"Into the resultant breach, bold progressive liberals much step. Here are some
reasons:
* The White House clearly stated its desire and ability to abandon the
Left. That leaves only progressive liberals standing up for the true interests
of the battered middle class, working poor, and disenfranchised.
* BHO and his Chief of Staff are deathly afraid of repeating Clintonâs
failure to reform HC in the 90s despite the fact that conditions today are not
like those in the 90s. The lesson they failed to recognize was not that the WH
had to neutralize the health insurance/pharmaceutical industry by catering to
them; it was that they had to neutralize the health insurance/pharmaceutical
industry by pro-actively going over their heads directly to the American
people, who were primed by economic realities to accept social democratic
solutions to the unsustainable US health care model.
* Progressive liberals have no obligation to march in lock step with the
Democratic Party; we do have the right to use the Democratic Party as a vehicle
to achieve our ends.
* Alliances with "strange bedfellows" are force-multipliers; that is, they
allow us to affect outcomes we otherwise would not."
Read More:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/20867
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > Yup. I must admit, though, I don't know what the hell
> > > > Hamsher is doing with her Grover Norquist stunt. I know
> > > > what her stated rationale is, but I'm not at all sure it
> > > > makes any sense. Much as I'd like to see Rahm have to
> > > > pack his bags, this effort isn't going anywhere. All
> > > > Hamsher's going to do is destroy her own credibility.
> > >
> > > Jane is swinging for the fence and she's taking a lot of
> > > flack for it. I applaud her courage. Even though it's
> > > Grover <spit> with whom she wrote a letter, she's doing
> > > what lefties such as Thom Hartmann have recommended,
> > > finding common ground with independents and the tea party.
> >
> > If this is what Hartmann recommended, I don't support
> > it. What I support is finding common ground with the
> > grassroots, the ordinary folks who are suffering from
> > current conditions. That ain't Grover Norquist.
> >
>
> Maybe Jane's alliance with Grover isn't exactly what Hartmann had in mind but
> IMO she fulfills the spirit of Hartman's intention. Jane's populist message
> to hold corrupt politicians to account reaches across party lines. Even
> though it's via Grover, she has the ear of ordinary folks who are as sick of
> government corruption as we are and they admire can someone willing to break
> rank from their political ties to tell the truth.
>
> Hartman talks about finding common ground with the unschooled rabble in order
> to challenge corporate interests but Jane is the first person that I know of
> to actually do it. "Good on her," as Thom would say. The fact that she is
> getting so much flack for her first foray into "bipartisanship" tells me
> she's onto something. The louder they yell at her, the better I like it. Jane
> is trying to reach a whole new audience with a message that says we are not
> the enemy and we need to work together to throw the bums out.
>
> One of Jane's bloggers had an inspiring story today "Intelligence Report from
> Enemy Territory" about a Christmas visit to her staunchly, Republican family.
> Following Jane's lead she was surprised to find common ground with her
> father, a true blue Glenn Beck fan. Excerpt:
>
> "I just had Christmas dinner with my right wing family members and Jane has
> some new fans. Generally, political talk is not allowed at family gatherings,
> at least not the ones I am at, though the rest of them could cheer each
> others' opinions on all day. This Christmas, not only could we talk politics,
> we were on the same page. My dad is the farthest right and most vocal of the
> group. He's also the one who has given me every book Glenn Beck has ever
> written.
>
> I asked my dad if he had heard that Jane Hamsher and Grover Norquist had sent
> a joint letter to Holder asking for an investigation of Rahm Emanuel. He
> hadn't been plugged in, but was intrigued, so I told him more about it. He's
> now one of Jane's biggest fans. My dad won't sign her petition because he's
> afraid he'll get emails from lefties, but he wants me to keep him apprised of
> what FDL's doing on the issues we have common ground on and he made a
> donation through ActBlue."
>
> Read more:
> http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/20907
>
> > As far as courage is concerned, it takes courage to
> > step in front of a speeding ten-ton truck, but is it
> > smart?
> >
>
> Hyperbole, much? I think the jury is still out on whether or not Jane is
> killing off her credibility in the bloggesphere. I do notice however, her
> loudest critics are some of Obama's biggest toadies, which gives me
> confidence she is on the right track.
>
> > > In this case she shines a much needed light on Rahm's
> > > collusion with Fannie and Freddie, especially since this
> > > body is currently without oversight and Congress is set
> > > to give them more TARP money. Gee, I wonder how that
> > > happened? Behind the scenes Rahm can work his magic to
> > > get sweetheart deals for Fannie and Freddie but he can't
> > > seem to get us a public option? Go figure.
> >
> > He didn't want one, he just wanted to get a big
> > impressive bill passed.
> >
>
> Yep, another padded resum�.
>
> > He may or may not be corrupt, but even if he is, I
> > think this is a distraction that is only going to have
> > negative effects. The optics are terrible--look at what
> > folks are saying about the fringe left helping the
> > Republican Party. That is *not* the goal!
> >
>
> I would say the optics look more like fire ants in lefty pants than terrible.
> Watch 'em squirm, I say. No matter how hard the left spins it to make Jane
> look like a traitor, it only affirms my belief that she is rocking the lefty
> boat hard enough to drown rodents clinging to the gunnels. (Sorry, can't
> resist metaphors.)
>
> > Plus which, in the immediate wake of the Senate bill
> > passing, it really does look as if it's motivated by
> > spite rather than political savvy.
> >
>
> Perhaps so, but if you're going to take a shot at Rahm, why wait for for the
> rhetoric to cool on the Senate bill. Hit while it's hot.
>
> > > I doubt Jane's appeal to Eric Holder is going anywhere
> > > just as our efforts to get Alberto Gonzalez to
> > > investigate Bush never went anywhere.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > > Even so, she put the corporate interests holding our
> > > country hostage on notice. They prefer to pit the left
> > > against the right and it makes them nervous when
> > > grassroots people come together and demand accountability.
> >
> > But this isn't grassroots people coming together!
> > This is grassroots blogger coming together with
> > ultra-elitist right-winger. Anything that makes
> > Grover Norquist smile is by definition a Bad Thing.
> >
> > Coming together with the grassroots is what she *should*
> > be working on, that and putting pressure on the
> > reconciliation effort to keep the good stuff from being
> > dropped from the House bill. That's going to require a
> > great deal of energy, if it can even be managed at all.
> >
>
> Jane's on it. See her "War Room"
> http://action.firedoglake.com/page/content/warroom/
>
> > > It's a pity the lefties asking for Jane's head don't
> > > get it.
> >
> > Well, I don't get it. I'm not asking for her head, I
> > just don't think it's making any sense.
> >
>
> We'll see.
>
