Category Archive 'Jane Hamsher'
19 Dec 2009
Extreme Left blogger Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake has her own socialize-American-health-care-now organization, called Public Option Please which recently had an art contest.
The winning entry (above, by Amy Martin), was a vivid expression of Statism, which Mark Kirokorian accurately describes: Washington is pictured as the heart of nation, where tired, oxygen-depleted blood is replenished and returned to the hinterland. It’s a perfect illustration of the worldview of the Left.
The image of the Heart of the Nation lit conservative fuses, and Gregory, at Moonbattery, posted the below Photoshopped rejoinder.
Hat tip to Will Wilson.
15 Dec 2009
Conservatives are mean-spirited, while liberals are nice, warm and fuzzy, we’re always being told.
Except I’ve noticed personally that, when they don’t get their way, or when somebody actually dares to disagree with them, liberals can be not very nice at all.
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut is the most recent victim of liberal wrath for standing in the way of Obamacare by his opposition to Medicare expansion.
Ezra Klein is a herbivorous California liberal who wouldn’t threaten a jihadi with a caterpillar to save Los Angeles, but come between Ezra and the bright socialist tomorrow, and watch out!
Ezra Klein yesterday practically accused Lieberman of genocide.
Lieberman was invited to participate in the process that led to the Medicare buy-in. His opposition would have killed it before liberals invested in the idea. Instead, he skipped the meetings and is forcing liberals to give up yet another compromise. Each time he does that, he increases the chances of the bill’s failure that much more. And if there’s a policy rationale here, it’s not apparent to me, or to others who’ve interviewed him. At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.
FireDogLake’s Petition demanding Mrs. Lieberman be fired
The left is not stopping with attacking Joe Lieberman himself this time.
Hollywood producer Jane Hamsher, proprietress of the far left blog FireDogLake, is going after Senator Liberman’s wife Hadassah, running a petition urging the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer foundation to fire Mrs. Lieberman from her post of Global Ambassador.
According to Comrade Hamsher, Mrs. Lieberman’s earlier career as a lobbyist, in which she represented pharmaceutical and insurance companies, should disqualify her from representing an organization opposing cancer, since her former professional ties might prevent her from entering wholeheartedly into the revolutionary struggle between corporations and consumers.
Besides, Hamsher charges, Mrs. Lieberman and her husband are working on the same side, the side of the evil capitalist oppressors. Hadassah Lieberman must be punished.
Big Hollywood jokes:
Whatâ€™s the difference between the Mafia and a Hollywood Leftist? â€¦the Mafia doesnâ€™t go after your family.
09 Apr 2009
Firedoglake’s Jane Hamsher and the Kos himself fired (in private) the first shots in a struggle over advertising dollars and other forms of support between the left-side of the blogosphere and the financially-troubled dinosaur news media.
Greg Sargent broke the story:
Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious with the major progressive groups â€” and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees â€” for failing to spend money advertising on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message.
Itâ€™s a development thatâ€™s creating tensions on the left and raises questions about the future role of the blogosphere at a time when a Dem is in the White House and liberalism could be headed for a period of sustained ascendancy.
A number of these top bloggers agreed to come on record with me after privately arguing to these groups that they deserved a share in the ad wealth and couldnâ€™t be taken for granted any longer.
â€œThey come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but itâ€™s not a two way street,â€ Jane Hamsher, the founder of FiredogLake, said in an interview. â€œThey wonâ€™t do anything in return. Theyâ€™re not advertising with us. Theyâ€™re not offering fellowships. Theyâ€™re not doing anything to help financially, and people are growing increasingly resentful.â€
Hamsher singled out Americans United for Change, which raises and spends big money on TV ad campaigns driving Obamaâ€™s agenda, as well as the constellation of groups associated with it, and the American Association of Retired Persons, also a big TV advertiser.
â€œMost want the easy way â€” having a big blogger promote their agenda,â€ adds Markos Moulitsas, the founder of DailyKos. â€œThen they turn around and spend $50K for a one-page ad in the New York Times or whatever.â€ Moulitsas adds that officials at such groups often do nothing to engage the sitesâ€™s audiences by, say, writing posts, instead wanting the bloggers to do everything for them.
Naturally enough, the spectacle of the self-appointed tribunes of the poor leaping and snapping at a major pile of cash was bound to provoke a certain amount of derision.
Rick Moran offered only false sympathy.
Hey! Iâ€™m with you guys 100%. If youâ€™re going to shill, the least you can ask for is some pocket change. All those years of brown nosing and youâ€™d think these big shots would have the common courtesy to toss a few coins in the hat and give you a hanky to wipe the stain off your face. I mean, whatâ€™s the use of prostituting yourself if the party pooh-bahs wonâ€™t leave any money on the dresser when they leave?
Meanwhile, Don Surber chuckled that it was too late for Jane to try to put a meter on it. “Why should they pay Hamsher to do what she was going to do anyway for free?”
Mickey Kaus suggests that Hamsher and Kos should pay attention to the approach described in Amy Wallace‘s profile of Variety’s former editor-in-chief Peter Bart
I have to tell you a story,” the studio boss said, launching into a tale about a lunch with Bart the previous December. It wasn’t the first lunch the two had shared, but this one was memorable.
According to this studio chief, before they’d even looked at their menus, Bart announced: “Your studio has not been advertising enough in Variety. That has affected my Christmas bonus.” Bart said there would be repercussions, the studio chief told me: “For the next six months, you won’t catch a break in Variety.”
I asked if Bart made good on his threat. “Oh yes,” the studio chief said, noting that even on the weekends the studio came in No. 1 at the box-office, the story in Variety would start off with a digâ€”something like, “Despite a string of flopsâ€¦” So what did you do, I asked. The studio chief didn’t hesitate: â€œWe upped our ad buy.â€
This isn’t Kos’s first grab for the bucks either. Remember the great Kosola Scandal of 2006?
03 Jul 2008
Ann Althouse, responds to James Risen’s New York Times story on the left blogosphere’s recent conniption fit over Obama’s flipflop on FISA Telecom immunity:
You can’t please everybody, and if you want to be President, you really can’t please Greenwald, Hamsher, and Kos. Obama is taking the right position now, and he should defend it frankly.
Andy Borowitz, at Huffington Post, was also impatient with the left.
The liberal blogosphere was aflame today with new accusations that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) is trying to win the 2008 presidential election.
Suspicions about Sen. Obama’s true motives have been building over the past few weeks, but not until today have the bloggers called him out for betraying the Democratic Party’s losing tradition.
“Barack Obama seems to be making a very calculated attempt to win over 270 electoral votes,” wrote liberal blogger Carol Foyler at LibDemWatch.com, a blog read by a half-dozen other liberal bloggers. “He must be stopped.”
The Wall Street Journal notices Obama’s speedy march toward the Center with slightly less congratulation.
We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.
Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely “running to the center.” He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?
Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.
Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn’t an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he’ll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he’s happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.
Next up for Mr. Obama’s political blessing will be Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org’s attacks in 2007 that he was “General Betray Us.” Perhaps he had a late epiphany.
Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright “was not the person that I met 20 years ago.” The Senator will learn â€“ as John McCain has been saying â€“ that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America’s strategic position against Iran. Our guess is that he’ll spin this switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he’ll stay in Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political reconciliation, and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would be Mr. Bush’s policy too.
Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for “everybody.” His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, has been liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians that Mr. Obama’s protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can’t scare the business community too much.
Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority’s ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats â€“ at least until November.
17 Sep 2007
Darlene Click had a bit of Photoshop fun over Jane Hamsher’s little lesson for Elizabeth Edwards about never ever (Just Don’t Do It!) criticizing the left.
Hat tip to Jeff Goldstein.
16 Sep 2007
(used by Taylor Marsh to admonish Elizabeth Edwards)
As the DesMoines Register, Mrs. Candidate Edwards broke the party-line this week by criticizing MoveOn.org’s New York Times ad.
MoveOn.org should not have labeled Gen. David Petraeus â€œGeneral Betray Usâ€ in a controversial newspaper ad, Elizabeth Edwards said in Des Moines Friday.
So leading left-blogger Jane Hamsher takes Mrs Edwards out to the woodshed and lays down the law.
Hereâ€™s the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Donâ€™t. Do. It. …
When offered the opportunity to cudgel your own side, you pivot and attack. …
There are any number of ways you can answer that question well and none of them involve attacking MoveOn. Theyâ€™re out there on the left so you can look â€œmoderate.â€ Theyâ€™re saying what needs to be said, opening the conversation up so John Edwards isnâ€™t considered the left-wing fringe loon that nobody should listen to. Understand that they have contributed a lot to the anti-war movement and that from a practical standpoint, the Edwards campaign needs the solid support of the base to get where he needs to go and everybodyâ€™s feeling a bit played this week because nobody other than MoveOn seems to want to take on the carefully orchestrated dog-and-pony show that just bought us a few more Friedman Units of war. And weâ€™re not very happy when the people we defend turn around and start kicking them for it.
We love you. We want to love you.
Knock it off.
Your are browsing
the Archives of Never Yet Melted
in the 'Jane Hamsher' Category.