Help, I'm having a little trouble sorting out this Jane Hamsher row

[whatchamacallit]

Is the main controversy the appearance on fox and her recent "alliance" with Grover Norquist - admittedly kinda f'd up on the face of it - or has she shown herself to be inconsistent or duplicitous in the past? I stopped watching TV "news" programs sometime back, so I'm simply not all that familiar with her. Also, I don't frequent many political sites (except the most excellent DU), so my main exposure to firedoglake is when it's linked in a post here. I watched some youtube vids of a few of her recent media appearances, but still don't have a fully-formed impression.

I know I should just read a bunch of her blog entries, but I'm lazy, hungover, and have a cold to-boot. :party: :blush:

[BlooInBloo]

1. All depends on your sensibilities. She enjoys making blackface jokes, for example.

[whatchamacallit]

2. Hmm... really?

Might you have a link? I want to see that. Thanks :hi:

[snagglepuss]

48. Once she put Lieberman in black face. That one idiotic stunt is now being

used to tar her a racist.

[walldude]

19. While I find the blackface thing disgusting.. I also find

it amusing that I had never heard about it till she got into the HCR debate on what some people think is the wrong side. Maybe it wouldn't seem so... convenient, had people been screaming about it all along. It's disgusting, but where were all the people who are pissing on her now when the damn thing actually happened? Did she ever apologize for it? Did she realized she was an idiot? Was there an outcry on DU?

I don't like the Norquist thing either I think she's making a mistake and I'm on her side of this. But I will not pull up some shit she did years ago to strengthen my position in a current debate. Especially after all the good she has done for liberal causes.

[BlooInBloo]

27. It's pretty much just you. A lot of other people heard about it when it happened.

[snagglepuss]

50. Where was the hue and cry, that kind which is happening now?

[midnight]

21. What is a blackface joke?

[jgraz]

34. No, she enjoys attacking Joe Lieberman for his cynical use of race against Ned Lamont.

You, on the other hand, are taking a page out of the Lieberman playbook to distract us from Obama's failure on healthcare reform.

[BlooInBloo]

36. Always good to know who those are, that defend people making blackface jokes.

[jgraz]

39. This cynical playing of the race card is beneath you

You don't think I'm a racist, and you don't think Jane is. You just want us to stop pulling on your presidential binky.

[Forkboy]

43. No it's not. It's pretty much all he ever does.

[jgraz]

45. My guess is that even HE is a little embarrassed by this.

It's about as low as it gets.

[Forkboy]

47. Don't bet on that.

:)

[omega minimo]

42. Both of those are serious and apparently hollow accusations.

Back it up or stop it

[omega minimo]

41. Highly doubtful. Do you have a quote or a link?

The OP is asking for solid info and right out the gate, you're pullin your shit. :thumbsdown:

[leftstreet]

3. She's under the bus because she made Obama look bad n/t

[KittyWampus]

6. How did she "make Obama look bad"?

[amborin]

40. +100 sums it up perfectly!

[Way2go]

4. Follow the money

Apparently she's jaded and feels that the route isn't as important as the destination and therefore why be chump about it if
there's an opportunity to go first class and leave the steerage compartment.

[DJ13]

7. I agree, follow the money

Follow the money that Rahm made prior to becoming Chief of Staff.

Which, coincidentally, is what Hamsher is trying to do.

[midnight]

23. Do you know what you read that makes you think she feels jaded?

[midnight]

24. Do you know what you read that makes you think she feels jaded?

[snagglepuss]

51. That is what she is asking be done with Rahm. By all appearances

billions of dollars lead to Rahm which is why an investigation is required.

[librechik]

5. I'm afraid you are going to have to do some homework--there are 2 factions

one hates her apparently for the very idea of aligning with Norquist under any circumstances. And the other one knows Jane better (or hates Rahm more) and figures there's something worthwhile going on with her "investigate Rahm" demands and because of her value as a spokesperson she should be given a chance to make her moves in the political theater arena. It gives others cover, too. Besides, you can't get ANYTHING done in DC without getting some powerful conservative behind it. Maybe it's more important to get the thing done than the dogs you have to hitch up with. Purity has never "worked" in politics.

The anti-Jane posts are quite personal, misogynistic and hateful. Some are trying to understand Jane but still quite condemnatory.

There's no way to form an honest opinion without visiting Jane for an explanation, IMO.

Personally, I am disgusted with Rahm, and if it helps to make an alliance with Satan to get him out of the way of progress, I don't even care.

[KittyWampus]

9. Ah, so Ken Starr was fine in investigating Monica after Whitewater fell through....

[librechik]

15. yes, of course that is what I was saying

not

Woman, take yo pill!

[stevenleser]

8. See the DailyKos link at this OP of mine, it has the blackface and everything else documented...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x94947

Norquist also helped to fund apartheid and was involved in Iran/Contra and most of the craziest right wing stuff of the last 29 years.

[timeforpeace]

10. She's on the administration's case and has become public enemy #1 thereby.

[KittyWampus]

16. Um, no. She's taken up the Far Right cause of investigating Freddie Mac when it's already been

investigated.

[sixmile]

26. Just like WMD's and 9-11 were investigated?

Count me as a Democrat who is suspicious (of all sides).

[Thickasabrick]

37. Um no, she referenced that investigation in her letter. She wants

notes from the board meetings when Rahm was a director to determine exactly what Rahm did. This is about Rahm - not Freddie.

[KittyWampus]

49. Why investigate Rahm when there was no wrong doing? Are YOU that gullible too? LOL

[Thickasabrick]

52. Well - noone really knows if Rahm is guilty or not - that's the point

of requesting an investigation. The FOI request should be honored - especially in light of the fact that the administration just handed Fannie/Freddie a big blank check before the end of year so approval from congress would not be necessary.

[KittyWampus]

54. Um, no. Evidence of wrongdoing means investigation THAT'S WHY THIS IS A WITCHHUNT

[Thickasabrick]

58. I think she has stated the evidence that she feels Holder needs to

go forward. If he's innocent, it will come out and she will look silly. Why do you care so much about what Jane is doing?

[NashVegas]

She's Gone Off the Reservation

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. The reason Jane Hamsher is being attacked here by "a certain element"

is because she dared to go after their boss, a certain angry dwarf who may or may not be the current White House chief of staff.

It the same crowd that was attacking Howard Dean last week, and next week they'll attack someone else because the angry dwarf tells them to. It's all so painfully predictable.

Grover Norquist is a bat shit crazy lunatic, and he should be sharing a prison cell with the dwarf, so I personally wouldn't take sides one way or another between the two. Jane Hamsher might have shown poor judgment in doing so, but it's no worse than the judgment Rahm himself has shown by all the right wing nutjobs he's aligned himself with (some of whom he actually recruited to run for congress, posing as "Democrats".)

[DJ13]

12. +1

[aquart]

13. Yep.

[leftstreet]

14. +1

[freddie mertz]

25. Wow. A very funny but dead-on summary of the "controversy."

I suspect there is orchestrated disruption going on here, viz. Hamsher, since she has directly challenged COS Emmanuel, who probably has some minions assigned stirring up the shit.

At the same time, Hamsher's ill-advised "alliance" with Norquist makes her an easy target, and helps divert attention for the substance of liberal critiques of the administration's rightward lurch.

And so we become divided, which is all the better for those like Rahm, who are committed to guiding the worst version of HCR through the last hurdle.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

[FLAprogressive]

29. this.

[jgraz]

33. "angry dwarf"

:spray:

[Maat]

44. +2

:)

[WillyT]

55. Yep...

:kick:

[snagglepuss]

56. +1

[Adelante]

17. I don't care if she or anybody goes on Fox

I don't care if people wonk around in think tanks trying to come to common ground on this or that. But engaging in activism with its Teabagging enemies against the Democratic Party is a no go for me.

[midnight]

28. How does it compare to the Dems. who tea-bagged us for the United Health Elites.

[G_j]

18. too bad your honest question is in unrec territory

it is a good question, and SHOULD lead to some educational posts.
:shrug:

[chill_wind]

20. Here's a rec for hope of honest discussion.

[jgraz]

22. Jane is just doing what the left should always be doing

i.e. using every weapon at her disposal to fight against the corporatism that is killing us.

[librechik]

30. +10!

[snagglepuss]

57. YES

:applause:

[blogslut]

31. I like Ms. Hamsher

However, I think her recent strategies are wrong.

[frazzled]

32. I disliked the blog from its earliest days

and never understood what people saw in her.

So I can say I have not changed my opinion one iota.

[robdogbucky]

46. Did you notice

or even know, about the fine work they have done over at Firedoglake for several years now?

Marcy Wheeler and Jane Hamsher were the only ones that really bird-dogged and covered the alleged investigations and the actual hearings that were finally held looking into the shenanigans foisted by Gonzo and the Bushco Justice Dept. ala Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby, et al. As I recall, they are in the category of Sibel Edmunds. Lots of very good work but very little recognition.

Make no mistake about it these women have been longtime soldiers in the ongoing battle against the far-right in this country the last decade.

I am appalled at how little history some people have or how little they know about some of the progressive side's most spirited warriors.


Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[snagglepuss]

59. Thanks for injecting truth into this smear campaign. As someone just wrote

this is what the left should be doing.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Jane is fighting to kill the Health Care Bill currently up for conference,

and is using whatever method to get that done.

If this means lining up with Teabaggers, and Norquist, smearing Sanders,
and now creating a boogieman in Rham (inciting investigations on him when
he has already been investigated).
she will do it, and feel perfectly justified,
as will the same usual suspect here at DU who dump on this President 24/7
and in fact within this thread,
giving her a thumsbup because they want to witness failure of any democratic agenda
that doesn't conform strictly to what they believe it should be.

For her and for them, it ain't about 31 million uninsured that will be assisted,
it's about thinking that if the Democrats aren't successful, there is an alternative,
when there really isn't.

So Hamsher et al is about literally killing the good because it ain't perfect,
and siding with the devil if it helps get it done.

No mind that killing this bill would spell disaster for the entire Democratic Congress,
and lead to more years of Republican rule, and hog tie this President from getting anything meaningful done after 2010. Folks like her don't really give a shit about consequences,
if revenge can be had. Hamsher and her fanbase don't want to acknowledge the real existing limitations of government to do exactly as they direct.

The whole tone here reminds me of the primaries, and although I understood the necessity during a primary, I don't understand it now at all. We are supposed to be on the same side attempting to make progress, even if we argue about the speed of it. We aren't supposed to be trying to kill the Democratic party, and empower the other side. That's supposed to be a job that we leave to the Republicans, just like they left it up to us to win our elections without their help.

When you've got a Republican Congress so bent on destroying anything that Democrats want by voting no on every single damn thing that is important to us, to believe that we should offer literal support to them in an activist manner is dangerous and wrong.

[RB TexLa]

38. You'll have less trouble than I would, I have no idea who either of the people being mentioned are

Of course I don't actually care who they are, just letting you know that many others would have much more trouble sorting it out if we cared enough to try.

[clear eye]

53. During the HCR debate she made a Herculean effort to sort out

some very complicated points about regs on bio-drug patents--what would be in the best interests of the people--and tried to influence the outcome. She also ran articles about the various versions of the public option. She became disenchanted w/ the late versions of the HCR bill and advocated opposition to the final bill. She also blew the whistle on mtgs. WH officials had w/ the representatives of progressive blogs during which the officials excoriated them for criticizing WH proposals from left, traditionally Democratic postitions. Obviously she doesn't get called on a lot in press conferences these days.

Apparently the final straw came when she chose to go after Rahm Emmanuel full force for pre-Obama actions of his that have been considered possibly corrupt by others, but never officially investigated. The working w/ Norquist thing seems to me to be simply a handle to use to get traction against her for attacking Emmanuel. She also went on Fox News. She claims to be trying to make common cause w/ the rw working class about gov't actions both they and progressives disapprove of.

My opinion is that she's abrasive, but she calls 'em as she sees 'em. She has negative tact and will probably never convince a member of Congress about anything, but her readers may. I learn a lot from her blog, and her stuff seems well-documented. She's a progressive populist, not a Democratic loyalist. Sometimes she's happy w/ what the Democrats do, sometimes not. I've never seen her back a rw position.

[Cleita]

60. Good assessment.

I don't think the final chapter has been written in this novel.

[snagglepuss]

61. Well said. nt

[whatchamacallit]

62. *** Thanks a lot for the replies *** (n/t)