to the LIMIT.

Thanks much for your clear rationale for what's pulling our party to the "corporate right."

It stands to reason that the conservative members of our party would get the power and $$$ to accomplish their goals first.

What troubles me is the lack of respect for those of us to the left of center politically.

We don't even get an modicum of thoughtful recognition, much less "the scraps" of social justice legislation, i.e., zero recognition re: a woman's right to choose as well as obfuscation and delay on the repeal of DADT. :(

[Prism]

142. It's one of the great differences between Right and Left

The thing about the Right is, they'll go to the mat for their own. Loyalty is a double-edged sword, but no one can say the Right doesn't exhibit loyalty. No matter how stupid and radical the figure (Beck, Palin, Limbaugh), they'll circle the wagons. "No enemies to the Right".

That kind of unquestioning loyalty isn't necessarily a virtue, but it does give them an advantage. We, on the other hand, will throw apostates to the wolves in as soon as there is a whiff of blood on the breeze.

I'll be honest. McKinney isn't my favorite person in the world for various reasons. But the total shunning she received while the Becks and Palins and Hannitys enjoy fame, power, and influence does illustrate the imbalance. And the Left responds to this with attempts to placate the Right out of some odd, misguided impulse when the Right would rather throw themselves from a cliff rather than compromise with liberals.

And the thing is, this isn't a mysterious lesson hidden by secret-keepers high on a mountain somewhere. This is basic political knowledge that every politician and party activist should have access to. The increasingly radicalized Right doesn't want to compromise. They proved that from day one of this administration with the stimulus.

And yet, no, we have to give up everything asked from us, throw our friends and allies overboard, shove as many people out of the balloon basket as we can until we've enough media ballast to finally float to that magical stratosphere of "Republicans still hate us, but now we can pretend we're bipartisan!"

For what? What are we getting out of this? When you burn a thousand bridges, all I see is a broken landscape. It is not, in fact, a brand new super highway no matter what kind of extravagant ribbon-cutting ceremony they've devised.

I still can't decide if this is cluelessness or willful, but these same old lessons still have not been learned. When the President has a massive mandate for reform, and he instead lounges around with detached interest and only leaps up at the last moment when the entire mess is teetering on disaster, there's something strange going on there. He's either a terrible politician or a complicit one. Six of one, half dozen, etc.

[sabrina 1]

128. Excellent post.

There is another reason why Hamsher is a target of the so-called left. She was the one who revealed the arm-twisting by Rahm Emanuel of liberal groups like Moveon to stop running ads criticizing Blue Dogs. Her revelations made it clear they did not want a PO and were just playing games to keep the support of the left. To the DLC that was unforgiveable. A betrayal as she was on their list of groups who received these insider communications.

So as soon as they found something to attack her with, they did.

As if the leadership of this party hasn't associated with Republicans as despicable as Norquist, hasn't had them in the WH begging them for approval.

I've never been a fan of that blog, for reasons not worth talking about, but this is simply a pushback of someone who did not accept the lies about why Democrats refused to keep their promises. She had to be discredited to distract from the betrayal of the party leadership.

And they calculated well that they could manipulate people and make them forget what the real issues were. At least some of them. Fortunately we are not all blinded by partisanship and have not been distracted by these side shows.

I will not forget the vile attacks on people like Kucinich either, someone who did nothing to earn them, but stood up to the end for what all these phonies claimed they were for, until they were against it.

[Prism]

143. Well, you don't mess with Chicago politicians

As a Chicagoan, I can tell you they're cutthroat, and they were certainly prepared to go after Hamsher with a bit of piano wire.

But you hit at the heart of the bizarre nature of the attacks on her. She might have gotten into bed with unsavory elements, but so did the administration. It seems to me theirs is the more egregious violation since it had a tangible, direct effect on law. And if we're really going to be upset with people allying with anti-liberal forces, then we could do to look no further than right here on this board for people who make it a personal hobby to derisively mock liberals (hell, one of them is a mod now!)

People need villains and, for the usual reasons, they needed to make an example out of a few liberals who objected to the corporate nature of this bill. Hamsher, unfortunately, did herself no favors by rubbing up against Norquist. She simply made the political operatives' job that much easier.

[walldude]

129. You should make this it's own thread... Well stated

and good observation... Thanks man :toast:

[Prism]

144. It's a losing battle at this point, though

I'm just howling into the wind until I exhaust myself and move on to the next issue. The other side won, the people lost. The best we can do at this point is get an umbrella.

[stevenleser]

140. She is part of and thus represents the worst thing that happened during this process.

Since January 21, 2009 there is only one thing that could stop the Democrats and that is division in our ranks. Once Obama was elected, I thought to myself, NO WAY are Democrats going to allow themselves to become divided again. Not with what we have just been through. Not when that is the only thing that has stood in our way in the past.

But yes, it happened AGAIN.

Sorry to say that the direction that some bills take may not be 100% to your liking. There is only one President at a time. When he and the leadership in congress are from our party, some may be more or less left, center left, whatever. This law that just passed does not, by any means, encompass the entirety of my hopes and dreams for Healthcare Reform. But I believe we are much better off than before the bill. It was NEVER my goal to destroy the health insurance companies. They are irrelevant to me. They ought to be irrelevant to anyone. The point is to make sure people can get care. Now, almost all of them will. There will be no more such thing as a "Pre-existing condition".

I am against anyone who unnecessarily causes division in our ranks. Yes, I get to decide FOR MYSELF what is unnecessary. I believe those who fought against this bill did so unnecessarily and in that fight, Hamsher was one of the ring-leaders. So, YES, she is one of the worst things that happened during all of this.

[Prism]

141. Why don't the politicians ever have any responsibility?

See, the thing that bothers me most is what can be most kindly termed as the infantilization of the President. He is treated as a child who either doesn't know any better or is, like Johnny the Perfect Son, a victim of adults who are out to get him. Just as a teacher can never explain to parents who don't want to hear it that their kid might be misbehaving, so critics of this President never have a point in the eyes of the protectors. It is always on them to adapt - never the President.

Why is it the President and politicians are never at any degree of fault for causing division in our ranks?

I could easily highlight a dozen issues where this administration and Congress unnecessarily and stupidly antagonized a constituency. I can tell you, the LGBT community certainly wasn't in the mood for the incompetence and indifference that came our way. And the key word here is unnecessary. How did Rick Warren work out for bringing evangelicals together with a bipartisan gesture? How has the handling of DOMA benefited anyone at all? How has this relentless, rudderless foot-dragging on DADT generated goodwill and understanding?

All unnecessary, all his own doing, and yet in your mind it is everyone else who needs to be understanding - never the President.

The President and Congress are practically the most powerful people in a democracy. It is not for us to understand them, but for them to understand us. If they aren't worried about what we think, they're not going to do a sound job or work as vigorously for our interests as they ought to.

I realize this "Not 100% perfect" meme is never going to die. It's an easy, flip answer that people think addresses the question. But it does not. The people deeply discontented with this bill were prepared to compromise. No single-payer? Fine, a public option. Mandates? Not thrilled, but as long as there is a public option . . .

But again and again, the President went out of his way to play these games, to create this illusion he was concerned about the public option, and again and again his actions disproved the rhetoric. If he had no intention of fighting for something a large portion of his base - and, I'd remind you, a majority of the American people - wanted, then who is at fault for the acrimony when the President doesn't even attempt to deliver it?

You believe our disorganized ranks are at fault. Critics. Discontent liberals. Not the President who made those lofty promises and then in his weakness and desire for political victory let them dissipate in the political winds without the slightest hint of protest from the White House. Nope. It's all our doing.

I would posit it's your attitude that divides parties, your attitude that hardens the impression that the party is not working in our interests - nor, apparently, should they even pretend to, so obvious and cavalier is the attitude that we should simply accept whatever the politicians deign to give us.

That is the kind of condescending dismissiveness that makes people stay home during an election. Of course, should November be a mess, you'll probably be right back here explaining why it's all our fault. Not the President, not Congress, not the powerful, not the people in a position to influence policy and pass laws. They are forever perfect (well, not 100%, but it's a start!).

And the people? They suck.

Sorry, in a democracy such as we have, I don't believe in top-down adulation. Personally, I think this odd coddling impulse and over-protective posturing in defense of the President's ineptitude has a strange little prick of paternalism to it. But, he really is the President. Honest. And I think he'll do just fine without all these human shields flinging themselves in front of him.

It's unnecessary and seriously unhelpful. It influences nothing. It does nothing to draw policy to the Left. It allows our policies to drift ever rightward with the apologists giving nothing but endless cover fire that costs the President nothing.

If politics is a tug of war, it'd be just gravy if our own party would help us pull instead shoving these endless sticks between our ankles.

[QC]

152. +1

[stevenleser]

156. the reason the "Not 100%" meme isn't going to die is something that you should further examine

If there are 536 people in a room who have to decide on how to do just about anything, what are the chances that someone observing is going to be 100% satisfied with the result in every way?

If those same 536 people are routinely called on to do this (make decisions), what is going to happen? They are going to form coalitions of groups where there is some broad agreement. That necessarily means that even within those broad areas of agreement, there are going to be people who are not happy and positions not taken.

Ultimately, if I want to be 100% happy with policies, the only way for that to happen is if there is a dictatorship where I get to make all of the decisions unilaterally. I hope that makes sense. I hope you realize that even among all of our senators and congresscritters and Presidents, none of them are 100% happy either and it is impossible to get to that point.

[Prism]

157. Careful with a strawman that large - you'll starve the horses.

Because you don't need 536 people in a room to agree on the public option. You simply needed a majority - which the House had.

Then there's the Senate, whose latest excuse was "Well, sure, we have the votes to pass it during reconciliation, but we don't want the bill to go back to the House . . ."

And now it's going back to the House. The new rationale and buck-passing will be . . . well, wait a bit. Someone will offer one up, and it will be seized upon and presented as a self-evident truth. The policy isn't nearly as interesting or vital as the ass-covering and spin.

I never expect to be 100% happy with any policy. But offering up 25% happiness and declaring "Well, it's not 100%. Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?" is the height of disingenuousness. You can't start using the word perfect in way of comparison if you're not even halfway to it.

If this bill were even 75% good, I'd be supporting it. It is not. Candidate Obama himself said mandates and no public option were about the worst approach to reform he could think of.

Yet, here we are, as mandated by the politicians. And once again, the politicians have no responsibility. It's the people who should be castigated because they had the idiocy to hope the politician was actually speaking in earnest during the campaign.

I don't mind the apologias overly much. It's politics, they happen. It's the dishonesty and towering strawmen that constantly attend them that really generate animosity. If you have to set up that kind of walloping wicker figure to make your case, you've lost the argument before you typed the first word.

[stevenleser]

162. Obviously what I was trying to say went over your head.

Don't say I didnt try to dialogue.

[Prism]

163. No, I understood you quite well

Unfortunately, what you were trying to say had very little relevance to the facts and discussion at hand and addressed an artificial sentiment I had not expressed. At this point, I sort of figured you wanted the prerogative of constructing both sides of the debate so you could have a go at yourself. Which, by all means. I don't mind bowing out. I tend to do that sort of thing as a thinking process out of public view, but I understand some people think better on paper.

[Luminous Animal]

161. Excellent post. Thanks!

[pecwae]

147. Tweak that a bit for an outstanding OP.

"If you want to see some true hatred, watch an African-American or LGBT say they're conservative." This is an excellent example of the hate displayed daily on many allegedly Democratic sites. It's the same as plantation mentality; do (or vote, or feel) as I say because you couldn't possibly know your own mind as well as I do. It's inexcusable.

[Prism]

149. I really loathe the whole "house" epithet

Not only because it's a very offensive misuse of racial history, but because it displays a glib psychology of the group having the right to strip people of their individualism. It also diminishes critical thought by ordering people to think in a precisely uniform manner by virtue of immutable physical characteristics. There's a whiff of true fascism in it that instills feelings of horror in me.

It also doesn't scan very well when it comes to personal experience. The internet seems almost Manichean compared to life. On the internet, everyone is in their little groups and must think accordingly or be attacked. In life, my friends and acquaintances are incredibly varied individuals whose ideas cannot be assumed from their membership in various identity groups. I always joke with a black, conservative gay acquaintance that he's the most self-loathing individual I know. Not because he's black, gay, and conservative, but because he tells people about it.

I may not agree with Republicans or conservative ideology. I may think it's corrosive to liberty and American progress. But I'm not going to use something as personal as identity to viciously browbeat people into thinking the way I do. It just seems monstrous and illiberal.

[pecwae]

153. I love the way you think.

Yours are some of the most admirable and worthy posts here. I appreciate you. Thanks!

[Prism]

155. Hmm, you must've missed the post about wearing boxers in public

But I do appreciate the sentiment =)

[Starry Messenger]

148. I agree with your theory 100%

They are pretending less and less these days. We're in bat country.

[gkhouston]

151. Beautifully put. Wish I could rec this. n/t

[freddie mertz]

122. I applaud Ms. Hamsher's efforts on behalf of true HCR.

We will be working with her again, as the battle for reform continues.

[dionysus]

127. who?

:shrug:

[DevonRex]

131. Fuck Hamsher and her teabagger buddies. She disgusts me, as does anyone

who would align with those bigots.

[tbyg52]

133. K&R. nt

[LWolf]

134. K & R nt

[stevenleser]

137. Kick and UnRec. If you are allying yourself with teabaggers, that ought to tell you something, i.e.

YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG!!!!!

[sabrina 1]

139. Well, you must be just livid over

Obama's statement that Tea-baggers are just citizens exercising their right to express their opinions. He doesn't seem to share your opinion of them.

[amborin]

138. i am saddened that there is also such an offensive OP about Hamsher

by a new moderator, no less

[Prism]

145. Seriously

When it comes to enforcing civility, it'd be a thought to appoint someone who has evidence of being civil themselves.

This'll be interesting. I can't help but think there's a message underlying it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

160. And just what would you know about civility? (nt)

[QC]

150. That thread has been dropped into the memory hole.

Poof!

[branders seine]

158. see also: David Sirota

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

159. Thank fucking god neither of you won the day. (nt)