Politics goes Hollywood! (Or is it Hollywood goes Politics?)
A couple days ago, Ezra Klein (of the Washington Post), Adam Green (of the racist ass ad for Progressive Campaign for Change [seeDeaniac83's post on the subject over at The People's View]), Jane Hamsher (of the Lake of Fiery Dogs), and Roger Hodge (he wrote some book I don’t care about) appeared on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss bash Obama and the tax cut plan.
I watched the clip and was irritated (of course). First, Roger Hodge stutters and stumbles as the “Obama is a French surrender monkey!” narrative spews forth from his lips. He can’t answer any of Lawrence O’Donnell’s questions, and can’t even effectively deliver the snark he’d probably been planning for weeks. [Barack Hoover Obama? Really, dude?] O’Donnell asks Hodge what the bottom tax rate is. Of course, Hodge doesn’t know. O’Donnell tells him it’s 10% and would go up to 15% for the lowest bracket. Hodge’s response? “No one wants to see that happen.” Oh really? Because that’s what you’re advocating, ding dong.
Second, Adam Green, who has adopted right-wing “ZOMG! Obama is, like, so black and scary!” tactics, chimed in and started talking his talky talk. He didn’t have much to say when O’Donnell pointed out that Republicans could never be shamed into raising taxes. And seriously, if you don’t know that by now, why are you in politics?
And finally, there’s Sweet Lady Jane who blinks and doe-eyes her way through her bullshit narrative: “They are using the poor as a human shield.” Oh really, rich white lady who can afford healthcare?1 Is that what he’s doing? Or is he recognizing that, while the extension of unemployment benefits may not be important to you, they are pretty damn important to, you know, poor folks.
And then there was Ezra Klein who actually had some facts about the tax plan. He agreed that the tax cuts for the rich are odious, and that the estate tax deal is noxious, but he pointed out that there are two ways to look at this:
1) You can demand that Obama and the Democrats stick it to the rich at the expense of the poor; this is apparently all the self-defined Base wants. The Base wants to stick it to the man and the corporations. Meanwhile the Reality Base takes a more pragmatic view, and doesn’t want the less fortunate to spend Christmas in the street; or
2) You can view this as the best deal that Obama could get given the Republicans stalwart position of saying “Hell No!” to everything unless the Bush tax cuts are extended.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s a shitty deal. But what’s the alternative?
Anyway, it’s a great clip. What’s even greater is that Hamsher attempted to backtrack on her blog the next day, claiming that O’Donnell was wrong (and, according to her minions, misogynistic to boot!) and that Ezra Klein agreed with her:
Ezra came back and agreed with me — there was no way the estate tax could be considered stimulative.
…
But some people have apparently let their anger at liberal bloggers get the better of them, and have surrendered their critical thinking abilities.
Except he really didn’t agree with you, and it is you who knows that your fans have no critical thinking skills, only mindless adoration for their Hollywood Hero, thus permitting you to spew bullshit into their willing faces. In a classic Fox News move, Hamsher doctored the video to cut off Klein’s closing remarks. At the end of the clip, Klein says “I do take Jane’s point here.” Can’t you feel the big “BUT” coming? Of course you can; there’s a big looming “but.”
Here’s the clip she posted on her blog:
Here’s the full clip from MSNBC (which she could easily have posted, but didn’t because, I presume, it didn’t dovetail with her narrative):
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Her blog post is ridiculous and a lie. It is yet more self-aggrandizement from Our Lady of Hamsher. It’s really quite sad. She could have been more clear in her remarks. After O’Donnell’s tirade, she could have clarified her point. Why she didn’t do that, who knows. I bet it’s because she didn’t know what the hell she was talking about until she got home and did some research for her “revisionist history” blog post. And then she was comforted by the hundreds of comments lauding Jane as the Queen of Everything.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: With Progressives like these, who needs Republicans?
1 Where is all the money coming from? Perhaps from shenanigans involving lining Hamsher’s own pockets with money from her PAC? Perhaps it’s all that BP money CommonSense Media (the media ad conglomerate Hamsher runs) receives? Who knows.
(H/T Karoli and Osborne Ink!)
And since when do they bring five “lefties” on the teevee at once, in any context? The whole fucking thing is a setup by the media.
Hamsher’s deceptive editing is so obvious, it’s almost insane that she’d be unwise enough to post her alternate-reality clip. It’s almost admirable how much loyalty her acolytes exhibit. But then, to have cognitive dissonance, you first have to have cognition!
Please, listen.
15% of 20,000 is 3000 or an increase of 500. With any deductions is it NOTHING.
What is 5% of 1,000,000,000? 50,000,000. These billionaires have been pocketing 50,000,000 for the past ten years. That’s 1/2 billion dollars. Did they invest in jobs or new businesses? Not in this country.
Next the estate tax.
The argument was “if the estate tax isn’t reduced, children will be murdering their parents in order to take advantage of the old tax.”
Really? That’s the fear? Are Republicans that afraid of their children?
Nobody’s arguing that this is a great deal. The argument is:
1. The bill has to get past the crazy GOP, along with worthless Blue Dogs. They will happily let unemployment lapse for millions of Americans, about whom they don’t care. And when it lapses, it can’t be gotten back.
2. The clip is edited deceptively. Ezra Klein was arguing in favor of the deal, estate tax and all, and Hamsher chose to hack it up in order to make it seem as if he were saying the opposite. That’s inexcuseable.
Instead of looking at what the rich get, which is enough to make a person rend the air with wails, look at what the poor get. Better, look at what the poor, and unemployed, stand to lose. Full disclosure: I am on UI. My husband and I can scrape along if it’s cut off, without going to food banks, so I’m lucky. But imagine how it’s going to feel to be cut off, to not see that money in the bank account, and not know how to replace it, and know that your senator voted to take it away from you. Are you going to care about the estate tax?
“But imagine how it’s going to feel to be cut off, to not see that money in the bank account, and not know how to replace it…”
Indeed. I actually had a dream a couple of weeks ago that I was working at a really terrible, low-paying job, and that I and all my co-workers had to put up with no end of humiliating and demoralizing treatment by our employer because we were all terrified of losing our jobs. In this dream, the anxiety of the close possibility of finding myself “out on the street” was intense. (I was actually in a situation like that for a few years when I was younger and poorer and had no savings in the bank. That was a long time ago.) I try to hold this feeling and keep it handy so that I’m “in touch” with what so many people are dealing with right now. It helps me keep priorities straight.
What immediately jumped out at me was — even though Jane’s abruptly ended Ezra’s full comments — she showed enough anyway to show that she didn’t know enough to even have an informed opinion on the subject. Even before her video cut, Ezra politely and factually laid out enough information to expose Jane’s blind priorities. He clearly said that the new estate tax deal would cost about $10 billion, while the EIC/AOC/Child Tax Credit deal Obama got in return would cost $40 billion. So Obama obviously thought it was worthwhile to concede the $10 billion cost in noxious and odious estate tax breaks in order to get an additional $40 billion real, quality stimulus into the economy. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why Obama made this choice. Jane’s firebaggers must be so blinded by hate for Republicans and their grudge against Obama that it just flew right over their heads. It’s sad to see former “good progressives” put their own spite, grudge nursing, and self-aggrandizing over all the real people who will benefit from this stuff.
It’s just ridiculous for people take this woman seriously. She pointed to Keith Olbermann’s “buh-llllistering!” opinion to support her points, while Lawrence O’Donnell provided actual expert economic analysis by Ezra Klein. I can’t help but chalk it up to confirmation bias. For whatever reason (and ABL already knows what I think), her followers are eager to embrace her slanted narratives because it gratifies them in some way.
One other thing: I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer — I know this. That’s why it scares me to see people who behave so foolishly getting treated so seriously. Where the fuck are all the sensible and sane people? I sure would feel better if I saw more of those people. And why don’t more of these fucking “opinion panels” include at least one Ezra-type expert?
maybe the money is coming from the imaginary gold mines that the UK government is apparently getting theirs from – http://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/12952805031546880
There was some element of this two people talking past each other last night when Rachel hosted Austan Goolsbee. Rachel’s main point seemed to be, but the Republicans get what they WANT! while he continued to talk about what the deal did for everyone else.
Allan, in a way it sounds like a bad divorce. Yes, you hate your ex. Yes, he’s getting the car he did it in with his mistress that you made the payments on. And he’s even getting the Mcmansion!
But you got the kids. And you got the townhouse. And you got tuition for their school, and you got child support for the next two years.
You’ve got to stop thinking about him so much.
He’s Just Not That Into You with a twist.
What an a-hole that LO is! He had the gall to ask little miss Janie-poo to back up her idiotic talking points with facts? He so must hate women.
I’m against President Obama’s “deal” with Republicans because it’s not a deal. A deal implies he’s giving something to get something. In this case, we’re just doing a lot of giving. It’s not about sticking it to the rich. It’s about putting a halt to the kind of irresponsible Bush policies that put us in this position to begin with. That includes massive hand-outs for the uber wealthy that will be paid for the same way the Bush tax cuts and two wars are paid for: by dipping into publicly-funded programs like Social Security. When they raise the retirement age and cut benefits, there will be a widespread gnashing of teeth and much lamenting. Since the “deal” also includes a temporary payroll tax cut, this is like handing Republicans a reason to privatize Social Security…on a silver platter. Yes, with liberals like these who needs Republicans–indeed!
Obama didn’t write the bill. He can only sign what comes to his desk. Republicans will have control of the House in January, the Senate is ruled by filibuster now (at least it was Bernie bashing the right people in the teeth verbally yesterday as he stood bravely and wrong-headedly against UI extensions for his desperate constituents–although there may not be that many in Vermont) and it will be impossible next year to get a better bill.
Perhaps if some liberals had not been so focussed on “teaching the Dems a lesson,” the president would be in a stronger position now. Although to be fair, I don’t think the firebagging quotient of the voting population adds up to more than a big noise on the internet.
There is significant help in the bill for the poor and the unemployed. The republicans would cheerfully cut them right off. That is the major, but not only, get. Unfortunately, there’s a galling amount of help in the bill for those who don’t need it, the Republicans’ darlings. But do you think that all the families whose UI lapses, who are waiting on tenterhooks to see if their vital source of support is cut off, are going to forget that visceral feeling of panic and anger when that money doesn’t come? Every subsequent week, when they are not buying the groceries they would have, or dropping out of school, or doubling up with relatives, they are going to feel betrayed, rightfully.
L O’D asks Roger Hodge, “Can you name me a Democratic president who was ever able to “shame” Republicans into voting for a tax increase in any bracket?” Of course, Hodge can’t, and changes the subject.
Adam Green’s overestimation of the presidential bully pulpit-”Kucinich caved!”–for chrissakes! is worthy of a large horselaugh.
Ezra Klein is not a sell-out DINO, I think it’s safe to argue, and somewhat ruefully , endorses this deal because while the rich get an infuriating 133 billion in tax cuts, the poor and middle-class get 300 billion in “much more stimulative” programs like UI and tax cuts that they would not if this bill is rejected and pushed into the next session.
Hamsher latched onto “stimulative” after being caught with her estate tax pants down, “getting rid of the estate tax is not stimulative!” and then posted her deceptively edited clip, which left out Ezra Klein’s most important point: getting help for the poor outweighs the help in the bill for the rich. How, given this little bit of Orwellian dishonesty, on top of
the basic ignorance–Hodge didn’t know what the bottom tax rate
was, either! Too busy yelling about the rich to notice the poor! can anyone trust these bozos?
Just as with HCR, the kill-billers seem to think there’s a glorious golden future where more progressive legislation will be passed–by a House of wingnuts. That’s leftwingnutry, I suppose.
Um… do you have a light?
That was satisfying.
The Council of Black Churches have come out against the compromise. Robert Reich, both a former advisor to the current President and a cabinet member under President Clinton, no mad foaming at the mouth leftist, has explained why this is a bad deal. Even moderates willing to go along with the President on this should be able to admit that Bernie Sanders has become the nation’s conscience.
At best, the President salvaged what he could, given the corner he was painted into, gainsaying he kept the House completely out of the loop during negotiations (really how long can apologists claim this President is some sort of martial arts master of negotiation with this kind of grandiose faux pas). Personally, this does not strike me as the worst part of his first two years, though as in almost his entire agenda, the President has the annoying habit of:
opening discussion by allowing his rivals to frame it–losing leverage;
letting the issue dither–losing the advantage of timeliness;
treating allies as if they were know nothing extremist pointy heads when all they are doing is advocating what he claims to stand for–losing valuable support.
I watch football and thus the following metaphor:
again and again driving toward the goal line our President has a tendency to fumble the ball, then with a valiant defensive stand manages to keep the opposition to a field goal. Pounding one’s chest when one has let the other team turn the game ten points to its advantage is a bit foolhardy. Calling your teammates whiners and purists because you fumbled the ball, weak and sadly tragic.
I believe this was a straw to camel’s back situation. The House and Senate our President will be negotiating with for the next two years will make the current one that has from a minority position held the nation hostage be even more mendacious and recalcitrant. Jane Hamsher, et. al., are not the enemy, and it neither serves the nation nor Obama well that he and his apologists continue to consider them thus.
Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of the compromise, but I strongly disagree with the notion that Hamsher & Co “are not the enemy.” Hamsher with her blackface, Greenwald with his Nazi-baiting of small-time bloggers, that asshat with his darkened photos, all of these people are suspect at best. Even if they are right, they are right for the wrong reason. Klein comes from the same place as them, supposedly, but he’s able to explain what’s happened without going nuts and using racially loaded attacks, while also defending it without coming off as an apologist at all. These people frankly bring nothing to the table.
Of course Jane Hamsher, et. al. are not the enemy. That’s not why Obama made the comments. He was urging the most passionate members of the left to remain mindful that negotiating and compromise, by their nature, involve realizing we’ll have to accept at least some outcomes that are distasteful (in this case, repugnant).
Look, I don’t begrudge anyone their critiques about Obama’s negotiating skills. What’s unwarranted and, frankly, counter-productive, is the progression from critique to unprovable assumptions about President Obama’s motivations, his character (or presumptions about a lack of it), and all the vituperative ugliness that escalates from there. It produces an enormous distraction. It’s uncalled for. It creates ill will and destroys unity of purpose among people who should be political allies. Although it’s human nature to be tempted to vilify people who frustrate us, giving in to it adds layers of complication to the process of progress. We’re all guilty of doing it occasionally. But, over time, folks who regularly engage in the debate, while resisting the temptation to let personal resentment of political actors involved, will be seen as debating in good faith. Those who regularly fall into making their points by engaging in personal attacks will eventually earn the suspicion of conscientious members of the community. If they indulge in grudges and escalating hatred for prolonged periods, it casts a shadow on their credibility.
Here’s how I view it: Republicans usually manage to maintain a cohesive coalition in their political efforts, so Democrats are competing against an extremely unified opposition. But that’s because their single domestic policy goal right now is to protect and extend privilege for the wealthiest. By the nature of Democratic goals (i.e., actual complex policy that involves having many “seats at the table”), it’s extremely difficult to cultivate a strong (forget unified!) coalition of support when going against the Republicans. To the extent that Obama (and let’s face it, all Democratic presidents) has been stern with the left to coalesce and stop bickering, I think it’s because he’s always mindful of the power of Republicans’ lockstep unity. I seriously doubt his goal is to belittle of offend ANY of his support on the left. At this stage in the game, I think offended parties should lick their wounds, suck it up, and keep trying to move forward, even if it is by inches. Because time is running out until it’s Repub/Tea Party time in the House.
Render unto me a break already. Hamsher cares about no one but herself and attaining more political power. She is also a proven hypocrite. (Taking money from BP; lack of transparency with respect to her PAC spending; purporting to be racially sensitive and pointing out the racist actions of others in politics, but exploiting an image of a Jewish person in blackface and then refusing to issue a sincere apology or show any understanding of why such crap is entirely inappropriate; playing the victim when folks call her out; lying to her fans.) Call me an Obama apologist if you will; it’s better than being a Hamsher sycophant.
The notion that these people are Obama’s allies is a joke. Last time I checked, allies don’t try to oust one another. There’s criticism and then there’s constructive criticism. The only folks who are pissed at Obama for the “hippie punching” are the ones who have been trashing him incessantly. You expect him to shower you with roses when you bring nothing of value to the table?
To continue your football metaphor, Obama is steadily driving the ball down the field. Sometimes he fumbles, but he picks the ball back up. He’s playing against a team that does not care about winning, they care about making sure Obama doesn’t win. And when the purists see that Obama is struggling with the ball, instead of shouting “You can do it!” they shout “You suck!” and streak the field.
In other words, Hamsher and her ilk are a distraction. That’s all. And according to the latest poll, a minor distraction, at best. It’s no wonder Hamsher is in a tizzy. She’s beginning to realize she is irrelevant and that people are seeing her for what she is — the proverbial butt-naked empress.
There is nothing valuable about Hamsherite “support.” Y’all are just pissed that Obama recognizes that and is moving on without you.
Best,
ABL/STM
Oh, shit. Hold on. I’ll clarify by saying that Hamsher et al are ostensibly our ideological allies. Of course, everything hinges on what motivates a person to act as they do. As for Jane, I can’t say for sure what payoff she’s pursuing. All I can say with certainty is that she has established a pattern of communicating her views that, IMO, puts her credibility in question.
now I need a cigarette. And I don’t even smoke.
the Rant is strong with this one. I like it.
Just reading Hamsher’s history before she became a blogger, you see that she made a name for herself primarily from a writing a juicy memoir slagging famous people connected with her one hit film. That is her specialty. Then we have the blackface photoshop, non-apology for same, (“if anyone is offended”–how about everyone with two brain cells to rub together?), partnering with Norquist, naively postulating partnership with Tea Partiers, wild name-calling (at Cole: “misogynist!” –a complete non-sequitur, as well as untrue), and now we have this childish, obviously dishonest clip.
Perhaps during W’s administration, her slashing negativity, like Glenn’s, was helpful, but she is a one-note operation, and carries the dominant PUMA gene for assholism. She is also no hippie, but a business woman whose PAC dealings are iffy, according to the FEC.
She and Glenn are a most unfortunate coupling. It would have been nice if he had influenced her, at least in the do-your-homework department, but instead it’s like the opposite of Astaire & Rogers: her class, his sex appeal?
Oops.
Hey Angry Black Lady –
What say you now that we know that one in three — one-third, for you math-challenged — working taxpayers will have SMALLER paychecks on January first?
Could it be that when He said “I had to make this deal to ensure NO ONE’s taxes went up on January first” your Messiah was LYING?
Because he was, and they will.
Hey Teddy Partridge –
Derp!
Take that Messiah crap back to FDL where it belongs.
Scoot!
“Stand” a song addressing all of the lies
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3MxZcls24o
Amen.