Bernie Sanders isn’t a Democrat, he’s an independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. He calls himself a socialist. According to Progressive Punch, he’s the 12th most progressive member of the Upper Body. They rank him as first or tied for first on health care, opposing corporate subsidies, education and the arts, fair taxation, family planning, housing, labor rights, and issues of war and peace. The rankings at Progressive Punch favor senators who have been elected in the last two election cycles because they never had to serve under Bill Frist and cast deliberately difficult votes, but among the group of senators that have been in office since before 2007 only Jack Reed of Rhode Island has a better progressive score than Bernie Sanders (you might remember that I lobbied hard for Reed to get the VP nomination).
It was Bernie Sanders who introduced a single-payer amendment to the Senate health care reform bill. I don’t think it is controversial at all to say that on health care, at least, Sanders is the best of the 100 members of the Senate. So, naturally, FDL Action is threatening him with a primary from his left because he is voting for the president’s number one domestic agenda, the Senate health care reform bill. This is on a day when Jane Hamsher appeared on Fox & Friends and teamed up with Grover Norquist in some kind of conspiracy-laden pogrom against the president’s chief of staff.
I was polite for a while. Anyone still left in the employ of FDL ought to consider heading for exits now. It ain’t gonna get any prettier.
Don’t know what Tbogg is still doing there, and I was upset that dday took a job with them, leaving digby.
And no slight to you, Booman, but Greenwald is probably my favorite blogger because of how thorough he is. However he needs to drop Hamsher as his bff, which is something that I’ve noticed ever since Obama’s FISA vote during the election.
Greenwald isn’t my favorite, but he is the best.
But I disagree with him on a lot of the same things I disagree with Jane about. The difference is that Greenwald is about as vigorously honest as it is possible to be. He might not always be fair, but he always deals in facts.
Yep, and that’s why I can respect him despite our disagreements.
It’s just getting old, because he references Hamsher far too often, defends her far too often, and it’s been this way ever since July 2008.
I don’t wanna bring up the primary season, but if you took a vendiagram of all the people attacking/using Rahm as their personal punching bag, for whatever reason, I wouldn’t be surprised if you ended up landing a lot of PUMAs/people just waiting to bring up the harsh season and point fingers.
Taylor Marsh is of particular annoyance and comes to mind…
You know, I didn’t like many of the decisions that Emanuel made when he chaired the DCCC and I think he was wrong and Howard Dean was right about the utility of the 50-state strategy. But Rahm, overall, kicked serious ass as DCCC chairman. Did he marginalize some progressives in favor of Blue Dogs? Yes. Yes he did. Are we paying a price for that now? Yeah, we are. At least, we are in a handful of seats. But where does all this hostility come from? You’d think he was Joe Lieberman or something. He’s a ruthless motherfucker for the left. Not the far left, granted, but for the left. And he gets results. I wish we had an equally foul-mouthed son-of-a-bitch progressive in his place, but I don’t hate the guy. I don’t think he’s my enemy on 98% of the things I care about. What gives?
Well, so did Kos. Does everyone forget that in 2006, most people rallied around his strategy, thinking that once we got a progressive/liberal/Democrat in office after 2008 everything else would naturally fall in place?
Sure there was still effort in 2008 to get more Democrats elected, but it’s like everyone has amnesia.
I’m not sure what you mean regarding Kos.
I shouldn’t say this out loud (or type it into the tubes) but my only explanation is that we’re witnessing a deliberate shifting of Overton’s Window by Jane, Howard, et al. The dissonance we’re feeling is that the water is choppy once you step off the reality-based boat.
Moreover, the psychology of the left is far less susceptible to the follow-the-leader type of movement that makes such tactics successful on the right. The left wing just doesn’t have as many nuts.
John Cole explains it here:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=31456
Yeah, I don’t like attributing hidden motives, but some of this Obama hate campaign from the so-called left is just too PUMA not to notice.
Is saying that Obama isn’t a liberal “hate speech”? If it is, that says more to the Daves and rhodas of Booland than the Hamshers.
By the way, while I didn’t see a whole lot of difference in what either Obama or Clinton would bring to the table, I was opposed to H. Clinton’s candidacy because I didn’t like all the inside players around her. Turns out all the people around her, plus her, ended up around Obama.
“I wish we had an equally foul-mouthed son-of-a-bitch progressive in his place, but I don’t hate the guy [Rahm Emanuel].”
LOL!! Fucking hilarious coming from you!!!
On one hand, you constantly harp on the importance of “results” even as, on the other hand, you define them down to a pittance.
I daresay R.M. doesn’t give a damn how much you may have disapproved of what he’s done. When you give him your assent, however grudging it might be, he’s got all he’s interested in. It’s a bit like Exxon Mobil or Archer Daniels Midland sponsoring those “liberal” political talk shows on Sundays—they don’t care how much you despise their corporations; you tuned in. That’s enough for them.
Ironically, like you, R.M. is only interested in “the bottom line”, not how he gets there. So your support is all that counts. He’d use you shamelessly and never look back. Of course, you’re far too politically savvy to allow that to happen!
How the hell do you primary an independent?
good point. I thought about amending this piece because of that. What we do in Vermont is have a gentleman’s agreement not to run a Democrat in the race. So, it’s actually easy for Jane. All she needs to do is get a Democrat in Vermont to actually run. Then Sanders needs to win a three-way general. It’s kind of like a primary, but worse.
I’m not sure it would matter if they did run a Democrat. I don’t have any idea how Vermont’s election law works, but the last time he was up for election Sanders got 91% of the votes in the Democratic primary. He of course ran as an independent (read: socialist) instead, and got something like 60% of the vote in the general election.
Primary Sanders? Especially if your aim is to get someone more liberal into his seat? Yeah, good luck with that (even if it were possible).
Me, I’d like to see about 40 Bernie Sanders and Al Frankens in the Senate.
One commenter over on FDL told me the other day that she loved, loved, loved Bernie Sanders but now completely hates his guts for pulling his amendment off the floor after 2.5 hours of it being read. Sanders explained that the right wing stall tactics had gone on long enough and that’s why he pulled it. Oh, but no! The FDL Douchebaggers won’t allow this kind of thing! They’re working to take Sanders down now. What a bunch of a-holes.
You know, sometimes we lefties have the loyalty and attention span of a Gilbert and Sullivan chorus. I blame . . .
(rolls dice, consulta table)
Video games.
It almost seems like she is aiming at the teabag crowd. The comments at FDL have that feel. Give it a month and some will be questioning Obama’s patriotism.
Won’t be long before she is the Fox ‘go to liberal’ populist.
nalbar
There’s almost a sneaky brilliance to that it she can pull it off.
Cross post it at DKos.
Hello – I think I remember your name from DKos. I agree completely. It would correspond well to last night’s diaries (a friend sent me links) and maybe bring more people here. Members there are hurting for a sane blog.
Meanwhile, over at Congress Matters, Casual Wednesday reports
I am completely disgusted with Jane Hamsher at the moment! Wait until next year when the right wingers use her quotes in their campaign videos! Spit. I used to respect her until the day she decided to publicly go after Caroline Kennedy. Hamsher is a disgrace to herself! In my eyes, she’s no different than Joe LIEberman at the moment.
When will Jane give birth to Dick Cheney’s baby to prove that Democrats are not the answer to our nation’s health care problem? Spit again.
Thank you for breaking what appears to be a “kewlkidz mutual non-criticize agreement”, and showing this blog doesn’t operate in a fashion similar to the MSM.
I patiently await responses from AmericaBlog, Atrios, Yglesias, Digby, and some other kewlkidz about Teabagger Jane.
This blog kabuki has gotten out of hand.
The problem is that as long as the obstruction is on the part of conservative Democrats, the bill gets language that moves in a corporatist direction. So Jane gets the idea that you need to stiffen the spine of progressive Democrats so they can play the obstruction game as well. A lot of progressives are continually looking at their right flank and ignoring their left flank, thinking progressives have nowhere else to go. Threatening to primary is a way of applying pressure when thousands of calls from constituents hasn’t moved Congress. There is nothing wrong in threatening to primary an incumbent. And in this case it was not Jane Hamsher but a resident of Vermont who called Sanders out. And for whatever reasons, Sanders did hold his vote until passage was assured. Sanders can take care of himself; he’s in no danger; he’s not up again until 2012.
Jane has been doing something very helpful relative to the healthcare bill. By being a “liberal” who opposes it, she has denied the labeling of it as a liberal bill. And she has constructed a critque of the Senate bill that will be useful in getting a mandate in 2010 or 2012 to move the law away from being a boondoggle for insurance companies. There are no progressive fingerprints on this bill. The worst and potentially least popular parts of the Senate bill have ConservaDem fingerprints on them–Lieberman, Baucus, Lincoln, Landrieu, Conrad.
The appearance on Fox and Friends delivered some shots against the Bush administration’s and Republican records on healthcare reform. In the midst of a similar critique of the bad parts of the Senate bill — individual mandates without premium price controls. It was the first time I saw a clip from Fox in which and attack on Republicans went unchallenged from the host. Watch the video carefully instead of depending on a cursory watching or on second-hand reports.
Financial industry reform is on the agenda, but has been obscured by healthcare reform. And there is among progressives the fear that the same kind of capitulation to lobbyists and the industry that went on in healthcare reform is occurring again with respect to financial industry reform. Central to getting reform right is understanding what actually happened between the time Phil Gramm shoved through the Commodities Market Modernization Act in 2000 and the collapse of the financial markets in 2008. The housing bubble is a key part of this. And there are public players whose roles have not been investigated–the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.
There is not a lot of logic to the reappointment of Ben Bernanke as chair of the Fed. He still does not realize what he did that fueled the housing bubble and he wants to correct the federal debt problem by reducing entitlements. The Angelides commission has not begun work but the financial industry reform bill has cleared the House, and Dodd and Shelby have come to an agreement to facilitate passage in the Senate. And after almost a year, no inspector general has been appointed to examine the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On its merits, the Hamsher-Norquist letter asks for rapid appointment of an inspector general with broad authority to look at actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back to the passage of Gramm’s bill. That is reasonable.
It is also reasonable to examine the due diligence taken by the board in the decisions made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2000-2001 in response to the Gramm bill. One of those board members was Rahm Emmanuel. Given that fact, it is reasonable to asked whether the delay in appointment of an inspector general is a consequence of a decision by Rahm. If he was not involved in the decision and if he showed due diligence as a board member, he is cleared. The appearance of impropriety is taken away.
Here is where it gets squirrely. Norquist is maneuvering in a libertarian direction, having work on some issues with the ACLU and other left libertarian groups. He also is a Republican operative, who no doubt would like to bring down Obama.
Jane has been on Rahm Emmanuel’s case for these actions. First, using a liberal coordination group similar to Norquist’s Wednesday Meeting to constrain activism instead of channel it into pressure to move the agenda Obama campaigned on. Second, Rahm and the administration’s tactic of “punch a hippie” to prove that their policies are not liberal, an activity that has many grassroots volunteers from the Obama campaign livid. Rahm’s perceived tilting of the White House’s opening negotiating position on healthcare reform to the Blue Dog and New Democrat caucus members instead of starting from a strong position so that compromise would not give up so much. Jane is of the opinion that Obama gave away the store and that Rahm provided the cover. Given executive privilege, how will we ever know what went on. And Jane, now being in DC, hears all the rumors that make it into the rumor sheets — The Hill, Politico, etc. It doesn’t add up to transparency no matter what the truth of the matter. But there are real issues here is how the White House is moving its agenda and especially what it portends for financial industry reform, climate change responses, DADT/DOMA, and the Employee Free Choice Act, all of which are on the agenda because of some part of the coalition that Obama put together to get elected. And on top of that is Rahm’s STFU order to the left, something that he should know produces the opposite reaction. So, yes, there is a personal conflict that Jane has with Rahm (Rahm could care less).
But there are a lot of legitimate issues here that need to be dealt with.
Characterizing it as a “conspiracy-laden pogrom against the chief of staff” is a bit strong and Godwinish.
I for one am going to not judge the tone or effectiveness of Jane’s actions until I see the contents of the healthcare bill that Obama signs.
Within the progressive movement, there is a left flank and a right flank. They might not always agree, but they are part of the same movement. And we are beginning to move forward. It’s time to take the personal affronts and attacks down a notch, for the sake of your readers. And realize that Pie Fights are the lifeblood of progress in the progressive blogosphere.
And start looking for more signs of a realignment on a populist-establishment basis instead of on an ideological basis. The push for party ideological purity and quasi-parliamentary politics begun by the conservatives in the 1960s has about run its course. What I see where I am is that progressives need to be on the populist side of this realignment.
Bullshit.
This woman just Whitewatered Obama and the MSM crowd will converge on this story that is pure bullshit b/c they can scream fire at the Whitehouse.
This is dangerous shit.
Grover Norquist signed that letter with glee because it starts investigation calls: that is 2010. During the election they will call out scandal, scandal, scandal until Obama becomes a school uniforms president.
She signed that letter not to take out Rahm; but to take out President Obama because she realized she has no pull on him in the left. Chris Bowers wrote a post the other day about how President Obama owns the left right now and that is a problem for issue progressives and that is what they need to organize around. Jane’s solution? Destroy Obama.
But you know what?
That destroys the party.
It leads to the right screaming dirty Democrats are corporatists as they oppose financial reform.
This is not about a left and right flank. That is so fucking rich. This is really, really simple. Jane Hamsher got zero on this health bill. She has no political victories. She has no wins. She’s frustrated. And she is lashing out at everyone to burn the fucking house down.
This isn’t pressure from the left. That would not involve using right wing frames against progressive policy; which is what she did in the kill the bill stuff. She attacked from the right, not the left.
So don’t fucking rationalize this shit.
It’s irrational and stupid. And it’s on par with the black face.
She’s basically pulling a Ken Starr on this president. That shit isn’t cool. It’s not progressive. And it’s fucking offensive to see you say that.
Hopefully, that bitch will flame out like Johnson did looking for a whitey tape.
“This bitch”? “Black face”? “Pulling a Ken Starr”? “Destroying Obama”?
How about a public option, or is asking akin to segregation?
This Bitch: Refers to Jane Hamsher. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Black Face: Refers to her putting a picture of Lieberman in black face on a post that Lamont had to deal with during the primary.
Pulling a Ken Starr: Is this bogus investigation in Emmanuel to mire the White House in investigations and prevent the president from working on his agenda.
Destroying Obama: She’s basically allied with the right to do this. It’s crystal clear in this letter. Those who are angry about the President may want to pretty it up; but she’s pulling a Ken Starr and looking for a dress to wrap this administration in and cripple it. How that furthers progressives is beyond me.
And this shit isn’t about a public option, man. It’s FAR from about the public option. If you think that’s WHY she’s pulling this shit I’ve got a bridge to sell ya. This is political payback. She’s trying to club for growth kneecap the president. She knows she has no support on the left to do it; so she’s going right and saying hey sometimes progressives need to make alliances on the right.
Bullshit.
Grayson made a political allliance to destroy the fed’s powers with a liberterian. He did so in progressive language and kneecapping Repulicans along they way and claiming credit for the president and the party. That’s how this is done right.
THIS.
Is a baby who has misread the tealeaves from jump. Did nothing but cost Pelosi (IMO) the +5 Medicare Public Option she would have gotten by scaring Reid into putting a halfassed PO into the base bill and creating drama and alienating Snowe. She has contributed nothing Pelosi, Reid, Obama weren’t going to get. Folks give her credit she doesn’t deserve.
This bitch is screwing with the party and she’s started the investigations fights the president’s managed to avoid. This is all about her and you can be blind as a bat if you want to; just don’t blow that shit in this direction.
I dunno who you are, but I kinda like you. 🙂
I’m with you on the merits, but I’d strongly prefer it if you could make the same points w/o calling anyone a bitch.
I’m sorry. I’ll avoid that in the future here.
The healthcare reform bill is not yet passed. Until it is on Obama’s desk, we won’t know how effective progressive pressure has been.
Aha. Lanny Davis reminded folks of the blackface picture of Joe Lieberman from 2006. And all of a sudden that is what highjacks discussion about the merits of the Senate healthcare reform bill and issues in financial industry reform.
Well, help us out in the future. Exactly what graphic would you use to show that a candidate was pandering to blacks in his constituency with little record of actually delivering? I’ve been trying to think of one that would not offend someone. And there was an apology.
But that is water over the dam. White liberals often trip over their unconscious racism. Especially those from outside the South who have not had to struggle with more open racism. And white corporate politicians have long ago learned how to use the race card in sophisticated ways to get what they want.
Sunshine never destroys a party. We were promised sunshine; the rationalization has been over why that wasn’t delivered and we are back in politics as usual.
And it is up to Eric Holder as to what is done with the letter. It takes more than Jane and Grover to get a Ken Starr investigation going.
That aside.
If Obama owns the left now it is through the lefty organizations that Rahm meets with weekly and not all of them are comfortable with the one-way flow of communications. How exactly does the agenda he campaigned on get passed? How exactly do we hold him accountable for how he governs between now and 2012 so that there isn’t a mass defection of base voters in 2012? How exactly is that a two-way conversation?
We really don’t need Obama to own the left, we need him to own the center so that he can accomplish what he said he was going to do. And Obama is strong enough that he doesn’t need to be protected from criticism.
I really don’t think the Democratic Party is in any risk of destruction as long as they put credible candidates up in every Congressional District. Because after this kabuki is done, I think that we will win seats instead of lose them.
I see a lot of anger over here in Booland and then I go over to FDL and find a lot of reasoned and reasonable arguments about why this Senate healthcare bill sucks. Because it is an insurance plan for insurance companies at the expense of the working class and its ownership is exclusively Democratic, this will owned by Democrats. When it fails and people see the government forcing them to pay exorbitant fees for less than they used to get, that will cost ’em at the polls.
And someone here will blame the epic fail and the political poison that is this healthcare bill on Jane Hamsher.
Maybe because people here have already dealt with the details of the bill and are now occupied by FDL’s wackazoid efforts to kick out Bernie Sanders with the help of Grover Norquist and Fox News.
Just a thought.
Bob-
let’s face some facts, shall we?
I am supporter of single-payer as I assume you are.
Why? Mainly because there is something perverse about people profiting off your good health. But, in a bow to political reality, every serious candidate for the Democratic nomination came up with a health care plan that worked to reform the private insurance industry rather than abolish it.
If you want to complain about that, I’m with you up to a point. But complaining about corporate influence in Congress is not an excuse for inaction or for opposing Obama’s efforts to reform the health care system.
You don’t wait for your house to burn down to buy home insurance or to have a fender bender to buy car insurance. But we’re making a law that these insurance companies have to offer you insurance even after you’ve been diagnosed with diabetes or cancer or any other expensive condition. That makes no sense from a business point of view, but we offer them compensation in the form of millions of healthy customers. The mandate is the only way that it makes sense for insurance companies to take on people with preexisting conditions.
So, let’s get over ourselves here. We’d like a public option, but we aren’t getting one right now. Time to move on and stop bitching about what can’t be changed at this point in time.
Get over ourselves? Pardon me? You’ve had how many posts in the last week accusing Hamsher of treason?
Next year insurance rates will go up for millions and millions of Americans. Guess who owns those rate increases? You might as well print Obama’s picture and a donkey on the bills before they mail them out.
The Senate bill is not very good. It will manage to sink way too many Democratic candidates over the next several election cycles. The people will see the Democrats as the reason why they are being screwed by insurance companies.
The healthcare corporations will get institutionalized protections and guarantees. The people will be forced to buy insurance from companies that will still stall, deny and otherwise figure out ways to screw them out of what they need and the Republicans will say, “I told you so.”
So the question here is: Are you creating something that is worth the political destruction that this bill will cause the Democratic Party?
Damn that Hamsher. It’s all her fault.
In reading your posts, Bob, you seem awfully certain that this bill will be a disaster in practice. While I, of course, allow for that as a possibility, you speak of it as a certainty. And you do so in a rather arrogant manner.
Who knows, time may prove you right. But as events unfold, you may also have to eat a lot of these words. I’m hopeful that the net effect of this reform effort will be to the good, for most. In other words, I hope you’re hungry.
I hope it’s not a disaster. Nothing I’ve heard from the Senate reassures me otherwise. We shall see, though, won’t we?
Well, see, here’s the thing , uh Bob. If you don’t want to participate in this new healthcare reform then you don’t have to. Al Giordano has the specifics up at his blog. Basically, if you don’t want to participate, there is nothing that the government can or will do. Any penalty is basically unenforcable. So if you qualify for reduced premiums just say no! If you qualify to be served at any of the new community hospitals that will be built just say no. If you qualify for reduced precription payments you say no because you’d rather pay full price. If you qualify for so much as a free band- aid, then you say ” no I’d rather pay because this bill is a shit sandwich ” that’s what you do Bob. Jane has good healthcare by the way. Oh and Happy Kwanzaa!
Snark won’t scratch off the ownership of this bill or of its consequences. You own it now. Make it shine, baby!
I’ll work hard with President Obama and the democratic party to make it shine like the sun! Also… Why do I get the feeling you’ll get everything that you can from this healthcare bill when all is said and done? I have patients like you. They rail against the government while all the while they are getting everything they can from Medicare, Medicaid, the VA. It’s insane. So I just laugh and take it in stride. Besides you probably don’t believe most of the crap you’re spewing. You’re mostly trying to convince yourself. Oh well have a merry Christmas anyway and Happy Kwanzaa!!
When all else fails, dannie22, claim you can read my mind. It’s easier for you to keep yours closed.
I want single-payer. But I’m not against this healthcare bill because it isn’t single-payer. I’m against this bill because it’s going to hurt the working class and create a huge division between those who at this point can and can’t afford what passes for health insurance in America. Any mandate is going to destroy the Democratic Party. What are you going to say to your patients when every negative of healthcare (billing, lack of coverage for a certain procedure, increase in drug costs, waiting) is hung on Obama and the Democrats? And when getting a private insurance company to do what the government wants will take a federal lawsuit? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
Yes, there will be some people covered (eventually) who weren’t covered before, but since their coverage will be a continuous political football you have to hope that everyone sticks with the Democrats to keep it working.
In any case, since you can read my mind and know my true motives, tell us how many seats the Dems are going to pick up in 2010.
I’d say she had one victory…helping end the possibility of Caroline Kennedy’s appointment to fill Ted’s Senate seat.
Oh, and the result of that was…Senator Gillibrand.
Way to go Jane.
< snark >
So she got the say on who was going to be named Senator? This Hamsher woman, truly a powerful entity.
I guess the lesson here is not to wish for anything too progressive.
I chose my words carefully. I said she “helped” – not that she got the say.
But you point out the very thing that is often my critique of Hamsher – she does things that she claims are a push towards progressive values, but they often result in just the opposite. This comment thread is full of examples from a stupid assist to Lieberman with the blackface to being quoted recently by the Republicans on health care reform. I have no doubt that her current idea of joining with Nordquist to investigate Rahm will have the same effect.
Actions have consequences…sometimes we need to anticipate those and be smart about our advocacy.
I don’t intend to defend Jane Hamsher’s time on earth. Obviously, her detractors have kept dossiers on her. I start sniffing the air when arguments about the substance of things quickly devolve into critiques of manners and supposed motives. Right here I’m only interested in the Senate healthcare bill. And I find Hamsher’s criticisms of it to be on target. And beyond what she says about the bill and how little Americans will get for the huge cost, I think that the biggest results won’t be a great healthcare revolution in America but big electoral losses for the Democrats.
I really do hope that I’m wrong. And maybe next November I’ll come back and apologize profusely about how wrong I was. Perhaps if I’m right I should take names now and come back and blame everyone when the Dems lose enough votes in the Senate and House and lose the power to fix this monstrosity in the foreseeable future. Won’t do any good.
You know.
I agree w/Hamsher about a lot of what she went after; but she’s done this wrong.
And NOW, she’s poisoning the well for any effective legislation to occur and creating a climate of investigations.
I would like you to explain how that helps progressives?
How is it helpful to be stuck dealing w/investigations, being mired in faux-scandal, and conspiracy theories?
How?
I’ll apologize for calling her a bitch since it’s not my blog and I was very angry. But she’s not doing progressives any favors; she’s putting teabaggers in power through her actions.
“I really do hope that I’m wrong.”
I don’t believe you.
I don’t believe him either.
Too much ‘legitimate concerns that need to be looked at’. Seems I heard plenty of that in ’96.
Lot’s of money to be made with the Norquist crowd.
nalbar
Lot’s of money to be made with the Norquist crowd.
So far, I had thought of her antics in terms of frustration and need for attention.
But I think you nailed it.
“Follow the money…”
I remember well hearing this for the first time over 30 years ago, IIRC. Strange how history repeats.
Why don’t you believe me? Not that it matters a rat’s @ss, but do you presume that people who don’t agree with you are liars?
By the way, I believe you believe what you think you believe. I just think you’re wrong. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m usually right. We’ll count heads after the elections in November next year.
NL!!!!! It’s me – your fellow BKer who quit the blog a while back. I found a wonderful new home here, but have fantasies of my “Family” joining me here. I’m using my initials here, because this blog calls for authenticity, not ego and defensiveness.
You lost me on calling Hamsher a bitch. We need more powerful, opinionated, eloquent women in the blogosphere and in politics in general. Even though I think she’s dead wrong lately, I admire her greatly and dislike the gender-based digs at her.
I love Rhoda.
I don’t think that Hamsher is wrong in her assessment
of Rahm Emmanuel.Pogrom is a very loaded word and is not appropriate.The question is Why do we have to sit down for this?If Emmanuel is the man behind the throne and has the kind of clout in this administration ,do we not deserve to know what ,why and when.
I for one don’t believe that Emmanuel is serving the President well.
As for the PUMA’s I agree that many of them are still bitter over the Primaries,and there is no reconciling w/ them.
I am constantly having to point out to my friend whom are conservatives and prone to see a Socialist behind every tree That,we have a corporatist as President and not a Socialist.
Meet the new boss ,same as the old boss
We wont be fooled again.
Every thing I see tells me that something is very wrong with the way we are being governed.
From Fisa to Employee free choice ,To the lack of
attention being paid to the Previous 8 yrs of fraud ,corruption and gangsterism that The Bush Crime Family
perpetuated upon this nation.
Karl Rove walks free and Gov. Seigelman is fighting to overturn a very corrupted prosecution.
The Elections of 2004 and the the ongoing suit to bring to light the truth of the tainted and corrupted
elections we have endured and the consequences that they wrought
Jane Hamsher is correct in asking that the Attorney General investigate Rahm Emannuel.I for one want to see an investigation into everything from AIG to the Counter party agreements and double dealing by
Goldman Sachs and the Fed to rob the American taxpayer.
is this a pogrom ,or a citizens right to know the truth?
We do need a revolution not the type the Teabaggers or the militias wish for ,but a stripping away of Falsity and deceit at all levels of government
Right, Left and Center.A purge of the interests that run this nation for their benefit.
Bernie Sanders can defend himself and Hamshers
intentions and reasonings are dubious but not Self-centered.
I had to laugh at this comment.
It makes about as much sense as running a primary on independent Bernie Sanders, yet I’m certain it will go straight over their heads.
You really have to wonder what is really motivating her and I’ll add Taylor Marsh as well. I think it is a personal vendetta towards President Obama. Both of them were rabid Hillary supporters and I sense they have had a plan to undermine Obama to prove to people that we should have chosen Hillary. Why else would they be so shrill, it’s crazy. Others who disagree with the bill at least concede that it’s better than not doing anything at all and that working with the current makeup of the senate is problematic. Keep up the good work, Booman, and thanks for helping to keep things real during the debate. Peace,
I don’t think we should anaylze it to much.
It’s like with Larry Johnson and to a lesser degree President Clinton.
She thinks she’s right and she’s losing and she’s watching the president’s approval rating among liberals RISE. She knows he has a lock on two bases of the party: AA and Latinos and that a lot of progressives whites will still be there for him in 2012 b/c of the historic nature of the presidency. Given that, there is no way to pressure Obama. He came in alone: the unions have done a lot but they came in late to the party too.
This independence from the political structure of the party kills her; especially since he owns the party right now. So, she needs to hit him.
This is going to blow up in her face.
She over reached. But she managed to cause a problem too and this isn’t going to go away.
What’s motivating Jane? My guess. Being a breast cancer survivor leads her into having a strong opinion about healthcare reform and its direction. It is almost an identity issue with her, and not having healthcare reform taken seriously but bargained through some political calculus deeply offends her. Offends her like her use of blackface to slam Joe Lieberman offended blacks. Rahm Emmanuel has become her Bull Connor because of his failure to push centrists and willingness to twist progressives’ arms–consider the capitulation on the Stupak and Nelson amendments, a moral equivalent of repealing affirmative action.
How about we step back from the amateur psychology and pathology for a second?
How many here are satisfied with the Senate bill? How many think that as constructed this bill will make more Americans any happier about their healthcare? How many here think that this bill will bring more voters into the fold for progressive Democratic candidates? For any Democratic candidates?
My guess is that there’s a lot of hate about Hamsher because she’s pointing out that this pile of crap stinks and there’s a lot of emotional investment around the blogosphere that this is really a jewel.
By the way, I don’t see Hamsher as a Taylor Marsh or a Larry Johnson, who both had the scent of CIA psyops players (like old CIA hand Gloria Steinem) to prop up H. Clinton. Those were inside players. Hamsher, if not anything else, is on the outside. That doesn’t mean she’s wrong that this bill stinks.
And how does primarying Sanders help to get a better health care bill?
You have to be willing to back up your threats or they quickly become meaningless. Sanders has, and will continue to vote for this bill. So she’s really going to work to defeat him? And with the support he has in Vermont, you think Hamsher’s threats are likely to change his position?
I’ve got to wonder if she’s really thinking this stuff through or just reacting. The generous assumption is the later.
What power does any constituency have with any politician? “If you don’t do what we want we’ll vote for someone else.” Seems to me that that’s the way democracies are supposed to work. When you are too afraid to threaten your elected representatives you’ve given up your power, not that I see Sanders in danger from the left. I’ve seen Dianne Feinstein reelected too many times because of such timidity.
I don’t see threatening Sanders as necessarily an effective electoral strategy, but it may push him a little during the reconciliation. I suspect some people, in their anger towards Hamsher, take her threats more seriously than she does.
The problem is that Sanders is not the one responsible for the problems with this bill. If you want to threaten someone who’s responsible – I’d say go for Nelson. She’s not doing this as a citizen of Vermont – if that was the case, she might have a tiny bit of credibility about it.
But to threaten the person who has, as BooMan pointed out, been the best champion we have in the Senate on health care reform (and many other issues) is just self-defeating.
And finally, if you think we should be taking her threats less seriously, I’d probably agree. But then, what kind of strategy is that???? Making threats you don’t plan to follow through on and have zero chance of success? I’d give her a total pass if she was just a meaningless blogger like me. But she purports to be a leader on advocacy for progressives – and her strategies are (at minimum) not well thought-out.
I do not consider it a pathology. I am just saying that she has the same passion for healthcare as some other groups have for their issues, and that is because it derives from her life experience. She is passionate about getting it right for the folks who have gone or will go through what she has gone through–thus the calling out of the Susan Komen Foundation for its employment of Hadassah Lieberman.
Yes, Hamsher is on the outside, just as the rest of us are.
I don’t think there is emotional investment that is calling this bill a jewel. I see a lot of resignation that this is the best we can get and fear that rocking the boat will take even that away.
At this point, my personal opinion is that public pressure is not going to matter a whole lot in the final shape of the bill. Both houses will come to some agreement and pass something somewhere between the House version and the Senate version.
Bob you are wrong about this:
“My guess is that there’s a lot of hate about Hamsher because she’s pointing out that this pile of crap stinks and there’s a lot of emotional investment around the blogosphere that this is really a jewel.”
no, we are upset because she is losing badly. She is using right wing frames to attack a bill that is better than the status quo. She parroting right wing attacks on the President and the bill and because she is a liberal the media loves her for it. She is empowering the racist, deranged teabagger movement. She is going on Fox and echoing what they want to hear instead of making a progressive case against the legislation. She is rapidly becoming the “even the liberal New Republic …” of the blogosphere.
Hampsher is going to lose. She has to know it, the same way Slaughter, Sanders, Harkin, Lee and Woolsey know it. But Slaughter, Lee and Wolsey are trying to lose in a way that advances progrssive policies and sets the stage for improving the bill in the next few sessions of congress. Hampsher may think she is doing that but is, in reality, just advancing right wing goals and right wing frames.
I will sign on to this.
That’s my problem with Hamsher’s teaming up with Norquist.
Does anyone think Norquist gives a damn about “transparency?” It’s not about transparency, it’s about fueling the right-wing meme that the blacks/ACORN/Fannie-Freddie/poor people are to blame for the financial meltdown.
I argue with right-wingers everyday of my life on various forums and mediums, and that’s their argument: loans to poor people caused this crisis.
She’s fueling it, and it’s going to hurt the left if she continues. Norquist is using her, and she’s so blinded in rage that she doesn’t see it.
Seconded.
Well Bob,
I think the senate bill is awesome, and that is in the context of what’s possible in the political climate we are in…..simple, why is it so hard for so many of you to understand. I really think you all wish Obama would stand up for principals even if he loses, principals are more important than the people who will benefit from this plan. Oh, and by the way, it will change some in the conference committee.
I think this bill will make a hell of a lot of people happier about there health care, I live in Michigan which has the highest unemployment rate in the country and those people losing their jobs daily, well if they get to keep their health insurance and get help from the government when they go on welfare, they will love this bill. Also, all those people who have pre-existing conditions, like cancer, won’t be denied care, won’t have to go bankrupt in order to get treatment.
I think this bill WILL bring more voters into the fold, once it kicks in and the misinformation is overcome by reality, like people actually paying less for their coverage, like college kids staying on their parents coverage, like kids with pre-existing conditions getting the care they need. People will see the reality of the bill, not the lies and misinformation that Jane and her minions have been spewing.
Jane Hamsher has come to remind me of Cindy Sheehan. Sheehan began as a hero, too, with unmatched credentials as the anti-war mother of a fallen son who had the courage to speak out. Somewhere along the way, perhaps blinded by the stagelights, it became all about HER and she became more of a self-promoter and less of an effective activist.
Hamsher is a breast cancer survivor, multiple times, and clearly there is a deep personal well to her feelings about reform. She was also a fierce anti-war voice who stepped out of the blogosphere shadows to take on national prominence in helping to lead Ned Lamont to the Democratic senatorial nomination in CT. The problem is that somewhere along the way, the spotlight has gone to her head and clouded her judgement. She didn’t help Lamont to victory; instead, Joe Lieberman survived and has more power than ever before. His anemic presidential run in 2004 is a distant memory–he’s a playa now.
She had good points to make about Caroline Kennedy’s weaknesses as a Senate candidate, but she was strident and absolutist as she went about vilifiying her. We got Gillebrand in the deal.
Now this: she has adopted a self-defeating position that is all about HER and not at all about the 30 million people who can be helped by an imperfect bill. Like it or not, the bill is a foot in the door that will yield opportunities for improvement in short order. Anyone who looks to her for strategy, as so many in the left seem to be doing, are not paying enough attention.
Jane, you’re no Bernie Sanders.
Actually, she told untruths re Caroline Kennedy – no time to explain now. But that was shameful, what she did to her.
I didn’t say lie on purpose – I don’t know that Jane KNEW the statements were untrue. But she passed them on without verifying, and that was most unfortunate.
The idea of primarying Bernie Sanders from the left is laughable. I can’t imagine how it could amount to even the semblance of a serious challenge. On the contrary, Hamsher might as well just come up to Sanders with a sign around her neck saying “I am a political moron.” Tarheel Dem has provided what I take to be a tentative explanation of her game plan, but if that’s what it is, other than providing a haven for alienated and embittered leftists, amounting to a minuscule portion of the electorate, and making some noise on the blogs, it will accomplish nothing.
It reminds me in a way of the PUMAS, with their nasty attacks on Obama and threats to vote for McCain/Palin.
Yes, there is the political theatre or kabuki aspect of it all, but again, the audience that finds any real meaning or importance in such symbolic gestures is minuscule.
So, I agree with you, Booman, but would also suggest that from here on it might help to view these developments with a certain degree of amused detachment. We can all be thankful that the influence of this “movement” within the Democratic Party is in no way comparable to that of the hard-right within the GOP. There is too much real work to be done.
To be fair, it was Brian Sonenstein, not Hamsher who advocated primarying Bernie Sanders from the left.
I’m a long time lurker and created an account simply to say that Jane and FDL can screw themselves if they think going after Bernie is in any way the right thing to do. He’s my Senator and I don’t need her purity patrol to tell me how to vote.
It’s like McCarthyism from the left. Pretty illogical. Sanders is as good as they get. If he’s not good enough for them we need to ask if they’re good enough for us.
It wasn’t Hamsher, as I recall, but someone else, from Vermont, who threatened to run someone against Sanders.
Should someone run against Sanders from the left? I’d prefer that someone run against Feinstein from the left first.
You all argue your points passionately. I can’t fault any of you on that.
But I can say this:
All of you have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Festive Festivus, or Happy Holidays.
And for the next period of time, forget about politics and celebrate.
That’s a fine idea, TarheelDem. 🙂
A brilliant plan. 🙂
Hear, Hear. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays, Tarheel.
“Conspiracy-laden”?
Man, Boo, that’s the first arrow out of your quiver these days. If someone suggests malefaction then it must be a conspiracy theorist doing the suggesting. Because we know that everyone and everything in the healthcare debate is all forthright and aboveboard.
her accusations are unfounded and based on either lies or simple misunderstanding.
You’re setting up this straw man having clearly not read the various responses from people who were actually involved at Fannie and Freddie and the various agencies.
I’m sure the birthers are sincere in simply wanting to see the “real” certificate, too.
Kinda skipping around here, aren’t we? Are Frannie and Freddie now involved in healthcare and is Obama’s birth certificate an issue in healthcare too, or are we conflating here?
Nice to know that YOU can keep up with the reactionaries.
You spoke of Booman’s allegations being conpiracy-laden. I answered you. What’s health care have to do with that?
Skipping, indeed.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and call Bob in Pacifica a troll. Perhaps we should stop feeding him so much?
I personally think he’s just lonely. The holidays are a rough
time. His posts weren’t always like that
Bob’s not a troll.
Brian Compiani, now that’s a troll. Sure enough:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/20703
I knew that fucker was up to no good and not interested in any analysis.
Brian Compiani/Knoxville. Toolbag.
I’ll keep my mind open then, maybe I’ve misjudged. But he sure is acting like one.
Good Morning, Booman
I just wanted to tell what a pefect fit my new “home” is. I agree with you on so much, the cafe is lovely. My old Kossack friends sent me links about the FDL insanity – she is “DEMANDING” Rahm resign. When I left DKos, it was primarily because of THEIR “coalition” with FDL.
Have a wonderful holiday.
Do you mind revealing your kos uid?
I was ACD over there, but not thrilled with my behavior over the last couple months or so.
thanks for the response. I hope that you enjoy your new digs. Happy Holidays
Were you on DKos as well?
Booman ROCKS!
I wonder if Jane has the self-awareness to change her tactics in order to get what she wants. it seems to me that there’s not much to show for her histrionics and poutrage.
I agree completely Booman. Does anyone think for a minute that she was invited on Fox because they truly want to hear her views or providing them with soundbites as this bill nears final vote. I understand her passion. All of us feel this is not the bill we wanted, but are faced with reality. This is what we are going to get for now, with some improvement in conference hopefully. The argument about her being a cancer survivor fueling her passion kind of escapes me. She more than likely had very good insurance and wasn’t faced with the prospect of not being treated. I understand she is fighting for the untreated person, but this bill will allow that. True, there are alot of things in this bill that won’t happen, but it is a foundation to build on.
Joy, I agree with you that Jane’s cancer doesn’t and shouldn’t have anything to do with her being unrealistic. That’s what she and others are, unrealistic. Not one of them has explained how they get Liebermans vote, Nelson’s vote, Landriu’s vote, and of course on the other end of the spectrum, Sanders and Fiengold. No one! I picture them all with their heads buried in the sand. I think most progressives agree that the bill could be better, hell, I’m for a single payer system, get rid of the insurance companies completely. It’s immoral for companies to be making money off people’s health. Why aren’t the religious folks up in arms about companies making money of people’s health?
But I am also not naive, stupid, unrealistic, ignorant, myopic…whatever you want to call it, Obama and Reid got about the best they could get from those 60 folks who caucus with the dems. Reality, what a concept. Hamsher is motivated by something irrational, you can read it in her words and see it in her going on FOX.
The sad thing is, we urgently need criticism of this bill from the left in order to have a mark to aim for, a coherent cause to rally around. The obsessive attacks on Obama for what the Senate did by Hamsher and her fans only weaken the side where the people who want to make this a starting point, not an end, live. They cheapen the debate to a stupid conspiracy theory, blur the difference between Obama and Bush, and make liberals look like assholes.
I defy anyone to lay out how any of the crap coming from Hamsher & co. advances the cause of ongoing healthcare improvement over time. This bunch is real reform’s worst enemy, doing the work the Republicans are too despised to accomplish. So thanks, Jane, for trying to cut off at the knees the only allies we have under the dysfunctional, corrupt system we call America. Get your head out of your butt and take a look at where you live.
Well, according to Jane Lieberman’s supporters, Jane will get ALL THE CREDIT if the public option is put back in the bill after President Obama signs it into law and over the course of the next few years. Say wha? JANE LIEBERMAN GETS NO CREDIT SINCE SHE WANTED THE BILL KILLED ENTIRELY, SINCE SHE’S DECIDED TO BAND WITH THE RIGHT WING POND SCUM OF OUR NATION AGAINST OBAMA AND ALL THE DEMOCRATS, AND BECAUSE SHE IS A HILLARY PUMA WHO DOESN’T HAVE A RATIONAL BRAINCELL IN HER HEAD!
I don’t agree with everything President Obama has done so far, but you will never catch me banning with the right wing fringe to take him down while ignoring the crimes of the right wingers in our government over the years! Jane Lieberman would rather protect the right winger’s now….all because Obama doesn’t listen to her. Does anyone listen to a big mouth backstabber? I don’t!
Well, as much as I dislike Hamsher associating with Norquist, at least she didn’t associate with Rick Warren. Associating with someone who supported that kill gays in Uganda thingie would have been really, really bad. No true liberal would do that, right?
You’re missing the point.
I’ll let John Cole say the rest:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=31736#comment-1502468
Then again, I own stock in some pharmaceuticals and other assorted corporations. Better check my background to make sure I’m not a Goldamite!