Showing posts with label jane hamsher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jane hamsher. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Refuting the Healthcare Bill Killers

What was it I was saying about ideology?
Oh yeah, it's bad, no matter if it comes from the left or the right. Ideology means an unbending mind, one that can't see facts and evidence when they're presented. Ideology means defending what you believe, not because it's right but because you've staked your reputation on it. Having an ideology means a smaller world view, one that often misses subtleties and often the big picture at the same time.
Which leaves us with FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher, a kill biller or bill killer, sulking because the bill doesn't have a public option or exactly what she thinks it's supposed to have.
Fivethirtyeight answers back with 20 questions for those who say he bill should be killed.
18. Was the public option ever an attainable near-term political goal?

19. How many of the arguments that you might be making against the bill would you still be making if a public option were included (but in fact have little to do with the public option)?

20. How many of the arguments that you might be making against the bill are being made out of anger, frustration, or a desire to ring Joe Lieberman by his scruffy, no-good, backstabbing neck?
Ezra Klein also sends kill billers on their way, refuting Hamsher's claims.

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Obama Loathed by Ideologues

Ross Douthat, a conservative columnist for the NYT, has some interesting observations about Obama. But ultimately, he reaches the wrong conclusion. He does have an agenda as a conservative (ideologue) after all.
Every presidency is the subject of competing caricatures. But almost a year into his first term, there’s something particularly elusive about Barack Obama’s political identity. He’s a bipartisan bridge-builder — unless he’s a polarizing ideologue. He’s a crypto-Marxist radical — except when he’s a pawn of corporate interests. He’s a post-American utopian — or else he’s a willing tool of the national security state.

The press has churned out a new theory every week, comparing Obama to John F. Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt, to George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter — to every 20th-century chief executive, it often seems, save poor, dull Gerald Ford. But none of the analogies have stuck. We’re well into the Obama era, but neither his allies nor his enemies can quite get a fix on exactly what our 44th president really represents.

Obama baffles observers, I suspect, because he’s an ideologue and a pragmatist all at once. He’s a doctrinaire liberal who’s always willing to cut a deal and grab for half the loaf. He has the policy preferences of a progressive blogger, but the governing style of a seasoned Beltway wheeler-dealer.
I don't consider Obama an ideologue at all. He governs with certain values but he takes in new information and quickly makes something of it. Douthat wrongly concludes:
This leaves him walking a fine line. If Obama’s presidency succeeds, it will be a testament to what ideology tempered by institutionalism can accomplish. But his political approach leaves him in constant danger of losing center and left alike — of being dismissed by independents as another tax-and-spender, and disdained by liberals as a sellout.
For the left, people at FireDogLake for example, they were bound to be disappointed.
FDL's Jane Hamsher is a fine example of an ideologue (Douthat, take note), which is someone who is unbendable, someone who has a worldview and tries to get everything around her to fit within that worldview. Hamsher couldn't for one minute understand a conservative viewpoint and vice versa. Ideologues are hell bent on being right. Ideologues tend to suffer myopia and they have the inability to empathize.
Though their world views are polar opposites, conservatives and liberals think in the same way.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

It's the Liberal Vs. the Conservative Democrats

This is special. Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com is targeting blue dog democrats with attack ads. She doesn't believe conservative democrats should be part of the party because as she puts it, they're compromising the values of the party. Rachel Maddow also says that "conserva-dems" are the threat to healthcare reform.
That's just wrong.
Conservative dems include folks like Claire McCaskill, who add much to the healthcare debate.
Liberals and conservatives always think they're right. I suppose that's the nature of being on the left and the right--rigid ideology. Closed minds. Ick. I'd argue that it's the constant left and right bickering that slows progress in this country.

Thursday, July 09, 2009

FireDogLake Vs. Town Hall in Public Option Debate

Ahhhhhh, now I get it, republicans, represented in this video by Jillian Bandes of Town Hall, think that most Americans are insured. They believe the estimated 40 million to 50 million uninsured is a bunch of bunk. They would think that. How can you even have a debate when you don't even think there's a problem?
Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake wins this debate hands down.
About $15 million has been spent for ads to reform healthcare vs. $4 million for anti-reform, mostly on the anti-public option, which republicans say is going to lead to socialism. I used to think republicans just said extreme things to make a point. Now I think they really believe what they say.